The argument (perhaps from the studios) that it would not be fair for Netflix to buy just one dvd of a movie and then stream it tens of thousands of times, does make some sense.
But a reasonable solution could be that if they buy (license) say, 10,000 copies at the dvd price, then they can stream up to 10,000 simultaneous showings of a movie.
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship for viewers to understand that all the available films are being watched at some particular time and Netflix could manage their purchased to meet demand just like they do now with physical dvds.
Not always. Trademarks are there to avoid confusion for the consumer.
I am a photographer. If I set up a website called "Red Cross Health Photographs" with a large red cross logo, I would expect customers to be confused and the real Red Cross to have an excellent case against me.
That said, there is no doubt a trademark owner can be overly agressive is asserting broad rights where there may be little or no real customer confusion.
Mike. your suggestion to "license" the trademark to other entities doesn't make sense. It would likely be considered "naked licensing" and they could lose their trademarks:
"licensing is generally permitted provided that the mark’s owner retains the right to approve the licensee’s use of the mark and supervise any element of quality control over the same. The logic is clear: if the mark is to have the import of signifying a particular source of certain goods or services and the public is going to have the right to rely on that mark for that significance, then when the mark is licensed to a party for use other than by the mark’s owner, the mark’s owner should be in a position to approve the use of the mark in relationship to the licensee’s good or services so that the public, upon seeing the mark in regard to those goods or services provided by the licensee, may rely on the same good will and quality it has come to know in relationship to that mark. " http://j.mp/g9gwOZ
ps I am not a lawyer. But I also agree that it seems the claims appear overly broad (e.g. objecting to use of the color pink)
Well it is very helpful to be very specific here. Since you didn't answer no, I take it that you want the entire blogspot.com domain to be subject to an in rem proceeding if COICA is passed.
Do correct me if I assumed wrongly.
So yes I have looked at blogspot. Here is a search for pages with U2 appearing in the URL in the blogspot domain http://j.mp/94kQF4 and here are the top ten pages (except the 2 non-band pages)
I have looked at all these pages and they seem to be primarily fan pages discussing, advertising for or just enthusiastic about the band. I see several embedded Youtube videos, plenty of photos and a few lyrics. I could not find any way to play or download any music directly from the blogspot domain.
There were a couple of links to third party file sharing sites like sharebee from which I presume one could download a track (quite possibly infringing I guess)
Now this is where I see a problem.
Blogspot/Google is not hosting any infringing music it seems. Some fans may talk about the band and they may even include a link to a file sharing site. So what do you want Google to do? Do you want to make it illegal even to link to a filesharing site, even to talk about where someone can download music. This is where it comes closer to a free speech issue.
Perhaps a parallel for the drug world: right now it is illegal to sell pot. But it is not illegal to say, "you can get some from Harry" or "You can get pot down on East 14th Street" (whether that is even true or not). There's a parallel here to forbidding links to "possibly" infringing sites. Do you want to make it illegal to say (point to a site) where perhaps some unlicensed content might be downloadable?
So how exactly is Google to know, let alone be responsible for, links to third party sites?
OK, well what about the images and videos they actually do host on blogspot. As you already acknowledged, DMCA takedowns can remove any copyrighted material on request from the owner. Is this not good enough?
You ask "Have you ever tried to file a DMCA notice? " The answer is yes, and it was not difficult, nor have my requests ever been ignored. Now I suppose if you have 100,000 them you might think it difficult if you though it worth your while to issue that many.
So what could be the alternative? There are thousands of U2 photos and videos and lyrics just in the Google search you suggested.
What would you have Google/blogspot do?? How on earth could they possibly know whether an uploader has a license to use a given photo or video. Perhaps some are free publicity shots, Perhaps some are licensed from Getty Images. Google cannot possibly know.
I license stock photography as a business and believe me it is not possible for a third party to identify infringements; it is not publicly available information. Aside from the fact that there is an existing §512 DMCA safe harbor, and aside from the complexities of fair use, the service provider, in this case Google/blogspot, simply is not in a position to know if a usage is infringing or not.
