Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'
from the piracy:-keeping-lawyers-employed-since-1999 dept
Who says the entertainment industry can't embrace new business models? From their ham-fisted attempts to make digital movie distribution less convenient than driving to the store and purchasing a DVD to their recent "collateral revamping" of various cloud services, the entertainment industry has never been more flexible.Plagiarism Today points us to the bold new direction the entertainment industry will be heading in the future. More specifically, a bold new direction the entertainment industry's lawyers will be headed.
[A]t a charity luncheon for the Entertainment Law Initiative, which was raising money for the Grammy Foundation, there was a thunderous applause from the audience, mostly comprised of attorneys, over a paper regarding Android applications the promote piracy wondering why no lawsuits had been filed against Google for secondary liability. Though most of the other papers admitted only received scattered applause, that one seemed to whip the crowd into a frenzy, indicating the possibility that industry lawyers are considering such a tactic in the near future.It's not an entirely new direction. Google is still the entertainment industry's favorite punching bag. But, hey, billable hours! New billable hours! Surely that's reason for a standing ovation! And a platform switch! Exciting!
A few more details emerged at the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he room went nuts during videotaped remarks by Ryanne E. Perio, a student at Columbia Law School, who wrote about Android smartphone apps that facilitate piracy.There seems to be no link to Perio's actual paper, entitled, "Policing The Android Market: Why The Expanding DMCA May Harbor Google From Liability For Illegal File-Sharing Apps Available On Android," so it's unclear whether Perio is referencing the official Android app store or simply broadbrushing (+4 troll points) Google as co-conspirators on any piece of software compatible with the Android platform.During remarks describing her paper, Perio wondered aloud why offering those apps hadn't generated lawsuits against Android parent Google, for "secondary copyright infringement" - i.e. facilitating piracy.
If it's the App Store angle, it's a bit like claiming Walmart is responsible for secondary infringement because they sell copies of Nero (not to mention computers, blank discs, cable modems and other tools of the pirate trade). If it's just because it's Google's platform, then it's about as meritous as suing Microsoft because
Of course, a lack of merit has never stopped a lawsuit. And it certainly has never stopped lawyers from racking up expensive hours constructing a variety of legal Spruce Gooses. Sadder still, it has never stopped a court from rendering a ridiculous decision in favor of the even more ridiculous plaintiffs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: android, apps, secondary liability
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why don't we sue more lawyers?
Of course they will have to pay a lawyer to handle the suit. Crap, forget that. Just take all lawyers out to the Pacific and dump them with heavy bundles of legal papers attached to their feet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why don't we sue more lawyers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secondary drug dealers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since MAFIAA is happy to provide money for lost causes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ftp, web browser, scp?
so i can avoid them, of course..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do call...
What's the difference between a laeyer and a hooker? There are some things a hooker won't do.
"Lawyers are like nuclear weapons - once you use them, everything gets fucked up." Paraphrase from "My Cousin Vinny"
Some notions are just too absurd to be taken seriously and one would hope this would get laughed out of court. But aren't most if not all judges lawyers also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do call...
A: Your Honor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do call...
A: A Lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooh! Then they can start suing each other for tertiary liability! After all, if they weren't providing the content, there wouldn't be any piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The audience, mostly comprised of attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates of the Caribbean ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sony Music makes round plastic CD's. Lyrics on one of those CD's told someone to commit murder. Sony Music should be sued.
That argument actually makes more sense than this one. Google has an Android market with apps. Third party makes an ordinary and useful app. App could potentially be used for infringement. Solution? Sue Google, not the developer of the app -- and that assumes that the app actually promotes infringement -- which should not be assumed given your track record of understanding technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where will they go?
The only answer is to change it from within. But you're right; to make change, you need seriously deep pockets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the operating system that is in question, it's the app store that is in question. If you can buy or download "approved" apps via google's marketplace intended to violate copyright, then they do have some liability. Since Google charges some money to open a developer / seller account, it is clear that they are put themselves in a position of at least some responsibility.
