New: The Secrets of Harry Potter

[Catholic Insider]

I've launched a new podcast called "The Secrets of Harry Potter". In each episode, I will take you to one of the locations in the magical universe of Harry Potter, and we will explore the secret meaning of many ancient themes, symbols and motives that are present in the books and in the movies.

For instance, in episode 1, we visit the infamous 'cupboard under the stairs', and we will discover that the orphan Harry Potter has some famous predecessors in history. In episode 2, Hagrid will take us to Diagon Alley, where we will learn the thruth about the magic wands of Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort. Ever wondered why Harry's owl is called Hedwig? You will get the answer in this podcast as well.

"The Secrets of Harry Potter" is a podcast you don't want to miss if you've read the books or seen the movies. With the help of serious research in mythology, biblical science, literature and theology, every single secret of the Harry Potter universe will be unveiled.

You can subscribe to the podcast by entering the following feed into iTunes or into your aggregator:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/secretsofharrypotter

The website of "The Secrets of Harry Potter" can be found on the following URL:

http://www.catholicinsider.com/scripts/harrypotter.php

Fr. Roderick.

[allthewhile]

I really dug the first episode, Father. I questioned the podsafeness of it, however.

[Craig]

I haven't listened to it yet (it's on my iPod waiting) but I would assume it's no less podsafe than the Star Wars episodes!

Craig

[Charles]

Interesting and great insight into the rich details of the Harry Potter series.

Highly Recommended even for the unfriendly, angry attacking very few that have too loud a voice on this forum.

:wink:

[Catholic Insider]

I questioned the podsafeness of it, however.

Oh, there are just some very short audio quotes from the movie to illustrate various points, I'm not copying the soundtrack or anything... I even composed a little Harry Potter-like introduction tune myself that you can hear at the start of each episode.

I think that "The Secrets of Harry Potter" probably only motivates people to read the books and see the movies, so I can't see how the podcast could threaten the franchise :)

[Charles]

I questioned the podsafeness of it, however.

Oh, there are just some very short audio quotes from the movie to illustrate various points, I'm not copying the soundtrack or anything... I even composed a little Harry Potter-like introduction tune myself that you can hear at the start of each episode.

I think that "The Secrets of Harry Potter" probably only motivates people to read the books and see the movies, so I can't see how the podcast could threaten the franchise :)


I don't think you have anything to worry about using short snippets of commercial movie audio. In the USA fair use is usually acknowledged as up to 30 seconds in the sound bites. It may be different in the Netherlands or the European Union depending on what is covered there.

Catholic Insider Harry Potter Series seems to be quite podsafe.

We'll be looking forward to Part II which I just saw is now up. :)

[jimk]

Let me preface this by saying that I think copyright as it stands in America SUCKS. But...can someone show me this "Fair Use" law that allows 30 second snippets please? Often quited, never cited. Make sure the DMCA doesn't supercede it before you quote older law.

[Catholic Insider]

From Wikipedia:

Fair use under United States law

The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgement", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Practical effect of fair use defense

The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear. All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though he may sell his review commercially. But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.


In my Harry Potter podcast, I'm only using small audio snippets, with the sole purpose to comment upon them and to educate, with no commercial intent.

Fr. Roderick

[carrington]

IANAL, but in Canada (and in the rest of Commonwealth, I believe) our "fair use" laws are called "fair dealing." But it's a similar idea: a limitation on, and set of exceptions to, the exclusive monopoly of copyright.

There is no "30 second rule" in Canada, though often I see mention that there is. I've never seen a citation of such a law in the U.S., either. On the other hand, fair dealing is considered more strictly defined and less flexible than fair use.

The main thing people gloss over about fair dealing/use is that it is really just a set of acceptable defenses against an action for infringement. Essentially, you *are* infringing copyright, but the court will say you won't be punished for doing so...you hope.

It really comes down to whether you'd like to go to court to defend your case, because the copyright holder is perfectly in their right to request that you do so. So there's the rub.

