A Couple Videos About Our Crazy Patent System

from the you-might-enjoy... dept

We're hearing more and more talk about how broken the patent system is, and recently came across a pair of videos we figured some of you might enjoy. The first is a comedic riff on Apple's recent page turn design patent, leading Ron Charles to post an amusing video of how Apple might explain its patenting of "letters": There are some good lines in there. "Everything we've done, is designed to be very capable, but also familiar. So our goal, was to take all the amazing things that people like to do... and own them."

On a slightly more serious note, economist Alex Tabarrok, has put together a video arguing for the end of software patents: It's not a bad video, though I think the analysis is a bit overly simplistic, in that it kicks off with the idea that pharma patents make sense. The more you dig into the details of pharma patents, the more you realize that's not true either. However, even granting that, the argument he makes is the commonly seen economics argument that, at the very least, things like pharma and software display such different economic characteristics that it's silly to use the same patent system for both. Specifically, the sunk costs of innovation for software tend to be relatively low, so the protection a patent grants might not be useful. It also notes how patents can impede innovation. One thing I'm happy it includes is a note about how you get less innovation when you don't have competitors pushing you to keep innovating. That's a point that often gets missed in these debates.

Either way, I figured folks might enjoy both of these videos.

Filed Under: patents, software patents, videos

Hall & Oates Convince Super PAC Named After Them To Shut Down

from the but-now-where-will-the-hall-&-oates-fans-put-their-money? dept

There's been plenty of talk this election season about the rise of PACs and SuperPACs -- and the ease of creating them. Of course, that can lead to some bizarre situations. Take, for example the creation of the Hall and Oates Fans for America SuperPAC, which was recently approved by the Federal Election Commission (found via On the Media). The thinking behind it might not surprise you very much:

“It was really just kind of a joke a couple of us came up with drunk one night. I wish I could say there was more to it, but that’s about it,” said [William] Hansmann.

Hansmann stated that the goal of the SuperPAC was "to create parody videos on YouTube." Seems like as good a use of a SuperPAC as any. As for why they chose famed rock duo Hall & Oates? Well, that was easy:

“When we hit on Hall & Oates, we were just like, who doesn’t love Hall & Oates?” Mr. Hansmann explained.

That may be true... but while everyone may love Hall & Oates... it turns out that Hall & Oates don't really love being associated with a SuperPAC. They had their people "get in touch" with Hansmann and convince him to shut down the SuperPAC, which had raised all of $0. According to Hall & Oates' manager, the duo was wary of any political connection whatsoever, even one involving parody videos:

"Daryl Hall and John Oates recognize that the personal view points of their fans cross all political spectrums and are honored to be supported by their fans everywhere regardless of political affiliation... The PAC's founders recognize that the use of the ‘Hall’ and ‘Oates’ names for the purpose of raising funds is not an appropriate fan activity no matter what the goal of the fund raising activities might be.”

Thankfully, it appears that the dynamic duo and their manager resolved this in a friendly manner, rather than the all-too-typical reaction of some to immediately rush to legal nastygramming.

"Daryl Hall and John Oates are pleased that the amicable dialog with the founders of the Super Pac have brought an expedient resolution to this matter and achieved a result both sides are pleased with."

Of course, what's unclear is if the SuperPAC has just been shut down, or is being renamed. Any suggestions on what else it might be called?

Filed Under: hall & oates, jokes, superpac, videos

Rocker Creates App To Better The Bootleg Video Experience

from the connect-with-everyone dept

Techdirt has been writing about artists and bands enabling concert-goers' use of smart phone video since its article URLs still ended in numbers. But this has always been something of a gray area, where for every band that likes amateur films promoting them, there's another band (or copyright holder) who hates it.

Perhaps that's about to change. Business Week has a fascinating story of a new smart phone application being created by Joe Sumner, bassist for the rock band Fiction Plane, to sync multiple crowdsourced movies into a single experience. The idea came to him when his band was touring Lithuania and he noticed that there was a ton of amateur video of the previous night's concert up on YouTube. A ton as in 450 or so videos. And, rather than freak out about people being able to see the band for free on the video site, he created a company, Vylcone, to design an application that would empower and enable those same fans by creating something to link all that footage together and make something awesome.

