>>Everyone knows there is zero practical reprecussions for filing false takedowns on material you dont own.
Well, big media companies seem to be immune. Never underestimate the power of the US legal system to throw the book at someone for doing the same thing that big companies do with total impunity.
I think the more important question is whether there was any data on the ratio of infringing/non-infringing material BEFORE the takedown happened. The only thing that seemed to matter in the case is the MPAA/RIAA saying that the site was predominantly infringing, and the DOJ pulled the plug without any consideration of broader public issues.
As noted elsewhere, it is hard to distinguish between infringing and non-infringing, but it should have at least been possible to get a rough estimate of the amount of clearly non-infringing material and how many legitimate users would have been taken down as collateral damage. I doubt that there was even an effort made to get an accurate measurement by the Justice Department. Most likely they just got marching orders from their MPAA Overloards.
I would hope that this case makes it very clear that there is collateral damage to legal and legitimate users on these takedowns. In some cases a lot of collateral damage. It would be interesting if the judge in this case issued an injunction against the Justice Department forbidding more takedowns until the amount of non-infringing use can be evaluated by someone outside of the MPAA/DOJ cabal.
>>It would also put an end to their revenue stream. DUH!
Not necessarily. Just to cite one example, sometimes the best selling works on iTunes are legally available for free from other sources. People will pay reasonable prices for convenience and work that is guaranteed to be malware free. So you can still have a revenue stream on "CCO" works if revenue streams is all you care about. There are also the other avenues for revenue that EZ Knight referenced.
What the CCO does for you is to free the producer of the direct costs of DRM and the indirect costs of DRM such as tech support, angry customers, and a product with restricted utility and value. CCO also does a better job of getting your artistic work out there in the public which lets you capitalize on other potential revenue streams.
I think it is likely that cracking down on piracy actually hurts music and movie sales. Fans are less engaged and less likely to explore new music. Then on top of it there is an increased sense of unease in having music on your computer at all because of fear of being charged with piracy. And of course fans who have received penalties or threats of penalties are probably no longer fans.
Piracy has mainly been an excuse for poor performance by RIAA and MPAA companies. It has never really been the problem, but it was something that they could appear to be doing something about. What those organizations may not have realized is that in many ways piracy was actually good for their businesses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't we just get the dot-Music top level domain already?
>>Nobody who pirates music and movies is poor! Everyone knows that pirates are making millions of dollars off of piracy.
Obviously you are wrong. The simple proof is that if pirates were rich they would own enough congressmen that SOPA have had a bunch of loopholes and tax incentives for piracy. That is the true test of wealth in America!
I'll se your /s and raise you a /ds (double sarcasm)
In the paragraph following the OOPS! you mention several things that might lead to copyright infringement, such as using the image in a mock-up or an executive attaching it to an email. I think it is important to note that by the definitions that the maximalists want there is no fair use. So by the definitions that the maximalists would like to apply the copyright infraction already have occurred in the mockups and email attachments.
It all comes down to the simple mindedness of believing that everything is a zero-sum game. They think that if Pinterest is making money, they must be loosing money somehow. The idea that Pinterest might make money and make the rights holders more money at the same time is a concept that eludes small minds.
So you find photographers adding tags to their work to block Pinterest when they should be putting their efforts into Pinterest SEO. Apparently they have bought into the idea that obscurity is the best thing that can happen to an artist.
I should note that there may have been other reasons Nestle bought the company, but it certainly looked suspicious. Whatever the circumstances, Breyer and his family deserve some kudos for doing the right thing.
An interesting twist in this case may have been an attempt to get Breyer disqualified from hearing the case. Breyer's wife held Nestle stock, and just before oral arguments were heard Nestle bought the company that is involved in the lawsuit. This would have meant that Breyer, a usually sane person on copyright issues, would have had to disqualify himself. Instead his wife sold the Nestle stock on the morning of oral arguments.
There is effectively no penalty for false takedowns. If in doubt, or if it would take any effort to check the facts, then it is easier to just issue the takedown. An entire cottage industry has grown up with businesses created for the sole purpose of issuing takedowns for IP holders. These companies get paid and impress their masters by issuing takedowns in bulk; there is no incentive to avoid bad takedowns.
Rights holders should recognize that the takedowns are not helping their cause. Takedowns do not produce a penny of revenue. They only look good in internal performance reports. Rights holders could make the problem of DCMA abuse go away if they only issued notices for major infringement, such as posting a full copy of the movie. Stockholders would be better served if most of the cases of "infringement" were treated as marketing opportunities rather than kills on monthly reports.
Ridiculous and bogus takedowns are only fueling the demand to apply penalties to false DCMA, copyright, and trademark claims. The IP rights holders could derail that whole movement by just making responsible DCMA claims.
There are four different patents on using a laser pointer to tease a cat. There is also one for using a flashlight to tease a cat, but apparently that didn't count as prior art.
