WTFU Watch: In the defense of Youtube

There is a saying in my country that goes: The rope always snaps at it's thinnest. It is meant to say that, those that are least empowered are always the most likely to feel the negative effects in any situation. I'll come back to that.

Doug "Nostalgia Critic" Walker has apparently set the online world on fire with his simple request that Youtube handle reinvent the system by which it judges copyrighted content  and fair use, which is to say it doesn't, and it's rife with abuse and completely lacking a human component.

And I agree with it. All of it. Youtube needs to reform it's system. They've got the money for it. But let's be fair to Youtube.

Copyright laws as they are, thanks to the Digital Millenium  Copyright Act, make Youtube responsible for it's user submitted content. It was designed to prod hosting websites to police copyrighted content on their sites, or face steep, steep fines.


Copyright is supposed to produce innovation, but lot's of elements of  current copyright are doing the opposite, trampling the innovations and formats of the internet to serve old models and those with a stake on them. That's not just ME saying that.

The American government commissioned a Task Force to investigate how to make copyright do more what it's supposed to. It took them 3 years and millions of dollars to make a series of recommendations that I could have told you for the meager ad revenue it would bring me: that steep fines encourage copyright trolling and chill innovation. That Remix culture need to be let breath.

However, that's not the recommendations they are planning to act on. They know their copyright system is broken, and the only way to fix it is FORCE EVERY NATION ON THE EARTH TO ADOPT THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM. So we can all be even in our wrongness.

Youtube needs to revise the ways it handles  copyrighted material on it's site, yes. I completely agree with that. For one, the algorithm that detects the content should  take into consideration amount, and there should be penalties for fake and malicious claims, and Youtube should request that only the owner of the content, verified, can make a claim. It should definitively not be telling me a public domain movie belongs to someone else. But it is not a coincidence that Youtube's system is broken, when they are also under a very broken copyright law system.

I mean, let's face it, Youtube isn't the only  website with user submitted content out there. Practically all social networks work like that, and while it is entirely possible someone could upload illegal content, or just content they wouldn't have on their site at all, you don't see THEM going to this level.

Somebody once flagged me for pornography on Facebook. It was just a stupid drawing and everybody had clothes.

It got looked at pretty fast, it was determined it was NOT pornography, and we all moved on.  Is it any harder for YT? I would think the user base of Facebook is even larger (1.19 billion) and much more likely to put unwanted content than in Youtube (1 billion ), were many users aren't even uploading anything, just watching.  But they don't sweat it. You don't see takedowns like in Youtube. There's people in there.


I'm not trying to let Youtube off the hook. But this bigger than  Doug Walker not getting payed, or me not being able to show my stupid video in Germany. This is bigger than that. This is the very reason we need to reform our copyright system in a way that makes sense for everyone in the now, not just  big entertainment companies in the mid 70's. I made Limited Times very blog precisely to address this kind of issue and to bring it to light.

The rope always does break at the thinnest. Big Entertainment wants laws that make other people (I.E. Government and  Web Hosting sites)carry out a defense of IT'S copyrighted work, when that's clearly their own responsibility. Youtube isn't gonna take the exaggerated cost of carrying out a copyright defense of Doug Walker's video's on court. Rope's gotta break somewhere.

So yes, I support #WTFU . But I also support #Copyrightreform, which is something we desperately need, and we've needed for a long time. It's something I've been championing on a blog for a while.


I look forward to how this turns out. But regardless, remember that this didn't start now. This didn't start when Google bought Youtube. This is the results of years of wrongheaded  mishandling of the very idea of copyright. It needs to be dealt with at it's core, as a nation.

Read More

Public Domain '16 Damage Report includes Supergirl, Ironman, Groot.

Happy Public Domain Day! I join Duke University in celebrating all the works that our current copyright has stolen out of the public domain.

But no offense, Dukey, nobody  gets angry they can't remake Gone with the Wind and shit. I don't know about you, but they didn't show that on TV when I was growing up. People need to know which pop culture artifacts of the today would have been everyone's soon.