"Its free program debuted in Apple’s (AAPL) App Store on July 18 and lets two or more people in close proximity shoot video with their iPhones, upload the clips, and view a movie automatically spliced together from different angles. To recognize that multiple users are filming the same scene, Vyclone tags each video with the location where it was shot using GPS. To synchronize the clips, it lines them up by the date and time they were shot, regardless of when they were uploaded. A simple-to-use video editor lets users play director, toggling from one angle to the next with the tap of a finger."

If you're feeling that tingling sensation in your naughty bits, don't worry, that's normal. As music moves through the digital age and bands recognize that the concert experience is where they need to really be making significant money, they and the music labels that will now want a piece of that action had better get on board concepts like Sumner's. Commenters often ask why people would continue to pay the rising costs of concert tickets; this is why.

Concerts have always had the draw of the social experience, but now you're talking about deepening the social aspect of a concert by encouraging fans to contribute to a crowdsourced concert movie. Something they will feel a part of. Something that will create a connection between the concert goer, the band, and other concert goers. And the app is (GASP!) free!

And it does look as though people in the entertainment business are paying attention:

"The startup is based in Los Angeles and London, and has 13 employees. Lassman is chief executive; Sumner, chief creative officer. They’ve raised $2.7 million from [Guy] Oseary and [Ashton] Kutcher’s fund A-Grade, along with movie studio DreamWorks, concert promoter Live Nation (LYV), and VC firm Thrive Capital."

Technology that helps artists connect with fans and gives fans a reason to buy (concert tickets, merch, etc.). Concerts may have just gotten more interesting.

Filed Under: bootlegs, connecting with fans, fiction plane, joe sumner, videos
Companies: vylcone

Brazilian Performance Rights Group Claims Collecting From Bloggers Was Simply An 'Operational Error' After Google Pushes Back

from the and-i-thought-google-was-just-there-to-screw-lowly-creatives dept

Last week, Brazil's citizens were in an uproar about the national performance rights organization (ECAD) attempting to charge a non-profit blog over $200 a month for embedding Youtube and Vimeo videos, and implicitly threatening to similarly bill other blogs. ECAD claimed that not only was this allowed by Brazil's currently-standing laws but that, despite collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Youtube itself every year, this new set of fees would not be a double-dip.

How quickly things change, especially for entities who find themselves staring down an angry internet. At first, ECAD seemed disturbingly untroubled by the uproar, including the memeification of its intention to stretch the definition of "public performance" to include all audible sound. But it suddenly changed its prohibitively expensive tune when hundreds of thousands of dollars were at stake.

None other than Google Brazil itself issued a blog post stating that ECAD's existing agreement with Youtube did not allow the agency to collect fees from bloggers, pointing out the obvious to ECAD's wilfully obtuse representatives:

These sites don't host or transmit any content when they associate a YouTube video to their site, and as such, the fact of embedding videos from YouTube can't be treated as a ‘retransmission'. As these sites aren't performing any music, ECAD can't, within the law, collect any payment from these.

Having been smacked down by its main benefactor, ECAD issued a statement of its own, claiming the whole thing was just an "error" and that it had no intention of setting up tollbooths on every website with embedded video:

1- Ecad has never had the intention to curtail the freedom on the internet, known to be a space devoted to information, dissemination of music and other creative works, and propagation of ideas. The institution also lacks a copyright billing strategy geared to embedded videos. Royalties collections for webcasting have been under re-evaluation since February 29th, and the case reported in recent days took place before then. Nevertheless, it resulted from an operational error of interpretation, which represents an isolated fact in this segment. (...)

2- Two years ago, Ecad and Google signed a letter of intent that guides the relationship between both organizations. The document details thatEcad can collect copyright fees for music coming from embedded videos, as long as it gives advance notice to Google/YouTube. As Ecad did not send such a notification, it becomes clear that this is not its goal. If it were the case, it would have sent the notification the letter of intent requires. (...)

Note that ECAD has left itself a bit of an opening for pursuing these fees in the future. Supposedly it can still go after blogs but only if it informs Google/Youtube of its intention to do so. It seems the only error it feels it made was getting caught. Everything else was simply a clerical screw-up and if all ducks had been properly ordered, it would have been free to bill websites for linking to Youtube.

As it stands now, ECAD has backed completely away from this plan. But, once the furor dies down and recedes into the past, I wouldn't be surprised to see this sort of tactic deployed again, if not by ECAD, than certainly by another "aspirational" performance rights organization.

