I am guessing that FB will have a PR team rushing to fix your problem within minutes of this post going public. But what about the thousands of people who get hit with this bot-driven nonsense every day and don't have a public forum available? The same type of problem occurs with innocent victims of Content-ID and DCMA notice mills.
For now our only real hope is that cases like this one cause the companies involved to do some internal review and revise policies when executives finally realize how much damage they are doing to their brands. Executives are never reluctant to spend big bucks on advertising and public image, but they are not quick to recognize that this type of overzealous policy enforcement can undo in seconds all of that expensive brand promotion.
Politicians want to be seen as doing economic development activities. The problem with real economic development activities is that they tend to disrupt existing businesses, which is a big no-no for most politicians. And so they have to select things that are clean and benefit local businesses rather than providing local competition. That leaves a very short list. In fact, until recently just one of the few safe economic development activity was promoting tourism.
Movies look like a godsend to politicians. It is clean. It helps local businesses but does not compete with them. It is flashy and the public (at least the public outside New York and California) loves to see their streets being closed so that someone can film a car chase. As an extra freebie the politicians often get to rub elbows with some movie stars.
How can any self-respecting local politician avoid throwing fistfuls of money at the movie studios?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is a grant of limited property rights for limited time.
I believe critics are necessary for any intellectual community to thrive in the long term. Ootb occasionally does raise a valid point. I probably shouldn't mention it because he might leave if he realized that he is actually helping TD get better and stronger.
I hope HBO never changes its distribution model. It is such a perfect example of how not to do distribution. If they change it to a more rational policy it will destroy the prime example of bad business models. Please don't change a thing, HBO.
I disagree with the "you might be a criminal" type of levies in general, but the industry might be just looking forward.
If we get more draconian copyright laws that are actually effective at stopping downloading piracy will still continue in other ways. People may revert more to the old days where pirates passed around physical media. Perhaps the industry wants to increase levies because they foresee a "Back to the Future" scenario where people once again pass around and trade physical media. Maybe I should run out and invest in Memorex.
It was a poorly structured sentence. There have been several studies that show that file sharers tend to buy more music, movies, games, and ebooks than people who don't share. Thus the argument is that pirates are also paying customers of the media companies.
There are several perspectives on this. We're quick around here to say that file sharers are the industry's "best customers." Personally I think that is a bit of an exaggeration to say they are the best customers. But on the other hand there isn't much denying that file sharers are also customers, and it seems odd for any business to declare war on their own customers.
There is also a perspective that says pirates are just under served customers. A lot of piracy seems to be happening because legal products are either completely unavailable in certain markets or are only available with annoying restrictions, DRM, or prices that are too high. From this perspective file sharers could probably be even better paying customers if products were available under terms that were not so hostile toward customers.
Of course, the copyright apologists see the situation differently. They have gotten to the point where some of them admit that at least some pirates are customers. But they maintain that if there were stronger laws they would buy even more.
As far as file sharers being an ISP's best customers, it is probably not true. ISP's and wireless carriers like to talk about "bandwidth hogs" but the truth is that broadband costs have been dropping very fast over the last decade (at least). The actual bandwidth used by even a heavy user is probably among the cheapest parts of an ISP's costs. ISP's who also provide cable TV have a major issue with pirates and some other groups of users. There are increasing numbers of young people who are "cable cutters" that are doing without cable TV and are only subscribing to an Internet service. Cable TV service is very profitable. A lot of cable companies see pirates, Netflix, and Hulu as competition for Cable TV service. Some cable companies-ISP's might think that if there are fewer pirates there would be more people subscribing to TV service. Personally I think they are crazy if they believe that cutting off someone's internet is going to cause them to subscribe to cable TV. I think it is more likely that customers who have both TV and Internet subscriptions will cancel both if the company pisses them off by cutting the customer's internet service. It may be extremely short sighted of any ISP to cut off users when Google Fiber and other fiber services are threatening to provide alternate service with no strike programs at all.
You are right, as younger people get older they have more disposable income. But consider two things:
People's tastes are formed when they are young. Hence the popularity of "oldies" radio stations with boomers. If their tastes and buying habits are formed around the indie labels and artists then it isn't a good sign for the major labels.
People carry grudges from their teens and twenties into their thirties and forties. If a young person is alienated by the labels are they going to be willing to give a dime of that disposable income to the labels? Do you suppose people who get 3-strike, 5-strike, or 6-strike notices are ever going to think be willing to give disposable income on a company whose accusation cut off their Internet as a young person?
