U.S. Court Of Appeals Hears Arguments That Lawsuit Against Disney For 'Pirates' Shouldn't Have Been Dismissed

from the argh dept

Back in 2019, we wrote about a lawsuit filed against Disney by two writers that pitched a piratey movie to the company. The writers' screenplay about Davey Jones, they said, was so similar to Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies so as to constitute copyright infringement. Much of this appeared to stem from the fact that the two writers had pitched the screenplay to Disney a few years before the Pirates franchise began, but the similarities laid out in the lawsuit were classic idea/expression dichotomy stuff.

The writers and Laiter said the movies, like the screenplay, diverged from the traditional canon by portraying pirates as humorous, good men rather than terrifying brutes. They also claimed both works featured supernatural cursed, skull-faced pirates, and that actor Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow character was substantially similar to the screenplay’s Davy Jones.

But the “single purported similarity” between the widely varying plots—cursed pirates—was an idea that flows naturally from a basic plot premise and therefore unprotectable, the judge said. The dark mood driven by pirate battles and sea monsters also stemmed naturally from the pirate premise, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said.

And so the court dismissed the suit, laying out a reasoned argument that all of the similarities the plaintiffs had brought before the court were pirate tropes of the sort one would find in pretty much every pirate movie. Any minor deviations from those tropes, even if shared by both screenplays, were not protectable. Meanwhile, there were marked differences in the screenplay and characters, with one notable exception being that the plaintiff's Davey Jones gives up pirating to work in an orphanage, while Disney's Jack Sparrow very much does nothing of the sort.

Well, those writers appealed the decision and recently argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals that, basically, there are lots of other similarities that they forgot to mention in the first go around.

Creators of a pirate-themed screenplay argued Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a lower court dismissal merely filtered unprotectable elements from the allegedly infringing movie franchise without considering their protectable arrangement. The appeals court panel seemed receptive to the idea that the case against Walt Disney Co. should have at least survived a quick dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Those creators are pointing to the recent ruling in the The Shape of Water case, which similarly was dismissed early on, only to be revived on appeal when it was argued that expert testimony during the trial could have made a difference in the outcome. But, as Disney has argued in response, that case contained far more allegations of similarity than exists here. That, according to the plaintiffs in this case, is because the court didn't hear their new argument that these piratey tropes were protectable because of their specific combined arrangement.

U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Shelton Bade noted that section and arrangement wasn’t mentioned in the decision and asked if it was argued. Lowe acknowledged the prior legal team was denied the chance to amend its complaint a second time to add it. Bade pushed back and said the court concluded the similarities were just pirate tropes “one would expect in any pirate movie.”

Lowe pointed to the opening brief, which laid out various alleged character, dialogue, plot, theme, and pacing similarities showing an architecture “identical for all intents and purposes” to the screenplay. He also said there are always “slight differences” between works, but that literary works were afforded “very thick protection.”

Disney attorney Melinda Eades LeMoine of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP said the court didn’t err by skipping the arrangement analysis because it wasn’t presented—and wasn’t present—in the case. Many of the alleged similarities could be found in various pirate tales as well as Disney’s own Pirates of the Caribbean ride, which opened in 1967 at California’s Disneyland theme park and includes alleged similarities such as a port town, skeletons, and treasure, she said.

Hard as it may be to back Disney in a copyright lawsuit, its position makes sense. There are instances where an arrangement of unprotectable elements can qualify for copyright protection due to the originality of that arrangement, but nothing the plaintiffs point out here seems to move beyond a mashed together list of pirate tropes. That, combined with the stark differences that are present in the screenplay's story and characters, really does put this back into the idea/expression dichotomy territory.

And, yet, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see the court decide that those are arguments best made at trial.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez said district courts can dismiss cases based on a lack of similarity, “But I think it’s difficult.” Not letting questions about arrangement and what elements were generic at least get to the summary judgment phase “just strikes me as odd,” he said.

