I don’t agree with Michael Moore over much, but for all his many jarring viewpoints, I find his approach to copyright and digital media surprisingly modern and refreshing. As Stan noted last month, Michael Moore decided to release the somewhat stale movie Slacker Uprising for free via download on the Internet:

“This is being done entirely as a gift to my fans,” Moore said. “The only return any of us are hoping for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November. I think Slacker Uprising will inspire million (sic) to get off the couch and give voting a chance.”

Of course, once it was released to the wilds of the web, it made its way very quickly to international torrenting websites like The Pirate Bay. Unlike DVDs and most corporate video distribution websites, there are no regional restrictions. This doesn’t seem like a particularly big deal at first blush, but when you take into account, as TorrentFreak says today, that Michael Moore only owns the distribution rights for the Uniteds States and Canada, it becomes clear that there might be a flaw in this plan.

They had noted that this potential set of circumstances seemed obvious to them, but wondered if it was intentional or accidental by Moore. He responded today.

“What do you think I’m up to? I know it may not be obvious to most, but I think you guys get it,” Moore wrote to us. “I only own the US and Canadian rights. So my hands are tied. But this is the 21st century. What are ‘geographical rights’ ?” Moore continued. “I’ll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?”

He went on to express that he’s looking for folks to pick up on this fact (and perhaps a fight with the international copyright holders?). He might not get one, in this case.  Slacker Uprising isn’t the shockwave-inducing film that Fahrenheit 9/11 was, and isn’t really as relevant to those residing outside the United States as to those inside. For these reasons, it’s less likely that there will be a copyright fight here than under normal circumstances.

I do, however, admire the sentiment expressed here.  While this was incredibly safe ground for Moore to use, it all has to start somewhere, and bringing some scrutiny on the absurdity of copyright rules in the digital age is an admirable goal.

—Related Articles at Mashable | All That’s New on the Web:Slacker Radio Widget Now Available for MySpaceSlacker’s Punk Station for Spin Magazine Cover StorySlacker Signs Deals with 3 Major Record LabelsSlacker Gets Off Their Ass; Builds a PlayerSlacker.com Needs to Get Off its Ass and WorkMichael Moore’s Slacker Uprising Now AvailableSlacker Offers Users More Control over Internet Radio

Earlier this week, I discussed a new advertising service called Lotame, which aims at finding out as much about you as possible and using that knowledge to give advertisers a far more targeted advertising experience than is currently available in the CPM model.

Lotame’s CEO was quick to point out to me over the phone that all of the information the company collects is anonymous and all it really takes from its partners is user age, gender, and zip code.  Promises aside, it still has me thinking: how do privacy and advertising really come together in this space?

Advertising is only effective when the advertiser can derive concrete demographics from the publisher.  In traditional media, that can range from age, gender, location, and interests to, well, practically anything, depending on the success of surveys and other data collection procedures.

But on the Web, all that’s different.  Unlike traditional media where information is collected and maintained for advertising purposes, the Internet is a haven for those that want to be anonymous and any hint of a person’s privacy being compromised will lead to a firestorm of epic proportions.  Not only will that person complain and cry foul, but thousands of people who worry about Web privacy will do the same.  And in the process, the advertiser and publisher will be forced to back off for fear of losing its fickle user-base.

It’s also because of that culture, though, that CPM advertising has been somewhat effective: by its very nature, the only element that matters is pageviews because the more a publisher has, the more they can charge advertisers.

But Lotame and Facebook’s new ‘Engagement Advertising’ aim at changing the way advertising is done on the Web and will attempt to make ads more targeted to the intended audience by collecting more data in a more meaningful way.

As Jeremiah Owyang points out on his Web Strategist blog discussing Facebook’s new idea, the company believes that “traditional internet advertising tactics won’t apply” as online advertising enters its next phase.

Lotame thinks that its plan will make advertisers more satisfied and generally appeal to publishers that are looking to increase advertising revenue at all costs.

But in both examples, I can’t help but wonder if both Lotame and Facebook are forgetting about the major sticking point every advertiser and publisher needs to deal with: the online culture dictates privacy.  And if there is even a hint of an invasion of privacy, the campaign won’t work.

The Web is an entirely new beast that advertisers simply haven’t come to understand.  Based on everything they know, advertisers realize that knowing your audience and getting as much information on them is the key to successful advertising.  But those same people they’re trying to target want to be anonymous on the Web and desperately want to stay out of an advertiser’s crosshairs.  And in the process, a dichotomy forms where on one side, advertisers are trying to make money, while on the other side, users are trying to make sure that doesn’t happen.

