Media Policy & You: Crash Course Media Literacy #9
Copyright and other media regulations have always been a bit tricky, but the internet made all of that infinitely more complicated. But what does all of that mean for you, the consumer?
***
Resources:
The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University’s Digital Literacy Platform dlrp.berkman.harvard.edu/
RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-...
Music Industry A-Listers Call on Congress to Reform Copyright Act www.billboard.com/articles/bu...
Department of Justice: Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos
Why Kids Sext www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Youth Sexting: A Legislative and Constitutional Analysis mjlr.org/2014/10/27/sexting-p...
Consent for processing children’s personal data in the EU: following in US footsteps? www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
Lexicon of Lies: Teaching Resources datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataA...
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark Brouwer, Glenn Elliott, Justin Zingsheim, Jessica Wode, Eric Prestemon, Kathrin Benoit, Tom Trval, Jason Saslow, Nathan Taylor, Divonne Holmes à Court, Brian Thomas Gossett, Khaled El Shalakany, Indika Siriwardena, Robert Kunz, SR Foxley, Sam Ferguson, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Caleb Weeks, Tim Curwick, Evren Türkmenoğlu, Alexander Tamas, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, mark austin, Ruth Perez, Malcolm Callis, Ken Penttinen, Advait Shinde, Cody Carpenter, Annamaria Herrera, William McGraw, Bader AlGhamdi, Vaso, Melissa Briski, Joey Quek, Andrei Krishkevich, Rachel Bright, Alex S, Mayumi Maeda, Kathy & Tim Philip, Montather, Jirat, Eric Kitchen, Moritz Schmidt, Ian Dundore, Chris Peters, Sandra Aft, Steve Marshall
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"Don't worry, we're not going to call the cops on you." *Stops panicking*
If this were to be demonitized, that would be ironic.
Big thumbs up for bringing up a complex and mature subject. I hope you continue to do so.
When this series first started, I immediately hoped it would cover media ethics. You're... sort of going over that, looking forward to it being covered in more detail. Still waiting on "how it's sometimes irresponsible to reveal the truth".
This and the Psychology Crash Course are my favourites
First, you have a relaxing mid-range low voice , second, that Judas Priest record in the background is rad
It's profoundly amazing how all this hulabula and complexity of ownership culture is prelavant in our modern civilization.
It was a big thing in the past too, even the ancient past (especially for tax purposes). Some of the most highly regarded kings from India to China to Mesopotamia to Europe are often remembered for their tax reforms and censuses, which all heavily involved working out ownership. And many major historical conflicts arose as basically ownership disputes. However, all this wasn't restricted to just the rulers - it happened with the common folk, just not as big in scale. And they did often come up with complex (for their times) solutions to some of the problems - from bitter property splits (which sometimes even created entire new kingdoms) to elaborate community managed property (which is why the infamous 'Tragedy of the Commons' in economics rarely actually occurred). Complexity isn't some modern fashion, but rather a direct reflection of very real difficulties that need balancing out. And modern technology and the abilities it's given us have only increased the number of interests we have to be mindful of.
Thank you for giving the background. The possibility of ownerships' ancient origins escaped me. Sometimes I feel that 'ownership' is a "Tragedy of Commons" for/of the whole planet, in disguise.
Me actually doing my speech homework during quarantine. If my classmates see me, heyy it’s jakeema😘
Great course, well presented. I feel to be in far greater control of my media consumption, and it's influence. I look forward to carrying on, but I've got this inexplicable, uncontrollable urge to watch "Titanic"...
I'm a strong believer that fanvids should be legal. Yes, a lot of them use the full song, but I have found so many songs/artists/genres of music that I didn't know about before because of fanvids, and I've since bought lots of these.
gray line between free promotion and copyright. but I'm leaning toward your sentiment; just struggling to justify it.
Many of them are left up, actually. On purpose. Copyright laws allow owners to sue, but don't make suing automatic. Hence some stay under the radar, and in other cases the owners actually choose not to file a copyright claim - either because they don't mind the use of their media in that vid or because their success is reputation-dependent and so they don't want to risk inflaming the internet against them...or because it's just too cumbersome to bother doing for a small fry vid that doesn't hurt them much. Unfortunately, that last one is much less true now thanks to YT and other media platforms making the process a lot quicker and, crucially, anticipatory i.e. you don't necessarily need a full court order to get it taken down, at least temporarily (a curious case of tech companies actually being OVERcompliant with the law, likely because they're not the ones to suffer the consequences of the actions).
