Once again this blogger makes Cracked.com ("5 Famous Online Copyright Crusaders Who Are Total Hypocrites")

At this point I've lost count. It's at least the fourth or fifth time that my shenanigans have landed me on popular humor site Cracked.com.

This latest appearance comes courtesy of an article titled "5 Famous Online Copyright Crusaders Who Are Total Hypocrites".  With a title like that I just had to scan and tear it down and analyze it to see what I was doing that was so hypocritical... but I honestly can't find anything about my own part in that very strange episode from the fall of 2007.  In fact, the entire article is about corporations - as Viacom did in that incident - who cry and crow about copyright laws protecting their assets and then steal and violate the assets of everyone else without giving a damn!!

Anyhoo, my situation, "Viacom Lays Claim to a County Board of Education Campaign Video", made #2 on the list.  And if you wanna see the commercial that started it all, from my 2006 campaign for Rockingham County Board of Education, click here to watch "Christopher Knight for School Board TV Commercial #1".

(Personally, I'm still more proud of Commercial #2 and Commercial #3.  In fact, Commercial #3 has always been my favorite of that batch of ads.)

Read More

3-D Printing: The next battleground for digital copyright law?

Been a might busy on numerous fronts lately so I haven't had much of a chance to get in a game of Warhammer 40,000 in awhile (though that also owes to the fact that I've been building up my army of Orks, muhahahahahaha!!!)

Anyhoo, it's from the world of 40K which this next item comes from. Seems that Swedish torrent-trackin' site/political party/new religious denomination The Pirate Bay, which has already made a name for itself letting users search for songs, movies, video games and books, has now added 3-D models to its database.

Which means that through the ever-improving technology of 3-D printing, it is now possible to download physical objects via the Internet.

Here's how it works: you download the model and using a 3-D printer, the computer lays down layer upon layer of plastic or resinous material, gradually building-up a physical object. Right now the technology is still pretty rough, not to mention hideously expensive. But, it's rapidly getting cheaper and more refined...

So only a week or so since The Pirate Bay started offering links to 3-D models and already they're in legal trouble. Lo and behold this first bit o' litigation comes from Games Workshop, the producers of the wildly popular Warhammer 40,000 miniatures wargame. As was reported on the Huffington Post's website, Games Workshop sent a cease and desist order to The Pirate Bay after finding that one user had uploaded a 3-D file from which folks could download a Space Marines Dreadnought.

Lemme 'splain why this is significant. In the universe of 40K, a Dreadnought is a bipedal walking tank piloted by a Space Marine who, though grievously wounded and near death on his own, is given a new lease on life as a cyborg. And the model for this attractive bit of tactical tabletop weaponry costs in the neighborhood of fifty dollars American.

Now you start to understand why Games Workshop is eager to nip this in the bud before it has a chance to blossom. Games Workshop is charging copyright infringement and The Pirate Bay has acquiesced by removing the link to the model's file.

I can see why this will be a problem. And as much as many people complain about the high cost of Games Workshop's models, I for one can understand it. The craftsmanship of that company's artists is top-notch: we're not only buying the models, we're giving compensation to the men and women who come up with these crazy good minis!

But even so, and as many of this blog's readers know already, I have a lot of issues with much of digital copyright law, while at the same time absolutely respecting the rights of the content's originators.

Wanna know what I think? The quality of the finished products are fairly crappy. At least, they are right now. That won't last for much longer though. And when the time comes when 3-D printing is as ubiquitous on our desktops as the monitor and speakers, companies like Games Workshop should not only be ready for it but embrace it as a new market. I can certainly see Games Workshop selling official 3-D models to print via a client application right at your own computer. Need some new appendages for those Tyranids? Just click "buy" and you'll be entitled to one digitally-rights managed set of horrific slashing arms for your gene-stealers! Need more? Simply add to your quantity of purchased product. Easy-peasey, Japan-easy! Games Workshop gets its due and the end user gets official models and parts for his or her army! Hey, that's the model which has worked wonders for iTunes. I don't see any reason why it won't work for 3-D printing either.

There's some exuberant discussion going on right now at Bell of Lost Souls, my favorite 40K-dedicated blog (I visit it several times a day, and they cover a lot of other wargaming mini systems as well). Definitely worth checking out to see what other, more seasoned wargamers are saying about the implications of 3-D printing not only on this hobby but on culture as a whole.

As for how things stack up currently, I don't think Games Workshop needs to worry itself too much. Here's a picture of the printable Dreadnought in question...

