{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/presentation/3/context.json","id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/iiif/nz80k26z5g/manifest","type":"Manifest","label":{"en":["How to Deal with Copyright in the Age of Digital Scholarship"]},"logo":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/019/original/ARSC_Full_Logo_RGB_K.jpg?1605438091","metadata":[{"label":{"en":["Agent"]},"value":{"en":["Tim Brooks (Presenter)","Louise Spear (Chair)","Michael Biel (Videographer)","Leah Biel (Videographer)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Date"]},"value":{"en":["2017-05-13 (Created)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Format"]},"value":{"en":["Video","Audio","Slides"]}},{"label":{"en":["Description"]},"value":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eA major overhaul of U.S. copyright laws is underway in Washington. This presentation will briefly review the current rules for use of copyrighted audio materials in videos, presentations, and exhibits, and look at how changes being contemplated could affect the digital dissemination of musical scholarship. ARSC is allied with three other scholarly associations in the Historical Recording Coalition for Access and Preservation (HRCAP), which advocates for laws that promote preservation and access to historical audio. I will describe the work of this group and the issues it is focusing on, as well as feedback obtained in meetings with U.S. Copyright Office personnel, political leaders, and intellectual property attorneys who are involved in the copyright discussions, and recent court cases that affect scholars and archivists. Finally, I will review three specific case studies of lectures posted on YouTube which incorporated musical excerpts, including one by ARSC, the challenge to those videos by copyright holders which resulted in their removal (or \"take-down\"), how that removal was disputed, and the result. Audience questions will be addressed.\u003c/p\u003e"]}},{"label":{"en":["Language"]},"value":{"en":["English"]}},{"label":{"en":["Publisher"]},"value":{"en":["Association for Recorded Sound Collections"]}},{"label":{"en":["Rights Statement"]},"value":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eCopyright Association for Recorded Sound Collections\u003c/p\u003e"]}},{"label":{"en":["Video Editor"]},"value":{"en":["Amanda McCabe"]}}],"summary":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eA major overhaul of U.S. copyright laws is underway in Washington. This presentation will briefly review the current rules for use of copyrighted audio materials in videos, presentations, and exhibits, and look at how changes being contemplated could affect the digital dissemination of musical scholarship. ARSC is allied with three other scholarly associations in the Historical Recording Coalition for Access and Preservation (HRCAP), which advocates for laws that promote preservation and access to historical audio. I will describe the work of this group and the issues it is focusing on, as well as feedback obtained in meetings with U.S. Copyright Office personnel, political leaders, and intellectual property attorneys who are involved in the copyright discussions, and recent court cases that affect scholars and archivists. Finally, I will review three specific case studies of lectures posted on YouTube which incorporated musical excerpts, including one by ARSC, the challenge to those videos by copyright holders which resulted in their removal (or \"take-down\"), how that removal was disputed, and the result. Audience questions will be addressed.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"requiredStatement":{"label":{"en":["Attribution"]},"value":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eCopyright Association for Recorded Sound Collections\u003c/p\u003e"]}},"provider":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/aboutus","type":"Agent","label":{"en":["Association for Recorded Sound Collections"]},"homepage":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/","type":"Text","label":{"en":["Association for Recorded Sound Collections"]},"format":"text/html"}],"logo":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/019/original/ARSC_Full_Logo_RGB_K.jpg?1605438091","type":"Image"}]}],"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/collection_resource_files/thumbnails/000/097/528/small/ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_thmb.jpg?1730768416","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 1 of 3 - open-uri20200922-6764-p8sut6.mp4"]},"duration":2493.80267,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/collection_resource_files/thumbnails/000/097/528/small/ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_thmb.jpg?1730768416","type":"Image","format":"image/jpeg"}],"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/content/1/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-arsc.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/097/528/original/open-uri20200922-6764-p8sut6.mp4?1600801764","type":"Video","format":"video/mp4","duration":2493.80267,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["AUTO_TRINT_How to Deal with Copyright in the Age of Digital Scholarship [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Next, I would like to introduce Tim Brooks. Tim is the chair of the Copyright and Fair Use Committee. A former two term president of Ask and the author of eight books on television, radio and the history of the recording industry. He has been leading asks efforts to reform the U.S. copyright system since the early to hundreds to thousands. He's been at it a long time. This has involved conducting studies, testifying at Copywrite office hearings and meeting with government decision makers in Washington, as well as with industry representatives from the RIAA. And he's as he says, he has the scars to prove it. The title of his paper is How to Deal with Copyright in the Age of Digital Scholarship. Tim. I'll never look at a bat wing label quite the same way. I must say. Thank you, Steve. All right. First of all, I want to make some comments on practical suggestions, I hope, on the use of copyrighted materials by scholars and archives. Second, we'll have a little bit of an update on recent copyright developments. And finally, three and hopefully three relevant at recent case histories that I think will be of interest to you. So, first of all, using copyrighted material for criticism or comment is almost always fair use. We'd all like, I'm sure, a nice, clean, bright line rules about how much we can use, what we can do. Unfortunately, in the world of copyright, there are very few bright line rules. However, there are some common sense rules which will help you, if only to give you some confidence, but also give you some pretty good defenses to one of them is the link to the excerpt. Now, there's there's folk wisdom out there that you can use up to 30 seconds of recorded piece, copyrighted piece, or you can use no more than half of it.