False claim of copyright should itself be a serious crime. There have been too many cases where publishers continue to claim copyright which has clearly expired, and in some cases claiming copyright when they have no rights at all. We have seen a lot of cases where copyright claims have been filed or threatened as a form of legalized extortion.
The burden of proof in copyright cases should be shifted. The person claiming copyright should have to show clear and explicit copying. Right now the deck is stacked in favor of the person claiming copyright.
Most of the gray areas (such as songs that sort of sound like they might possibly have been inspired by a musical theme in older song) do not hurt the copyright holder. In fact in most cases they represent the type of creativity and innovation that copyright is supposed to encourage.
The really interesting question is, did it reduce churn? My guess is that it didn't, because access to Newsday isn't that big of a deal.
As far as being able to tell customers they get a "$19.95 value" goes, I doubt that it has any effect on customers at all. Consumers are so used to the inflated values that they totally ignore that pitch. In fact, I suspect that a lot of people are like me, and see the advertising of wildly inflated values as a likely sign of a rip-off.
The part that strikes me is "at the very least, it deserves three times the profits the organization made off the Olympic name."
So, if the organization lost $50,000, that would be -50000. So by my calculations using the committee's own suggestion, the organization deserves to be paid $150,000 by the Olympic committee. That should move the museum along nicely.
I was interested in his observation that creating artificial scarcity is really just a way of isolating yourself. That certainly applies to other fields such as music. A struggling young musician (or an old music veteran, for that matter) should want their music to be heard. Creating an artificial scarcity means that fewer people are exposed to the music. Granted, just being heard doesn't pay any bills, but it does give you the exposure to earn money by selling true scarcities.
Maybe there are false accusations, maybe not. The point is, we have courts for assessing penalties. Accusations are not proof. Before penalties are assessed, a court should rule whether the accuser has made their case.
If the burden of proof was on the copyright holder, then a lot of the problems of copyright would go away. Most of the borderline cases do no damage to the copyright holder, and they often give a boost to the original product. Most of the borderline cases are filed as a result of overzealous lawyers. If there was actually a penalty to be faced in those cases, the legal system would be unburdened of a lot of these small cases, and copyright holders would not be damaged.
Why are the small artists on labels concerned about piracy?
It seems odd to me that artists with recording contracts are concerned at all about piracy. The way labels handle recording contracts, it is unlikely that the artists will ever get paid anything beyond their advances.
The artists themselves should embrace file sharing because it helps them become well known. As long as they don't have a "360" contract, that means more money from touring and other revenue streams.
The one reason that the artists might object is that the labels are probably telling them that their advances are smaller because so many sales are being lost to piracy.
If he didn't write it down or record it before the show, then Fox is actually the one who make the first "fixed" record of the song. That should further muddy the copyright water if it is true.
Keep in mind that in EMI's world view 1 pirate download is equal to 1 lost sale.
Applying that theory to embedded videos is only a small step. One free view on an embedded site is equal to one lost paying view on youtube.
With a viral video people see it anywhere and tell their friends who go looking for it. What's the logical place to go to look for it? YouTube. So in reality, a view on a free embedded site has a possibility of it being viewed on the paying YouTube site. EMI basically can't get over the "But they are watching MY video for free" mentality and see the embedded video as a potential revenue source. Prohibiting embedding only makes sense if you think that people will avoid watching it on youtube because it is embedded. The only thing that prohibiting embedding does is guarantee the video will not go viral.
The media companies should have learned from how Kodak changed from a film company to a picture company. It is really too bad the record companies have tried to stay record companies and fought to avoid becoming music companies.
Media companies have been blind to consumer desires for a long time. The industry has been fighting basic economics for decades and winning. They have been able to do it because they have controlled the legal system and the distribution system. That type of regime can only be propped up artificially. Eventually, attempting to hold back economic forces always fails. The Internet and home computers create many more chinks than the industry. This generation's music habits are different than their parents, and I don't think the industry has even noticed because they are trying so hard to cling to the past.
The attorney will probably file for both trademark and copyright, just because it isn't much more expensive, and it forces the defendant to defend a wider front. This problem would largely go away if the plaintiff had to pay up for any obviously bogus claims.
They will complain until it becomes an established part of their business model, and then the next new thing will come along, and they will complain about how this will utterly destroy the highly profitable 6cent and hour rental market.
>> the real choice you are giving them is to pay less for the same product.
It is the not the price people pay. It is the profit that you make.
