1. 1. Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System;
2. 2. Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications;
3. 3. Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network;
4. 4. Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works;
5. 5. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete; and
6. 6. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

Of note is the fair use exemption for circumventing copyright protection technology on DVDs — when accomplished solely in order to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment in the following instances:

1. i. Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
2. ii. Documentary filmmaking; and
3. iii. Noncommercial videos.

More from Ars Technica.

In light of the recent Viacom v. YouTube lawsuit, his statement (@03:44) gave me pause:

In fact, Viacom does tout a Fair Use policy on its website — the version I found, located on the company’s YouTube litigation resources page:

Viacom recognizes that the “fair use” doctrine may permit some use of limited amounts of copyrighted material for specific purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching or parody. You may learn more about some of the factors that apply in making a fair use determination at the following link on the Copyright Office website:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

There are no specific rules to determine whether a particular use is fair use. Although our policy is not to take down material that we believe is a good faith fair use of our content, we cannot give you legal advice on this subject and we may enforce our rights if we disagree with a claim of fair use. Regardless of the law of fair use, we have not generally challenged users of Viacom copyrighted material where the use or copy is occasional and is a creative, newsworthy or transformative use of a limited excerpt for non commercial purposes.

The complaint does not reveal what amount of the alleged 150,000 unauthorized clips include creative, newsworthy or transformative uses, if any.

Negativland later revealed its intent to skewer Kasem for his cuss laden off-air tirade, not parody U2. Among his more timid exclamations, “This is bullshit. Nobody cares. These guys are from England and who gives a shit.” For his part, Kasem said, “Well, I don’t like what they did, it’s embarrassing to me, but I’m for free speech.”

In 1992 Don Joyce and Mark Hosler of Negativland were contacted by Mondo 2000 magazine to participate in a telephone interview with U2′s guitarist, The Edge. On June 25th, Mondo editor R. U. Serius, allowed Negativland to pepper The Edge with questions about the controversy.

Apart from stating it was “probably the most surreal interview” he’s ever had (after being asked for a loan), The Edge was sympathetic to the band’s conundrum:

Don Joyce: See, you’re quite right about their main concern being the cover rather than the content, we always felt that and I think that was obvious from their lawsuit, the way it was worded, but they never came to us in the first place and simply said: “Change the cover.”

Edge: Yeah.

D: And instead they just smashed the whole thing including the content…

E: Yeah, really. I think we would have reacted in a different way, but the lawsuit was not our lawsuit. Although we have some influence, we weren’t in a position to tell Island Records what to do.

Negativland, U-2 (Special Edit Radio Mix):

The skirmish is documented in Craig Bladwin’s Sonic Outlaws (1995). A detailed account of the “legal, ethical, and artistic odyssey” is available in Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2 a book/CD combo released by Negativland in 1995.

Viacom argued the search company had actual knowledge of infringing activity on YouTube or was generally ‘aware of facts and circumstances from which infringing activity’ could be inferred. In either case, it claimed that Google failed to act expeditiously to stop it.

Judge Stanton disagreed, cautious not to contravene the legislative intent behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The court noted that when Google was apprised of infringing material via DMCA takedown notices, it acted swiftly to remove the offending videos:

[W]hen Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.

Yep — a deluge of notices, most of which were removed within 24 hours — hardly a sluggish response.

The court was equally unwilling to submit to Viacom’s claim of general knowledge of infringement, noting:

To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.

The DMCA safe harbor does not require proactive monitoring for infringement, instead it places the burden on copyright owners to notify the service provider — clearly not the preferred method of enforcement of Viacom and its ilk, surmising that Google “had the right and ability to control [infringing] activity” — to which the court opined:

DMCA [...] establishment of a safe harbor is clear and practical: if a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a “red flag”) of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material. If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is “ubiquitous” does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements.

I suspect Viacom will immediately appeal, but I don’t foresee the Second Circuit Court of Appeals emasculating the DMCA safe harbor either.

More from EFF.

Sunday, May 30th 2010; 2 PM
Galapagos Art Space
16 Main Street
DUMBO, Brooklyn
FREE! (21 and over)

Presented by the League of Independents (LOFI):

The RE/Mixed Media Festival is our way of contributing to the ongoing conversation about remixing, mashups, copyright law, fair use, and the freedom of artists to access their culture in order to add to and build upon it.  While there are numerous events addressing these issues, they are usually discussion-based, featuring lectures and panel discussions about policy.  We believe that one of the best ways to make the general public aware of these types of issues is by demonstrating all the types of art and culture that remix touches.

Visit RE/Mixed Media Festival for more information.

Said Wired, “The reason: Analog video signals can easily be recorded, while digital video standards include a copy protection scheme that lets providers set a no-copy flag on the signal.”

The result of Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) bargaining with member studios, the decision has digital rights groups miffed as it appears the FCC is allowing the MPAA (through cable/satellite providers) to control your television set.

More from Wired.

More here.

Years before people started downloading and remixing music, hip-hop sampling sparked a debate about copyright, creativity and technological change that still rages today.

Independent Television Service (ITVS) has been screening the film through its Community Cinema program. More here. Extended trailer here.