Good Lord, that thing is HIDEOUS!! I wouldn't dare bring such a fugly model to the table. Nor would any other respectable 40K player. Even the ones who allowed that one guy to use a Coke can as a substitute for a Carnifex.

Read More

The end of general-purpose computing?

It's a bit of a long read, but Corey Doctorow has published an exceptionally well-written piece at Boing Boing about the direction that general-purpose computers are going in regard to SOPA (the "Stop Online Piracy Act") and other dubious legislation. Doctorow recounts the history of digital rights management measures, how they have all ultimately failed and will continue to fail, and how it is driving information as we know and enjoy it to become way too specialized.

Here's a snippet...

...Ultimately, the question is whether every PC should be locked, so that their programs could be strictly regulated by central authorities.

Even this is a shadow of what is to come. After all, this was the year in which we saw the debut of open source shape files for converting AR-15 rifles to full-automatic. This was the year of crowd-funded open-sourced hardware for genetic sequencing. And while 3D printing will give rise to plenty of trivial complaints, there will be judges in the American South and mullahs in Iran who will lose their minds over people in their jurisdictions printing out sex toys. The trajectory of 3D printing will raise real grievances, from solid-state meth labs to ceramic knives...

Regardless of whether you think these are real problems or hysterical fears, they are, nevertheless, the political currency of lobbies and interest groups far more influential than Hollywood and big content. Every one of them will arrive at the same place: "Can't you just make us a general-purpose computer that runs all the programs, except the ones that scare and anger us? Can't you just make us an Internet that transmits any message over any protocol between any two points, unless it upsets us?"

Anyone else having visions of the future that William Gibson gave us in Neuromancer, with its black market computer shops and software dealers?

"When PCs are outlawed, only outlaws will have PCs!"

Read More

Blizzard stops, then allows "World of StarCraft" mod

Now this could be a story about copyright issues that may wind up having a very happy ending...

It all starts with one Ryan Winzen, a 25-year old artist who claims to have no inclination toward video game programming but who has been creating custom maps for Blizzard's Warcraft and StarCraft games since he was 13.

A few days ago Ryan sent shockwaves across the Intertubes when he went public with a lil' project that he's been working on...

Yup, "World of StarCraft"! Ryan is using the in-game editor and assets to create a StarCraft II mod that is... well, World of StarCraft. And it's exactly what you're thinking it is: a massively multiplayer online game that does for StarCraft what Blizzard's mega-popular World of Warcraft has done for the company's other well-known franchise.

Remember: Ryan used the StarCraft II editor and the game's own assets to pull this off. Which is something that everyone thought was what Blizzard allowed... nay, encouraged from its player base.

There was a proof of concept video that Ryan posted on YouTube. I didn't get a chance to see it but the blogosphere is abuzz about how crazy awesome Ryan's skillz are!

Unfortunately, it wasn't online for long before Blizzard's parent company Activision had it taken down and hit Ryan with a cease and desist order! But by then the word was on the street about the World of StarCraft mod. And... well... it fast turned into a PR problem for Activision.

So here's the good news: Blizzard has announced that it has no intention of halting Ryan from working on World of StarCraft. The company clarified that it does encourage the StarCraft player community to use the games' editors to express themselves creatively. And not only that, but for his daring and initiative Ryan Winzen has been invited to visit the Blizzard campus and meet the development staff! Ryan has also apparently been approached by another video game company that has expressed interested in working with him (read that as: "potential career opportunity").

Very neat outcome for Ryan. Here's hoping that he goes far :-)

Read More

Thoughtcrime: Music festival organizer PRE-sues bootleggers

If you're going to attend the Mile High Music Festival this weekend in Denver, don't even think about bootlegging the music. Merely considering the notion means you've already been sued by event producer AEG Live. The company has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against "John Does 1-100, Jane Does 1-100, and XYZ Company" for illegal bootlegging... which hasn't even been committed yet. Since nobody exists (yet) to contest the lawsuit, it moves ahead in court. It also means that AEG Live can get "law enforcement involved by using the lawsuit to ask the court to order US Marshalls, local and state police and even off-duty officers to go ahead and seize and impound the bootlegged material."

Techdirt has more about this legally ridiculous situation, including the full text of the filed lawsuit.

(How soon will it be before we start seeing companies like Viacom using this sort of tactic against YouTube users? Can't help but wonder about that. 'Course, I of all people have more than enough reason to wonder...)

