6 ms·

Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line? MIT did a Gangnam style video, did they pay Psy for the right to do so? If BMW were to do a Gangnam style video,

Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line? MIT did a Gangnam style video, did they pay Psy for the right to do so? If BMW were to do a Gangnam style video, surely Psy would expect to be paid, right? Why BMW and why not MIT? We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long. [That said, I'll reiterate my previous comment about record labels who bring hundred-million-dollar suits against their fans: fuck them.]

primatology 14y ago
BMW is a for-profit business. MIT is a non-profit educational institution. I'll agree that copyright in the digital era is a mess, but the line in this case is fairly clear. Yes, fair use (regarding parodies/satires) is convoluted, but the general rule makes intuitive sense to me: unless your parody is blatantly for-profit/self-advancement, you're covered.
- jamesmcn 14y ago
  So, what if BMW kicked the BMWCCA a few bills to make a "parody" video of their own?
  - rmc 14y ago
    It's up to judges to decide if they have broken the law and if it's an actual commercial. You can't just claim an advert is a parody and get away with it, it has to be an actual parody.
- gadders 14y ago
  A non-profit with $15b in total assets and endowments. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figures-0914.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figur...
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    And yet still a non-profit in actuality and intent.
    - gadders 14y ago
      Very true. But if a non-profit with $15b asked to license some of my IP for free I think I'd ask for some cash.
fossuser 14y ago
"We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long." It's more nuanced than that - modern copyright is not doing what it was supposed to do (http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...).
shin_lao 14y ago
Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Actually copyright laws were pretty clear, we just had massive regression due to intense lobbying of greedy entities.
- saurik 14y ago
  A) If you accept this argument premise, then you violate the assumption that PSY is "ignoring copyright infringement" in the first place. B) Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use".
  - PerryCox 14y ago
    >Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use". Weird Al rerecords the music, but the notes are the same and that is considered fair use. I know that Weird Al ask for permission from artist before releasing any songs, but it's not something he is required to do.
    - saurik 14y ago
      Recording your own performance from the same sheet music and "using the music verbatim" (in which context I meant using the "audio" verbatim, while changing only the "video") are fundamentally different situations.
      - Natsu 14y ago
        Both halves are copyrighted, though. Musical works have copyrights that are independent of the copyrights on any particular recording thereof. Ref: http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-music-copyrights/ http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-...
        14y ago
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
"Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line?" Individual and not-for-profit uses are fair. http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declar...
MichaelSalib 14y ago
MIT didn't make a Gangnam style video at all. The Korean Students Association at MIT did and got a bunch of random students to help out. The KSA doesn't have any money; BMW does.
danielweber 14y ago
MIT pays a flat ASCAP license fee that covers all its students which probably provides them substantial legal cover for most use.

primatology 14y ago

BMW is a for-profit business. MIT is a non-profit educational institution. I'll agree that copyright in the digital era is a mess, but the line in this case is fairly clear. Yes, fair use (regarding parodies/satires) is convoluted, but the general rule makes intuitive sense to me: unless your parody is blatantly for-profit/self-advancement, you're covered.

jamesmcn 14y ago
So, what if BMW kicked the BMWCCA a few bills to make a "parody" video of their own?
- rmc 14y ago
  It's up to judges to decide if they have broken the law and if it's an actual commercial. You can't just claim an advert is a parody and get away with it, it has to be an actual parody.
gadders 14y ago
A non-profit with $15b in total assets and endowments. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figures-0914.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figur...
- chris_wot 14y ago
  And yet still a non-profit in actuality and intent.
  - gadders 14y ago
    Very true. But if a non-profit with $15b asked to license some of my IP for free I think I'd ask for some cash.

fossuser 14y ago

"We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long." It's more nuanced than that - modern copyright is not doing what it was supposed to do (http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...).

shin_lao 14y ago

Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Actually copyright laws were pretty clear, we just had massive regression due to intense lobbying of greedy entities.

saurik 14y ago
A) If you accept this argument premise, then you violate the assumption that PSY is "ignoring copyright infringement" in the first place. B) Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use".
- PerryCox 14y ago
  >Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use". Weird Al rerecords the music, but the notes are the same and that is considered fair use. I know that Weird Al ask for permission from artist before releasing any songs, but it's not something he is required to do.
  - saurik 14y ago
    Recording your own performance from the same sheet music and "using the music verbatim" (in which context I meant using the "audio" verbatim, while changing only the "video") are fundamentally different situations.
    - Natsu 14y ago
      Both halves are copyrighted, though. Musical works have copyrights that are independent of the copyrights on any particular recording thereof. Ref: http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-music-copyrights/ http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-...
      - 14y ago

vy8vWJlco 14y ago

"Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line?" Individual and not-for-profit uses are fair. http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declar...

MichaelSalib 14y ago

MIT didn't make a Gangnam style video at all. The Korean Students Association at MIT did and got a bunch of random students to help out. The KSA doesn't have any money; BMW does.

danielweber 14y ago

MIT pays a flat ASCAP license fee that covers all its students which probably provides them substantial legal cover for most use.