David Byrne: One Of My Albums Sat On The Shelf For A Year Because Label Wanted DRM And I Didn't

from the drm-helping-musicians? dept

David Byrne, who has definitely been one of the more enlightened musicians for quite some time (using Creative Commons all the way back in 2004? Yup) when it comes to understanding both technology and new business models, recently sat down for an interview with Cory Doctorow about how the music business works today (which must have been really fun to watch given the two participants). The whole article is interesting, but one part in particular caught my attention:

As an artist, Byrne said that he has had his own problems with digital rights management. Following the Sony/BMG rootkit scandal—which saw thousands of CDs recalled after the built-in DRM software rendered computers vulnerable to viruses and malware—he asked his label to make sure there was no DRM software on an upcoming release. They were less than obliging.

“I’ve run up against this a couple of times,” Byrne said. “I was in the process of negotiating a record contract at the time, and I went in to the subsidiary of Warner Brothers and said, ‘I’m adding a clause into my contract that you’ll never put DRM on my record.’ And they said ‘Oh, oh, oh…’ The record was done, and the negotiation went on for a year. The record just sat on the shelf. It was very frustrating for me.”

Byrne, of course, has embraced direct to fan efforts a lot lately, and if I remember correctly, was the very first publicly announced musician to use TopSpin's direct-to-fan tools. Some will, of course, argue that he should have just dropped working with major labels, but especially at that time there were distribution advantages to signing a deal. But the fact that they would sit around and argue over DRM -- even right as the whole mess with the rootkit was happening -- shows the kind of thinking that major labels have gone through with DRM.

Filed Under: copyright, cory doctorow, david byrne, drm
Companies: warner music

Harvard Business Review Press Goes DRM-Free And Platform Independent

from the DRM:-keeping-pirates-in-business-since-1995 dept

Despite the growing evidence that consumers absolutely hate DRM, many publishers still hold harbor fantasies that locking down digital goods prevents unauthorized copies from spreading across the internet. Most DRM ends up serving one purpose: to make authorized copies less functional than unauthorized versions.

This practice is particularly prevalent in the book publishing industry. With rare exceptions, most major publishers still keep their products under digital lock and key. There are a few exceptions. Baen was one of the first publishers to go DRM-free, recognizing the limitations far outweighed the benefits to it or its authors. O'Reilly Media has also shunned DRM for the same reasons, noting that unauthorized sharing leads to more readers without an appreciable drop in sales. TOR has attempted to do away with most of its DRM, although it has been hampered by publishers insisting the DRM remain in place.

Perhaps noting, as Cory Doctorow pointed out, that "no one's ever bought a book because it has DRM," another publisher, Harvard Business Review Press has opted to go DRM-free.

[H]BR have adopted the “buy once, read anywhere model” and that anywhere includes a Kindle. This means their consumers aren’t locked into a device or format. And it means that their purchases are ‘future proof’ to a good degree. It also means that if they want to share a book, there are no ‘technical’ things stopping that. To be sure, selling an HBR eBook is illegal but this mode is more tolerant of sharing.

Here's HBR's official statement, one that treats its customers with respect.

We make our ebooks available to you DRM-free so you can read them on the device of your choice. We trust that our customers will abide by copyright law and refrain from distributing ebook files illegally. Please note that in the case that you download a PDF, it will be personalized with your email address.

This small statement asking readers to respect its copyright is preferable to installing DRM and treating every paying customer like a thief. Additionally, HBR is offering multiple formats which gives readers more options and keeps them from being locked into any particular device.

Joshua Gans points out that offering this freedom to its customers should pay off for HBR, whose target audience is a bit different than most publishers.

[T]he business book market is a little different than other book markets. Many sales are generated by people giving books to each other. The typical case is of a boss insisting all of his underlings read something. But there are also bulk distributions to clients and the like. Amazon and all other platforms do not offer bulk sales so HBR had to do something different. Moreover, to manage that with DRM would just be too hard. So instead they went their own way and so now you can buy eBooks in bulk with a volume discount. A real innovation.

Gans notes that this additional freedom comes at a price.

