Save the Dramatic Chipmunk

Absolutely, fair use is a critical right to preserve; efforts to eliminate it in the name of “protecting copyright holders” to me smells like a bait-and-switch tactic to criminalize dissent.  Artists are among the first to be silenced in a society headed toward totalitarianism.

How do users keep the online providers from overstepping bounds in enforcing copyright?  By remembering that the proividers’ livelihood depends on contributions from users.  We can always protest their policies by removing our contributed works.  Without them, they’re stuck with the same corporate-produced works available on network television; they lose their competitive (and artistic) edge.

Lastly, thinking about videos like Bush & Blair singing “Gay Bar”, a technical detail should be pointed out: In a case like this, the music is used essentially without original contribution (other than context).  Synchronization rights are different from the fair use concept.  Existing laws set statutory royalties for using recorded music behind a “motion picture.”  As long as the mash-up author can correctly identify the music behind their work I would suppose that providers like YouTube could use their advertising revenue to pay synchronization royalties to the music authors & publishers.  Alternatively, mash-up authors could seek royalty-free synchronization from the sound recording copyright holder (often the record label).  The publicity of a hit video may be far more valuable than the synch royalties.  Disclosure:  I am a musician and songwriter (although *not* the one who goes by the same moniker as the one I use on I.T.T.) , so I do have a potential vested interest in making the distinction.

Posted by Theodore on Jan 18, 2008 at 8:47 AM