While the gist of the article rings true, that people just don't feel they are breaking the law when they infringe on copyright, I think it misses an important point.
Copyright law and the ridiculous statutory damages were created to protect a business model. Basically copyright law was something that only companies had to deal with, so the public didn't really care about it. Now that we have companies waging legal wars on consumers, the public, has taken offense at the idea of being sued by companies they have long supported.
Corporations want control of the internet now and they just can't have it and that is bringing things to the boiling point.
The MPAA doesn't create anything. They simply receive money to further the profit of the movie industry. When your sole purpose is to lobby for the protection of an antiquated business model, you will do whatever you can to accomplish your goal, regardless of what the public thinks.
The problem Chris Dodd faces is that the distribution network and the communication platform are the same (the interwebs), effectively making it almost impossible to pass any enforcement legislation that would not trample the 1st and 4th Amendments. No matter how much money is thrown at the problem (lobbying); if legislation were to pass, it would eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.
"Although several commentators have already declared ACTA to be dead, I still see a lot of lobby efforts trying to get approval."
When politicians openly admit to noticing blatant bribery of their colleagues, it just amazes me. Of course the counter to that is, but...but... it's not bribery, it's lobbying. The reality is that lobbying is A LOT closer to bribery in definition and action than infringing is to stealing.
It would be nice if politicians would be as aggressive in an effort to eliminate lobbying.
"I can't wait to get my Pebble in September. At least I hope I get it...
This is the risk of investing in Kickstarter. If the project falls apart, you lose out, just like any investment in a startup. But if the Pebble takes off and becomes the next Apple II, all I get is the watch I donated towards. I guess some day I could sell the watch as a piece of history ("One of only 85,000!"), but I wish they had an option to buy actual stock in the company."
That comment was so beautiful that I had to repost it for any who missed. This is the actual argument AGAINST Kickstarter. It's not about the risk of losing cash, its the lack of control. It's the same argument that the web diverts cash directly to the creators. I'm guessing the full argument is: Creators deserve to get paid for their work, but ONLY when others get to latch on to their success.
Yes Kickstarter makes VCs work harder.
One last point that really made me laugh. "...all I get is the watch I donated toward." So can we assume that when you see a blockbuster movie that you are pissed off that you didn't get to invest in the making of the movie, since all you get is the experience of watching it?
Ok I just have to ask. Why is it that we hear so much from these trade groups and so little from the people that they "represent"?
Usually when you are at a protest for/against something and there is a leader speaking about the problem, you will find a bunch of followers cheering and offering support. So where are the musicians and actors (the actual content creators) in all of this? Why haven't they voiced their unwavering support? Where are the software developers and authors?
Why do we keep hearing from the gatekeepers, the people who stand to lose the most? I guess that answered itself.
I really don't care what HBO's business model is, but I'll give them some FREE advice. Stream the damn show from hbo.com for free. If 25 million eyes pirated it, then you should be able to capture at least 12.5 million of those eyes and THAT should be worth something to advertisers.
"but..but... that would cannibalize our revenue stream."
Well you say that cord cutters are some mythical species, so streaming it from your site shouldn't affect your core audience at all. To be fair, I seriously doubt the bulk of your current subscribers would cut the cord anyway. That's a generational trend that you will have to deal with in the next 10 years or so.
In the meantime, you can either a) complain about lost revenue that never existed, or b) make a new revenue stream and enjoy the profit.
We will understand if you choose to whine about loss while we enjoy the programming. Good luck.
"What is relevant here is whether or not the Nest product infringes one or more of the patents being asserted by Honeywell. If it does, all the "coolness" in the world is of no moment."
Comments like that are so insanely stupid they deserve a "moron award". If you looked into this story and the interview with Honeywell where Honeywell clearly states that they looked into the market and found that consumers do not want a learning thermostat and they scrapped the idea 20 years ago, then you wouldn't make comments like that.
Why do patents exist? So that people can bring things to market. If you get a patent and then decide that you don't want to bring something to market then you don't deserve the patent.
For all the shills out there. If you are holding onto a patent and waiting for someone else to get rich so you can swoop in and sue them after they did all the WORK bringing the product to market, then you are in essence the INFRINGER.
I'm actually hoping that Tuf America wins and hits Capitol Records with the statutory fine of $750 - $30,000 per infringement.
Maybe if Capitol Records has to pay $100 million + for the total amount of records they sold that were infringing, they would begin to understand the insanity of copyright law. They've OBVIOUSLY cost Tuf America at least $100 million in lost sales.
