Porn Copyright Troll's New Tactic: Maybe Public Humiliation Will Magically Make People Pay

from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept

It's no secret that the real strategy of many of the porn companies who have turned into copyright trolls is to use public shame into the game as a way to pressure people into settling. As per usual, these companies almost never follow through on actual lawsuits against people. They do just enough to get ISPs to cough up identifying information and threaten to file the lawsuit. In some cases, the threat of having to fight a lawsuit is enough to make people settle (even if they're innocent). However, often enough, it seems that the companies know that merely the possible embarrassment from publicly claiming someone downloaded porn will make them settle. It seems that one German copyright troll, Urmann and Colleagues (U+C) is skipping the legal middleman, and is just going to start posting information it's collected on people it accuses of infringement directly on its website, hoping this will create incentives to pay up, without the company having to go through any actual legal process. Of course, threatening to expose information about you unless you pay up, sure sounds an awful lot like extortion...

The article also notes that some legal experts believe that this move will violate Germany's (somewhat strict) privacy laws. Either way, U+C claims that it has a list of 150,000 people who it wants to pay up. I actually wonder if a list quite that large actually makes it counterproductive. When you're in the company of so many people, perhaps it's not quite so embarrassing... Of course, given that, perhaps it's not surprising that U+C has indicated elsewhere that it's going to be releasing the info in drips and drabs, and will be targeting those who have the most to lose if it's exposed that they were downloading hardcore porn.

According to comments an Urmann insider made to Wochenblatt, the law firm is planning to target the most vulnerable people first – those with IP addresses registered to churches, police stations and – quite unbelievably – the embassies of Arab countries.

How nice of them.

Filed Under: copyright troll, germany, humiliation, publicity
Companies: u+c, urmann and colleagues

How Important Is Attribution In Copyright Issues?

from the summing-it-up dept

Many, many people think that attribution is a key part of copyright law, but in the US it's really not a part of the law at all (with a few tiny, nearly meaningless exceptions). Attribution issues may come up in situations of plagiarism, but they have little do with copyright infringement, which is infringement with or without attribution. Elsewhere, there are issues of moral rights, but for the most part, the US does not recognize moral rights in copyright. Of course, many have argued that perhaps attribution is more important than much of what is in copyright law, and at times there have been efforts to focus more on the question of attribution over infringement. A recent study has tried to quantify some issues around this idea and put questions about the value of attribution into context. Eric Goldman points our attention to this recent paper by Christopher Sprigman, Christopher Buccafusco and Zachary Burns which is entitled Valuing Attribution and Publication in Intellectual Property.

The paper's authors seek to get a real sense of what the tradeoffs are for content creators -- and they quickly discover that content creators are willing to accept significantly less money in exchange for attribution and publicity. They also discover -- as their own previous studies have shown -- that content creators tend to significantly overvalue their own works. But the key finding is that attribution has tremendous value to content creators -- both amateurs and professionals alike. You can read the full details of the experiments in the study, but the researchers came up with a clever way to effectively get photographers to value a work with the possibility of getting a large cash reward for it vs. the possibility of having the image published with credit in a major publication. Notably, the impact was much stronger with professional photographers, since to them making people aware of their work had much greater value, even if it meant getting paid much less. It was also interesting to see that amateurs valued publication without attribution less than just getting paid, but for professionals, they were willing to get paid less if the image was published somewhere major even without attribution. Not surprisingly, getting published with attribution was the most desirable, and for that the pros were willing to accept the lowest payment.

I know that some copyright maximalists love to bash those of us who point out that there is significant value for content creators in getting their works out there and accessible in ways that people see/hear/experience them -- and this study presents some empirical evidence to support the idea that it's a pretty strong effect. Towards the end, the study digs a bit into the policy questions and suggests that requiring attribution (a la moral rights) as a mandatory part of copyright law actually could be harmful, in that it would take away a key negotiating point over which prices could change drastically. Coupled with the fact that artists have been shown to overvalue their rights, such an attribution right actually makes it more difficult to come to an agreeable price on content, and limits how much content is likely to be sold. Definitely an interesting read overall.

