"On 22 August 2008, Woolworths announced it was launching a new identity for all its supermarkets.....The logo, which had been in use for 21 years, was replaced with a new brand image, designed by Hans Hulsbosch with a new green tinted icon representing the 'W' in Woolworths with the addition of a stylised leaf to suggest fresh produce. It is also reminiscent of a 1970s Woolworths logo.....In September 2009, this rebranding scheme was extended to New Zealand stores where the new Woolworths symbol is to be used alongside the Countdown brand."
I like this part: "In October 2009, it was reported that Apple Inc. had lodged an objection to Woolworths' trademark application with the Australian Government's intellectual property agency IP Australia, claiming that the logo resembles its own. The reports said that Apple was concerned that Woolworths had applied for a blanket trademark for the design, so it could be placed on any product – even on electrical goods like computers and music players. Woolworths was not selling its own brand electrical goods then, but a spokeswoman for the company said that, 'While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment'."
That's true: Woolworths sells hardly anything electrical (a couple of kitchen appliences and the occasional TV and DVD player), all of which are branded by someone else. They are usually cheap pieces of crap that we (the Australian public) buy because their cheap and a good temp-job if we need it in a hurry. I don't know anyone here who would willingly buy a Home Brand TV. (Home Brand = Woolworths' Generic "In-Store" brand)
The NZ Woolworths also has that logo. I stumbled upon it when I visited the MasterChef New Zealand website last week!
I used to think it looked stupid when they (Woolworths of Australia) brought it in, it's a deformed W that's green. Then I went "Oh, it's meant to be an apple to represent how fresh they are". I'm not a moron but I was in a hurry that day.
This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss. (This is my point and I believe in it so much that before I hit "submit" I'm putting it at the start as well!)
I've posted about this at a few places. I'm starting to feel like a parrot who talks to deaf owners. Why? Because nobody who is in a position to do anything about it listens to me! If I had the money, I'd attempt this myself.
Did you see what happened at the one minute mark? A commercial break! A loaded-separately commercial break! Now, if YouTube is able to do that, I think they have the perfect streaming-video-on-demand service.
There could easily be multiple levels of video like this available, not just from YouTube, but from everywhere. The cheapest level is "free" - video on demand, streaming or download, with advertisements built in. Yes, I hate ads as well, but not all ads are bad. However, with the ability to locate you via your IP address, they can select appropriate advertising for your area. A sign-up option could allow a user to select advertisements they may find interesting through optional user settings.
And then for the paid options, there could be the "cheap" version, with a small amount of advertising (say an ad or two before each show) in the download or stream, then the "expensive" version with no advertising.
There needs to be no digital rights management other than no ability to skip advertisements (is that possible in a download?) - maybe offer an "upgrade" version? Get it for free with ads and if the user likes it, paying for it will strip all advertising and related DRM from the file.
The files will need full portability: it will work on a PC, a tablet, an iPod, etc, with no additional payment needed. Pirate versions already offer this, why should a legitimate paid for copy remove a vital feature?
The tricky part is a combination of making the full catalogue of existing TV shows available to go with new shows. And, of course, music rights, the stumbling block that has made "The Wonder Years" not available on DVD. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the right to use a song in a TV show or movie should automatically mean the right to include it on a DVD or in a download or stream of a show.
As we move closer to computer based television viewing, the old television systems (PAL, NTSC and SECAM) can disappear. No more PAL speedup of 24 frames per second material. No more 2:3 pulldown. And why not have the original aspect ratio as well? A TV show made in 4:3 can be viewed on a 16:9 screen with either black bars down the side or the viewer's graphics display can stratch it out however they see fit.
Of course, this will mean a new business model for the television industry. Make a show, play a show, sell it through syndication, yes (not everybody wants to cut their cable) but also be prepared to sell it to consumers via video on demand as well as on DVD, straight away. No delays. Some people don't want to wait for three months past the current season for the DVD. This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss.
