You Would Think The Recording Industry's Main Magazine Wouldn't Copy Other's Works Without Permission

from the wouldn't-you? dept

Well, well, well. While I actually enjoy Billboard Magazine, and think that the current management there is doing some interesting things (and actually has a somewhat forward-looking attitude) even if they occasionally write bizarre hit pieces on me, it still is the magazine for the legacy recording industry in many ways. So I have to admit a bit of amusement in seeing that it apparently copied a blog post from Ethan Kaplan and posted it as a "guest post" on their own site... but did so entirely without permission from Kaplan.

Kaplan is being cool about it, saying he's happy to have it reposted, but would have liked Billboard to have asked him first. You would think that a magazine that believes so strongly in copyright law would have done so. But, I guess it's one of those situations where it doesn't seem like such a big deal when "we" do it. It's only when those dirty "others" do it that it's "theft."

Anyway, as with other thoughts by Kaplan, I highly recommend this post as well, though, you should probably read the original on his own site, rather than giving Billboard the traffic. The post discusses Kaplan's discussion of why it's time to kill off the shiny plastic disc (and how he once made that suggestion at Warner Music... and was rapped on the knuckles for it, since "the shiny disk still paid for my shiny servers.")

The crux of Kaplan's argument:

Consider for a moment the amount of supply chain management, staffing and processes in place just to produce a CD and get it out to third party retail. And consider the CD itself: a 74 minute bit conveyance mechanism that is pretty much disposable. They are often used just once: to rip the bits.

So in the end, the CD is this:

A once major source of high margin revenue which is now taking disproportionate back line expense to prop up, in order to justify the size of an industry which does not exist anymore. And even if that expense is not significant in hard numbers, the inertia it creates at the resultant diverted and stifled innovation sure is.

It's time to kill it. Bring it out back and shoot it. And then really take a look at what is left.

Go read the full thing (at Kaplan's site). It's well worth it.

Filed Under: billboard, cds, copying, ethan kaplan, infringement, music

HP And RIM Produce Similar Device... Don't Freak Out

from the man-bites-dog? dept

ChurchHatesTucker points us to a recent story about how RIM's Playbook tablet device and interface looks incredibly similar to HP's TouchPad tablet device interface (using WebOS), but rather than get all freaked out about "copying," the two companies seem to handle this maturely, noting that it's just the nature of innovation. HP's initial response more or less suggests that RIM copied HP, but uses it as an opportunity to position itself as a leader in the space, rather than a follower:

From HP:

"It's a fast innovation cycle and a fast imitation cycle in this market, so we just know that we have the creative engine here to continue to build on what we have, and we'll keep innovating, we'll keep honing and those guys hopefully will continue to see the value in it and keep following us by about a year."

RIM (Blackberry) responds.

"Well, when you’re trying to optimize user experience that juggles multitasking, multiple apps open at once and on a small screen, you’re going to get people landing on similar kinds of designs."

Notice no legal threats. No claims of intellectual property violations. Some might claim this is a "non-story," but in an age when the default so often seems to break out the lawyers, cease-and-desists and threats (if not outright lawsuits), it's nice to see a response like this. In some ways it's more of a story, since it seems so rare.

Filed Under: competition, copying, innovation, interfaces, tablets
Companies: hp, rim

And I Thought Rupert Murdoch Thought Copying Stories From Other Publications Was 'Stealing'

from the tsk-tsk dept

You may remember, not so long ago, Rupert Murdoch was running around claiming that other publications "stole" from him. He gave a speech where he warned:

"The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content."

Of course, around that time, we highlighted the fact that Murdoch, himself, owned a whole bunch of aggregators, many of which acted much worse than the sites -- such as Google -- that Murdoch was complaining about.

