"Ripping" Vs. "Sharing"

The debate about strict copyright laws, digital downloading, and the illegal "sharing" of music has gone on for some time. You shouldn't be able to make a back-up copy of a CD, say some, because that's copyright infringement. You shouldn't be able to download music from a legal Website and then burn it to more than one disc because, again, that's copyright infringement. Apparently digital downloading has caused this horror in the music industry. Yet today, I witnessed something that had me scratching my head. After lunch with a couple of colleagues, they wanted to pop into HMV to grab some "new" music for their iPods. Sick of the same old, same old, they decided to swap: you buy a few CDs you like, I'll buy some I like, and then we'll trade. Hmm...makes sense, right?

To the pro-copyright camp, they just violated the very sanctity of music. How dare you buy CDs and trade music like that? Essentially, that means you got every CD half-price, right? But from the pro-digital, evolution of music standpoint, what they've done is just opened each other's eyes to new music they may never have bothered to buy, in physical format or otherwise. Now not only is there a greater appreciation for different types of music, but there's also the increased chance that they'll like what they hear, and add a new artist to their radar for future purchases. What a concept!

On that note, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there were new CDs available for as little as $12.99, and even $10! The last time I recall, new releases were, at best, $13.99 or $15.99. There were even some pretty good CDs selling "two for $12" or $25. Not bad. Still, I hesitated to buy anything, thinking that I'd just download the specific tunes I want and make a "mixed" CD (only one, of course. God forbid I make one for a friend as well). But at the prices they're at, it's almost worth it to buy the media (especially for the potentially better quality) and save myself the time.

I can't believe I'm saying it, but maybe CDs will return to profitability as people decide that they can't be bothered, or don't have the time, to compile a list of tunes, download them, and burn them to a CD as normal practice. If it isn't a hobby, it can certainly get time-consuming. And iPod owners know how expensive it can also get buying tune after tune, not realizing how much they add up until you get the dreaded credit card bill!

I could be way off base here, but it's food for thought, nonetheless.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving to all of our readers in the U.S. We wish you all the best on this wonderful holiday. Eat, play, and be merry!

Copyrights Might Kill Our Hockey Song

The CBC has decided not to renew its contract with the composer of the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. All across Canada, hockey fans are bowing their heads and pumping their fists in anger. To many, it's almost like saying that the country is going to replace its National Anthem. So why the reason behind the decision?

Many reports state that the network has simply decided to "move in a new direction". But others have dug up information about a lawsuit the composer filed against CBC based on the unauthorized use of the tune beyond the scope of the original license agreement. Reportedly, CBC has license to use the song, composed by Dolores Claman in 1968 and used in partnership with the sport since then, in all Hockey Night in Canada broadcasts in Canada. So when the network decided to use it in the UK, and in "various other productions", Claman cried violation.

In an age where music composers are trying desperately to get their creations heard and recognized, isn't this situation slightly insulting? What has music come to when an inspirational tune that has brought joy to millions of Canadian citizens for 40 years could be lost because the creator did not get every penny of her $500/air play agreement? We'd be naive to think that money isn't a motivator (and a necessity) in music: one needs to be compensated in order to have the means to keep the creative juices flowing. But after 40 years, one could argue that the copyright for that song belongs to Canada, not to Claman. You'd hope she'd be proud of this, but apparently not so, seeking $2.5 million in "damages".

But on the flip side, if CBC's decision to squash the tune is in direct response of her actions (the new license deal supposedly included the exact same terms as always, with no increase in price or difference in usage rights), then they aren't any better than Claman. Granted, $2.5 million is a large sum, not to mention legal fees if the network fights the suit. But is the money worth it to keep Canadian viewers happy?

It's clear that issues of copyright and DRM as a whole aren't helping foster creativity nor secure the rights of music owners. It's just, more and more, being used as a means to grab money from individuals and companies. Meanwhile, we have struggling artists giving their music away online who would kill for the kind of positive association that this theme song has (or perhaps had?) If only music were still about bringing joy to people and not cashing in every way one can...

Online Content Distribution Issues Slowly Smoothing Out

Since the Internet has become a major means of obtaining content of all kinds, it has been rife with issues relating to unauthorized content distribution. We still have a long way to go for these issues to fully smooth themselves out: after all, it's incredibly easy to get whatever information one wants onto the Internet for literally the entire world to see! But we're definitely on the right track.

Just today, music studio Sony BMG made a deal with Yahoo with regards to the use of its music and videos in user-generated content that's uploaded to the site. Yahoo will give Sony a cut of its advertising revenue, and Sony BMG will permit its artist's material to be used in content that appears on the site. Finally a deal that makes sense and is working toward the consumer's interests, not against them.

Encouragingly, this isn't the first of such deals to come down the pike: Sony BMG has already made a similar deal with Google and its popular YouTube property; while NBC Universal and News Corp. said earlierthis year that it would create its own Internet video distribution network that would feature thousands of hours of full-length programming, movies and clips from at least a dozen networks and two major film studios.

Meanwhile, popular sites that feature user-generated content, like Yahoo and YouTube, are working vigorously to employ content filtering technologies that would weed out anything that uses unlicensed copyright material. And music downloading Websites and music studios, like iTunes and EMI, are finally beginning to embrace DRM-free content. In terms of the current Hollywood Writer's Guild strike, which is fueled by the writer's feelings that they aren't being appropriately compensated for content distributed online, rumour has it that the parties are back into negotiations. This is the kind of progress that is very encouraging: don't try to hinder technological development; work with it.

