Thursday, February 26, 2009

Content Removed


Have you seen that adorable clip on YouTube of that cute little girl singing Winter Wonderland? No you haven’t because earlier this month Warner Brothers, who have copyrighted the song, and forced the video to be pulled. Many people feel that this video, along with thousands of other similar ones, is not actually copyright infringement and there is some degree of outrage from YouTube users.
The Internet is still a relatively new medium and as it grows and expands new legal and ethical issues are brought up daily. Never before has everyone been so connected and information sharing has never been easier. This information sharing includes passing along interesting things you find on the Internet as well as videos, songs, and any type of electronic media you create yourself. The most prevalent issue today is what is considered fair use of copyrighted material and what is considered infringement.
There are clearly some cases that are one way or another but the problem occurs when someone posts a video of their daughter singing a song that they want to share with their friends and family. There are thousands of similar posts each day and as the Internet and the way people use it is evolving so must the laws regulating the Internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an organization that recognizes this. The EFF is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States with the stated purpose of being dedicated to preserving the right to freedom of speech, such as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the context of today's digital age. The organization is considered the front line of defense when the freedoms of the networked world come under attack.
Earlier this month the EFF heard about the forced removal of Julie Weybret’s, the girl who had her Winter Wonderland clip removed, YouTube post. The EFF decided that YouTube and Warner Brothers have crossed the line when it comes to content issues and disagreements. YouTube has a ContentID feature available for copyright holders. This allows the holders to search and flag for deletion any videos that they feel are violating their copyright. The EFF feels that many of these videos are actually complying with Fair Use regulations and that the copyright holders are overstepping their boundaries.



This system, while it does give users opportunities to dispute the removal of their content, is clearly giving the advantage to the major corporations. The average YouTube user knows little to nothing about copyright laws while the copyright holders have teams of lawyers who are experts in the area. If a user is told their video is in violation they will both be intimidated to stand up against a large company and will believe that they are actually in violation. The EFF was clearly enraged with the situation and earlier this month they released this statement:

"These systems are still primitive and unable to distinguish a transformative remix from copyright infringement. So unless they leave lots of breathing room for remixed content, these filters end up sideswiping lots of fair uses. And that's exactly what has happened these past few weeks. And while today it's Warner Music, as more copyright owners start using the Content ID tool, it'll only get worse. Soon it may be off limits to remix anything with snippets of our shared mass media culture - music, TV, movies, jingles, commercials. That would be a sad irony - copyright being used to stifle an exciting new wellspring of creativity, rather than encourage it."

The EFF realizes that if this is allowed to continue it could lead to vast amounts of regulation. With that said the EFF is trying to get the word out that they want to stand up for anyone who feels their rights have been violated. They feel that the ContentID tool YouTube uses doesn’t separate copyright infringement from fair use and they hope to change the system so it’s in favor of YouTube users. The EFF plans to sue YouTube in order to change its copyright monitoring system and in hopes that they will keep alive the amateur videos on the Internet that we all love.

1 comment:

  1. Good choice of an interesting case and solid analysis and insights. This is a ridiculous case since it clearly wasn't for commercial purposes and didn't impair sales of the song (which has been covered by many artists). I'm actually surprised the song isn't in the public domain because it's so old. Good presentation in class, Alex.

    Grade - 5

    ReplyDelete