Read More

The Knight Shift is standing up for The Sideshow Coalition

About three years ago, this blog's eclectic proprietor had to learn awful fast and hard about Viacom and its dispute with YouTube. If you recall, if you worked it out in your head then logically Viacom was accusing me of violating my own copyright after Viacom took my work without permission and used it for a show on VH1, and then accused ME of copyright infringement for posting the clip of that onto YouTube.

Well, I won that case as best I can imagine an individual could take on such a huge corporation and eke out a victory (again, thanks in no small measure to the good people at the Electronic Frontier Foundation). And I've been keeping an eye on Viacom ever since. One of the things that has galled me most is how Viacom and its mega-hypocrite of a CEO Sumner Redstone have shown such disdain toward independent content producers such as myself. And recently Viacom referred to people such as myself as a "sideshow": intimating that the original content we're coming up with isn't as "legitimate" as the bigtime corporate-produced material that's allegedly being uploaded to YouTube in violation of copyright.

I'll use the terminology that I used then: this is "bass-ackwards".

Well, an artist named Alan Lastufka has disclosed that he's been assisting YouTube in its defense against Viacom. Lastufka and several others have come together in what they are proudly calling "The Sideshow Coalition". I'll let Lastufka explain things in his own words...

We recently all wrote brief statements for the court to read on how we’ve used YouTube to not only reach an audience with our original work, but how we’ve made YouTube a home, a business, or a place for friends and family.

My piece focused on DFTBA Records, and how this little company Hank and I started, run out of my garage, promoted only on YouTube, is now supporting numerous musicians full-time, myself full-time, and making tens of thousands of listeners from every country in the world, happy.

And none of that would be possible were it not for YouTube.

If Viacom wins this lawsuit, YouTube may be forced to manually approve every video uploaded to the website, making it impossible but for a select few to post videos on the site. No longer would YouTube be a place for everyone, it would be a place for Partners who are legally bound not to upload copyrighted content. This is obviously not what YouTube, or any registered YouTube user, wants.

Our testimonials and personal stories will hopefully help the court decide in YouTube’s favor. Viacom doesn’t understand YouTube, or the community. And Viacom wants every registered user to have to pay for the actions of a very small portion of dishonest users...

You can help by bringing this case to the attention of others. You can simply tweet a link to this journal entry, or you can read the brief and write your own thoughts on your blogs.

If YouTube loses this case, we will all lose.

Here's the link to the amicus brief that the Sideshow Coalition has filed in support of YouTube. What I especially appreciate about this is that Alan Lastufka and his colleagues are rigorously defending productivity and originality, whereas if Viacom has its way this kind of home-grown industry will be greatly diminished if not outright quashed.

Needless to say, I am throwing whatever support and goodwill that I can muster behind the Sideshow Coalition. And I will gladly encourage everyone else reading this to do likewise.

(Thanks to Jenna St. Hilaire for passing along the info!)

Read More

Google accuses Viacom of secretly uploading its own videos to YouTube (WOW!!!)

This is gonna be a helluva fun thing to watch. I'm getting the popcorn ready even now...

Media conglomermonster Viacom - which has tied up the video hosting service in litigation for the past three years over "copyright infringement" - is now said to have been secretly uploading its own videos to the Google-owned website!

From the statement on the official YouTube blog, pertaining to court documents made public earlier today...

Because content owners large and small use YouTube in so many different ways, determining a particular copyright holder’s preference or a particular uploader’s authority over a given video on YouTube is difficult at best. And in this case, it was made even harder by Viacom’s own practices.

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and every Web platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.

Good. Lord.

If true, Viacom's actions are about the most boneheaded legal maneuver pertaining to digital entertainment that I can think of since Universal tried to sue Nintendo for using Donkey Kong to infringe on King Kong when Universal didn't own King Kong to begin with. That case became a huge victory for Nintendo and helped propel it to being the corporate giant that it is today. Might this allegation - if found to be true - prove to be a similar boon for YouTube? Yeah, I think it's possible.

Click here for more about this story, and the learned minds that are Slashdot readers are already contributing their trademark colorful thoughts to the matter.

EDIT 6:48 p.m. EST: Do not think for one moment that I am NOT hysterically giggling about this turn of events, for reasons that should be more than obvious :-)

Read More

YouTube called: I beat Comcast

Okay, YouTube didn't really call me, but you know...

Last month I reported that Comcast was giving me grief about how I posted a clip from E!'s show The Soup where they used MY commercial from the school board campaign in 2006... without asking me, but I was fine with that. I just expected the same courtesy from E! and its ownership that I have given them. That's not too much to ask, in my mind.

