> Creative Commons dot org.
>> I think it's copyright issues.
I think something like Creative Commons is definately the way to go. With
a system like that it is very easy for content creators to give up some of
their rights so that others can reuse their material.
There is of course Fair Use (and it's siblings in the legislation in
non-US contries, YMMV), but relying on your reuse being Fair Use is not
really a good idea. Through my girlfriend I got a hand on a huge book on
US Media Law ("Mass Media Law" by Don R. Pember, I can recommend it,
though it looks expensive) and I've been reading the chapters on Fair Use.
The definitions are so loose that you can't really rely on them for much.
Which brings me back to my first e-mail. Most content is still not
licensed under a Creative Content license so you have two options if you
want to use the works of others:
1) Rely on Fair Use.
2) Ask the copyright owner for permission.
No. 1 is not something you can count on with the sketchy rules. I can see
many many cases where you would probably be able to claim Fair Use without
problems (if you give clear and proper attribution). It's still very
unclear and not something I would do myself though.
No. 2 just takes a lot of time. It could get especially tiresome for
content creators who could be getting a lot of requests.
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.
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), and P2P is a completely
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
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.
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
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.
That was way longer than I intended it to be. And I'm even on vacation.
Lastly I'd like to say that the more I read on copyright legislation the
more I like it (despite the loose definitions under Fair Use). It's pretty
good legislation, it's the musicians who are in trouble because they sign
over ownership of their work.
File Thingie – PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>