What if you could organize your social network around your media consumption habits? How about using your network to filter video and music content? uPlayme thinks it may have found the content sweet spot with its new application that sits on your desktop, sees the content you play on applications like iTunes and websites like Pandora and YouTube, and creates a social network that lets you chat, connect and share with new friends online.
The catch is that uPlayMe will depend on you to find and share content from non-pirated sources (YouTube is a bit suspect) and from sources that have already paid the hefty licensing fees to broadcast music (Internet Radio is hanging by a thread). If it manages not to increase the flow of pirated content, uPlayMe should be able to legitimately make moneywithout paying licensing fees or getting permission from rights holders. It’s an interesting model that mixes clearly non-infringing content (iTunes) with content that almost certainly infringes (YouTube). We’ll have to see how this plays out.
ChinaDaily.com reports that prosecution for online copyright infringement reached record levels in China last year. However, Yan Xiaohong, vice-minister of the National Copyright Administration (NCA), at a press conference held by the State Council Information Office stated that “Internet copyright infringement is still very prevalent in the country.” Yan called for tougher legislation. “Fines and sentences meted out have not been enough,” he said. “We must make offenders realize the costs of violation are too high for them to continue.”
Washington Post writer, Monica Hesse, notes that the incidence of large corporations infringing the copyrights of individuals is soaring. (Unlike Canada, in the U.S. one must register copyright in order to have any enforceable rights–seldom done by authors of user-generated content.) Ms. Hess goes on to comment that “in an increasingly user-generated world where the public is the artist, sometimes it’s the big boys who get grabby. And the questions that arise are about ownership, but they are also about fairness, and changing culture, and ultimately, the search for authenticity.”
As our norms are changing and user-generated content is rapidly overtaking studio content, does it still make sense that our governments are focusing on protecting large content owners? More importantly, is China, Canada, or the United States ready for a conversation about this.
“Today, fair use is the major way that new makers can get unlicensed access to the cultural production of their own society. The culture that is emerging can be channeled, encouraged, even deformed, but it cannot be cut off.”
The Center for Social Media enters the discussion on User-Generated Video Content in its new report: Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video Content. Funded by the Ford Foundation, the report examines the explosive growth of transformative works on the Internet. From parody to pastiche, Recut looks at trends in User-Generated Video Content, how it fits into the current framework of fair use law, and how we as a society depend on fair use to enrich our cultural heritage. Even if its just for a laugh.
“Fair use is a right to reuse copyrighted works…when the value to society is greater than the value to the copyright owner. This feature of the law is grounded in the purpose of copyright itself in U.S. law: to encourage the production of culture.”
On October 31, 2007, a number of progressive policy groups endorsed a set of Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content authored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In the world of Copyright and Fair Use, each step forward by content owners is typically followed by a step forward by fair use advocates seeking to secure content for public use. (Think: Spy vs. Spy.) The principles advocated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and other policy groups, like Public Knowledge) would interfere with YouTube’s recent attempts to filter out copyright-protected content from its online service.
Do these principles serve the public interest or do they go too far? Should content owners prove others are infringing instead of having persons posting content establish they have the right to do so (the Wikipedia model)? Should we adopt a model that burdens owners or users?
A comparison of the two approaches.
YouTube Model. Owners must spend time working with YouTube to ensure that thier content has been provided to YouTube so that it can filter out content. Otherwise, the owner must police YouTube and provide DMCA Takedown Notices in order to remove the content. Down side: some fair use materials will be screened out.
Wikipedia Model. Users must establish what right they have to upload material, whether they are the owner, licensee, or that material is public domain. Down Side: uploading material is more difficult under the Wikipedia Model.
The Fair Use Principles would increase the burden on YouTube (or its users), but would have little impact on Wikipedia, which removes any content not verified in a short period of time, while also providing a DMCA policy.
Policy groups (and YouTube) might do well to take a look at Wikipedia, which has a model that balances the public interest with the rights of authors and artists.
RSS