“It does seem that you’ve got to be very careful when you do that, you’ve got to be sure. What you’re saying is there’s no plausible claim,” Paez said.

To be clear, this is the court hinting that it will err on the side of caution, not any sort of affirmation that the plaintiffs have an actual case. Still, it's annoying that any creator, even Disney, would have to go through a trial over this sort of thing.

Filed Under: copyright, expression, idea, idea/expression dichotomy, pirates, pirates of the caribbean
Companies: disney

La Liga Fined 250K Euros For Using Mobile App To Try To Catch 3rd Party Pirates

from the goooooooal dept

Roughly one year ago, we wrote about La Liga, the Spanish soccer league, pushing out an app to soccer fans that allowed the software to repurpose a mobile device's microphone and GPS to try to catch unauthorized broadcasts of La Liga matches. The league publicized this information, which had previously been buried in obscure language in its TOS, as mandated by the GDPR. At the same time, the league attempted to brush the whole thing off as above board, claiming that what was in the TOS informed users of the app enough that their own mobile devices were being compromised and turned into copyright snoop networks.

If this all sounds like The Dark Knight Rises for European soccer... you aren't wrong.

La Liga apparently was wrong, however, in its claims that all of this was okey-dokey.

While controversial, La Liga felt that it was on solid ground in respect of the feature and its declaration to app users. AEPD, Spain’s data protection agency (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos), fundamentally disagrees.

As a result, AEPD has hit La Liga with a significant 250,000 euro fine for not properly informing its users in respect of the ‘microphone’ feature, including not displaying a mic icon when recording.

The data protection agency said that La Liga’s actions breached several aspects of the EU’s GDPR, including a failure to gain consent every time the microphones in users’ devices were activated.

Now, the GDPR is an absolutely useless monstrosity in nearly every instance, but it's actions -- such as those taken against La Liga -- fool everyone into thinking such laughably broad regulation is necessary in the first place. For any business to somehow think that it would be a good idea to compromise the mobile devices of its customers in order to catch pubs and bars, something like fining the business via the GDPR sure makes it seem like the GDPR is doing something. This is what poisons the well, in other words.

The pro-GDPR argument stemming from this example is undercut, however, by the fact that La Liga is arguing that it modeled its actions to very specifically follow the spelled out way the GDPR enables these kinds of privacy intrusions. This too is an argument we've made about the GDPR.

In a statement, La Liga says it “disagrees deeply” with the AEPD’s decision and believes the agency has “not made the effort to understand how the technology works.” Announcing it will go to court to challenge the ruling, La Liga says it has always complied with the GDPR and other relevant data protection regulations. Noting that users of the app must “expressly, proactively and on two occasions give their consent” for the microphone to be used, La Liga further insists that the app does not “record, store or listen” to people’s conversations.

“[T]he technology used is designed to generate only a specific sound footprint (acoustic fingerprint). This fingerprint only contains 0.75% of the information, discarding the remaining 99.25%, so it is technically impossible to interpret the voice or human conversations. This footprint is transformed into an alphanumeric code (hash) that is not reversible to the original sound,” La Liga says.

As if another test case was needed, the outcome of the appeal will certainly be one for the usefulness of the GDPR. Because if the outcome is that La Liga actually did comply with it, all while snooping on 3rd parties using the mobile hardware of customers that didn't really know what was happening, that should be revealing.

Filed Under: apps, copyright, gdpr, piracy, pirates, recording, surveillance
Companies: la liga

Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life

from the a-bottle-of-rum dept

It's no secret that Disney is almost solely responsible for the wild expansion of copyright law that has occurred over the course of decades. In addition to the near constant lobbying for longer copyright term lengths and a heavy-handed approach to enforcement, Disney has also found itself attempting to assert copyright in areas of broad ideas rather than literal copying. Perhaps to some, then, it was a shot of schadenfreude to watch Disney face its own lawsuit brought by screenwriters over its Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Way back in 2000, two writers and a producer pitched a script about pirate Davy Jones to Disney, which the company ultimate rejected. In 2004, Disney released the first of its own Pirates movies starring Johnny Depp.