Of course the Author's Guild wants a class action suit with minimum statutory damages. Just the thought of that probably made their lawyers salivate and jizz their pants.
Do the math. $750 x 1,000,000 ( Surely they will narrow the field of harm to roughly one million authors ).
So if they win they get at least $750 million, then 30% for the lawyers and the rest goes to the AG to decide in their wisdom how to split the rest of the pie. Most likely 50% to the "harmed" authors and the rest to cover "administrative costs". Nice haul.
All I could do was laugh as I read the article. We are talking about a region of the world where you can be incarcerated for tweeting an insult about the royal family of another country or about the a religious minority.
Of course they need to regulate social networks. You can't repress your people properly if they are allowed to communicate freely with no fear of punishment.
LOL That's the type of society they want to safeguard, scared sheeple. Good luck with that.
It looks like the comments on this one just went in all different directions.
One moron has his knickers in a bunch about 80 year old record execs. It was stated that that was hyperbole in a quote. The argument was basically "but..but.. that's not a fact." Ok, no it's not a fact, but the fact is that there are a lot of older record execs out there that do not understand technology or do not want to accept that it has changed the marketplace. Hope that clears it up.
Next up is the debate about new business models and piracy as a social behavior, which is essentially the same argument. Many of us are just stating the same thing in different ways. The facts are that file sharing music is down, digital sales are up, CD sales are relatively dismal, and social behavior is consistent.
The major labels still control the broadcast mediums for now and that is a HUGE advantage to them which they should continue to leverage and they even have a strong foothold on the web with VEVO (whether we like it or not). New tech is giving indies new opportunities, but it's still tough and that's just the market and it will shift toward the best perceived service/product. So the indies can stop whining about radio play and exposure and the majors can stop whining about everything else since they still have the most control of exposure.
Next up is the insane debate about losses. Does piracy cause losses? Yes, absolutely. Are those losses as horrific as the industry believes? In some aspects, yes. The CD market has been decimated, but is that due to piracy, no. The format of choice changed from CDs to mp3s and the industry spent far too long trying to hold on to physical sales instead of shifting with the tech. From the industry side, the expectation was that the consumer would continue to buy the CDs and convert them to mp3s. In other words, they simply had no experience with the nascent digital marketplace and just kinda hoped it would work like the old analog market. Bad bet.
The elephant in the room is the convergence of the communications platform with the distribution network. Copyright law may be draconian, but no one really complained much before, because it was designed to work with physical copies, since that was all we had when the laws we initially written. So now we have a set of laws that is being used by companies to attack the technological evolution of the marketplace. Sorry, but there is no middle ground that will be acceptable to those who want their monopoly to be protected.
The content industry really needs to learn it's place. You are not owed our money. How do you recoup your losses? Guess what? We don't care because we are not running your buisness, that's your issue. Instead of asking the government for more laws, ask for a bailout.
If the major record labels and movie studios and publishing houses all ceased to exist tomorrow, musicians would keep making music, movies would keep being made, and authors would keep writing books and CUSTOMERS would keep BUYING what they like, oh and piracy would keep happening. So the loss of culture argument is false. As for the money, it would be redistributed in a crazy way, since there would be no gatekeeper to skim off the gross, but still no loss the the economy. No loss to the economy???? How dare I say that??? We are talking about entertainment!!!! That money is DISPOSABLE income, it's money that isn't being saved and is circulating in the economy. If it's not spent on entertainment it goes somewhere else in the economy and other businesses thrive and hire.
"In these and countless other examples throughout our history, the ability to give birth to an idea and convert it into economic success, whether it is the content of a film or the technology of the internet, depends on copyright and patent protection."
Without those strong copyright and patent protections, innovators would not be forced to work so hard and so fast to build economically successful things that grow strong enough fast enough to resist the legal forces that seek to crush them.
On the post: Wyden To Obama: Hollywood Shouldn't Know More About TPP Than Congress
Don't forget...
Makes you think...
On the post: Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
Maybe they should think before they speak
As for the rest, why not let the parents decide what their children need protection from?
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Criticism
Copyright law and the ridiculous statutory damages were created to protect a business model. Basically copyright law was something that only companies had to deal with, so the public didn't really care about it. Now that we have companies waging legal wars on consumers, the public, has taken offense at the idea of being sued by companies they have long supported.