But there is a cost to this. HBR have not gone ‘all in’ on DRM free. For instance, one of the books they offer is Clay Christensen’s famous book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. Buy it from HBR directly and it will cost you $17.99 (and you can also see there they currently have the eBook ‘In stock’) but on the Kindle from Amazon it is $9.89 and from the iTunes bookstore it is $10.99 (not sure what happened to the most favored customer clause there!).

The question is, will customers pay extra to avoid being locked into a device? In HBR's case, the answer is likely a "yes." As was mentioned earlier, HBR offers bulk purchases, something Amazon and iTunes don't. Additionally, these bulk rates are discounted depending on the number of copies purchased, bringing the price per copy more in line with its competition. Purchasing directly also gives the buyer three different formats (PDF, ePub, mobi) for the price of one, allowing them to move books from one device to another.

Gans suggests that HBR's ebook policy could lend itself to more innovative offerings, leading to more reasons to buy directly from the publisher and giving authors more reasons to offer their books through HBR:

I have my own eBook coming out with HBR Press in a very short time. I’d love it to be the case that they decided to offer the book on their site with an explicit ‘sharing’ option. For instance, the normal ‘don’t share’ this book might cost the same as Amazon while the ‘sharing’ option may be somewhat higher but would say allow you to assign ‘ownership’ of the book to another person as well.

One of the best ways to avoid locking yourself or your customers into walled gardens like Amazon or iTunes is to give them a direct, DRM-free option that recognizes the reality of digital life. Trying to lock them into a single device or punishing them for the actions of others isn't really giving them any reason to buy from anyone but the lowest bidder. Treating your customers with respect and recognizing that most people have more than one form of "e-reader" is a better way to grow your audience. Once you've decided to stop policing infringement, you can throw that time, energy and creativity into building better, more innovative offerings for your paying customers.

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, harvard business review, hbr
Companies: hbr press

Ubisoft Learns Hitting Customers Over The Head And Calling Them Thieves Is Not Good Policy

from the better-late-than-never dept

For many years, Ubisoft has been the go-to company for stories about DRM gone horribly wrong. They really seemed to believe that always-on DRM actually does something to stop piracy. That was followed with story after story after story of Ubisoft doing things that harm only paying customers and generally shoot themselves in the foot. You can go back over our posts about the company to see just how badly they have handled piracy for years. It really looked like the company was never going to learn the simple fact that it is more important to maximize sales than to fight piracy. So imagine our surprise when the following story came to light.

Ubisoft began making the rounds early this week, contacting a number of video game sites including Gamasutra and Rock, Paper, Shotgun and providing interviews. The purpose of these interviews? To tell the world that Ubisoft has changed its DRM ways. Much like the end of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' in which Scrooge takes to the streets to spread peace and goodwill, Ubisoft wants the world to know that it believes that providing its customers with the best gaming experience is the most important part of its new strategy.

In the interview with Gamasutra, Ubisoft's VP of digital publishing Chris Early speaks about its past use of always-on DRM.

If you look back to early 2011 and before, we did at one point in time go with an always-on activation, for any game. We realized that while it was probably one of the strictest forms of DRM, it wasn't the most convenient for our customers. We listened to the feedback, and have removed that requirement from those games, and stopped doing that going forward.

This is interesting because we had been complaining about always-online DRM since at least 2010 and other forms of Ubisoft DRM since 2006. However, the fact that they are actually listening to the feedback of consumers is a huge plus for them. This is a bold move for the company that decided that paying customers wouldn't miss playing their games at all for a few days while it moved its servers.

What we're trying to do is make [playing a game] easy for players who have legitimately bought our software, and at the same time put a registration requirement, or one-time activation requirement in, that includes some element of [software] protection.

The reality is, given enough time and effort, any game can be pirated, and many are. But what we're looking to do is validate the customer, then provide value to that customer for registering their software.

This is exactly what many customers have been asking for and many other successful companies have been giving. This idea that providing value to paying customers is a better way for success has been one that companies like Valve, Stardock and CD Projekt Red have known for years. But this lesson on DRM is not the only one that Ubisoft has learned.

Ubisoft also seems to have learned some very important lessons about piracy in general. Specifically, that not all people pirating a game are doing so just to get free stuff and that not all pirated copies are a lost sale.

