Three strikes in our country will not be mandated by law, so there will be no due process concerns. It will be an agreement between the copyright industry and the major ISPs.
We all know that the copyright industry wants three strikes imposed on customers. What most people don't realize is that ISPs want it too. They want to kick off the heavy users. They want to block "illegal" use such as bittorrent. They want to stop anything or anyone which does not earn them a profit.
It is a fact that the ACTA, in and of itself, will not change US law. In fact it is true that all treaties do not and can not change our laws. Until they are approved and adopted. That's the trick defenders of the ACTA are using. What they say is completely true, but completely dishonest.
"shouldn't we cheer on The Pirate Bay for putting DVD counterfeiters (and thus, organized criminals and terrorists) out of business?"
You don't get it. Because terrorist and organized criminals can no longer make money off of non-violent and safe crimes such as piracy, now they're out blowing up buildings and forcing children into slavery. Apparently, the copyright industry wants to go back to the good old days when pirates actually made good money selling infringing material on street corners and at flea markets.
"unlike most other industries, record label execs tend not to be particularly data or analytics-driven"
Mike, you should know better than anyone, the reason why the labels do not act like other industries is because their industry is not based upon any free market competition. Their industry is based upon an ever expanding government granted monopoly.
And the labels do not even compete against each other. That's the unique feature of selling music. If someone really likes a particular song, they're not going buy a different song they don't like, merely because it's cheaper. Utility and pragmatism, weighing the objective pros and cons simply are not factors when deciding to like or buy a song.
So it's nonsense to talk about various labels competing with each other when you can only buy what you want from one.
In that blog post I argued that, functionally speaking, hotlinking and direct linking are of the same nature, and if hotlinking constitutes infringement, so does direct linking.
Here we have a lawyer arguing that merely causing copyrighted material to reach a new audience is infringement. Think about that. Playing your CD or DVD for a friend is infringement. Linking to a website you love, infringement. Linking to a song you like on Amazon is infringement.
I know some will say I'm stretching what the lawyer wrote. I am not. The copyrighted material at issue is being offered on a server for the world to see. So the lawyer is not talking about providing links to infringing material. He's talking about providing links to perfectly legal material. And to him providing those links is infringement.
So if you have a perfectly legal copy of a DVD and you cause it to reach a new audience by playing it for a friend, you're infringing copyright. That's insane.
"Actually, Mr Phelps won't be competing in Vancouver..."
Wow, you're right. I have to admit, I've never watched much of the Olympics so I'm quite ignorant of it. (If the sport doesn't invovle a pig-skin-covered ball, I don't watch it.)
So he's not competing in the Olypmpics. Thus the failure to mention the Olympics and Vancouver actually makes a lot of sense.
However, the premise of the ad makes no sense. Why does it say he's "going to where the action is" if he's not going to compete?! He's going to watch, dressed in his swimwear?!
Now I'm completely confused. Thanks for pointing out my error.
Speaking of trademark abuse and the Olympics... have you seen the new Subway ad featuring Michael Phelps?
Even though it's clearly an ad about Michael Phelps competing in the Olympics, it never mentions the Olympics, any sort of competition, a special event, or even Vancouver.
Jared says, "See you there."
And the voice-over says Phelps eats Subway "so he can get to where the action is."
It's quite obvious that somebody's lawyers went through the ad and removed any possible reference to the Olympic games. Even though trademark allows the use of trademarks in relation to facts.* And it's clearly a fact that Phelps will compete.
* Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, C.A.9 (Cal.),2002 No trademark infringement for use of the trademarked phrase "playmate of the year" where the use was by a former playmate of the year.
You're touching on this, but I wanted to add more.
Copyright is in direct derogation of the free market. It is a government granted monopoly given to corporations to ensure that they do not have to compete in a free market.
When the player piano was invented. It was not covered by copyright, thus the piano rolls did not infringe copyright.
Did the music publishers compete with this new technology? Nope, they went to Congress which broadened their monopoly to include and subsume the new technology.
Every single time the copyright industry is faced with competition, they sue. If they cannot sue, they have the laws extended so they can sue.
Newsday is a Long Island newspaper. Some people bought it for $650 and put it behind a pay wall. Three months later, they've got 35 subscribers. Yes, 35.
What's ironic is that in the old days, early 60s and before, singles were the cash cow. That's what was pushed to consumers.
LPs (in their varying forms) were niche and were bought by hardcore music fans and audiophiles.
I remember reading an article about how the growth of LP sales was criticized as destroying the income from single sales. (Unfortunately, I can't find that article now.)
Let's face it, the music industry is never happy and enough is never enough.
"Blur? Well, what can you say for a band that released their One Hit Wonder without clearing all licensing and using a sample from a band that NEVER licenses their music (at least at the time)."
When I was a kid back in the 70s all so called "record stores" had large racks of 45 singles. You could buy almost any hit song via 45 singles, and if they didn't have it, you could order it and get it within a week.
The notion of forcing people to buy the entire album by eliminating the single did not arise until the 80s. Sure there were cassette and CD singles, but they were only issued in limited quantities. E.g., you could not special order Elvis' "Hound Dog" on cassette single like you could order the 45 in the 70s.