So what’s the solution?  I don’t know.  But as long as advertisers and users are on different pages, one thing can be sure: privacy better be upheld. 

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Live Mesh - The Version You Can UnderstandThe Daily Poll: ISPs Serving Behavioral Ads - Invasion of Privacy?Google and FTC Working on Privacy StandardsWould You Join a “Do Not Track” List?Is Ad Infuse Too Creepy for Mobile Advertising?Google’s Crumbling Answer to Privacy Groups: Break It Up.Europe Doesn’t Like Facebook Beacon Either

Source:Mashable!

Have an idea that you think could be the next big thing? What about a new way to do something better? Well, how do you go about taking these brilliant concepts from your head to market? How do you turn these ideas into products and services without getting ripped off? Here’s a rundown of the best tools and resources available for wanna-be inventors, covering everything from social networks to copyright and patent sites, and more:

Social Networks for Inventors

- Incuby - Offers inventors a social networking platform to share ideas, ask questions and get feedback.

- IdeaWicket - Is another online network for creative types.

- IdeaTango - Provides a social network not just for inventors but also service providers and businesses involved with innovative products and services.

- InventTube - Claims to be the largest online service for inventors, patent attorneys, companies and more.

- In.ventors - Is a bare bones network for people interested in inventions.

Recording ideas

You never know when those brilliant ideas will pop into your head, so you need to be able to record and document them when they do. If you’re on the go and not in front of a computer, your best bet is to use your mobile device. Here are some useful services that can assist you with recording your brainstorms on the run.

-EverNote - Lets you record your ideas and thoughts on your cell phone via voice,  text or email. It works very well on the iPhone.

- Jott - Is a simple way to record audio messages on your mobile device. The nice thing is that it will transcribe your audio to text and email it to you along with a link to the audio recording.

- Wridea - Doesn’t record audio messages but you can send your ideas to your wridea account via email from your cell phone.

Tools for Documenting, Sharing & Tracking Inventions

Once you capture an idea for an invention you need to document it and track its process. You will need to create a drawing or prototype of every detail as well. You will also need to be able to share these documents with a partner,  attorney, manufacturer, or others.

- Google Docs & Spreadsheets - Is the popular online office application that lets you create documents that you can share with those you choose. You will also be able to access your document library from any computer with Internet access as well. It includes a Word, Excel and PowerPoint clone (great for giving presentations of your new invention idea).

- Zoho DB - Allows you to create a complex database online that can track every detail regarding your invention including contacts, documents, drawings, etc.

- Gimp - Is an open source image manipulation application that can be very useful in creating drawings of your invention idea.

Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Resources

Here’s some valuable information that can assist you with the inventing process.

- U.S. Patent & Trademark Office - Is Grand Central station for inventors. It’s the official site from the U.S. Government and it’s loaded with incredible information and tools that help anyone involved with patents and trademarks.

- U.S.Copyright Office - This is the official site for all things related to copyrights. Mostly for protecting authors and their works but it covers much more than that. Excellent information available for free too.

- Search Patents or Trademarks - It can cost approximately $500 per patent search. Fortunately, you can now do a decent patent and trademark search for free online thanks to the US Patent & Trademark office. Granted, this won’t be as thorough or exhaustive as having a patent attorney do it for you, but it sure is a lot cheaper.

- How to get a patent - Excellent information about patents straight from the horse’s mouth, the US Patent office. There are many other sites that try to explain the process but this is the official instructions so it’s obviously the most reliable.

- How to get a trademark - The same applies with this resource. It’s the official explanation on how to register a trademark from the US Patent & Trademark office.

- Taking the Mystery out of Copyrights - Informative presentation from the Library of Congress that was created for students and teachers to explain the usually complex process of attaining a copyright.

Useful Sites for Inventors

- Inventor’s Hall of Fame - s an inspirational museum of the best inventors and inventions of all-time.

- Inventor’s Digest - Is the leading magazine for inventors

- Inventor’s Organizations - Official organizations at state level in the USA. Also, some in Australia and the UK.

- Inventor’s Alliance - Has been providing a useful newsletter to inventors since 1993.

- Free Inventing 101 Online Course - Is a free online guide about inventing.

- National Inventor Fraud Center - Excellent police dog for blowing the whistle on those less-than-scrupulous people and organizations out there that prey on inventors.

- StopFakes.gov - Is a service from the U.S. Patent & Trademark office that protects smalls businesses and their online intellectual properties. Excellent information.