I don't believe that every single pirated copy is a lost sale. In some cases I'm sure it's just someone trying out a game. At some level, you can almost look at it as a demo program. So as far as many of those could've been sales? I'm not sure.

In general, when people talk about piracy, there are all kinds of reasons cited, whether it's because of an economic imbalance, where people can't afford to buy a game in that particular [geographical territory], or it's a challenge, or it's someone who doesn't believe in supporting publishers by giving them money. There's a whole variety of reasons. That's why we want to focus on the rewards and benefits of owning the software.

This is another idea that other companies have known for a while, that piracy is the result of under-served customers. By focusing efforts on making the paid option more attractive than the free options, you can capture more sales than if you spent your time trying to stop piracy.

Over at RPS, They didn't go quite so easy on Ubisoft's representatives. RPS asked many times for a statement on just how bad its DRM was for paying customers and whether Ubisoft had any regrets, but all RPS ever got were whitewashed PR statements.

RPS: Do you acknowledge that always-on DRM has been extremely damaging to Ubisoft's reputation?

Burk: I think that, as Stephanie said, I think this is where that feedback comes in. We've obviously heard from PC customers that they were unhappy with some of the policies that we had in place, and that's why we're looking to make these changes – why we have been implementing these changes, as Stephanie says.

RPS: Would you be willing to say that it was a mistake?

Burk: No, I wouldn't say that. I'll let Stephanie say what she thinks, but I wouldn't use those words. This is a process, and we listened to feedback.

Perotti: I would say the same.

This attitude of not wanting to admit to any mistakes while still making this sweeping change in policy has the potential to leave a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths. While the company is no longer hitting their customers over the proverbial head, they have not yet apologized for those actions, at least not out right. A good apology could go a long way in smoothing things over with their past and future customers -- though perhaps just the act of changing and admitting to the change is a form of an apology for many.

Over all, this is a great move by one of the last hold outs in regards to video game DRM. While many other companies still require some form of DRM, none were quite so bad as Ubisoft in that regard. Hopefully, this change of heart will echo throughout the gaming industry and all developers will abandon efforts in the futile fight against piracy and instead focus on maximizing sales through added value for their customers. Ubisoft has a bright future ahead of itself on this path and I wish them all the best of luck.

Filed Under: drm, video games
Companies: ubisoft

Hachette Tells Authors And Tor To Use DRM Because It Is Awesome Or Something

from the publisher-is-always-right-except-Tor dept

It has only been a bit over a month since Tor's DRM-free policy went into full effect. At the time of the announcement, Tor's president stated that the policy change was made at the request of both authors and readers who felt that DRM was a hinderance to their enjoyment of ebooks. As we know, DRM is not an effective measure against piracy. More often than not, DRM is actually harmful to paying customers as they hit restrictions that do not exist in the physical realm. Even with all these reasons against the use of DRM, there are still some publishers out there that feel that DRM is an effective means of stopping piracy. 

Claire Ryan writes in to tell us that Tor's anti-DRM policy is not making some other publishers happy. According to letters received by Cory Doctorow, Hachette UK is telling its stable of authors that they must use DRM, not just for the ebooks it publishes, but for all publishers distributing the same ebooks in other territories. 

I’ve just seen a letter sent to an author who has published books under Hachette’s imprints in some territories and with Tor Books and its sister companies in other territories (Tor is part of Macmillan). The letter, signed by Little, Brown U.K. CEO Ursula Mackenzie, explains to the author that Hachette has “acquired exclusive publication rights in our territories from you in good faith,” but warns that in other territories, Tor’s no-DRM policy “will make it difficult for the rights granted to us to be properly protected.” Hachette’s proposed solution: that the author insist Tor use DRM on these titles. “We look forward to hearing what action you propose taking.”

The letter also contains language that will apparently be included in future Hachette imprint contracts, language that would require authors to “ensure that any of his or her licensees of rights in territories not licensed under this agreement” will use DRM. 

Cory then goes on to describe just how useless such a policy is for Hachette. He points out that doing simple Google searches for certain Hachette published books turns up several DRM-free copies already in the wild. I will have to agree with Cory here when he says that this new demand by Hachette is not going to change that in any way. Those DRM-free ebooks will still be available, the tools to strip the DRM will still be available and paying customers will still be the only ones inconvenienced. 