And of course, this whole thing is too much like that crazy situation with Viacom a little over two years ago. And just as I did with Viacom then I filed a counterclaim with YouTube, per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

A short while ago I received the following e-mail from YouTube:

Re: [#561937480] YouTube Support

Copyright Service to me

Hi there,
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we've completed
processing your counter-notification regarding your video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FpFrMVWOo

This content has been restored and your account will not be penalized.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team

So for the third time now (first Viacom, then NBC which quickly acquiesced and retracted their claim against me for posting a clip of The Jay Leno Show that also used my commercial, and now with Comcast) my filing the DMCA counterclaim has been successful. And that's why I'm compelled again to discuss this. Because if an independent content producer like me can take on three multi-billion dollar corporations over DMCA abuse and win each time, then any small-time content producer can do likewise and come out on top.

None of us are without some pretty potent weapons. We just have to know how to use them... and use them properly.

So here it is again: E! Television's The Soup featuring my school board campaign commercial :-)

Glad that this got resolved. And I hope that it never has to happen again!

Read More

AGAIN?! Looks like I'll be fighting Comcast now...

So I got back from a delightful day of various and sundry stuff (including finally seeing Avatar, review or something coming soon) and I started catching up on an inordinate amount of stuff that had piled up in my absence.

Well, there were two e-mails from YouTube in the e-mail account I use for KWerky Productions. And both of them said that the clip I had posted two years ago of E!'s The Soup had been yanked for "copyright infringement".

It's an exact repeat of the situation with Viacom in the summer of 2007.

Sigh...

You know, the first time this happened, I had to laugh. Couldn't help but giggle at the absurdity of it all. I mean, that was about, what... one minute of a television program and most of it consisting of MATERIAL THAT I HAD CREATED FOR MY SCHOOL BOARD CAMPAIGN!!

It was no different than quoting from a news article. But Viacom jumped flunky about it and had that pulled. I fought, it got reinstated (with more than a little help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation) and I thought that whole thing ended amiably enough.

This time however, I'm more than a little pissed-off.

But this is what it's like under the conditions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, dear readers. As things with the law stand now, ANYONE can have ANY material removed from YouTube or any other hosting service, for the most dubious of reasons... and without YouTube even being obligated to check the veracity of such a claim.

One of these days a political candidate who's campaign has been posting clips on YouTube like crazy is going to find all of his or her videos deleted by order of their opponent. And YouTube will be unable to stop it. The videos can be reinstated 'course, but that first video took me two weeks (and a lot of publicity) to be restored. And that's an eternity in politics, and many other things.

So guess I have no choice. Gonna have to fight all over again. But this time I'm gonna do my damndest to make something out of this that Lord willing will make it a lot harder for this crap to happen to anyone again.

Stay tuned.

Read More

IP Masochism: Games Workshop C&D craziness promises customer blowback

I caught on Slashdot this morning that Games Workshop, the publisher of Warhammer 40,000 (which I have gotten into this past year) has sent a very harsh cease & desist to BoardGameGeek, a website devoted to all things pertaining to tabletop gaming. The C&D from Games Workshop has ordered BoardGameGeek to "remove all fan-made players' aids. This includes scenarios, rules summaries, inventory manifests, scans to help replace worn pieces -- many of these created for long out of print, well-loved games. GW did this shortly after building a lot of good will by re-releasing their out of print game 'Space Hulk' to much hoopla."

What the hell is Games Workshop thinking?

Ya know, I'm no stranger to the crazy world of alleged "copyright infringement". And even though my situation was in the purview of the American legal system and Games Workshop is a company based in the United Kingdom, some things are common sense no matter where the jurisdiction is. I didn't mind it that my TV commercial was picked up and broadcast without my permission: I was too honored that so many (like E!'s The Soup and Jay Leno) found it interesting, thought-provoking and funny enough to share with others than to get angry at them for it.

So it should be with Games Workshop. Especially in these days of downturned global economy. Fans of Warhammer 40,000 and other Games Workshop products are doing the company a huge favor by demonstrating their love and loyalty to the game and its fictional universe. It's free advertising that Games Workshop doesn't have to spend a single pound or dollar on. The company had already come to rely on word of mouth to maintain and generate interest in Warhammer 40,000. Well, that's all it is that these fans are doing. There is no intent to violate intellectual property on their part, and every intention to support the game.

