Grats to the DarkLordofDebate for netting $1,000 and creating a better copyright educational video then Google

More at PK’s website:

Announcing the Winner of the Public Knowledge “Copyright School” Video Challenge!

xposted from BrianRowe.org

The Ravenclaw video has about 50k view to date on a production budget of nil. It is very creative and is at the heart of cultural remix. The video remixes / parodies the popular viral sensation Friday. This is the exact type of press anyone should be begging for online.

This week the the creator, ginnyisaprincess, came out with a sequel We R Slytherins (Ke$ha parody)
, but unlike the ravenclaw video you may not see the video because Sony does not understand viral marketing or fair use.

When I embed the video and try to play it in Google Reader it I get this message:

“This Video contains content from a Sony ATV Publishing. It is restricted from playback on certain sites. Watch it on youtube”

Sony… what are you thinking?
viral = good
restricted payback /= viral
Okay Go left EMI over this!
By putting restriction on a video like this your are making it tougher for people to give you free press.

Beyond that the video remix/parody here is likely fair use and the restriction equals more then just bad policy it equals censorship.

Thanks Game Girl ESQ for sharing these videos!

Over 100 law professors just singed a letter opposing the “PROTECT-IP Act.” They point out that the act suppresses speech, breaks the infrastructure of the internet and moves the US from a country that champions free speech to one that censors and restricts access to informaion the way china does. Here is a short taste of Section 3:

3. Undermining United States’ leadership in supporting and defending free speech and the free exchange of information on the Internet: The Act represents a retreat from the United States’ strong support of freedom of expression and the free exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the Act would incorporate into U.S. law – for the first time – a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law. China, for example, has (justly) been criticized for blocking free access to the Internet with its Great Firewall. But even China doesn’t demand that search engines outside China refuse to index or link to other Web sites outside China. The Act does just that.

The full letter is up on scribd:
PROTECT-IP Letter, Final

I fully support the position my fellow law professors have taken in this letter.

Brian Rowe

Information Privacy Law Professor – Seattle University Law

Policy, Law, and Ethics in Information Management – University of Washington’s Information School