hpr-knowledge-base/hpr_transcripts/hpr2829.txt

Episode: 2829
Title: HPR2829: Discussion around fair use clips on HPR
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr2829/hpr2829.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-19 17:26:02

---

This is an HPR episode 2829 entitled Discussion Around Fair Use Clips on HPR.
It is posted by Mario Stokes and is about 23 minutes long and carrying a clean flag.
The summary is a request for comments on not publishing clips with known fair use samples.
This episode of HPR is brought to you by archive.org.
Support universal access to all knowledge by heading over to archive.org forward slash donate.
From Ken Fallon Begin Message.
Hi all. Under Safe Harbor Provisions, we as volunteers are usually insulated from any copyright
issues that may arise in these shows. We do not vet, edit, moderate or in any way sense or any
of these shows on the network. We trust you to do that. This we got by accident because this is
a long-standing tradition arising from the fact that HPR is a community of peers who believe
that any host has as much right to submit shows as any other, HTTP slash slash hacker public radio
orgs to thunderscore you underscore need underscore to know PHP has not moderated.
In the show notes associated with HPR 2829 on to 019 06 06 the host included the following text for all included materials.
If anyone feels they have right to any material in this show please let me know and I will comply.
This violates the HPR upload policy HTTP slash slash hacker public radio orgs to thunderscore you underscore need underscore to know PHP has permission.
Never include content, for example music, in your show that you do not have permission to redistribute.
Try to avoid using any content in your show that cannot be redistributed under a creative commons
attribution share I like 3.0 imported license. If you are redistributing under another creative commons license or by
a range permission please make note of the restrictions when you upload your show.
We can then signal that so that others who redistribute HPR content can filter your show out,
as it was clear that they were not in compliance. I contacted the host.
The host has been very helpful and has already removed some of the content but commented there are still
two audio clips included. I claim I can use them on the basis of fair use principles.
Well the host may be correct if they are not, then it is me and not the host that will be held responsible for posting it.
I do not want that responsibility. Under the current HPR rules I am allowed to reject the submission.
Before I do, I would appreciate as much feedback as possible on this topic so that we can gauge the opinions of the HPR community as a whole.
Regardless, then and message. My gray replied to this message. Begin message. If you are in any doubt at all about it and your head might be on the block if it
violates any rules, then reject it. Earing on the cautious side is the best policy here and there are plenty of things to
podcast about on HPR without needing to resort to including potentially copyrighted audio clips.
A few days ago I was thinking about a podcast about the BBC Shipping Forecast, but I rejected the idea since I can hardly
talk about the Shipping Forecast without playing the sailing by, tune which always plays before it at 1am.
But that is no doubt copyright so I won't do it. End message. Gober to reply to my gray. Begin message.
I disagree with the be cautious motif. Post the show. Let the copyright hold or do their diligence in protecting
their brand. Comply with the DMCA request if slash when it is delivered. We are not here to follow the
letter of the law. We are here to spread knowledge and inspire others to try new things.
Now that being said, I hate background music through a show. If the content and question is played
during the background of the show and is not alive performance, kill it with fire. My two cents.
Cobra to end message. There were several replies to this message. Can Fallen reply to Cobra to begin
message? Hi Cobra to. Can I assume then that you will accept legal responsibility for any actions
resulting from this show? Regards. Can end message. Cobra to reply to that with. Begin message.
As a member of this community, I will support the hosts' privilege to upload content. I will also
comply with any illegal fallout except paying fines and royalties. I'll even support removing
the content of the host should be copyright hold or request that properly with the DMCA take-down
notice, is that accepting legal responsibility. Probably not. In just thinking back to the older days
of our F&W they would have posted it. Cobra to end message. My gray replied to Cobra to. Begin
message. This email clearly states that Cobra would not accept any illegal responsibility of
the show containing copyrighted material. Therefore for him her to say just do it is not acceptable.
Big copyright holders have much deeper pockets than any of us and are likely to defend copyright
with considerable aggression and tenacity. So, rejected. And watch as HPR does not fade away
because we rejected one or two shows out of hundreds. End message. Yannick replied to Ken's asking
Cobra to will you will accept legal responsibility. Begin message. Hi Ken. Fair use is such a fuzzy notion
based solely on the goodwill of the rights holder and very often has to be defended by lawyers.
We as a community and view as an individual do not have the resources both time and money
to risk illegal action. Hence, I would suggest you reject the show. Yannick. End message.
My gray also replied to Ken's asking Cobra to will you will accept legal responsibility. Begin message.
