Are the Fine Arts Exempt from Copyright Lawsuits?

While groups like the RIAA and the MPAA do everything in their power to stamp out creativity in the name of protecting some glorified sense of intellectual property, it looks like painters are having no problem profiting from work that clearly borrows the images of previously copyrighted content.

A great example of this is the Crazy 4 Cult 3-D Artwork show put on by Gallery1988.  All the work in the show was based on a number of cult film favorites including “Edward Scissorhands” and “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.”  Below is an example of one of many paintings based on “The Big Lebowski”

Now, there is absolutely no question that this is The Dude himself and one highly doubts that the artist, Misha, would have been able to sell the painting for $800.00 if it was just some random guy, instead.

So, here’s the question: why is this work protected but not, say, the work of musical mashup DJs?  Both are creating original work from existing content and both benefit from the public awareness of the underlying works.  Or how about the ridiculous case of J.D. Salinger suing to stop publication of a book that explores the character of Holden Caufield as an old man?

The point is that we’ve truly lost our way in terms of copyright law.  While creativity and technology have come together to allow for an exponential growth in the reach of diversity of new art the lawyers and those paying their wages are doing everything in their power to shut down the whole process.

MPAA Wonders Why Public Views Them (and RIAA) So Poorly

There is a devestating post in response to comments made by Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and senior policy adviser for the MPAA at the World Copyright Summit, who said:

”The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance.”   LINK

ZeroPaid’s Drew Wilson asks, “Gee, why would the public view them as antogonistic?” He then answers with a few possibilities:

…destroying Napster and Audio Galaxy and not creating an alternative for the get-go, raiding people’s homes because they uploaded Star Wars (not necessarily leaking it in the first place), hacking the URN hash and polluting FastTrack, hacking The Pirate Bay, having Viacom serve DMCA notices to people posting video’s of people eating in a restaurant on YouTube, suing tens of thousands of average American’s including fining one individual $222,000 for sharing a couple songs, saying that files in a shared directory is copyright infringement in court, saying that evidence is too hard to get and that the industry shouldn’t be burdened to prove their cases in court, suggesting that iPods are little more than little pirate ships…

And that’s just  a taste of the entire post.  When people of the future look back at how the massive entertainment industries of the late-20th Century crumbled, this post would be a good starting point.

Dear RIAA, Shut Down PS22 Quick! They’re Evil Thieves!

There is a heartwarming story making it’s way around the webosphere about an adorable elementary school chorus that sings covers of pop songs, including works by Coldplay, Survivor and Fleetwood Mac:

It turns out that this particular video make it all the way to Stevie Nicks herself:

Just got word from Stevie Nicks tour manager that she was completely blown away by the PS22 Chorus rendition of her song “Landslide!” He said she asked him to replay 2 times afterwards, crying each time she watched! Talk about humbling!! And the kicker?? She invited the PS22 Chorus to sing the song at Madison Square Garden for the upcoming June 11th Fleetwood Mac show!! Holy cow!!! Thanks must go to Perez Hilton for getting our video out there and making this incredible opportunity happen for the kids! Unbelievable!! LINK

Wonderful, right?

However, this seems like a video ripe for takedown by the RIAA.  These kids did not get the rights to perform this song and they are now spreading their cover for free!  This is just the sort of activity the record industry seems to keen on stopping – whether it is a chorus of school-kids or a couple of people doing a karaoke version of the latest Beyonce tune.

Of course, the idea that this video could somehow create a direct negative impact to the sales of Fleetwood Mac songs is simply absurd.  That won’t stop groups like the RIAA from spitting out takedown notices and DMCA claims faster than you can say, “hey, that was cute.”

