Improv Everywhere, a comedic performance art group based in New York, has a history of pulling off hilarious and impressive “scenes of chaos and joy.” Running “missions” such as the annual “No Pants Subway Ride,” a food court musical, sending 80 people into Best Buy dressed as employees and getting 200 people to “freeze” during rush hour in Grand Central station, these guys are masters of the flash mob and the harmless prank. Last April, in a mission called “Best Game Ever,” they showed up at a little league baseball game with signs, peanut vendors, programs and even an NBC sponsored jumbotron with live commentary and player stats to turn an ordinary event into something extraordinary.
Building on that theme, Improv Everywhere’s latest mission was to create the “Best Funeral Ever,” to pick a random funeral from the obituaries and show up to make it “truly awesome.” It sounds terrible, and the video is pretty horrifying… until you realize it’s from April 1st. The next day, they confirmed it was an April Fool’s joke and that it wasn’t a real funeral — all of the “family members” were actors. Lots of people fell for it (I definitely did at first), but best of all was the local CW 11 news team that covered the YouTube video as if it were a real funeral. Charlie Todd, founder of Improv Everywhere, uploaded a video of the newscast with the following commentary:
So basically the extent of their reporting is watching a video on YouTube and then describing it as fact on air. They didn’t bother to email Improv Everywhere for comment, call the cemetery to verify, or try to get a quote from the”family.” They just watched the video and threw it on TV. Great journalism!
The story was on the news channel’s website too, but was later removed without any explanation or correction. Now, two weeks later, Todd has received a copyright notice from YouTube that his video of the newscast was removed due to a copyright claim from Tribune (the station’s parent company). First of all, it’s pretty silly to try to hide the mistake rather than owning up to it and posting a correction (Streisand Effect anyone?). But beyond that, it’s pretty ironic and hypocritical that the news organization, which used the Improv Eveywhere video without permission or even proper attribution, would send a take-down notice to the owner of the that video who was commenting on their commentary. Todd writes,
It’s OK for them to air content that we shot and own, but it’s not OK for me to upload their footage of the content they took from me? It’s “fair use” for the news to take a video off of YouTube and broadcast it, but it’s not “fair use” for a citizen to expose their poor reporting on his own content?
Fair use or not, Tribune just found a great way to draw more attention to the fact that their “journalists” fell for the prank and seem to be pretty embarrassed about it.
Michael Geist points to two new polls released by Angus Reid Strategies, which show that Canadians are overwhelmingly against the idea of ISP levies. It should come as no surprise that 79% of people surveyed about the possible Canadian content levy on new media said it would be an “unnecessary and/or inappropriate fee that would end up being passed along to consumers.” In another survey on file sharing, 45% of people said that downloading music free of charge was just “what people should be able to do on the Internet,” while only 3% believed that downloaders are “criminals who should be punished by law.” 27% said that it’s something people shouldn’t be doing, but that “it’s not a big deal.” 73% of people thought that a music tax was “unnecessary and/or inappropriate” (which ought to disappoint a few Canadian creatorgroups calling for this sort of thing…).
The survey also found that those who download music are “often the most voracious music enthusiasts,” more likely to buy a CD in the next month (41% vs. 34% of non-file sharers) and more likely to have attended a concert in the past year (65% vs. 52%), which should, again, not surprise many people around here. This is just another bit of evidence that “piracy” is not a problem and, instead of pushing for ISPs to collect levies or act as copyright cops, musicians should focus on connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. Though, somehow, I don’t expect the whining to stop anytime soon…
At 75, an artist may be too old to write a new hit single, but that doesn’t make them too old to sue someone famous with a new hit single for a large sum of money over 10 syllables from a 37-year-old song. Cameroonian artist, Manu Dibango, is suing both Michael Jackson and Rihanna for copyright infringement over his 1972 hit, Soul Makossa. The complicating factor is that Jackson was already sued decades ago for infringing the tune in his 1983 single, Wanna Be Startin’ Something, and he had settled with Dibango, but now he’s under fire again for allegedly licensing the infringing bit to Rihanna for her 2007 hit, Please Don’t Stop the Music, without contacting Dibango to get permission. According to Wikipedia, Soul Makossa features a Duala chant, “Mama-ko, mama-sa, ma-ka-ma-ko-ssa,” while a similar sounding Swahili chant, “Ma Ma Se, Ma Ma Sa, Ma Ma Coo Sa,” appears in both Jackson’s and Rihanna’s song. Dibango is demanding €500,000, and that the courts block the labels from receiving any money from the allegedly infringing tunes until the matter is resolved.
Dibango has a history of making great music, but more recently, he served as President of the Cameroon Music Corporation, where he was known for defending intellectual property rights and fighting piracy. It’s a real shame that you need to hire a law firm to make use of a catchy phrase from another song, but I guess that’s what happens when everyone is focused on “protecting” their rights, rather than on making music.