However, over the weekend there was a nice example of how one of Murdoch's publications clearly copied a story from another publication and did not give any credit for it whatsoever. We noted earlier how Broadband Reports broke the story of AT&T deciding to put in place metered billing. Broadband Reports got a tip with a leaked email showing the new rules, and got confirmation from AT&T. Nearly every other report on the story credited Broadband Reports with breaking the story. However, when the WSJ (via Dow Jones Newswire) wrote the story, by reporter Roger Cheng, there is no mention whatsoever of Broadband Reports breaking the story.

Now, a few quick points, I don't think that every publication should necessarily have to credit who breaks a story. It's often the neighborly thing to do, and I think that many people appreciate it when it's done. But news is news, and if it's factual, then there's no proprietary nature to it. So, my complaint isn't simply that Dow Jones/WSJ didn't credit BBR. What I take issue with is when a company comes out and states, repeatedly, that it is going to crack down on other sites that copy its work -- who often do it while providing credits and links back -- and then chooses to publish without credit, that seems hypocritical. Don't say one thing and do another.

Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself, and added a few tidbits to the story (even if it's been pointed out that he seemed to unquestionably accept AT&T's claim of congestion). So, defenders will claim this is "okay" because he did "additional independent reporting." And, again, it's great that Cheng did additional reporting. But it doesn't change that it appears BBR had the original report, and got the info out there. Even with the additional reporting, it appears that the WSJ was able to create a news report off of a lead from BBR. And this goes right back to the claims of Bill Keller last week in which he seemed to be saying when the NY Times builds off someone else's work, that's journalism. When new media sites do it, it's piracy. It's too bad that these newspapers claim that they're so against such things, but have no problem doing it themselves. Again, most of the actual actions that they do are fine... by themselves. But doing those things after claiming to be against them in others... that's hypocrisy.

Filed Under: copying, credit, journalism
Companies: news corp.

Truck Maker Discovers Chinese Knockoff Company; Helps It Come Up With Its Own Design

from the well-there's-a-different-strategy dept

We've seen different companies respond in different and creative ways to companies making knockoffs in the past. One of my favorites was the South African clothing firm that created an entire (secret) knockoff line of clothes to "compete" with unauthorized knockoffs. However Sebastian Brannstrom points us to a really surprising story out of Sweden. While the linked article mostly complains about knockoffs and talks about the need for greater "patent" protections, at the end there's the fascinating story of truckmaker Scania (Google translation of the original Swedish) and how it responded to the discovery of a Chinese firm making knockoff trucks. Rather than freak out, it actually reached out to the firm, and helped them design different trucks.

The company admits that it knew that a lawsuit would be pointless, and figured it was worth a shot to try a different approach:

"We told them that we welcome competition but we think you should invest in a unique identity towards your customers"

Scania even gave them design tips.

"We gave them sketch-like ideas on the lines of the cab that you can do instead.

They later came back with a sketch of what they had thought about.

"We thought it was still too much like us. Then they did the job and came back again. It was a very friendly and constructive discussion. They respected what we said and made sure that they have not crossed the border again. Their next series will not be like Scania, "said Mr Harborn.

Now there's a strategy you don't see every day...

Filed Under: copying, knockoffs
Companies: scania

Microsoft Highlights Why Google's 'Cheater' Accusations Ring Hollow

from the good-for-them dept

We had a long discussion recently about Google's response to discovering that Microsoft used clickstream data from users to help improve the relevance of their own search. Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi has now written up a much more detailed response from Microsoft's point of view, in which it again clarifies that contrary to Google's statements, Microsoft is not "copying" Google's search results, but merely using clickstream data as one of many (Microsoft says approximately 1,000) variables in improving search relevance. Microsoft does take one cheap shot: noting that, technically, the "honeypot" trick that Google used to uncover this certainly appears to be a form of "clickfraud." That is, it was a trick designed specifically to manipulate Bing's search results.

