Category Archives: free culture

Here‘s a BitTorrent file that will get you, p2p, the video of the Hearings on the INDUCE Act, prepared by Tom Barger. Watch, and blog the substantial noninfringing use. Continue reading →

Reason brings some reason to the JibJab jumble, through an article by Jesse Walker. Continue reading →

“The Integral” has an album of remixed campaign ads called “Campaign Songs,” available under a Creative Commons license, and hosted by the Internet Archive. Continue reading →

Ernie has a very nice criticism of my claim about the publisher’s jab at JibJab. So does Martin. I hope they’re right. See also Chris Cohen‘s excellent collection of cases. Continue reading →

Karl puts it more succinctly than I. Continue reading →

Everyone’s seen the brilliant JibJab Flash of Bush/Kerry. The piece claims to be a “parody” of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land.”

As any copyright lawyer recognizes, it is not a “parody” in the sense that “fair use” ordinarily recognizes it. A “fair use” “parody” is a work that uses a work to make fun of the author. JibJab is using Guthrie’s work not to make fun of Guthrie, but of the candidates. (For the now classic case on this, see Dr. Suess v. Penguin Press, where a “parody” of O.J. Simpson using The Cat in the Hat was not “fair use.”)

Guthrie’s publisher’s lawyers too recognize this. As CNN’s Allen Wastler reports, Guthrie’s publisher is now threatening JibJab.

What’s great about this story, of course, is the levels of hypocrisy. Guthrie was not much for property rights himself. It’s said that there is a not-often-sung verse:

But whether Guthrie believed in property rights or not, the key thing this story should do is force us to ask generally: Does a law that makes a political parody such as Jibjab illegal (even if it is not a “parody” in the copyright view of the world) make sense?

(Note to citizens: We’re permitted to change the law.)

(Thanks to Paul Puglia!)
(UPDATE: Ernie says I’m wrong.) Continue reading →

Roger Ailes on Outfoxed‘s use of clips (from an interview in Broadcasting & Cable, not available online):

Any news organization that doesn’t support our position on copyright is crazy. Next week, we could take a month’s worth of video from CNN International and do a documentary “Why does CNN hate America?” You wouldn’t even have to do the hatchet job Outfoxed was. You damn well could run it without editing. CNN International, Al-Jazeera and BBC are the same in how they report-mostly that America is wrong and bad. Everybody should stand up and say these people don’t have the right to take our product anymore. They don’t have a right to take a year’s worth of Dan Rather or Ted Koppel and edit it any way they want. It puts journalism at risk.

Notice the strategy: Rally the cartel to protect itself against the critics.

And the New York Post:

It’s a dangerous precedent.

Not just because it so badly twists the truth. Or violates copyright laws.

But also because it sets up every news outlet for the same low blow.

If The New York Times or CNN approve of this tack, then just wait until someone lifts an early draft of some Times piece or CNN’s out-takes.

No doubt, a double standard will kick in, and they’ll be up in arms.

But they’ll have been defamed nonetheless.

By now, Americans are used to these tricks of the Left � shady tactics for which the film’s sponsors, MoveOn.org and George Soros, are notorious.

But good people � good journalists � must stand up and deplore this trend. They should let Soros & Co. know that deception and outright theft transcend reasonable discourse.

Continue reading →

The end at Slate? Continue reading →

Jim Gilliam, one of the producers on Outfoxed, has a great account of O’Reilly’s temper tantrum about reaction to the movie.

UPDATE: thanks kd. I don’t agree that the points are “reasoned” and I certainly think it is absolutely wrong for him to continue to slander Glick as he has, but I’m happy that the debate avoid side-issues. Continue reading →

Thursday at Slate. Continue reading →