The gross price only counts for some billboard-type surveys, but it is the profit that a business should be after. Given the cost of production and distribution, the higher price of a hardcover edition eats up a lot of the profit from the book. An ebook is much cheaper to produce, and therefore can result in a much larger profit, even at a lower price.
On the post: Public Knowledge Pushes Five Point Plan For Copyright Reform
Shift the burden of proof
The burden of proof in copyright cases should be shifted. The person claiming copyright should have to show clear and explicit copying. Right now the deck is stacked in favor of the person claiming copyright.
Most of the gray areas (such as songs that sort of sound like they might possibly have been inspired by a musical theme in older song) do not hurt the copyright holder. In fact in most cases they represent the type of creativity and innovation that copyright is supposed to encourage.
On the post: Former Music Exec Tells Book Publishers They're Acting Just Like The Recording Industry 10 Years Ago
Who were they supposed to copy?
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Simplistic thought
On the post: USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'
Why not?
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
But did it reduce churn?
As far as being able to tell customers they get a "$19.95 value" goes, I doubt that it has any effect on customers at all. Consumers are so used to the inflated values that they totally ignore that pitch. In fact, I suspect that a lot of people are like me, and see the advertising of wildly inflated values as a likely sign of a rip-off.
By the way, I value this post at a $199.95 value.
On the post: US Olympic Committee Sues Organization Trying To Build Sports Museum
Treble? Really? That is generous.
So, if the organization lost $50,000, that would be -50000. So by my calculations using the committee's own suggestion, the organization deserves to be paid $150,000 by the Olympic committee. That should move the museum along nicely.
On the post: Guardian Editor Details Why Paywalls Harm Journalism
artificial scarcity means walling yourself off.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Why proof in court needs to be submitted
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Burden of proof should be on th copyright holder
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Why are the small artists on labels concerned about piracy?
The artists themselves should embrace file sharing because it helps them become well known. As long as they don't have a "360" contract, that means more money from touring and other revenue streams.
The one reason that the artists might object is that the labels are probably telling them that their advances are smaller because so many sales are being lost to piracy.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Maybe Fox has the copyright
On the post: Ok Go Explains Video Embedding Issue, Blames YouTube (Partly) And EMI (Only A Bit); Sells Uniforms
Fear of lost views?
Applying that theory to embedded videos is only a small step. One free view on an embedded site is equal to one lost paying view on youtube.
With a viral video people see it anywhere and tell their friends who go looking for it. What's the logical place to go to look for it? YouTube. So in reality, a view on a free embedded site has a possibility of it being viewed on the paying YouTube site. EMI basically can't get over the "But they are watching MY video for free" mentality and see the embedded video as a potential revenue source. Prohibiting embedding only makes sense if you think that people will avoid watching it on youtube because it is embedded. The only thing that prohibiting embedding does is guarantee the video will not go viral.
On the post: Judiciary Committee To Quiz Justin.tv About Live Streaming, Piracy And Sporting Events
Re: Re: Re:
I think it would be more accurate to say "especially when they're wrong."
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
More camcordering laws, please.
On the post: Biden Convenes 'Piracy Summit' That Appears To Be Entirely One-Sided
Blind to consumers at their own peril
Media companies have been blind to consumer desires for a long time. The industry has been fighting basic economics for decades and winning. They have been able to do it because they have controlled the legal system and the distribution system. That type of regime can only be propped up artificially. Eventually, attempting to hold back economic forces always fails. The Internet and home computers create many more chinks than the industry. This generation's music habits are different than their parents, and I don't think the industry has even noticed because they are trying so hard to cling to the past.
On the post: Prosecutors Come To Their Senses; Drop Charges Against Girl Arrested For Incidental 'New Moon' Filming
Customers as enemies
On the post: Let's Get Ready To Ruuuuuuuuumble... About The Difference Between A Copyright And A Trademark
Sort of makes sense to use both terms
On the post: If Hollywood Is Upset About $1/Day Movie Rentals, How Do They Feel About 6 Cents Per Hour Rentals?
How long will they complain?
On the post: If Hollywood Is Upset About $1/Day Movie Rentals, How Do They Feel About 6 Cents Per Hour Rentals?
How long will they complain?
On the post: Book Publishers Starting To Delay eBook Releases -- Taking Bad Ideas From Hollywood
Re: Re: Re:
It is the not the price people pay. It is the profit that you make.
The gross price only counts for some billboard-type surveys, but it is the profit that a business should be after. Given the cost of production and distribution, the higher price of a hardcover edition eats up a lot of the profit from the book. An ebook is much cheaper to produce, and therefore can result in a much larger profit, even at a lower price.
Next >>