Added: Sep 7, 2008

From: urbanblog

Duration: 8:38

Or does it? This is a journalistic parody on the subject of copyright. Download Kembrew MacLeod's excellent book for FREE herehttp://www.freedomofexpression.us/book.htmlIn the video I say that parody and journalism are "protected" areas. So is education, so that's the category I'm putting this video into.Musician Sandro Oliva was prevented from wearing face hair that looked like that of his idol, Frank Zappa.Time-Warner owns Happy Birthday. Pay them if you wanna sing it.And see my blog for more ranting if you haven't had enough already.http://brainpilot.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-owns-wiggling-air.html

Channel: Education

Tags: cafe  copyright  flag  frank  hard  harry  journalism  kembrew  macleod  oliva  parody  potter  rock  sandro  violation  youtube  zappa 

Rating: 4.94 (118 ratings)    Views: 2464' favoriteCount='26    Comments: 93

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - I probably will. Very soon!

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Not in that league yet!

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Exactly.

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - I haven't bought anything by Zappa that Frank didn't at least oversee to completion. I don't care what Dweezil thinks is cool! He isn't Frank, no matter how much he wants to be!

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - As long as I can quote you back!

bedoboy Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Only seen this now and its still up so must not have broke copyright. Its crazy I tried to put some of my Irish songs up for rev sharing but YTube wanted to know did I have permission so only put my vlogs up for rev sharing. Its ok to leave them up as long as I don't put ads on them.I did copyright law as part of media course and even taping a program off tv is copyright but fine as long as you don't sell it. Don't think anyone would buy a few recorded soap opreas. Great vid and love H Potter.

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - It simply means that no copyright holder DMCA'd me. Strictly speaking the copying is illegal, but you are not going to be persued because the practice is so common. The monetary aspect is what drives people to sue, but the legality is clear, even if its application isn't!

bedoboy Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Could not have said it myself, when I do sing a song I always credit the writer or the version of song I am singing over. Just scared me that they would remove the vids just for a test in rev sharing so quickly cancelled them. I am free to sing away as long as I don't try and put ads on them, maybe I should write an original tune.Everything is copyright now as I said taping a tv programme, before dvds used to tape stuff on tape just for personal use but if I tried to sell it thats wrong.

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - YT channels that were not partner channels have been taken down for copyright infringement. They don't care whether there is money involved. From their point of view there is always the POTENTIAL that your "abuse" might make money.

bedoboy Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Thanks for updating me I applied to be a partner to make longer vids and have auto play to promote my friends videos.Only putting vlogs up for rev sharing so thats about 10p I am owed now, well next month will find out how much I did or did not make.I cringe when I saw my friends removing vids with music a few mths ago but my videos showed no copyright, until I put them up for ads, could have taken chance and proved I owned copyright but why take the chance of losing channel for peanuts.

PuppyHate Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Intellectual property is bullshit. All property (as we define it today) goes against freedom."property is despotism" -Proudhon.

Quag7 Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - One of the interesting things is, if they ever had any kind of moral upper hand - the ability to use guilt, say, to implore people to stop "copyright violations," they've lost it.Now, it's spite. Not only do people blatantly not care that they are breaking copyright, but when confronted about it, many people get a small charge out of it - copyright violation has become a "political act."These companies and "rights-holders" have no one to blame but themselves.

ANGLEBOOT Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - I stopped at 3:25. You say as long as they are not making money from it, what's it matter.Oh but youtbe/Google is making money off it.Money you never see, but yet still making money.

mglittlerobin Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Ha ha, it's still here.

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - So a Artist can't own his or her own work? They can't make money off their trade?

PuppyHate Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Depends if the people who are excluded from the artists work are forced to be excluded from it or are voluntarily excluded.

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - "the people who are excluded from the artists work" Explain this.

PuppyHate Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Property means to have exclusive rights over the use of an object or idea (in the case of intelectual property). So if the artist has property in his work then it means he can exclude others from it.

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Okay so shouldn't an artist be allowed to exclude anyone he or she wants from using their work?

PuppyHate Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - No, not by force.

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - So you mean that if somebody takes my art without permission and goes about using it for their own shit, then I'm not allowed to demand it be removed from their use? And if they refuse then I am not allowed to pursue them legally?

PuppyHate Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - You currently are allowed, but you shouldn't be allowed. It goes against liberty to violently exclude people from certain things."Property is theft" -Proudhon

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - Okay, well I sense some kind of conflict in what you're saying. I am allowed to violently defend my intellectual property? meaning I can beat somebody up or possibly kill them if they steal from me? I don't think violent is the right word. I also don't think Proudhon is right to say property is theft. A auto mechanic can make a living off his skills, why cant an artist? Do you think making art doesn't require time and skill? I spend hours to months on various projects myself.

urbanblog Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - I think what we need to think about here is the balance between enriching common cultural experience and protecting the right of an individual to make money from something that contributes to that experience. I think that everything should be inthe public domain as long as no money is involved. When you make money then the questions become, "Who owns and controls it, and how can someone who doesn't own it be stopped from giving it away?" Tough issues.

xXAkridXx Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - I agree 100% urban. But I fear PuppyHate here represents an emerging generation of people who have never spent much of their life in the era of people actually paying for music, movies & games. So to them it seems only natural that everything should be free. But America is a capitalist country, they don't seem to understand that making art is a lot of hard work, no matter if an individual makes it or a company.