Thinking About Real Copyright Reform

from the is-that-even-possible? dept

Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about "Real Copyright Reform." While there's been some chatter here and there about doing real copyright reform, there seems to be no real effort behind it. That's for a few reasons, including the fact that many people still remember what a pain the last attempt at real copyright reform was (it took decades) combined with the realization (especially on the part of copyright holders) that their ability to push through laws that solely favor themselves to greater and greater degrees may not be so easy this time around. Thanks to the internet and various "wars" on consumers, copyright isn't just an arcane subject that the day to day person doesn't know much about. A serious attempt at remaking copyright laws might actually draw out well-reasoned and well-argued points that go against the current views held by the record labels and movie studios. See what's been happening in Canada, for example.

Litman's paper goes through the problems with today's copyright law, and begins to explore what real copyright reform should entail, even while noting the political difficulty of having it go anywhere:

A wise approach to copyright revision might inspire us to rethink the model. If both creators and readers are ill-served by distributor-centric copyright, and if the economics of digital distribution now makes it possible to engage in mass dissemination without significant capital investment, perhaps it is time to reallocate the benefits of the copyright system. The consolidation of control in distributors' hands does not appear to have made life easier or more remunerative for creators. Copyright lobbyists have not shown that recent enhancements to copyright have made it easier or more rewarding for readers, listeners and viewers to enjoy copyrighted works. Perhaps the classic picture of copyright is too far removed from its reality to be useful.

From there, Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that "stronger protections" lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law:

Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly.... I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Companys monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essexs monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.

And yet, in copyright reform today, there seems to be no one in the political realm with enough power to play the role of Macauley today. But Litman raises these same issues:

Instead of asking how to enhance copyright owner control, I suggest, we ought to be asking why. Does a particular proposed enhancement of copyright owner prerogatives seem likely to expand opportunities for creators or improve reader, listener or viewer enjoyment of copyrighted works? Is it likely to make the copyright system simpler, more effective, or more transparent? Does it seem to be designed to shore up copyright's apparent legitimacy? If not, it seems as likely to make the current mess worse instead of better.

Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don't have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don't respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back "legitimacy" to copyright law by focusing on four principles:

1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today

To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:

1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers' (or viewers', listeners', users', etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others

It's definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it. I've said in the past that the line between commercial use and personal use is increasingly blurry, so trying to draw that distinction may be a lot harder than most people think. We're already seeing the kind of mess termination rights create, and I'm still not sure why they help matters, rather than just make them more complex. And, of course even as Litman notes, new intermediaries will spring up to fill the void of the old ones.

Still, if you're interested in copyright and copyright reform, it's certainly a worthwhile paper to read just to get you thinking.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?

from the is-it-wrong? dept

I've discussed in the past the question of whether or not there's even a moral question to consider when it comes to copyright, if you can first show a situation where everyone is better off (i.e., if the end result of content being shared, willingly, is better for both the content creators and consumers, why should morals even be a question?). Separately, I have made clear that I do not engage in any sort of unauthorized file sharing -- noting that it is illegal and, I personally believe, wrong. Some people have pushed back on that latter point, suggesting that my labeling it as "wrong" is, in fact, a moral statement as well. A couple months ago (yes, I'm slow, but I'm catching up on some old "saved" submissions), SteelWolf sent over some thoughts on why file sharing is not wrong, and why there's actually a moral argument in favor of sharing:

It is through sharing that we develop a culture and advance humanity. Creative works like art and music are, at their core, about sharing with others. They tell stories, reveal personalities, or comment on the world in ways that others can appreciate, forming a part of our culture as they are spread around. Gregor Mendel's discoveries about genetics had no value while they were gathering dust on the monastery bookshelf; it is only when those discoveries were shared with the world that they became vital.

Infinite Goods Should Be Shared

Say you have something that is good for others, and it is infinite, so you will not lose any of it by giving some away. I don't think it's a stretch to say that most people's idea of morality would dictate that they should share that thing. In general, information is something that can be seen as a public good. If somebody has a discovery or an idea, it costs nothing to give it away, it is not scarce, yet it can potentially benefit the world.