(Hat tip to Techdirt's own Glyn Moody and his amazing Twitter feed. He's asked you all very nicely to follow him and this post is an example of why you should. So, follow this link to do exactly that..)

 

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, embeds, errors, performance rights, videos
Companies: google

UPDATE: Brazilian Performance Rights Agency Demands Blogger Pay $204 A Month To Embed Videos

from the you-can-only-take-my-money-for-so-long-before-you-take-it-all dept

Well, you can never say that performance rights organizations are unwilling to explore every option when attempting to snag a bit more income, ostensibly for their roster artists. American PROs (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) have attempted to collect from Girl Scouts, every cell phone owner with a ringtone and argued that a single person listening to their own music via the cloud is a "public performance." British PROs (PRS, mainly) have levied fees against pretty much any small business that has the audacity to play radios at an audible volume, as well as succeeding in collecting fees for "public performances" from hotels/motels who provide in-room radios for their guests. SABAM, Belgium's PRO arm, has managed to out-thug the rest of the world's PROs, demanding fees from truck drivers for listening to the radio in their cabs ("workplace") as well as collecting for bands that don't even exist.

There's a lot of competition out there in the dog-eat-dog world of performance rights double and triple-dipping, but it appears that Brazil's PRO, ECAD (Central Office of Collection and Distribution) is ready to play in the big leagues. Its strategy? Collect royalties from bloggers who embed videos. (As you may recall, ASCAP tried this a few years back to no avail, but Brazil's relationship with copyright could safely be described as "incomprehensibly inconsistent.")

(The following quotes come from a translated page, so they have been copied verbatim.) [UPDATE: Eduardo, the author of the original post, has sent over a better translation of the quotations.)

The saga of unusual collections of the Central Office of Collection and Distribution (ECAD) has added another chapter last week. The boys from the blog Caligraffiti received last Tuesday in an email warning that the collecting society would have to pay royalties for videos from YouTube and Vimeo that appeared on the site.

The saga of unusual collections from the Central Office of Collection and Distribution (ECAD) gained another chapter last week. The boys from the blog Caligraffiti received last Tuesday an email from the collecting society warning that they would have to pay royalties for videos from YouTube and Vimeo embedded on the site.

This is surprising. ECAD already collects performance royalties from Youtube Brasil for its artists. In fact, it collects quite a bit from Youtube.

YouTube Brasil will have to pay 2.5% of its gross revenue per exhibition of songs protected by Ecad (Bureau of Revenue Distribution) in the country. If the amount of the stipulated percentage does not reach BRL 258,000 (US $146,250) in a year, the site must pay the value as "minimum annual fee".

Not only does Youtube Brasil pay a minimum mandatory fee yearly but ECAD has also hit the site with a BRL 645,000 (US $366,000) "subscription fee." The PRO collected roughly BRL 510,000 (US $289,000) in 2011. With Youtube already on the hook for the performance royalties, how does ECAD arrive at the conclusion that embedded video (just a link back to Youtube for all intents and purposes) should subject bloggers to performance royalty payments?

Well, according to ECAD, Youtube is the "transmitter" and of course, has to pay. But blogs embedding videos are "relays" and are also subject to these fees. Basically, ECAD has found a loophole in the existing law and is looking to exploit it. ECAD's spokesman:

[UPDATE: Translation via Eduardo, along with this splendid note -- "This second one has a very bad wording in portuguese as well, written by lawyers in their own language."]:

The right of public performance in digital mode is through the concept of transmission exists in law and in this art. 5 of section II of Law 9.610/98, which issue is the transmission or dissemination of sounds or sounds and images through of radio waves, satellite signals, wire, cable or other conductor, optical or other electromagnetic process, so this includes the Internet.

The rights of public performance in digital media happen through the concept of transmission found in the article 5, section II of the law 9.610/98, in wich transmission or emission are the diffusion of sounds or images through radio waves, satellite signals, wire, cable or other conductor, optical or other electromagnetic process, so this includes the Internet.

ECAD also argues that the "transmitter" and the "relay" are completely different forms of use and as such, do not represent "double recovery." This is, roughly translated, complete horseshit. But it gets even worse. Bloggers are being charged a flat-rate based on a designation that ECAD itself decides. The cheapest option, most likely, is to be declared a "non-profit." But even that designation saddles the blog with crippling fees.