The Copyright Board of Canada has decided to increase the levy on blank CDs from 21 cents to 29 cents each. The levy is a sort of “you’re a criminal tax” that assumes blank CDs are going to be used for unauthorized copying. Blank CDs in Canada are now often more expensive than blank DVDs (which have no levy and hold more data), and most of that cost goes directly to the record industry. In 2006, about 70% went to the labels, but it seems like even more now, with actual price of CD-Rs dropping. With a 21 cent levy, a pack of 50 CD-Rs sells for about $12 before tax. That’s 24 cents per CD-R — 87.5% of the price goes to the record industry. And that’s before the 8 cent increase.
The board notes that sales of blank CDs are declining, but justifies the increase by arguing that compression allows people to store more songs on a CD. Meanwhile, there’s no levy on digital audio players (the Canadian record industry was worried it would legalize downloading and seemed to prefer to push for tougher copyright legislation instead). What’s going to happen when the Copyright Board realizes that blank CD sales are likely declining, not because everyone is using compression, but because less people are using CDs? This “you’re a criminal tax” has always been a short-term band-aid solution that’s not going to fix the record industry’s problem. Do Canadians really need to pay the record industry $30 million a year for the right to burn a few songs onto a CD every now and then? Luckily, the current government has expressed a desire to cancel the levy, though we’ll have to wait and see if they can follow through.
Guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay for copyright infringement over claims that their hit single, Viva La Vida, used “substantial original portions” of his song If I Could Fly from 2004, seeking damages for “any and all profits.” The lawsuit has been filed in Los Angeles federal court. Call me a skeptic, but it was just back in June when Techdirt covered a story about a band called Creaky Boards making a similar claim. The difference is that the Creaky Boards didn’t sue. They made a cheeky video and used the opportunity to get some attention (also, later retracting the statement after Coldplay refuted it). However, one notable difference here is that Coldplay was very unlikely to have heard the Creaky Boards song, while Joe Satriani is well known, especially among guitarists. When you listen to this clip, the melodies are certainly very similar:
But does that mean it was copied? Most people’s knee-jerk reaction is to assume it must have been, but here’s an idea: Creaky Boards, Coldplay and Joe Satriani all have a similar melody over a similar chord sequence. When Coldplay responded to Creaky Boards, Chris Martin called it a “simple coincidence.” Is it not plausible that it’s just a somewhat natural melody to sing over those chords? You can’t copyright a chord sequence. If you searchYouTubeforthesesortsofclaims, you quickly realize that a lot of songs sound the same. Some cases are blatant infringement, but for most, there are only so many notes in a scale…
Chris Martin hassaid: “We’re definitely good, but I don’t think you can say we’re that original. I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists.” I bet he wishes he hadn’t said that now, but to what extent is that true about all of our ideas? Isn’t a certain element of “plagiarism” a natural part of the creative process? Where’s the line between plagiarism and inspiration? Of course, trying to pass someone’s work off as your own is bad because it’s dishonest and you aren’t giving proper credit, and your reputation will likely suffer for it if someone finds out. But even if Coldplay did get the melody from Satriani (whether consciously or unconsciously), how much damage have they done? If you listen to the theme of Satriani’s song and the verse of Coldplay’s, the melodies are very similar, but the songs in their entirety are very different. Coldplay takes the song in a completely different direction in the chorus, while that melody is Satriani’s chorus. Coldplay’s song has lyrics, Satriani’s is instrumental. They appeal to different audiences, they’re very different songs. Even if it is an case of infringement, how significant is it?
That’s saying little about the legal realities though. It’s bound to be a sticky issue in court. Coldplay will likely claim independent creation to try and clear their name (unless they did blatantly rip it off, in which case they might look for a settlement). How do you prove whether or not someone came up with a melody independently? How many notes or rhythms need to be similar to prove that one melody is a derivative of another? This is going to be an interesting case to watch.
I’m looking for relevant passages in scripture too. I don’t have much yet. There’s a parable (Matt 20:1-16) that I think is relevant for defending commercial use (though I may be relying on way too literal of an interpretation… I think there’s something there though), and there are the passages that Elèutheros is focused on.
I plan to approach this from practical, economic and moral perspectives. (Other ideas?)
First, I hope to post an overview on my thoughts from each of those perspectives, and then I plan to elaborate on various ideas, respond to objections and gather relevant ideas and examples, etc. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
Michael Wesch has an amazing video called An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube. Though it’s well worth watching the full hour, I wanted to highlight a particular moment which really stood out for me. The overlay of the video, Us (which is already a remix of Regina Spektor and popular films), with Wesch’s commentary and part of a speech by Lawrence Lessig raises the hair on my free culture arms.
I’m proud to be a member of both the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) and the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC). Both organizations have expressed their disappointment with Bill C-61. It’s not that hard, really, but it’s noteworthy since the bill is supposed to be “protecting artists.”