This is HPR not the BBC and not a music channel. I too don't like music over the podcast,
but then again I don't like any HPR podcast that departs from the hacker, part of the name.
I currently delete more than I listen to. So, if you are fiddling about with an electric guitar
you hacked by restoring it after it was found in a dumpster, then all well and good. If you are
showing off your piano thing that seems to be played by some kind of digital ghost of the long dead
composer Jesus, then all well and good. But if you are playing somebody else's music well you would
hear on about something not connected with the music that is playing. Why is the music there?
Leave that to the big broadcasters who are willing to pay to use these stuff, and it is no good
saying the equivalent of publish and be damned if it is not your head that will or if it is picked up.
Ken and Dave and probably others already do more than can reasonably be expected of them for HPR.
They certainly don't need any risk however small a following foul of the DMCA.
How much will HPR be damaged if the occasional cast is pulled for containing doubtful material?
How much will HPR be damaged if hosts just accept they can't play any copyrighted stuff?
I suggest hardly at all. Let's keep hacking and stop trying to impersonate VBBC or NPR,
although it would be hard to convince anybody HPR is VBBC unless we suddenly have Nigel Farge on
every podcast, end message, that was the end of that thread, plot to reply to the main thread,
begin message, this demonstrates the inferiority of non-creative commons content.
We are all left to our own interpretation of fair use. Some say there is legally no such thing at all.
I believe we must reject the episode on the basis that we could be placing our hosting provider
at risk. If we want to encourage the episode host to go rogue and post it on his own server,
then we can do that, or we can encourage the host to UCC Allicense material.
We must protect our hosting provider in the volunteers who might be seen as GDIB Geolegally
responsible. Don't like it. Push CCLicensing this is the route I prefer, or set up a pirate
server yourself and continue to empower those using copyright as cultural blackmail.
End message, James Dobs replied to the main thread begin message,
reading the notes and responses, I agree with the cautious approach,
while I agree with the sentiments that fair use may cover it, the resources of HPR are limited,
even the trouble of having to redact something submitted as a heavy burden,
since we are community submitted, giving sway to requirements would allow a contributor to
submit a Trojan horse episode that could cause significant headaches, to quote an old phrase
of use it and lose it, I want to see HPR for a long time. End message, Kevin O'Brien replied
to the main thread begin message, it violates the policy, so I would reject it, you have to pick
your beddittles and I don't see why it is important for HPR to potentially get into a copyright
dispute, fair use is not in the US dry recognized by an East at shoot, it is best understood as the
right to hire lawyer, and the very fact that it has been brought up for discussion may invalidate
the safe harbor, defense since there is no way you could claim you are unaware of the copyright
violation, end message, Dawson replied to Kevin O'Brien, begin message, does any one have an
example where the MCAT down notice resulted in anything more than emotional aggravation assuming
immediate compliance with the notice, can's be one who would have to deal with any followout,
so really it's his call, at the same time considering all the egregious copyright violations
myself and others who contraduted to twat in the packets nifers committed which have gone unnoticed
for over a decade, this seems like a mountain made out of a mill hill, but then again I haven't
heard the offending program so this may be a holy uninformed opinion, this is my two cents,
please choose to disregard it will, thanks Dawson, end message, can fell and replied to Dawson,
begin message, begin quote from Dawson, does any one have an example where the MCAT down notice
resulted in anything more than emotional aggravation assuming immediate compliance with the notice,
end quote, ADMCAT down notice would not even epily hear as we intentionally are posting in fringing
material, if it was not mentioned in these show notes we would not have known and if the DMCA
take down came, I would have just done so, no problem, there is a small industry of lawyer
sending isps customers letters demanding settlements sums in the 110k region, the logic is that
people are more likely to settle then go to court, https slash slash dot dot gocon slash q
sending plus threatening plus letter plus copyright plus infringement mpersandia equals web,
begin quote from Dawson, ends the one who would have to deal with any followout,
so really it's his call, at the same time considering all the egregious copyright violations
myself and others who contributed to twat in the packets nifers committed which have gone unnoticed
for over a decade end quote, back in the twat days and before there was no way to ever get noticed
because the process of copyright enforcement was not automated, it is now, https slash slash
n wikipedia orgwiki slash schism underscore application, n, n message, Kevin O'Brien replied to
ken, begin message, sounds to me like a no brainer at this point again, you have answered your own
question, n message, Dawson replies to ken with, begin message, Dawson, well monitoring service
is similar to schism to work, if the offending content is brief and does not start and end with
the main body of eclip, my experience is that it will not see it, but then again the offending content
I still have on youtube predates automated scanning, so maybe they only scan new stuff and ignore all
old content, I don't know with certainty, all I'm saying is don't let the egregious care you