On this, I absolutely agree -- but it is much more the argument for why the content creators themselves should share their content first. And that's where things get tricky. I do think it makes sense to share content. I think that content creators would find themselves better off if they share their works (and do so strategically, in combination with a business plan that takes advantage of it). But what if the original creator doesn't want the content shared? Then what?

SteelWolf argues that there's a moral imperative to share, but again, this seems to apply more to the content creator, than those downstream:

Faced with an infinity of good things in the form of content information, why would somebody chose not to give it away? What is gained by hoarding something that can help others and costs nothing to share? Let's say you figure out that you can protect people from a deadly virus, say, influenza, with a vaccine. While it costs something to manufacture physical vaccines and mail them to everybody in the world, sharing the information behind it is free. Others can chose whether or not they want to invest money in creating their own, but sharing has given them the option to do so where before it did not exist. Faced with this situation, who would chose to let thousands of people perish by denying them even the potential opportunity to save themselves?

Yet this is exactly the choice many people are making in the name of "intellectual property." They would rather see others suffer than share something infinite with them, desperately clinging to business models that depend on scarcity. In the 21st century, ideas, information, digitized content are all infinitely available. For these things, the Star Trek replicator has been made, and it's time to use that as a stepping stone to greater things.

Faced with an infinite supply of information that can potentially benefit billions of people, I chose to share. Those who try to hoard this information are both attempting to drink the ocean and doing wrong.

While I think this is interesting, and at times compelling, in the end I'm still not convinced there's a moral component here, except potentially for the creator/innovator. But, at the same time, I still believe that we're better off taking the moral discussion out of it. Perhaps a moral argument like the one above is helpful to convince some, but it leads right back to the economic discussion, where some will ask why anyone would bother in the first place, if they're just told they need to give it away for moral reasons.

Instead, I'm more convinced by economic arguments that show greater opportunity in sharing infinite goods, in that it decreases the cost of creation, promotion and distribution, while making it easier reach a larger audience for selling scarce products. Again, if you can make the economic argument, and then throw in the moral benefits of spreading information on top of it, that makes sense. But a purely moral argument still falls a bit short for me. Still, I'm sure it will lead to an interesting discussion here.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sarah Palin Joins Al Gore In Not Realizing That Everyone's A Reporter These Days

from the something-in-the-veep-sauce? dept

Last year, we wrote how odd it was that former VP Al Gore banned reporters from a speech he gave, where all audio-video equipment was also banned. These days, such "no reporters allowed" speeches make no sense -- because anyone can be a reporter. Yet, it seems that there's something in the veep sauce (or veep wannabe sauce) that leads to these sorts of positions, as former VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is trying to do the same thing, barring "reporters" along with any kind of recording devices from a talk that she is giving. You can understand, perhaps, why politicians like to do this, but it seems both out of touch and completely pointless. Every single person in that room can be a reporter in one way or another -- and it doesn't take a recording device, but a pencil and some paper (or a decent memory). Trying to block out the "official" press is just a waste of time.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Murdoch Reconsidering Paywalls? Delaying Implementation

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

Is Rupert Murdoch flip-flopping on paywalls again? Way back when (i.e., two years ago) Murdoch was a big believer in the idea that news should be free online, and that he could more than make it up with other business models. But, then, earlier this year, he did a complete flip-flop, declaring that all his publications would put up paywalls, saying that free content is bad, and accusing aggregators and search engines of "stealing" content. Some speculated that it was all a ploy to get others to put up paywalls. Though, others just think Murdoch's getting a little senile. Either way, it looks like he's stalling a bit. Jay Rosen points us to the news that Murdoch is "postponing" the date for when he wants his papers to have paywalls. It's not clear if the delay is due to technical difficulties in implementing a paywall, or if he's actually reconsidering. Either way, it doesn't look like the great big paywall is going up any time soon.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IP Czar Focused On Protecting Jobs, Not Promoting Progress?

from the that's-the-wrong-thing dept

We were already somewhat concerned about the nomination of Victoria Espinel for the IP Czar job in the administration (forced on the administration by the silly and pointless "ProIP" Act from last year). On Thursday, she had her confirmation hearings where she said pretty much what we expected about how important intellectual property is, and how she viewed her job as coordinating different government agencies to crack down on infringers. Much of her (brief) testimony (pdf) talked up the usual industry claims about the importance of intellectual property on the economy, not recognizing how misleading they are. These are stats that simply credit anything covered by intellectual property laws, as if the only reason those industries exist is because of those laws. That's a mistake.