Admittedly, the world of copyright law is beyond complicated but we need to find a way to let people legally play with all the content released into the world.  People are going to play with it no matter what so it’s really just a question of whether or not energy is spent prosecuting people or facilitating them.  I wonder which choice would make more money in the long run.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cutest Chorus Ever: PS22 Chorus Sings “Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac (neatorama.com)

MPAA Teaches Teachers to Pirate with Video Cameras

The MPAA is one of the most revolting associations I can think of (yes, RIAA also comes to mind).  Not only do they do nothing to increase the artistic or creative value of film but they are anti-consumer and anti-viewer.

The lastest example of the MPAA’s wrongheadedness is their advice to school teachers who would like to use pieces of DVDs in their teaching.  Instead of doing the simple, cost-effective and flexible thing – rip the DVD to a usable file format allowing it to be quickly and easily incorporated into the lesson plan – the MPAA is actually telling teachers that they should videotape the monitor showing the DVD and use the resulting tape.

What?!

Not only would that seem to send the message to students that videotaping a copyprotected screening of a movie is ok – something the MPAA goes to nearly criminal lengths to prevent – but it’s incredibly more time-consuming and complicated than simply ripping the file.

We’re not even talking about the rights of a consumer to rip a DVD they have already purchased but the rights of a teacher to create a dynamic lesson plan – a clear example of “fair use.”

The only silver lining is that the more boneheaded the MPAA reveals itself to be the more likely they are to hasten their own extinction.

LINK

RIAA Will Have To Sue Them All – Who’s Next?

If the recent court decision against The Pirate Bay is any indication, it looks as though groups like RIAA and MPAA are going to be able to sucessfully sue anyone who provides links to copyrighted content, especially if providing that access is the key purpose of the site.

I’ve already discussed how this, theoretically, opens Google up to a big ol’ lawsuit, but what about the thousands of other sites out there.

For instance, I recently read about a site called Just Hear It:

Enter a song title or artist’s name, and Just Hear It returns a list of possible matches–including not only audio tracks, but also YouTube videos.

Gee, that sounds great, and highly suit-worthy.  Now, the CNet article notes:

According to the “About” page, the site is legal–it pays for licenses from the three major organizations, BMI, ASCAP, and CESAC, and it apparently pays publishers royalties based on the number of plays they receive. But although paying publishing rights is sufficient for traditional (“terrestrial”) radio, Internet radio stations must also pay performance royalties, which are owned and managed by a completely different group of bodies.

Wow, that is pretty complicated.  So many hoops to jump through, licenses to obtain and organizations to pay just for helping people find music they want to hear.  Even if Just Hear It believed it was doing something “legal” there are still plenty of grounds for challenging that legality.

That’s why even CNet seems to think the site won’t be around for long.  Of course, another clone will pop up quickly since it turns out people like being about to listen to a specific song without paying $1.29 for the privilege.

This is the endless goose-chase that groups like RIAA will be on until they finally realize that they will never win this battle in the courts and begin to truly innovate – or just DIAF.

LINK

The Pirate Bay Loses Battle, Not War

In a small setback for all those who believe in progress and innovation , the Swedish courts have found the four key principles involved in running P2P BitTorrent site, The Pirate Bay, guilts of copyright violations.  The sentence is one year in jail and $3.6M in fines.  All that, officially for:

…having made 33 copyright-protected files accessible for illegal file sharing via the Piratebay.org Web site.

Of course, this case is not about 33 files but about the entertainment industry’s claim that The Pirate Bay was simply a hotbed of illegal file traffic.  The big question was whether or not simply providing links to the protected content was enough to be found guilty of violating copyright law.  It looks to me like the prosecution was unable to make that case and basically got the founders of The Pirate Bay on what amounts to a techicality.

One shudders to think how many people would have to be rounded up and imprisoned for a year if all it took was making 33 protected files available via a common P2P protocol.  And what about the lesser “crime” of downloading a protected file?

An estimated one in 10 people in the Nordic country engaged in file sharing last year.

Are we really ready to lock up 10% of the population because groups like RIAA and MPAA have tragically outdated business models and have thrust their heads into the sand as a response?