But it looks like Games Workshop has no intention of likewise supporting the players, and is even choosing to punish them for their enthusiasm.

This will come back to haunt Games Workshop in the end. Maybe not in the short term but in the long range of vision this is going to drive away many of even the most loyal customers that they currently enjoy. What Games Workshop is doing is not good marketing at all. The company needs to reconsider its position and like yesterday, if it wants Warhammer 40,000 to continue with anything like robust growth.

Read More

MPAA shuts down town's entire Wi-Fi over one download

Coshocton, Ohio is a town without free Internet. Thank the Motion Picture Association of America, which successfully turned off Coshocton's Wi-Fi connection to the world because, allegedly, one person used the wireless access to download a copyrighted movie.

In addition to being of great benefit to out-of-town tourists and business people, the Coshocton County Sheriff's Department personnel have found the Wi-Fi service to be a tremendous convenience by letting then file an accident or incident report without having to leave their vehicles. That's no more, because the MPAA somehow mustered up enough power to violate the Geneva Convention and subject everyone in town to collective punishment.

(Just one more reason why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act needs to be mutilated beyond all possible recognition.)

Read More

Electronic Frontier Foundation launches Takedown Hall of Shame!

The Electronic Frontier Foundation - which many of y'all will remember came to the aid of Yours Truly two years ago during that very bizarre situation with Viacom - is now setting out to document "the worst of the worst" of bogus copyright complaints. Hit here for the Takedown Hall of Shame, featuring outrageous acts of DMCA abuse by Warner Brothers, the Nation Organization for Marriage and many more!

(By the way, in my opinion there are few finer organizations out there than the Electronic Frontier Foundation: those guys really go all-out to defend the rights of content creators. If you're feeling so led, ya might wanna consider making a contribution to 'em 'cuz they definitely more than earn it :-)

Read More

Celebrating a century of copyright paranoia

For all the frustration that independent content producers such as myself are running into with multi-billion dollar media companies regarding YouTube and other self-publishing outlets, it's comforting to know that we are not the first... and no doubt won't be the last either.

Putting it into perspective, Nate Anderson has composed a very good piece over at Ars Technica titled "100 years of Big Content fearing technology-in its own words". In it Anderson documents a century of hysteria on the part of copyright holders that in retrospect is absolutely laughable: everything from fears of the photocopier after World War II and how some dreaded the coming of the VCR, on back to John Philip Sousa's screed against player pianos and gramophones (pictured). It's only too interesting to note that in spite of all of the "warnings", that there has been no evidence at all that technology has stifled creativity... or that the copyright industry has done anything to encourage creativity, for that matter. Quite a rollickin' good read no matter where you're coming from.

Read More

I'm speaking at SPARKcon in Raleigh this evening!

Just a friendly reminder that if you want to meet the blogger/proprietor of The Knight Shift in person and you're going to be in the Raleigh/Durham today, that you're in luck!

I will be at Artspace, located at 201 East Davie St in Raleigh at 5:45 p.m. this afternoon during the filmSPARK track of SPARKcon: a grassroots-organized four-day festival celebrating individual creativity around the Triangle area and throughout North Carolina. This will be the fourth annual event and this year SPARKcon will be held September 17-20. I'll be speaking about the bizarre "copyright infringement" situation that happened between Yours Truly and Viacom on YouTube two years ago.

Look! Event announcement!

The Dude Who Took Down Viacom: One Filmmaker's StoryEVENT LOCATION
Artspace

EVENT DESCRIPTION
Meet North Carolina filmmaker Chris Knight, a.k.a. "The Dude Who Took Down Viacom". In 2006, Knight made a campaign advertisement to help promote his running for a seat on Rockingham County's Board of Education. Knight did not win a seat on the board, but he did win some internet and media fame as his commercial was featured in The New York Times, on the Fox News Channel, every major newspaper in the state, on National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, by the Heritage Foundation, VH1's show "Web Junk 2.0", and E! Entertainment Television's show "The Soup". The major attraction of Knight's commercial was his creative use of Star Wars as an allegory for his strong commitment to reforming education practice. Life was good for Knight, until he loaded a few clips of his infamous commercial's featurette on "Web Junk 2.0" onto Youtube and was slammed with a copyright infringement claim. Come here the details of Knight's battle tonight as the filmmaker recounts his battle with Youtube and VH1's parent company Viacom firsthand.

SPONSOR
Artspace

And look again! There's also a Facebook page for "The Dude Who Took Down Viacom"!

