This is going to be a link dump, but there are some interesting articles to think about.
“Universal: ‘Fair Use’ is still infringing” What struck me about this article was this statement: ‘Universal told a judge this week that, even though the clip may in fact be “fair use,” it was still “infringement.”‘ Seems a little odd, don’t you think? The case at hand is that of video of a woman whose son danced to a Prince song. It was uploaded to YouTube and then taken down after Universal “demanded that the clip be removed from YouTube.” I thought fair use was fair use and that you couldn’t be forced to take things down off of YouTube or be sued because it was considered fair use? I suppose that’s why the Electronic Frontier Foundation is taking Universal to the court system over what they see as a poor use of their rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
On a related note, the Center for Social Media keeps coming out with useful resources for people on new media. This time, they have a “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video” (PDF). The document is not legal advice but it is worth something put together by a panel of experts so it has more weight than just me saying what I think should be the case when it comes to fair use. Some quotes worth highlighting:
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
In reviewing the history of fair use litigation, we find that judges return again and again to two key questions:
- Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
- Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature
of the copyrighted work and of the use?
The third is another article lamenting the Google generation’s lack of ability to concentrate from the Times of London. We’re raising a generation of idiots supposedly because we get so distracted we can’t accomplish things in a reasonable manner of time. (I wrote about it here regarding Nicholas Carr’s article which is mentioned in the Times of London article.) I think it is true to some extent that we are trying to move through life faster and faster. We don’t take time to sit down and think about things, we skim, we flip channels, we multi-task on our computers so that those precious seconds of time are all filled with information. One of the things that I enjoy most about writing this blog is that it allows me to sit down and write out my thoughts on something I read, heard, or saw. As Bryan Appleyard astutely points out, it may just be the case of our elders “wagging its finger at the young.” To some extent this is true. I think that if those who are complaining had access to the same technologies as we younguns do when they were young, they would have liked it as well. Heck, the baby boomers’ parents complained about Johnny & Susie being distracted by the television. Now that Johnny & Susie are parents, they complain about the Internet and video games. Johnny & Susie’s grandparents were probably distracted by the radio and the great-grandparents complained that they weren’t reading great literature. So, yes, we are changing how we read, digest, and basically deal with information. Yes, we’re probably a little bit more distracted, but does that mean that by letting technologies like our cell phones, email, the Internet, etc. take over a larger chuck of our lives that we’re becoming less of a human being or that we’re becoming stupid?
“These things do make our lives easier, but only by destroying the very selves that should be protesting at every distraction, demanding peace, quiet and contemplation.”
There’s just that sense of romance that really doesn’t sit well with me. If we want to we can ignore the new and changing ways of today by distancing ourselves from these things. But, as the world changes around us, we’re going to be left in the dust. Heck, my grandfather doesn’t like computers, has never surfed the web, doesn’t get email, etc. That’s fine for him, a retiree. But, for those of us who are just starting out in the working world and those of us already in it, we either have to come to terms with it or we’re going to not have a job. It is worth noting that Appleyard points out “Henry Thoreau, who, in the 19th century, cut himself off from the distractions of industrialising America to live in quiet contemplation by Walden Pond in Massachusetts.” And as most people know his Walden is considered a classic. But it just goes to show you that we’ve been dealing with the influence of new technologies for a long time, not just in the last 20 years, but for many decades & centuries before us.
Finally, worth linking to is an opinion piece on why newspapers should not allow comments. In the age of everything Web 2.0, Sheila McClear doesn’t believe that there are any interesting discussions that take place on newspaper websites that allow comments. The theory is that “you come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion.” Well, she feels that they should go back to what they do best – reporting news. To some extent, I think she’s right. I’m glad that the NYT doesn’t have comments on its news stories (as far as I know) because I think it would distract from their reporting which is high quality. I hope I don’t sound elitist by saying that but it is true. As McClear correctly points out, a lot of the comments are junk, nonsensical, and ad hominem attacks on others. I doubt anyone will take her opinion to heart though. CNN is now allowing comments on its stories so it appears that it is the wave of the future on news websites whether we like it or not. Let’s just hope that some of the biggies like NYT will refrain.