The suggestion that they monitor their user's pages for infringing material thus is completely unfeasible.
Now Youtube is an interesting example because they do allow content providers the option to fingerprint their videos and have Youtube automatically monitor uploads and even block some uploads. Even so many providers actually opt to allow their content on Youtube and get the exposure and ad revenue.
So getting back to blogspot, Youtube videos are not a problem and the copyright owner can choose to deal with other content if they want through DMCA
You ask "is that acceptable as the status quo".
Actually I think, yes.
Do I think it could be improved? yes, but not in the way you might expect.
In line with my comments above I do not believe it will ever be technologically feasible ro prevent all unauthorized use on the internet. What is the alternative? To take advantage of it. Here we have thousands of U2 fans eager to talk about the band and share their enthusiasm
Jeremy Williams, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment. addressed this phenomenon in a panel presentation at Berkeley
He suggests that companies like his should tolerate and support noncommercial uses — even tolerate some commercial uses. This is the approach he has taken, giving the okay to fan sites even when they use incidental advertising to support the site but drawing the line at fan merchandising.
So how to improve on the status quo?
Seek ways to take advantage of all this free publicity and enthusiasm. See it as an opportunity, rather than a curse.
All of a sudden the world will look quite different, and quite a bit more promising.
(sorry for the long response, but there was a lot to cover)
Perhaps you can help me out here. Bob Pisano has said "They're called rogue sites, and they exist for one purpose only: to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others."
Could you please clarify for me?
Do you think www.youtube.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No
Do you think www.flickr.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No
Actually Lyle, I see it the opposite way to some extent. I can lose my physical book, but with Amazon I can always redownload a copy (as long as they stay in business.)
Also I can go on a trip and take 10 or 100 books with me, or 500 pdfs, which I can't do with paper.
Agreed though that paper is nice for reading at home and marking up. It is frustrating not to be able to easily note, cut and paste, share and lend with ebooks. The functionality is tightly constrained.
Such anecdotal comments are interesting but it would be more compelling to gather and graph statistics by location, author, publisher and format, and to have such a significant volume of complaints that they could be presented to the publishers to make the case for more flexible publishing practices.
Everyone is frustrated when a book is not available in the desired format, but a more organized advocacy campaign by readers would be more effective.
Also to consider is that there may be economies of scale and a public benefit in the comprehensive coverage that Google, for example, provides in search.
In this manner, we might, when appropriate, consider Google as somewhat of a public utility, at least insofar as it has some responsibility for the public good.
For example, were Google unilaterally to shut down its mail, search and map servers tomorrow across the world, this would certainly disrupt the economy and threaten the public good (even national security perhaps) and most likely invite a rapid government response.
With Google's size comes responsibility for fairness, transparency and reliability.
Apple says that "giving potential customers more time to listen to your music will lead to more purchases."
You can be sure that if iTunes track sales suddenly tank because everyone wants to listen to streaming snippets, then they will revert to shorter samples.
On the other hand I expect sales will certainly increase.
My guess is that if they did an online survey they'd find this will increase track sales. I, for one, will be more likely to buy a song if I hear most of it and like it.
And of course the ONLY reason for Apple to do this is to increase sales.
For those interested here is the actual paper:
A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket by Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849
On the post: Netflix's Move From DVDs To Streaming Shows The Massive Value Of First Sale Doctrine
But a reasonable solution could be that if they buy (license) say, 10,000 copies at the dvd price, then they can stream up to 10,000 simultaneous showings of a movie.
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship for viewers to understand that all the available films are being watched at some particular time and Netflix could manage their purchased to meet demand just like they do now with physical dvds.
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Vuvuzelas
Did Ubisoft get licenses from the copyright holders, the vuvu players, or did they just take the recordings and use them?
On the post: Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
Search Term: Susan G Komen
Field: Owner Name and Address
Result Must Contain: All Search Terms
295 results don't seem to include the color. but lots of phrases.
On the post: Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
I am a photographer. If I set up a website called "Red Cross Health Photographs" with a large red cross logo, I would expect customers to be confused and the real Red Cross to have an excellent case against me.