Even with this severe and detailed rebuttal of Hachette's new policy, it has taken notice and is still standing by its decision to use DRM. In a statement made to The Bookseller, Ursula Mackenzie, CEO of Hachette subsidiary Little, Brown, stated that such policies are the norm in publishing.

Many contracts from all quarters already contain some form of wording to ensure that the licensee publisher does apply DRM and also sees to it that their sub-licensees and e-tailers apply it too.

Our new wording is clearer and we will, as always, negotiate variations of that wording with the many parties with which we trade, nearly all of whom agree with the basic principles of our DRM policy.

Of course being a part of the "norm" in the industry is not what really matters. What matters is that publishers and those that represent the authors actually listen to the authors. That is what Tor did when it made its decision to abandon DRM. What Hachette is doing here is making the claim that it knows what's best for authors and readers. Of course, you can't let a little thing like the opinion of authors and readers get in the way of your high horse.

We are fully aware that DRM does not inhibit determined pirates or even those who are sufficiently sophisticated to download DRM removal software. The central point is that we are in favour of DRM because it inhibits file-sharing between the mainstream readers who are so valuable to us and our authors.

This statement by Mackenzie is even more mind boggling than the other. Here she pretty much states that DRM is not about stopping the hardcore pirates, but simply to stop people from doing things they would normally do with a physical book, such as lending it to friends and family. Of course even that much can be to the detriment of the reader and publisher, as Cory notes.

Readers aren’t stupid. When they discover that paying for books results in locked, crippled editions, and downloading for free (simply by typing the title and “free e-book” into Google or Pirate Bay) gets them the same book, minus the offensive restrictions, they start to put two and two together. After all, DRM is not a selling point. There’s no one who’s ever bought a book because it had DRM. No one has ever clicked onto Amazon saying, “I wonder if there’s any way I can buy a book that offers less than the books I’ve been buying all my life.” People buy DRM e-books because they have no choice, or because they don’t care about it, or because they don’t know it’s there. But DRM never leads to a sale.

For the reader, the DRM'ed ebook is nothing but a headache. If you are not having your book deleted from your reader and account without your permission, you are locked into a specific reader with no way to transfer your legally bought books to another reader. Why would any publisher want to harm their readers in such a way? For the publisher, that means that in today's fast changing world of technology, readers will be less likely to buy an ebook if they know they cannot transfer it to a new phone or other device. That means fewer sales for the publisher. 

It gets even worse for Hachette specifically. According to Cory, at least one agency is taking a stand against its pro-DRM policy. He also warns authors who may consider Hachette as a publisher.

I know of at least one large agency that has told Hachette that it will not market books to them so long as this policy is in force. And Hachette’s authors should pay attention because, in the end, it is they who will suffer from the effects of DRM. Readers probably won’t remember who published the book that nuked itself due to a DRM misfire or was lost due to a platform switch. But they’ll remember the writer whose book they paid for and to which they lost access.

As Hachette continues its push to force DRM on its authors and readers, it will lose business from both. How it expects to survive such a two pronged loss will be interesting to watch. DRM is losing favor in the music industry. It continues to lose ground in the video game industry. Publishing and movies seem to be the only real holdouts on the pro-DRM side of entertainment. With DRM losing favor with Tor and sparking this battle between publishers, we will most likely see more publishers joining the DRM-free side of the debate. 

Filed Under: authors, drm, ebooks
Companies: hachette, tor

Ubisoft DRM Fiasco: Allows Any Website To Take Control Of Your Computer

from the punishing-your-paying-customers dept

It's been nearly seven years since the great Sony rootkit fiasco, when it was discovered that Sony Music was using some DRM on its CDs that self-installed a rootkit (without letting users know) that had all sorts of security problems and vulnerabilities. The company took a massive hit for this, and you would think that others would be a lot more careful with their own DRM. You would think. But, then you don't know Ubisoft. The vast majority of times we've ever discussed Ubisoft in these pages, it's been because the company was doing something ridiculous with DRM. The company loves its DRM and seems to refuse to recognize that pissing off legitimate customers isn't such a good idea.