But the key point is made towards the end:

We have brought a number of things to market that we are very proud of -- our daily home page photos, infinite scroll in image search, great travel and shopping experiences, a new and more useful visual approach to search, and partnerships with key leaders like Facebook and Twitter. If you are keeping tabs, you will notice Google has "copied" a few of these. Whether they have done it well we leave to customers. But more importantly, we take no issue and are glad we could help move the industry to adopt some good ideas.

That's the point that I tried to make in the original post. History has shown that innovation occurs via competition, and part of that competition often involves competitors building on each other's work. A few months back, I wrote a review of the excellent book Copycats by Oded Shenkar, which makes this point very, very clear. Innovation happens when companies build on each other's work. But, what you learn is that it's not just about "copying," it's about all of the players learning, innovating and expanding the overall market. Just straight up copying rarely does enough to make a difference (in fact, we've discussed this problem in the form of cargo cult copying, where companies just copy some superficial aspect, and discover that it's meaningless). That's clearly not what Microsoft was doing here.

In the comments to our original post, someone made the comment, in defense of Google, by saying if what Microsoft did was okay, then couldn't he just go out and say "I've got a billion dollar search engine idea!" and then just copy Google's results. But, of course, if anyone actually thinks this through, they'd realize that copying Google's search results is not a billion dollar search idea. Assuming that, tomorrow, we launched a "new search engine" that gave the identical results to Google, almost no one would use it. Why would you? There's no real advantage to doing so. And for people who already use Google, it's probably much more integrated into their lives, with Gmail, Google Docs and more. The search results themselves are not the "billion dollar idea." It's the overall execution.

Hopefully Google learns from this and realizes that it has learned plenty from watching Microsoft as well, and complaining about Microsoft using clickstream data is a waste of time. Focus on continuing to innovate, Google, which'll probably mean learning more things from Microsoft, in addition to what you're doing yourself.

To be fair, Matt Cutts also has a put together a decent response, where he points out that the real issue here may be disclosure -- in that Microsoft did not clearly disclose that it was using clicskstream data (and especially how it was using that data). That's a perfectly reasonable point, but it was not the original point that Google raised. I agree that Microsoft could and should be much clearer in its disclosure -- but that's a totally separate issue. Cutts also explains why he thinks that Microsoft really is "copying," but again, even if we grant that premise (which I don't think is accurate), I still don't see why that matters. Copying and improving is a part of the innovative process. Google should embrace it.

Filed Under: bing, copying, innovation, search
Companies: google, microsoft

Francis Ford Coppola On Art, Copying And File Sharing: We Want You To Take From Us

from the first-step dept

Paul Tamm points us to a really wonderful interview with filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola, which touches on a whole variety of different topics, but a couple of quotes are likely to be interesting to folks around here. For example, he's asked about copying works of other filmmakers and whether or not he tries to "veer away" from the masters of the craft to create his own style, and he responds brilliantly:

I once found a little excerpt from Balzac. He speaks about a young writer who stole some of his prose. The thing that almost made me weep, he said, "I was so happy when this young person took from me." Because that's what we want. We want you to take from us. We want you, at first, to steal from us, because you can't steal. You will take what we give you and you will put it in your own voice and that's how you will find your voice.

And that's how you begin. And then one day someone will steal from you. And Balzac said that in his book: It makes me so happy because it makes me immortal because I know that 200 years from now there will be people doing things that somehow I am part of. So the answer to your question is: Don't worry about whether it's appropriate to borrow or to take or do something like someone you admire because that's only the first step and you have to take the first step.

While (of course), I always dislike the incorrect use of the term "stealing," I found this to be quite an insightful answer from someone who is certainly in a position to pretend otherwise. However, throughout history we've heard similar (if much less eloquent) claims from others. Ray Charles famously made similar points about copying his music (shamelessly) from others to create his own unique sound (and invent soul music in the process).

Immediately after this, he's asked about business models, and he notes:

This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.

While some will misinterpret this to mean that artists shouldn't make money, that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying it shouldn't be presumed that they automatically must make money -- or that if they are to make money, that it needs to come from the film directly.