When 66% of the population admits that they are breaking a certain law then something is wrong.
The problem is that in the long run basic economic principles always trump government laws. Basic economics says that the price is driven to the marginal cost of production. As has been covered in this blog many times, the marginal cost of reproducing a digital file is near zero. The industry tries to resort to arguments about costs of production, but basic economic theory says that doesn't matter. Other things that don't matter to economics are moral issues like "theft" and "piracy."
One interesting thing about the definition of marginal cost is that it includes a component for "fair compensation" or "fair profit." That is a slippery concept that a lot of microeconomics discussions overlook. Unfortunately for the producers, it is consumers who get to decide what fair means. The interesting thing about the data in this study is that it looks like consumers are willing to include allowance for profit. The physical production costs are near zero, but the data suggests that people are willing to pay rates above zero if they consider it a reasonable rate. Some of the price people are willing to pay does include paying for convenience, but experiments with "pay what you want" show that on average people are willing to pay just for the sake of supporting content creators.
The content industry is used to having monopoly and oligopoly power to set prices. It is not surprising that they are fighting laissez faire market realities. They think that stronger laws will let them return to a world where the producers got to set the prices. However, more draconian laws will not win over basic economics any more than current laws have done.
The real solution is to do what economics says must happen. Producers must find more efficient methods of production and marketing. They must sell things like convenience and the viewing experience. If the RIAA companies don't know how to produce an album for under five million dollars, then they are going to be replaced by someone who knows how to produce the same quality for a few thousand dollars. If the MPAA companies don't remember how to make movies that cost less than 100 million, then they will be replaced by indies that do.
The Internet has made a lot of IP law antiquated. Trademark used to have a geographic component that worked fairly well. If you had a little mom & pop operation you could use it in your area. Physical distribution meant that companies had some control about where goods were distributed, so a court order could often keep a big competitor from moving into that area, but was free to distribute elsewhere.
Internet companies go everywhere. That means a little mom & pop with an unregistered trademark suddenly have a global mark if they can get a court to block an on-line company. Couple that with the incubation to claim very broad rights and you cause real problems.
One problem with expanding fair use by statute is that it is still relatively cheap to put a real cost on fair use by fining a bogus copyright suit or sending out a bogus DCMA notice. Or you can just let ContentID do the dirty work for free.
If it is to have any impact, any expansion of fair use should also include a provision making copyfraud illegal and putting some real teeth in it. It should also put the burden of proof for copyright violation on the rights holder.
Actually, this is more like "seeing something in a store and going home and making something just like it." The store owner still has the original item and no theft or shoplifting was involved. The store owner may not like facing competition, but that is what the free market is all about.
Your second point is even further from the mark. This blog has never been against companies making money. Quite the contrary, it often advocates methods that businesses can use to make a lot of money. It also bemoans opportunities to make a lot of money that RIAA companies have passed up as they tried to cling to its antiquated business models.
Removing distribution rights would disrupt the existing window system for digital properties. There is a lot of evidence that the windowing system itself is responsible for a lot of global piracy, so eliminating distribution rights and the windowing would be a massive strike against global piracy.
There are a lot of regional distribution outlets that would be hammered by the change. In fact, they would probably be hit harder than the studios themselves. There would still be some need for regional distributors to handle things like selling physical copies and arranging for theater showings, but it would be a smaller market. The major studios might even benefit if they could suddenly directly market digital properties worldwide without the regional middlemen.
A lot of grocery store cakes themselves probably violate copyright and trademarks. I am sure they pay for some of the prepared pieces they put on cakes, but they often hand-draw Disney and cartoon characters. Safeway might want to be very careful about how many IP lawyers they get poking around their cake business.
In the US most business executives are Republicans. I am hoping that the executives learned a valuable lesson in the last US election.
The Republicans deceived themselves. They were listening to each other talk while denying what was apparent to everyone else. Any news media that did not agree with their view of the election was just displaying "Liberal Bias." When the data didn't agree with their worldview they simply commissioned their own data to be collected. On election night Karl Rove became the poster child of this phenomenon, and that may be his single greatest contribution to the Republican Party as a whole if Fox news and others take the lesson to heart.
The RIAA and MPAA have been talking only among themselves and cooking their own data for years. All critics are denounced as pirates or pirate sympathizers. However, there might be some hope for them. The RIAA did give up the litigation strategy when it became apparent that it was not working. I wonder how long it will take before they realize that the legislation strategy is even more damaging to their companies.
