Yes, this is a political post and yes, I am a liberal who's almost certainly not going to vote for Romney. But this post isn't about whether I agree with his positions; it's about him misinterpreting "Fair Use." This is an issue because so few people understand the philosophy or specifics of fair use and because it's very related to SOPA and copyright infringement.

Here's the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-asks-romney-remove-news-material-ad-185037892.html

Here's the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TobmtxHQoZE

Listos: Romney ran an ad which was in its *entirety* a segment from NBC News in the 1990s where Brokaw opens the broadcast with a story about the ethics investigation against Newt Gingrich. NBC asked the Romney campaign to pull the ad, as it construes an endorsement by NBC for Romney. Romney's campaign claims "fair use" because it's not a substantial piece of the original work, only 30 seconds of a 30 minute broadcast.


... Where they've failed is that it's not only how much of the original work was quoted; it's how much of the quoting work is composed of the original work. The ENTIRETY of the ad is the NBC piece. The only differentiation are the "Paid for by Romney" etc text placed over it, and the fact that the video of of a television in a living room playing the piece rather than a direct portrayal of the footage itself. There are no sounds other than of Brokaw's voice and the NBC anthem in the background. Fair Use DOES dictate against this, in written policy and not just philosophy.


This is serious business. This is also evidence of a copyright violation that caused other than monetary damage. The torrent "pirates" of the day claim no real loss to the artists in the works they download for free. Well, it need not cause any loss of revenue -- NBC is clearly in the right on this one, even though there's no way to argue that anybody would watch this rather than any authorized source which would generate some revenue for NBC either in direct payment or in advertising.


It's therefore evidence that the entire "they didn't lose any money when I took this" argument is a red herring.


There are plenty of artists and production companies who have seen fit to use the "new channels" to distribute their work. It's possible to get free views of almost any music on Youtube, and usually via official means taken by the copyright holders. Those who don't need to have their wishes respected. It's in our constitution, and our constitution in no way hinges loss of revenue as a condition of copyright.

 

-----signature-----

Seriously though, Obamney can drop dead. I don't care what the issue is. He is a fraud and his supporters are morons.

He doesnt need to know the definition of fair use, he's rich enough for it not to matter.

 

-----signature-----

He knows the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

-----signature-----

By the time this gets settled the ad will have had its intended effect and the election will probably be over. I can see why Romney wouldn't care.

What? The guy who offered up a $10,000 bet with someone doesn't understand what is fair?

Whats wrong with the ad?

It isn't edited, altered or fabricated. Its simply the first 30 sec of a nightly news story.

 

-----signature-----

Ah, the words of an enlightened genius.

Blind adherence to idiotic rhetoric is the mark of one whose opinions should be taken as fact.

 

-----signature-----

I liked pre-2005 Romney. He was pretty progressive and I had similar views on issues. They he did a complete 180.

 

-----signature-----

Whats wrong with the ad?

It isn't edited, altered or fabricated. Its simply the first 30 sec of a nightly news story.