Two hypotheses off the top of my head, both for the list selection and for why there may be a difference in representation in "achievement", if such a difference exists:
(1) Social networks -- white males hang out with other white males
(2) Imaging -- certain businesses or practices benefit from putting forth a white male as a founder, leader, etc.
They have. See Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, and National Federation of the Blind v. Target.
The basic argument is that blind use specialized browsers that read web-pages aloud. When websites use images without alt-text however, or use flash or layout the website poorly, those browsers don't work. So the blind sued to compel the use of alt-text.
I'm a little confused -- won't increased protection for anti-biotics raise prices of anti-biotics? And if the price of anti-biotics go up, won't that decrease their usage?
Of course, the paragraph above points out another issue with this ruling: that this is really an issue for the movie studios, not Netflix. Blaming Netflix is blaming the wrong party. Of course, the judge didn't seem to care about that. When Netflix raised that issue, the judge said that "this argument lacks traction" because the judge has already decided that Netflix is a place of public accommodation, and that's all that matters.
But that's actually super-relevant to whether Netflix is a place of public accommodation! With physical places, the store owner owns the entire premises, and therefore has the legal right to make changes to the premises, like adding a ramp. But websites don't always "own" all of the content that they're displaying -- whether it's the Facebook share buttons, third-party ads, or the movies being shown on Netflix. They simply don't have the legal right to add "ramps".
Note that this is distinct from the "undue hardship" issue. Undue hardship is about whether adding ramps would be feasible -- e.g. you don't add a wheelchair ramp to your treehouse. Here, we're discussing the basic legal right to do something.
That key distinction is a HUGE difference between physical and virtual places of public accommodation, and evidence that there's no way Congress intended for the ADA to include the latter.
The key number isn't the amount per play but what the average listener spends per year. For iTunes, that's $60. For Spotify, it's $120.
Here's why it might seem different though -- if you spent $60 on iTunes, that basically means you bought 60 songs, and you're going to listen to those 60 songs A LOT. And if you're only buying 60 songs, you're probably going to focus on the top hits and not much else.
By contrast, if you spend $120 on Spotify, there's no limit on how many songs you can listen to. It's probably a lot more than 60 or 120. And you're also more likely to less popular and more esoteric songs.
So what happens on Spotify is that the OVERALL amount of money going to the creative community (per listener) is higher. But it's distributed much more evenly than with iTunes. If you're a Top 40 act, then it might appear that Spotify is screwing you over. And to some extent, it is, but it's screwing you over to help less popular up-and-coming acts. You can interpret that how you want.
It shows that Zune, Napster, and Rhapsody offer much better deals for content providers than does Spotify, but it doesn't mean Spotify is bad for artists.
Remember, each of those points is per listen. For each song you purchase on iTunes, how many times are you going to listen to it over its lifetime? If it's greater than 140, then Spotify is a better deal for the artist than iTunes.
One possible solution -- compare the value of the infringing content vs. the value of the rest of the property.
So, in the case of the CD with unauthorized songs, that's be problematic. Because the CD itself is cheap relative to the unauthorized songs.
But in the case of the shampoo bottle with an infringing label, not a problem. The value of the label is tiny compared to the value of the shampoo, so suing for copyright infringement is inappropriate.
Another possibility -- use "actual damages" for copyright infringement and proportion it accordingly. So in the case of the shampoo bottle, the actual damage of using a copyrighted label would probably amount of pennies. If the right holder wants to sue, they can, but the damages probably wouldn't justify the legal expenses.
Just to illustrate how ridiculous this is, the actual two cases that gave rise to this were:
(1) Costco legally bought Omgea watches abroad at a lower price and resold them in the U.S. Omega sued for copyright infringement of the etching on the back of a watch.
(2) A distributor sold legally purchased shampoo bottles within the U.S. The shampoo manufacturer sued over the LABELS on the bottle.
Labels! Under that logic, EVERY PACKAGED GOOD is subject to copyright law.
I predict subtler forms of parody. The Singaporean government once had (and may still have) a reputation for suing the pants off its critics for libel.
After one incident in which the government justified a tax increase by saying "you get what you pay for," Singaporeans started joking about restaurants charging extra for chopsticks and soy sauce.
(1) I did something nice for you, and it wasn't cheap.
(2) If you can afford it, please do something nice for me.
