German Software Company Sues US Gov't For Copyright Infringement

from the navy-pirates dept

A German software company, Bitmanagement Software, is now suing the US government for copyright infringement and demanding almost $600 million. The lawsuit, which was filed in the US Court of Federal Claims (basically a special court set up just for cases involving suing the US government for money), says that the US Navy copied Bitmanagement's 3D virtual reality software, BS Contact Geo. Apparently, the Navy had tested the software and had an evaluation license allowing the software to be used on 38 computers. And then the Navy just copied it onto hundreds of thousands of computers.

The lawsuit notes that the Navy had specifically requested the removal of Bitmanagement's usage tracking code, and then told the company that it wanted to license the software for upwards of 500,000 computers -- but also that it started doing those installs while the company was still negotiating a license. While that negotiation was ongoing, someone (accidentally, apparently) forwarded an email to Bitmanagement indicating that the software had already been installed on 104,922 computers. Apparently, a few months later, the Navy also disabled some other tracking software, called Flexwrap. This part is a bit confusing in the lawsuit, since earlier it notes that the evaluation contract required Bitmanagement to remove tracking software, but then the lawsuit notes that later on it was the Navy that removed Flexwrap, "in violation of the terms" of the license.

This is also a rare copyright case where the plaintiff is asking for actual damages, rather than mere statutory damages. That's partly because it notes that a single license of its software runs approximately $1,000 -- and it believes the software may have ended up on 558,466 computers. Thus, it's asking for $596,308,103, which is the market value of the unpaid licenses. If it had sought statutory damages, it would have been limited to just $150,000, as that's the maximum per "work infringed." But it's also because the US government has a special super power, called sovereign immunity when it comes to copyright claims, basically allowing it to avoid a copyright lawsuit in a regular ("Article III") district court. However, at least based on my understanding of the law, they can still go to the Federal Claims court (as Bitmanagement is) and seek the actual licensing fees.

It will be interesting to see how the US government responds. After all, this is the very same US government that regularly insists that copyright infringement is a horrible evil and that we need to ratchet up punishment for it. Yet, here is the Navy doing what appears to be fairly blatant direct infringement on software that it was evaluating, but failed to fully license. In the past, the US government has found itself negotiating settlements in similar cases. But, of course, none of that has resulted in the government recognizing that perhaps its hardline position on infringement by others is a bit extreme, considering its own behavior.

Filed Under: 3d, bs contact geo, copyright, software, us government, us navy, virtual reality
Companies: bitmanagement

Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies

from the live-by-the-monopoly,-die-by-the-monopoly dept

While lots of folks have been declaring the 3D movie obsession dead for a while now, the studios still love 3D movies. In this age where they're looking for ways to create formulaic premium experiences that get people to go out to the theaters, they seem to have jumped on the 3D bandwagon full force. Of course, as with all things Hollywood embraces too strongly, that's now leading to backlash, mainly because rather than do it well and where it makes sense, the big studios are basically just looking to add 3D to whatever they can and hope people will pay the premium. It's a short term strategy, but Hollywood execs aren't exactly known for their long term outlooks.

That said, Disney -- the poster company for supporting extreme copyright monopolies -- has apparently discovered a form of intellectual monopoly that it doesn't like so much: patents. Last week it filed an emergency motion to try to insert itself into the sale of some patents that cover the 3Difying of old films, from a company, Digital Domain Media Group (DDMG), that went bankrupt. The patents were sold to a company called RealID, and that seems to scare Disney. The link above to The Hollywood Reporter has the details of the back and forth over the dispute, in which it appears that Disney had an option to get a full license to the patents, but for reasons that suggest someone was asleep at the wheel, the company did not officially exercise that option. Now it wants to block the sale unless it can get a guarantee that it won't get sued.

There's got to be some amount of irony to see copyright maximalist Disney suddenly running into issues over the possibility that patents might block it from doing something it wants to do.

