Streaming media refers to a delivery method where media is provided by an end-user system on a constant basis. Some delivery systems inherently are streaming based (such as television or radio) while others are inherently non-streaming, (books, CDs). In the case of internet television users are constantly getting content transmitted from a main provider to their own personal device.

Streaming through a rental company, like Netflicks and Blockbuster, works the same way. You order a movie for a price, and it will be sent directly to your computer without much time in between.

The cost of watching television on line depends on how much bandwidth you are using. Many internet servers give users a set amount of bandwidth and going over your limit can be highly expensive. Since users are storing media as the stream, watching too much TV online can get costly if you don?t pay attention to how much bandwidth your using.

While some websites like Hulu (which is not available in Canada), and television stations that are owned by a network (such as CTV and MTV.ca) post the shows their company makes are totally legal, websites that are submission based streaming sights like Youtube and Sidereel have to pay attention to major issue: copyright laws.

When network televisions and movie studies creates a video that item is legally copyrighted to them. Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author of a certain work. Most pertinent to our situation is the authority copyright gives to distribute a product. In the case of submission based sites, the television network or movie studio would have to grant permission to post their copyrighted videos.

Usually this is not the case. Many users don?t consider copyright laws and upload as they please. Uploading videos that the user doesn?t have copyright over is illegal, however it is almost impossible to control and therefor prosecute.

In other words, while much of the content on websites like these is illegal, the websites themselves are not held liable for it, making them legal. This can be traced back to a specific American court case:

The Betamax Case aka Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. In 1984, Sony?s original video recording system the betamax was sued by Universal studios, who claimed that the device gave users the ability to infringe on copyright regulations

The supreme court ruled in favor of Sony for two reasons:

1. The betamax was capable of legal, non-copyright infringing usage.
2. Sony was not aware of or encouraging copyright infringement.

Despite being a landmark case and extremely valuable for free streaming sites today, copyright owners weren?t really at risk to lose any money because of the betamax. The act of users taping and then reselling the video is rare. Video companies actually made more money because of the Betamax.

The DMCA offers to protect online servers like Sidereel and Youtube as long as the adhere to these steps:

1. Have a department to receive infringement notices.
2. Take down videos that infringe copyright.
3. Have no financial benefit.

While both websites adhere to the first two steps, the third has brought the websites, especially youtube under fire. Both websites use significant advertising, from which the profit from. Though that last point has generated controversy, neither site has been successfully sued for breaking the DMCA.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has many critics. For instance, many users believe it is too easy for a copyright holder to claim infringement. Say you create your own video yet you use a copyrighted song in the background. Under the DMCA, the copyright owner of that song can claim infringement. In many ways, the DMCA jeopardizes the fair use doctrine.

Recently, Viacom incorporated (a huge American media conglomerate) sued Youtube for what the believe counts as promoting copyright infringement. They are seeking 1 billion dollars in damages. Youtube is claiming that they are protected under the DMCA. The case probably won?t get to court until 2011.

Streaming acts on an end to user basis (main system to you), while peer sharing works on a user to user network (your friend to you). Both types have been controversial and been taken to court. The most notably case, the Napster Case, challenged end to user systems, like the current streaming providers. In 2001, Napster.com, a website where users could download music directly from the server was shut down by the courts because the court ruled it was facilitating copy write infringement.

Peer-peer sharing sites such as Grokster, gained popularity in the wake of Napster, and claimed to be legal based on the Beta Max case. Whereas Napster users downloaded files from a central source, Grokster is based on users sharing materials with other users.

However the Supreme Court disagreed. In the Grokster Decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the opposing side, for three reasons:

1. Grokster induced infringement.
2. Grokster made no effort to filter.
3. Grokster?'s intention was to replace Napster.

Youtube and Sidereel have continually been sued by companies who claim that the Grokster decision should be held applicable to them as well, however the remain protected under the DMCA and betamax case.

Theoretically, the copyright owner can sue a person who has distributed their work without permission.

According to the DMCA, any person who knowingly distributes material without copyright ownership is subject to liability. The DMCA can send a copyright infringement takedown notification policy, where the material you submitted must be taken down and your account (in the case that you submitted this on youtube) be suspended.

Youtube currently uses a Content Identification tool which creates ID files which are run against user uploads. If a match occurs the decision lies within the copyrights holders decision. They can choose to block, track or monetize the content.

However, with the sheer volume of users uploading video?s that don?t belong to them, the actuallity of getting sued seems very unlikely.

Nothing, don't worry about it. Since users can'?t be certain if the content is infringing on copyright or not, there is no way to prosecute users.

