I can’t tell if I should remove the video, since it clearly violates copyright terms, or if YouTube’s intention is to just allow the original entity (content owner) to advertise within the video.

I’ve worried about posting copyright material to YouTube in the past, but I haven’t got in trouble yet, so I am guessing it’s okay. As long as I am not making money from it, I would think the original content owner would not mind that they are getting free exposure.

Since I haven’t found a use yet for most of my inactive Twitter accounts, they are sitting dormant – IE: no updates, and no profile image.

Well, according to Twitter, you can’t do this:

Mass account creation is a spam violation and is against the Twitter Rules. Accounts created in a serial fashion will be suspended, and user names will no longer be available.

More specifically, the following factors may be perceived as “name squatting” by Twitter:

• the number of accounts created
• creating accounts for the purpose of preventing others from using those account names
• creating accounts for the purpose of selling those accounts
• using feeds of third-party content to update and maintain accounts under the names of those third parties

In my case, I am creating accounts that I feel I will use some day for a creative endeavor. Does this constitute name squatting?

My intentions are not malicious – I am registering Twitter usernames that I do intend to use – I’m just not using them yet.

Twitter goes on to further say:

Accounts that are inactive for more than 6 months may be removed without further notice.

Perhaps I could provide minimal updates along with a profile image to ensure my accounts remain out of Twitter’s spam filters.

But my question remains… If I am name squatting for creative endeavors, and do not have malicious intent, is this against the rules?

Argument for name squatting

One side of me says: “There’s no way I’m in the wrong.” If I came up with the creative Twitter username, I should be able to “own” it – at least for a period of time. I compare it to coming up with a creative domain name. If I register a domain name, and leave the site empty (for now), is that considered “domain squatting?” Sure, but it’s not illegal unless you have malicious intent – IE: you plan to turn around and sell it for an inflated price.

The way I see it – if I think of it, I should be able to own it. I came up with the catchy word combination or pattern. So isn’t that considered my “intellectual property?”

(Of course, you have to pay for domain registration, but you catch my drift.)

Argument against name squatting

Another side of my thinks I am in the wrong, simply because I am blocking other people from registering my inactive accounts. Since I have no valid use for these accounts yet, someone looking to use one of my inactive accounts could truthfully have an argument against me.

Of course, I could always say, “Oh, but I do have a valid use… It’ll just be a short while now before I make it public… Any day now!” I could claim I’m still considering the best use for the account, even though I may not have any idea of what to do with it.

So as you can see, the line is kind of blurred on what constitutes a valid account.

Being confronted

I was recently confronted by someone who wanted one of my “reserved” Twitter accounts. They asked nicely and respectfully, rather than accusing me of name squatting, and reporting me to Twitter. They basically said:

“Hey, I noticed you’re not using this account. Would you be willing to release it so I can register for it?”

I politely replied “no,” because I believe my arguments for name squatting (for creative purposes) are valid. Since I will be using it for a creative purpose, and not malicious or for sale – I see no harm in hanging onto it for a while. If and when Twitter starts cracking down on registering extra accounts for creative purposes, or better clarifies their help post on this scenario, I will continue to do it.

Oh, but wait! These aren’t my designs at all! What in God’s name is Arial Rounded doing in the place of Myriad Pro in some of them?

That’s right. Mashable used his designs, but simply changed the font to avoid problems. More specifically, the phrases used in the designs were copied – but since the font was changed, many legal agreements fly out the window.

But unfortunately, there are no legal agreements to speak of. The only information that Mashable made clear was what the winners would receive in return for having the best design.

And Kevin didn’t win. However, his designs were still used after the fact to sell merchandise – all without his consent.

I don’t know much about copyright law, but it appears that, unless explicitly agreed otherwise, Mashable can reproduce Kevin’s work in any format they choose. However, I’m not sure if that means they can also sell it. After all, it’s not so much his work is being reproduced without his consent – it’s the fact that it’s being reproduced for commercial gain. This is just plain wrong.

Regardless – this should be a warning for designers and creative artists everywhere. Be careful where/how you make unique creative submissions. You never know how they will be used, even if you’re not the winner – especially if you’re not the winner. (If you are the winner, you expect your submission to be reproduced.)

