Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #451

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Revogging

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 29, 2004 | Post #451 | Topic #424

Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > Ryan and Jay both want to disregard copyrights. Ryan put it like this > (Jay used stronger language :p): > >> Really? Copyright issues don't stop people from liberally quoting >> theNew York Times in their blogs. And they haven't slowed P2P >> adoption.Somehow I doubt that people are getting revved up to do >> this kind ofthing, and then stopping because of legal fears. Actually, I wasn't advocating disregarding copyright. I was claiming that people *will* disregard copyright, based on their current, widespread behavior. Since people clearly *are* disregarding copyright, I was questioning "legal fears" as a reason people aren't doing more revogging. > Disregarding copyright issues is naive when it comes to a concept > like videoblogging. The analogies are not comparable: Liberally > quoting the NY Times is okay in many cases provided it's for > commentary, critique or the like (it's covered more clearly by Fair > Use)... Why are they no comparable? Is re-editing video content not a way of commenting on or critiquing it? The Outfoxed documentary is a good example of this. > ...and P2P is a completely different matter. With P2P you are - to an > extent - anonymous. You are certainly hidden from the public eye. > With videoblogging you would be the exact opposite: Actively trying > to get an audience for your works. With videoblogging you are > actively trying to distribute the works, where with P2P music sharing > (the only P2P I know about, and the only P2P the media cares about) > most people are only downloading content to their harddrives. There's > a huge difference there. > > Because videoblogging is such a public phemonema (as in everything > happens in public view) copyright issues has to be taken seriously. > Comitting copyright infringement hidden away in your bedroom is one > thing, doing it in the middle of Main Street is just a really stupid > idea. I think the phenomenon of music blogging, in which bloggers upload copyrighted MP3s to the their blogs and write commentary about them, shows that your reasoning here is wrong. People are committing copyright infringement in plain sight, because they don't feel that they are doing anything wrong (mostly because they aren't making any money). > We need people to be aware that there exist other people who would > like to reuse their work. That way we can get clear rules from > content creators through eg. Creative Commons about what you can and > cannot do with their content. You want people to take your own work > seriously, so respect their work as well. Don't screw copyrights > unless you want to get screwed over yourself. > > Not to mention that you would never be able to go beyond the "wee, > we're just goofing around" stage. If you want people to take you > seriously, if you want to have companies build software for you you > can't ignore copyright laws. Basing a business plan on copyright > infringement is a quick recipe for disaster. If you on the other hand > is happy to have an underground phenomena then feel free to ignore > copyrights. I'd like videoblogging to be just a little tiny bit more > than that, and that's why I take copyrights seriously. I'm mostly in agreement with you here. I'd like to see videoblogging become a mainstream phenomenon, and pretending that copyright law doesn't exist is a bad strategy for making that happen. Still, just as basing a business plan on copyright infringement is a bad idea, I would argue that basing your plans on strict adherence to current mainstream interpretations of copyright law will be equally disastrous, resulting in crippled tools that proscribe most interesting content. Ryan