Just a shack for all the violators?

Remember my post about "Mr. Mega"? Well I've got another one.

However this next man differs from Mr. Schmitz in that he wasn't allowing things to be downloaded for users to do with as they pleased. Rather, he had simply a hosting site, similar to YouTube, but even more basic.

TVShack (via Honeytechblog.com)

The website TVShack, run by a 23 year old U.K. student, Richard O'Dwyer, collects links to other sites which (illegally) stream movies and television episodes. While on the site, a browser can search for a show or movie they want to watch, and then they are provided with several links to different websites hosting the actual content. Some of these sites are Vidbux.com, Movshare.com, and of course the now forever busted Megaupload.com.

 The site’s .net domain was first seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in October 2010, prompting O’Dwyer to switch to a .cc domain that was set up with a registrar outside of the U.S. — thus not subject to seizure. O’Dwyer then took the site offline back in May after learning that U.K. authorities had dropped their investigation due to the extradition request. [-Tom Cheredar of VentureBeat.com*]

What makes this situation trickier, is that O'Dwyer hasn't directly violated copyright, but instead has pointed is viewers in the right, illegal, direction; the shall we say, instigator. Or should we?

The thing I really don’t understand is why U.S. authorities would want to go after a guy who’s basically doing half of the work for them. You’d think the government would be happy that someone was collecting a nice tidy list of places that were violating copyrights by illegally streaming content, which they could then pursue. [Ibid.]

I too had this thought while jumping fresh into the story. Although I wouldn't let the driver of a getaway car off the hook, I also wouldn't strangle him before catching the direct criminal. If this site is to blame for everyone's trouble making, what is to say a large website like YouTube isn't also? With millions of users uploading hundreds of videos, many of which appear to be in violation of some sort of copyright on visual and audible media, YouTube is just as easily used as a "gateway" website, even more directly in that they also host the videos.

I'm not trying to blame YouTube for our problems, and anyone that knows me personally knows that I'm the last person to ever want our world's favorite video hosting website shut down. However it does change my perspective when searching for the differences between these websites. Although YouTube does a lot to try to control how much its users post illegally, their staff is obviously far out numbered when compared to the amount of content uploaded hourly.

An example of a common message a YouTube user may receive once their video has been removed due to copyright complaints from a third party. (YouTube Copyright Center)

But I suppose it must be the thought that counts. YouTube, unlike TVShack, actually handles its complaints, and works to quickly and clearly deal with each situation, as well as labels out what can and can't be uploaded in their Terms and Conditions. And maybe that's all that it really takes in our rampaging internet world... seeing that a website or company actually cares enough to directly contact and try to put a stop to the violations, whether always successful or not.


*"TVShack creator being extradited to the U.S. on copyright violation charges" from VentureBeat.com in the media section. Article can be found here.

YouTube, ITube, We-All-Tube, Illegally.

At one time or another, most of us have all run into the problem on YouTube in which we click on a video of our favorite song and are thwarted by the YouTube staff who have removed the audio or forced the owner of the video to replace it. I myself have many times felt "rick rolled" by this, but unlike the first time I met the unfriendly message, it's appearance has become expected. The first time I ever saw the message I remember feeling shocked, like it was the end of the internet. We weren't allowed to have our favorite songs in the background unless the singer was dead? Although the result has yet to be that drastic, I continue to find many videos removed or altered daily due to some type of copyright violation.

Most YouTube members who regularly post or watch videos have a clear understanding of the tricks used to avoid being charged with copyright violation as well as the method YouTube has for finding these "violators". In shortest explanation, YouTube has software and staff that check video's for audio that matches what's in their database. Some common ways around this are too put a different several second audio clip, before and after the video, so that the computer can't recognize the song.

However, for the past several months I've noticed a new message written by the video creator, almost always pasted into the description box, which I feel has a large affect on the deletion of videos. Here are a few I've seen used:


 COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 41A
Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire

A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary,
dramatic or musical work, does not constitute
an infringement of the copyright in the work if
it is for the purpose of parody or satire.

or

Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

However I've seen this so much recently that I feel it is overused and often out of place. Although recorded music is the same as any other digital media, it is also a product for many people. So posting it for the world to hear still allows listeners to bypass money owed to the creator. Owning a copy of a song and the rights to a song can easily become a fine line.
Similar to this, websites such as VideoToMp3 allow anyone to turn any video available on YouTube (or any other site which gives a direct link to the video), and separate, as well as download, the audio from it. Now that audio file or song is portable and able to be listened to without the requirement of internet access, which is the purpose of the 99¢ fee.

So where is the line separating ownership? For $1 the public can "purchase" songs to listen to, but that only gives them the rights to have it for themselves. However, it's free and legal to play songs out of a boombox on the street, isn't it?

Trademark

trade·mark, [treyd-mahrk] noun
1. any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark  adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner. (dictionary.com)

This is what the famous singer and actress Beyoncé Knowles and her husband Shawn Carter, better known as the rapper "Jay-Z", plan to do with their new infant daughters name: Blue Ivy Carter
The have already filled out an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and "The new parents have plans to reserve their child's name for possible use as a brand name for a line of baby-related products, including carriages, diaper bags, and baby cosmetics." says Matthew Perpetua of The Rolling Stone (see the article here).

When I first read this my head began burning. Who has the ability to copyright a person's name? Millions of people are born everyday and named. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every parent tried to trademark their baby's name. However, as I thought about the use of the name as a brand, it made more sense. But I can't imagine using my child's name as a title for products.