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=11.9,154.92"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/2","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"There's none of that in terms of specifics in the copyright law. However, shorter is better use what you need to use for your presentation or your lecture or whatever. Are you using it for profit or nonprofit? I've heard any number of people tell me that, well, I'm not making anything off of this. Strangely enough, the copy your life says nothing about in the United States, oddly, says nothing about profit or nonprofit use. However, nonprofit may help. What about crediting the author? Some say when I say I indicated where I got it from, nothing about that in the copyright law either. However, creators have egos and that can help you, too. So sometimes that's makes sense to do. And finally, the how widely distributed the copyrighted piece that you want to use in your presentation, your exhibition and your Web site, whatever it is, can be a factor, too. Again, no fixed rules on this. But if what you're doing to fulfill your mission or the mission of your institution only requires it to be local and keep it local. I go wide. If your mission, as is often the case, is to get it out as broadly as possible, then do that, but use some common sense on these things. And even though they're not written into the law, those things can help. Now, almost all lawsuits, if you if you look at the legal history of this, are over commercial uses of recordings. And there's a phrase I want you to remember here of a bounce this off of a lot of lawyers, including Rusholme here, and ask them, you know, challenge me on this. Is there an exception to this? Do you know of a case? And the statement is, no scholar has ever been sued for the scholarly use of copyrighted materials.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=155.97,272.01"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/3","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"No scholar has ever been sued. Now, I'm not saying lost a lawsuit. I'm saying that I've been sued in the first place. And that seems to Paice pass muster. The copyright enforcement in the U.S., frankly, operates mainly by fear. The fear factor, as it were. And as a result of that, in the last five to 10 years, 10 to 10 years or so, an increasing number of institutions have been beginning to use what's called a risk assessment, which is not whether in theory something terrible could happen, but what's the likelihood that something would happen. Almost all of us use this in our in our real lives. I don't think there are too many people who refuse to get into an automobile because it's dangerous or we'll never know some people. But most people will fly someplace even though it can be dangerous. What is the risk? If the risk is extremely low then and the reward is high, then you do it. And this is beginning to take shape. And I can give you a case history on that, too. Risk assessment. There are four factors that are written into the copyright law, I'm told. In fact, somebody I believe is in the audience today. Just this morning mentioned that when the subject of copyright first comes up. Oh, it's complicated, isn't it? In fact, I think it's both complicated and pretty simple when you think about it. What the purpose of it is, what the goals of the of the users of copyright are. So there's four things that the law says, none of them of these specific bright lines. But I think they're pretty clear. The first is, what is the purpose and character of your use? Is it. And the law actually has text on this.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=273.06,384.78"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/4","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"It says criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research are permissible uses. Now, chances are anybody in this audience who wants to use a copyrighted material in a presentation, in a YouTube lecture, whatever it is, is doing so for the purposes of criticism or comment. I mean, that's kind of what we do in life. So that is pretty much on our site. That's one of the four. This is not any one in your home free. These are four factors that can be considered. And those specific phrases, again, are written into the law. What's the nature of the use? Is it fiction or nonfiction that you're that you're quoting? Is it published or unpublished material? Is it commercially available or not available? You're talking about photos or text. Those are all factors to go into those. What about the amount that you views? We've kind of referred to earlier. It's interesting. It's a very short amount. Might infringe. But a long amount might not. It depends. The courts have ruled on what's called the heart of the work. If you just take a short but it's the heart of the work could be more actionable than doing the whole thing. But again, think about what the purpose that you're doing this for, what the commentary is on, and we'll see a little bit of that in an example later. And finally, and perhaps most obvious to most of us is what is the effect on the market? Well, if you're releasing Victor Herbert from 1910, there's probably a big effect on the market for that commercial exploitation by Sony Corporation if they even know who Victor Herbert is. So that that's a fairly simple one, too. But those are the those are the four factors in the law and particularly those very specific words up at the beginning.