Well that clears up a lot. It's no wonder why old media, based upon the ancient art of journalism, is losing so much money... they're not run as businesses!
Does Rupert Murdoch know he doesn't run a business?!
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Wont work
We all know that the copyright industry wants three strikes imposed on customers. What most people don't realize is that ISPs want it too. They want to kick off the heavy users. They want to block "illegal" use such as bittorrent. They want to stop anything or anyone which does not earn them a profit.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re:
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
You don't get it. Because terrorist and organized criminals can no longer make money off of non-violent and safe crimes such as piracy, now they're out blowing up buildings and forcing children into slavery. Apparently, the copyright industry wants to go back to the good old days when pirates actually made good money selling infringing material on street corners and at flea markets.
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Mike, you should know better than anyone, the reason why the labels do not act like other industries is because their industry is not based upon any free market competition. Their industry is based upon an ever expanding government granted monopoly.
And the labels do not even compete against each other. That's the unique feature of selling music. If someone really likes a particular song, they're not going buy a different song they don't like, merely because it's cheaper. Utility and pragmatism, weighing the objective pros and cons simply are not factors when deciding to like or buy a song.
So it's nonsense to talk about various labels competing with each other when you can only buy what you want from one.
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
I've written before that hotlinking is not infringement.
In that blog post I argued that, functionally speaking, hotlinking and direct linking are of the same nature, and if hotlinking constitutes infringement, so does direct linking.
Here we have a lawyer arguing that merely causing copyrighted material to reach a new audience is infringement. Think about that. Playing your CD or DVD for a friend is infringement. Linking to a website you love, infringement. Linking to a song you like on Amazon is infringement.
I know some will say I'm stretching what the lawyer wrote. I am not. The copyrighted material at issue is being offered on a server for the world to see. So the lawyer is not talking about providing links to infringing material. He's talking about providing links to perfectly legal material. And to him providing those links is infringement.
So if you have a perfectly legal copy of a DVD and you cause it to reach a new audience by playing it for a friend, you're infringing copyright. That's insane.
On the post: Andy Warhol Estate Accused Of Defacing Authentic Warhol Artwork To Limit The Market
Re:
The Velvet Underground were awesome though, despite his influence.
On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary
Re: Re:
Wow, you're right. I have to admit, I've never watched much of the Olympics so I'm quite ignorant of it. (If the sport doesn't invovle a pig-skin-covered ball, I don't watch it.)
So he's not competing in the Olypmpics. Thus the failure to mention the Olympics and Vancouver actually makes a lot of sense.
However, the premise of the ad makes no sense. Why does it say he's "going to where the action is" if he's not going to compete?! He's going to watch, dressed in his swimwear?!
Now I'm completely confused. Thanks for pointing out my error.
On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary
Even though it's clearly an ad about Michael Phelps competing in the Olympics, it never mentions the Olympics, any sort of competition, a special event, or even Vancouver.
Jared says, "See you there."
And the voice-over says Phelps eats Subway "so he can get to where the action is."
It's quite obvious that somebody's lawyers went through the ad and removed any possible reference to the Olympic games. Even though trademark allows the use of trademarks in relation to facts.* And it's clearly a fact that Phelps will compete.
* Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, C.A.9 (Cal.),2002 No trademark infringement for use of the trademarked phrase "playmate of the year" where the use was by a former playmate of the year.
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
Re: Re:
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
Re: "Free" also in "free market"
Copyright is in direct derogation of the free market. It is a government granted monopoly given to corporations to ensure that they do not have to compete in a free market.
When the player piano was invented. It was not covered by copyright, thus the piano rolls did not infringe copyright.
Did the music publishers compete with this new technology? Nope, they went to Congress which broadened their monopoly to include and subsume the new technology.
Every single time the copyright industry is faced with competition, they sue. If they cannot sue, they have the laws extended so they can sue.
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
After 3 Months, Only 35 Paying Customers For Newspaper's Web Site
On the post: Howard Berman Concerned About Internet-Repressive Regimes, Except If They Help His Friends In Hollywood
Everyone knows that a strong copyright does not hinder free speech.
On the post: Unsubstantiated Claim: iTunes Success Makes It Harder To Discover New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re:Single
LPs (in their varying forms) were niche and were bought by hardcore music fans and audiophiles.
I remember reading an article about how the growth of LP sales was criticized as destroying the income from single sales. (Unfortunately, I can't find that article now.)
Let's face it, the music industry is never happy and enough is never enough.
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Re:
I think you're thinking about the Verve's hit Bitter Sweet Symphony.
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
It worked so well with the drug war.
On the post: Unsubstantiated Claim: iTunes Success Makes It Harder To Discover New Music
The notion of forcing people to buy the entire album by eliminating the single did not arise until the 80s. Sure there were cassette and CD singles, but they were only issued in limited quantities. E.g., you could not special order Elvis' "Hound Dog" on cassette single like you could order the 45 in the 70s.
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
Well that clears up a lot. It's no wonder why old media, based upon the ancient art of journalism, is losing so much money... they're not run as businesses!
Does Rupert Murdoch know he doesn't run a business?!
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re:
Next >>