Why Would Amazon Want To Block Links From A File Sharing Search Engine?

from the uh...-what? dept

While it's certainly not true for everyone who uses file sharing systems, plenty of people do actually use them as a "try before you buy" system. As such, it certainly makes sense to put links on file sharing systems to take them to sites where they can purchase the digital version if they really want to. Yet, apparently, Amazon doesn't like the idea of converting unauthorized downloaders into authorized purchasers, as it demanded that Coda.fm remove links to the purchase pages on Amazon.com and also killed off Coda.fm's affiliate account. It's difficult to see any rationale for this at all. This was a way to convert people into paying for the files. Why would Amazon want to block that?

Somewhat related to this, it appears that Google is now blocking some custom searches set up by torrent tracker sites to help people find torrents via Google's custom search engine. Given that the response to The Pirate Bay verdict has actually focused a fair amount of attention on Google as being able to "do the same thing," perhaps this is an attempt to try to back away from that. If so, that's rather disappointing. Google claims its goal is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." An awful lot of that information is found via torrents -- and plenty of that is perfectly legit and authorized.

Filed Under: digital goods, file sharing, sales
Companies: amazon, coda.fm, google

California Lawmaker Wants To Change Law To Tax iTunes; Pretending Infinite Goods Are Tangible

from the reality-is-meaningless-if-it-gets-in-the-way-of-tax-revenue dept

Slashdot points us to the news that a Los Angeles (surprise, surprise) area politician is pushing to change a California law that requires sales tax on the sale of tangible goods. He wants the law to be adjusted such that digital goods would be considered tangible goods so they can be taxed. Effectively, this is a way of applying a sales tax on iTunes downloads as a way to make up the California budget shortfall. Considering that the entertainment industry has been trying to convince the world that intellectual property is no different than tangible property, it's not surprising that a politician coming from LA would see no problem with pretending infinite goods are tangible goods. However, it seems likely that such a plan would backfire. If anything, it will push more people to look for alternatives (potentially unauthorized) alternatives if California forces an unwanted price increase on iTunes. Also, if the law starts treating digital goods as tangible goods, will that give people other rights -- such as the right to do what they want with the content after purchase? It looks like there's plenty of opposition to this plan, so it probably won't go very far. In the meantime, though, does someone want to explain the difference between tangible goods and infinite goods to Assemblyman Charles Calderon?

Filed Under: california, charles calderon, digital goods, infinite goods, itunes, tangible goods, taxes

eBay Bans Auctions Of Digital Goods

from the another-market-mucked-up-by-digital-goods dept

We've pointed out more than a few times how digital goods muck up traditional markets that are based on the concept of scarcity, and it appears that eBay has come to the same conclusion. It's now banned the direct sale of purely digital goods from either its auctions or its direct sales offerings. Instead, those who want to sell digital goods need to put up a classified ad on the site, rather than a transactional platform. The basic reason has to do with the (wouldn't you know it?) infinitely reproduceable nature of digital goods. That allows eBay sellers to list the same product many, many, many times over, since they have an infinite supply. This practice is screwing up listings and (more importantly) is being used to manipulate feedback ratings, and so eBay has done away with it.

Filed Under: auctions, digital goods
Companies: ebay

If Someone Picks Your Pocket In Second Life, Who Do You Blame?

from the that-border-between-virtual-and-real dept

We've recently covered a few cases where real world laws end up in virtual worlds due to accusations of theft or fraud. These cases are always problematic, because it's impossible to know where to draw the boundaries. If a virtual world allows theft, then is it still a crime in real world? Now let's make this question a little more complicated. Some researchers have discovered that, thanks to a flaw in Apple's Quicktime, which is used within Second Life, it's possible to steal money from players within Second Life. This is important, because Second Life money can quickly be converted into US dollars. So, the virtual world "pick pocketing" can have real world implications. However, is it a crime?

Second Life is famous for pitching itself as a world where anything can happen -- and you could assume that if it can happen in the virtual world then it's legitimate activity -- or should be dealt with within the confines of the world. Otherwise, you're opening the door to people in worlds where "thieving" is encouraged or a part of game play accusing others of stealing in real world courts as well. Of course, that does open up the question of whether or not someone is to blame for the lost money here. Some could pin the blame on Second Life -- and, in fact, the article above notes that Second Life may need to upgrade its security to be more "bank like." Some could pin the blame on Apple, who has yet to patch the flaw in Quicktime. Others, of course, might blame users for keeping "valuable" currency in an unsecured environment like Second Life. And, of course, some would blame the person exploiting the security flaw in the first place. The point, though, is that it's a bit more complex than many would make it out to be, and future scenarios are only going to get more complex.

Filed Under: digital goods, theft, virtual worlds
Companies: linden labs

Real Police Cross Over Into Virtual World Again; Arrest Teen For Theft Of Virtual Furniture

from the bad-precedent dept

Just a few weeks ago, we pointed to a lawsuit involving two Second Life users, with one accusing the other of "theft." We pointed out, as we have for quite some time, how problematic it is when real world laws are applied within a virtual world. The point of a virtual world is that anything is possible -- and putting the constraints of the real world on those worlds not only seems counterproductive, but potentially dangerous. That Second Life lawsuit was between two users, but over in the UK, a similar situation has gone even further: involving the police.

The police have arrested a teenager accused of "stealing" virtual furniture from another player in the virtual world Habbo Hotel. Again, it's true that the virtual furniture has real monetary value, but it's the sort of thing that should be taken care of within the framework of Habbo Hotel. The folks who run the world should be able to deal with the situation, as they are the world's de facto government. If you don't think this is a problem that's going to get more and more problematic, then just start to think through the scenarios of what happens next. What happens in an online virtual world where "theft" is designed to be a part of the gameplay? Can players then call the real cops when they lose in the game? That situation may be a bit more black and white, but many of these virtual worlds are designed to be defined by the users. So what if the users decide that "theft" is a part of the gameplay? What if some users decide it is and others don't? Bringing real world laws and real world cops into virtual worlds is guaranteed to cause problems.

Filed Under: digital goods, theft, virtual worlds
Companies: habbo hotel

Lawsuit Over 'Theft' Of Digital Items In Second Life Shows Up In First Life Court

from the what-happens-in-second-life,-doesn't-stay-in-second-life dept

It's been almost exactly four years since Linden Lab announced that the digital goods anyone created within Second Life were owned by whoever created them -- effectively bringing the outside world's laws into the virtual world. While this move received cheers from those who thought it was better than the company that ran the game owning everything, we felt that it was only going to lead to some serious problems. Specifically, our concern was that this was effectively bringing existing problematic laws, such as copyright, into this new world -- or, rather, pulling those issues out of this world and throwing them onto the US justice system. It appears that's coming true.

A new lawsuit has been filed by a woman who uses Second Life, claiming that another member of Second Life was "stealing" the computer code used to build products that she sold in the virtual world. Of course, that's not all that surprising, as digital goods are easily copied -- and in the past we've even pointed out systems like copybot that made that process quite easy. In the end, it does come back to the same basic economics that we discuss around here all the time. If you're betting your livelihood on selling digital goods that are easily copied with zero marginal cost, you're going to have to deal with people copying your products sooner or later no matter what. It's just not a very good business to be in. While it may feel like "theft" to some, it's hard to justify that as being theft since no one is missing anything. In other words, the economics at play in the virtual world are entirely different than those in the real world -- and yet, we're now going to expect the real world laws to handle a lawsuit involving digital world economics. It doesn't make for a good combination.

Filed Under: digital goods, second life, theft
Companies: linden labs