While this is a “win” for big media it certainly isn’t going to turn the tide back in their favor.  Not only is it impossible to put Pandora back in her box but the very same links provided by The Pirate Bay are available on Google.

Plus, it sounds like this verdict is only further empowering those who are hungry for change:

The Pirate Party political group–which has been supporting Pirate Bay and thus has gained popularity among the large number of file sharers in Sweden–also sees the verdict as an opportunity. The verdict is the “ticket to get elected to European parliament” in June, the Pirate Party said in a press release.

And don’t worry about the guilty party, they are appealing and it will be years before this thing is settled.

LINK

X-Men Origens: Wolverine Leak Exposes Vast Grey Areas of Copyright Law

Late last week a “work print” of the upcoming 20th Century Fox feature film “Wolverine” was somehow released into the wilds of the internet.

All sides responded quickly and exactly as expected.  The filthy, dirty pirates of the world facilitated this heinous criminal action by seeding torrents of the video file and the obviously freedom-hating people of the world downloaded the video by the thousands.  20th Century Fox and the MPAA responded by unleashing the hounds, swearing they would track down and prosecute every horrible pirate out there and they even got the FBI involved.

In an interesting little twist, a FoxNews.com reporter, Roger Friedman, was either fired or will shortly be fired for writing a review of the contraband “Wolverine.”

This opens up a slew of questions that highlight why copyright law is such a mess and makes it nearly impossible for anyone to safely wander the internet without fear of prosecution.

For instance, is Roger Friedman guilty of a crime?  To answer this question, you must ask how he got his copy of the video.  From his own account it appears that he downloaded it from the internet.  Under a strict reading of copyright law this is clearly a crime and one for which he could be taken to court.

Of course, by the time Friendman got his copy there were litary thousands of links floating around the web.

Let’s say you’re just some kid in Kansas and you see a link that says “Watch the new Wolverine right NOW!  Click here!” Now, let’s say you click that link because you want to see the new Wolverine.  Suddenly, there in front of you is the new Wolverine.  Awesome!  Unfortunately, the MPAA was tracking this link and now they are filing papers to threaten your parents with legal action if they don’t pay up a large sum of money.

Sounds ridiculous, right?  Well, it is no different than what has happened to hundreds of music downloaders across the country thanks to RIAA.

The problem is, how was this kid to know that this was not a “legal” link?  Should he just know that 20th Century Fox would never be so crazy as to, say, raise awareness by “virally” leaking a work print of Wolverine?  Ok, ignorance of the law is not a defense, but in this case, how do you even guage what is acceptable “general knowledge.”

While the studios will try to hold this up as proof that we need stronger laws and harsher penalties for “piracy” I think this demonstrates that the laws simply do not reflect current technology or consumer expectations and trying to legislate against these forces is a losing battle (see the “war on drugs” for similar outcomes).

Related articles by Zemanta

• Watermarking Could Lead to X-Men Uploader (wired.com)
• Fox News Fires Journalist For Bootleg Wolverine Review (screenrant.com)
• FBI enlisted after incomplete version of Wolverine film leaked (cbc.ca)
• Studio Issues Statement On ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ Movie Leak (splashpage.mtv.com)

PirateBay On Facebook Forces the Issue

Like so many other sites have done, The Pirate Bay is no providing on-click links that allow its users to post directly to their Facebook streams.

As Mashable puts it:

Facebook is the world’s largest social network, with over 150 to 200 million people signed up already. It’s one of the best ways to share links, blog posts, and content. Many websites, including our own, have links for easily sharing content to Facebook. So it makes sense as to why The Pirate Bay would want to encourage people to share torrent links on Facebook. But because many of these files are illegal to download, it also makes sense that copyright infringement organizations are not very happy.

Since Facebook is likely to want to avoid major legal action by the friends folks at the RIAA and MPAA it seems almost definite that Facebook will move to block this feature.