But more troubling? Espinel made it clear that her job is not to do as the Constitution requires, and make sure that intellectual property laws are properly "promoting the progress of arts and the useful sciences" (she never mentions this part), but, instead she claims her focus is cracking down on infringement to protect jobs:

If I am confirmed as the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, I will work side by side with agencies, Congress, stakeholders and the public to ensure that jobs that depend on intellectual property are not compromised by others' unwillingness to respect and enforce the rule of law....

But intellectual property law is not about "protecting jobs" it's about encouraging innovation. Innovation can be disruptive. Jobs can get shifted around. Protecting jobs is not encouraging innovation. It's the opposite.

Better and smarter protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights will create more jobs...

There's simply no evidence to support that. Shouldn't our IP Czar rely on actual evidence rather than broad industry claims that are unproven?

Then, on being questioned she appeared to support Hollywood's position that any net neutrality laws won't apply to mandating content filters on ISPs. It's looking like -- just as was initially feared -- this position is really to get Hollywood's own representative in the White House. What a shame. If you must have an "IP Czar" shouldn't it be someone who's actually focused on making sure progress is being promoted, rather than someone who wants to blindly crack down on infringement with no thought towards whether or not it makes sense?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme

from the nice-try dept

Back in September, we wrote about Glenn Beck's misguided attempt to gain control over the domain name used as part of an internet meme that is critical of Glenn Beck, GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (it's a dead site now, keep reading). If you're unfamiliar with the meme, it's mocking a favorite tactic of various cable news talk show hosts, to "ask questions" that are accusatory in nature, whether or not there's any substance to back them up. Glenn Beck didn't accuse the site of defamation or anything, but filed a domain name complaint, saying that it violated his trademark. As we noted at the time, the trademark claim was really questionable -- and, of course, only served to draw more attention to the site and the internet meme.

The site brought on lawyer Marc Randazza who filed one of the most brilliant responses (pdf) to a legal threat that you'll ever see. It's quite amusing. Randazza takes the old "moron in a hurry" test up one level, using the "abject imbecile" test. And then there was this:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down.

Apparently, Randazza's letter worked wonders. The WIPO Arbitration Panel has rejected the attempt to take the domain, saying that it was a legitimate use of Beck's name:

In the present context, this Panel considers that if Internet users view the disputed domain name in combination with a visit to Respondent's website, the "total effect" is that of political commentary by Respondent, capable of protection as political speech by the First Amendment under the Hustler Magazine standard. Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant's mark under the Policy.

Either way, now that the site's owner has prevailed, he apparently feels he has made his point, and has agreed to voluntarily hand over the domain (pdf), along with an explanation in the First Amendment and how not to respond to internet memes:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment....

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Telenor Doesn't Need To Block The Pirate Bay

from the onwards dept

I'm heading over to Norway in the next few days to give a talk at the Nordic Music Week event, and it's nice to see that the courts in that country seem to recognize how silly the IFPI's demands that major ISP Telenor block access to The Pirate Bay are. Telenor was smart enough to fight back, and the courts have now said that Telenor is not liable for what its users do, and should not have to block access to a site like The Pirate Bay. From TorrentFreak on the ruling:

The court ruled that Telenor is not contributing to any infringements of copyright law when its subscribers use The Pirate Bay, and therefore there is no legal basis for forcing the ISP to block access to the site.... In making its decision, the court also had to examine the repercussions if it ruled that Telenor and other ISPs had to block access to certain websites. This, it said, is usually the responsibility of the authorities and handing this task to private companies would be "unnatural."