But no amount of just desserts ought to change the legal principles in copyright law, so it's still a good thing to see that the court has struck down the copyright suit on the grounds that the scripts aren't actually similar, aside from some non-protectable ideas, rather than explicit expression. We can start with the purported similarities brought by producer Tova Laiter, which should immediately stand out to you as not protected by copyright law.

The writers and Laiter said the movies, like the screenplay, diverged from the traditional canon by portraying pirates as humorous, good men rather than terrifying brutes. They also claimed both works featured supernatural cursed, skull-faced pirates, and that actor Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow character was substantially similar to the screenplay’s Davy Jones.

But the “single purported similarity” between the widely varying plots—cursed pirates—was an idea that flows naturally from a basic plot premise and therefore unprotectable, the judge said. The dark mood driven by pirate battles and sea monsters also stemmed naturally from the pirate premise, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said.

These are ideas and concepts, not actual expression, which is why the court ruled against the plaintiffs. Broad ideas, such as making pirates funny and likeable, are obviously not the sort of thing that copyright is designed to protect. Were Disney to have lifted the names and descriptions of pirates from the original screenplay, perhaps there would be a valid case. Minor deviations from well-worn pirate tropes, however, don't work for a copyright suit.

And, while the plaintiffs attempted to draw comparisons between Jack Sparrow and their own Davy Jones, the court does a fairly thorough takedown in its own analysis.

The court dismissed comparisons between Sparrow and Jones, stating “cockiness, bravery, and drunkenness are generic, non-distinct characteristics which are not protectable.” The screenplay’s clean-shaven, ponytail- wearing Jones, who gave up pirating to raise orphans with a love interest, departed significantly from the unshaven wild-haired Sparrow who never renounces piracy or has any comparable relationships, Marshall said.

The court also discounted alleged copying of setting, dialogue and other elements as either overstated or a bid to protect the unprotectable.

It's not easy to root for Disney in a copyright case, frankly. But the alternative -- rooting for a plaintiff that wants to assert copyright over generic genre elements -- is a complete non-starter.

Filed Under: copyright, pirates, pirates of the caribbean, tova laiter
Companies: disney

MUSO, Of All Groups, Tells Copyright Holders To Get Their Shit Together And Treat Pirates Like The Customers They Are

from the about-time dept

While the copyright industries love to frame so-called "pirates" as nefarious freeloaders who simply want to consume content for free, it's been an open secret for some time now that these freeloaders are often outspending non-infringers on entertainment across the spectrum. Despite this clear indication that piracy is largely a problem of under-served customers, industry groups like the RIAA still prefer to play pretend with these obvious business metrics. The end result of this is that industry and anti-piracy groups essentially advocate for the attack of their constituents' best customers, which ought to be about as insane a thing as one can imagine.

But perhaps the tide is turning. An indication of that would be MUSO, the piracy-tracking group, essentially telling copyright industries to get their shit together and finally treat pirates like the great customers they tend to be. The report is based on a MUSO survey showing that 60% of UK citizens admit to engaging in copyright infringement, except the overwhelming majority of those "pirates" first tried, and failed, to get that content legally.

Of all the people surveyed the vast majority, 60 percent, admitted that they illegally streamed or downloaded music, film or TV-shows in the past. This could have been yesterday or even two years ago. Interestingly, the same pirates often try legal sources first. In fact, 83 percent say they usually try to find what they are looking for through official channels before trying anything else. This suggests that most pirates are also legal consumers.

“The entertainment industry tends to envisage piracy audiences as a criminal element, and writes them off as money lost – but they are wrong to do so,” says Paul Briley, CCO of MUSO, commenting on the findings. “The reality is that the majority of people who have gone through the effort of finding and accessing such unlicensed content are, first and foremost, fans – fans who are more often than not trying to get content legally if they can.”