This first year's list includes some of the more popular sidekicks and villains in the world, including some who are just now getting on TV and Movies!

I'm dividing this list into two parts.

After the first extension:



Copyright has been lengthened  for 40 years. First they gave it 20 in the 70s, then 20 more the 90s. The following are what would have happened if the second extension had not come to pass.

Lex Luthor

Luthor and Superman go together like nail and flesh.  While there's not a lot about him that's trademarkable (bald, mad scientist, villain) it'd be pretty neat to just up and use him without going all Superman 3 on him.

Cat Woman

Cat puns ahoy! While we're not short on cat themed femme fatales, this would be a total boon on those presumably working on Batman since last year.Catwoman is one of those characters who's just a part of modern Batman. She won't be alone, though since we'd also see...

The Joker

Batman's worst enemy for 75 years straight, the Joker would be a welcome addition to ANY  heroes universe. Or anything, really. Carebears vs Joker? Why nawt?

Green Lantern

 

While not covering the current space cop Green Lanterns, I doubt the opportunity to reinvent Alan Scott, who fought crime with a literal Green Lantern, would be considered a great loss.

Hugo Strange

 

Batman is all  the rage on this list, huh? Hugo Strange is a psychologist, but is also somewhat of a supervillain that wants to kill Batman or maybe fuck him, I don't know.

Flash

 

The original Flash, Jay Garick, could be racing with Quicksilver today.

Hawkman

 

Okay, I don't really know who loves Hawkman. He's just all...well you could use him, anyway.

Robin

Robin is..we all know about Robin. You could go to remote islands  with no electricity and find people who know about Robin. What I'm saying is, it's a bit bullshit that he's not public domain.



But hold on! When those works were created, copyright lasted 56 years.   The above all should have lapsed years ago, and we should be already be getting works from 1959, according to those Commie Pinkos THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

So what stuff from 1959 would lapse today?

Hal Jordan Green Lantern

Hey, unlike the other list, this one includes most of the core elements of today's GL. Carrol Ferris. Guardians.

Supergirl

In this timeline, Superman has lapsed years ago. But until this year, Supergirl remains  locked up.

Gorilla Grodd

With our current fascination with hig concepts, I imagine the villainous, talkig gorilla would be a welcome addition.

Batmite

 

Okay, this one's a bit stupid. Okay, a lot stupid. Batmite is a magic being from another dimension that was around during Batman's "stupid as fuck" phase. Hey, Batman's public domain now, you can do whatever you want with him.

Bizarro

Bizarro am not....Bizarro is one of Superman's most celebrated characters. An endearingly backward version of Superman, Bizarro's just one of those characters you can always find an angle to.

Ironman

Ironman! The guy from the movies! We're not quite talking gold and red demon in a bottle Iron Man yet.

Groot

Groot wasn't always Groot. Well not the Groot he is today. He was once a megalomaniacal tree man from space. I'm guessing that could have it's own uses.

Black Widow

Okay,like Luthor, there's not a lot that Natasha Romanov  has that's  visually important. But  hey,  she's bound to have fans.

Mr Freeze

If you liked chilling with the villains, Mr Freeze would be right up your street. While his mega tragic backstory would remain offlimits for 3 decades more, you'd need fear no lawsuis for including the bubbleheaded icemaster.




I want to make it perfectly clear that when these works were copyrighted, the makers and owners of these characters knew full well that their work was supposed to lapse in 56 years, okay? It was supposed to be an incentive for them to create, and it worked, and now it's not fair to back down and say WE'RE wrong for wanting them to uphold their part of the deal. There's no serious reason why making a Supergirl movie should be  a crime at this point. But it IS.



 That's just my opinion, though. What do you think?

Read More

Wonder Woman! The whole world will be waiting for you 20 more years!

It was nearly (74) years ago where the fruits of William Moulton Marston (May 9, 1893 – May 2, 1947)  and his wife's ideas coalesced into a new character for All Star Comics' latest book book. Not nearly content with his invention of the polygraph, Marston was commissioned with creating a new superhero, with his wife suggesting it be a woman.

