If you’re reading this on Wednesday January 18, 2012 and you decide to head over to Wikipedia for a quick read up on the history of Gilligan’s Island you’ll be greeted with a black screen of protest. Or maybe you want to spend some quality time on Reddit or BoingBoing… nope, they’re black. Oh well, at least there’s always LOLcats at ICanHasCheezburgers…. wait… NO! In this world gone mad not even the Thai Food Blog is safe!!!!!

All these sites and others have pledged to conduct a one day internet shutdown as a symbolic protest over two bills that are making their way through the United States Congress. Apparently with complete disregard for the fact once you go black, you don’t go back.

As a way of joining in, all of our links within this article will go to the “dark sites” participating in the protest. After all, who needs to check facts during an internet protest. Just take our word that everything you read here is the gospel truth…

So what the hell is SOPA?

It is a winner take all fight to the death between Media Giants (MPAA, RIAA) vs Tech Giants (Google, Facebook). These bills, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) were designed to put a check to online piracy – a move that is very popular with organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who see people enjoying and sharing entertainment freely as the first sign of the apocalypse. But the bill, in its current state, grants to the government the power to block websites that not only host, but link to sites that illegally use copyright infringed work.

How the hell does it work?

Because it’s difficult for U.S. companies to take legal action against “rogue” foreign sites (like The Pirate Bay) SOPA’s aim is to cut off pirates ability to do business by requiring U.S. search engines, video hosts, advertising networks and other providers to not allow them to use their services. That would mean sites like Google couldn’t show flagged sites in their search results, and sites like PayPal couldn’t process payments for them. It would also mean sites like YouTube would go dark because user uploaded material that may violate copyright law.

These tactics where used to some degree to try and kill Wikileaks when Paypal, Visa, MasterCard, Amazon and others blocked them from using their services. That in turn lead to the group Anonymous to launch Operation Payback that snowballed into a wave of hacking attacks. The big deference being those where voluntary actions by service providers and they where not under any legal obligation to do so.

Why the hell should I care?

The bills are controversial because they would change the digital landscape if they became law and murder millions of kittens. It could mean the shut down of many user generated content sites and force them to enact dictatorial policing actions.

Google and Facebook, are known for never selling their user information to third parties (ahem!), are weighing in on this obtrusive action of the government calling it censorship. Yes, there is no shortage of irony:

But I digress….

You may be asking yourself, isn’t copyright infringement already illegal? Why yes it is. The way copyright enforcement currently works now is if a copyright holder sees an act of infringement, let’s say on Youtube, they can issue a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Warning. The other side can protest this warning and use many of the legal copyright defenses (like fair use or parody). If they can’t come to terms, the matter can be taken to the courts. But this is only effective in sites based in the United States.

SOPA steps up the action by giving the government the power to shut down access to sites that infringe on copyright material. And the shut down is being done at the point of accusation, which means just the whiff of infringement could lead to a shut down.

SOPA’s critics say the bill’s backers just don’t understand the interwebs’ series of tubes, and therefore don’t appreciate the implications of the legislation.

When the hell does this go into effect?

In its current form most likely never. It was expected to fly through committee then on to approval in the House. But now after the interwebs went batshit, it’s being extensively “reworked.”

The White House said the original legislation’s technical provisions “suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity,” and that it wouldn’t support legislation that mandates manipulating the Internet’s technical architecture.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said SOPA won’t come up for a committee vote as-is.

They plan to resume revision of the bill in February and it likely is to last for months. That means the bill could change a lot from day to day. One thing is for sure, these giants will continue to fight it out for years to come, crushing us all in their wake.

Perhaps this time the Tech Firms have a valid points, but make no mistake neither side really cares about your freedoms. Especially when they conflict with profits.

“I’m what you would call ‘Twitter famous’… Meaning, not famous.” Well, I guess there is always Zombo.com.

To get the full YouTube Creator’s Playbook, click here.

Part 1: The Set Up

Part 2: The Art of Filmmaking

Part 3: Ancient Heritage

Part 4: Emotions and Meaning

Part 5: Talking Business

Public Knowledge challenged their members to create a response video that explains fair use, and how, in some cases, making use of copyrighted material without permission is perfectly legal. This video from Patrick McKay is the winning entry:

The original YouTube Copyright School video:

Here’s a breakdown from the YouTube notes:
5:45
I am at an event, restaurant, or other public place and a band or the radio is playing in the background but I do not intentionally record the band or radio. I am filming something else. The music is out of my control. Is this fair use?

6:41
A movie was filmed in my city a few years ago. I want to film some of the filming location to show people where each scene was filmed. I want to place small clips of the movie side-by-side with my video. Is this fair use?

7:18
If I keep my video clip under a certain number of seconds am I in the clear?

7:53
Does a parody video fall under fair use when the visuals are almost entirely from a non-original source (cartoon, gameplay), but it is completely rewritten and re-voiced in a humorous manner?

10:05
If I dub over an episode of a cartoon with my own voices and change the dialogue for parody’s sake, am I legally in the clear? 

11:20
Can one claim fair use preemptively when posting content to avoid takedowns? Also, what non-court options are there for resolving a copyright/fair use dispute?

12:21
If I am uploading YouTube videos of captured video and commentary of video games as I play them am I violating copyright?

14:16
If I do a parody of a song, can I use the same music, exactly like the original (as long as I or a music composer recreate it from scratch) or does it have to actually sound a bit different (like Conan’s version of “It’s Friday” did)?

15:33
If I’m doing a news program where I report on a story am I allowed to use video footage or photos pertaining to that story?

17:23
Can you make money off a movie you produced that was inspired by another book or film as long as the story is unique? Like a fan film that exists in the same universe but with original characters and storyline? Is this fair use?

21:21
Can I perform a copyrighted song in a YouTube video? Can I teach how to play it? Can I show guitar tablature or music notation?

23:29
What kind of categories fall under fair use (review, education)? What if the clip you’re using doesn’t fit into one of them, can it still be fair use?

24:32
If I want to make software video tutorials and I record my screen with software being shown throughout the video, does that qualify as fair use?

26:04
If I use 2-3 seconds of a video for a mashup but give credit to that video owner, is it fair use?

28:14
Can I review a movie based on one element in that movie, and include clips from that movie in my review without violating copyright? Keep in mind, I am essentially promoting that movie and I am not making any money from the review.

29:23
Are there any cases in which posting the uncut entirety of another’s content could be considered fair use? For instance, if commentary is located in the description or annotation fields, and not on the video itself?

30:42
Is there a way to give credit to the original owners of the content in a mash up, similar to how you make a Works Cited page for an academic paper?

31:26
Can a person use actual clips from a movie, i.e. Star Wars, if he green screens himself into them to change them for comedic purposes under YouTube’s understanding of Fair Use?

33:24
I’ve heard and seen content owners complaining about content that they don’t own. Is there a way to take legal action or at least right those wrongs?

——

CIS is funded through the general budget of Stanford Law School and the support of individual and organizational donors, including generous support from Google, Inc.

Beyond that, Daisy Whitney’s “New Media Minute” sits down with YouTube exec Bing Chen to discuss how you can use Brand Consistency, YouTube Analytical tools and fundamentals to fill in that gap between collecting underpants and profit.