Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1414

@UKVal On track as a discussion of US copyright law for an international group, I'd say. Especially sinc eit appears that now, instead of just as a tool to recompense artists, governments are using it to squash information transfer and dissent.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 1:56:21 PM

Yes, old standard. Now it can be determined algorithmically. I used 1 minute of a Bert Jancsh instrumental behind a video of my puppy and got a notice from German YouTube that it had been disallowed for copyright infringement.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 1:58:20 PM

@radioguy that is true & I think we need to be careful, but the issue is our use of media sources which are largely print/ pics/ video
by UKVal 5/28/2011 1:58:23 PM

@UKVal - No worries until you take a dime, if even for charity.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 1:59:07 PM

@Rob in SF that's why we need to be clear about the fact that this is non commercial & we do not receive any payment from the ads up top
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:00:23 PM

So we have to apply current Fair Use standards. Or do only our US contributors have to follow US copyright law? And if we mirror the site to some non-signatory, then what?
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:00:40 PM

@UKVal - We don't, but the website could, and shouldn't.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:00:59 PM

@radioguy according to that article US congress is trying to make thier law apply internationally
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:01:29 PM

@radioguy - US copyright law describes international copyright law.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:01:50 PM

Since it's unfathomable law, all you can do is try your best. If you try to credit and excerpt, I think all they can do as a first salvo is a cease&desist.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:02:02 PM

@Rob in SF agreed. Think we need a clear disclaimer on that basis on both.
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:02:03 PM

@radioguy what worries me is that Scribble may be asked to remove - seems to be act 1st ask qu's later
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:03:23 PM

@radioguy - Good point though! (™) Expect contractual obligations to attach to web addresses soon.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:05:16 PM

@Rob in SF I actually know this stuff. I worked rights management for a Muzak type company for years. The problem is that most of this internet stuff is still undefined in case law. Every time a real test case starts to make its way to somewhere that a dominant precedent might be established, the case gets dropped, because, IF RIAA/MPAA/whatever should happen to lose, there goes their entire business paradigm.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:08:57 PM

Nutty flux of late...
www.swpc.noaa.gov
by Rob in SF via Swpc.noaa.gov 5/28/2011 2:09:07 PM

@radioguy - Then you know it goes back to Mickey Mouse™ and SCOTUS won't hear it.
It really ticks me off... Information Wants to be Free™ is a big deal®.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:12:05 PM

I had a long talk back in the late 90's with a record promo VPs about the internet and downloading. I was stating the fact, that once technology is out of the bottle, you can't put it back, and asking what their future approach would be. "We have a whole wing of lawyers." I suggested that maybe they might start thinking of a way to use this phenomenal new distribution technology to cut both their production costs and make the product cheaper. "We own the manufacturing company, and the distribution companies, and the raw material companies. Why would we want to do that?" Um...to save your business?
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:13:09 PM

"We have a whole wing of lawyers." = Lobbying.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:14:21 PM

The trouble is copyright & terrorism both provide excuses to cut off free speech
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:15:19 PM

@Rob in SF Then Apple comes in and uses simple price-point analysis and proves without a shadow of a doubt that people who would illegally download will buy if you give them a price point they like. They'll pay $0.99 for the two songs they like on an otherwise crappy album, but they won't buy the crappy album given this choice.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:17:57 PM

@radioguy yep -that's the point at which I started downloading music
by UKVal 5/28/2011 2:18:48 PM

@radioguy - Sad is the artist take on the 99¢.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:19:37 PM

@radioguy - My dear friend is: Director of Music - Apple
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:20:53 PM

@radioguy - Back in the day the profit on a 59¢ taco was c. 1¢.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:23:10 PM

@radioguy - And think of the overhead in a taco. Now, Apple eats well...
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:24:05 PM

@Rob in SF That's cool. I have a lot of respect for Apple for talking on the RIAA on this, though they made a killing on it so it wasn't altruistic or anything, but someone had to do it. Ultimately I think it's like so much else today: a doomed business model that will fall of its own weight. The money is in merch and performance. Albums and songs will ultimately be sheerly promotional. So now they'll milk that one to death, too, by pricing concerts out of reach. Oh wait... that's already happened.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:28:13 PM

Hi @all. If I may briefly contribute on the copyright issue - It seems to me the simplest principle to keep to is to attribute the source in all posts we don't originate ourselves. If the source is clearly visible (for example the TBS/JNN camera) it isn't strictly necessary. I can understand why organisations that own valuable picture rights (for instance #3 blowing up) which will contimue earning for the next 50 years would want to clamp down on clips on YouTube etc., they want the $$$! Maybe on the new website we should spell out that this is a non profit making group etc in the 'mission statement' (ugh, so hate that term.
by hudebnik 5/28/2011 2:31:52 PM

@radioguy - Ultimately Apple will lose in SW, Information Wants to be Free. They know this, the new FCP Suite is earth-shattering and dirt-cheap, but it makes you want the hardware.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:33:41 PM

@hudebnik Yes, attribution and fair use are the best we can do on it I think. Most companies will give you a pass if they think they're getting value (like a link and attribution) for the use.
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:34:08 PM

@radioguy - yes, as long as you're a non-commercial outfit.
by hudebnik 5/28/2011 2:36:04 PM

@hudebnik - I thought our recent non-Fuku digression warranted it.
by Rob in SF 5/28/2011 2:38:38 PM

@Rob in SF I like the interspersed tagline. :)
by radioguy 5/28/2011 2:39:16 PM

@Rob in SF Excellent to get 'crowd-sourced' into it. Great job.
by jt 5/28/2011 2:40:45 PM

considering the ongoing conversation, who ever is making the final desicions may want to drop the "news" part as that does infer that transfering of NEWS that may be interrperted differently.. not as "non-profit" "educational"
by fitter 5/28/2011 2:44:58 PM

@Rob in SF looks good the last post was not in ref to your work... but the "news" in the logo
by fitter 5/28/2011 2:46:34 PM