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=385.02,504.03"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/5","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Their criticism and comment work in favor of use by scholars. This gentleman is Bob Goodlatte. He is a representative from the good state of Virginia. He is also the chairman of one of the most powerful committees in Congress, the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives. That's where copyright law originates. And there have been movements in the recent years largely driven by him to update copyright law, which was last updated in the 1990s. And there is a wide acceptance in Washington that we've found that the law needs to be updated. Pretty much everybody agrees with that. Things, if you can just imagine how much has changed since the 1990s, the Internet, digital and so forth. So Goodlatte has, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has devoted himself to this over the last several years. He's held 20 hearings on various aspects of copyright law. Hearing from all interested parties, seeing where a compromise might be reached, what the issues are and so forth, exploring the whole world of copyright in terms of what they can get done on this. He worked for quite a while with the Register of Copyright, the head of the copyright office. Maria Pawlenty. She, too, is very much in favor of renewing and changing and updating copyright law. She's now out of a job, as you may know, having been fired in a political dust up. So we're in between registers right now and we need to see who is going to take that position as head of the register of copyright. But the real driving factor is, of course, Congress. And this is the man. And he certainly seems to be dedicated to it. Where is the room for compromise? Well, as of 2015, when we were last down there talking to senior people on the Hill Orphan Works, which was raised about 10 years ago and almost made it through Congress, but not quite, has come much, much closer now.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=504.39,634.44"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/6","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Even the photographers who were the chief opponents of that for a whole lot of reasons back then seem to be much more. Peace with it now. And there's there's the the feeling is that, yes, we probably can work out something on orphan works, meaning works for whom you can't find the owner of the copyright, which largely now aren't used at all because of the fear of a lawsuit that might ensue, crafting some legislation that protects you against that. Maybe you'll have to give up the use of somebody comes forward, but you won't get penalized if you did a diligent search. So there's a lot of agreement on that pre 72 recording something that ask has been pushing very hard because almost any change due to federal law will only affect post 1972 recordings right now because of a quirk in the law. Believe me, when I only went to Washington in 2008, even knowledgeable people on the Hill didn't realize that that was the case. Interviewed a congressman who was the go to guy head of the copyright subcommittee at that time. He said, Really? I didn't know that. It's never come up. And it turns out that the RIAA and the record companies didn't want it to come up because they had a good deal go in there and they opposed vigorously even investigating it. And they lost. We got the copyright office through various schemes to, in fact, be mandated to do a study of this. That was risky because for all we knew, they could have sided with the record industry, but they didn't. They cited essentially with our position, which is that pre 72 recording should be brought under federal law and the protections and the orphan works and whatever's passed and federal should therefore apply to older recordings.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=635.34,741.75"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/7","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"And there should be a public domain for the first time, too. So that's now the position of the copyright office is also the position of the library. Congress, too. And the record industry, which was so violently opposed in 2008, I would say, has come a hundred and seventy degrees around. They they they realized that there's something in this for them to if pre 72 hour federalized. So they're no longer opposed in the way they were then. There's still some negotiating there, but they've come around on that largely in the preservation exception, exceptions. What's known among geeks as S.. Want to wait for libraries and archives? Certainly on the preservation side, this wide agreement that due to digital, we need to make changes in that to facilitate preservation and make it legal. You guys are doing for the first time. So a lot has happened to the last 10 years and it's generally been in a positive direction. Obviously, we're not there yet, but things are going in the right direction there. Now, there is one catch. There's always a catch in Washington. And that has been a lawsuit. Well, let's say first let me tell you a little bit about. But ask is done down there. We went to Washington the first time in 2008. Ask who is not present in the 90s when that old not so nice bill was passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We weren't really present in 2003 when the big Supreme Court case, negative case went through. But as of 2008, we were and we got the copyright office finally focused on pre 72 years. As I said, we got them on our side on that. We met with congressional staff most recently in 2015 to make sure that the newer people have come in.