Conclusion

Technology can be an incredible asset for inventors. However, one must use common sense when it comes to sharing original ideas in a public forum. While most people might be trustworthy and helpful, there are always those that are not. This doesn’t mean you should shy away from these sites. On the contrary, it’s highly advisable to visit them as often as possible, just be careful about sharing too much information regarding your ideas.

Note: The image of the gentleman holding the giant cell phone is none other than Dr. Martin Cooper the inventor of the first cell phone in 1973. Who knows, you might be the next Dr. Cooper or the dude who invented those thingies on the ends of shoelaces.

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:InvenTube is a Network for InventorsIncuby Is a Network for InventorsGoogle.org Launches Pedal-Powered Machine ContestvBulletin Acquired By Internet Brands, Inc.Gigya Launches Wildfire for Developing Facebook AppsWriting Room is Just Another Network, So FarWordpress 2.3 Released

While YouTube remains partially embroiled in a clash with copyright giant Viacom, its success in serving increasing numbers of Web users with content of all varieties has apparently convinced some in the media world to stop fighting and start capitalizing. Or at least attempt to glean some revenue from the activity happening at all hours of the day on the video site.

Now, it’s no major revelation that such revenue sharing deals have been struck. It was reported in recent months that a number of copyright owners in the music, television, and movie industries determined it would perhaps be more effective to distribute content on the Google-owned video site, rather than devote resources dishing DMCA takedown notices for any legally offensive uploads - arguably to wasteful effect. Even as early as 2006, Universal Music Group was seen making a “strategic partnership” that 1) published material direct from Universal and 2) allowed Mr. or Mrs. YouTube User some incorporation of media taken from Universal’s archives into content uploaded by Mr. or Mrs. YouTube User.

But a report by Brian Stelter of The New York Times is explicitly naming “CBS, Universal Music, Lionsgate, Electronic Arts, and other companies” as having “stopped prodding YouTube to remove unauthorized clips of their movies, music videos and other content and started selling advertising against them.”

What this means is those parties have essentially done what Web video analysts and evangelists convinced of YouTube’s promotional qualities have spent countless hours advising them to do. After having established ardent opposition to the idea that consumer impulses, aggregated en masse, could in fact help their brands and portfolios survive in new and largely unregulated landscape, they’ve gone and reversed course. A pretty significant plus for viewers, no doubt.

Leaving aside what may be the most outstanding peculiarity pointed out by Stelter - that CBS, a subset of Viacom, joins the group of content producers hungry for ad revenue resulting from spots placed aside ordinarily unsanctioned and unapproved video uploads - this recent shift, unfortunately, is really something that could have been made long ago, and to the benefit of all involved. That goes for YouTube as well as CBS and the rest.

While it’s been made clear that users uploading copyrighted content without the permission of the owner(s) “will not share in the advertising revenue generated by their posts,” the negative PR, solidified over time by ardent opponents of an aged and cumbersome legal framework, is something that may well linger, despite media owners’ change in tactic. With news of courtroom battles and what technically might be considered class-action-style bribery by media corporations to induce relatively small-scale payments from consumers under threat of full-fledged, no-holds-barred legal proceedings, bad blood isn’t simply washed away. Stains have set. The picture painted of Big Media is now a complex one. Some especially vociferous folk might say the days for Big Media are incredibly forlorn, even. (Direct attacks against consumers isn’t occurring within the YouTube paradigm, but consumer opinion most certainly carries across website lines, so to speak.)

To be fair, there naturally are levels of infringement that warrant staunch opposition by media owners. But how such companies have tried to conduct their “cleanup” of the digital space is really what has driven the YouTube set to become the force it is today. They have been forced to see their takedown letters for what they are - unproductive and illogical - and now must take a different approach. An approach that, again, should have been sought by their respective executive circles as soon as any illicit activities on YouTube, et al., went from petty to troubling to potentially quite severe.

We’re now at that last stage. We’ve been here for quite some time, actually. The question is, is it too late to make a massive monetary splash? According to an SAI report referenced by NYT, YouTube sales manager Brian Cosack said marketing efforts “appeared on less than 3% of video pages.” If YouTube itself isn’t performing as it should, despite the wealth of data it serves to consumers, what’s to say big-name copyrighters will make much use of the service? Is it a simple flip of the switch? Cooperate with consumer demand, after years of opposition, and see milk and honey flood the digital streets? Doubtful. But what’s the saying…. Hey, you never know?