Once again, I am compelled to note that I am very thankful to Nene Kalu, Kathy Justice and the rest of the good folks organizing the filmSPARK track for inviting me to take part in SPARKcon. Check out the SPARKcon website for more information.

And I hope to see you there! :-)

Read More

Meet "The Dude Who Took Down Viacom" at SPARKcon in Raleigh!

That commercial is going to haunt me for the rest of my life, isn't it? :-P

SPARKcon is a grassroots-organized four-day festival in Raleigh celebrating individual creativity around the Triangle area and throughout North Carolina. This will be the fourth annual event and this year SPARKcon will be held September 17-20. And I've been invited to speak that Friday night about the very crazy situation that happened between Yours Truly and Viacom two years ago.

Look! Event announcement!

The Dude Who Took Down Viacom: One Filmmaker's StoryEVENT LOCATION
Artspace

EVENT DESCRIPTION
Meet North Carolina filmmaker Chris Knight, a.k.a. "The Dude Who Took Down Viacom". In 2006, Knight made a campaign advertisement to help promote his running for a seat on Rockingham County's Board of Education. Knight did not win a seat on the board, but he did win some internet and media fame as his commercial was featured in The New York Times, on the Fox News Channel, every major newspaper in the state, on National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, by the Heritage Foundation, VH1's show "Web Junk 2.0", and E! Entertainment Television's show "The Soup". The major attraction of Knight's commercial was his creative use of Star Wars as an allegory for his strong commitment to reforming education practice. Life was good for Knight, until he loaded a few clips of his infamous commercial's featurette on "Web Junk 2.0" onto Youtube and was slammed with a copyright infringement claim. Come here the details of Knight's battle tonight as the filmmaker recounts his battle with Youtube and VH1's parent company Viacom firsthand.

SPONSOR
Artspace

And look again! There's even a Facebook page for "The Dude Who Took Down Viacom"!

I'm really exciting about doing this, and I'm very much thankful to Nene Kalu, Kathy Justice and the rest of the good folks organizing the filmSPARK track for inviting me to take part in SPARKcon. Check out the SPARKcon website for more information and hey, if you're gonna be around that evening I'd love to meet ya! :-)

Read More

Southeastern Conference bans social media at sports events

"No Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or TwitPic!" That's the dictate being sent to sports fans and students of Southeastern Conference member schools if they want to attend athletic events. Under its newly adopted media policy, the SEC has informed its schools that "Ticketed fans can't produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event."

It's effectively a ban on all so-called "social media". Per the new regs, a fan could get ejected from the premises simply for using his iPhone to take a picture of himself at a Gators football game and sending it to his friends on Facebook.

So what's behind this boneheaded move? The $3 billion contact with CBS for the next 15 years, giving that network exclusive media rights to cover SEC games. In other words: if you go to an SEC event, you and your cellphone are potential competition to a multi-billion dollar broadcast television corporation equipped with the latest cutting-edge high definition technology.

This isn't entirely unheard of, but for a collegiate athletic conference to crack down on the fans themselves is certainly new (and treacherous) ground to tread. Not to mention darn near unenforceable.

Read More

I'm pretty sure ABC/Disney won't like this

At this moment, Johnny Robertson of the local cult calling itself the "Church of Christ" (which has nothing to do with the real Churches of Christ) is broadcasting an entire story from ABC's Nightline about real estate scamming in Martinsville, Virginia as part of his What Does The Bible Say? (or as I call it The Martinsville Taliban Show) on WGSR Star 47.

So let's look at the first part of the Walt Disney Internet Group's Terms of Use, with emphasis mine in red font...

1. INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the Internet sites of the Walt Disney Internet Group ("WDIG"). "WDIG Sites" include Disney.com, ABCNEWS.com, ABC.com, ESPN.com, DisneyShopping.com, Go.com, Movies.com, FamilyFun.com, and other Internet sites on which these terms of use are posted. WDIG and any and all entities that control, are controlled by, or are affiliated or under common control with, WDIG are collectively referred to herein as "we," "us" or "our".

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS OF USE CAREFULLY BEFORE USING ANY WDIG SITE. By using any WDIG Site or by clicking a box that states that you accept or agree to these terms, you signify your agreement to these terms of use. If you do not agree to these terms of use, you may not use the WDIG Sites.

Note that special terms apply to some services offered on certain WDIG Sites, like subscription-based services, rules for particular contests or sweepstakes or other features or activities. These terms are posted in connection with the applicable service. Any such terms are in addition to these terms of use, and in the event of a conflict, prevail over these terms of use.