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=742.41,863.58"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/8","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Republicans are in charge now that they were aware of what our issues were. And I must say, you'll get all kinds of opinions in Washington and including lawyers down there will say nothing will ever change. Nothing, nothing, nothing. But if you don't talk with the politicians or the chief counsels to the politicians who are perhaps more important on the on the Hill. That's where I'm getting what I just told you about how things are shifting there. And I must say, the chief counsel to the Goodlatte himself, the man who is in charge down there, was so helpful that he was strategizing with us about how we could get some of our goals achieved politically, which is certainly positive to hear as opposed to a pro forma beating. Thanks a lot, guys. So there seems to be some positive things going on. The latest wrinkle, however, is something called the Flow and Eddie Case has flown Eddie Aircraft, their characters, their two rock musicians, now aging. I guess you could say. And they own the rights to the recordings of the turtles. How many people remember the turtles? A lot of people. Yeah. Happy together. They aren't. They were two members. They were the lead singers back then. They've bought out the other guys and they have gone to court to try to get payment for their 1960s recordings when they're streamed and perhaps even broadcast on radio. Currently, they don't get anything because, as I say, it's only 72 forward that's governed by federal law. So they don't want the courts to give them payments for those under common law. We, on the other hand, have no objection to that. They obviously need some clothes. But let them be paid. However, this is this is a bargaining chip.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=864.06,983.6"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/9","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Basically, I said that industries realize that there's something they get out of pre 70 twos being federalized. Well, that's it. That if they are, then they would get payment. But in return, we want what archivists and scholars need, which is orphan works, which is a public domain, which is updating one away preservation. You get that. You get the money. We get what we need for preservation and scholarship and preservation of our history, recording history. If you if the courts take away the this part of it and just give it to them, then there's no incentive, obviously, for the industry to give up anything. You know, screw you. We got what we need. That was the first reaction, in fact, was a bill for Congress, the Respect Act, so-called, which would have given them payments and given nothing, did anybody else OK? That's the first thing lawyers do. They try to get to the store when they can't. Then they negotiate. So they file suit in three courts. We do have some activist judges who simply said no trial, no investigation, no know, give it to them. However, those have all gone on appeal. I would say members may differ with me here, but I would say that at the moment the case isn't looking too good for Floyd. Eddie, it's not over yet. Might even go to the Supreme Court eventually. But New York, which is a key state in this. At the senior at the top level, Court of Appeals has basically said, no, there is that right under the state law or common law. And Florida wasn't very favorable to them either. That's on appeal. Only California was. But even that's still on appeal as well. So this may well play out like the courts move slowly.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=984.11,1100.57"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/10","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"So far, it's looking like it probably will break our way, but we don't know yet. And even if it does, Congress, of course, could intervene. So the three cases all relevant to YouTube. This is Larry Lawrence Lessing, who is probably as a Harvard law professor and probably most famous copyright lawyer in America, author of numerous books about copyright, very influential books. He's argued before the Supreme Court. He knows his stuff. And in 2010, he used clips by a band called Phenix in a lecture which was posted to YouTube. It was showing how users can remix and post songs using those short clips as examples. 2010. Well, in 2013, the label for that banned Australian label sent a takedown notice to YouTube. They said that clips of our band that we own the rights to are being used. So take it down by the law. YouTube has to do that just on notice. This is one the few areas where you're guilty until presumed innocent, until proven innocent. However, there is an appeal process and let's say then filed a counter notice YouTube, put it back up and the label then threatened to sue him and they didn't know who they were suing. I guess because he then countersued for abuse of copyright, which you can do. He was supported by this by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We thought this was a juicy case. He was quoted at the time as saying, Too often copyright is used as an excuse to silence legitimate speech, which I think is an interesting quote. They they hissed and spit back at each other for about six months and then rather suddenly, the label caved. They settled. They changed their procedures and they paid. More importantly, an undisclosed amount to Lessig and the EFL.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1101.89,1239.05"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/11","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"It was a big win for fair use. The words in 2016, Sony Corporation demanded takedown of a lecture by another Harvard professor, William Fisher, which used clips by Jimi Hendrix in a lecture about copyright. The irony of this was picked up by the press using copyright to suppress a lecture on copyright. And stories began to appear in the online press digital music news, Tector Torrent, fake torrent, freak tech investor news. And it showed signs of going viral to the mainstream press. Sony apparently woke up and said, oh, my God, we've got a public relations nightmare about to break over our heads here. And they quickly backtracked and withdrew. Their objections were were upon the lecture, of course, went back up, but significantly in the wake of this YouTube, which doesn't like this kind of nonsense at all. They're being swamped with takedown notices, some of which are clearly overstepping their bounds, has set up a fund and said that going forward, we will defend selected YouTube cases where it seems to be an egregious overuse of copyright, up to a million dollars per case. So are now alongside several law clinics in the area of being a possible backer or someone will take a case like this on because they want to squash this kind of misuse of copyright as well. It's not guaranteed. But they are clearly on our side and say, OK, case number three is very close to home. This is ask. In 2015, we began recording and posting lectures from the New York chapter, as you may know, one of which was a two hour lecture by Vince Giordano on his recreation of a period music for the HBO series Boardwalk Empire. As some of you may know, Vince is a professional musician.