I rarely wish to rise in opposition to any
library science faculty. This is an instance where such becomes
necessary. To do otherwise would be to violate my conscience.
Dr. Michael Stephens recently
wrote at Tame The Web about his experience with a YouTube
takedown. In writing about the original video posted, Dr. Stephens
noted that it
was not cleared but was a de minimis violation. There
has been some discussion already in the biblioblogosphere about
this conundrum such as a Twitter post
by Greg Schwartz cited by Dr. Stephens.
Philosophically there comes a major problem with acts like this. Is
it an act of creativity to subordinate and repurpose the creative
output of others? Despite earnest attempts to define creativity in
that way, such a definition has yet to inhere.
This sort of cultural act stifles creativity. Rather than fostering
broader horizons, instead we see life reduced to interlocking
bricks. In repurposing the creative output of others in a way like
this, people are not forced to use their imagination but rather to
act as if they were customers at a grocery store.
An old proverb is that close only counts in horsehoes, hand
grenades, and nuclear weapons. Even if there is no commercial
impact does not mean a rights holder will exercise forebearance
towards you. Non-commercial uses that are not covered as fair use
would be legitimate targets as part of a "broken windows" sort of
rights policing campaign. Non-commercial infringement without
defense of fair use is still infringement.
I really wish I could say I had sympathy in this case but I do not.
If this was a test case then it was shown that the law was not on
the side of Dr. Stephens et al. Copyright exists as a means
to preserve compensation of people that make creative works. While
the Radiohead case of voluntary payment was a unique gimmick, it is
not something that can be generalized throughout all creative
endeavors. Drastically changing copyright from what it is now may
well have the adverse impact of dissuading people from producing
works. While intended to bring power to the people, such instead
makes producers of creative material more powerless with regards to
large corporations that would easily prey on them.
While it may seem like someone like Madonna would see no loss from
a bit of non-commercial infringement, it must be remembered that
she is not the only one covered by copyright law. Smaller music
artists, writers, visual artists, and more also rely on the
operation of copyright to maintain a somewhat steady routine of
putting food on the table and possession of a dwelling place. A
change to allow the infringement on Madonna would also impact
smaller producers in a disproportionate fashion.
Erie Looking Productions is hosting
a workshop to help teach librarians, not just those in IT, how
they can avoid these problems. Library school does not teach
librarians adequately how to create content, only the management
and warehousing of it. Whatever his policy preferences may be, the
invitation is made for Dr. Stephens to join us for a unique event
about content creation for those who do not specialize in such. It
might even be termed a live, in-person edition of Tech for
Techies.
Libraries have to pick their battles. This episode involving a
video bearing music of Madonna is a case where libraries should not
have gone. Other choices were possible.
Stephen Michael Kellat, MSLS
Writer/Presenter, LISTen: The LISNews.org Podcast
Henderson, Nevada