The big news I heard yesterday? YouTube is taking down those Hitler parodies after complaints from Constantin Films, the company that produced the original movie that the parodied segment is from.
According to this article (“First they came for Hitler”), the legal merits of the takedown are questionable at best.
The legal merits of Constantin’s argument are clear: They do not exist. Downfall parodies take less than four minutes of a 156-minute film, and use them in a way that is unquestionably transformative. Maybe Moturk49 was somehow making a ton of money from his or her Xbox-related parody, but it seems unlikely. In any event, the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in the “Hairy Woman” lawsuit established that the commercial nature of a parody does not render it presumptively unfair, and that a sufficient parodic purpose offers protection against the charge of copying.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to matter much unless you’ve got access to a good attorney and an ability to pay the bills of fighting the good fight.
I was reading a story in the NY Times this morning about the new wave of social networking sites sharing lots of personal details.
Blippy, which apparently can link right to your personal records to display your shopping preferences in almost real time, caught my eye.
This could lead to something…how about Gov.Blippy.com, to display spending by government agencies in the same way? Just hook it up to those payables, which should be public records and, bingo, the public could easily track government spending. If the stock market can display real-time data in so many innovative ways, think of how government spending data could be visually tweaked to provide an ongoing sense of our public priorities.
Are we on to something?
Well, with 18 comments received so far on yesterday’s entry concern The News Formerly Known as Peer, you have to give them credit for stirring up a lot of interest.
Hawaii Public Radio’s Ben Markus did a story about civilbeat.com for NPR this week.
But you might have missed this fine print which can be found in the code behind the main page at civilbeat.com.
You missed what’s embedded in the raw code of Honolulu Civil Beat’s website:
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL PEER NEWS LLC OR ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, PARENTS, PARTNERS, SUCCESSORS, AGENTS, DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS, AFFILIATES, SUBSIDIARIES, OR THEIR RELATED COMPANIES BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (EVEN IF PEER NEWS LLC HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO, OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE WEBSITE OR THESE TERMS OF USE. YOUR SOLE REMEDY FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE WEBSITE INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE WEBSITE CONTENT IS TO STOP USING THE WEBSITE. SUCH LIMITATION SHALL ALSO APPLY WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGES INCURRED BY REASON OF SERVICES OR PRODUCTS RECEIVED THROUGH OR ADVERTISED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE WEBSITE OR ANY LINKS ON THE WEBSITE, AS WELL AS BY REASON OF ANY INFORMATION OR ADVICE RECEIVED THROUGH OR ADVERTISED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE WEBSITE OR ANY LINKS ON THE WEBSITE. SUCH LIMITATION SHALL ALSO APPLY WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGES INCURRED BY REASON OF ANY CONTENT POSTED BY A THIRD-PARTY OR CONDUCT OF A THIRD-PARTY ON THE WEBSITE.
There’s a whole lot more there in the hidden fine print.
For the record, you’ll also find all these many qualifications in the “Terms of Service“, with a link in very small print at the bottom of the entry page to civilbeat.com.
Don’t say you didn’t know!
Does it seem ironic that Sam Slom, who used to refer to the Star-Bullet as the “Red-Star Bulletin”–as if the newsroom was crawling with a bunch of retro-communist types–is now talking about how important the city’s second newspaper is and has even made a bid to buy it?
And yet the Slom/Zimmerman www.savehawaiinews.com links to newspaper stories about the Star-Bulletin sale are sourced from the Advertiser, and don’t include any of the Star-Bulletin’s own coverage.
One newsroom wag wonders…
Could it have something to do with their relationship being “outed” in the Star-Bulletin?
Others who say they have submitted a bid for the Star-Bulletin include:
» State Sen. Sam Slom (R, Kahala-Hawaii Kai), president and executive director of Smart Business Hawaii, and Malia Zimmerman, co-founder of online news journal Hawaii Reporter. Slom, who has been a senator since 1996, and Zimmerman have lived together for the past six years and have been in business together for nearly a decade. They envision a lean investigative publication that is less Oahu-centric than the Star-Bulletin and the Advertiser have been. They have not decided whether to pursue a nonprofit or for-profit model and are still lining up potential investors, Slom said. The two might explore an employee stock option plan, he said.