So would it come as any surprise that it may now be facing a "rootkit moment" of its own?

As a whole bunch of folks have been submitting, some hackers have figured out that Ubisoft's Uplay DRM appears to install an unsecure browser plugin. The details came out over the weekend, first on a security mailing list, and were then followed up with some test exploit code posted to Hacker News.

Basically, it appears that Ubisoft's DRM is installing an accidental backdoor that makes it possible for any website to effectively take control over your computer. That's... uh... pretty bad.

From the details, the real problem sounds to be one of exceptionally poor coding, rather than maliciousness. Basically, they wanted to let you launch the game via a website, but failed to limit it to just the game -- meaning that a site can make use of the plugin to basically do a whole bunch of stuff on your computer (including things you don't want it to do). The browser plugin is easy to remove (and you should, um, immediately, if you've installed any Ubisoft games), so it's not quite as messy as Sony's rootkit, which was pretty deeply buried. But it's still really bad.

Yet another case of DRM really making life difficult for legitimate customers who paid money for your product. When will companies figure out that DRM does nothing to stop piracy, but makes life really difficult for the people who actually give you money?

Filed Under: browser plugin, control, drm, rootkit, security, uplay
Companies: ubisoft

German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements

from the it-needs-what? dept

Ever since Blizzard created the massive hit that is World of Warcraft, it has decided that requiring gamers to be constantly connected to the internet while playing is a good thing. Unfortunately, things have not gone as smoothly as it had hoped. If you are familiar with recent events surrounding the release of Blizzard's latest game Diablo 3, you may recall the Error 37 issue in which users who tried to connect to Blizzard's servers on launch day were unable to due to the lack of infrastructure. Since then, it has had fewer issues, but still some users have difficulty staying connected to the servers while playing and thus risk losing progress that has not been saved. This has some people and groups upset.

Via Cinema Blend, we learn that one German consumer group has given Blizzard an ultimatum to change the Diablo 3 packaging to reflect the need for such a connection. The original report from the German site PC Games states:

Potential purchasers must know before purchase what are the requirements for the software to be used. Whether a permanent Internet connection, obligatory registration to an Internet platform including the related access to a game, or downloading additional software: all these things are essential information that the user much receive before purchase.

The primary complaint is that the requirement to create and log in to Blizzard's Battle.net service in order to play is not clearly disclosed prior to purchase. Because of this requirement to be tethered to a constant internet connection, some people are having a number of issues, even when trying to play single player modes of the game. This consumer group has given Blizzard until July 27th to respond to the complaint. If Blizzard fails to respond or respond adequately, the group is prepared to pursue legal options against the company.

Unfortunately for gamers, many game companies are moving toward the use of this kind of "always-on" DRM. To those companies, it is a necessary part of the war on piracy. However, these DRM schemes are more often a nuisance for paying customers who have to deal with unexpected and even planned server outages. What makes these types of DRM more infuriating to consumers is the fact that it not only applies to the multiplayer portions, where you can understand a potential need for an internet connection, but also to single player portions that are typically done locally. There is never a reason to require that a gamer be connected to a server at all times when playing by themselves.

Hopefully as more consumer groups and consumers in general voice their dissatisfaction with such DRM schemes, more game developers will listen. We have seen many developers already making the stand that DRM is not useful or wanted. Those developers have found that treating fans with respect is a far more effective means of maximizing profits than any DRM scheme could ever be.

Filed Under: always on, diablo 3, drm
Companies: blizzard

Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas

from the ban-ban-bananas dept

We recently wrote about the RIAA's new war against software that can be used to record or download YouTube videos. As we noted, such software has substantial non-infringing uses, but the RIAA wants to ban it anyway. Michael Weinberg has a great response, in pointing out that just because something can be used illegally, it doesn't mean we ban it:

It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank.  It is also possible to use a phone to defraud people of millions of dollars.  But we do not make possession of a banana or the use of a phone illegal.  We make bank robbery and fraud illegal.  We do not outlaw bananas and phones because bananas and phones serve any number of socially useful services.  It would be dumb to outlaw them just because someone could use them in a bad way.