You acknowledge that these terms of use are supported by reasonable and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you acknowledge that such consideration includes your use of the WDIG Sites and receipt of data, materials and information available at or through the WDIG Sites, the possibility of our use or display of your Solicited Submissions (as defined below in Section 3, entitled "SUBMISSIONS") and the possibility of the publicity and promotion from our use or display of your Solicited Submissions.

2. USE OF CONTENT

All information, materials, functions and other content (including Submissions, as defined in Section 3, entitled "SUBMISSIONS") ("Content") contained on WDIG Sites are our copyrighted property or the copyrighted property of our licensors or licensees. All trademarks, service marks, trade names, and trade dress are proprietary to us and/or our licensors or licensees. We may change the WDIG Sites or delete Content or features at any time, in any way, for any or no reason.

Except as we specifically agree in writing, no Content from any WDIG Site may be used, reproduced, transmitted, distributed or otherwise exploited in any way other than as part of the WDIG Site, except that where a WDIG Site is configured to enable the download of particular Content, you may download one copy of such Content to a single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided that you (a) keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices, (b) make no modifications to the Content, and (c) do not use the Content in a manner that suggests an association with any of our products, services or brands. Any business use, "re-mailing" or high-volume or automated use of WDIG Sites is prohibited.

In the event that we offer downloads of software on a WDIG Site and you download such software, the software, including any files, images incorporated in or generated by the software, and data accompanying the software (collectively, the "Software") are licensed to you by us or third-party licensors for your personal, noncommercial home use only. We do not transfer title to the Software to you. You may not distribute or otherwise exploit the Software or decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-readable form.

So... did Johnny Robertson, the Martinsville Church of Christ, WGSR Star 47 and its general manager Charles Roark acquire express permission from Disney and ABC to use their copyrighted material wholesale?

Probably not. They are clearly committing an act of blatant copyright infringement. But hey: we're talking about people who haven't cared about things like laws, ethics and personal responsibility before. Why expect it now?!

(And now Robertson is repeating his year-old lie that one area church is engaging in child pornography, sans any evidence supporting his wild claim.)

Read More

MPAA wants teachers to camcorder movies, not rip DVDs

Try this one the next time you go to see a blockbuster movie like Star Trek in the theater: record it with a camcorder and if you get caught, tell the cinema management that "I'm a teacher who needs this for my students!"

Nutty though it sounds, that is what the Motion Picture Association of America is telling teachers to do instead of ripping video from copyrighted DVDs if they want to get clips for classroom purposes. The MPAA has even prepared an instructional video (left) demonstrating how teachers can set up a television with DVD player, and then aim their camcorder at the screen to record it. Which is not only silly but as the article at Ars Technica notes, this is much more laborious and time-consuming on the part of the teacher as opposed to digitally capturing (AKA "ripping" the video segments that they need).

This should be a moot thing anyway, since use of copyrighted material for legitimate educational purposes has long been acknowledged and allowed under fair use provisions.

And how is this different from letting students come in with projects they have made using copyrighted material anyway? I took some communications classes at Elon and a lot of other students did work with clips from movies and TV shows that flat-out astounded everyone who watched 'em. In the modern era does that mean that according to the MPAA those students would all be criminals 'cuz they didn't capture their footage with a camcorder?

(They'd prolly still look better than the MPAA's own "instructional video", that's for sure...)

Read More

AGAIN?!? YouTube yanks my Star Wars fan film for "copyright" dispute

Oh geez...

Many of you remember a little over a year ago when YouTube yanked the clip I had posted of VH1's Web Junk 2.0 that made use of my my first school board commercial.

Well, this morning I got another "Video Disabled" e-mail from YouTube.

This time, it's about Forcery, the parody of Misery - about George Lucas being held captive by an overly-obsessed Star Wars fan - that we shot in 2004. Forcery was released in 2005 and I posted it on YouTube the following year, so it's already been on YouTube for about three years now.

If you've seen Forcery, then you know that when Lucas (played by lifelong friend Chad Austin) is driving back to California after writing the script for Star Wars Episode III, he turns on the radio and finds himself listening to the classic song "A Horse with No Name" by America. And the song plays on through when he loses control of his car and crashes in the blizzard, only to be later rescued by his "number one fan" Frannie (Melody Hallman Daniel).

Well, somebody has a problem with "A Horse with No Name" being in Forcery and this morning the following e-mail arrived from YouTube...