That said, there is no doubt a trademark owner can be overly agressive is asserting broad rights where there may be little or no real customer confusion.
On the post: Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
Trademark license for different product??
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naked-license/
"licensing is generally permitted provided that the mark’s owner retains the right to approve the licensee’s use of the mark and supervise any element of quality control over the same. The logic is clear: if the mark is to have the import of signifying a particular source of certain goods or services and the public is going to have the right to rely on that mark for that significance, then when the mark is licensed to a party for use other than by the mark’s owner, the mark’s owner should be in a position to approve the use of the mark in relationship to the licensee’s good or services so that the public, upon seeing the mark in regard to those goods or services provided by the licensee, may rely on the same good will and quality it has come to know in relationship to that mark. " http://j.mp/g9gwOZ
ps I am not a lawyer. But I also agree that it seems the claims appear overly broad (e.g. objecting to use of the color pink)
On the post: US Copyright Czar: Expect More Domain Censorship
Except for one tiny problem. Aside from fair use, a copyrighted photo online may actually be licensed and there is no way to tell the license terms.
On the post: Why Murdoch's iPad-Only Newspaper Misses The Point
Links
no print edition + no web edition = no history + no links
Rather than support creativity, this product makes the creative works disposable.
On the post: Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do correct me if I assumed wrongly.
So yes I have looked at blogspot. Here is a search for pages with U2 appearing in the URL in the blogspot domain http://j.mp/94kQF4 and here are the top ten pages (except the 2 non-band pages)
http://u2-tour.blogspot.com/
http://top10mp3download.blogspot.com/2009/03/magnificent-m p3-download-u2.html
http://u2-blog.blogspot.com/
http://me-and-u2.blogspot.com/
http://secr etsun.blogspot.com/2009/02/u2-no-line-on-horus-zone.html
http://digitalmeltd0wn.blogspot.com/2007 /12/negativland-u2.html
http://live-bootleg.blogspot.com/2007/02/u2-salome.html
http://joyofso x.blogspot.com/2009/04/offday-outtakes-u2-achtung-baby.html
I have looked at all these pages and they seem to be primarily fan pages discussing, advertising for or just enthusiastic about the band. I see several embedded Youtube videos, plenty of photos and a few lyrics. I could not find any way to play or download any music directly from the blogspot domain.
There were a couple of links to third party file sharing sites like sharebee from which I presume one could download a track (quite possibly infringing I guess)
Now this is where I see a problem.
Blogspot/Google is not hosting any infringing music it seems. Some fans may talk about the band and they may even include a link to a file sharing site. So what do you want Google to do? Do you want to make it illegal even to link to a filesharing site, even to talk about where someone can download music. This is where it comes closer to a free speech issue.
Perhaps a parallel for the drug world: right now it is illegal to sell pot. But it is not illegal to say, "you can get some from Harry" or "You can get pot down on East 14th Street" (whether that is even true or not). There's a parallel here to forbidding links to "possibly" infringing sites. Do you want to make it illegal to say (point to a site) where perhaps some unlicensed content might be downloadable?
So how exactly is Google to know, let alone be responsible for, links to third party sites?
OK, well what about the images and videos they actually do host on blogspot. As you already acknowledged, DMCA takedowns can remove any copyrighted material on request from the owner. Is this not good enough?
You ask "Have you ever tried to file a DMCA notice? " The answer is yes, and it was not difficult, nor have my requests ever been ignored. Now I suppose if you have 100,000 them you might think it difficult if you though it worth your while to issue that many.
So what could be the alternative? There are thousands of U2 photos and videos and lyrics just in the Google search you suggested.
What would you have Google/blogspot do?? How on earth could they possibly know whether an uploader has a license to use a given photo or video. Perhaps some are free publicity shots, Perhaps some are licensed from Getty Images. Google cannot possibly know.
I license stock photography as a business and believe me it is not possible for a third party to identify infringements; it is not publicly available information. Aside from the fact that there is an existing §512 DMCA safe harbor, and aside from the complexities of fair use, the service provider, in this case Google/blogspot, simply is not in a position to know if a usage is infringing or not.