Good to see a court recognize that the entertainment industry doesn't own the internet, and shouldn't be the one to determine what is and what is not legal online.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Update On Choruss: Universities Not Talking, Mysterious 10,000 Students Still Nowhere To Be Found

from the still-waiting... dept

We've been pretty big critics of the music tax concept, that was being pushed by Jim Griffin's Choruss along with Warner Music (who had hired Griffin to create this program). Of course, we've only been able to criticize what bits and pieces have leaked out from those who have seen Griffin's presentations. That's because, despite a busy conference schedule, Griffin never seems to publicly describe what Choruss really is. So, every time we hear some new info about Choruss, and explain why it's bad, we get angry emails from Griffin calling me all sorts of insulting names, and insisting that I've mischaracterized Choruss. So, we ask for more details, and we don't get them. Instead, we're given amorphous descriptions about how it's "an experiment." But what is the experiment? Well, it will be lots of things. As soon as we narrow in on an example, however, and explain why it's bad, we're attacked because the plan might not include that particular example. But we haven't yet heard an example that makes sense.

Griffin had agreed (as part of an angry email) to answer questions from the Techdirt community, and we obliged by sending him a long list of questions. Griffin had some personal issues to deal with over the summer, which was totally understandable, but we still haven't heard any answers. I'm beginning to wonder if we ever will.

But the biggest question I had was if he could explain who the "tens of thousands" of students were who Griffin told a conference in June would be using Choruss this fall semester. It seemed odd to find out that so many students had signed up for something when we still weren't being told what it was. As the fall semester started, we asked to hear from students who were using Choruss, and got silence -- which seemed odd. Apparently, it's because those tens of thousands of students hadn't signed up for the fall.

However, as a bunch of you have sent in, now the claim is that six college campuses will be testing Choruss this spring semester, but Griffin won't say who they are and the campuses won't admit to participating. They claim that they're afraid of backlash from folks like us -- but that makes me wonder. If the concept is so good, why not stand up and defend yourself for being a part of the program? If you can't defend the reasons for testing the program, it makes me wonder why you're doing it in the first place.

The article at the Chronicle of Higher Education provides a few new details that don't sound particularly appealing. Rather than (as some had suggested earlier, but since Griffin never made it clear, we just don't know if this was ever true) a system that would let students share files freely under some sort of blanket license, it sounds like "yet another limited music service." It will allow unlimited downloads, but you have to use the Choruss service (again, perhaps the article is wrong, but that's what it says). Similar services have been tried on various campuses and failed, so we're curious to hear what's so special about Choruss that will be different.

It still seems like Choruss is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We're seeing more and more smart musicians put in place business models that work. They work in a way that lets fans choose to send money to the artists they want to support directly, without a big middleman. Choruss appears (from all we've heard) to be an attempt to set up a big middleman that will take big chunks of money and then use some magical process to figure out how to dole it out. But why do we need that overhead? The market is figuring stuff out. It doesn't need another middleman.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does The White House Have Any Legal Right To Demand No Modifications To Its Photos?

from the doesn't-appear-that-way dept

You may recall earlier this year that there was a fair bit of controversy when the White House started putting photos up on Flickr. Or, rather, there was controversy over the licensing. Everyone thought it was great that the White House would have its own Flickr channel and constantly post photos -- but since Flickr only had certain licensing options that you could put on a photo, there was a problem. Even though the White House chose a Creative Commons Attribution license at the time, that was still too much. Government documents are not covered by copyright, and the photos clearly should be public domain. After a bit of back-and-forth, Flickr created a special public domain license so the White House could properly designate the photos.

And yet... it appears that the White House is now trying to claw back some rights over these photos that it just doesn't have. Tim Lee points out that along with these officials photos is a licensing claim that goes well beyond the public domain, stating:

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

The problem is the White House has no right to say that you can't manipulate the photo, since the photo is public domain. It's really unfortunate that, once again, we're seeing how little people seem to understand (or value) the public domain.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Retailers Still Want New Laws Blaming eBay For Shoplifting; Law Enforcement Isn't So Sure

from the anti-competition dept

A group of brick-and-mortar retailers have been pushing for years to pass laws that put liability on online sites, like eBay, if stolen goods are sold through the sites. This really has nothing to do with preventing theft from their stores, as they claim. Instead, it's really an effort to attack online competitors and second-hand sellers to try to boost the primary market. Studies have shown that the number one source of theft in stores is actually employees. If the retailers were serious about cracking down on theft, they would do more to watch their own employees... but instead, they've been trying to create a moral panic by claiming that the use of eBay leads to crime because people get so addicted that, after they run out of their own stuff to sell, they start ripping off stores just to keep that eBay high going. Just look at their own words:

"Thieves often tell the same disturbing story: they begin legitimately selling product on eBay and then become hooked by its addictive qualities, the anonymity it provides and the ease with which they gain exposure to millions of customers. When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online. The thefts then begin to spiral out of control and before they know it they quit their jobs, are recruiting accomplices and are crossing states lines to steal, all so they can support and perpetuate their online selling habit."