And so, Wonder Woman was born. Since then she's remained the most well known female superhero, if not always the best or most understood, in the world. In the island nation of Paradise Island, lives a nation of Amazons, who are found by Steve Trevor, American Air Force pilot. The Amazons fight amongst themselves to decide which ones will take Steve back home in a series of challenges.

The winner of this challenges is Diana, who from now on becomes the Amazon's representative on the world.

Wonder Woman's role at DC comics as changed lots in the last nearly-a-century. Her Island's name became Themyscira. She lost and gained powers such as flight, and talking to animals. She's gone from having been built out of sand, to being the daughter of Zeus. She's gone from the Justice Society's secretary to towering over Superman. Some see this as erratic writing that doesn't lead to a single vision of what the character is and represents, but I like to think it speaks to the malleable nature of the character.

It's a malleable nature that would be serving us all well, should the character have gone public domain in 1997. While DC would certainly have a 56 year headstart on the rest of the world, included a fairly popular television show, most of her rogues gallery's most notorious characters would have been free to use by now, including Cheetah, Giganta, Dr Psycho and Silver Swan. Plus some less known ones, such as Blue Snowman, Eviless, and Zara,. 
s
But instead her copyright got stretched  for 40 years. Strictly litterally speaking, we´re in the middle of the 40 years that were added, and 21 years away from WOnder Woman entering the public domain. Who knows what someone could have gone and invented in these  nearly 20 years that the character has been under copyright? Perhaps those solo Wonder Woman movies, TV shows, videogames that Warner Bros has completely failed to deliver?  Perhaps she could have been introduced in Marvel's stories and be joining the Avengers? Perhaps her villains might have their own comics. Blue Snowman? I'd buy it.

 The potential for Wonder Woman in the public domain is always going to be larger than the limited capacity it could have under copyright. Would YOU like to take a stab at the Amazing Amazon? How? Share in below.

Read More

Dracula is not the biggest sucker in the room

A buncha suckers.

Dracula is one of the most ubiquos characters in the public domain. He's done it all. He's had movies , videogames, TV shows. He's been in goldarned breakfast cereal. He's fought Batman and Wolverine. He's been a Duck, a hotel owner.

Now, when you think about Dracula, what image do you picture? Because for most people, they think of this guy.

That's Bela Lugosi, from 1947's Dracula. The role defined him, and he defined the role. But did you know that when Universal made that picture, Dracula was under copyright everywhere but America? Yes indeedy, as Wikipedia tells us:

"The novel has been in the public domain in the United States since its original publication because Stoker failed to follow proper copyright procedure."

The movie brought vampires to big-time notoriety in pop culture conscience more than the book ever could. However, while the book's since slipped into the public domain for everyone and their Abraham Lincoln to try and do a an attempt at it, the movie that brought the character to the forefront of public conciousness is still property of Universal pictures.

 While they may own an iconic, old-timey movie, Universal has been unable to use that as any kind of leverage  for a modern day franchise since Bela Lugosi died of an overdose.In just the time I've been alive they've made Bram Stoker's Dracula, starring Keanu Reeves and  Gary Oldman as Dracula, Van Helsing in which  Dracula is the over the top villain to a summer blockbuster monster mash-up and Dracula Untold, which takes audiences to Dracula's side of events in which he's kind of a hero. Neither did what Universal was hoping it would do for them.

Unironically, the idea of the vampire predates even the book, as  a part of the myth of dark ages Europeans who, it is believed, would fall victim to the scam of the "vampire hunters" men who pretended to wrestle invisible Nosferatu in exchange for money.

"I caught him, guys!"

 

If Universal was the only one able to work of Bram Stoker's Dracula, we'd probably still have those non-classics. But we WOULDN'T have Castlevania, Duckula, Hotel Transylvania, Blackula... In fact, if Bram Stoker's Dracula hadn't basically stumbled into the public domain, the odds are good it's still be under copyright in America.

What's your favorite take on Dracula? Would it have been made if Dracula had to be licensed?

Read More

Limited Times is gonna #BOYCOTTSTARWARS7 and here's why

I'm not going to let this TPP crap pass without at least rattling some cages. RATTLE RATTLE RATTLE.