If using a laser pointer to tease a cat is non-obvious, then why should we be surprised when anything else is found non-obvious?
There is one huge fail that makes the $3.99 unreasonable for some people. The app is only guaranteed to work on specific models, mostly Samsung. If you get the Android version you end up with no guarantee that it will work, and there is no refund. I know of one person that has a designated model, and it didn't work for him. Also out of luck.
Normally you have a 15-minute refund opportunity in the Google market (or Play, as it is now called). However, this is an in-app purchase, so the refund opportunity does not apply. Clever of the NCAA to set it up that way and guarantee themselves $3.99 worth of angry fan.
I doubt that anyone at the MPAA/RIAA will learn anything from this because they have invested way too much in not understanding.
It is possible that the value will come from educating people outside the RIAA/MPAA. I have already had a discussion about the project with someone who is strongly pro-IP. It did serve as a useful example of how a physical item and an copy of the physical item are different. The discussion started with him maintaining that the digital copy isn't really a copy because it isn't physical like the dollar bill. But that opened the door to me asking how a file of music was a physical object any more than the file containing the picture of the dollar bill is a physical object. I asked how having an .mp3 file extension makes it any more physical than a .jpg extension. He has finally come around (for the first time) to admitting there is a difference between a physical good and a digital good. One small victory at a time!
Laptops did not create the problem of students not paying attention during class, they just replaced doodling.
I am a professor at a teaching university. I teach computer science courses, so my students usually do have laptops, and I often have classes in computer labs where every student has a computer in front of them.
My own experience mostly corresponds to the findings in the study. I think the issue is more complex than just on-task/off-task suggests. Lots of modern students can multitask better than we could at their age. It is possible for students to have their eyes on their computers and their ears in the lecture. They can switch their full attention back to the lecture when they sense something significant is going on.
The real problem comes when they get too engrossed in what is on the screen and lose track of class. I can often tell when that has happened, and I use some of the same techniques the study highlights. I often ask students to write something down or look at something in the book. It is pretty easy to tell which students are too distracted to do that. In my experience, students too distracted to look away from their computers on a frequent basis fail tests and fail to turn in homework, almost without exception.
In reading the study I realize that I have already adopted many of the tactics the study observed. The "something new every 4 minutes" is one of the teaching techniques I used long before we had laptops.
While I think the author's observations are correct for most students, there are exceptions on an individual student basis. I have recommended that certain students not take their laptops to classes. That has more often than not had positive results for those students.
It sounded like polite applause to me, so calling it a demonstration was an overreaction to something that wasn't really a problem. But I guess that is appropriate because ACTA itself is an overreaction to something that isn't really a problem.
>>Always nice to see artists and bands keeping up to date with society and progress.
Musicians that I know are the ones most adept at getting music from lockers, torrents, direct sharing, and other methods.
It's not too surprising, really. Most musicians near the leading edge are very keen on hearing what other musicians are doing. After all, everything really is a remix. A lot of stuff they are likely to be listening to is freely (and often legally) shared.
On the post: Bohemian Rhapsody Video Taken Down Again, This Time By The Drunk Guy Himself
Re: Copyfraud?
Well, big media companies seem to be immune. Never underestimate the power of the US legal system to throw the book at someone for doing the same thing that big companies do with total impunity.
On the post: Megaupload User Asks Court To Return The Legitimate Files He Uploaded To Megaupload
Re: Re:
As noted elsewhere, it is hard to distinguish between infringing and non-infringing, but it should have at least been possible to get a rough estimate of the amount of clearly non-infringing material and how many legitimate users would have been taken down as collateral damage. I doubt that there was even an effort made to get an accurate measurement by the Justice Department. Most likely they just got marching orders from their MPAA Overloards.
I would hope that this case makes it very clear that there is collateral damage to legal and legitimate users on these takedowns. In some cases a lot of collateral damage. It would be interesting if the judge in this case issued an injunction against the Justice Department forbidding more takedowns until the amount of non-infringing use can be evaluated by someone outside of the MPAA/DOJ cabal.
On the post: Court Says BitTorrent Users Connected To The Same Swarm Are Not Involved In Any 'Conspiracy'
Re:
Hmmm.
It seems the judge disagrees with you.
On the post: Plankhead Discovers The Most Effective Anti-Piracy Technique: Public Domain Dedications
Re: Re: Irony
Not necessarily. Just to cite one example, sometimes the best selling works on iTunes are legally available for free from other sources. People will pay reasonable prices for convenience and work that is guaranteed to be malware free. So you can still have a revenue stream on "CCO" works if revenue streams is all you care about. There are also the other avenues for revenue that EZ Knight referenced.
What the CCO does for you is to free the producer of the direct costs of DRM and the indirect costs of DRM such as tech support, angry customers, and a product with restricted utility and value. CCO also does a better job of getting your artistic work out there in the public which lets you capitalize on other potential revenue streams.