Either way, I'm still shocked at how easy it is becoming to copyright something. The other week I overheard a conversation discussing an "artist" who was attempting to copyright his minimalist style work; like a single dot in the middle of a canvas. What is the limit anymore when you can take all you want? If it's copyrighted you can steal in for free and when it's not you can take for yourself and yourself only.

As much as I'm against limiting the arts, I do believe in a point where things become too ridiculous. There is a point where the lines between a person's original ideas and their influence from another source becomes blurred. Who is to say that there isn't someone else in the millions of people on our earth who's having the same ideas you are? Is there anything really new under the sun?

Don't steal my stuff!

I had my first personal encounter with copyright this week, and I thought it applied to the points I have been making thus far.

I consider myself a photographer, and although I don't yet sell prints and haven't been in any contests I still take it very seriously. Like almost all photographers, I post my work to websites: Facebook, Tumblr, and Flickr in particular. And as I was scrolling through someones blog on Tumblr, my eye was caught by a picture that I knew very well... my own. And I instantly became angered when I saw a quote and credit edited onto the front of it with my name nowhere to be found.

Eventually I worked it out with the blog owner, but it got me thinking how easy and painful it is to have your work taken. Many people don't seem to understand the problem. To them it is just a picture, or a song, but to the artist it's more. It's their time, effort, thought, emotion, and the physical cost of putting everything together. And whether they are using their art to make money or simply as a form of expression, there is a cost when it's used without permission.

And in order to prevent having something like a photograph stolen, the best way to protect it is by adding a digital variant of a "watermark"; a distinguishable mark, usually text, placed on a photo in a translucent font so that the artist's name is displayed directly on the work. The downside? There's a slew of type on the face of the photograph, which usually takes the audience "out" of any intended emotion.

Bottom left corner: Example of a digital "watermark"

I think the most frustrating thing about art theft over the internet is how easy it is to NOT steal another's work. So many things can be done that only take a small amount of time and little effort to unsure the artist is happy and get's the deserving credit. Simply contacting the artist about using their work, creating a link to the artist's webpage or the location the photo was found, and putting the artists personal or business name in the description can prevent so many lengthy and often costly disputes in which the law and occasionally the court system has to intervene. The more I think about, the more it appears to me as a sad topic. I feel almost disappointed to have grown up with a group of people who are either too lazy or too selfish to give proper recognition, and are too numb to realize where the limits rest.

I wonder if this virtual world has really caused more laziness, disrespect, and ignorance than at it has allowed us to be proactive and open our eyes.

MegaCopyright

Nearly any teenager, and a lot of adults know about the "mega" web sites. MegaUpload, a file sharing site, MegaVideo, a video sharing site, and a few others. These websites were constantly used to exchange media, especially the kind that was purchasable, but the public using this site were too cheap to buy. This isn't to say I myself haven't, in the past, downloaded a few files from the quick and easy site. Youtube videos of songs had links to these websites, allowing anyone to have it for themselves.

But if you go to these pages now, you'll find a simple image explaining that they have been shut down, and the persons who created it, have been found. Kim schmitz from Germany is the main man responsible.

"According to legal documents filed in California, where Schmitz, 37, is engaged in a copyright battle, he rents cyberlockers to the masses, and nobody disputes that many millions of people from across the globe use Megaupload to store or access unauthorized copies of TV shows, feature films, songs, porn, and software." (Cnet)


 But no matter how much you, or I, would love to point a finger at this man and say "What a criminal!" or "What a genius," or simply "Wow he's busted," we tend not to think about our own participation.
Is it more the fault of this man who created a file sharing site, or all the people who took 99¢ songs for free? As I said before, it can all be used for evil. The site could have been good, although I doubt Mr. Schmitz was at all concerned about the piracy while he was making steady income from the advertisements, represented by his mansion.

Photo: Audiboost.com

But who's to say it couldn't just be for people to share their electronic works publicly? After all, the files were only posted because of the individuals who posted them.

So who is more to blame? The upload-er or the download-er?

Open Ended

Of all the technology I've ever used in my short life, the internet has to be the most vast.

It allows for so many advances in our society that it's almost uncontrollable. And for artists of the audible and visual, of which I include myself, it increases our ability to learn and display art and music. But like everything in the world, "it can be used for evil".

Just like the internet gives people who are separated by great distance's the ability to communicate, it also allows people to say things that are better left unsaid. It encourages the adventurous to discover, and the shy to hibernate. It gives the seller many bids, and the customer an easy debt. It provides the advertiser a platform, and the scammer viruses. And to the artists and musicians, it gives an endless gallery or stage to show and perform their talent, but let us not forget what it gives the thief. When Newton said there would always be an equal reaction, I doubt he realized just how true the statement would rein in every part of our lives; our virtual lives being no exception.

In a world that's lightening fast, with never ending loopholes, and instantly erasable evidence, villains are created just as easily as heroes.
Photos are easy to take straight from a website, and even when they're embedded in a way that prevents the ability to save or download the photograph, all computers can install an application which allows the computer to virtually take a picture of your screen. No matter what there's always a way around it.

Music theft is even harder to control because of all the software which can convert files. And because music files can be so compact, they travel through the internet at incredible speeds. Basically if it's on the internet, you can get it for free, and it only requires a right click, save as...