| |
|
Sunday, February 11, 2007
|
|
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech.
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by
KD : updated Nick
Gisburne link to new account. [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
11:43:58 PM 
|
|
OTTAWA- Canada's Private Copyright Collective is taking another stab
at introducing levies on digital music players and memory cards.
The charges could add as much as $75 to the price of a new Apple iPod.
The collective, which seeks to compensate artists for unauthorized
copying of their music, said Friday it's taking a new tack after a 2003
Federal Court of Appeals decision rejected the levies.
The court overturned the Copyright Board of Canada's approval of the
charges after protests by a coalition of industry groups that included
retailers Wal-Mart, Staples Business Depot and Future Shop.
The collective had argued the memory inside a digital audio device
such as an iPod is an audio recording medium primarily used to store
music, and therefore should be subject to the Canadian Copyright Act.
The act states an audio recording medium is "a medium regardless of its material form on which a recording can be reproduced."
The court, however, found the memory can't be defined as an audio recording medium.
Now, the group is going after the devices themselves. It says
devices such as the iPod can be classified as a "recording medium" and
should be subject to taxation.
"It is simply a matter of fairness that the creators of content, the
creators of culture actually, should receive some compensation for the
large volume of unauthorized and uncontrollable copying onto these
media," said collective chair Claudette Fortier. "Private copying is a
fact - Canadians do it."
The group is responsible for collecting a levy on blank recording
media and distributing the money to those entitled to royalties.
In other words, every time a Canadian buys a blank CD, or audio
cassette today a portion of the cost is sent to artists all over the
world such as Kid Rock, Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton.
In its new submission to the Copyright Board, the collective is
proposing levies of $5 on devices with up to one gigabyte (GB) of
memory, $25 for one to 10 GB, $50 for between 10 GB and 30 GB and $75
for over 30 GB. That would take the price of Apple's 30GB iPod to $365
from $290, a 26 per cent increase.
The group is also asking for levies of $2 to $10 for memory cards,
which are primarily used to store photographs in digital cameras.
It's also asking for eight-cent increases to the current 21-cent
levy on blank CD media and 77-cent charge for CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio
and MiniDiscs.
10:16:29 PM
|
|
Canadian Copyright Group Wants iPod Tax. An anonymous reader writes "Unable to define memory as a 'recording medium,' Canada's Private Copyright Collective goes directly after portable music player devices, memory cards, and anything else that can be used to make private copies. The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of $5 (Canadian) on devices with up to 1GB of memory, $25 for 1-10 GB, $50 for 10-30 GB, and $75 for over 30 GB. If approved, this propoal would increase the price of a 30-GB iPod by 26%. These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music. The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
10:13:23 PM
|
|
Unfairly Caught in Viacom's Dragnet? Let Us Know! As an RIAA spokesperson famously put it when asked about the spectacle of file-sharing lawsuits against innocent grandparents, "when you go fishing with a driftnet, sometimes you catch a dolphin."
Well, with its 100,000 DMCA takedown notices aimed at YouTube users, now it's Viacom that is netting its share of dolphins. Among the 100,000 videos targeted for takedowns was a home movie shot in a BBQ joint, a film trailer by a documentarian, and a music video (previously here) about karaoke in Singapore. None of these contained anything owned by Viacom. For its part, Viacom has admitted to "no more than" 60 mistakes, so far. Yet each mistake impacts free speech, both of the author of the video and of the viewing public.
If they are making these kinds of blatant mistakes, who can tell how many fair uses of Viacom content they also targeted in their 100,000 takedowns? Hundreds? Thousands? If Viacom made a clear mistake and your clip contains no content from Viacom-owned copyrighted works, sending a simple DMCA counter-notice to YouTube may be enough to do the job. But if you're attempting to make a fair use of Viacom's works, it may make more sense to go to court to assert your rights. More information about your options is available at the Fair Use Network.
Has your video been removed from YouTube based on a bogus Viacom takedown? If so, contact information@eff.org --we may be able to help you directly or help find another lawyer who can. In this situation, as in so many others, EFF will work to make sure that copyright claims don't squelch free speech.
We've put together a video version of this post on YouTube, which you can embed on your website or blog. Check it out, Digg it and spread the word -- the more it rises in YouTube's listings, the more likely it will be seen by users who have received takedowns:
[EFF: Deep Links]
9:58:53 PM
|
|
The Business of Threatening New Technologies. This week, Hollywood started to ramp up its lobbying efforts by holding a symposium in D.C. called "The Business of Show Business." During a luncheon speech, Warner Bros Chairman and CEO Barry Meyer took some shots at Consumer Electronics Association President and CEO Gary Shapiro and stated, "history shows that [the major movies studios] are often adapters and embracers of new technologies."
...except for all those times when they've tried to crush innovation instead. In response, CEA has published this open letter [DOC] from Shapiro that makes the real historical record plain: (links, mine)
"In the last few decades, the motion picture industry came late to digital television and actually used every means possible to block new useful technology. Consider:
- the lawsuit seeking to stop the VCR
- the efforts to pass legislation blocking video rentals
- the lawsuit against ReplayTV, a PVR start-up, (the company was bankrupted by the lawsuit)
- the lawsuit against ClearPlay, a company with technology that deleted obscene content
- the lawsuit against Sima, a company which sells editing technology to wedding videographers
- the lawsuit against Kaleidescape, a company that lets consumers send lawfully acquired DVDs around their home
- the lawsuit against Load 'N Go, a company which sold pre-loaded iPods with DVDs, as long as the consumer also bought the DVD.
"The recent legislative efforts to mandate technological changes to stop copying, block the so-called 'analog hole' and impose other 'fixes' on the technology industry certainly make your claim of embracing new technology a bit hollow.
"We both agree that those who profit from the unauthorized, mass redistribution of content do so illegally. And we both agree that the creative community deserves fair compensation for its works, which are enjoyed by so many around the world. Where we apparently disagree is in how to treat ordinary, law-abiding citizens. Consumers should not expect free, but they do expect freedom -- the freedom to enjoy their lawfully acquired content when, where and how they want. That freedom is enabled by today's digital world and should be embraced by the content community."
Read the whole letter here [DOC], as well as Shapiro's speech at CES [PDF]. [EFF: Deep Links]
9:56:11 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Paul Hardwick.
Last update: 3/4/07; 3:40:30 AM.
|
|
|