And so it goes on this fine Friday.
The Star-Bulletin would be a prize especially for Senator Slom.
Constantin Films doesn’t understand the Internet. They have only encouraged them.
Hitler’s reaction to videos being removed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ
Hitler Would Like You to Stop Making Hitler Reaction Videos
http://www.vh1.com/video/misc/507982/hitler-would-like-you-to-stop-making-hitler-reaction-videos.jhtml
Those are outstanding!!
Re the Civil Beat terms of service: there’s another clause in it that I stumbled over. Check out paragraph 3 in the “Who Owns What” section. It seems as though you can’t quote anything found on the site, however de minimis or fair use your intention may be, without advance permission. They also want to limit damages to the greater of $100 or whatever you’ve paid to Peer News in the preceding 12 months, and to set the statute of limitations at one year.
I imagine that lawyers have vetted this (despite the efforts to inject a lot of “cools” and “not cools”), but I still don’t think that anyone can inoculate themselves from liability or libel suits so easily. I’ll be watching to see how this plays out in court, as is inevitable — if Civil Beat has any longevity at all.
Frankly, I’m turned off by these terms. I can’t quote them in any manner without getting permission. If I sign on, I’m agreeing to have them send me “marketing, business, or product-related emails.” I have to use Paypal to pay them (Omidyar’s ebay owns Paypal). It’s a lot to give up in return for something whose value is yet to be seen.
not being a legal scholar by any stretch, it seems like peer news is setting itself up to write whatever it wants with no legal/punitive responsibility in the event something goes awry in a story. . . don’t see a problem with them deflecting blame/libel, etc., from some yahoo who posts something libelous on their comment page. . . that would be a nice thing for media to have protection from. . .
I agree. PayPal ONLY? Why restrict my freedom to pay otherwise? Glad to see that the gazzilionaire’s lawyers are protecting the fragile genius while leaving us “little guys” no recourse whatsoever for whatsoever. Classy for a “public interest” endeavor, eh? So who will participate? Just “their sort.” The messy voices will be put off by the restrictions, disclaimers, & etc. It’s Pierre’s world, we’re just contributing content to it (free.)
“Value yet to be seen” indeed!
Aloha from Waikiki
Comfort Spiral
I’ve read much of what’s available on Civil Beat to non-subscribers and am somewhat disappointed, yet curious enough to still be considering a one-month subscription.
My first concern is that the “hosting” function will distract reporters and keep them from doing serious investigative work.
This is tied to what seem to be fundamental problems with the CB “business model.” In this regard, thanks, Ian, for collecting and excerpting the self-descriptions of ProPublica.org and the others as well as passing along their links.
Where these groups promise to “investigate and expose,” CB merely states that it will explain and report. In it’s Money section, it promises to fact check the claims of the powerful, but that’s about as far as it goes.
Also, the “gated community” nature of the site combined with its terms of use, may well prevent the movement of any investigative work, should any be done, to the wider community.
I was at first amused by the terms of service. Fair use is a matter of federal law, but someone with deep pockets can practically write their own law. When that happens, it isn’t at all “cool.”
Now, what about reiterating what “fair use” is, instead of taking the Lingle approach to asserting power over the user? In other words, let newbies know what they can and can’t do. (Hint, I know all this is being read).
A site that can’t be cited just won’t fit in today’s internet. I doubt that’s what they intend.
But I’m not sure what they are saying.
Also, it’s obviously a test site, the articles are stubs. Maybe they’re just trying out the capabilities of the code. Maybe our comments and remarks make us beta testers. They can fix all this, of course, after reading all the reaction.
I’m also amused that the “conversation” can take place outside, out here, for free! That’s right! And Ian has not, so far, imposed strange terms of service on his commenters. That’s a flaw in the business model. Whatever they produce, we are able to reflect on it, if we wish, here or anywhere.
I think Ian’s website is pretty “civil,” by the way, and has been “the” place for exactly this kind of conversation for some time.
Thank you, Larry.
I’ve set up a poll asking whether you would be willing to shell out $240.00 per year for this site:
http://damontucker.com/2010/04/24/question-would-you-fork-out-240-00-a-year-for-online-news/
Not one person so far has said they would be willing to pay for it.
It will be interesting to see more results as they come in.