Filed Under: attribution, copyright, publicity, value

DailyDirt: Epic Fail In Advertising

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are numerous ways to piss off customers. Most companies make mistakes from time to time in advertising, but every so often, there are mistakes so egregious that people just can't look away. Sometimes bad publicity is still publicity, but here are some train-wreck examples.

• Some advertisers are rushing to Rush Limbaugh, against the tide of sponsors running away from him. After Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, it seems that a couple escort services would like to advertise their services on Limbaugh's show (and apparently these companies are just fine with Rush's use of the word slut). [url]
• Mommy bloggers are not a group you want to offend, and it might seem cute to try to have a little fun with some motherhood observations... However, the makers of Motrin found out the hard way that it needs to choose its words more carefully. [url]
• Woody Harrelson doesn't actually mean "ask me anything" when he talks to people online. Harrelson just wanted to promote his new movie, but instead enraged would-be fans in a discussion that went downhill pretty quickly. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: advertising, failures, motrin, publicity, rush limbaugh, woody harrelson

Movie Makers Use 'Fake' Piracy Numbers To Score Distribution Deal

from the well,-good-for-them? dept

The NY Times recently had a blog post noting that the makers of an $850,000 romantic comedy called X's and O's were thrilled that their movie was widely shared on file sharing networks, because the attention it got helped land them a big DVD distribution deal, and potentially a television deal, helped along by the attention received from that file sharing. Of course, there's just one little problem. The FreakBits guys noticed that the number of downloads the movies' creators are citing are almost certainly false. Apparently some sites post fake download numbers as a part of their advertising, and the movie makers used those fake numbers. But... it seemed to get them attention to get more deals, so more power to them. No matter what, it suggests that (once again) obscurity is a much bigger problem than piracy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloads, fake, movies, obscurity, publicity

UK ISP That Used To Cut Off Users On Accusation Now Wants Court Order

from the see-what-publicity-can-do dept

It's amazing what a little publicity can do. Often when we write about things here, people who disagree with us post comments along the lines of "if you don't like it, stop talking about it and change it." They say this as if getting some publicity on a bad situation doesn't help change it. A few weeks ago, we wrote about Karoo, an ISP in the UK that wasn't just taking claims of unauthorized file sharing from the entertainment industry against its customers at face value, but was cutting them off on the very first accusation, with no real recourse. Except, after all the publicity from the original BBC report and others discussing it, Karoo quickly caved in, and said it would switch to a three strikes policy. Now, a few weeks later, the company is admitting that it will only disconnect someone over file sharing if it gets a court order. So in the period of just a few weeks, a little publicity turned a bad situation into a much better one.

Filed Under: publicity, sunlight, three strikes, uk
Companies: karoo

Maybe The Pirate Bay Should Just Pay Hollywood For All The Advertising It's Done

from the this-isn't-going-to-end-well... dept

While The Pirate Bay ruling is now quite tainted, and about to go through at least an appeal if not a full retrial, it seems that the entertainment industry has wasted no time at all using the ruling to threaten a bunch of other sites, telling them that the're next if they don't shut down. In fact, some already are shutting down, as they'd rather not deal with a similar lawsuit.

Obviously, the entertainment industry still thinks it won this case. But, as we noted when the ruling came out, it's actually quite a loss for the industry, because it makes them think the legal response is working. Their reaction to the result highlights that. But look a bit closer at the details and you realize just how badly the industry is shooting itself in the foot (repeatedly). Lots of people have pointed to the fact that the Pirate Party in Sweden has rapidly grown in membership, making it one of the larger political parties in the country, and its political ambitions are growing.

But... even more interesting, as pointed out by Michael Scott is the news that The Pirate Bay itself has seen its own traffic and popularity grow noticeably thanks to the trial. Once again, the entertainment industry's strategy has only driven more people to find out about the site and what it does. What's amazing is that the entertainment industry should already know this. After all, what kicked this whole trial off was a big raid which briefly shut down The Pirate Bay, but which also put the site into the worldwide media, and massively increased awareness of the site... a trend that only grew as the press coverage continued.