The SAC is concerned about their proposal to monetize peer-to-peer file sharing (aka the music tax), which I’ve described as a forward thinking approach from backward thinking minds. The proposal has the right idea (to embrace the technology), it just goes about things the wrong way (namely, the fee is involuntary). Bill C-61 would completely undermine any attempt to accommodate the technology. The SAC’s response to the bill is quite critical:
C-61’s intent to halt [unauthorized file sharing] will be very expensive, will erode the good relationships we have with music lovers and will not be effective…
Where the SAC music file sharing proposal is consumer friendly in that it embraces file sharing… bill C-61 is unfriendly to music file sharing and would make this very popular activity clearly illegal;
Where our proposal is economically viable and is designed to generate income for creators and rights holders, the bill C-61 approach to file sharing is not economic for rights holders. Money generated through lawsuits would simply go to legal costs;
Where our proposal is practical and sensible in that it builds on existing activities… the bill C-61 regime would be impractical relying as it does on enforcement and punishment to reverse how many consumers access our music.
It’s all locks and lawsuits… Suing fans won’t make it 1992 again. It’s a new world for the music business and this is an old approach… The question is, who gains from this bill? It’s not musicians. Musicians don’t need lawsuits, we don’t need DRM protection. These aren’t the things that help us or our careers.
If artists are against Bill C-61, who is it supposed to be protecting?
Given the tabing of Bill C-61 this week (aka “the Canadian DMCA”), I’ve decided to put the coverage in context with some practical examples and questions.
Under the new legislation:
It will be illegal for anyone in my house to watch a DVD on a computer, since we run GNU/Linux (courtesy of the digital lock provision which outlaws “unauthorized” DVD decoders)
I would be liable for $500 in damages ($6000 if it’s per song, which isn’t clear) for loading A Perfect Circle’s Thirteenth Step — which I own — onto my computer, an album that problem sells for $9.99 on iTunes (courtesy of the digital lock provision and limitations to statutory damages). If I share that album with my younger brother, I may be liable for up to $20,000 in damages (again, assuming it’s not per song) because it ceases to be for private use.
It will be explicitly illegal for my parents to share their digital music collection with each other, even though they share their physical music collection (courtesy of the limitations of the private copying of music provision)
Canadians are finally explicitly allowed to time shift broadcasts. Except, if someone tells us that we’re not allowed to time shift broadcasts. The time shifting provision is completely undermined by the digital lock provision
The time shifting provision has the following limitation: “29.23 (d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;” I guess my family may have to destroy the old VHS recordings we have of Christmas specials from when we were kids or television shows my mom has appeared on in the past, less we be hit with $500 a piece damages for keeping these recordings “longer than necessary.” Nevermind the episode of Canadian Idol from last week, that (*gasp*) may still be sitting on your DVR
What exactly qualifies as making available? (See New Rights and Protections for Copyright Owners) If I have music in a shared folder on my local network, but my WiFi is unencrypted, am I making it available? The $20,000 upper limit for damages applies to making available.
Posting a copyrighted photo on the Internet? Up to $20,000 in damages, thanks to the limitations of the limitations on statutory damages.
Posting a copyrighted video on the YouTube? Up to $20,000 in damages, thanks to the limitations of the limitations on statutory damages
Educational institutions can now make use of content on the Internet, unless someone says they can’t make use of content on the Internet (courtesy of the digital lock provision).
There is some good news, but it’s largely made irrelevant by the bad. For example, things like time shifting or format shifting are, at best, in a legal gray area at present. Bill C-61 would permit these actions explicitly… unless someone says they aren’t permitted. Without the digital lock provisions, this might actually be a step forward. Too bad those anti-circumvention measures are central to the bill.
Hockey Night in Canada is an award-winning program that airs on Saturday nights on CBC Television featuring eccentric hosts, Ron MacLean and Don Cherry. The show has been broadcast on television weekly since 1952 (Wikipedia claims it’s the “oldest sports-related television program still on the air”) and it has become a cultural rallying point in a hockey-crazy country.
The Hockey Night in Canada theme song has been used on the show since 1968 and has become a Canadian “national treasure” (some say a “second national anthem”), but, last week, a licensingdispute brought that to an end. The CBC was already involved in a legal dispute with the rights holder and both sides failed to reach an agreement in negotiations to relicense the song for next season. The Hockey Theme, written by Dolores Claman, was costing the CBC $500 CAD for each game broadcast, by far the highest price for a theme song in Canadian broadcasting. The CBC offered Copyright Music & Visuals — the agency representing Claman — nearly $1 million CAD to buy out the rights to the song, but the agency was demanding $2.5 million to $3 million for use in perpetuity. The CBC has since announced plans to launch a new songwriting contest in association with Nettwerk Music Group, offering $100,000 to the winner. In an interesting twist, CTV — a privately owned competitor of the CBC — reached a deal to buy out the rights to the song shortly after negotiations with the CBC fell apart.
The most interesting part of the story is the question of who created the value surrounding the song. Would the song be a cultural icon if the CBC hadn’t licensed it for the past four decades? Would it be worth $3 million CAD? Scott Moore, executive director of CBC Sports, notes that “the only reason that it had the value that it has and the ability that they had to monetize that by selling it to a third party is because of the long association with CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada.” (audio stream – 2:05)
The CBC, a broadcaster funded by taxpayers, was being held to ransom for a song which they had made valuable.
This seems to be a perfect example of our current intellectual property systems favouring invention at the expense of innovation, favouring creators at the expense of those who might add value to their creations.
(Shout out to Joel Alleyne for tipping me off to this story.)
