Techdirt: You may have heard that Senator Ted Cruz spent a fair bit of time on the Senate Floor doing an old fashioned filibuster. Of course, what seems to be drawing almost more attention than the thing he was filibustering about was... the fact that, as part of that, he read aloud the classic Dr. Seuss book, Green Eggs and Ham (though many people pointed out that he appeared to totally misunderstand the meaning of that book).
9 comments:
As much as Ted Cruz is a you-know-what for filibustering the issues at hand, this is a pretty silly debate. I don't think there should be any problem with him reading Green Eggs and Ham because it's in the public domain, anyone can read it, and that's what he did, there just happened to be film crews there. Its not unlike reading the phone book or the dictionary. Sure, both were created by people, but were distributed publicly and therefore shouldn't be illegal to read. If Dr. Seuss Enterprises goes legal over this...that will just show the sad state of affairs.
I agree with the author: the issue isn't with the reading of the book, but rather the national broadcast there of and how it is treated within the media. If it is presented as a new cast and news worthy, it is stating a fact that he is reading it. The issue come when someone takes a recorded message of the Senator reading the book and turns it into a Auto-Tune YouTube Hit. Then you get into the gray area of where copyright laws cover.
Does anyone else find this remotely amusing? The author is totally right, copyright infringement exists here only where the camera crews and broadcast opportunities are concerned. I understand and respect copy-right laws, but honestly...the enforcement is growing to a point that is self-sabotaging. I don't think in anyway this can be misunderstood as story-time with senator Ted, but even if it were, what's wrong with that? Why is it okay for a teacher to read Green Eggs and Ham to a handful of first graders learning how to read, but it's not okay for Senator Cruz to read it to congress? Soon all of our "mandatory reading" for class could be copyright infringement too. If he had purchased everyone on the senate floor their own copy of Green Eggs and Ham, would that have made it better?
The fact that this is even an issue just comes back to what an immature system filibustering can be. Its funny that our government works this way, and its funny that Ted Cruz read "Green Eggs and Ham" when as the article mentioned, he was reading a book about resistance to trying something new while trying to resist a new health care system. But as far a copyright violations, the article is correct. Cruz wasn't violating the book's copyright by reading it publicly, it only becomes an issue once the material is broadcast. I found this whole idea pretty interesting and it definitely connects more largely to the way media works. If its a copyright violation for this footage to be played, it taints the information that we receive. It makes you think about the way news is filtered through the media.
Copyright continues to make my brain hurt. I agree with the author and previous comments that Cruz's reading of Green Eggs and Ham is not violating copyright. I also agree that the potential infringement comes when news broadcasters, Youtube people etc. broadcast his reading, but even that much is blurry.
Ultimately though, I'm just mildly annoyed that we're giving Cruz enough legitimacy to even raise these kinds of questions. There are times when filibusters are used appropriately. Those times aren't in protest of a law that has already been passed by Congress, validated by the Supreme Court, and signed into law by the President. This government is built upon checks and balances, but once those balances have been checked, it's time to accept that due process has been achieved.
Filibustering is not about trying to make a point. In fact, it's a tactic to avoid having to make a point, or to have to debate an issue at all. It seems to me that a reading of copyright material on the Senate floor is tantamount to reading the material aloud to any congregation. No one is making financial gain from the use, and no one is appropriating the material to make a point. The fact that the filibuster is broadcast live on CSPAN is secondary and not the "reason" or essence of the broadcast. The subsequent reporting on the filibuster, even if it includes short clips of the material, is the same as simply saying Mr. Cruz read this or that. Copyright is not just about usage, it's also about intent and benefit, and therefore, since this is just an exercise in the futility of government, in this case does not apply.
It sounds like a bit of a grey area. The senator is indeed covered by the fair usage clause but at the same time, his speech is in fact being televised nationally. In my opinion, I believe copyright infringement has indeed occurred. I'm still unsure as to who is to be fined from this, but if I were Dr. Seuss Enterprises, I'd start suing and quick. If the work has not yet entered the public domain, and it hasn't, then the holder of the copyright is entitled to the artistic image of the book. They should be the deciding factor in how the book is represented and I'm not so sure that it was Dr. Seuss's intentions to be related or connected with congress in any way.
In order to properly understand this article, you must understand politically what a filibuster is. There is a regulation in the bylaws of congress that nothing can be passed into a vote until all discussion has ceased. Similarly, there is no time limit on how long an individual can speak. Thus, when the minority party knows that they have a losing argument, they can control the outcome by speaking for endless lengths of time until the majority becomes exhausted or a time-sensitive vote becomes irrelevant. That which is said during the filibuster is irrelevant, provided they keep talking. The senator could have chosen Green Eggs and Ham, the phonebook, the bible, or War and Peace and it all would have accomplished the same effect. Ultimately, the politician is deriving no gain from the content expressed in a filibuster, but rather is just blowing smoke. The fact that this has become a copyright discussion is humorous to say the least.
Just because I have to say it to get it out there, what Ted Cruz did was NOT a filibuster... There was no vote scheduled for the floor that day, and he expressly stated that he was not trying to stop the vote that was scheduled for the next day. Cruz was literally just wasting time because he was upset that the vote was going to happen and wanted to spend 21 hours publicly stating that he was against it. His 21 hours did not delay any vote, and did not cause any congressional problems, beyond what can apparently be called a copyright infringement.
I don't think that in this case, there was a copyright. As the article states, Cruz is covered by the fair use clause of copyright law, and there was no financial or monetary exchange or gain from his use of the book on the Senate floor. Similarly, news organizations are simply reporting what occurred, which included a reading of Green Eggs and Ham. If the speech is ever copied or sold or in any way published for distribution, however, I think that can get dicey, and I would argue that in that case, the Seuss Estate could very well sue for infringement.
Post a Comment