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Mobile YouTube Now Includes Most YouTube VideosYouTube Launching Chinese VersionLG To Release YouTube Phone with Direct UploadDownload YouTube VideoMandolin Player Sues YouTubeThai King Has Cooties, Drops YouTube SuitNew YouTube API Released

Today, Michael Arrington made a lot of hay about the AP sending mutliple DMCA takedown notices to the Drudge Retort, a collaborative politics blog. Retort founder Rogers Cadenhead summarizes the matter. To summarize: Users of the Retort copied small snippets (~50 words) of AP content and linked back to the content. The snippets were there to give an introduction to the full article, and also to spark a conversation hosted at the Retort about the facts being discussed by the article. The AP responded by sending takedown notices to the Retort for seven of these alleged infractions.

In response, Arrington, in his well-commented blog post, calls for a boycott on quoting and/or linking to AP stories. Why? Because in part, he claims, the AP “do[es] not want people quoting their stories, despite the fact that such activity very clearly falls within the fair use exception to copyright law.”

But as a professor of mine used to joke, it is almost axiomatic that, when a lawyer or judge makes a naked assertion that a law or legal theory “obviously”, “clearly”, etc., the matter is anything but clear or obvious. That is not to say that the use of the content on the Retort was not fair, but simply that the question is closer — a lot closer — than Arrington and the parade of commentors suggest. In other words, the AP may be wrong on the law, but they may also be right.

Before I continue, let me make clear that I think the AP is acting uncommonly silly by fighting against this tide — they can’t win, and even if they do, they may be doing themselves more harm than good. But that does not mean they are, legally, out of bounds. With that aside, let us look at the four fair use factors.

17 USC 107 sets four fair use factors:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The first factor is arguably the most important insofar as fair use jurisprudence is concerned. But over the course of decades of judicial gloss, really has little to do with the “commerical” or “nonprofit” dichotomy. Now, the question focuses more on to whether the use is “transformative”. The Stanford Copyright & Fair Use page asks two questions to help determine if a use is transformative

(a) Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
(b) Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

I can’t imagine either is the case. Contrast the use on the Drudge Retort itself with, ironically, the use on Cadenhead’s wrapup blog post. The latter one discusses the allegedly infringing use in the context of discussing how uncommonly silly the AP is being. The words are given new meaning and new insights are being drawn, as the value of the words is to discuss the validity of the AP’s claim. On the other hand, the original copying of the words lacks transformation — the author was, mostly if not entirely, simply relaying the news as discussed in the AP’s article. That was what the AP was trying to do, to.

In my book, this factor goes to the AP.

Number two — “nature” — deals mostly with whether the copied work is factual in nature. This goes to the Drudge Retort submitter, as the AP is reporting (we hope) the facts of the matters discussed in their articles. Note that this factor not dispositive, as “facts” and “content which is factual in nature” are not synoynms. Facts in and of themselves earn the author no copyright protection, but the expression of facts does deserve protection de jure

I’m going to skip #3 for a bit and turn to #4. So bear with me for a moment.

The fourth factor asks whether the use “deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work” per Stanford. This one should be easy — AP, hands down. First, local newspapers often use snippets of AP articles in lieu of the full article — sometimes, as few as 50 words. (If you are in New York, pick up an amNY or Metro near a subway stop. You’ll see 10+ per issue.) Second, the AP could very easily — and probably should — create it’s own Digg/Mixx/Retort/etc. for AP stories.

Unfortunately, some bloggers flip the test on its head, stating that “little quotations posted by bloggers are not stifling demand for the AP’s product. Bloggers are creating demand, not decreasing demand by creating replacement supply.” That is a great point and I would guess that it is also the reason why Arrington et al are rightfully up in arms. But it does not help the Retort’s case as much as my argument above hurts the Retort. The AP would likely argue that the blogger quoted above is simply wrong, and that the Retort’s use does, indeed, stifle demand for the AP’s product. After all, why should the small-town newspaper or other AP subscriber pay for the content that the Retort uses for free? The AP has every right in the world to limit the supply — that’s exactly the point of the monopoly power of copyright. They do so, in theory, to increase revenues. While they may be doing a bad job there, I can’t imagine that the Retort would be able to use that fact as a way to triumph on factor four. So, this one goes to the AP.

So let’s hit the third factor.

The analysis under the third factor is both quantitivative and qualitative. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218 (1985). Harper is not directly on point, but the tenet of law holds — if you use the “heart” of the content, this factor is not going to favor you.