I bet that the average person agrees with this in principle. A stranger saves you from a fire. Most people would feel some moral obligation to do something nice in return. Note that you're not under any legal obligation to reward your rescuer. It's just that it's the "right" thing to do.
Ditto for music. If you download a song and enjoy it, and the artist asks that you pay, and you can afford it, you should pay. I don't think that's controversial.
My point, though, isn't that people should pay for music. It's that ethics aren't very useful for making laws or business models. There's no law to reward your rescuer. And any business model that relies on gratuitously saving people from burning buildings is probably going to fail.
Industry standards don't really matter here. Craigslist is probably working off one of two theories here:
(1) Trespass (or some equivalent involving unauthorized access to a computer). Under this theory, Padmapper's previous conduct wasn't illegal, but any continued integration would be. Basically, property owners have the right to keep people off of their property. If you're a business and open to the public, we assume that you've given permission for people to enter onto your property. But you still have the right to revoke access for certain individuals by giving them notice that they're not welcome -- e.g. with a cease and desist.
(2) Contract. At some point, Padmapper's employees agreed to the Craigslist terms of use, which says you can't do stuff like this. Craigslist has a right to tell people to stop breaching contracts.
None of this actually means Craigslist would succeed in a lawsuit. They'd probably have to show some actual economic harm, but those are the underlying theories supporting the cease & desist. There are probably also theories involving copyright and protecting privacy interests of Craigslist users.
From a pure ethics perspective, the argument against file-sharing seems quite simple:
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful -- i.e. sharing my stuff without permission.
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low -- e.g. the world will not end if you don't download my music.
That are counter-arguments that are also ethical in nature -- e.g. we should encourage music piracy because it speeds up innovation, which is a moral good -- but I think most people would accept the basic ethical premise, if not Lowery's exact formulation.
Lowery's problem is that ethics alone aren't a basis for legislation, business models, or overreaction. Adultery is unethical, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Shoplifting is unethical, but your business model should still account for it. If someone flips you off without cause, that person is unethical, but that doesn't justify you sitting in a corner and pouting all day.
Ethics provide a way to regulate your own behavior. But they're not a great way to resolve problems involving other people.
I don't think that Craigslist is isolationist so much as they don't like aggregation. When you aggregate, the end user's relationship with the Craigslist becomes purely transactional -- i.e. Craigslist is just a data source at the end of the pipe. Sure, Padmapper ultimately drives users to Craigslist, but those users aren't loyal to Craigslist. They're loyal to Padmapper.
It's similar to the debate for news aggregators. One position is that news sites should welcome Google News because it ultimately drives more traffic. But the news sites aren't interested in just traffic. They want loyalty. When I click on a Google News link, I focus immediately on the linked content. The only time I care what site the content is hosted on is if that site is really bad (like CBS's awful mobile site).
By contrast, if I come to your site directly, I'm more likely to, at a minimum, take note of the site's domain name because I have to type it in. And I'm also more likely to take note of the site's branding, hang around, create a user account, comment, etc. I'm more likely to become a fan the site can connect with and give a reason to buy. The site can differentiate by offering cool new features, and as a frequent repeat user, I'm more likely to notice and appreciate those features.
That's not to say what Craigslist is doing here makes sense. Cutting off useful services pisses off your fans. The way to respond to aggregation is to offer unique content. That's why I hang around Techdirt -- it offers unique articles and has a unique community.
The real tragedy isn't just that Craigslist is cutting off Padmapper. It's that despite Craigslist's claims of "community", it hasn't added very many features over the years that make its users want to hang around and be a part of that community. For starters, they might want to add a map.
Independent invention gets a lot of flack because of how difficult it is to prove actual copying. I commented on the EFF site explaining how you could get around that (https://defendinnovation.org/proposal/relax-liability-infringers#comment-38), but the short version is this:
(1) Hard-to-prove claims aren't new to the legal system. We deal with them by making presumptions (e.g. if you had could have read a patent, we assume you did read the patent, unless you prove otherwise -- e.g. by using computer forensics).
(2) Allow partial damages or partial fault. In real life, things are never fully dependent or independent. This allows you to deal with situations where a defendant benefited by reading the first paragraph of the patent but worked out the rest on his own.
Not necessarily. If patents were actually useful, you would look. Suppose you estimate that it'll cost you $1000 to clean-room develop something you suspect is copied. If the patent holder offers to license for $900, it makes sense for you to license.