Another really key reason that a lot of them stay up is that KZhead allows the copyright holders to claim ad revenue on infringing content rather than pull it. You can usually tell when this is happening, as a viewer -- there will be a little thing in the description off to the side to note that the video contains content that is copyrighted by, for example, Taylor Swift. Then the Varchie fan video gets treated kind of like a Love Story music video. (Emphasis on "kind of" because it's still a bit more complicated than that, and the YT algorithm will handle the Varchie video differently from the actual Love Story video in a lot of ways. I'm also not entirely sure how the actual ad rates will differ. TaylorSwiftVEVO probably has a very high ad rate because of the popularity and reliability of its content, whereas I would *guess* that the Varchie fanvid's ads will get a lower rate, though that money is still going to Taylor Swift's record label rather than the creator of the fanvid.)
It's ironic, because I'm in college now and have jobs and money. I recently went back through the old music videos I used to watch in high school so that I could buy the songs on them, but half of them were taken down. Now I'm forced to have listened to the music and not pay for it because I can't figure out who I should pay.
so daang important! this is such a great series!
I'm disappointed that he didn't mention anything about Creative Commons licence. : (
One thing I find interesting that wasn't mentioned is what happens to your digital footprint when someone dies. The last time I looked into this was years ago, but there were no laws for this sort of thing. Are there any now?
Easy to understand, thanks much!
Very Informative 💕
I wonder if you could expand in more detail about copyright laws and why the terms are so long, as compared to a patent.
Thanks!It was quite interesting
So, let's say that someone want to promote new upcoming artists or bands through putting their music on their youtube channel, would it be under fair use? Just curious.
So many people ignore copyright... especially they ignore that stuff like artwork and music and stock photos can be copyrighted... always double check!
Don't forget Content ID and mech licenses! In the Taylor Swift example, it's likely the song would be allowed on the video with ads.
what software did they use to edit??????
Good video thank you
The pic at the background copyrighted? 😂😁😂😁
What happened to the India science video ?
A clip compilation might not compete directly with the show, but TV stations sometimes create similar videos which which it would compete. These TV stations do pay licensing fees for the shows. A more clear cut example would be selling character themed t-shirts. They do not directly compete with the copyrighted work, but they do compete with other services that might be willing to pay licensing fees. I'm not saying your example was wrong. You said "may", and a court might say that it was fair use. Like you said, it's not clear cut. Also I'm not saying this is how it should (or shouldn't) be; I just want to help people be aware of the gray areas.
Everything I needed to know
What if you do a cover of the song and the instrument is a flute and piano?
Come on subtitle people, real missed opportunity during the [Theme Music]. change it to [Copyrighted Theme Music].
So what about when someone - like a record company - claims ad revenue on what you made? Are the elements you put in, like the clip show, still yours under fair use?
Excelent!!
Fair use is a honey pot, the only way we can adapt to media and the internet without losing our rights is to abolish copyright and put in place something more akin to anti-plagiary laws.
Shoutout to H3's lawsuit win!
It’s worth noting that a majority of this information applies to the US
Ok, I saw Noam Chomsky on the thumbnail..😀😀😚.....!!!!!
Way to go J smooth
cool video! WOW
Define tiny portion of copy right work as that is to vague. Depends per copy right material? Also there are false DMCA claims all the time on you tube.
Technology has always outpaced legislation though, didn't record companies try to ban recordable audio cassettes a few decades ago?
I love your Bakelite radio.
We have to be careful with media policy. It can lie us :-0
Do I see HP #1 on the desk?
Yup!
You explain how copyright infringement works better than KZhead
Release the next episode of Crash Course History of Science
Well as member of the oldest wave of gen z i can tell u a few of us know whats going on and the illusion is one thats hard to break if u r not actively questioning what u see hear and feel
Israel T i can see through some of that stuff too :) like so many people are so gullible and don't realize how manipulated they are
Once AT&t got regulated. The media called it deregulation
Dad: *Why is the FBI here?*
Could you argue characters like Robin Hood don't need to be in the Public Domain to be used because they were never copywriter in the first place?