Watching that video, knowing it's an anti-piracy advertisement, the message that I still got from it was that sharing music is important. Yes, indeed, music matters. I agree with that.
I'm not a fan of baseball (is boring to watch, IMO, and I'm no good at playing it either) but I found those Evil Empire logos funny. Plus, IMO, even a moron in a hurry is unlikely to think the Yankees endorsed such a thing.
Exactly - why do they call it a compilation when it is the same album coming from a new master? The songs are in the same order and everything. It wasn't called a compilation until 2001. So obviously they (or, at least, EMI) knew this was coming 10 years ago!
"....an album is a single compilation for the purposes of copyright law."
That explains why the digitally remastered CD of Bob Seger's "Stranger In Town", which was track-for-track identical to the 1978 album (and previous CD editions), said "This compilation (C)2001" ~ they've been preparing for this for years it seems!
You said ".....can you not accept that there are other business models that don't need piracy to succeed?"
I do believe that you are confusing "downloading" and "free" with "piracy". If somebody, say a musician, offers a free download of a song, the person downloading it is not a pirate. You do not need a legal degree nor a degree in mathematics to understand the difference between "free" and "piracy".
While I'm on my high horse or soap box, I would like to point out to people in general, no necesarilly just the Anonymous Coward that I am responding too, that "free" as part of a business model does not always mean everything must be free.
Take, for example, "Free Comic Book Day" held the first Saturday of every May. The publishers give away SAMPLES of their regular comic books, some containing no more than half a dozen pages from a two dozen page book, others containing a complete 22 page story. This is to attract people to try new titles, try comics full stop and even give a comic book fan a good excuse to go to their nearest comic book store. Now, you can't tell me those "free" comic books are "free" in the sense that the paper and ink costs money, plus distribution to stores. But it is a cost that comic companies bear in order to attract more customers.
Of course, there's bound to be somebody who poo-poo's the fact that I mention comic books, an industry that, big as it is, has been relatively struggling since the mid-1990's (if not longer). So let's try another example. YouTube: How many people watch videos of, say, TV shows for free on YouTube. If it is an official upload - and they DO exist - you are often given a link to where you can purchase the DVD's if you like the show. And so that is an example of "free" as part of a business model: You can watch the show for free online (bandwidth costs notwithstanding) and buy the DVD or download for more convenient viewing (often of higher quality) at a later time if you so choose to do so.
Remember, though, this does not work for everything. You can get a FREE sample of, say, food. Once those free samples are gone, you have to buy the product is you want to eat more. Or you can pay a smaller price for a "sample pack" in som cases, like a few years ago Kellogg's of Australia brought out some new cereals which they sold in 100g boxes (approx 1/4 pound) for $1 each for people to rty before they bought the big boxes at full retail price.
There are, of course, people who do want things for free and will not pay for them. They are not in your target market; they never were and never will be. Just pretend those people don't exist and the commercial world will be a lot better off. Maybe.
And just for the heck of it, I'd like to add that I do not drink Kool Aid, I have never seen any (does it come in a cup or bottle even?) and I'm pretty sure it's not available in Australia. Would green cordial suffice? =)
Aussies who rented videos in the mid 1990's will get it
HAVE YOU GOT WHAT YOU PAID FOR?
Have you ever bought a CD that wasn't quite right? It may have been mastered with excessive loudness, giving frequently inferior sound quality for which you paid good money.
Excessively loud CD's are recognisable by bearing the labels of Sony Music's ear bleeding logo, or Universal's worlwide earthquake, or even EMI making Every Mistake Imaginable.
Excessively loud CD's rob listeners and artists of their rightful sound and add to the pain you're feeling in your ears. Loud and distorted CD's are a major problem worlwide. Please help us stop them. If you buy a CD that has been dynamically compressed to the Nth degree to sound insanely loud, send it back to the label, along with a very detailed letter explaining why.
This message is brought to you by somebody who has had their ears shredded one too many times.