To blog [as] a nonprofit, the amount charged by Ecad is nothing lightweight: R $ 352.59 (US $204) monthly.

Caligraffiti is a niche blog dedicated to design and technology, with a hit count of 1,000-1,500 hits per day and is not profitable. Every contributor does something other than blogging for income. Despite this, ECAD has designated the blog as a "webcasting or broadcasting program originating from the internet," a category that is sure to increase the amount levied against it.

In response to this collection attempt, Caligraffiti was briefly taken offline. After some legal consultation, the bloggers decided to re-open and fight ECAD head on, stating that this is clearly an attack on the internet itself, which was built on open sharing and dissemination of information.

ECAD is also sticking to its guns, stating that although it has no collection arm "dedicated" to collecting from bloggers, anyone who "publicly performs music" (read: "embeds video") on their site is subject to these fees. Of course, ECAD isn't doubling up on royalties just to be greedy. Its focus is on "the awareness and enlightenment on the need for payment copyright," without which its covered artists would be "disrespected" by callous bloggers and their embedding code.

 

Eduardo has also confirmed that ECAD has gone after weddings with DJs for performance royalties (as Ninja pointed out in the comments) and pointed out that the BRL $359 amounts to roughly half a month's wages at minimum wage.

Filed Under: brazil, embedding, fees, licenses, videos, youtube
Companies: ecad, google, youtube

Something's Not Right: German User Has To Use Chinese Proxy To See New Music Video

from the ah,-gema dept

We've been writing about German music collection society GEMA's bizarre fight against YouTube for a few years now, in which all major music videos are blocked from YouTube in Germany because GEMA is suing YouTube and refuses to even discuss a potential license until the lawsuit is over. As we noted recently, this is even frustrating the labels who feel that GEMA is costing them serious money in not just doing a deal to make videos available. While researching something else on Twitter, I came across this telling tweet, from an individual in Germany talking about how they had to use a Chinese web proxy just to watch a new Sting video, and properly notes just how screwed up the world is when people in Germany are relying on Chinese web proxies just to watch music videos. I'm still trying to figure out what good this does anyone... other than GEMA.

Filed Under: china, germany, licensing, music, proxy, sting, videos
Companies: gema

The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial

from the nicely-done dept

Ah, the bogus takedown. The latest is that apparently the NFL somehow and for some reason took down Chrysler's Clint Eastwood Super Bowl commercial from YouTube. Pretty much every advertiser put up their commercials on YouTube, and it's unclear why or how the NFL might claim any sort of copyright on any of those ads. But, for some time that's exactly what happened, making Chrysler's own website promoting the ad look pretty silly: Considering how much Chrysler had to pay for that ad, you have to wonder if they now feel that the NFL owes them something for making it impossible for people to watch for a while...

Filed Under: clint eastwood, commercials, super bowl, takedowns, videos
Companies: chrysler, nfl

The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law

from the is-it-so-easy? dept

My cousin works (year round) for a summer camp. Her husband (who, technically, is also my cousin, but not by blood), works in film & TV production, doing all sorts of work in and around the entertainment industry. He's worked on various movies and TV shows. To help his wife out, he helped set up a website for the camp, and posted a slide show video the camp put together of campers, which he uploaded to YouTube. The video... was set to the music of a very famous major label recording artist. This is the kind of stuff that people do all the time. Because it feels normal and natural and if the music is a part of their lives and was what they experienced when the photos/video were taken, it seems totally natural to include it as backing music for the video.

I received an email from him, however, after he got a note from YouTube about how the video infringes on content from Universal Music. His concern -- and remember, he works in the industry -- was that he knows the camp has an ASCAP license, and he couldn't figure out why that didn't allow him to post the video. He was asking what he should do and if there was any way to make sure the video was legal.

The problem (well, one of many) here is simply that the ASCAP license only covers a limited set of rights under copyright law, and does not cover things like putting music to a video. In fact, without knowing the details, I'd bet that the ASCAP license his camp has really just covers performances at the camp. But, still, here's a guy who works in the industry who naturally assumes that what he's done shouldn't violate copyright law. Because it seems ridiculous to think that it does, especially when the camp that the video is for has "an ASCAP license."