Corporations want control of the internet now and they just can't have it and that is bringing things to the boiling point.
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Wow
"You don't get to personally CHOOSE which laws you obey and which you don't. You get to vote at elections and have your say then."
Ummm yeah you do get to choose which laws you obey and which you don't. Breaking any law is an example of that choice.
I think he meant to say that you we do not get to personally choose what is legal and what is not, but had some trouble expressing himself.
On the post: Chris Dodd Says MPAA Is On The Wrong Track; We Agree
LOL
The problem Chris Dodd faces is that the distribution network and the communication platform are the same (the interwebs), effectively making it almost impossible to pass any enforcement legislation that would not trample the 1st and 4th Amendments. No matter how much money is thrown at the problem (lobbying); if legislation were to pass, it would eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.
On the post: Former Record Label Exec Ethan Kaplan: Duh, Of Course More File Sharing Leads To More Sales
Re: I don't get it
How exactly do his character flaws affect his smart ideas?
Or are you saying that his smart ideas are why he left the label?
On the post: European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Lobbying
"Although several commentators have already declared ACTA to be dead, I still see a lot of lobby efforts trying to get approval."
When politicians openly admit to noticing blatant bribery of their colleagues, it just amazes me. Of course the counter to that is, but...but... it's not bribery, it's lobbying. The reality is that lobbying is A LOT closer to bribery in definition and action than infringing is to stealing.
It would be nice if politicians would be as aggressive in an effort to eliminate lobbying.
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re: Thank you for saying it
Giving lots of money to the people who love to sue you isn't the smartest business model.
On the post: US Government Gets 10% Royalty On 'Passion Of The Christ' Prequel In Plea Deal With Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Best story ever!!!
On the post: Biggest Kickstarter Project Ever Surpasses $10 Million; Cuts Off Funding
Re: Glad it was finally voiced
This is the risk of investing in Kickstarter. If the project falls apart, you lose out, just like any investment in a startup. But if the Pebble takes off and becomes the next Apple II, all I get is the watch I donated towards. I guess some day I could sell the watch as a piece of history ("One of only 85,000!"), but I wish they had an option to buy actual stock in the company."
That comment was so beautiful that I had to repost it for any who missed. This is the actual argument AGAINST Kickstarter. It's not about the risk of losing cash, its the lack of control. It's the same argument that the web diverts cash directly to the creators. I'm guessing the full argument is: Creators deserve to get paid for their work, but ONLY when others get to latch on to their success.
Yes Kickstarter makes VCs work harder.
One last point that really made me laugh. "...all I get is the watch I donated toward." So can we assume that when you see a blockbuster movie that you are pissed off that you didn't get to invest in the making of the movie, since all you get is the experience of watching it?
On the post: SOPA Supporters Urge White House To Use Secretive TPP Process To Insert Draconian New IP Laws
Why?
Usually when you are at a protest for/against something and there is a leader speaking about the problem, you will find a bunch of followers cheering and offering support. So where are the musicians and actors (the actual content creators) in all of this? Why haven't they voiced their unwavering support? Where are the software developers and authors?
Why do we keep hearing from the gatekeepers, the people who stand to lose the most? I guess that answered itself.
On the post: Game Of Thrones On Track To Be Most Pirated Show Of 2012; Pirates Still Asking HBO For Legitimate Options
FU HBO
"but..but... that would cannibalize our revenue stream."
Well you say that cord cutters are some mythical species, so streaming it from your site shouldn't affect your core audience at all. To be fair, I seriously doubt the bulk of your current subscribers would cut the cord anyway. That's a generational trend that you will have to deal with in the next 10 years or so.
In the meantime, you can either a) complain about lost revenue that never existed, or b) make a new revenue stream and enjoy the profit.
We will understand if you choose to whine about loss while we enjoy the programming. Good luck.
On the post: Chappelle Show Creator Gives Grieving MCA Fans A Treat, Viacom Gives Them The Finger
Re: Thank you
On the post: Honeywell's Lawsuit Against Nest: The Perfect Example Of Legacy Players Using Patents To Stifle Innovation
Re: WTF???
Comments like that are so insanely stupid they deserve a "moron award". If you looked into this story and the interview with Honeywell where Honeywell clearly states that they looked into the market and found that consumers do not want a learning thermostat and they scrapped the idea 20 years ago, then you wouldn't make comments like that.
Why do patents exist? So that people can bring things to market. If you get a patent and then decide that you don't want to bring something to market then you don't deserve the patent.