The suggestion that they monitor their user's pages for infringing material thus is completely unfeasible.
Now Youtube is an interesting example because they do allow content providers the option to fingerprint their videos and have Youtube automatically monitor uploads and even block some uploads. Even so many providers actually opt to allow their content on Youtube and get the exposure and ad revenue.
So getting back to blogspot, Youtube videos are not a problem and the copyright owner can choose to deal with other content if they want through DMCA
You ask "is that acceptable as the status quo".
Actually I think, yes.
Do I think it could be improved? yes, but not in the way you might expect.
In line with my comments above I do not believe it will ever be technologically feasible ro prevent all unauthorized use on the internet. What is the alternative? To take advantage of it. Here we have thousands of U2 fans eager to talk about the band and share their enthusiasm
Jeremy Williams, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment. addressed this phenomenon in a panel presentation at Berkeley
link here http://www.law.berkeley.edu/7731.htm audio here http://law.berkeley.edu/media/bclt/2010copyright/10-0345pm.mp3
and his observations were well summarized by Terry Hart of Copyhype here
http://www.copyhype.com/2010/11/drawing-distinctions
So how to improve on the status quo?
Seek ways to take advantage of all this free publicity and enthusiasm. See it as an opportunity, rather than a curse.
All of a sudden the world will look quite different, and quite a bit more promising.
(sorry for the long response, but there was a lot to cover)
On the post: Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill
Re: Re: Re:
Now you just mentioned www.blogspot.com
Do you consider them to be a site "dedicated to infinging" ?
Should COICA, if passed, take aim at Blogspot?
or any other Google property you can name?
On the post: Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill
Re:
Perhaps you can help me out here. Bob Pisano has said "They're called rogue sites, and they exist for one purpose only: to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others."
Could you please clarify for me?
Do you think www.youtube.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No
Do you think www.flickr.com is one of these "rogue sites" ? Yes or No
On the post: Amount Of Video Content Uploaded To YouTube Increasing At An Astounding Rate
Is Facebook going to start scanning the 2.5 Billion photos they upload every month to look for purloined stock photographs?
Is Yahoo going to scan their share of the 247 Billion monthly emails sent each month in search of infringing copyrighted poems?
I don't think so. Or would anyone even want it?
On the post: New Site Tries To Explain To Book Authors & Publishers Why People Choose Not To Buy
Re:
Also I can go on a trip and take 10 or 100 books with me, or 500 pdfs, which I can't do with paper.
Agreed though that paper is nice for reading at home and marking up. It is frustrating not to be able to easily note, cut and paste, share and lend with ebooks. The functionality is tightly constrained.
On the post: New Site Tries To Explain To Book Authors & Publishers Why People Choose Not To Buy
Everyone is frustrated when a book is not available in the desired format, but a more organized advocacy campaign by readers would be more effective.
On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly
In this manner, we might, when appropriate, consider Google as somewhat of a public utility, at least insofar as it has some responsibility for the public good.
For example, were Google unilaterally to shut down its mail, search and map servers tomorrow across the world, this would certainly disrupt the economy and threaten the public good (even national security perhaps) and most likely invite a rapid government response.
With Google's size comes responsibility for fairness, transparency and reliability.
On the post: Lessig Asks WIPO To Overhaul Copyright; Not Designed For When Every Use Is A Copy
Video if WIPO presentation on Nov 4
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
Downside of social media reactions
http://www.technollama.co.uk/why-sue-when-you-can-use-social-media
On the post: Apple Tells Labels, Unilaterally, That It's Increasing Song Previews To 90 Seconds
You can be sure that if iTunes track sales suddenly tank because everyone wants to listen to streaming snippets, then they will revert to shorter samples.
On the other hand I expect sales will certainly increase.
On the post: Apple Tells Labels, Unilaterally, That It's Increasing Song Previews To 90 Seconds
And of course the ONLY reason for Apple to do this is to increase sales.
On the post: Pizza Shop Sues Former Employee For 'Stealing' Recipe
On the post: Why The Answer To The Smartphone Patent Thicket Is Not A Patent Pool
A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket by Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849
Next >>