[transferred from www.scibella.wordpress.com july 2011]
As usual my comments and asides in italics.
Please respect FT.com’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email email@example.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fe52d05e-63e4-11e0-bd7f-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1JFkVrEdD
Yep got that, excerpt below for purposes of review and criticism and please tell me that it’s “limited”, pretty please cos this po man can’t buy no lawyer fella.
Hypocrisy 101. Question 1. Compare & Contrast
” UK broadcasters oppose copyright changes
By Ben Fenton, Chief Media Correspondent
Published: April 11 2011 05:02 | Last updated: April 11 2011 05:02
UK broadcasters have begun a fightback against internet groups and others lobbying ministers to relax copyright laws, ITV’s chief executive has told the Financial Times.
Adam Crozier said Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, and Vince Cable, the business secretary, were left in no doubt at a recent summit meeting on creative industries that UK broadcasters and producers were unanimously opposed to the introduction of so-called “fair use” principles.
These would allow companies such as Google’s YouTube or other online video sites to show clips of popular programmes ….”
Got that. Fair use would mean clips of oh, I don’t know, Susan Boyle from “Britains Got Talent” being pirated on the web – and the pirates are the bad people.
“ITV believed there could be no compromise on fair use, he said. Hit programmes such as Downton Abbey only made money if their secondary rights could be exploited online and around the world, something that would be impossible with lax IP laws”
No compromise! Sounds a bit like Ian Paisley from the old times but quite right Mr Crozier. Well said sir, there can be no compromise with the bad pirates – scupper dregs and bilge scum to the last man and polly jack.
Submission by ITV to Hargreaves Review on Intellectual Property & Growth (March 4th 2011) page 32
“Moreover, we note that there is significant consumer demand for short clips of popular TV content – with a particularly notable example being Susan Boyle’s appearance on Britain’s Got Talent in 2009. As shown below, this clip has proved to be one of most popular videos ever viewed on YouTube – with over 60m views to date…….
Even though this content was uploaded onto YouTube without ITV’s consent, ITV has not exercised its legal right to have the clip taken down – rather, as the rights holder we have allowed the clip to remain on YouTube, partly because we consider that it offers helpful promotion for our TV content. IP holders such as ITV often therefore take a flexible approach to sites such as YouTube were there are other overriding benefits (like driving a show’s popularity). Given the powerful promotional impact of YouTube, we have also sought to harness its capability by launching our own programme and channel branded areas within the site – as shown below.”
Please explain in no more than 200 words how the statement in A:
“ITV believed there could be no compromise on fair use”
is not hypocritical given the statement in B:
“Even though this content was uploaded onto YouTube without ITV’s consent, ITV has not exercised its legal right to have the clip taken down – rather, as the rights holder we have allowed the clip to remain on YouTube, partly because we consider that it offers helpful promotion for our TV content.”
Marks will be awarded for creative interpretations of copyright law. Any use of cliches such as “turning a blind eye when it suits us” will not be acceptable to the examiners.