Uh huh. Only problem? Actual stats show that such retail theft is on the decline. But, of course, that won't stop the lobbyists from these stores from pushing -- and that means we've now got the fourth such law introduced just this year to deal with. With the introduction of the new bill, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings with law enforcement officials who did claim that retail theft was a problem, but according to Thomas O'Toole, they also said no new laws were needed. What are the chances of that happening? Apparently, the law enforcement folks said that the online websites like eBay are actually quite cooperative, and the only problem is they need more money and resources -- not more laws. Somehow, that seems unlikely.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Venezuelan Government Blames Video Games For Violence, Implements Widespread Ban

from the ouch dept

Via Game Politics we hear about the situation in Venezuela, where the government is apparently blaming video games for the widespread violence in the country, and has issued a ban on the import, production or sale of any video games that include weapons. The link above is a rather heartfelt writeup, by someone in Venezuela, discussing the many problems the people in that country face, and making it clear that it's not violent video games that are the problem. It's long, but is a worthwhile read. Here's just a small snippet:

This situation is painful to behold. Even if I barely game at all these days, I am a gamer at neocortex. I spent countless hours solving puzzles, riddles and fighting monsters in dungeons. I rescued Toadstool many times, only to be told that thanks, but my Princess was in another castle, later I joined Link and rescued Zelda from Agahnim and Ganon, using the Master Sword and the Silver Arrows. I got the Zantetsu sword and cut metal, I summoned Ifrit, Odeen and Behemoth. From Dragoon, I became a Paladin. I sneaked on Big Boss' fortress in Zanzibar and stopped doomsday with Solid Snake. I fought along a Double Dragon trapped on a Final Fight, using my Killer Instinct in a Mortal Kombat in which only the greatest Street Fighter would come alive. I was Linked to the Past by a Chrono Trigger, my Soul Blazing, as I lived my Final Fantasies, Wandering from Ys, arriving to a Lagoon, to learn about the Secret of Mana, and finally understood that there is Ever More to life.

These games are a cherished part of my life, they helped to shape my young mind, they gave me challenges and vastly improved my English, opening the door to a whole new world of literature, music and people from all around the world. What I have achieved, all my research, how I have been able to travel even though I'm always broke, the hard work I've done to convince people to fund a start up for cheap biotech for developing countries and regular folks, none of that would have been possible hadn't I learned English through video games.

Now, thanks to the tiny horizons of the cast of morons who govern me, thanks to the stupidity and ham-fisted authoritarianism of the local authorities, so beloved of so many liberals, my 7 year old brother's chances to do the same could be greatly impacted.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congressional Study Says $42 Billion Could Be Raised By Legalizing Internet Gambling

from the that-might-be-useful-right-about-now dept

Ragaboo writes " A congressional report was recently released estimating that the regulation of Internet gambling could amount to around $42 billion in revenue for the U.S. government. Considering both the current financial climate and the fact (given the nature of the Internet) Americans are gambling online anyway, whether the government likes it or not, it seems like an incredible waste not to simply regulate the industry. Regulation provides much-needed funds, allows standards to be imposed and oversight to ensure safety, and also allows safety nets and safeguards to be forced to be put in place against underage and problem gamblers. As it currently stands, millions are playing online poker alone from within the United States (whether or not the government approves of it, which in an of itself isn't explicitly clear) and countless others are gambling, and yet every cent being made in that industry is going overseas."