Sounds like the complaint is based on a conversation with an Apple Store employee:
"It's crucial that this if this backup fails, I can always recover my data."
"Yes sir, it does that."
"Always?"
"Always"
"OK, I'm just asking because I don't know a thing about technology and am totally relying on you to tell me how this works."
"Of course. I'm a genius. I guarantee your data will be recoverable."
Unlikely the conversation actually went like that, but if it did, man, that Apple employee's probably out of a job.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging & Digging: Inman And IndieGoGo Hit Back
Re: Y is to .... how much of WHOSE money, did Inman donate to charity ?
On the post: Bias In Tech & Media: Lists That Perpetuate The Stereotypes
Social Networks
(1) Social networks -- white males hang out with other white males
(2) Imaging -- certain businesses or practices benefit from putting forth a white male as a founder, leader, etc.
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: Blind Sites
The basic argument is that blind use specialized browsers that read web-pages aloud. When websites use images without alt-text however, or use flash or layout the website poorly, those browsers don't work. So the blind sued to compel the use of alt-text.
On the post: How Extending Patent Protection For Antibiotics Creates Perverse Incentives To Render Them Useless
Increase prices?
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Ugh ...
But that's actually super-relevant to whether Netflix is a place of public accommodation! With physical places, the store owner owns the entire premises, and therefore has the legal right to make changes to the premises, like adding a ramp. But websites don't always "own" all of the content that they're displaying -- whether it's the Facebook share buttons, third-party ads, or the movies being shown on Netflix. They simply don't have the legal right to add "ramps".
Note that this is distinct from the "undue hardship" issue. Undue hardship is about whether adding ramps would be feasible -- e.g. you don't add a wheelchair ramp to your treehouse. Here, we're discussing the basic legal right to do something.
That key distinction is a HUGE difference between physical and virtual places of public accommodation, and evidence that there's no way Congress intended for the ADA to include the latter.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
Here's why it might seem different though -- if you spent $60 on iTunes, that basically means you bought 60 songs, and you're going to listen to those 60 songs A LOT. And if you're only buying 60 songs, you're probably going to focus on the top hits and not much else.
By contrast, if you spend $120 on Spotify, there's no limit on how many songs you can listen to. It's probably a lot more than 60 or 120. And you're also more likely to less popular and more esoteric songs.
So what happens on Spotify is that the OVERALL amount of money going to the creative community (per listener) is higher. But it's distributed much more evenly than with iTunes. If you're a Top 40 act, then it might appear that Spotify is screwing you over. And to some extent, it is, but it's screwing you over to help less popular up-and-coming acts. You can interpret that how you want.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
Remember, each of those points is per listen. For each song you purchase on iTunes, how many times are you going to listen to it over its lifetime? If it's greater than 140, then Spotify is a better deal for the artist than iTunes.
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re:
So, in the case of the CD with unauthorized songs, that's be problematic. Because the CD itself is cheap relative to the unauthorized songs.
But in the case of the shampoo bottle with an infringing label, not a problem. The value of the label is tiny compared to the value of the shampoo, so suing for copyright infringement is inappropriate.
Another possibility -- use "actual damages" for copyright infringement and proportion it accordingly. So in the case of the shampoo bottle, the actual damage of using a copyrighted label would probably amount of pennies. If the right holder wants to sue, they can, but the damages probably wouldn't justify the legal expenses.
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Labels
(1) Costco legally bought Omgea watches abroad at a lower price and resold them in the U.S. Omega sued for copyright infringement of the etching on the back of a watch.
(2) A distributor sold legally purchased shampoo bottles within the U.S. The shampoo manufacturer sued over the LABELS on the bottle.
Labels! Under that logic, EVERY PACKAGED GOOD is subject to copyright law.
On the post: Greenpeace Parody Site Censored Using Copyright Infringement Claim
Re: Why stop there?
After one incident in which the government justified a tax increase by saying "you get what you pay for," Singaporeans started joking about restaurants charging extra for chopsticks and soy sauce.
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: Re: Ethics
But I do think there are strong moral (or social) norms against copying. Or maybe just unjust enrichment. See Mike's post here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/03261210889.shtml.
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: Re: Ethics
(1) I did something nice for you, and it wasn't cheap.
(2) If you can afford it, please do something nice for me.
I bet that the average person agrees with this in principle. A stranger saves you from a fire. Most people would feel some moral obligation to do something nice in return. Note that you're not under any legal obligation to reward your rescuer. It's just that it's the "right" thing to do.