I would like to write more, but I am busy writing up my patent for a cardboard costume that makes viewers look like a potted plant to devices to Kinect devices.
Wait, on advice of my attorney I am dropping the word "cardboard" to make it more generic. Oh, wait. Another change incoming. He wants it more even more general so that it is a costume or other device that confuses any camera looking at it for any purpose. Also, he says to make absolutely sure that I am patenting a general idea with no specifics on how it would be implemented.
That last point bothers me a little bit because I had thought that patents were supposed to patent methods and not general concepts. However, he quickly pointed out that I am wrong. He used this patent as an example of why I am wrong because the Microsoft patent is for the general idea and is pretty short on specifics.
On the post: The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!
For now our only real hope is that cases like this one cause the companies involved to do some internal review and revise policies when executives finally realize how much damage they are doing to their brands. Executives are never reluctant to spend big bucks on advertising and public image, but they are not quick to recognize that this type of overzealous policy enforcement can undo in seconds all of that expensive brand promotion.
On the post: State Subsidies To Hollywood: Almost Every Program Has Been A Dismal Failure, Costing Taxpayers
Movies look like a godsend to politicians. It is clean. It helps local businesses but does not compete with them. It is flashy and the public (at least the public outside New York and California) loves to see their streets being closed so that someone can film a car chase. As an extra freebie the politicians often get to rub elbows with some movie stars.
How can any self-respecting local politician avoid throwing fistfuls of money at the movie studios?
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is a grant of limited property rights for limited time.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
On the post: Outdated European Copyright Levy System Descends Further Into Disarray
If we get more draconian copyright laws that are actually effective at stopping downloading piracy will still continue in other ways. People may revert more to the old days where pirates passed around physical media. Perhaps the industry wants to increase levies because they foresee a "Back to the Future" scenario where people once again pass around and trade physical media. Maybe I should run out and invest in Memorex.
On the post: Six Strikes Delayed Until 'Early Part' Of 2013
Re:
There are several perspectives on this. We're quick around here to say that file sharers are the industry's "best customers." Personally I think that is a bit of an exaggeration to say they are the best customers. But on the other hand there isn't much denying that file sharers are also customers, and it seems odd for any business to declare war on their own customers.
There is also a perspective that says pirates are just under served customers. A lot of piracy seems to be happening because legal products are either completely unavailable in certain markets or are only available with annoying restrictions, DRM, or prices that are too high. From this perspective file sharers could probably be even better paying customers if products were available under terms that were not so hostile toward customers.
Of course, the copyright apologists see the situation differently. They have gotten to the point where some of them admit that at least some pirates are customers. But they maintain that if there were stronger laws they would buy even more.
As far as file sharers being an ISP's best customers, it is probably not true. ISP's and wireless carriers like to talk about "bandwidth hogs" but the truth is that broadband costs have been dropping very fast over the last decade (at least). The actual bandwidth used by even a heavy user is probably among the cheapest parts of an ISP's costs. ISP's who also provide cable TV have a major issue with pirates and some other groups of users. There are increasing numbers of young people who are "cable cutters" that are doing without cable TV and are only subscribing to an Internet service. Cable TV service is very profitable. A lot of cable companies see pirates, Netflix, and Hulu as competition for Cable TV service. Some cable companies-ISP's might think that if there are fewer pirates there would be more people subscribing to TV service. Personally I think they are crazy if they believe that cutting off someone's internet is going to cause them to subscribe to cable TV. I think it is more likely that customers who have both TV and Internet subscriptions will cancel both if the company pisses them off by cutting the customer's internet service. It may be extremely short sighted of any ISP to cut off users when Google Fiber and other fiber services are threatening to provide alternate service with no strike programs at all.
On the post: Google Asks Germans To Protest 'Pay To Link' Proposal As It Comes Close To Becoming Law
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
Re:
People's tastes are formed when they are young. Hence the popularity of "oldies" radio stations with boomers. If their tastes and buying habits are formed around the indie labels and artists then it isn't a good sign for the major labels.
People carry grudges from their teens and twenties into their thirties and forties. If a young person is alienated by the labels are they going to be willing to give a dime of that disposable income to the labels? Do you suppose people who get 3-strike, 5-strike, or 6-strike notices are ever going to think be willing to give disposable income on a company whose accusation cut off their Internet as a young person?
