This would probably be more acceptable to the public if the system didn't publicly check you in automatically. It would be more acceptable to most people if it first pinged your cell phone and prompted you for a manual check-in. The visit would not show up on your timeline until you approved it.
However, what most people would not realize is that Facebook and its advertising associates would still record the fact that you were at the location even if you declined a manual check-in. The visit might not go onto your timeline for your friends to see, but you can bet that every company that has an interest in your demographic would have all the details.
The cameras would probably also track things that would not occur to the ordinary user. They would most likely record what parts of the store you visited, who you were with, and how long you stayed. Heck, I can envision a system that would track how frequently I went to the restroom and start sending ads for prostate medication.
If anyone at the DOJ losses their jobs over this they can take comfort in knowing that they will have a cushie job waiting for them at an MPAA affiliated company.
If anyone at the DOJ losses their jobs over this they can take comfort in knowing that they will have a cushie job waiting for them at an MPAA affiliated company.
Here is an experiment that the MPAA could try. Go on a 6-month hiatus. Stop sending out DCMA notices (or paying other people to do it for you). Leave other things the same, such as DVD prices and your deals with streaming services. See if movie revenue jumps from things like DVD sales and streaming. If you are right then piracy should blossom in the absence of notices and your profits will spike. Then you might have a case against Google. What do you have to loose? Obviously your current strategy is not working. A plus is that you would save the money that it costs to send all of those DCMA notices. You might even find Google and other potential partners a bit more willing to make a deal with you.
And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.
Perhaps this means the end of news services running online polls. News services insist on running them and then presenting the results as news items. The obligatory "unscientific" disclaimer does not get them off the hook for how utterly worthless these polls are.
Some publishers who are DRM-free still insist on windowing the ebook months after the hardcover release. They want to increase hardcover sales, but the reality is that they are fueling pay until the official ebook release and losing digital sales in the process.
Google would love to be sued more often if it could get terms this sweet from every lawsuit. They agree to do a bit of business with the plaintiff and in return the plaintiff does a 100% buy-in to the Google sphere of influence.
Zero might be overly optimistic. It is possible the ROI is negative because many times they are removing what is effectively promotional material. Thus every dollar spent on DCMA notices is actually depressing their sales.
My point was, have any of those highly paid executives even thought to have an honest ROI ananysis done?
I wonder how much the media companies are spending on production of DCMA notices. Most of it now seems to be coming through private contractors who are providing mass take-down services to the media companies themselves. I am guessing the media companies are paying pretty well for the service because it seems like everyone and his brother is getting into the DCMA service business.
Has anyone at any of the big media companies done basic ROI calculations on take-down notices? Has anyone from the big recording or movie studios done any study of the effectiveness of their investment in actually reducing piracy or increasing revenue? On second thought, maybe they have. Perhaps they used their overly hyped numbers on piracy's impact (Any cost accountant who actually tried to use accurate numbers would probably be fired.) These are also the people who have accounting systems that say that multi-platinum albums and the second-highest grossing film of all time have not yet turned a profit.
It seems like they would get a much better return if they took the money and just bought a couple more politicians.
They are also in denial about the real appeal of Google fiber by focusing on the speed. Sure, there are some techies that really want that speed. But for most people it is about the lower cost. From Time Warner's perspective, providing more speed is relatively cheap, especially if the FCC keeps letting them advertise "up to" speeds. Reasonable prices are what really scares the big cable companies.
One reason it is often easy for rights groups to get this kind of legislation passed is that the people who are hurt are so not have any type of lobbying organization to fight the measure. In this case the collection society is stepping on the tires of companies like Google and Amazon. I am sure they would not like to see this type of thing started in Australia and have them be a model for the rest of the world.
>>Did you just group google and friendly customer service in the same article with a straight face?
Well, it's all relative. Google has a reputation for bad customer service. But we are comparing them to most of our US ISP's and Telco's. In a room full of black cats, a dark gray cat looks white.
>>1) You guys claim such large-scale processing can't be done at all, let alone rapidly. -- So WRONG once...
What we say is that Google can't screen every video for copyright infringement. That is still true. It's a lot different when processing electronic forms that come in. They are just text. Text is relatively easy.
>>2) You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN.
That is not what is claimed. There is a lot of piracy. What the community here maintains is that the damage is minor. Also, the data doesn't show how many of those notices are duplicates, or flat out wrong.
Both Google Fiber and the Australian model are based on promoting competition. Unfortunately in the US corporate-think (and thus lobbying) is all based on the assumption that competition is bad.
Earlier this fall I was thinking about getting my kids and grandkids a WiiU. Our family has had some of the types of DRM headaches with their original Wii that you are talking about in this article. It didn't take much research to find out the the U was going to have the same types of problems, or maybe even worse. If Nintendo is keeping track, they can count up three lost sales to me, mainly on DRM issues.
That is another mistake made by too many companies that rely on copyright. They often think that they have to make money off of every single use of their product. Psy's success is in large part because he connected with fans. His fans directly support him by buying his products, going to concerts, and spreading the word about Psy. As other posters note, he does not worry about collecting a cut of every use, but as a result he does collect more money on the things that he is selling.
Companies that try to shut down fan-art are cutting their own throats. They are alienating their own fans and ignoring some of the best publicity they could possibly have. Plus they spend money and corporate resources trying to track down their most loyal fans and turning them into ex-fans.
>>Not seeing how this has anything to do with copyright infringement.