First, a slow golf clap for MUSO finally getting what we've been saying for years. But a more sincere applause should be directed at MUSO, a piracy tracking outfit, turning the tables on the copyright holders that often use its reports to decry modernity, holding them accountable for what has always been a business model issue. Based on the same survey, the majority of pirates gave up on legit sourcing for content when they either could not find the content they wanted legally, or found that it was "siloed" in a service to which they do not subscribe. Barely a third indicated that cost or money had anything to do with it.

Sort of blows the whole "pirates just want stuff for free" thing out of the water, doesn't it? Not to mention that these "pirates", who supposedly want everything for free, spend a shit-ton of money on non-free entertainment.

MUSO’s survey reveals that 91% of all pirates already have a streaming subscription, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify or Apple Music. That’s more than their non-pirating counterparts, of which less than 80% subscribe to one of these services.

The problem is that people sometimes need over a dozen separate subscriptions to access all the content they want. There’s no single service that offers everything in one place. This is one of the main reasons why piracy is still very relevant.

If the copyright industries wanted to change the piracy landscape in an instant, they need only slay the monster that is delivery fragmentation. People are perfectly willing to pay for content, but the monetary and mental costs of incorporating five different streaming services, and then having to search across all of those services for a particular piece of content, falls prey to the ease of piracy. And that ease is exactly what the content industries should either be selling themselves, or partnering with others to sell, because that convenience is the product.

If nothing else, the mantra of piracy being about freeloaders should be dead.

Filed Under: copyright, fans, pirates
Companies: muso

Recording Industry Could Catch More Flies With Honey, But Keeps Betting On Vinegar

from the chasing-8%-at-the-expense-of-the-other-92%-is-just-more-bad-math dept

As Mike covered earlier, Ofcom, the UK's media regulator, has just released a new report on online piracy containing information it has been gathering for the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) ahead of the Digital Economy Act's eventual rollout. (Surprise! Pirates buy lots of stuff!) Andy Malt, editor of Complete Music Update (CMU) and freelance writer/copywriter for music and tech companies, has a look at the numbers and arrives at the conclusion that they're hardly discouraging.

Of the 5099 people surveyed between May and July this year, 47% weren’t able to distinguish with certainty between legal and illegal services, while only 16% actually admitted to accessing unlicensed content, and only 8% said they relied on illegal sources of music.

When those infringers were asked why they went to unlicensed content sources instead of legitimate sites or services, the most common responses were that the illegal sites were free, convenient and/or quick. Asked what would convince them to stop accessing illegal content, the three most common answers were that they would do so if legal services were cheaper and had all the content they wanted, and if it was clearer what was legal and what was not.

Malt points out that there are several legal services, most of which are inexpensive, including ad-funded streaming services which give listeners access to thousands of tracks for free. ("Inexpensive" is, of course, relative. Ofcom's study shows that music retailers and streaming services would convert a majority of casual infringers by cutting prices 50-70%. resulting in 2-3x the number of purchases.)

Of course, Malt's speaking about music services in the western world. Worldwide, the situation isn't nearly as seamless. And TV/motion pictures are a completely different situation. While there are several services available, the content is much more fractured and more expensive. Most streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu) suffer from major studios' unwillingness to license their output at reasonable rates, and pricing on digital products isn't all that competitive.

But as for music services in the US, it's mostly good news, even if it took much longer than it needed to get to this point. Still, Malt then goes on to point out an area where these services disappoint, often through no fault of their own:

The missing content point is a stronger argument, providing file-sharers relying on it really are trying to access tracks that artists or labels have failed to make available through legit routes. And this is something the music business really ought to have solved by 2012.