Dear kwerky,

Video Disabled

A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video FORCERY - Part 1 of 7. The audio content identified in your video is A Horse with No Name by America. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue.

Replace Your Audio with AudioSwap

Don't worry, we have plenty of music available for your use. Please visit our AudioSwap library to learn how you can easily replace the audio in your video with any track from our growing library of fully licensed songs.

Other Options

If you think there's been a mistake, or you have other questions, please visit the Copyright Notice page in your account.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

Here are some of the reasons why I find this removal to be particularly silly...

1. No one made any money from Forcery. I certainly have not. You have to be a little nuts to make a movie for the first time, not knowing what you are doing and "learning along the way", realizing fully well that you can not see a dime of profit from it. Forcery was a labor of love, and we all had a wonderful experience making it and if I had to go through it again knowing that it couldn't make money, I absolutely would. If anything I lost a few thousand dollars.

2. The complete song of "A Horse with No Name" isn't fully employed by the film, and the vast majority of the time that it's playing, George Lucas is speaking on his cellphone to his producer Rick McCallum. The song has faded into the background and then comes blaring back for dramatic effect when Lucas has his "I've got a very bad feeling about this!" moment. It's not like anyone can make any quality MP3 rip of the song from this clip.

3. As with every song and bit of music that is used in Forcery, I gave attribution for "A Horse with No Name" to musicians (they being the band America) in the end credits. That is something that I have done from the beginning and have always done. It is not at all like I used the song and pretended that I whipped it out of my hat.

4. Forcery could be categorized as a "Star Wars fan film". And the vast majority of fan films - from any milieu out there - use copyrighted elements of some form, be it music or something else. If Forcery has to get yanked because of this, then I would imagine that most other fan films on YouTube and elsewhere are likewise in jeopardy.

5. Come to think of it, the same can be said for most of the other stuff on YouTube as well. Including all of those cute video "mash-ups" using puppies, the Sesame Street Muppets, etc.

So is the rest of Forcery going to also be pulled from YouTube because I used a bunch of Slim Whitman songs?

I'm inclined to laugh about it though 'cuz there's some irony given the timing of this development. And just last night on the phone Chad and I were talking about Forcery and now, well... I guess he's going to have to put up with being in the limelight a little bit more for his terrific portrayal of George Lucas.

Right now I'm mulling it over about what should be done about this. But in the meantime, you can still watch Forcery if you like, in a variety of sizes of Quicktime video. I'll be the first to admit that it's a bit rough around the edges, but a lot of people have called it "hilarious", "whacked" and "like a Troma film but with less violence". So if you feel so led to watch it, enjoy! :-)

Read More

Viacom v. Knight at the Citizen Media Law Project

A few days ago was the one year anniversary of that very strange situation between multi-billion dollar multimedia conglomerate Viacom (owner of CBS, Paramount, Comedy Central and many other brands) and Yours Truly. If you're fairly new to this joint here's my first post about what happened and here's the list of all the news articles that I could find about it. Long story short: that wacky first TV commercial that I made for my 2006 school board campaign was broadcast on VH1's Web Junk 2.0, which even though neither VH1 or its parent company Viacom asked for permission I was still fine with it, 'cuz I thought it was pretty hilarious.

Anyway, I posted the short clip of my commercial on Web Junk 2.0 on YouTube, 'cuz I was so proud of it and that Rockingham County, North Carolina got such a shout-out. A month and a half later YouTube yanked the clip at the demand of Viacom 'cuz... get this... Viacom claimed that I was violating their copyright! Well, I filed a protest and the whole thing got some notice, and two weeks later Viacom acquiesced and the clip was restored. Here's the clip that caused so much trouble, including very many less-than-polite comments aimed at Viacom made by other YouTube users, which for reasons that shall be left to myself, I am not choosing to delete.

A few months ago Jim Ernstmeyer wrote me. He's at Harvard Law School and is involved with the Citizen Media Law Project. It aims to be a very extensive database of law pertaining to ordinary folks who - willingly or no - find themselves on the front lines of copyright litigation. The centerpiece of the project is the Legal Threats Database. Ernstmeyer asked for some information about what happened between me and Viacom, which I was more than happy to oblige him with.

And now, Viacom v. Knight is an entry at the Citizen Media Law Project! Which kinda officially makes it legal history. The entire site is well worth checking out for anyone with an academic interest in digital copyright or (like me, unfortunately) comes under the gun of bigtime corporate legal action.

Read More