That’s why the test that the Supreme Court identified in the famous Betamax case is so useful.  As long as a technology is capable of “substantial noninfringing uses” we welcome it.  Because those substantial noninfringing uses are great to have, and we cannot stop innovation just because it can sometimes be abused.

On our last post about this, someone brought up the anti-circumvention issue, noting that if the software circumvents DRM, then under the DMCA it's illegal across the board. But all this really highlights is the insanity of the anti-circumvention provision and how it makes perfectly legitimate activity "copyright infringement." Think about it: if you use this to make a perfectly legal recording of some content, then none of the rights covered by copyright law have been infringed. And yet it's still illegal solely because of the circumvention? That makes no sense. How can it be illegal if no illegal copy was actually made?

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, drm
Companies: google, riaa, youtube

Canada's Own Justice Department Worried That Digital Locks Provision Is Not Constitutional

from the open-to-challenge dept

In our post game analysis of Canada's new copyright law, we noted the surprising number of good things in there. But, still, much of the focus (quite reasonably) is on the really awful "digital locks" provision, which has many similarities to the US's anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA, and similar copycat DMCA-like provisions around the globe. There is one piece of the DMCA and the digital locks portion of the C-11 bill which has simply never made any sense to me at all: it's that circumvention of "technical protection measures" (generally, DRM) breaks the law even if the circumvention was to make a legal copy of something. It has never been explained why such a provision cannot be limited to cases where the tools are used to infringe. When you make such a broad restriction against circumvention, you lock up plenty of perfectly legal uses of content and (potentially even worse) open up an opportunity to deny people access to things in the public domain -- creating the potential for a perpetual copyright via DRM.

And now, according to some government documents that Michael Geist obtained using an access to information request, we discover that Canada's own Justice Department appears to have worried that the digital locks provision -- when not tied to actual infringement of content -- was itself unconstitutional. While the analysis actually covers an earlier version of Canada's copyright reform effort, the digital locks provisions are still quite similar, and clearly do not address the constitutional concerns the Justice Department raised.

At the very least, this certainly opens the door for a constitutional challenge to the provision. Either way, I'm curious, for the various copyright system defenders we have in the community here, if anyone can take a stab at why it makes sense to have anti-circumvention rules apply even in cases where no content is actually infringed? Some of us would really like to know...

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, c-11, canada, digital locks, dmca, drm

WIPO Is Quietly Signing An Agreement To Give Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Version Of Copyright

from the why? dept

We've mentioned that the copyright maximalists of the world never stop in their ongoing efforts around the globe to expand government granted monopoly privileges. Back in April we warned about an upcoming negotiation on an "audiovisual right" that would create an entirely new -- and entirely unnecessary -- form of "copyright" for performers themselves. Copyright, of course, goes to whoever "fixes" the work. So, for movies, the studio producing it gets the copyright. But this treaty goes above and beyond that and would grant the actors in video works entirely separate rights, allowing them to control how their images are used around the globe.

And, of course, while everyone's been paying attention to things like the ACTA vote in the EU, this treaty has moved forward and may be signed as soon as today from the sound of things. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for this, other than "gee, actors would really like it if we gave them monopoly rights." Reuters quotes WIPO's maximalist-in-chief, Francis Gurry insisting that "it's a real problem" but never actually defining how it's a problem:

They also have no rights in many countries if their work is manipulated in any way that may harm their reputation.

"It's a real problem - it's not an artificial problem," Francis Gurry, the World Intellectual Property Organization's director general, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

"The actors are the ones, in the international framework, who have not been catered for."

Wait. So this is all about some actors being upset that someone "manipulated" their work? We're creating an entirely new monopoly right for actors because they're all upset about someone creating a little mashup or parody? And this is "a real problem"? Are they insane? This isn't a problem at all. This is catering to a population of people (Hollywood actors) who already have skins too thin, who will now be able to try to stifle all sorts of protected speech, parodies, mashups, commentary and the like, just because they might not like it.

That's no reason to create new monopoly rights.