Kevin may not feel great about this, but he should take consolation that his designs are being used in a widely distributed fashion, even though he’s not being properly compensated for it.

And Mashable… well, that’s just cold.

… if an honest customer has to even think about the rules, your DRM system is odiously restrictive.

This is true. DRM should blend in, so much that it’s hardly noticed. This is how Apple has done it with iTunes.

To be fair, I have occasionally noticed iTunes restrictions, but this is very rare, and hardly limits my ability to share and listen to music.

NBC has it backwards. Instead of thinking about it’s viewers first, they are thinking of DRM first, and how they can apply the heaviest choke-hold on customers. And truthfully, Unbox’s restrictions are just as bad as iTunes (or worse).

Let it be know that I am not favoring Apple over Amazon for video content. In fact, I support all video services, including Amazon Unbox, which I may someday use regularly.

It’s just that this situation has shed light on big corporations and their limited knowledge/foresight regarding DRM.

How come The Wonder Years is not out on DVD yet?

The nostalgic, coming-of-age series that aired from 1988-1993, featuring the familiar narration of Daniel Stern has yet to be released in any digital format.

This is beyond disappointing for millions of fans, who wish to reclaim a part of their lives with the television show that was as profound as life itself.

The Wonder Years was my adolescence – in so many words.

The reason is the music licensing. The Wonder Years borrowed some 300 uncut, undistributed songs for it’s vast array of episodes – songs that will never see the light of day under current digital rights regulations.

Back then, music licensing was as foreign as an iPod, so the creators of The Wonder Years didn’t hold back. They freely selected any music that “fit the mood,” and the mood is what the show was all about.

The only way this series will be released (any time soon) in a digital format is without the music.

This is sad news for fans, who are only hoping for a completely intact series to have in their own collection. You can’t just remove or replace the music, and have the show be as effective as it was. The music is what resonated across adults and children alike. Every age could probably find a part of themselves in The Wonder Years.

It makes me wonder why the creators didn’t realize this as they were doing it. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago. They had to have had at least some notion that the music licensing would come back to haunt them.

The creators must be kicking themselves now, because not only have they possibly eliminated a source of revenue, they did a complete disservice to the fans of the show. By not allowing fans to once again see the episodes as they were presented is just wrong.

But then again, without the music that was used, the show wouldn’t have been as great as it was.

So I digress.

Sources and other information

• The majority of information for this post was collected from articles on the web. But let me tell you, even with Google, it wasn’t easy finding information. I had to do a Google News archive search to find articles from years ago.
• The most informative article was this one from the Denver Post, from July 2006, titled “Pricey nostalgia.” This is where I got most of my information.
• The web site TVShowsOnDVD was also helpful, with this news release also from last July, linking to the same Denver Post article.
• To be fair, there has already been two DVD releases of The Wonder Years (The Best of the Wonder Years and The Christmas Wonder Years: The Holiday Episodes), but both are incomplete collections with different music.
• Beverly Hills, 90210 is in the same boat as The Wonder Years. The “official” DVD release finally came from FOX in November 2006, but as you probably guessed, with entirely different music.
• FOX is also behind the potential release of The Wonder Years.
• It’s hard to believe The Wonder Years started airing almost 20 years ago.

Here’s the thing. The blog post contains a poem by someone else. Word-for-word – the poem is an exact copy of the source. I didn’t write the poem myself – I just wanted to share it. Am I allowed to post a poem from someone else – word-for-word?

I did the intelligent thing by quoting the source (the name of the author), but something tells me that’s not enough.

For example, by everyone viewing the poem on my site, I could very well be making ad money off all of those hits (if in fact I had advertisements on my site). The point is… I am benefiting off the work of someone else. The copyright content of someone else.

In today’s “free-form internet society,” where people can post anything about themselves or others – the line is blurred between original and copyright content, and who’s to know what’s right and what’s wrong. What’s legal and illegal.

With the increased simplicity of posting content to the web, most people don’t think twice about the legality of the content.

This issue is hardly limited to poems. Copyright content is a big issue on the web – anything from YouTube videos to music chords.

I don’t have any great insights on how to avoid problems with copyright content, except for this closing thought:

If you have to think twice about posting something, it’s probably better not to post it.