Interesting People mailing list archives
more on reply to criticism Fwd: Re: [CSL Colloq] Controlling Digital Cloth * 4:15PM, Wed May 12, 2004 in Gates B03 (fwd)
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 10:53:59 -0400
Sorry it got out of order. Just started using my mac 17" again djf Begin forwarded message: From: Lenny Foner <foner-for-ip () media mit edu> Date: May 9, 2004 2:01:15 AM EDT To: dave () farber net, Dennis Allison <allison () shasta stanford edu> Cc: foner-for-ip () media mit eduSubject: [IP] reply to criticism Fwd: Re: [CSL Colloq] Controlling Digital Cloth * 4:15PM, Wed May 12, 2004 in Gates B03 (fwd)
[Dave: For IP if you wish.] Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 10:50:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis Allison <allison () shasta stanford edu> Well, if were my choice...... In the larger scope of things, it -is- your choice (and Stanford's). Because of this, I'm going to speak strongly and not let you get away with saying, "I'm only doing my job."The work Ari's doing is interesting but it appears only in films like Harry Potter. Showing clips from the films is impossible if we broadcast
or webcast because the copyright owners won't allow it. This is insane. Copyright has a concept called fair use. I'm sure you've heard of it. (Yes, I'm being snide---I know you know this, but I'm going to be pedantic and restate it, because apparently the lesson has been lost.) The entire -point- of fair use is the UNAUTHORIZED REUSE of SMALL PORTIONS of a work for SCHOLARLY OR CRITICAL PURPOSES. Neta bene the term UNAUTHORIZED. That means that the copyright owner need not grant permission. You don't have to ask, and EVEN IF THEY OBJECT, you still get to use it. This ability was written into law precisely to enable hostile reviews of others' work, without theability of the copyright holder to gag a reviewer from giving an example.
I can't imagine a clearer-cut case of fair use than a researcher showing clips of a work in a public lecture in order to talk about how the clips were made. Furthermore, the copyright owners' concerns are, quite frankly, nuts. Everyone who has ever seen a webcast knows that the quality of the video is, to put it bluntly, terrible. A webcast of a video clip is generally even worse than the quality during the rest of the talk, because webcast feeds have trivial amounts of bandwidth and therefore have difficulty encoding even the relatively small interframe deltas made by someone standing at a podium. The quality of a video clip being transmitted through a webcast is so awful that no one in their right mind would ever try to use it for anything---and anyone who -did- want to use it for anything could simply go out and rent the movie and copy it themselves. [If they had no clue at all about defeating Macrovision (VHS) or CSS (DVD), they could -still- aim a video camera at their TV and get much better results than someone receiving a webcast. And the Copyright Cartel knows this.] And if you -really- wanted to to wimp out on the important issues, yet broadcast the talk, you need merely turn off the video whenever a clip is being shown. Extra points for putting up a big sign saying, "THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS BEING STUPID BUT WE'RE GOING ALONG WITH IT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SHOW YOU WHAT YOU'RE MISSING."After all, given the terrible quality of video-re-encoded-through-webcast,
it's not as if the viewers would be missing much, but at least that way they'd get the rest of the talk. She's doing interesting work which deserves a forum. And, we have folks who areinterested. The ILM presentations have historically been amongst our most
popular. So, we try to meet the needs of our diverse community bypresenting the talk in an open and public forum (but not broadcast or webcast) and present an alternative talk to the folks in television (and web) land. As a practical matter, the alternative is not to present talks
on topics like this at all. No, the alternative is to tell both the researchers presenting the talks -and- your intended audience that you intend to make fair use of anything presented, that fair use will cover your rebroadcast of any small segments of copyighted content presented, and that you will refuse to allow to speak anyone who won't abide by this policy. Why do this? Because the collective pushback from unhappy presenters and unhappy audience members will exert some pressure on the copyright holders to be reasonable. (Or will perhaps cause Stanford's IP lawyers to give you the green light and to run interference from whichever copyright holders are threatening you.) If, on the other hand, you pursue your current policy of appeasement, you are simply opening the door to an ever-more-intrusive regime of simultaneously unreasonable, senseless, and lawless attempts at coercive control of thought and expression. Stanford is a great university. It can lead by example, and sway others, or it can capitulate, and be publicly derided for cowardice. I'm doing the latter to try to convince you, and maybe Stanford, to do the former. Consider this. MIT doesn't even -have- a law school, and yet it has led by example both in fighting ITAR and other US governmental controls on expression (e.g., the crypto wars and MIT's distribution of PGP), and in fighting lazy and unprincipled legal demands from IP holders (e.g., the recent RIAA subpoenas filed en masse and in the wrong state). On the other hand, Stanford has a world-class law school. Perhaps you can convince some of its faculty to assist you in fighting these unjustified controls on the way you conduct your own classes. It should be publicly embarrassing to Stanford to simply roll over and accede to unlawful and ridiculous copyright demands when MIT (which has no in-house legal faculty and which must therefore pay internal and external counsel without even getting a research or reputation boost from the money it spends) demonstrates that it is all too willing to call such bullies to task. The choice---and its effects on how your colleagues see you---is yours.For the record, we always have a disclaimer in the course information that
explains the occasional need to not broadcast a talk or blackout asection. This quarter it appears in restated form in the webpage header.
We do have students who are enrolled from afar, a goodly number of them.
And we have a much larger community world-wide that tunes in forthe occasional talk. It's unfortunate that we cannot provide them access
to talks of this sort, but the current attitudes (paranoia) of the copyright owners and the current copyright laws are not friendly to academic video distribution. Hope all is well with you. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on reply to criticism Fwd: Re: [CSL Colloq] Controlling Digital Cloth * 4:15PM, Wed May 12, 2004 in Gates B03 (fwd) David Farber (May 09)