The Stanford University site hosts a good overview of U.S. fair use laws. I haven't read it, but the site looks chock full o' smartness so I'm passing it on:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

I have my own little rant about the endless extension of copyright here:

http://carringtonvanston.net/eatmywords/goofy_tm/

But then, I don't always play well with others. So sue me. ;-)

[jimk]

No one looked at the DMCA and how it modifies a 1976 law? I would look around (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=dmca%20modify%20fair%20use) before I made a decision about 30 second snippets being legal. The VAST majority of opinion out there says it is NOT legal and fair use has been LOST to us in the U.S.

[Charles]

From Wikipedia:

Fair use under United States law

The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgement", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Practical effect of fair use defense

The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear. All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though he may sell his review commercially. But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.


In my Harry Potter podcast, I'm only using small audio snippets, with the sole purpose to comment upon them and to educate, with no commercial intent.

Fr. Roderick

Catholic Insider is quite podsafe. It only uses short audio snippets and it is non-commericial, non-profit and educational. In addition it is done in the Netherlands.

The small Air America Radio network which has the advice of some top legal attorney's uses a lot of small audio snippets from the news & other audio on various shows. Those are considered "fair use".

It seems that in the area of news there seems to be a little more leeway in regard to "fair use" as many programs have and continue to use long segments. One example is the recent news(almost all talking heads) video's available on crooksandliars.com

The non profit archive site, download & podcast site(airamericaplace.com) for Air America Radio is not owned by them but operates with their ok. Their policy on the very few AAR music shows is that the archive of them only contains the first 30 seconds of each song.

There is a lot of podcasts and internet sites that use snippets from news, movies and music. From the way they are used in different programs one sees that news segments are used the most. Movie audio(especially trailers) are used quite freely. In fact movie studios not only want people to use their trailers(commercials) but they also send out thousands of press kits which contains additional print and audio/video material. I know from personal experience that that material is usually close to a half hour and can be more. This is mainly numerous scenes from the movie and interviews. It seems that music is more closely held. However it is a major point that Apple itself allows hearing "30 second" previews of the hundreds of thousands of songs in its ITunes store for free. Previews of songs for 30 seconds or more are quite common on music download sites.

With a number of major sources and programs using up to and including 30 second segments, it is misinformation to say that this does not exist or is not a precedent.

[jimk]

Never take legal advice on the internet.

[Charles]

Never take legal advice on the internet.

I absolutely agree with that. However much can be learned about what others are doing, especially very visible companies like Apple, Air America Radio and others. One knows that larger visible companies are very careful legally and what they do does show & establish a precedent.

[Bitz of Brin]

Hey, Father Roderick! I just checked out your podcast. Very cool indeed. I'm not Catholic but I am a Christian and I enjoyed your insights. I think it's funny how people claim that Harry Potter will teach kids how to be witches. Last time I checked witches were makebelieve! I also find it funny that they never complain about the language issues in Harry Potter, or the frequent mention of alcohol - controversial subjects usually. No, instead, they worry we're going to learn how to fly on a broom. Very silly.

Thanks for putting that nice comment on my podsister's Podcast Alley page (http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=5819). Harry Podder is growing faster than my podcast! It's only one week old today. Anyway, we liked how you covered the Papal/Potter controversy. My dad gets mad with all the headlines claiming the Pope denounces Harry Potter when all they're doing is referring to old letters when he wasn't Pope yet. Let's hope they cover the new Vatican announcement. ;)

[Catholic Insider]

Thanks for the heads up! Is it ok if I send you a promo for the Secrets of Harry Potter to play on your Harry Podder show?

Fr. Roderick.

[Bitz of Brin]

Thanks for the heads up! Is it ok if I send you a promo for the Secrets of Harry Potter to play on your Harry Podder show?

Fr. Roderick.

LOL. Just yesterday they were wondering how to contact you to propose the same thing. I haven't started exchanging promos yet because I've just been focusing on doing a good podcast, but then I don't know what other podcast is like mine to cross promote with. But you two have a great fit. I'll tell them to contact you, or you can reach them at HarryPodder at gmail.com. You may not hear from them until Monday. They'll be a bit busy this weekend. LOL