Read More

Happy Birthday is back home

Now, it is silly that the song Happy Birthday to be under copyright. As the songs origins hail from before 1921, there is literally no way for it to still be under copyright still.

But for years, Warner has claimed that, as buyers of the company that bought the company that bought the rights from the Hill Sisters, the duo of siblings that composed the song that eventually became Happy Birthday, the most sung song in the world, they owned the rights to it. Warner's earned 2 million dollars from licensing  it, and forced businesses from all over the planet to come up with their own birthday songs. Imagine how many films depicting normal, everyday life had to go "hum...skip to the blowing of the candles." Not being able to display something that's basically normal like for millions of people.

But now a federal judge has arrived at a conclusion regarding the case to prove the song is public domain, ironically brought on by other Hollywood types who wanted to use the song for their documentary about it. Uh...you'd think "making a documentary about it" would be covered by fair use. You know maybe if Warner hadn't been so greedy and let the Happy Birthday Documentary guys off without paying the fee, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Anyway, judge found that Warner is not the owner of Happy Birthday and that, while they own the copyright to SOMETHING it is not the full rights to the song. While I wish the conclusion of the case had been based on "it is impossible for Warner to lay claim to something from before  1921, it is nice to see justice finally done.

Well, mostly done. The jury, as it where, is still out on whether Warner has to give back the money it earned from licensing fees it basically suckered people out of. One would hope there would at least be some kind of consequence for purposely lying about copyright and abusing it like that, creating unfair competition and robbing the public of things they rightfully deserve. And wasting the time and resources of the state purposely with the full intention of deceit.

I mean, we've established that Copyright is serious enough to travel all the way across the planet just to get a guy who is streaming American Movies. Well, this guys lied about owning a public cultural  resource and earned millions from that lie. I would think that's just as serious, if not more. We're fleecing teenagers for downloading mp3s, what would we do with enormous corporations doing something like this?

But it's a time for joy, now, not contention. Here is the song, Puerto Rican style.

Read More

Zombies Ate my Public Domain!

Behold, the movie that spawned the zombie genre!


Now, usually, when you post a full movie like this on your blog, you expect a takedown notice. I certainly can't post E.T. just because we're the same age, because that'd be copyright infringement. But this movie won't get taken down by the owners, because this movie entered the public domain!

The story behind that is weird. The maker, George Romero is still alive and everything. What happened was, back in those days copyright notices where expected to be placed front and center of the work.In a movie this meant putting the notice at the beginning credits. Which makes sense. You let the people know who the exact owner of the piece is, and take out all the guesswork.

However, if the work did not have a proper copyright notice, according to specifications, it fell into public domain immediately.

This is him, laughing.

This is what happened with Night of the Living Dead. The company that financed and distributed it, the Walter Reade Organization, failed to put the (c) in the credits. That's why the term Zombie, the concept of a zombie as an undead flesh eater, and any such is strictly public domain.

If you're gonna lament the maker of the movie failing to keep the idea under his fortress, fine. He did sue the company. Then he carried on making more zombie movies. He's still cranking them out.

This is him, laughing.

If you're gonna lament that it's lead to what appears to be a tiring parade of zombie product, fine. Zombies aren't my favorites,  and frankly in terms of monsters are the one step removed from vampires in terms of creativity. But it going to public domain is the reason we can have:

World War Z

Resident Evil(Game and Movie series)

Zombies Ate my Neightborhood

Plants vs Zombies

The Walking Dead(comics, tv, videogames)

Zombieland

Warm Bodies

DayZ

The usage of Zombies in a multitude of products that aren't ABOUT zombies.

Not all works going to the public domain are Night of the Living dead. Nobody seems particularly interested in remaking Star Odyssey (well...nobody ELSE) a million times. But the possibility is certainly there. Without NoTLD going public domain, George Romero might have made a few movies, promptly forgot about it, and the Zombie Genre as we know it might not exist. A man can make a franchise, but it takes many men to make a genre.

Which other kind of monster would benefit from being public domain? Let me know below!

Read More