from doing your thing, the man always wants you to believe he's all knowing and all powerful
despite this never being true, there's a balance between taking reasonable actions to avoid litigation
and legitimate feruse, but like I said I also strongly appreciate that I'm not the one that has
to deal with the current issue, so I'm not throwing down a gauntlet or anything, just making a case
for feruse, thanks Dawson, n message slash, carly hummin replied to the main thread, begin message,
I'm really conflicted about this, I'm firmly in the camp of reject this submission for two reasons,
one, I don't want something to jeopardize the future of hpr2, I don't want to put a new work or
stress on can he does so much for the community already, however, in very upset that I can't think
of the better solution, the current climate of copyright litigation has a tremendously chilling
effect on free speech, I absolutely believe that content creators who wish to profit from their
work should have the ability to do so, but it's also essential that the public be allowed to criticize
it including parody and reasonable accept, where caught in the middle, having to choose between
censorship and risking everything the community has built, I wish there were a better option,
but I think we have to reject the show, hopefully the host would be willing to re-submit the show
including his commentary about the works but omitting the excerpts perhaps linking to them,
Lane Deer, End Message, STA and KDAWG replied to the main thread begin message,
I would need to know what the material was in the context to determine if it falls under fair use,
be and also even with that info it would be my best guess just from experience,
easy solution is the show creator voluntarily clean it up if possible,
since I don't know the context that may not be realistic without ruining the intent of the show,
I am hoping there is a solution that makes that decision easy. If not then, as much as it's
sucks, we have to not get ourselves mostly Ken and I and mostly me more than Ken,
introuble legally or financially, I saw some fair about low chance to get caught in the thoughts
that the punishment would be slap on the wrist and just take it down, but if they get aggressive
and push to court then I just cannot afford it even if we are right about fair use and when
the court costs alone would break me, sorry, not worth the risk, I appreciate the contribution
and do not want to discourage the submissions, but it is too dangerous, and for the record no one
else can voluntarily accept responsibility, it falls back to me as I don't or no matter what,
End Message, Cobra 2 replied to STA and KDAWG begin message, that sums it up for me,
I have an opinion but we as a community are just not going to be able slash willing to fund the
illegal fallout that could offer, I leave my vote in the hands of the side admins and their
risk levels, Cobra 2, End Message, Ken replied to Cobra 2, begin message, Cobra 2, remember that our
policy is also a commitment to anyone using our feed, I know there are downstream projects like
college radio, workplaces, shops etc that are using our feed, they would not need to buy a public
music license, for feeds contains asterisk only asterisk creative commons content, I know this is
strictly enforced in Ireland, any venue where the public would have access would need a license,
they brought in one a case where where a business was not playing any music in their public
facing shop, but the public was exposed to the music playing in the workshop via a bathroom window,
we need to keep this in mind and be sure that we are not putting our listeners at risk as well,
End Message, Jason Scott also replied to Cobra 2, begin message, give it to me to host at internet
archive, I'll take the key, call it a bonus episode, end message, Nibble replied to the main thread,
begin message, with what I see happening on the youtube's lately, don't chance it with anything
even remotely copyrighted, deep pockets are basically writing dots to find and claim against
content, anything and everything it seems, even if the content creator has copyright to all their
work, how can they fight 1000 claims in court, they can't, I've played a guitar a few times on
an episode, I'm intentionally not playing an actual song, just a few chords, unless we
bots start claiming against gda, I only have joking, do you, I know the conversation that's
upon this discussion, I think the person on the other end is actually just up and enthusiastic
to jump into hpr full swing, and welcome, but being new to the community at large maybe sit back
a bit and take it all in for a while, where all in this together, Nibble, end message,
Nigel Verity replied to Nibble, begin message, sorry if my points have already been addressed,
I think rightly, proud boast of hpr is that there is no editorial oversight or censorship of any
episode, in other words, nobody listens to any episode to prove it otherwise before it is made
available for download, does this have to change now, perhaps an explicit rule from now on needs to
be no music of any kind other than the approved header and footage angles, it may even be possible
to scan an episode to check whether that rule is being broken without anybody having to
actually listen to it, thereby maintaining the general no censorship principle, of course
copyrighted spoken word clips may be included and I can't see any way of automating a check for
that, there must surely be a level at which the website manager cannot be held responsible for
copyright infringement, I could take the text of a presentation from some obscure conference,
say transcribed from a YouTube clip or some other source and presented as all my own original work,
how could can or anybody else be expected to detect or even check for that, there must be a point