The question is, do they have any real legal reason to do this and are they really helping anyone by blocking their users from posting the links?  For one thing, The Pirate Bay does not actual store or transmit any copyrighted content, they simply provide links to other places that do.  This is, in effect, no different than what Google does, just that The Pirate Bay (and hundreds of other torrent-tracker sites out there) specializes in searching only for torrent links.

While the MPAA et. al. might not like that links to freely available copies of their copyrighted content are being made all-the-more public on Facebook via The Pirate Bay feature, neither of these parties are the reason that piracy exists or that it flourishes in the face of broken business models that treat fans as criminals.

We’ll have to see if Facebook does, in fact, act against The Pirate Bay but you can be certain they’re being asked to do it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Arrr, The Pirate Bay Invades Facebook (blippitt.com)
• Torrent Sharing Comes to Facebook: Will the RIAA Step In? (mashable.com)

Feds Want to Jail Guns n Roses Album Leaker

In yet another completely over-zealous attempt to stop those evil pirates from destroying the music industy, the US Attory General is not satisfied with the crazy $30,000 in fines Kevin Cogill is being made to pay for leaking a copy of Guns n Roses latest album onto the internet before its official release:

The prosecutor in the case is demanding prison time, even though the probation department recommended a sentence of probation. Why? The U.S. Attorney’s Office says probation won’t adequately protect the music industry: “The recommendation does not reflect — or discuss — the gravity of the offense and will do nothing to deter other would-be leakers in this rapidly expanding threat to the music industry,” the prosecutor argued in papers filed with the court.

Let’s put aside the fact that this is a losing (or lost) battle that the Feds are fighting on the behalf of RIAA.  Instead, let’s consider how successful a similar approach against drug users and small-time dealers has been in curbing drug use.

The whole situation is infuriating.  It makes no sense that the US government is wasting tax-payer dollars trying to “send a message” on behalf of a group, RIAA, that is currently being counter-sued for lovely things like intimidation and using false evidence.  Not only that, but considering there probably isn’t an album out there that hasn’t found its way to a P2P site (often after being “leaked” by a member of the band or even of a label b/c it boosts sales) it seems unfair to prosecute Cogill in this way.

(via MediaPost)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Major Labels Struggle to Survive (beatcrave.com)
• Is The RIAA’s Record About To Be Smashed To Bits? (dvorak.org)

RIAA Trying to Hide Actions in Court

RIAA, the group perhaps most singly responsible for turning music fans against the major labels, is currently suing a young man who is being defended, in part, by a Harvard professor.

In an attempt to shed some light on the absurd arguments RIAA uses to make their case, the defendants requested that the court allow the trial to be webcast live.

Tenenbaum’s attorneys had sought the Webcast, arguing that streaming the hearing would allow the public to effectively attend the trial. The record industry opposed the request on the grounds that the publicity could prejudice a potential jury pool.

Gertner last week discounted the RIAA’s arguments, noting that the organization repeatedly said it sued non-commercial file swappers in order to generate publicity that would dissuade others from sharing music. Her order authorized the Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society to host the streams.(via)

Now the trial has been delayed as RIAA appeals this decision.

Let’s review, shall we.  RIAA claims that these trials should be a warning and deterent to other file-sharers but they don’t want anyone to actually be able to watch the trial.  That makes a ton of sense.

If the major labels want any chance to survive in the digital age they need to reign in RIAA and start treating their potential customers as partners instead of pirates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge OKs webcast in RIAA music file-sharing case
• Judge calls RIAA objections “specious,” will stream hearing
• Legendary Harvard law prof fights constitutionality of RIAA lawsuits
• Harvard Law Professor Fights Back Against RIAA
• Harvard professor launches attack against music copyright law
• RIAA: Two Faces Have I?
• Groundbreaking Ruling Allows Hearing to Be Webcast
• RIAA Scared of Court Case Webcast