AC/DC joined the digital party just within the past couple of weeks and a handful of other holdouts have chosen to stay CD-only. The list of holdouts for streaming services is much, much longer, however. But while these holdouts may be giving themselves a slight sales boost, they're doing so at the expense of their own industry.

[W]hile artists perhaps should have the power to control where their music is distributed, many of the Spotify resisters are acts who have made their millions already, and really should be thinking about the good of the wider music community. Because every artist shunning the streaming services is providing ammunition to the aforementioned self-confessed infringers.

The world has moved on, music consumption has changed, and the Napster generation are now at an age where they should be becoming the music industry’s biggest customers, but that’s not going to happen if the legit services they are embracing are lacking catalogue.

Here's where these artists make one of the worst assumptions -- that withholding their music from streaming services will result in a corresponding boost in sales. While there may be a few fans who opt to purchase rather than do without, a majority will find other options, none of which involve purchasing the album.

[A]n increasing number of people, when then can’t find an album on their streaming service of choice, will not just fall in line and go buy the record from the three shops that the artist or label has dictated can sell their music.

When I can’t find ‘Red’ by Taylor Swift on Spotify, I don’t think, “Gosh darn it, I’ll just have to go and buy it from Papa John’s pizza parlour“. I think, “Well fuck it, I’ll just not listen to it then, cos I’ve listened to enough sixteen track pop albums lately to know that a good chunk of it will not be very good. Also, Ed Sheeran co-wrote one of the tracks on it”. Meanwhile those others not willing to take the financial risk of being lumbered with a handful of filler tracks will Google ‘Red for free’ and download it off someone else’s hard drive for nothing.

So, while some artists may despise the Spotifys and Pandoras of the world, withholding their music cedes ground to infringers and other artists. Even if the bump in sales is bigger at this point in time, that won't always be the case. The law of diminishing returns is going to kick in as a new generation of music fans raised on always-on internet and streaming services is just going to bypass artists that aren't available on the services they use.

He then goes deeper into the numbers, looking at what it takes to convince infringers to utilize legitimate services -- and it's here that the involved industries continue to shoot themselves in the wallet. Yes, there are some people who are never going to use legitimate means and will never pay for music, movies, etc. So, why spend so much time worrying about something you can't fix?

OK, some of the infringers who complained about being confused may be taking the piss again. After all, most people finding content online via a search engine with ‘pirate’ in its name know there’s a very high chance the content they download isn’t legal, even if they plead ignorance. So education probably won’t work with this group. Then again, these are also the people who know how to hide their file-sharing from the three-strikes police, and to circumvent the web-blocks put up in front of The Pirate Bay, so there’s probably not much you can do about them.

But remember, this was only 8% of those surveyed, so I say fuck em. Let’s focus on the 47% who implied that they want to do the right thing, but find the whole thing too confusing. Let’s stop handing over cash to lawyers and technology whizzes who want to go after the 8% and focus on doing some decent education with everyone else. Because if OfCom’s research tells us anything, it’s that the music industry’s current educational initiatives, including the Music Matters programme, which expanded into the US this week, just aren’t working in the slightest.

If you've got approximately 92% of the population to work with, why on earth would you spend your time trying to legislate, sue or otherwise inconvenience the other 8%? The thought process seems to be that only 0% piracy is acceptable and that accepting less is ceding the battle. Taking a hardline against file-sharing will only alienate potential customers. File sharing isn't limited to an "unlawful" fringe. A full 2/3rds of the study's respondents admitted to infringing activity, but if the content industries insist on treating customers as thieves, they're just going to end up with fewer and fewer customers.

The half-assed "educational" programs are a joke as well, with most of the effort going into telling people how file sharing is wrong, rather than playing up the advantages of legitimate services (please -- no more of the "your illegal download is probably a virus" ridiculousness). Or better yet, move that time, money and energy into convincing rights holders to work with existing services to make them better, by adding more content, reducing idiotic, arbitrary restrictions that make no sense with digital goods and negotiating rates that work for everyone involved.