On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?
Piracy has mainly been an excuse for poor performance by RIAA and MPAA companies. It has never really been the problem, but it was something that they could appear to be doing something about. What those organizations may not have realized is that in many ways piracy was actually good for their businesses.
On the post: How The RIAA & MPAA Are Like The Anti-Innovation German Weavers' Guild Of The 16th Century
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't we just get the dot-Music top level domain already?
Obviously you are wrong. The simple proof is that if pirates were rich they would own enough congressmen that SOPA have had a bunch of loopholes and tax incentives for piracy. That is the true test of wealth in America!
I'll se your /s and raise you a /ds (double sarcasm)
On the post: NBC Universal Caught Using Infringing Graphic From Apple, Probably Won't Learn Anything
On the post: Pinterest Updates Terms Of Service... And People Are Still Overreacting
Re:
On the post: Pinterest Updates Terms Of Service... And People Are Still Overreacting
So you find photographers adding tags to their work to block Pinterest when they should be putting their efforts into Pinterest SEO. Apparently they have bought into the idea that obscurity is the best thing that can happen to an artist.
On the post: Huge Ruling: Court Rejects Medical Diagnostic Patent
Re:
On the post: Huge Ruling: Court Rejects Medical Diagnostic Patent
On the post: Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day
Rights holders should recognize that the takedowns are not helping their cause. Takedowns do not produce a penny of revenue. They only look good in internal performance reports. Rights holders could make the problem of DCMA abuse go away if they only issued notices for major infringement, such as posting a full copy of the movie. Stockholders would be better served if most of the cases of "infringement" were treated as marketing opportunities rather than kills on monthly reports.
Ridiculous and bogus takedowns are only fueling the demand to apply penalties to false DCMA, copyright, and trademark claims. The IP rights holders could derail that whole movement by just making responsible DCMA claims.
On the post: :-( Samsung, Research In Motion Sued For Making It Easy To Use Emoticons
If using a laser pointer to tease a cat is non-obvious, then why should we be surprised when anything else is found non-obvious?
On the post: NCAA Goes Backwards On Streaming The Basketball Tournament
Re: Not a massive fail
Normally you have a 15-minute refund opportunity in the Google market (or Play, as it is now called). However, this is an in-app purchase, so the refund opportunity does not apply. Clever of the NCAA to set it up that way and guarantee themselves $3.99 worth of angry fan.
On the post: Since The RIAA & MPAA Say That A Copy Is Just As Valuable As The Original, Send Them A Copy Of Money
It is possible that the value will come from educating people outside the RIAA/MPAA. I have already had a discussion about the project with someone who is strongly pro-IP. It did serve as a useful example of how a physical item and an copy of the physical item are different. The discussion started with him maintaining that the digital copy isn't really a copy because it isn't physical like the dollar bill. But that opened the door to me asking how a file of music was a physical object any more than the file containing the picture of the dollar bill is a physical object. I asked how having an .mp3 file extension makes it any more physical than a .jpg extension. He has finally come around (for the first time) to admitting there is a difference between a physical good and a digital good. One small victory at a time!
On the post: The Gutenberg eBook: Once Again, The Bible Is At The Forefront Of Publishing Technology
On the post: Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction
I am a professor at a teaching university. I teach computer science courses, so my students usually do have laptops, and I often have classes in computer labs where every student has a computer in front of them.
My own experience mostly corresponds to the findings in the study. I think the issue is more complex than just on-task/off-task suggests. Lots of modern students can multitask better than we could at their age. It is possible for students to have their eyes on their computers and their ears in the lecture. They can switch their full attention back to the lecture when they sense something significant is going on.
The real problem comes when they get too engrossed in what is on the screen and lose track of class. I can often tell when that has happened, and I use some of the same techniques the study highlights. I often ask students to write something down or look at something in the book. It is pretty easy to tell which students are too distracted to do that. In my experience, students too distracted to look away from their computers on a frequent basis fail tests and fail to turn in homework, almost without exception.
In reading the study I realize that I have already adopted many of the tactics the study observed. The "something new every 4 minutes" is one of the teaching techniques I used long before we had laptops.
While I think the author's observations are correct for most students, there are exceptions on an individual student basis. I have recommended that certain students not take their laptops to classes. That has more often than not had positive results for those students.
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Brother Ads
Does this mean that teenage boys will only see ads involving breasts?
On the post: Workshop Audience Barred From 'Demonstrating' Approval Of Michael Geist's ACTA Takedown
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Musicians that I know are the ones most adept at getting music from lockers, torrents, direct sharing, and other methods.
It's not too surprising, really. Most musicians near the leading edge are very keen on hearing what other musicians are doing. After all, everything really is a remix. A lot of stuff they are likely to be listening to is freely (and often legally) shared.
Next >>