I had it regularly from 1999 to 2009 (minus 2005 due to expesne reasons) but got it cut off at the start of 2010. Then when they offered six months free on a one year contract, I got it again. Since getting it back in November, I have watched about 10 hours worth. I'm just riding out the contract and then it's going again.
Why? Commercials galore. Lack of shows I want to watch (plus too many repeats of shows I've seen to death or am not interested in! Not everybody loves Raymond!) I've got perfect free TV reception, a large DVD collection of TV shows, a BluRay player and a nice new 42" TV. Who needs a monthly ongoing cost for something they generally don't use? Not me!
I know that the majority of data distributed over P2P networks and via BitTorrent is unauthorized copies of files but that does not mean that is the only thing they are good for.
Take a file locker, for example. I could put a copy of the CD that I am currently ripping in one (I am currently ripping my old 1985 CD of "Scary Monsters" by David Bowie - it has not been available to buy since 1986, only different CD versions) - I would be legally entitled to upload this to a file locker as far as I know. If, however, I take the link TO those files and share that link, then I would be infringing copyright. However, if I went to visit my father (who lives some 2,000 miles north of where I live) and felt like playing that CD while I was staying there, I could download the files to his computer and play the album. I don't know if that infringes on copyright or not but I would be making use of a file locker to transport some files I legally own some 2,000 miles. And at 450-odd-megabytes (I rip to WAV not MP3) it is a little hard to email said files even to myself.
Now, whilst I was visiting my father, I could shoot a lot of video on my camera. He lives in a very nice area and I would indeed love some footage of that area. I could keep all my raw footage in a hard disk drive or I could compress it (maybe even edit it while I am there on holiday) and then upload it to a file locker so that I can download it all when I get home again. Sure, I could also burn it to a DVD or two, but the file locker is also an option.
There is two perfectly legitimate and LEGAL ways I could use a file locker. Yes, I could also share my David Bowie CD with the internet community if I wanted to. And that would be an illegal use of a file locker. But just because I can, does not mean I will.
Again, before you say it, yes I know that is what a LOT of people use them for. But that is not the only use for one.
On the post: Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo
Wikipedia to the rescue!
"On 22 August 2008, Woolworths announced it was launching a new identity for all its supermarkets.....The logo, which had been in use for 21 years, was replaced with a new brand image, designed by Hans Hulsbosch with a new green tinted icon representing the 'W' in Woolworths with the addition of a stylised leaf to suggest fresh produce. It is also reminiscent of a 1970s Woolworths logo.....In September 2009, this rebranding scheme was extended to New Zealand stores where the new Woolworths symbol is to be used alongside the Countdown brand."
I like this part: "In October 2009, it was reported that Apple Inc. had lodged an objection to Woolworths' trademark application with the Australian Government's intellectual property agency IP Australia, claiming that the logo resembles its own. The reports said that Apple was concerned that Woolworths had applied for a blanket trademark for the design, so it could be placed on any product – even on electrical goods like computers and music players. Woolworths was not selling its own brand electrical goods then, but a spokeswoman for the company said that, 'While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment'."
That's true: Woolworths sells hardly anything electrical (a couple of kitchen appliences and the occasional TV and DVD player), all of which are branded by someone else. They are usually cheap pieces of crap that we (the Australian public) buy because their cheap and a good temp-job if we need it in a hurry. I don't know anyone here who would willingly buy a Home Brand TV. (Home Brand = Woolworths' Generic "In-Store" brand)
On the post: Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo
Re: Not New Zealand
I used to think it looked stupid when they (Woolworths of Australia) brought it in, it's a deformed W that's green. Then I went "Oh, it's meant to be an apple to represent how fresh they are". I'm not a moron but I was in a hurry that day.
On the post: If TV Companies Released Authorized Torrents With Ads, Would People Download Them?
Video On Demand: My Favourite Topic
I've posted about this at a few places. I'm starting to feel like a parrot who talks to deaf owners. Why? Because nobody who is in a position to do anything about it listens to me! If I had the money, I'd attempt this myself.