The negotiations for this agreement have been taking place in Beijing, leading Gurry to talk about why that's the perfect place for such negotiations due to China's cultural history:

The Director General said it is particularly appropriate that the event is taking place in Beijing because of the depth of China’s historical association with the performing arts, as well as the vitality and dynamism of its contemporary theatre, cinema and television. “Theatre, acting and performance in China date back to the Shang Dynasty and enjoy an unbroken historical continuity of development and adaptation, leading to the blossoming contemporary culture that saw China produce over 500 feature films in 2010 and the largest number of television series of any country in the world,” he said.

Er... isn't it worth pointing out that this "vitality and dynamism" of culture in China was built up almost entirely without intellectual property laws, since the country only introduced copyright in 1991? Why is Gurry pretending that China needs these new monopoly rights when we've already seen that culture their flourished without it? Amusingly, a Chinese official at the meetings announced that: "Respecting IP is ... a mark of our civilization," which appears to be an out and out fabrication.

The full proposal (also embedded below) is really broad, and appears to mimic many of the rights established by copyright law. Performers -- mainly actors, but also musicians -- even if they're not the copyright holders will get an exclusive right to prevent others from reproducing, distributing or performing the works. In some cases, the rights appear to be even broader than current copyright law, such as an explicit "making available right." Under copyright law there's been some dispute if merely "making available" violates the "distribution" right, or if someone actually has to download it to violate that right. However, this treaty explicitly defines a "making available" right -- showing, once again, how IP laws only seem to expand outwards. Furthermore, it establishes "moral rights" for performers -- an idea that the US has repeatedly rejected for everyone outside of a very small group of artists (such as painters). It seems troubling that we'd suddenly agree to a massive moral rights regime without any public discussion in the US.

On top of that, Article 15 of the agreement appears to include an exceptionally broad anti-circumvention provision -- something we've already found to be disastrous under the DMCA. Why would we possibly want to expand that such that performers can go after anyone for breaking DRM even if for perfectly legal purposes. This makes no sense.

And while it might sound nice that performers would get their own rights outside of the copyright, that's not how it's going to play out. One of the "differences" this time around from the last time it was discussed a dozen years ago, is that this version will allow for the transfer of such rights to producers... meaning that actors in Hollywood movies will be forced to hand these rights over to the studios anyway -- meaning more excessive monopoly rights that the MPAA and RIAA will be able to assert to shut down legitimate content.

This thing has disaster written all over it... and it appears to be passing without most people noticing.

Filed Under: acta, china, dmca, drm, hollywood, performance rights, wipo

Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours

from the better-than-ever dept

We've been following the Humble Bundle for a while, both because it's an interesting business model experiment and because the games are awesome. For the uninitiated: the Humble Bundle is a pay-what-you-want package of cross-platform, DRM-free indie games that gets re-issued regularly with a new selection of games plus a bunch of extras like soundtracks and concept art. Each package is available for a limited time, and the proceeds are split between the developers, selected charities and the people who organize the Bundles. They have pulled some impressive revenue numbers in the past, and the most recent bundle has yet again broken records, raising $1-million in the first five hours.

In some ways, the Humble Bundle is a "give it away and pray" approach, and not necessarily a model for the entire industry—but it also serves as a fantastic example of how to connect with fans and encourage them to spend money. Firstly, all games included in Humble Bundles are DRM-free and available for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Secondly, they put a lot of emphasis on the fact that your money is going straight to the developers and the charities—and they give you precise control over exactly how it is divided up. Thirdly, they offer added reasons to spend more than the minimum one cent: for $1 dollar you get a key to unlock the game on Steam, and there is usually a bonus game or two (or more) that is only available if you pay more than the average contribution (which of course also serves to keep pushing the average contribution up). That feeds into another great tactic: they reveal a bunch of live-updated stats about the Bundle as it sells, including sales and average contribution breakdowns by OS (notably, Linux users always have the highest average) and a leaderboard of top contributors. The leaderboard has regulars, too, like Minecraft developer notch, and the "HumbleBrony Bundle" (a group that does a collective fundraising effort within the Brony community), both of whom contribute to the tune of thousands.

All of this clearly works well to encourage participation and support, as the ever-growing numbers confirm. The current Bundle still has nearly two full weeks to go, and with such a huge rush in the first day, it's sure to be the biggest one ever.

Filed Under: drm, games, humble bundle, indie, pay what you want