The idea that anyone should need to understand the differences between performance rights and reproduction rights and performance licenses and sync licenses, just to post a fun slide show of a summer camp, doesn't make any sense at all. It's a serious problem borne out of a history of copyright law that was designed for an entirely different purpose. It's supposed to be for commercial infringement, not personal use, and copyright law has been built by simply duct taping on new or different rights every few years as the technology changes. What you get is a hodge podge mess that's impossible for most people to understand, even those who work in the entertainment industry and who that same industry insists only wants ever more draconian copyright law.

The system is hopelessly broken. But rather than looking to fix it, we have Congress trying to duct tape on another batch of rules and rights. What a shame.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, videos

An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video [Updated]

from the but-it's-still-sleazy dept

See the update at the end

The legal fight between Megaupload and Universal Music Group keeps getting more and more... odd. After the court gave UMG basically a day to respond, the company filed its response and made a rather surprising point: that a deal with YouTube/Google lets it take down videos it has no copyright over. This seems odd, and lots of people are screaming about some crazy clause that lets UMG censor anyone's videos. But I think I understand what's going on here -- and it's a very specific situation, where UMG sorta used a loophole -- so read on for the details. UMG is still being questionable, sleazy and short-sighted... but probably legal.

The key part of the company's legal response likely is accurate and probably kills MegaUpload's case. There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube's Content Management System. This last one doesn't get much attention and isn't that well known, but it's basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren't matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you're familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said "This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." That's the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is "no longer available."

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it's not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn't actually file a DMCA notice. This is kind of a weak excuse, frankly, and really calls into question how YouTube's CMS system works, more than anything else. In theory, this also means that the only retribution that can happen for UMG wrongly taking down the videos of others is that Google cuts them off. But seeing as Google has a big partnership with UMG to build and run Vevo, that's unlikely to happen. That's a bit scary, but it suggests UMG more or less has a free pass to shut down certain videos it doesn't like without much recourse (well, beyond public ridicule).

That said, a part of UMG's explanation isn't entirely clear, but I have some guesses as to what happened. UMG claims that its agreement with YouTube goes beyond just copyright, and that it's allowed to pull videos for other (unnamed) reasons. This is new, in a sense, because YouTube has always suggested that CMS is for copyright issues -- and, in fact, the original message on the video, did, in fact, say that it was a copyright issue. YouTube later changed that message to say it was a terms of service issue. And that provides a clue.

I believe that part of the Vevo agreement is that UMG gets to "pull" videos of its own artists from YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo. That's the intention anyway. I know when Vevo launched, that was part of the deal. All the YouTube videos of UMG artists magically jumped over to Vevo. So, I'm guessing that UMG basically used this loophole, which was supposed to be about taking videos off YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo, and realized it could just "take the videos off YouTube" as long as they had UMG artists in them, without ever putting them up on Vevo.

In other words, due to the specific nature of the Vevo agreement -- which was intended to move videos from YouTube to Vevo -- UMG can pull videos that show its artists off of YouTube. Of course, in this case, it used it for an entirely different purpose, which was to try to censor this ad. That backfired in all sorts of ways, and it sounds like YouTube told UMG to knock it off, knowing that this was not the intention of the agreement at all. And, for what it's worth, UMG has stopped getting the video blocked, and says it will allow it to stay up for now.

This situation is messy and silly, but it seems like an unintended result of contract language over Vevo that UMG exploited. It may be legal, but in the end, it was pretty dumb by UMG. This whole thing, in true Streisand Effect fashion, actually drove a lot more attention to the ad. And even if it was legal, it sure makes UMG look petty and vindictive.

Update: Received a response from a YouTube spokesperson which makes this a little more interesting.

Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.

That confirms some of what I thought: that UMG does not have the right to take down any videos (as people keep implying), but that it may be able to take down some videos. The new bit of info is that it's just live performances. So, that would suggest UMG is even slimier. They tried to claim that those video clips of artists in the MegaUpload song were "live performances." That's clearly bogus.

Update 2: And... MegaUpload has conceded that its restraining order request is moot, and so the judge has denied it (pdf), while giving the company the right to file for a preliminary injunction and for discovery. So, not much of anything, but the case will likely continue.

Filed Under: contentid, dmca, takedown, videos, will.i.am
Companies: google, megaupload, umg, universal music group, vevo, youtube