Look at this video here at YouTube:
It starts with a commercial, as some videos do now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1sy_8rQksA
Did you see what happened at the one minute mark? A commercial break! A loaded-separately commercial break! Now, if YouTube is able to do that, I think they have the perfect streaming-video-on-demand service.
There could easily be multiple levels of video like this available, not just from YouTube, but from everywhere. The cheapest level is "free" - video on demand, streaming or download, with advertisements built in. Yes, I hate ads as well, but not all ads are bad. However, with the ability to locate you via your IP address, they can select appropriate advertising for your area. A sign-up option could allow a user to select advertisements they may find interesting through optional user settings.
And then for the paid options, there could be the "cheap" version, with a small amount of advertising (say an ad or two before each show) in the download or stream, then the "expensive" version with no advertising.
There needs to be no digital rights management other than no ability to skip advertisements (is that possible in a download?) - maybe offer an "upgrade" version? Get it for free with ads and if the user likes it, paying for it will strip all advertising and related DRM from the file.
The files will need full portability: it will work on a PC, a tablet, an iPod, etc, with no additional payment needed. Pirate versions already offer this, why should a legitimate paid for copy remove a vital feature?
The tricky part is a combination of making the full catalogue of existing TV shows available to go with new shows. And, of course, music rights, the stumbling block that has made "The Wonder Years" not available on DVD. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the right to use a song in a TV show or movie should automatically mean the right to include it on a DVD or in a download or stream of a show.
As we move closer to computer based television viewing, the old television systems (PAL, NTSC and SECAM) can disappear. No more PAL speedup of 24 frames per second material. No more 2:3 pulldown. And why not have the original aspect ratio as well? A TV show made in 4:3 can be viewed on a 16:9 screen with either black bars down the side or the viewer's graphics display can stratch it out however they see fit.
Of course, this will mean a new business model for the television industry. Make a show, play a show, sell it through syndication, yes (not everybody wants to cut their cable) but also be prepared to sell it to consumers via video on demand as well as on DVD, straight away. No delays. Some people don't want to wait for three months past the current season for the DVD. This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss.
On the post: Pure Awesomeness: Two Chat Bots Talking To Each Other
Re:
On the post: Pure Awesomeness: Two Chat Bots Talking To Each Other
Terminated
On the post: MP3Tunes Ruling Protects DMCA Safe Harbors
On the post: Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?
Re:
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Well Done
Which patent did I just violate with the =) emoticon?
On the post: NY Yankees: It's Insulting To Call Us The Evil Empire... But It's Also Trademark Infringement
Not A Fan But Am Amused =)
On the post: Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)
Re: Re: That Explains It
On the post: Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)
That Explains It
That explains why the digitally remastered CD of Bob Seger's "Stranger In Town", which was track-for-track identical to the 1978 album (and previous CD editions), said "This compilation (C)2001" ~ they've been preparing for this for years it seems!
On the post: Is Open Source Exploitative?
On the post: Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?
Re:
I do believe that you are confusing "downloading" and "free" with "piracy". If somebody, say a musician, offers a free download of a song, the person downloading it is not a pirate. You do not need a legal degree nor a degree in mathematics to understand the difference between "free" and "piracy".
While I'm on my high horse or soap box, I would like to point out to people in general, no necesarilly just the Anonymous Coward that I am responding too, that "free" as part of a business model does not always mean everything must be free.
Take, for example, "Free Comic Book Day" held the first Saturday of every May. The publishers give away SAMPLES of their regular comic books, some containing no more than half a dozen pages from a two dozen page book, others containing a complete 22 page story. This is to attract people to try new titles, try comics full stop and even give a comic book fan a good excuse to go to their nearest comic book store. Now, you can't tell me those "free" comic books are "free" in the sense that the paper and ink costs money, plus distribution to stores. But it is a cost that comic companies bear in order to attract more customers.