Malt has a couple of excellent points on how to do education right. As he says, the Music Matters campaign is a farce. It fails to do anything resembling "education," preferring to use guilt as negative reinforcement rather than give the undecided a reason to choose legitimate services. Not only that, but the Music Matters mark isn't even displayed by the two largest music services (iTunes and Spotify).

I suppose Music Matters is better that the American record industry wheeling out millionaire pop stars to complain about how file-sharing is depriving them of record sales, but it still feels decidedly mediocre for an industry that, when it comes to selling artists and albums, is actually pretty good at engaging and enthusing consumers. It’s easy for me to sit here and criticise, and I don’t claim to have the answers. But for a start, perhaps instead of forcing ISPs to send out angry letters to those consumers mistakenly downloading unlicensed music files, the labels could start sending thank you letters to those who inadvertently use a legal store.

There's an idea. Thanking your customers for purchasing from you rather than taking alternate routes to the same content. It would make for some great PR and maybe start altering the general image of the average record exec as a grouchy, out-of-touch robber baron with dollar signs for eyes, surrounded by lawyers and starving musicians.

Education can be a good idea, but it needs to be handled with a much defter touch than any of the content industries seem able to manage. Think more carrot, less stick. And try to let bygones be bygones. You can't keep bemoaning the post-Napster climate when you've got a whole new generation of potential customers who are accustomed to streaming services, low prices and instant access across multiple devices. Like it or not, streaming services and single track sales are here to stay. Ad-supported apps may not bring in great money, but that's the new reality. There's no going back, no matter how much legislation you throw at the internet. A continued preference for enforcement over engagement is only going to make things worse. 

Filed Under: customers, infringement, music industry, opportunities, pirates

Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.

from the just-wondering dept

Just a few days after Joe Karaganis posted his response to the RIAA's favorite researcher, Russ Crupnick of NPD Group, who suggested that Karaganis must be drunk and have little knowledge of statistics to publish a study showing that pirates tend to buy more -- and then revealing his own numbers that showed the exact same thing -- UK regulatory body Ofcom has come out with a study saying the same exact thing again (found via TorrentFreak).

From this, I assume the only logical conclusion is that Ofcom officials are drunk and should have their statistics "licenses" taken away. That, or, it's pretty obvious that people who pirate aren't all just "evil pirates," but also include the industry's best customers, who are apparently being somewhat under-served by the industry. And that's actually supported by other data in the report. When asked what would make people stop infringing, people wanted cheaper legal services and services that had everything they want available to them legally, rather than piecemeal efforts that leave it impossible to get what you want much of the time. It also becomes clear that infringement is not on the margins, but a common activity. 66% of people noted that they had downloaded, streamed or shared infringing content -- with 56% doing so in the last three months -- with 16% admitting to illegal content streaming, downloading or sharing. And of course, the numbers are much bigger for younger people, meaning that those overall percentages are only likely to increase over time. Of course, the amount of sharing varied based on the content, but the idea of getting infringing content this way is clearly quite mainstream.

The study also looked at what they spent on, and, not surprisingly, money spent seems to be shifting to scarce goods -- the things that can't be "pirated." In the music world, that includes merchandise and live, as well as online subscriptions, rather than "buying music." The report also suggests that, when you take into account price elasticity of both downloads and subscription services, the industry appears to be overpricing both significantly, and they could probably make a lot more money with significantly lower prices, making it up (and then some) based on volume: Note that, in both cases, if prices went much lower than they are today, even those who currently pirate everything would be much more likely to pay. They have similar tables for other types of content, showing the same basic thing as well. The elasticity on ebooks is really quite impressive, actually: All of this paints the same basic picture that plenty of us have been arguing for over a decade: treating "pirates" like criminals is a mistake. They're often either the best customers or the potential best customers if they were better served by the industry, which often means offering things more conveniently and at a lower price. But the industry still resists this notion and wants to continue to demonize all infringement and any service that helps infringement. What a wasted effort.