Filed Under: 3d, copyright, movies, patents
Companies: disney

Why People Pirate: The Story Of Avatar

from the three-years-later dept

When I began thinking about writing this post, I wanted to start with the opening line "Remember Avatar?" Then I stopped, shook my head, and figured that such an opening line would be ridiculous. After all, Avatar is the highest worldwide grossing movie of all time. Despite everyone on the planet apparently believing that the movie was based on something they had themselves done, the movie essentially ushered in the era of the 3D movie experience for our generation. I mean, come on, it's Avatar.

But then I thought about it a little longer. When's the last time I heard anyone talk about this groundbreaking movie? Months ago? Years ago? Wait, when did this thing come out? 2009? Is that really correct? Is anyone really thinking about this movie anymore? So, because of all those questions, I give you this:

Remember Avatar? You should, for all the reasons mentioned above, but you may see the movie mentioned again now that Fox will finally release the 3D Collector's Edition Blu-Ray of the film. It's one hell of a release window for the 3D version of the movie. And some, like Gizmodo, are pointing to story of how it happened to explain why people turn to infringment for the entertainment they want.

On April 22, 2010, [Avatar] is released on DVD. It's now August 14, 2012. In what world does it make sense for the movie that basically defibrillated the entire notion of 3D movies to take three damn years to make a wide release on 3D Blu-ray? Ours, apparently.

Here's how we got here: Panasonic got in bed with Avatar early on, promoting the film with 103 trucks with giant 3D TVs on them. That was kind of cool, actually. But then, it turned out you could only buy the 3D Blu-ray with a Panasonic 3D TV. Which turned out to cost, all things considered, about 300 damn dollars for a $30 Blu-ray, no matter how you spun it. Totally dumb, totally anti-consumer.

So, through a complicated series of exclusive contract hoops, Fox essentially set up a monetary obstacle course all the way back in late 2010. If you wanted Avatar in 3D, you had to buy a television at a price that far exceeded any added value from the movie. You know who likes obstacle courses built almost two years ago? Time-travelling hamsters, that's who. Last time I checked, there aren't a great deal of time-travelling hamsters paying for movies.

And neither were the people who wanted the 3D version of Avatar, apparently. Panasonic posted huge losses in the television space. Avatar went on to become the most pirated movie of all time. And the Gizmodo piece points the finger directly at Fox:

All of this matters. Especially right now. Demonoid just went down for the count. The RIAA and MPAA want the US to stomp on the Pirate Bay the same way. And we're just a few months removed from the Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal for a $675,000 fine levied against Joel Tenenbaum for, as a teen, downloading a few dozen songs. The subtext is clear. It's not even subtext—it's super-text. We are the assholes. It's our fault that movies are bad and the music industry can't figure out how to monetize itself. And the copyright gestapo is coming for us. That's the message, the threat, looming over every idiotic decision that pushes us closer to BitTorrent.

And in the meantime, as all of this anti-consumer-ish-ness is being dolled up in a wig and a makeup and called "a business model", fans of Avatar will finally be able to get the movie in 3D in October. Yes, a movie designed to be watched with cardboard skittles goggles on your head wasn't available across the board for three damned years. That isn't a release window. It's a message to the movie's fans:

Fox doesn't give a damn about you.

Filed Under: 3d, avatar, piracy, windows

Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

The NY Times has an article about yet another ridiculous bit of copyright law, the fact that moviemakers have to license artwork, even if they own the physical piece to show it in a movie. And it gets even worse, when you find out that the ridiculous position of the Artists Rights Society (think the RIAA/MPAA for artists) is that the newly released 3D version of Titanic needs a new license, because its use of artwork is somehow not covered by the original license:

It is there in the new 3-D version of “Titanic,” as it was in James Cameron’s original film: a modified version of Picasso’s painting “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” aboard the ship as it sinks.

Of course that 1907 masterpiece was never lost to the North Atlantic. It has been at the Museum of Modern Art for decades — which is precisely the reason the Picasso estate, which owns the copyright to the image, refused Mr. Cameron’s original request to include it in his 1997 movie.