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1240.74,1371.68"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/12","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"He leads lead the band called the Nighthawks, which has some national recognition plays all over the New York area. And he's an expert on early recordings as well. So certainly know what he's talking about and what he did in the course of this lecture, which I would recommend to you, by the way, is use 35 audio clips, mostly in pairs. And he would play a minute to two minutes of a 1920s recording by Sophie Tucker or somebody who was appearing in the series, not her, but her character. And then he would play his modern recreation of this and he would describe how he had to change the instrumentation, how he had to adapt arrangements to make this modern high fidelity recording recreate not only literally, but in terms of atmosphere what a recording sounded like by a star like that in the 1920s, Sony and Universal Music and their agents immediately demanded a take down of this. They cited 18 specific clips as infringing their copyrights. When I say immediately, I mean immediately, within minutes after the lecture was posted, the take down notices came in. Clearly, this was not somebody looking at it and saying, I want to I want this taken down. This was computerized. YouTube has a system called a content I.D. system, which has a large library of audio clips, a very large library, and it electronically matches audio matching anything uploaded to see if it matches anything in their giant library. And Sophie Tucker was in their giant library. It's on Sophie Tucker. It automate without a human intervention, automatically spit out a take down notice. YouTube gets millions of these automated takedown notices every year. They don't like it, of course, but they get millions. The industry is trying to beat them into submission, would just bury them and take down notices.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1372.26,1498.97"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/13","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Google gets its more than a billion. Actually, the owners claimed, as I say, that 18 of those clips were infringing and they miss the others. But anyway, 18 of those clips or rather the computer said that they did. And as a result, the lecture was blocked worldwide. The Ask Committee Copyright Committee discussed this. This was the first time we had encountered this first time most of us had any experience with this. We learned YouTube's rules. We filed a dispute. We on fair use grounds, which is fairly easily done. That went to YouTube challenging this takedown. Under the rules, Sony Universal has had 30 days to respond. Then YouTube would adjudicate. But only three of the 18 challenges were confirmed by the copyright holders. Three of them with. Ron and twelve. Drew, no response at all. And YouTube, in fact, restored the lecture after about two weeks. I didn't even wait for the 30 days. Somebody at some point looked at it and said, this is nonsense. Of course, it's a lecture. He was talking over some of the clips of the situation outside the U.S. is unclear. There are different laws, obviously, in different territories. Germany was a big hassle going on with YouTube. And their rights association. But in the U.S., it went back up. Now we have to consider what could have happened after that, though, if the copyright holders remain mad enough, they can file then a legal takedown demand DMC, DMCA takedown notice. That's a legal document. And the danger for asking that is if it's upheld, ask would get what's called a strike three strikes and you're banned from YouTube. But there's also danger for the copyright holder in doing that. First, it's a legal document. And if you misstate clearly something you should have known, such as your ownership chain or something, you have a risk of perjury.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1501.67,1631.72"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/14","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"I mean, this is illegal. There's also the danger that you'll do what Lawrence Lessig did. You could sue them for false takedown for abuse of copyright. Well, you might say ask is a small organization. We can't afford to go to battle in court with these big, deep pocketed people. But we would within the short span that this happened, there were two law clinics that indicated interest in this case. One from Stanford and one from George Washington University. And as I mentioned, YouTube itself is now on record as saying that they might defend some of these case. Why would they put the money up to defend us? Well, they're actively looking for a case like this. They want a case like this. They want a precedent and an adverse judgment against the copyright holders in the in a case like this would be a legal precedent. That's why it's dangerous to the copyright holders to try to pursue this, because they they get much more by fear than they get by law. And as a result, the risk of actually being sued is is quite low. And that's back to the statement. No scholar ever sued since this time, by the way. There's been another case, Western swing lecture, which again got a take down notice, was again challenged using, I think, the same language by Andrew Hansbrough, who runs our YouTube operation, and it immediately went back up. So in summary, use risk assessment and common sense. Some of the things I said above talked about earlier, copyright holders are highly unlikely to ever sue over an academic use. Remember those commentary analysis words that are in the statute? They don't want a court case that goes against them. This is in some ways more dangerous for them than it is for us.