at which responsibility passes to deep person posting the episode, is there no concept for mitigating
circumstances in these regulations, if not then every single hpr episode presents a risk of
unintended and annoying copyright infringement, well none of us would want to be on the
receiving end, hopefully the regulations will be vested in court for too long and some real
world precedence set to act as benchmarks for what is reasonable and what is not, nige,
end message, dos man replies to nige, begin message, cut the baby in half, if the show shuts down
then there's no need to worry about self-delicing or even having to trust each other, it's the safest
option, dos man, end message, lost Bronx replied to the main thread, begin message, the question
really isn't about this one episode, is it, this is really about policy, when it come to policy,
I see the question in these terms, is there reasonable concern about the copyright of the content,
I don't know about others but the fact that this has become the subject of so much discussion
answers that question for me, both for this situation and for any others in the future, if the
content in total isn't released under some sort of shareable license either through the intent
of the copyright holder or through the auspices of time in public domain then how is this even
a point of contention, end message, garly homin replies to lost Bronx, begin message, begin quote
from lost Bronx, the question really isn't about this one episode, is it, this is really about policy,
end quote, definitely, I think the last thing anyone wants is a system that requires individual
episodes to be evaluated by the mailing list, I think Ken's question has two bigger questions
that won answers, what's the simplest statement of the bright line test that an admin hour host can
use to know whether a given show is ok, how can we best reconcile a, our ideal of accepting
all shows of interest to hackers without censorship, with key, the necessity of abiding by the
love the land, the verbiage on the side, HTTP slash slash hacker public radio orgs to funders
core you underscore need underscore to know php hash permission, seems pretty clear to me,
you need explicit permission to include the content in your show, i.e., written acknowledgement
from the right shoulder preferably a formal license compatible with the overall license for the show,
just because your use of a work is fair and therefore allowed by the law, doesn't mean that it is
without consequence or appropriate for every forum, end message, you and it replied to that with,
begin message, just a quick word about fair use in France and in Switzerland that's not even in the
law, it's just a gentleman's agreement, we all know how much gentle the music industry can be,
unic, end message, jondo replies to unic, begin message, in the us it's about the same sort of,
it's a part of the alloy in terms of it being a doctrine, a guideline maintained by precedent
preceding judgments, technically that's still law but it's complicated overall, that in the very
issue of copyright laws that effectively halt cultural expression or the reasons we have to have
such discussions, end message, technically replies quoting lost drunks, begin message, I have to
agree here, for hpr rejecting copyrighted material in all of its disney glories elemental for two reasons,
first i.e. hpr as an exemplar of an adhook project that operates on 100% voluntary human
interaction, that's heroic, direct confrontation with the don't steal my idea,
ground is not parallel with hpr's normal purpose, there's no tangible gain there,
a link in the show notes sidesteps this whole problem, leave the stuff where it is,
there are plenty of episodes where this has been done in summary call where that was explicitly
mentioned, end message, don't use reply to the digest thread, begin message, regarding the copyright
material, i totally agree with the sentiment of the good for the community not one individual
contributor, it is very clear in the submission guidelines that you must own or have the
permission of the honor to redistribute any content in your show, my vote is to ask that the copyright
music is removed before publication and if the contributor is unwilling to do this then reject
the offending content, don't use, end message, can conclude with, begin message, hi all,
i would like to thank you all for chipping into this discussion, and please continue to discuss it,
the host has delivered two version of their show, the edited version without the fair use content
will be posted on hpr, it will however be posted to different slot where we can enjoy the content
without been influenced by this discussion, the unedited version will be passed on to Jason
for posting on the iowa, i intend to post a text to speech version no complaining anyone of the audio
of this discussion into the slot originally intended for this show, end message, thank you for
listening this waslin, and on a personal note, i waited and waited for a lot of linux links to come
back, you're went by and i waited, i remain true mr. yates, you abandoned me, what choice did i have,
i had to move on, sorry dave you've been listening to hecka public radio at heckapublicradio.org
we are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday, Monday through Friday,
today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by an hpr listener like yourself,
if you ever thought of recording a podcast, then click on our contributing to find out how easy it
really is, heckapublicradio was founded by the digital dog pound and the infonomicon computer club
and is part of the binary revolution at binrev.com, if you have comments on today's show,
please email the host directly leave a comment on the website or record a follow-up episode yourself
unless otherwise stated, today's show is released on the creative comments, attribution, share
a light 3.0 license