By far, the biggest promoter of The Pirate Bay has been the entertainment industry itself. If the Pirate Bay guys owe the entertainment industry any money at all, it should be for all the promoting the entertainment industry has done for the site.

Meanwhile, as Hollywood stupidly celebrates all this as a victory, others are noting that the next generation of file sharing systems coming down the road will be nearly impossible for the entertainment industry to stop. The entertainment industry doesn't even realize what battle it's fighting, which is why it still thinks this trial has been a victory.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, publicity
Companies: the pirate bay

IBM Abandons More Outrage-Provoking Offshoring Patent Requests

from the patent-review-by-pr dept

theodp writes "As we've seen before, sometimes all it takes is a little bad PR to get IBM to ditch a patent. More recently, Big Blue took a break from its stealth U.S. layoffs to withdraw a patent application for offshoring jobs while maximizing government tax breaks, saying it was 'filed in error'. And before bad PR lightning could strike thrice, IBM preemptively abandoned another patent application last Friday, this one for Selecting Shared Service Centers in another country ('e.g., India') and staffing them with less-productive-but-cheaper IT workers. Guess this one was 'filed in error' too!"

Filed Under: outsourcing, patents, publicity
Companies: ibm

PRS Threatens Woman For Playing Radio To Her Horses Without Paying A Licensing Fee

from the this-is-called-extortion dept

When I was in the UK recently, I was surprised to hear just how much most folks hate PRS -- the collections society in charge of getting various businesses to pay for playing music. PRS is also the group that has caused music videos to be pulled from YouTube after demanding much more money than was economically feasible. But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance."

The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

Obviously, this is not a case of random excessive attempts by PRS to squeeze more money out of people. It's become systematic. The group seems to believe that playing music in almost any situation now constitutes a public performance and requires a licensing fee. You just know they're salivating over the opportunity to go after people playing music in their cars with the windows down.

Filed Under: fees, publicity, radio, recording industry, royalties, taxes, uk
Companies: prs

Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More

from the and-even-screws-that-up dept

MusicFIRST, a recording industry lobbying group that already has some controversy surrounding it due to contributions from groups not allowed to be involved in lobbying, is continuing to push forward with its campaign to claim that radio is a kind of piracy and demanding legislation that forces radio stations to pay extra to play music. For most of the history of radio, radio stations have paid songwriters and publishers royalties for playing music on the radio, but they didn't pay the musicians (really: the record labels). In fact, the money often (illegally) went in the other direction, with the labels paying the radio stations to play certain artists to help promote them.

However, these days, with the recording industry unable to adapt to the changing marketplace, they've taken to demanding that others (individuals, ISPs, video games, Apple, webcasters, etc...) simply give them money instead. Their latest target, of course, is radio stations. It started with that silly claim that radio is a form of piracy -- then advanced to a bill, being introduced by a Congressional Rep, John Conyers (whose last campaign was heavily funded by those connected to the labels and this lobbying group), to force radio stations to pay the record labels as well.

MusicFIRST's latest effort was to drag its dog and pony show to Congress, where it paraded a bunch of musicians in front of Congresscritters to whine about how unfair it was that radio stations helped promote their music without paying them. Of course, it looks like MusicFIRST should have talked to the musicians a bit more carefully first. One of the musicians they trotted out, Matt Maher, less than 24 hours before going before Congress, noted on his Twitter account how such royalties could hurt radio stations and worried that it would cause some stations to shut down. Apparently, someone went a bit off the reservation and made exactly the opposite point that MusicFIRST wanted him to make....

Filed Under: fees, matt maher, publicity, radio, recording industry, royalties, taxes
Companies: musicfirst, nab, riaa

Recording Industry Calls Radio 'A Kind Of Piracy'

from the and-mocks-broadcasters dept

It would appear that the recording industry now likes to call any sort of business model it doesn't like "piracy." At least that's the only explanation I can come up with in its latest battle, where it has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.

Filed Under: fees, publicity, radio, recording industry, royalties, taxes
Companies: musicfirst, nab, riaa