It doesn't need to be copyrighted for it to fall under copyright
According to my understanding, the character is public domain, but Disney owns their version of Robin Hood. So you couldn't make a Robin Hood animated film with Robin as a fox and Little John as a bear.
Public Domain just means nobody owns it. Art that existed before copyright law and Art whose copyright expired are treated the same.
The history of science one disappeared! :(
I love how so much of the media I consume is majorly from a millennial stand point so they keep calling GenZ they while I'm like no not they me.
This video has been blocked for containing copyrighted matieral.
These days even some seconds of a song can make a video demonetize
All this information and i still see adds for stuff i hate ... y do they suck at this
Israel T Yeah, they aren't as effective as people like to think.
Do you really want them to have you totally figured out is the better question...
Apokatastasian ! If u have to see ads dont u want to see effective ones???
Err...no, you don't. Cos that means they've successfully figured you out. Which should really freak you out. Seeing random ads ought to actually be comforting, because it means their algorithms aren't as effective yet. And if you want to know why them figuring you out might be a bad thing, consider, as just one example, what that'd allow political consultants to do in elections. Or, for another example, how anti-vaxxers, climate deniers or techsavvy religious fundamentalists could use that kind of mastery. The day the algorithms know us both inside and out will not be a good day, I promise, for it'll make all past propaganda campaigns seem cute by comparison.
@Apokatastasian ! _"Do you really want them to have you totally figured out is the better question..."_ Not necessarily, but I want them to realise that I will let most ads up to 30s long play right through, but I skip every single ad for Udemy after 5.01 seconds and always give it the thumbs down when I get the option (there are a few others as well, but those are the ones that annoys the flick out of me the most) ... after however many months of doing this and I *still* get shown ads that I have consistently and repeatedly refused ... that is really poor programming and algorithming.
independence and vigilance are strong,deny the narsisists and phycopaths the right to rule your atoms and electro nerros.
1) Copyright is not the entirety of "intellectual property" (itself a propaganda term with no basis in law), there's also trademarks and patents. 2) Copyright is not only used by creators, but by mere owners who did no creating. 3) Copyright has nothing to do with credit or attribution. Plagiarism is a different thing from copyright entirely. 4) Don't go telling us what laws are good laws or not. The strict liability of child pornography laws do far more harm than good. Prosecute the people who create it, for sure, because they're actually abusing children, but mere possession of a record of that crime shouldn't be enough to destroy someone's life, for more reasons than just the sexting ones you outline (though that is one of the best example reasons).
The points that no one ever pays attention to :[
Noice
Notification squad!!!
The History of Science in India video is not visible.
I just watched it - check again
Yeah. I saw they reuploaded it.
Great video! by the way anyone can use my music in their videos as long as they give me credit just sayin ;)
Sexting is a great example of creating laws in isolation. Sex between kids over the age of consent is ok but taking a picture of the moment isn’t? What if the kid was blind and was given cameras for eyes.. when the kid has sex, is it child pornography? Poor kid. Can’t have sex without getting thrown in jail
It is pronounced, J I F
On my other account, I uploaded Taylor Swift videos with the whole songs (shake it off and starlight) but they didn’t get taken down... yet 😅
Taylor the usual strategy by record companies now is to just take ad revenue from those videos instead of taking them down
Steelflex33 don’t videos have to achieve a certain amount of views before they get monetised?
I believe so, but afaik the count is pretty small (I think probably around that 300 mark where youtube starts actually checking which things are views and which aren't). If the count is so small that it wouldn't be monetised anyway, then you could more easily make a fair use argument on the basis that it wasn't actually affecting the market for the song.
ALRIGHT WHO WAS THE DISLIKER??
Mark Zuckerberg
Dictators like Putin)
Sans Skeleton Trump
DUB DUB DUB,FBI OPEN UP!!!!
Profit ruins art
Is it okay to have loli hentai despite yourself below 18?
r/forexposure
Don't read the comments just go back to your work you were doing
first
0:07 eww normie memes!
FIRST
There is no such thing as "intellectual property," only government granted monopolies that are unjust an should be abolished.