Is it enough to pass the bar? Not sure. But I think the lawyer's logic is at least somewhat more reasonable than the Lessig 1st Amendment challenges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google does not approve apps for the Android Market. Anyone with $25 can list whatever apps they wish. Google can and does review apps after receiving complaints, where those apps violate the Market terms and conditions. Apple, Amazon, and other firms review all submissions to their respective markets/stores/whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY....
AMIRITE????
Come on, if it applies to google and Apps, why not VCR's, tape recorders, 'smartphones', etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
is ebay responsible for counterfeit items being sold?
gun manufacturers know, for a fact, that gun crimes are committed with their products. car manufacturers know their product is used in bank heist getaway cars.
why does every action need someone else, by law, whether they have a badge or not, scrutinizing it or putting it on tape for later review (at their leisure). how is that freedom?
they would like you to believe all file sharing is evil and dangerous and kills puppies and kittens. but that is simply not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't know the app store was a flea market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And now you do.
Considering your post contained a bunch of errors (Google "approving" apps, etc) was your response an "I don't care, I'm not going to admit I was wrong", or a "I don't believe what you're saying, so I won't comment on it."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ie. people paying for a spot to peddle their (mostly) garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
or is Google the only company that needs to take preemptive action?
and the gun manufacturer was sued? not the stores? is that correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gun shops require background checks and can't sell to felons.
You pirates always come up with the most moronic, most childish "analogies".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Same type of example. So, compare your credentials and then think about your 'moronic and childish' statement.
And if you think this is off subject:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/00493313981/whos-funding-more-terrorism-download ers-hollywood.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't understand what you're saying. Is this in reply to another message which mentioned Microsoft, or are you calling Google an OS?
If the latter, are you a lawyer?
Recent TV ad:
Guy1: "Blah, blah, ..."
Guy2: "What's that Goggle page you're looking at?"
Guy1: "Uh, that's Google."
Guy2: "What's Google?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't the Android Market basically a wild west with no app approval process? I don't see how Google could be liable if they just provide a platform...seems like those railing against Google are just too lazy to hunt down the actual criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Takedowns
Specific examples: Tricorder App - due to takedown request from the Roddenberry estate.
Better Keyboard (though there's an imitator of the same name up now) due to 'too many notices' as they uploaded user made keyboard skins on their account, and one too many of the skins was deemed 'infringing' by some over zealous legal beagle(s).
Plus they've used their 'kill switch' on a couple of very bad virus/trojan/hijack apps.
Another, I forget the name, which showed where; according to area code & prefix; your caller was calling from--because some jackass claimed to have a patent on looking up area codes.
Your vaunted 'app approval process' is nothing more than a control mechanism which limits innovation. Google likes innovation, so they instead have an 'app takedown process' for whatever legal dorks out there feel offended by an app.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Takedowns
Also, Google has far deeper pockets than some app developer on a shoestring budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good news: A bus with only lawyers lawyers fell of a cliff and every1 died.
Bad news: there were 3 empty seats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The snake would have skids marks in front of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they thought they could get away with it, I'm sure they'd try to sue Walmart for something. But even they can't be that dumb. Granted the entertainment industry drives a pretty good chunk of Walmart's profits, but I think Walmart drives a much larger chunk of the entertainment industries profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But on the bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update: it's not that kind of place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RSS feed
And I mentally filled it in: "Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suicide".
Seemed accurate to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its not like the internet can offer another altrnative media provider,
its not likely possible that someone somewhere, will one day create an internet version equivalent to a content provider with unique posibilities that the internet can potentially afford them........
nope, i dont see one iota of anti-competive behaviour here, nothing to see here folks, move along, content providers dont think long term, there for, no chance of pre-emptive strikes on companies THEY feel may one day compete with them
R.I.P megaupload
Next target???????????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool article! If you'd like to have a look at my paper, shoot me an email and I'll send it to you. I'm nowhere near a technology expert, I just thought the legal issue was interesting.
Ryanne
ryanne.perio@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would love to see the paper. As you can see, I think it's a stretch to hold Google responsible for secondary infringement, but as much as you're not a "tech expert," rest assured, I am not a "legal expert." I will be emailing you shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fire these chumps, and hire some lawyers that are professional enough to do their job right. Everyone'd be better off. (Except the shyster lawyers, but nobody cares about them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an industry is not a model.