The quantitative analysis helps the Retort — at most, the clips were 79 words long. No argument there. But whether the Retort users took the “heart” of the content is up in the air. Here’s the test I propose: Let’s say that there are two Retort posts dealing with the same story. One copies the AP headline verbatim and adds no other description. The other uses the first 50 words of the article as well. Which does more page views? Which does more click-thrus? Which has more comments? Using these three metrics, we should be able to tell if the user hit the heart. If the latter does more page views and comments but proportionally dramatically fewer clicks, that is good indicator that the “heart” is there on display. After all, why bother reading the whole thing if you already read the good stuff?

My formula may be off — but that’s OK. The point is that the third factor is more in play than we would facially believe. So unless one is willing to adopt a bright-line rule that a quantitatively small uses of content which is factual in nature is an ipso facto fair use, the AP has a claim. It’s not necessarily a winner, and it’s foolish for them to pursue it, sure. But it’s there nonetheless.

Dan Lewis is a co-founder of ArmchairGM.com and now works at Wikia. He also blogs at DLewis.net. You can also subscribe to his RSS feed.

Partner Links
– Manage your finances online with Geezeo
– Web Jobs
– CenterNetworks LinkedIn Business Group
– CenterNetworks Facebook Fan Page
– Check out SmugMug for a free trial

Ok, so after posting my bitchy rant about people stealing my videos and watching the fallout, I’ve decided a few things about how Internet friends should use and share content.

First of all, any blogger has to be grateful that her content is compelling enough that others want to share it. It’s awesome to be part of the big conversation known as the Internet, and having a share of that voice is an intensely powerful experience. Life-changing, for many.

Traditionally speaking, any content I create belongs to me, and I am the only one who has the right to publish it. That’s from freshman year media law back in, like, 2000. And although it still applies online, it doesn’t really work, does it?

Copyright exists for a lot of reasons, most of them involving or related to money. However, ways of measuring money online are vastly different from ways of measuring money in traditional media. Site traffic, diggs, retweets, and dofollow backlinks are all part of the new currency. So, suppose a video of mine pops up elsewhere; how am I getting paid? The views alone count for something, I rather think. A link back to my site? That’s awesome, too. Drop my name in the tag and surrounding copy, and we’re gold. If none of those things happen, however, somebody’s got to fix the sitch. A bitchy video and a cease and desist letter are not how I prefer to handle my Web issues, but what else is a blogger to do?

Another important aspect of traditional media copyright law is permission. With permission, even if no one’s getting paid, you can do just about anything with content. ‘Member the Woody Allen/American Apparel debacle? Dudes, if they’d simply gotten permission, they could’ve Photoshopped a dildo to his forehead and run the ad at a porn convention in Cuba. Seriously. Sans permission, it’s lawsuit time.

However, the shareability of online content makes ganking text, pics, and videos so fluid and simple that permission is a total afterthought most of the time. I’ve ganked, you’ve ganked… Anyone who’s written a college paper has ganked content from someone who’s either smarter, cooler, or less lazy. Most of the time, no one gets caught, so no one gets hurt.

Asking for permission is scary. “It’s better to ask forgiveness than permission” is a popular glibism for a reason. No one likes risking rejection; and if rejection means you have to create your own content with your own time, money, mental effort, etc., ganking seems much simpler.

So, here we have a big, contradictory mess: Traditional copyright law requiring permission and (usually) payment for use of content is a nightmare when applied to the Internet. The Creative Commons folks make the excellent point that sharing and reusing content should be fairly simple and usually free, considering that the creative economy is often more about share-of-voice than U.S. dollars. They ask content creators to state expectations at the outset with a set of icons symbolizing whether or not the creator wants the content to be used commercially, whether he requires to be credited, whether the content can be altered or remixed, etc. That’s awesome. But I, personally, am scared to release all my traditional copyright for my online content, as are many others.

Here’s a thought: Why not have a page or section on your site stating exactly what you expect when people want to share your content? Me, I’m cool with any kind of sharing as long as you contact me first and link back to me. There we have both permission and payment in Internet currency, satisfying me as a creator and copyright law, as well.

I’m going to go make that page right now. You should, too. Let’s keep it simple and friendly, dudes! After all, the Internet was created so that people could watch free pr0n, not sue one another over ganked content.

Jolie O’Dell blogs, vlogs, tweets, and runs RAMPAGE, a new media ad agency.

Partner Links
– Web Jobs
– NY Tech Directory
– CenterNetworks LinkedIn Business Group
– CenterNetworks Facebook Fan Page
– Purchase an Apple iPhone