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
Re: Re: Out_Of_The_Balls (or, a pre-emption of stupidity for the sake of moving past it already)
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
The problem is that in the long run basic economic principles always trump government laws. Basic economics says that the price is driven to the marginal cost of production. As has been covered in this blog many times, the marginal cost of reproducing a digital file is near zero. The industry tries to resort to arguments about costs of production, but basic economic theory says that doesn't matter. Other things that don't matter to economics are moral issues like "theft" and "piracy."
One interesting thing about the definition of marginal cost is that it includes a component for "fair compensation" or "fair profit." That is a slippery concept that a lot of microeconomics discussions overlook. Unfortunately for the producers, it is consumers who get to decide what fair means. The interesting thing about the data in this study is that it looks like consumers are willing to include allowance for profit. The physical production costs are near zero, but the data suggests that people are willing to pay rates above zero if they consider it a reasonable rate. Some of the price people are willing to pay does include paying for convenience, but experiments with "pay what you want" show that on average people are willing to pay just for the sake of supporting content creators.
The content industry is used to having monopoly and oligopoly power to set prices. It is not surprising that they are fighting laissez faire market realities. They think that stronger laws will let them return to a world where the producers got to set the prices. However, more draconian laws will not win over basic economics any more than current laws have done.
The real solution is to do what economics says must happen. Producers must find more efficient methods of production and marketing. They must sell things like convenience and the viewing experience. If the RIAA companies don't know how to produce an album for under five million dollars, then they are going to be replaced by someone who knows how to produce the same quality for a few thousand dollars. If the MPAA companies don't remember how to make movies that cost less than 100 million, then they will be replaced by indies that do.
On the post: The Oatmeal Sued Again - This Time For Trademark Infringement
Internet companies go everywhere. That means a little mom & pop with an unregistered trademark suddenly have a global mark if they can get a court to block an on-line company. Couple that with the incubation to claim very broad rights and you cause real problems.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: The Purpose Of Copyright
On the post: Patrick Leahy Ready To Cave To Law Enforcement: Has ECPA Reform Amendment To Include Loopholes For Warrantless Spying
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa Wants To Make It Clear That You're Allowed To Rip Your DVDs
If it is to have any impact, any expansion of fair use should also include a provision making copyfraud illegal and putting some real teeth in it. It should also put the burden of proof for copyright violation on the rights holder.
On the post: Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem
Re: Re:
Your second point is even further from the mark. This blog has never been against companies making money. Quite the contrary, it often advocates methods that businesses can use to make a lot of money. It also bemoans opportunities to make a lot of money that RIAA companies have passed up as they tried to cling to its antiquated business models.
On the post: Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
There are a lot of regional distribution outlets that would be hammered by the change. In fact, they would probably be hit harder than the studios themselves. There would still be some need for regional distributors to handle things like selling physical copies and arranging for theater showings, but it would be a smaller market. The major studios might even benefit if they could suddenly directly market digital properties worldwide without the regional middlemen.
On the post: The Cake Copyright Is A Lie; Safeway Just Doesn't Want To Be Mocked
On the post: Draconian Downloading Law In Japan Goes Into Effect... Music Sales Drop
The Republicans deceived themselves. They were listening to each other talk while denying what was apparent to everyone else. Any news media that did not agree with their view of the election was just displaying "Liberal Bias." When the data didn't agree with their worldview they simply commissioned their own data to be collected. On election night Karl Rove became the poster child of this phenomenon, and that may be his single greatest contribution to the Republican Party as a whole if Fox news and others take the lesson to heart.
The RIAA and MPAA have been talking only among themselves and cooking their own data for years. All critics are denounced as pirates or pirate sympathizers. However, there might be some hope for them. The RIAA did give up the litigation strategy when it became apparent that it was not working. I wonder how long it will take before they realize that the legislation strategy is even more damaging to their companies.
On the post: Microsoft Patents TV That Watches Back, Counts Heads, Charges Admission
Wait, on advice of my attorney I am dropping the word "cardboard" to make it more generic. Oh, wait. Another change incoming. He wants it more even more general so that it is a costume or other device that confuses any camera looking at it for any purpose. Also, he says to make absolutely sure that I am patenting a general idea with no specifics on how it would be implemented.
That last point bothers me a little bit because I had thought that patents were supposed to patent methods and not general concepts. However, he quickly pointed out that I am wrong. He used this patent as an example of why I am wrong because the Microsoft patent is for the general idea and is pretty short on specifics.
Next >>