Copyright laws vary from country to country, though all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, including Canada, have deemed copyright automatic. To have ownership you must have made the material yourself.

Demonized by the major record companies and film distributors, downloading (in its illegal form) is perhaps the most testing digital innovation copyright law had to withstand.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office defines copyright as ''the right for the owner to reproduce the work or to permit anyone else to do so." However, that doesn't mean an individual or organization can own an idea: property only applies to the expression of an idea.

The Copyright Act constitutes the bulk of Canada's copyright policy. It was amended in 1997 to adress the issue of file-sharing on the Internet

Bill C-32: the provision states that copying copyrighted sound recordings of musical work for the personnal use of the person making the copy does not constitute a violation of that work's copyright. In other words, downloading a song or album is not a violation of copyright law if it stays in the private use context. However, the bill is not as clear when it comes down to the legality of making files available for downloading on p2p file-sharing systems (as of now, the law remains ambiguous on that particular point).

Canada has always been relatively tolerant towards file-sharing. At some point, p2p was even deemed explicitly legal by the Federal Court:

BMG Canada Inc. Vs John Doe (2004): states that Section 80(1) of the Copyright Act allows downloading of musical works for personal use. However, it didn't provide guidance on whether other forms of copyrighted material could be legally shared or not.

The ruling was later brought to the Federal Court of Appeal, who set aside the controversial decision (Federal Court of Appeal, May 19th 2005). That leaves us with an open question about the legality of file-sharing, a question that has yet to be settled in a future case.

For those of you who are considering copyrighting your works, it is important to know that protection under copyright laws is automatic in Canada: intellectual property is attached to any work of art as soon as it is written down. Though it may not be obligatory, it is still recommended to register the work, as evidence you're the actual owner of it. A certificate of registration of copyright can be delivered by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). A copyright is valid for the entirety of the creator's entire life, the remainder of the calendar year in which the creator dies, and for 50 years after the end of that calendar year.

A mashup is conceived by blending two or more songs (or video parts) together to create something new. Of course, it is not permitted to release a mashup without the authorization of every copyright holder whose work is used, but in this case Canadian law is more flexible than it is on download, thanks to the concept of fair-dealing.

The Copyright Act allows individuals and organizations to use copyrighted material in the following cases:

• Criticism
• News reporting
• Private study or research

Put briefly, you can include bits of copyrighted material in your own work to make your point or highlight an argument.

However, even a concept like fair-dealing is not always fireproof, as proved by the C-61 bill, dubbed the "Canadian DMCA," proposed in 2008 but abandoned because of widespread popular dissatisfaction.

Bill C-61 (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session): intended to meet Canada's WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) treaty obligations, it contains an anti-circumvention clause that makes it illegal to overcome digital locks on copyrighted material, regardless of the legality of the ultimate use. For example, a filmmaker using a clip in a documentary may be in the clear as far as fair-dealing goes, but could be sued for the break of the digital lock laws.

Another way to release your mashup is through copyleft tools like the Creative Commons licence or the General Public licence (GPL).

Lauched in 2001 by American lawyer Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons enables you to share your work under certain conditions that respect your creative input. There are four types of licenses:

1. Attribution: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work and derivative works based upon it ? but only if they give you credit.
2. Noncommercial: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work ? and derivative works based upon it ? but for noncommercial purposes only.
3. No Derivative works: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
4. Share alike: You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

It is interesting to see that RIP: A Remix Manifesto, the documentary about mashup artist Girl Talk, was also developed under a Creative Commons licence.

One interesting way to go for the content industry regarding mashups/remixes is what the scientific community achieved through collaborative innovation and e-Research, with some disciplines already enabling data from different sources to be combined seamlessly through the use of scientific and scholarly mashups. Bioinformaticians and astronomers, among others, can access information from different databases like GenBank or UniProt, and mash what they find to pursue their own research agenda. A similar system for artistic ressources would be of great use, since the Public Domain is hampered by copyright term extensions.

Here are some resources we used to make this site:

• Anti-DMCA
• EDUCAUSE DMCA Resources
• SideReel: Terms and Conditions
• YouTube: Copyright Notice
• Sharing Culture Likely to Pause but Not Wither
• The Generativity of Sony v. Universal: The Intellectual Property Legacy of Justice Stevens by Pamela Samuelson
• Canadian Intellectual Property Office
• Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42)
• Media Awareness Network
• Creative Commons Canada
• Canada deems P2P downloading legal
• Mashups, remixes and copyright law by Damien S. O'Brien and Brian F. Fitzgerald