Filed Under: art, copying, francis ford coppola, free, sharing

Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy

from the oops dept

We already pointed out that Righthaven has signed up MediaNews and is now suing over people reposting content from the Denver Post, but law professor Eric Johnson is pointing out that the very first such lawsuit Righthaven filed may have some problems, specifically since the content that was "reposted" was written as an "open letter" to Tea Partyers. In his blog post on the subject, he notes that not only is the open letter format potentially suggesting it's okay to repost it, but also that the text itself implies that his column is a part of a grassroots effort. Johnson suggests that there's clear "implied permission" to repost the column. I would imagine that would make for quite a fun court battle.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, denver post, open letter
Companies: medianews, righthaven

Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses

from the hypocrites-everywhere dept

It's kind of scary how often people, who claim to be such huge supporters of copyright, are caught infringing on copyrights when it suits them -- often offering amusing rationalizations for their own actions. Torrentfreak has the somewhat hilarious story of a Norwegian author, Anne B Ragde, who was interviewed for an article about unauthorized ebook file sharing and she did the predictable thing and complained about how awful it is, saying that it's no different from stealing and saying that "I have figured out that I've lost half a million kronor ($72,500) on piracy of my books, maybe more." Later she says: "I can not stand the thought of someone stealing something."

However, moments later, she's asked if she's ever bought counterfeit goods and she responds:

"Pirated handbags? Yes, I do buy them," she said. "I feel that the genuine Prada bags have such an inflated price."

Fascinating. One wonders how she'd respond to those who are involved in unauthorized book file sharing by claiming that the genuine products "have such an inflated price." Her son, Jo, then apparently chimes in to help the interviewer and notes:

"You have a pirated MP3 collection," Jo added, helpfully. "We copied the first 1500 songs from one place and 300 from another."

"Yes," admitted Ragde. "There were a lot of things on the iPod."

But she just "can not stand the thought" of others doing the same to her work?

Filed Under: anne b. ragde, copying, copyright, counterfeits, hypocrisy

Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me

from the where's-my-corvette dept

On Friday, we pointed out that Sherman Fredericks, the former CEO of Stephens Media and publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal (who lost his job last month), seemed to have a rather hypocritical view on copyright infringement, embedding an infringing Saturday Night Live video on his blog. This was the same guy who famously announced that as CEO, he had Stephens Media "grubstake" (i.e., "fund") Righthaven, the company that has sued bloggers for quoting even snippets of LVRJ articles. He was quoted as saying that it was no different than stealing a Corvette out of his driveway. So, according to Mr. Fredericks, reposting 4 paragraphs out of a 34-paragraph article -- or about 12% (as Righthaven did in at least one case) is just like stealing a Corvette. Ok.

So, it seems rather amusing to me, as pointed out by iamtheky that Federicks seemed to have absolutely no issue whatsoever with copying from my blog in trying to mock our post about Righthaven suing Matt Drudge. He quoted one sentence out of a five sentence post -- or 20%. In other words, he copied more of my post than was copied on some of the sites Righthaven is suing. So, I'm confused, Sherm, is copying stealing or not? And why is it okay for you to do it to me, but not for others to do it? And where's my damn Corvette?

On top of all that, to make it even more silly, Fredericks misrepresents what I said. I questioned why anyone would rely on a Righthaven-connected newspaper as a source ever again, for fear of getting tied up in a bogus legal fight, and he says I really mean "use without permission." No, Sherm, that's not what I meant at all, and you know it. I said as a source. I said nothing about copying anything -- though you seem to have no problem "stealing Corvettes" from me when it suits your needs, huh?

* For those who miss the obvious intent here, no, I'm not actually accusing Sherman Fredericks of "stealing" from me, because that's ridiculous, and copying is not "stealing" in any way shape, or form. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Fredericks by highlighting how he does not live up to his own confused standard.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, sherman fredericks
Companies: las vegas review journal, righthaven, stephens media