On another note, there are still naysayers that simply won't embrace the changing way we consume content. Famed record producer Jermaine Dupri is one of them, having gone on a rant in the Huffington Post about the state of the music industry. He feels that consumers should buy an entire album if they want one song: that's the way it always has been, and that's the way it should remain. I understand his point that an album is created to tell a story as a whole, and a lot of work goes into creating the "work of art", but to say that sites like iTunes are "helping customers destroy their canvas" is a bit of a stretch. I guess the "random play" option on any CD player or music system should be squashed as well, because this often leads to only a few tracks off each inserted CD playing within a set.

I digress...

YouTube Works on Copyright Video Filtering Technology

In an effort to ward off evil, copy-written videos from being posted on YouTube, Google says its working on some sort of video-recognition technology that would be able to detect content that infringes upon copyrights before it is actually posted.

Although I don’t think it’s right to leave a problem to fend for itself, I also wonder how well such a technology would work. It’s no secret that every time a technology is introduced to prevent illegal copying or distribution of content online, some tech geek hacker finds a way to crack it, and we’re back to square one again.

In some ways, the current method of waiting until illegal material has been flagged and promptly removing it might be the most successful way to go. Sure, some content ends up leaking to a small portion of visitors that manage to catch the video in time (like in the case of the movie Sicko, where about 600 people saw it before it was removed). But is preventing this worth the possibility that the new technology could wrongfully identify a personal video and prevent someone from posting their own stuff? What’s more, if someone is anxious enough to view leaked content online, he’s probably just as anxious to get out there and watch the actual movie/show as well.

Trying to control the behaviour of millions and millions of users will indeed be difficult; especially since YouTube sees thousands of videos posted on its site per day. But it’s a move Google must make in order to protect the rights of content owners. This is especially important since several lawsuits have been made against Google/YouTube, claiming that the company allowed thousands of unauthorized clips to be posted.

According to Times Online, a Viacom lawyer (one of the firm’s named in the suit) said that if the filtering mechanism helps, they’d be "very grateful" for it. But, all plaintiffs in the suit feel that YouTube should have acted sooner.

Google says the new filtering technology should be implemented by September. I can’t wait to see how it pans out!

Copyright in the Digital Age: Web Hoster Bolts on Popular Blog Site

The issue of copyright in the digital, online age is the subject of ongoing debate amongst the owners of content, and those who publish it. If I have a personal Website, can I simply take photos from other Websites and post them to it without permission? Can sites like YouTube be a vehicle for funny commercials, news segments, and music videos without dealing with repercussions from content owners?

Widely popular Hollywood celebrity blog site http://www.perezhilton.com/ (it reportedly receives millions of visitors monthly) was recently shut down. The interesting part of this news is that this was not forced by owners of copyright photos for which the site’s owner has been accused of “stealing” (although several of them have pending lawsuits against him). The site was reportedly taken down by the company that actually hosts the Website! Apparently the web hosting firm was sick of all the copyright infringement suits, and must have figured it would bolt before things got really nasty.

Readers might remember not too long ago, when hilarious skits from music artist Justin Timberlake’s appearance on Saturday Night Live popped up on YouTube. Clicking on them shortly after they were posted would result in a disappointing message: “this video is no longer available.” It’s safe to assume that NBC wasn’t happy. But wait: wasn’t this good for the network, to have people flooding the 'net with proof that its late night show, which many have shrugged off as having lost its appeal, was still funny? (Sidenote: In March of this year, NBC announced that it would collaborate with News Corp. on their own Internet video distribution network, so at least the firm has recognized the value in content distribution on the Web).

It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about scantily-clad paparazzi pix of Paris Hilton, clips from a night time comedy skit show, or digital photographs from a world-renowned photographer: there is arguably a glaring “grey” area when it comes to issues of copyright online, and several online content publishers are teetering on the line between what is right and wrong.

Sure, right now we’re talking about a cheesy, Hollywood gossip site. But I truly believe this could end up being a landmark case for issues of copyright infringement online, specifically in relation to the use of photos, but potentially leading to other areas.

Meanwhile, several reports on the Web indicate that another web hosting company has jumped at the opportunity to pick up http://www.perezhilton.com/, so stay tuned as the saga continues!

(*Sidenote: Literally as I write this, I checked and the site is up and running again!)

YouTube Gets Sicko, Personal

The widely popular video viewing and sharing Website YouTube is getting personal…in nine additional countries. The company plans to launch Websites in Brazil, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, all of which will be translated to the country’s native tongue. Videos specific to each country will be highlighted on each respective site, adding even more of a personal touch.

This is a brave move for YouTube (which is now owned by online search behemoth Google), especially in the wake of ongoing, pesky copyright issues. Several allegation have come forward accusing YouTube of allowing users to post copyrighted material: everything from funny skits from Saturday Night Live (yep, those do exist from time to time), to sporting events.

YouTube’s most recent trouble came yesterday, after copies of the upcoming Michael Moore documentary Sicko was posted to the site, in the form of 14 clips that made up the entire 124-minute film. They were removed as soon as YouTube was made aware of them, but alas, a lucky 500-600 people got a taste of the sickness before it was taken down.

This brings us back to the whole content distribution argument, which is a hot topic in consumer electronics, computers, and Internet these days. Should YouTube be held responsible if its users post copyrighted material? Even if the firm has a strict policy against it, and promptly removes the video once its existence is known? Should the posting YouTube member be held responsible for infringing on copyrights? Should YouTube pay a sort of royalty fee to companies who’s copyright is infringed upon via posted videos?

In the end, it all boils down to one thing: compensation. People need to get paid. If we can find the proper balance between open content distribution and acceptable compensation, the online world would be a much better place.

[Note: The screen shot image that accompanies this entry is actually from the trailer for the movie Sicko, which is still available on YouTube.]