Bingo! You got the point of the article, although I don't think you understand what the article is saying at all. The fact that Psy is making millions from his video really does have nothing to do with copyright.
Let me back up and explain because I think you have fallen into the trap of believing that copyright is necessary to make money from music.
The article is pointing out that Psy made a lot of money by not filing a ton of DCMA notices or being a copyright bully. In fact, one of the secrets of his success seems to be that he encouraged people to copy, remix, adapt, and parody his work.
The recording industry fell into the trap of thinking that copyright was needed in order to make money from music. The RIAA companies would probably be making a lot more money today if they had not been so heavily invested in the idea that making money required draconian enforcement of copyright. They still waste a lot of political capital and economic resources trying to preserve this way of thinking.
Most of the regulars here at TD have absolutely no problem with people monetizing their work and making money from it. We just don't think that being a copyright bully is always necessary.
I was talking to the instructor of a digital animation course that will be running this spring. He was planning on having the students do an animation to a music video, but it occurred to him that he might run into copyright problems. I told him he might get by with a fair use defense, but that anything his class posted would probably get hit with DCMA takedown notices.
In the end I recommended Gangnam Style or perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayMeza487M because of their lack of interest in copyright over-enforcement. I just hope that policy continues to hold through next semester!
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
However, what most people would not realize is that Facebook and its advertising associates would still record the fact that you were at the location even if you declined a manual check-in. The visit might not go onto your timeline for your friends to see, but you can bet that every company that has an interest in your demographic would have all the details.
The cameras would probably also track things that would not occur to the ordinary user. They would most likely record what parts of the store you visited, who you were with, and how long you stayed. Heck, I can envision a system that would track how frequently I went to the restroom and start sending ads for prostate medication.
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
On the post: MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.
On the post: Hivemind Elects Dictator! 4chan Pushes Kim Jong-Un To Top Of TIME 'Person Of The Year' Poll
On the post: Sony's New German Ebookstore Features Thousands Of DRM-Free Books
Re: Re:
On the post: Belgian Newspapers Agree To Drop Lawsuit Over Google News After Google Promises To Show Them How To Make Money Online
On the post: Funny How Copyright Holders Only Ramped Up Google DMCA Takedowns After SOPA Failed
Re: Re:
My point was, have any of those highly paid executives even thought to have an honest ROI ananysis done?
On the post: Funny How Copyright Holders Only Ramped Up Google DMCA Takedowns After SOPA Failed
Has anyone at any of the big media companies done basic ROI calculations on take-down notices? Has anyone from the big recording or movie studios done any study of the effectiveness of their investment in actually reducing piracy or increasing revenue? On second thought, maybe they have. Perhaps they used their overly hyped numbers on piracy's impact (Any cost accountant who actually tried to use accurate numbers would probably be fired.) These are also the people who have accounting systems that say that multi-platinum albums and the second-highest grossing film of all time have not yet turned a profit.
It seems like they would get a much better return if they took the money and just bought a couple more politicians.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber
On the post: Austrian Rights Holder Group Wants To Hit Cloud Services With A 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax
On the post: Yes, It Would Be Prohibitively Costly For Google To Offer Google Fiber Everywhere, But It Shouldn't Have To
Re:
Well, it's all relative. Google has a reputation for bad customer service. But we are comparing them to most of our US ISP's and Telco's. In a room full of black cats, a dark gray cat looks white.
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
What we say is that Google can't screen every video for copyright infringement. That is still true. It's a lot different when processing electronic forms that come in. They are just text. Text is relatively easy.
>>2) You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN.
That is not what is claimed. There is a lot of piracy. What the community here maintains is that the damage is minor. Also, the data doesn't show how many of those notices are duplicates, or flat out wrong.
On the post: DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
Re:
On the post: Yes, It Would Be Prohibitively Costly For Google To Offer Google Fiber Everywhere, But It Shouldn't Have To
On the post: Nintendo Still Loves DRM; The Internet Not So Much
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re: Re: Re:
Companies that try to shut down fan-art are cutting their own throats. They are alienating their own fans and ignoring some of the best publicity they could possibly have. Plus they spend money and corporate resources trying to track down their most loyal fans and turning them into ex-fans.
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re:
Bingo! You got the point of the article, although I don't think you understand what the article is saying at all. The fact that Psy is making millions from his video really does have nothing to do with copyright.
Let me back up and explain because I think you have fallen into the trap of believing that copyright is necessary to make money from music.
The article is pointing out that Psy made a lot of money by not filing a ton of DCMA notices or being a copyright bully. In fact, one of the secrets of his success seems to be that he encouraged people to copy, remix, adapt, and parody his work.
The recording industry fell into the trap of thinking that copyright was needed in order to make money from music. The RIAA companies would probably be making a lot more money today if they had not been so heavily invested in the idea that making money required draconian enforcement of copyright. They still waste a lot of political capital and economic resources trying to preserve this way of thinking.
Most of the regulars here at TD have absolutely no problem with people monetizing their work and making money from it. We just don't think that being a copyright bully is always necessary.
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
In the end I recommended Gangnam Style or perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayMeza487M because of their lack of interest in copyright over-enforcement. I just hope that policy continues to hold through next semester!
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: 'Rampant Piracy' Is Deader Than Your Outdated Metrics
And that, in essence, is the nightmare scenario for everyone whose salary depends on being a gatekeeper.
Next >>