Home » copyright (Page 19)
Category Archives: copyright
Links for April 2nd 2008
Interesting links for April 2nd 2008:
- Bringing the cloud with you [Official Google Docs Blog] – Google edges even further in Microsoft’s heartland as Google Docs becomes available offline!
- Google April Fool’s Jokes Galore [Google Blogscoped} – A round-up of Google’s extensive April Foos offerings. The best one, of course, was the Australian based: “gDay with MATE technology to ?search content on the internet before it?s created,?.”
- YouTube’s Video Identification in Action [Google Operating System] – What options go content owners now get if YouTube detects others using their copyrighted material? They can either “block (no exposure and no money) or track (exposure, but no money) or monetize (exposure and money).”
Links for March 30th 2008
Interesting links for March 30th 2008:
- Getting Started [Photoshop Express] – Great set of simple explanations (in video) for making the most of Photoshop Express.
- Adobe Photoshop Express – Adobe’s push into online applications continues, this time with a (very) scaled-down version of Photoshop as an online tool. Adobe are clearly getting into the web 2.0 side of things, too, with online galleries and a few basic community-building tools.
- An Example of Creative Commons Not Working [Aaron Landry] – An interesting post by Aaron Landry who was disappointed to see Cory Doctorow inadvertently violate a CC license. The issue has since been resolved, but the post raises some important issues about CC, fair use and understandings of ‘non-commercial’.
- Jobs to go in ABC production shake-up [ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)] – Looks like Aunty is centralising in the Eastern states even more, and shrinking infrastructure under the guise of use new technologies and “maximising creativity” while minimizing costs. (Why does this sound so ominous for our national broadcaster?)
- Legal battle over Warcraft ‘bot’ [BBC NEWS | Technology] – Blizzard, the company behind World of Warcraft, is suing Michael Donnelly, the creator of Glider bot which can ‘play’ Warcraft, on the grounds of a very technical copyright breach.
- Cyber vigilantes foil gadget thief [The Age] – Feel-good crowdsourcing/collective intelligence story about Jesse McPherson whose X-Box was stolen, the police couldn’t help much, so he turned the clues he had over to Digg and mobilised a smart mob who found the theif and his lost goods!
- Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass It On [New York Times] – “According to interviews and recent surveys, younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news and current events but conduits as well ? sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks.”
Do Free Online Books Make Money?
Does making a book freely available online hurt or enhance the sales of the hardcopy? Advocates suggest that if you read a bit of the book online you’re more likely to buy the hardcopy if you like it and finish reading it on paper. You’re also more likely to recommend it to friends who might buy it, too. Those against think that free only equals more free, and no one is going to buy a book if you get given the whole thing at no cost. Neil Gaiman and his publisher have been experimenting with this question, and Gaiman’s American Gods has been available for free online for a month (it disappears again in a few days). So, it’s definitely interesting to see who many people read the book, and how hardcopy sales appear to have been effected. So: the initial stats from Neil Gaiman’s blog:
It’s worth drawing people’s attention to the fact that the free online reading copy of American Gods is now in its last six days online (it ends 31 March 08). I learned this from an email from Harper Collins, which also told me the latest batch of statistics.
For American Gods:
68,000 unique visitors to the book pages of American Gods
3,000,000 book pages viewed in aggregate
And that the weekly book sales of American Gods have apparently gone up by 300%, rather than tumbling into the abyss. (Which is — the rise, not the tumble — what I thought would happen. Or at least, what I devoutly hoped would happen.)
The book is up at This URL, if you’re interested, or want to pass it along to a friend.
While this example isn’t exactly necessarily a template for new authors – Gaiman’s existing reputation as an author and his well-read blog both come into play in looking at the figures (not to mention that American Gods is an excellent read) – the overall figures are definitely encouraging and hopefully we’ll see more experiments like this one in the future (and, yes, I realise this isn’t the first such experiment – hello Cory Doctorow – but it’s still a noteworthy one).
Hillary Clinton and the perils of stock footage
We’ve been talking about all sorts of things to do with media production these past few weeks in my Digital Media unit, including some conversations about stock footage. So, it’s rather timely to see that, as has been widely blogged elsewhere, one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertisements has turned back on her due to the use of purchased stock footage. This is the advertisement in question, about the Red Phone ringing at 3am:
However, it turns out that the little girl supposedly afraid in her bed has grown up since that footage was shot, and Casey Knowles is no fan of Hillary Clinton as she explains in this rebuttal on YouTube:
Casey Knowles’ point that she “reject the politics of fear” is powerful given the message the stock footage of her younger self was being used to convey. It’s one of the perils of using stock footage that the people in that footage may very well have a life and opinion of their own. There’s nothing more effective that that last line: “I’m Casey Knowles and I approve this message. And not the other one. Something worth remembering both in politics and when sourcing stock footage from archives. [Via Barry]
Australia’s Peer-to-Peer TV Underbelly
While Australians have long been noted as some of the most voracious downloaders of television, using bittorrent-based peer-to-peer sources has generally been focused on accessing UK and US shows which don’t screen in Australia until some time (from weeks to years) after the original airdates. However, the recent case of the Australian production Underbelly is a little bit different.
