![\"Copyright\"](\"http:\/\/www.digital-digest.com\/blog\/DVDGuy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/04\/copyright.gif\" "\\"Copyright\\"")
<\/p>\nJust like London buses. Lots of news to go through this week after the very much barren one last week. Writing news this week was made harder by the fact that my phone was always out of battery, and that I had to leave the comfort of my office frequently during the week.<\/p>\n
Oh, did I forget to mention I started playing Pokemon Go? Did I also mention I’ll be launching my own\u00a0Pokemon Go site soon, full of guides and tips on how to get the best out of the game?<\/p>\n
Let’s get this thing started, I have to go out and run an errand later (totally not just because I’m running out of poke balls).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"Fair](\"http:\/\/www.digital-digest.com\/blog\/DVDGuy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/fair_use_logo.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a>Fair Use – does it help or hinder creativity?<\/p><\/div>\n
Content owners in Australia are warning against the introduction of fair use<\/a>, saying any erosion of copyright protection would harm creativity and innovation. The crux of their argument is that copy protection allows content creators to be financially compensated\u00a0for their work, and any changes to the law could\u00a0tip the balance against such an arrangement.<\/p>\n But I would argue that the copyright law as it is is already unbalanced, in favour of content creators, and more specifically, “big\u00a0content” publishers and distributors.\u00a0And the calls against fair use ignore its primary benefit – that fair use actually encourages\u00a0creativity and innovation, by removing some of the restrictions when it comes to creating new work that may\u00a0be based on existing works, and to allow greater criticism and analysis of protected content in order to make them better. The reality is that not having fair use only benefits a select few, and\u00a0this usually comes at the expense of real\u00a0creativity and innovation.<\/p>\n Look, when even the MPAA comes out in defence of fair use<\/a>, you just know it’s not a bad thing.<\/p>\n The war against YouTube continues , with the MPAA’s latest target being fake pirate uploads<\/p><\/div>\n A new thing\u00a0the MPAA is supporting may actually help pirates in the short term<\/a>. Firing the latest shot in their on-going crusade against everything Google, the MPAA says Google’s YouTube must act against fake pirated downloads that have become far too\u00a0prevalent on the video sharing service. You know the ones I’m talking about, videos promising the content you want, even has the right thumbnail, but end up being blank and with a link to some dodgy site that definitely doesn’t have the video you’re looking for.<\/p>\n The strange thing is that these videos are exactly why real pirates no longer rely\u00a0on YouTube to get their pirated content, at least not for the really popular stuff.\u00a0They’re the best kind of piracy deterrent, especially for those that managed to catch something nasty from the sites these videos link to. So wouldn’t it be in the MPAA’s best interest to have these fake uploads around, especially when copyright enforcement firms have been accused of uploading their own fake content in the past?<\/p>\n The problem the MPAA sees is that these videos are so numerous, it makes finding and killing real\u00a0pirated videos (and they do exist on YouTube) really hard via YouTube’s Content ID system. But if I was the MPAA, I’d actually want to make sure these video stayed on YouTube to make it harder for pirates to find real pirated content, to give piracy a bad name, and to also give YouTube a bad name (which then helps the MPAA in their lobbying efforts against Google).<\/p>\n For Google though, pre-emptively removing content is not something they want to do, and it falls right into the MPAA’s hands (because the MPAA will ask\u00a0if Google can pre-emptive remove fake pirated content, why\u00a0can’t they pre-emptively remove real pirated content).<\/p>\n Perhaps not falling under the category of fair use per se is the act of sharing one’s Netflix or HBO password with others. But while it may be frowned upon by the likes of Netflix, is it really bad enough to be a federal crime<\/a>? The question is actually moot, because despite what you’ve read in the media (and will read in the weeks to come, no doubt), no precedent has been set in any court case, at least not for Netflix password sharing. The case\u00a0ruling which\u00a0is the cause of this hoopla is narrow enough to not extend to the type of password sharing you and I will no doubt take part in at one time or another, but it won’t be a crime, let alone a federal one.<\/p>\n As for whether Netflix or HBO will come after password sharers, that’s another question. So far, both companies have taken the policy of turning a blind eye to the problem. Maybe it’s because they know that password sharing can actually lead to new customers, that it may really\u00a0be just an “extended trial” for many.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n