Of course, there's bound to be somebody who poo-poo's the fact that I mention comic books, an industry that, big as it is, has been relatively struggling since the mid-1990's (if not longer). So let's try another example. YouTube: How many people watch videos of, say, TV shows for free on YouTube. If it is an official upload - and they DO exist - you are often given a link to where you can purchase the DVD's if you like the show. And so that is an example of "free" as part of a business model: You can watch the show for free online (bandwidth costs notwithstanding) and buy the DVD or download for more convenient viewing (often of higher quality) at a later time if you so choose to do so.
Remember, though, this does not work for everything. You can get a FREE sample of, say, food. Once those free samples are gone, you have to buy the product is you want to eat more. Or you can pay a smaller price for a "sample pack" in som cases, like a few years ago Kellogg's of Australia brought out some new cereals which they sold in 100g boxes (approx 1/4 pound) for $1 each for people to rty before they bought the big boxes at full retail price.
There are, of course, people who do want things for free and will not pay for them. They are not in your target market; they never were and never will be. Just pretend those people don't exist and the commercial world will be a lot better off. Maybe.
And just for the heck of it, I'd like to add that I do not drink Kool Aid, I have never seen any (does it come in a cup or bottle even?) and I'm pretty sure it's not available in Australia. Would green cordial suffice? =)
On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers
Aussies who rented videos in the mid 1990's will get it
Have you ever bought a CD that wasn't quite right? It may have been mastered with excessive loudness, giving frequently inferior sound quality for which you paid good money.
Excessively loud CD's are recognisable by bearing the labels of Sony Music's ear bleeding logo, or Universal's worlwide earthquake, or even EMI making Every Mistake Imaginable.
Excessively loud CD's rob listeners and artists of their rightful sound and add to the pain you're feeling in your ears. Loud and distorted CD's are a major problem worlwide. Please help us stop them. If you buy a CD that has been dynamically compressed to the Nth degree to sound insanely loud, send it back to the label, along with a very detailed letter explaining why.
This message is brought to you by somebody who has had their ears shredded one too many times.
To get the joke, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FNqBZ9n-A8
If you fast-forward it, though, you'll still get a message =)
On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers
Re: kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra
On the post: Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy
Same Old
Why? Commercials galore. Lack of shows I want to watch (plus too many repeats of shows I've seen to death or am not interested in! Not everybody loves Raymond!) I've got perfect free TV reception, a large DVD collection of TV shows, a BluRay player and a nice new 42" TV. Who needs a monthly ongoing cost for something they generally don't use? Not me!
On the post: Amazon Routes Around Apple With HTML 5 Kindle App
Re: XKCD
On the post: CoC's 'Victims Of Internet Piracy' Look More Like 'Victims Of Propagandist Exploitation'
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: CommonSense's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a file locker, for example. I could put a copy of the CD that I am currently ripping in one (I am currently ripping my old 1985 CD of "Scary Monsters" by David Bowie - it has not been available to buy since 1986, only different CD versions) - I would be legally entitled to upload this to a file locker as far as I know. If, however, I take the link TO those files and share that link, then I would be infringing copyright. However, if I went to visit my father (who lives some 2,000 miles north of where I live) and felt like playing that CD while I was staying there, I could download the files to his computer and play the album. I don't know if that infringes on copyright or not but I would be making use of a file locker to transport some files I legally own some 2,000 miles. And at 450-odd-megabytes (I rip to WAV not MP3) it is a little hard to email said files even to myself.
Now, whilst I was visiting my father, I could shoot a lot of video on my camera. He lives in a very nice area and I would indeed love some footage of that area. I could keep all my raw footage in a hard disk drive or I could compress it (maybe even edit it while I am there on holiday) and then upload it to a file locker so that I can download it all when I get home again. Sure, I could also burn it to a DVD or two, but the file locker is also an option.
There is two perfectly legitimate and LEGAL ways I could use a file locker. Yes, I could also share my David Bowie CD with the internet community if I wanted to. And that would be an illegal use of a file locker. But just because I can, does not mean I will.
Again, before you say it, yes I know that is what a LOT of people use them for. But that is not the only use for one.
Next >>