Ditto for music. If you download a song and enjoy it, and the artist asks that you pay, and you can afford it, you should pay. I don't think that's controversial.
My point, though, isn't that people should pay for music. It's that ethics aren't very useful for making laws or business models. There's no law to reward your rescuer. And any business model that relies on gratuitously saving people from burning buildings is probably going to fail.
On the post: Unfortunate: Craigslist Continues To Be A Walled Garden
Re: How is Padmapper's conduct illegal?
(1) Trespass (or some equivalent involving unauthorized access to a computer). Under this theory, Padmapper's previous conduct wasn't illegal, but any continued integration would be. Basically, property owners have the right to keep people off of their property. If you're a business and open to the public, we assume that you've given permission for people to enter onto your property. But you still have the right to revoke access for certain individuals by giving them notice that they're not welcome -- e.g. with a cease and desist.
(2) Contract. At some point, Padmapper's employees agreed to the Craigslist terms of use, which says you can't do stuff like this. Craigslist has a right to tell people to stop breaching contracts.
None of this actually means Craigslist would succeed in a lawsuit. They'd probably have to show some actual economic harm, but those are the underlying theories supporting the cease & desist. There are probably also theories involving copyright and protecting privacy interests of Craigslist users.
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Ethics
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful -- i.e. sharing my stuff without permission.
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low -- e.g. the world will not end if you don't download my music.
That are counter-arguments that are also ethical in nature -- e.g. we should encourage music piracy because it speeds up innovation, which is a moral good -- but I think most people would accept the basic ethical premise, if not Lowery's exact formulation.
Lowery's problem is that ethics alone aren't a basis for legislation, business models, or overreaction. Adultery is unethical, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Shoplifting is unethical, but your business model should still account for it. If someone flips you off without cause, that person is unethical, but that doesn't justify you sitting in a corner and pouting all day.
Ethics provide a way to regulate your own behavior. But they're not a great way to resolve problems involving other people.
On the post: Unfortunate: Craigslist Continues To Be A Walled Garden
Aggregation
It's similar to the debate for news aggregators. One position is that news sites should welcome Google News because it ultimately drives more traffic. But the news sites aren't interested in just traffic. They want loyalty. When I click on a Google News link, I focus immediately on the linked content. The only time I care what site the content is hosted on is if that site is really bad (like CBS's awful mobile site).
By contrast, if I come to your site directly, I'm more likely to, at a minimum, take note of the site's domain name because I have to type it in. And I'm also more likely to take note of the site's branding, hang around, create a user account, comment, etc. I'm more likely to become a fan the site can connect with and give a reason to buy. The site can differentiate by offering cool new features, and as a frequent repeat user, I'm more likely to notice and appreciate those features.
That's not to say what Craigslist is doing here makes sense. Cutting off useful services pisses off your fans. The way to respond to aggregation is to offer unique content. That's why I hang around Techdirt -- it offers unique articles and has a unique community.
The real tragedy isn't just that Craigslist is cutting off Padmapper. It's that despite Craigslist's claims of "community", it hasn't added very many features over the years that make its users want to hang around and be a part of that community. For starters, they might want to add a map.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging: Promises To Subpoena Twitter & Ars Technica To Track Down Parody Account
Dig dig dig
On the post: EFF Launches 'Defend Innovation' Site In An Attempt To Fix Software Patents
A plug for independent invention
(1) Hard-to-prove claims aren't new to the legal system. We deal with them by making presumptions (e.g. if you had could have read a patent, we assume you did read the patent, unless you prove otherwise -- e.g. by using computer forensics).
(2) Allow partial damages or partial fault. In real life, things are never fully dependent or independent. This allows you to deal with situations where a defendant benefited by reading the first paragraph of the patent but worked out the rest on his own.
On the post: EFF Launches 'Defend Innovation' Site In An Attempt To Fix Software Patents
Re:
On the post: Guy Sues Apple For $25k Because His Time Capsule Device Died
Apple Store Employees
"It's crucial that this if this backup fails, I can always recover my data."
"Yes sir, it does that."
"Always?"
"Always"
"OK, I'm just asking because I don't know a thing about technology and am totally relying on you to tell me how this works."
"Of course. I'm a genius. I guarantee your data will be recoverable."
Unlikely the conversation actually went like that, but if it did, man, that Apple employee's probably out of a job.
Next >>