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1632.44,1752.91"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/15","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"The courts also, in a string of cases in the last few years have been increasingly sympathetic to fair use defense, even in cases which might seem kind of extreme. Georgia University case, for example, in ruling on the side of fair use and allowing the use of property materials because of that. And finally, YouTube was fair. I must say in asks. Case in this, they're basically on our side in this. So I leave you with the statement that I began with. I hope you all remember this. No scholar has ever been sued for scholarly use of copyrighted materials like. This could probably be answered by Tim or Steve or a combination of both. So where does this leave us with the status of the 372 recordings? Are they controlled by the states in which they were created as property law? Or what do we do? What are we to think about? What are we supposed to take away? As you probably detected from the last two talks, there are some differences of opinion is as good in a free society, but in terms of practical use, which is what I emphasize, practical use. I stand by what I said in the talk, which is that no scholar has ever been sued for scholarly use. So if that's what you're contemplating, then your risk of any kind of attack on that basis is is quite low. And if it average should ever happen. Remember those law clinics out there just waiting for a juicy case to use on defense? That's that's the practical answer on a legal answer. Depends on who you talk to. Lawyers and courts have decided differently. People have in court the progress clause. I would argue says that copyright is not like a house, like a building.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1755.04,1898.35"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/16","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"It's something very different intellectual property for the reasons of the intellectual progress. But different decisions on that have come down legally. However, I come back to the practical side, which is no matter how what you say legally, nothing. Nobody's been sued for this kind of thing. We've always gotten along in the past. We'll get along now. My my practical advice can really be boiled down to, like, forward stay off the Internet. I think if you do it, if you do it, do it. Don't do it on the Internet. The reason for that is because the controlling law on the Internet is not so much copyright law. It's contract law, contract law of the service provider you contact with. And the service provider who is then streaming out into the world. And they all have conditions which control you. They all have conditions on that contract back behind there that allow them to go snooping for you. If a complaint and particularly a well, a deep pocketed complaint wants them to go looking for you. So if you wanted to disseminate music, you want to disseminate it. Historical music. Consider the now very affordable root of of vinyl or c.D. But don't do it on the Internet because the Internet is a very hard with corporate dominance of digital communication. It's a very dangerous place, not necessarily for law, but but because of that degree of corporate dominance. I suppose this question is more for Tim than anyone else. And my apologies in advance if it's a bit tangential, but I'm hoping maybe you'll have an answer to this that's reasonably practical. But a couple of years ago, I was approached in panic by the cello professor at my university where I'm the music librarian. He'd taken his cello, gone up to the Rocky Mountains and there recorded unaccompanied.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=1898.74,2040.31"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/17","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"The second theme of the first movement of the Dvorchak Cello Concerto and posted it on YouTube and was hit with a takedown order from YouTube. This is, of course, absurd hunta, delusional because the piece is published in 1895. So between myself and the cello professor and the university's attorney, we sent a letter to YouTube demonstrating that a piece was under way in the public domain and that even the copyright critical edition of the piece reproduced that particular passage identically to the public domain edition. So there was not even an argument of additions like in that case with Hyperion Records several years ago. So my question is, does YouTube have attorneys that are really that ignorant of intellectual property law? Or was this particular passage matched against some database of sound recordings? How would you ever could you do something so crazy? If he wants to take his cello, walk into my living room and start playing, and I was to throw him out of my living room. Would you think that a copyright argument was a particularly valid argument? YouTube is a private company. It's a private service. It's their property they can do. The hell they want with it. To hell with copyright law. If they don't like your face, they'll throw them off. It's not a public utility. It's it's the terms of service they offer to the people who want to post things, and it's right there in the terms of service. If we don't like your face, we'll throw you off. And yet they didn't. And but you see, the copyright law is not the controlling law. It's the contractual law between the cello player and YouTube. That's what matters. Don't mistake them for a public utility or a public service.