Filed Under: buyers, pirates, studies, uk
Companies: ofcom

Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?

from the yeah,-that'll-win-fans dept

The band Incubus has decided that a way to attract fans to its new album is to release an 8-bit video game in which the point is to "fight music pirates," by literally punching them as they try to get and leak Incubus' new album. However, as Rob Sheridan points out, the new album has already actually leaked in real life, "so I guess the game can't be won." I think Sheridan sums it up nicely:

Seriously? How about fighting the record label dorks or manufacturing companies who let the album leak in the first place? Maybe the boss battle should be with the label exec who can't come up with a modern release plan that avoids leaks entirely?

Oddly, Mashable claims that attacking fans who are interested in the band's music is part of the band's savvy "social-media flavored album release campaign." Sorry, but calling your fans pirates, and showing how you want to beat them up doesn't seem particularly social. The whole target of the campaign just seems weird and misguided.

Filed Under: fans, incubus, leaks, pirates, video games

Live Stream Of My Interview With Paulo Coelho

from the enjoy dept

As mentioned recently, today I'm interviewing Paulo Coelho at BookExpo America concerning both his new book, Aleph, as well as his many interesting experiments with the internet, including things like very actively "pirating" his own works using BitTorrent -- and seeing his sales shoot up because of it. Anyway, it looks like there's going to be a live stream of the event, which is scheduled for "around" 2pm ET today (though I've been warned it may actually start slightly later than that):
Streaming .TV shows by Ustream

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, paulo coelho, pirates, writing

Interviewing Paulo Coelho About Books, Social Media And 'Free'

from the have-any-questions? dept

I've written a bunch of times about Paulo Coelho and how he's completely embraced social media, new business models and the economics of digital and infinite goods to increase his already considerable level of success. So, I'm thrilled to announce that I'll have the pleasure of interviewing Paulo at BookExpo America in NYC on May 25th at 2pm, where we'll be discussing his various experiments, how he's using social media, and how others can take advantage of social media and use "free" to their advantage, rather than fear it. We'll also even have some time to discuss his latest work (honestly, what good is interviewing someone like Paulo Coelho if we don't also talk about some of his writing!). In the meantime, though, I'm interested in any suggestions folks have for questions for Coelho in this particular forum.

Filed Under: copyright, free, infringement, paulo coelho, pirates, social media, writing

Paulo Coelho Explains Why He 'Loves Pirates'

from the world-has-changed dept

We've written a few times before about Paulo Coelho and his views on copyright, unauthorized use of his works and the importance of sharing. Coelho, of course, is one of the best selling authors ever, but set up his own "pirating" operation called "Pirate Coelho" to get his works more widely read... and found that his sales increased massively because of it. He's also spoken out about how the world is changing and authors will be punished for not sharing their works more freely.

TorrentFreak alerts us to the news that he's posted yet another blog post on the subject about how he "loves pirates" and how people underestimate that artists can and do get paid, even when their work is being shared in an unauthorized fashion. In fact, he's selling more books now that he's actively offering up more "pirated" copies of his own work than ever before:

How did all these social communities start?
At first it was just wanting to chat with another person. But chatting isn’t enough – we have to share the music, the book or the film that we love. When there was no law against it, this information was exchanged freely. Finally, when the entertainment industry caught on, the repression began.

Art is not an orange.
If you buy an orange and eat it, you have to buy another one, and then it makes sense that oranges should not be given for free, because the consumer consumes the product. Art is about beauty. Music is about beauty. If I visit a page and I like the music, I am sure I will buy the CD, because I want to know more about the work of the artist.

Always nice to see successful content creators speaking out on important subjects like this. A nice contrast to those who are so narrowly focused on making sure that no one else benefits from their work.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, paulo coelho, pirates, writing