Indeed. Online gambling seems like one area where a regulated market would make a lot more sense than outright prohibition. Many other countries already do this, and it's really odd that the US continues to resist it. Many claim that it's really just an effort by the existing casinos to block out competition, but it would seem that those casinos would benefit greatly themselves by being able to offer their own online offerings. And, even with this new evidence, it looks like Congress is actually going in the opposite direction.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees

from the but-the-copyright-office dept

In the US, if you really want to "protect" your copyrighted works, you have to register the works. Unlike for a patent or a trademark, it's pretty much a rubberstamp process. Every so often the Copyright Office will reject a registration, but it's rare. It does still go through them all, though. Or at least it's supposed to. However, we recently wrote about the weird case of the site Bluebeat.com selling Beatles MP3s for $0.25. We noted that nowhere on the site did the company explain how it had the rights to do so, but in its response to the lawsuit filed by EMI, it explained its bizarre logic.

Basically, the company claims it somehow re-recorded the songs via a "psycho-acoustic simulation" (don't ask) and then added an image to the file, making it a totally new work (um... yeah). And then it registered the copyrights on those new recordings, claiming that the re-recording is a new work where Bluebeat.com actually owns the copyright. Its "proof" is that the Copyright Office okayed the registration -- suggesting that the rubber stamp at the Copyright Office is a bit too quick at times. A judge isn't buying it and has barred the sale of the MP3s for the time being (i.e., almost certainly forever). While it's amusing to see Bluebeat's tortured explanation, perhaps some of the blame needs to go to the Copyright Office for allowing these registrations in the first place. Of course, you have to wonder if this now also opens up Bluebeat to additional charges of false representation in registering the copyright...

In the meantime, some readers have noted that this is not the first time that the folks behind Bluebeat.com have had ridiculous interpretations of copyright law. Two and a half years ago, it sued Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks and Adobe for not using the DRM created by Bluebeat's parent company, Media Rights Technologies. Basically, the company claimed that by not preventing the ability to rip files, these companies were violating the DMCA. Of course, that makes no sense.

Given that it's now twice that we're seeing totally foreign interpretations of basic copyright law, it almost makes you wonder if the company is doing this to make a point about the ridiculousness of copyright law, rather than for any legitimate reasons. Either that, or the company actually thinks that filing lawsuits as publicity stunts is smart. I would imagine that a judicial slapdown might correct the folks behind Bluebeat and MRT of that notion.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance

from the riverdance! dept

In the latest sign of bizarre and ridiculous lawsuits brought about by the belief that every concept and idea must be owned and licensed, Richard alerts us to the news that the folks behind the infamous Riverdance show are being sued by the costume designer who created outfits for the show in the mid-1990s. While the original agreement had the show paying royalties to the clothing designer to the tune of 60 euros per performance, that deal ran out in 2001. Now, the designer, Jen Kelly complains that Riverdance continues to "use and modify his designs without licence or payment." Frankly, it seems pretty silly to think that a stage show should need to pay the clothing designer for every performance and that it would be some sort of violation of that designer's rights to "modify" the designs. Next, will designers start demanding that people pay a royalty fee every time they wear the clothes outside the home? After all, isn't that a "public performance"?

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

from the good-luck,-buddy dept

Brooks writes "Speaking at a cable broadcaster's summit, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO, said: "An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting." How's that for cart before the horse?

His ultimate goal -- to maintain or increase revenue for Comcast -- makes perfect sense, and is positively what a cable COO should be focused on. From there on out, though, he's off in the weeds. How about offering this new generation new and innovative services that are worth paying for? That's challenging, of course... but how challenging will it be to change the next generation's behavior "to respect subscription revenue." Yikes.

How many consumers, in any market, are focused on "respecting" vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

The quotes really are quite stunning. Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want. A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.

182 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ferrari Doesn't Want Web Racing Simulation To Use Ferraris

from the fair-use? dept

Lincoln Braun writes "I play an online web game. BATracer which is designed to simulate a number of racing series including Formula 1, LeMans, A1 Grand Prix, Ferrari Challenge, and more. This week, however, the owner of the site received a legal notice from Ferrari, ordering a cease & desist from using Ferrari cars. BATracer has somewhere between 2000 and 3000 active users, most of whom arrived at the site because of Formula 1. The letter by Ferrari has really annoyed many of the most passionate fans and they have lost a lot of goodwill."

