Copyrights Shmopyrights
remember tv.links.co.uk?
the site once infamous for its free content, everything from tv to movies, has been left with nothing but a spooky message from beyond the grave: "Something Here Soon". A grim reminder that in this information age people who 'copyright' or 'own things' don't want their creative work 'stolen' pfff.
The front page of the site reminds me of the same feeling I get when I walk past a store gone out of business.
(cleverness courtesy of The Onion)
well, it seems that you can't keep a good idea gone for long. enter sidereel.com
another new-media-wiki-2.0-streaming-content-once-removed sort of deal; sidereel is unique when compared to the other, former, now dead stream sites for one reason.
::drumroll::
it's user generated! From the sidereel blog:
Greg Sandoval writes on CNET: “Recently launched SideReel wants to be a combination Internet video portal, TV guide and search engine, according to CEO Roman Arzhintar.
One of the largest hurdles confronting online video is how to help viewers find what they want. Plenty of companies are trying to solve the problem by offering either powerful search engines (Blinkx) or by hosting as much quality video on their sites as possible (Veoh Networks and Joost).
SideReel has an index featuring links to TV shows, movies and other popular longer-format video attractions found online. The Web site doesn’t host a single clip.”
And that's why, so far, they've gotten away with it.
From Wikipedia (italics added by emceesher):
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself. It also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 8, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the U.S. Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users."
so, just because these pirates aren't hosting a single thing on their website, they're still granting access in a massive way to copyrighted material strewn all over the net.
the writer's strike, as many of us know, was about just this, that the studios themselves were making money off of online content, but the writers were shafted for their royalties.
Sidereel works by letting users do the linking and uploading. And since they're not technically doing anything wrong (other than hosting and encouraging users to post links to copyrighted material) they'll probably get away with this until some sort of legal action is brought against them, they'll settle outside for some outrageous sum of money because the studios have their heads so far up their asses they don't even know how to manipulate copyright law in their favor anymore. sheesh.
legally we all know this is wrong, but ethically, is it? should an architect get paid every time someone stays in the hotel he designed? should Pablo Picasso's family get a share of the entry fees from the MET because his work is hanging there? should writers and studios really retain ownership of their media after its first run? The ontology is interesting here: how do we intuit whether or not an object belongs to some particular person or entity?
it's clear that if you break into my house and take my computer, i'll probably win if you're brought to court and you have my computer in your posession. you took my thing that i own and you'll be punished for it.
but if you snuck into my house in the middle of the night and drew schematics of my computer, opened her up, copied all of the software, and built your own copy of my computer from scratch, will i have standing in court? (ignoring breaking and entering/tresspassing)
the way we think about the ownership of media is probably flawed, and it's probably because of the FBI threatening us every single time we sit down to watch something we are about to enjoy:
So what do you think out there in TV land? Should studios, producers, writers, editors etc. still retain ownership of media after it's out in the world? Or is it up for grabs, anyone shrewed enough to be able to copy an object should not be prosecuted? Sheesh, I really don't know folks.
all images copyright of their respective owners.
Posted by Michael on February 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM MST #