Underbelly dramatises the infamous events in Melbourne, Victoria between 1995 and 2004 which encompassed a gangland war and a series of murders. However, at least one criminal trial from these events is still underway, and so just prior to the screening of the first episode of Underbelly, a court injunction prevented the Nine Network from screening the tv series in Melbourne, on the grounds it could prejudice any potential Victorian jury. So, on February 13, every other Australian state except Victoria could view the show, while Victorians could not. Also, as it’s pretty much impossible to limit websites on a state-by-state basis, the ban also prevents promotional material, trailers and episodes of Underbelly being hosted online. Thus, the official website currently sports a great many “This functionality is not available due to current legal restrictions” (screenshot) signs and not that much else.
Yet in the era of bittorent and peer-to-peer networks, that’s far from the end of the story. As soon as the ban was issued, media reports appeared highlighting the fact that Underbelly was sure to be available as a download in Victoria within hours of its screening in every other state. As the Herald Sun reported:
… the explosion of video on the internet, through websites and through file sharing, may allow Victorians to see the drama within hours of its broadcast interstate. A scan of one site today revealed several copies of the promotional clips from the series on the website, despite their removal from Nine’s site. “This is a great problem on the internet,” University of NSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile said. “Legal jurisdiction is typically limited by geography, and by its nature the internet doesn’t place much regard to geography.”
Mr Vaile believed the judge may have taken into consideration the possibility that copies of the drama would appear on the internet, but that it would have limited impact on potential jurors. “(The judge) may well have decided that something that is not the official publisher’s website will not have the same sort of impact,” he said. However watching illegal versions of the underworld drama will not be without risk. Mr Vaile said people caught uploading clips from Underbelly could face copyright and contempt of court charges.
Subsequent reports noted that it took less than half an hour for Underbelly to hit bittorrent networks and a quick search on isohunt this morning revealed more than a dozen active bittorrent sources for the first two episodes of Underbelly still available almost a week later. Vaile’s comments do note a new potential avenue for prosecuting uploaders in this case, namely contempt of court, but as Alex Malik notes, it seems unlikely that option will be pursued:
While it is probably illegal for viewers to upload Underbelly to these [peer-to-peer] services, it is unlikely that the Nine Network and other rights owners will undertake any enforcement activity to stop them. They may be too busy enjoying the viral marketing buzz associated with internet TV show access. Or they may be thinking about DVD sales down the road. In short, this ban by the Supreme Court may result in Underbelly being one of the internet events of the year. And of course once the TV show hits the internet, it’s fame can then become international fame.
Strangely enough, the only mainstream article which suggests that Australian filesharers are in any way worried about potential court action is on the NineMSN website (co-owned by Microsoft and the Nine Network), while most other reports simply note that a lot of Victorians were accessing peer-to-peer networks in the past week!
Underbelly has certainly focused the spotlight on the wide use of peer-to-peer networks in Australia. The hype and attention that the banned show has received may very well work in the producers’ favour in the long run, ensuring that the people who do see the show in Victoria keep the buzz alive, even if the ban does last the entire 13 episodes. Such buzz should make any DVD sales which are eventually allowed a huge success.
Overall, though, the attempt to ban any sort of digital media on a state by state basis in Australia is clearly impossible, and the attempt to restrict this series in Australia may very well have led a number of Victorians to avail themselves of bittorrent files for the first time. It seems unlikely that once Pandora’s peer-to-peer networks are opened that Victorians will simply put this newfound resource back in the box.
Update (26 March 08): Despite an appeal by Channel 9, the ban on Underbelly screening in Victoria has been upheld. In at least once Victorian town, though, unusual weather conditions have allowed Victorians to watch an episode that was being broadcast in Tasmania!
CC+
One of the big announcements at the celebrations of Creative Commons’ fifth birthday was the release of the CC+ (CCPlus) licensing arrangement which combines existing CC licenses with ability to also explicitly point to additional licensing (for example, terms for commercial use on an NC CC license). From the CC blog:
CC+ is a protocol to enable a simple way for users to get rights beyond the rights granted by a CC license. For example, a Creative Commons license might offer noncommercial rights. With CC+, the license can also provide a link to enter into transactions beyond access to noncommercial rights — most obviously commercial rights, but also services of use such as warranty and ability to use without attribution, or even access to physical media.
“Imagine you have all of your photos on Flickr, offered to the world under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial license,” said Lawrence Lessig, CEO of Creative Commons. “CC+ will enable you to continue offering your work to the public for noncommercial use, but will also give you an easy way to sell commercial licensing rights to those who want to use your work for profit.”
While CC+ isn’t exactly new – it was always possible legally – the simplification of this arrangement is sure to see a lot more people explicating the terms under which they’d released material commercially and, hopefully, this encourage commercial producers to use material in this form.
In case you prefer you explanations to be more engaging, here’s a video explaining CC+:
If the video is a little hard to watch at this size, head to the full-size version on blip.tv or download a QuickTime movie version (56Mb). Alternatively, you can check the CC+ page or download the explanatory PDF.
One of the reasons I really like CC+ is that I can really see its value for media produced by students; CC licenses really encourage others to view and share, but having commercial uses spelt out means that if what students create is good enough, they could also see it making money for them!