But Mr. Cameron used it anyway.

After Artists Rights Society, a company that guards intellectual property rights for more than 50,000 visual artists or their estates, including Picasso’s, complained, however, Mr. Cameron agreed to pay a fee for the right to use the image.

With the rerelease of “Titanic,” the society wants Mr. Cameron to pay again, asserting that the 3-D version is a new work, not covered under the previous agreement.

Of course, I recognize that ownership of the image is different than holding the copyright in the image -- though I'm a bit surprised that most art purchases don't include a copyright assignment or at least a permissive license as well. But it strikes me as ridiculous that the use of such images in a movie -- especially in passing -- isn't a clear case of fair use. This highlights the ridiculousness of the "permission-based society" we live in, where even if you own something, you don't really own it.

Why do we let this kind of craziness happen? Why don't we, as a society, stand up and point out that it makes no sense. If you have possession of the painting, why shouldn't you be allowed to use it in a movie? Even if you don't have the painting. How is having that painting in the movie, in any way, harming the economic value of the painting? The answer is that it is not. If anything, it's increasing the prestige and value of the painting... and it's doing all of that for free.

Think of it in a slightly different context. These days, when other products are seen in movies -- like a can of Coke, for example -- it's often there because of product placement. That is, the provider paid for it to be in the movie. Couldn't you make an argument that artwork that shows up in movies gets the same sort of benefit of the attention of the moviegoers? Why is it, then, that filmmakers are expected to pay a license to have the artwork, but get paid to have the Coke can?

Filed Under: 3d, artwork, fair use, licensing, moma, picasso, titanic

The Rise Of 3D, For Better Or For Worse

from the 3D-me dept

A few months ago, we ran an experiment with SAYMedia for a more conversational "engagement" type of advertisment, and we're running another such experiment over the next few days. Beneath this post and also on the front page of Techdirt we have an ad unit, from Sprint, asking people their thoughts on the rise of "3D." I've said before (and I say in my response) that I think that Hollywood has become too obsessed with 3D, but as a technology it really does have something to offer. The trick is going to be for people to really learn how to use it wisely. If you have any thoughts, feel free to answer them via the ad unit beneath this post (we're shutting off comments on this post to drive the discussion into the ad unit). Update: Apparently the ad is appearing intermittently, rather than all the time... apologies for that. We're working on it.

Obviously, this ad unit comes from Sprint, so this post is effectively sponsored by Sprint.

Filed Under: 3d, innovation

Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters

from the ridiculous dept

Nina Paley alerted us to an article from the Boston Globe that's been getting some attention about how many theaters are showing digital projections of regular "2D" movies that look really bad because projectionists don't remove 3D lenses. Basically, lots of theaters are using digital projectors, which were supposed to be a huge boon for the theater industry. It's easier than shipping and loading film. It can often present a crisper picture. In general it provides plenty of benefits. Those same projects can show 3D movies, but if you try to show a 2D movie via the 3D lenses, you can lose a ton of light. In some cases, the films are being projected 85% darker due to this. In other words, it's making the theater experience dreadful.

You might just think the issue is lazy projectionists who don't want to change lenses. While that might play a part... the bigger issue appears to be Sony's insane fear of digital infringement:

So why aren’t theater personnel simply removing the 3-D lenses? The answer is that it takes time, it costs money, and it requires technical know-how above the level of the average multiplex employee. James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert's Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, "and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.'" The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn't made and "audiences are getting shortchanged.'"

Yes, the projector requires you to get security clearances and internet passwords just to change a lens... or it shuts down on you. Why? Because of the fear of the dreaded "piracy." Of course, all this really does, in the long run, is drive more such "piracy" by making people question why they should go to the theater for a crappy movie-going experience.

* Oh, and yes, it's pretty freaking cool that Roger Ebert's projectionist is named James Bond.