It looks like BATracer shut down for a bit before opening up again without Ferraris. Now, Ferrari has a big licensing business, but at some point you have to wonder if legal actions like this make any sense or if there's a reasonable fair use claim. In the case of team sports simulations, courts have ruled that name and stats are facts -- and not covered by intellectual property, so couldn't you say the same thing for car names and specifications? And while I could potentially see a trademark issue, it's not as if BATracer is actually "competing" in the same space as Ferrari. I can already hear the excuses about how Ferrari needs to keep its brand special and being seen in such a game might cheapen it -- but that's not the purpose of intellectual property law. Either way, it seems pretty dumb to piss off so many people even if many of them probably can't afford a Ferrari in real life (probably what the company is betting on). There may be some who can (or who will be able to someday), and pushing them away for no good reason can't help matters.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nestle's Kit Kat Bars Give Consumers An RtB In Japan

from the you-will-surely-win dept

Techdirt reader Kathy writes in to let us know about the 200 different flavors of Kit Kat candy bars in Japan. Public Radio International describes how Nestle has developed an interesting sales strategy in Japan where the competition among retailers is apparently so great that stores benefit from constantly updating their shelves with new products. In such a marketplace, Nestle has adopted numerous varieties of its Kit Kat candy bars that can only be purchased in certain locations or at specific times of the year. So instead of trying to peddle the same merchandise to everyone, Nestle has effectively given consumers a reason to buy (RtB) -- by making limited edition flavors and targeting the local tastes and customs in Japan. Nestle caters to Japan's omiage gift-giving culture (where friends are expected to bring back unique trinkets when they travel) with regional Kit Kats. So for example, a potato-flavored version is only sold in the northern part of Japan known for its potatoes, so northerners (or traveling southerners) can give out unique treats that aren't available nationwide. And all over Japan, the candy bars have also been packaged with mailing labels -- so that the candy can be sent as "good luck" charms. Due to the ingenious connection to the Japanese words Kitto Katsu which mean "you will surely win", the "good luck" symbol for Kit Kats in Japan was also successfully manufactured and marketed and as a result, Kit Kats have been popular with exam-taking students who seem to want good luck, however they can get it.

Clearly, Nestle must be admired for its efforts to connect with candy fans. And it's particularly brilliant to see them bundle candy bars as good luck charms -- a story that adds intangible value to the otherwise ordinary snacks. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before some artists write some flavor-inspired songs/plays/films and try to sell loooots of Kit Kats, too.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lord Mandelson Wants Students To Get More Tech Education; Can We Start By Educating Him?

from the learning-begins-at-home dept

Lord Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who has been the leading force behind putting in place the entertainment industry's desired plan to require ISPs to kick accused file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, apparently is also saying that young people need better technology skills. Along with that, he's supporting a plan to get universities to do more technical skills training. Now, I'm all for more tech skills training in universities, but wouldn't it be nice if Mandelson started by getting some tech skills training himself -- including a basic understanding of why an IP address is not an accurate indicator of who is doing something online? Or, perhaps, an understanding of how BitTorrent actually works and a brief primer on encryption technologies....

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Texas Pulls Voting Reg System From IBM After Multimillion System Can't Recover Lost Data

from the that's-not-good dept

EFF points us to yet another massively expensive computer system that can't do some rather basic things. Apparently the state of Texas has pulled its election systems from an $863 million computer system project it had with IBM, after failures and glitches in the system took down the voter system and lost data, which was unrecoverable. State officials realized that if this had happened during an actual election, the state wouldn't have been able to verify new voters, in violation of federal law. So, it dumped IBM and set up its own system that (gasp) actually has multiple backups of the data. I guess things like redundant backups aren't included in the $863 million package.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Well Duh: People Who Use Social Networking Tend To Have Larger Social Circles

from the we-needed-research-for-that? dept

While I guess there are still some people who think that sitting around on your computer isn't "interacting" with other people, I would have thought that the myth that computer users are loners died off a long time ago. However, apparently we still need studies to debunk that. The latest, from Annenberg and Pew found that people who use social networks have a larger social circle than those who don't. And, no, the study didn't just count how many friends you have on Facebook, but found out from people the number of people with whom they felt comfortable talking over important issues. That number was noticeably higher for those who used modern technology more frequently. So again, even though I had thought the stereotype died off ages ago, here's a bit more evidence that being an internet geek doesn't mean you're a loner.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..