More On The IFF’s Folly

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” – Thomas Jefferson

In a previous post I made note of the IFF’s filing of a copyright infringement regarding videos of Moshe Feldenkrais teaching at Amherst. The filing effectively shut down any public playing of the Amherst video. In case you didn’t have a chance to read the response of Robert Black, The IFF Distribution Chair. Let me repost part of it for you:

From Rob Black’s Comments:

“There are several points to this issue:

1. The IFF’s first priority is to get materials to practitioners for their own
learning and development;

2. The IFF publishes materials through legal agreements with the copyright
holders, primarily the Feldenkrais family;

3. Part of the agreements include the responsibility to maintain copyright;

4. All video materials include the explicit statement, “Copying is strictly
prohibited”;

5. The video recordings at Amherst did not have the kind of release permissions that are current in this day. Consequently we do not have permission to share images of people at Amherst other than Dr. Feldenkrais. This “sharing” includes still stills and video;

6. We differentiate the distribution of materials for professional learning of
practitioners from distribution to the public;

7. We are working on digitising the videos of the Amherst training and FI’s for
the community of Feldenkrais practitioners; we are close to being done;

The IFF looks forward to working together with practitioners to find ways to
excerpt sections of the Amherst videos for the learning of all practitioners.”
—-

Great. A bunch of legalistic nonsense from a man who thinks the Gutenberg press is a new invention. Do you ever get tired of bureaucrats quoting scripture to you? I sure do.

It is easy to see that Rob Black isn’t engaging in conversation; He is simply quoting policy. He is not thinking of the consequences of his actions; He is following his policies and procedures manual. He has no understanding of the larger issues at stake; He is doing what he is told. He does not understand the internet and the modern world that we live in; He is living in the past.

And sadly, this man is in a leadership position at the FGNA. Though to be fair, most at the IFF and FGNA think in much the same way as Rob Black. Keeping the material secret and hidden away from the public benefits no one. It does not benefit practitioners and it does not benefit the public. It’s also important to consider that Rob’s idea that he is protecting the copyright is dead wrong.

In the words of Jeri Eaton, a member of the Guild, who left a comment on the previous post (emphasis mine):

I am a Feldenkrais practitioner and member of the Guild. My husband and I also have a television production company, he’s a producer/director who’s been in the business for 35+ years. For the past 20 years he’s worked primarily, though not exclusively, for PBS on their high-end national and international documentaries. Because much of his work has been music shows, dozens of clips from his shows have been posted on youtube (not by us), all of it copyrighted and none of it with permission. His attitude – and that of most performers and other producers – is that postings on youtube rather than being a negative actually benefit all concerned.

Program producers across the country are now realizing that, irrespective of the legalities of release forms and copyrights, anything that brings added attention to a program or subject is beneficial. Networks like PBS are now accepting the reality of unauthorized youtube postings because it helps spread the word about programs. There is also a general recognition that it is impossible to get permission for video shot over 20 years ago and that it shouldn’t stop the dissemination of this information.

While it can be argued that the IFF has a legal responsibility to object to the youtube postings if an entity as large as PBS is willing to tolerate this because of the ‘greater good’, then IFF might do the same. Also note that because the IFF did not post the video they are not responsible for any lack of release forms or liable for any copyright infringement. They don’t have to condone it, they just have to stay out of the way.

Is there anything else that I can add that would make Jeri’s argument clearer and more cogent?

I don’t think so.

Get Notified of New Posts:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Related articles by Zemanta

• Conflict of Interest on the FGNA Board of Directors? (utahfeldenkrais.org)

Tags: FGNA, IFF, moshe feldenkrais, Rob Black