Filed Under: 3d, digital movies, drm, projectors
Companies: sony

Next Generation 'Piracy': Piracy Goes 3D

from the but-does-it-matter? dept

Just as growing segments of the population are expressing that they're sick of too many movies being offered in 3D for no good reason other than to get people to pay more for it, it appears that the "pirate" community is jumping on the 3D bandwagon as well. They're getting better and better at offering unauthorized versions in 3D, either via applying a tool to make a 2D rip appear 3D, or through some new methods to fully rip a 3D Blu-ray. I'm sure we'll hear the usual fretting and complaining from the "content protection" staff at the MPAA, and yet there will be little understanding of or reflection about what this actually means. Hollywood correctly realized a few years ago that one way to "compete" with unauthorized copies was to add more value to the experience. That was a key driver in the 3D experience. The basic thinking was correct -- it's just that once they had a bit of success with it, they simply thought "3D is the answer!" without thinking much more deeply about it. 3D is one way to improve the experience, but simply adding 3D to movies with no thought as to whether or not it really is needed or makes the product better is silly.

So rather than complaining about unauthorized 3D versions of movies (and you can just hear the MPAA complaints about how the pirated 3D movies are even "more damaging"), why isn't Hollywood focused on actually thinking beyond just 3D towards actually making the overall experience better in ways that can't be pirated? I guess that's just too much "work," and it's a lot easier to hire another crop of lawyers who want to sue everyone, rather than take the time to successfully expand a business by offering more value.

Filed Under: 3d, piracy

Hollywood Seeks To Kill Off 3D Golden Goose With Much Higher Prices

from the oh-look,-bad-business-models,-now-in-3d dept

Ah, Hollywood. While the movie business has been doing quite well at the box office lately, many in the industry still haven't quite realized why. Obviously the rise of 3D flicks has given people a reason to actually leave the home and go to the theater -- in part because the experience is much better, and seeing movies in the theater is a social experience. Of course, now that 3D televisions are starting to come to market, there may start to be some more challenges there, and the way to deal with that is to improve the experience and make it even more worthwhile.

So what's Hollywood doing? They're just making it more expensive. Yes, they're jacking up the prices on 3D movies, in a typical short-term strategy. Rather than recognize how this might just drive more people to more seriously consider getting a 3D setup at home, Hollywood's simplistic business modeling seems to be "let's see how much we can squeeze out of people as quickly as possible." There is no recognition of the value of building up a longer term relationship and providing reasonable value at a reasonable price. And then they're going to complain about people not going to the movies, and blaming file sharing, rather than recognizing that they're driving willing customers away with much higher prices.

Filed Under: 3d, movies, prices

IMAX Threatens Open Source 3D Engine With Bizarre Reasoning

from the say-what-now dept

Proffer alerts us to the bizarre story of how IMAX (last seen suing competitors and misleading people about what an IMAX film really is) is now threatening the folks behind the Sandy3D open source 3D flash engine. Apparently, IMAX has some sort of 3D drawing system called SANDDE. So, maybe, if you squint, you could see how IMAX might be complaining about a trademark issue. But the letter from IMAX is quite odd. It doesn't mention trademark at all. Instead, it mentions a French patent.

This is quite odd, considering that there's clearly no patent issue here (beyond the fact that Sandy3D isn't in France and the products are entirely different). So why isn't IMAX talking trademark? Well, perhaps because IMAX's trademark on SANDDE was considered abandoned as of March 8, 2000. Yes, more than ten years ago. There's also the fact that this open source project is not a commercial endeavor at all, meaning that IMAX might have a lot of trouble proving "use in commerce" even if it actually had a trademark. Perhaps IMAX could get away with claiming a common law trademark, but even then, its ability to do anything to Sandy3D would be quite limited, and it's difficult to see anyone finding a likelihood of confusion existing between the two.

In the end, it looks like some IMAX lawyers decided to just threaten these open source developers, hoping that by spewing some totally unrelated info about a patent, it might scare the developers into changing the name on a product, even though the patent has nothing at all to do with the issue, and the company has no registered trademark on the name in question.

Filed Under: 3d, imax, patents, threats, trademarks
Companies: imax