For all the shills out there. If you are holding onto a patent and waiting for someone else to get rich so you can swoop in and sue them after they did all the WORK bringing the product to market, then you are in essence the INFRINGER.
On the post: Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums
I hope they win
Maybe if Capitol Records has to pay $100 million + for the total amount of records they sold that were infringing, they would begin to understand the insanity of copyright law. They've OBVIOUSLY cost Tuf America at least $100 million in lost sales.
Who are Tuf America????
On the post: Ebook Sales Of Harry Potter Lead To Increased Physical Sales As Well
economics at work
On the post: Google Points Out That What The Authors Guild Wants And What Authors Want Are Two Very Different Things
LOL
Do the math. $750 x 1,000,000 ( Surely they will narrow the field of harm to roughly one million authors ).
So if they win they get at least $750 million, then 30% for the lawyers and the rest goes to the AG to decide in their wisdom how to split the rest of the pie. Most likely 50% to the "harmed" authors and the rest to cover "administrative costs". Nice haul.
On the post: Kuwait Says Social Networks Must Be Regulated To 'Safeguard The Cohesiveness Of Society'
Seriously????
Of course they need to regulate social networks. You can't repress your people properly if they are allowed to communicate freely with no fear of punishment.
LOL That's the type of society they want to safeguard, scared sheeple. Good luck with that.
On the post: Swizz Beatz: Technology Brings Freedom To Musicians; Those Not Embracing It Are Greedy
Comment madness
One moron has his knickers in a bunch about 80 year old record execs. It was stated that that was hyperbole in a quote. The argument was basically "but..but.. that's not a fact." Ok, no it's not a fact, but the fact is that there are a lot of older record execs out there that do not understand technology or do not want to accept that it has changed the marketplace. Hope that clears it up.
Next up is the debate about new business models and piracy as a social behavior, which is essentially the same argument. Many of us are just stating the same thing in different ways. The facts are that file sharing music is down, digital sales are up, CD sales are relatively dismal, and social behavior is consistent.
The major labels still control the broadcast mediums for now and that is a HUGE advantage to them which they should continue to leverage and they even have a strong foothold on the web with VEVO (whether we like it or not). New tech is giving indies new opportunities, but it's still tough and that's just the market and it will shift toward the best perceived service/product. So the indies can stop whining about radio play and exposure and the majors can stop whining about everything else since they still have the most control of exposure.
Next up is the insane debate about losses. Does piracy cause losses? Yes, absolutely. Are those losses as horrific as the industry believes? In some aspects, yes. The CD market has been decimated, but is that due to piracy, no. The format of choice changed from CDs to mp3s and the industry spent far too long trying to hold on to physical sales instead of shifting with the tech. From the industry side, the expectation was that the consumer would continue to buy the CDs and convert them to mp3s. In other words, they simply had no experience with the nascent digital marketplace and just kinda hoped it would work like the old analog market. Bad bet.
The elephant in the room is the convergence of the communications platform with the distribution network. Copyright law may be draconian, but no one really complained much before, because it was designed to work with physical copies, since that was all we had when the laws we initially written. So now we have a set of laws that is being used by companies to attack the technological evolution of the marketplace. Sorry, but there is no middle ground that will be acceptable to those who want their monopoly to be protected.
The content industry really needs to learn it's place. You are not owed our money. How do you recoup your losses? Guess what? We don't care because we are not running your buisness, that's your issue. Instead of asking the government for more laws, ask for a bailout.
If the major record labels and movie studios and publishing houses all ceased to exist tomorrow, musicians would keep making music, movies would keep being made, and authors would keep writing books and CUSTOMERS would keep BUYING what they like, oh and piracy would keep happening. So the loss of culture argument is false. As for the money, it would be redistributed in a crazy way, since there would be no gatekeeper to skim off the gross, but still no loss the the economy. No loss to the economy???? How dare I say that??? We are talking about entertainment!!!! That money is DISPOSABLE income, it's money that isn't being saved and is circulating in the economy. If it's not spent on entertainment it goes somewhere else in the economy and other businesses thrive and hire.
Troll that!
On the post: Chris Dodd Rewrites Hollywood's History To Pretend That It Came About Because Of IP Laws
Technically he''s right
Without those strong copyright and patent protections, innovators would not be forced to work so hard and so fast to build economically successful things that grow strong enough fast enough to resist the legal forces that seek to crush them.
Next >>