Yes, who does ??? no one... so what is your point ?
the entertainment industry, is no different than any other industry in progressing with new idea's and model, and adaptation to changing demographics.
an 'industry' is not a model anyway, the petrochemical industry is not a model of how fuels are mined, processed, distributed or sold.
The "music" 'industry' is not a model of any specific business, it is the 'industry'.
I guess you just dont get it !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: an industry is not a model.
Always discombobulating to see you and your words wandering the comment threads!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: an industry is not a model.
perhaps you can recomboblulate the issue for us?
it appears, you nor the author (if not you) do not understand very much about how an economy works, or what a business is, or what the difference between an industry and a company.
Would you consider a service station selling petrol in the "entertainment industry", or a golf club ? or a restaurant ?
Do you know what "disposable income" means ?
or
Do you know what 'entertainment' is ?
do you understand that people use their disposable income to often to provide them with some form of entertainment.
Companies compete for customers disposable income by providing products or services that the consumers are willing to pay for out of their disposable income.
that income, is what you have left from your pay after you pay your bills, buy your food, pay your rent ect. It is what you have left to spend on things YOU want to spend your money on.
you might decide to put that money in the bank and save it, or spend it on a tank of gas for your car, so you can entertain yourself with a long sunday drive in the country.
You might go out to dinner, or buy a book, or buy a CD, or go rollerskating !
If you choose to use your disposable income on entertainment, it does not mean you are going to buy a CD or buy a movie, or go to the flicks. You might equally buy a camera, learn how to use it and entertain yourself in that way.
It is simply stupid, and shows ignorance that you would try to convince any thinking person that the entertainment industry is a limited model industry. and there is a fixed amount of ways for consumers to purchase 'entertainment'.
How can your local video-ezy rental stall possibly operate with the same 'model' as a musician, or an actor, or a servo station ? or a golf course ?
They are all in the business of 'entertainment', If those dollars are not spent on buying a movie, it does not mean it is not spent on entertainment.
So as usual, this article starts with a flawed premise, and it just goes downhill from that point.
A part of the process of the development of a business plan (a model for a business), is to define your competition. You would fail (your business management course) if you did not consider all your competition, that is, every other vendor that is trying to acquire your disposable income.
So as an electronics engineer, I compete with the local restaurant, the local golf club, the local video store, the petrol station, the government.
Not just other electronics engineering companies, but I also compete directly with them. Articles such as this one very clealy demonstrate an almost total lack of understanding of even the most basic of economics...
Therefore there is really little point in engaging with your guys in a discussion on these matters, as for that to occur, you would need at the least a basic understanding of markets and economics, which you clearly do not at present posses. or care to learn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: an industry is not a model.
If you want to argue about the most minute aspects of the "entertainment industry" in order to avoid talking about the actual post, you'll need to find someone else to entertain you.
When a room full of lawyers for the "entertainment industry" applauds the idea of suing Google for secondary liability because various apps "facilitate piracy," it's highly unlikely that these lawyers are representing the interests of gas stations, restaurants and rollerskating rinks. (Of course, some of these "entertainment" lawyers may do work for ASCAP, BMI, etc., in which case they might perk up their ears at the mention of restaurants and rollerskating rinks, but generally speaking, this isn't what we're dealing with here.)
Yes, money spent on entertainment encompasses a whole variety of options, including in-room porn and filling the tank with gas and buying water balloons to drop from the overpass. But a roomful of entertainment lawyers at a Grammy-related event has nothing to do with those other "entertainments" mentioned. You're simply avoiding the real issue by attempting to attack my presumed lack of knowledge about economics.
This article has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with entertainment lawyers applauding a new way to sue Google. Your comment has next to nothing to do with this post other than the use of the words "entertainment" and "industry."
Therefore there is really little point in engaging with you in a discussion of this matter, as for that to occur, you would need at the least to address the article itself, which you clearly would rather not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]