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=2041.55,2171.14"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/18","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"They are private companies seeking profit maximization. And if you're if if you're merely inconvenient, you're gone. I would accept that. But they were claiming a copyright violation. Well, what I mean, you did not get a copyright violation notice from YouTube. It has to have been from someone claiming to be the copyright owner who then presumably notified YouTube, as in the cases that I showed you up here. So so it depends on who made the charge in the first place. However, however, I must. What about Mike? We have some difference on this to me. YouTube is not the big bad wolf in this, in matter of fact. Their business model depends on the free flow of information and making it available. And that's why they will defend abuse of copyright law. That's why they sided with us. That's why they sided with us with most cases like this. Yeah, it probably wasn't the music. It probably was the cello. It was the birds in the forest. There was a company in Australia that has been issuing takedown notices on people's when they have their kids playing in the back yard. There are birds. That is definitely what has happened. It is probably the birds. But I'm not talking about the music. I'm talking about. I'm talking about those birds. There could be a book, book of humor, I believe, on copyright law, actually, with court cases like that. Yes. The lawsuit over the silence on a record because. Yeah, but but there are the outliers. I mean, practically speaking, they're fun. But this is not what guides copyright the word takedown notices that you have for that. Leo would also like to thank you for not telling her about what had happened to Vince Giordano's video until after you had taken care of it completely, because it would have would have been a big worry if we had seen what was happening to that video during that period of time.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=2172.16,2299.93"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/19","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"My question is to Steve Roy, the baby. About 20, 25 years ago, George Brock starred in Going Through Pain. George Brock, Donna starting going through papers in at EMI, came across information about a narrowing process. Yes. Where the the EMI bastards that were sent to Victor would be, they the groups would be neutral. Is this now the process that you're talking about of the reconfiguration of the of the group size? It's part of the patent. It's one of the processes. And it's a very slow turning, narrowed what amounts to a needle with an edge to push rather than to cut away. And it deals with the inside wall in preference to the outside world to goose the company actually implies and I haven't really read the patent closely at all the way through yet and put things into English. But it would seem that they put they consider the inside wall of the groove, the weak wall and the outside of the groove, the outside groove, the basically the functioning groove, because centrifugal force would push push the stylus against that when there was any kind of a conflict in use. And that what they did was they also ran the turntable backwards and the turntable on which they used a neural stylus knob to create a even space, if they were looking for the turntable, was running at something like two or three r.p.m.. This was an industrial process. As Joy slid down somebody or, you know, if I can if I find the time for it, I can sit down and analyze the whole thing. And, you know, if I at some point I'll publish the paper. And I simply don't know yet all the ramifications of this because it. It's a really it's a difficult pattern to read.","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=2300.68,2442.25"},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/20","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"No matter how much you know about the manufacturing process. George, George was using that to tell us, you know, the British press things are better because the quicker I can get a bit longer to say, you know, I think we have to bring to a formal closed session. But I think the speakers will be happy to stay a few minutes longer if and if you want to come up and discuss further. But in the meantime, can we give them all one last round of applause?","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528#t=2442.64,2473.36"}]},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["English [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/97528/transcript/19075/annotation/21","type":"Annotation","motivation":"subtitling","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/019/075/original/open-uri20200924-1385-22ql3l?1600957281","format":"text/vtt","language":"en"},"target":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/file_transcripts/associated_files/000/019/075/original/open-uri20200924-1385-22ql3l?1600957281"}]}]},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255830","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 2 of 3 - ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_audio.mp3"]},"duration":1824.95638,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/public/images/audio-default.png","type":"Image","format":"image/png"}],"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255830/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255830/content/2/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-arsc.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/255/830/original/ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_audio.mp3?1730761319","type":"Audio","format":"audio/mpeg","duration":1824.95638,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255830","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[]},{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255837","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 3 of 3 - ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_QA_audio.mp3"]},"duration":689.90844,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/public/images/audio-default.png","type":"Image","format":"image/png"}],"items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255837/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255837/content/3/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-arsc.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/255/837/original/ARSC_conf_2017_Brooks_QA_audio.mp3?1730761947","type":"Audio","format":"audio/mpeg","duration":689.90844,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://arsc.aviaryplatform.com/collections/1144/collection_resources/29701/file/255837","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[]}]}