Valve - the makers of TF2 - have been doing similar but not quite the smae things.
The game had a hat system added to it a little while ago. These hats are gained semi-randomly based on play time, or through the crafting system. They've been doing special events where hats are only available for a certain period, and recently have attathed hats to pre-orders of other games through Valves Steam service.
When something costs nothing, it's difficult to consider people who get it for nothing free riding. More like the people who want to make cost more than nothing are free riding.
2. There are other entities, including the defendant in this action, which instead base their business model substantially on the early and systemic taking of proprietary content published by media organizations like Dow Jones. Whiles those companies might derive some content from their own legitimate news-gathering operations, they also unfairly ride for free on the backs of others. By instantaneously cutting and pasting into their own products the reports of news events uncovered and verified by other news outlets at significant investment and expense, they offer a pirated product at cheaper cost.
3. To combat this unauthorized free-riding, and to preserve the strength and viability of its intellectual property and newsgathering efforts, Dow Jones is seeking relief through copyright, contract and hot news misappropriation claims. The misappropriation of news and other content not only devalues news products, it also threatens the very economic structure upon which journalistic enterprises such as Dow Jones are built and on which its customers depend.
TAM?
So many things wrong with this opening statement alone. No one told them the interwebs is an inherently free rider tolerant system.
No they're not, because it's unforeseeable what works will still be selling many, many years from now. You're confusing a guesstimate with genuienly accurate and precise fortune telling.
The short term value estimate will inherently outweight any kind of idea or insight into the long term.
it makes sense that extending the duration increases the potential monetary reward and therefore the incentive
Increases the incentice for their first succesful work, not necessarily their most beneficial and impactful to society.
To weight the system in such a way effectively assumes that an artists first major succesful work is indeed their most beneficial to society, with little incentive need afterwards to create more. Limited lifetime of copyright better ensures a consistent incentive to create and lead to a high success rate of outputting beneficial works.
I think by DoJ you mean FBI, and by undefined term, you mean has gone on raids to try and stop piracy, effectively on the behalf of the entertainment industry as it's them that have been pushing for those kind of raids and crackdowns in the first place.
I find it odd that iPad is advertised showing the web version of the site, not a native app the NY Times and co. so gladly hope will save their business.
Mike, you need to update the link for the RIAA music notes blog post in the older article you linked, it now leaves you at a "This post has temprarily been removed" page.
Though maybe they simply got the "rights" on the cheap simply because they were crap films. I know with Rifftrax they don't sell movies alongside their riffs, except for short films which are public domain (a lot of old informational videos and the like) and 1 or 2 DVD's.
When you receive a take down notice, you have the choice to remove it or not. If you choose not to remove it, and it's later found to be infringing on copyright (i.e. not fair use), then you can be held liable. ISPs have decided to just take it down because it's not worth the risk to review items and make a judgement call to leave content up. It would cost too much to hire a team to do it, and even then they might be wrong and the ISP would still be liable.
Again, the liability only comes into play if the content actually infringes on copyright. If it's fair use, there is not liability.
Of which there are several problems you haven't recognised the magnitude of, yet oddly mentioned:
This inherently stacks things in favour of the accuser, against most ideas of due process and fair trials. With no requirement to establish whether a work or use of a work comes under fair use before content has to be taken down, companies filing DMCA notices have little incentive to think twice about sending them, even in situations where it may be obvious that fair use would apply and such a requirement would therefore violate freedom of speech.
All incentives lean towards content hosters (not just ISP's but service providers like Youtube and individuals hosting their own) to remove content, as there are many cases where fair use may be more complex to figure out. To expect a host to be that proficient in figuring out when such content is fair use, or to even want to put themselves in such a difficult position which may entail large risk is a seemingly stupid burden to place on a private, disinterested entity. You're passing a large part of what should be the job of the courts onto service providers to even get the initial chance to defend yourself.
If fair use is considered an extension or protection of free speech in how it interacts with copyright, then a system such as this undermines free speech. All incentives are to service providers and individuals to remove content straight away as a means to come under safe harbor, due to the kind of risk and burden you're placing on what is fundamentally the wrong party to be putting any of that responsibility on. Fair use is a matter that should be decided by the courts, especially in how complex deciding such a thing can be.
This is without taking into consideration the the raising of costs this creates should someone want to argue their case, due to the affects of the above.
DMCA applies irrespective of whether the accused is a company (ISP, video host) or an individual (as far as I understand it). If you receive a DMCA notice then without due process to properly establish whether the work is in fact protected by fair use or not, you must remove it.
Except this does involve the government, as it's they're law that dictates to ISP's that they must remove content upon notification which undermines fair use via the lack of due process to establish whether said work is in fact protected, and by extension may be restricting of the right to free speech which fair use helps to maintain in how it interacts with copyright privileges granted to artists/companies.
Or you can have a more informed and nuanced idea of IP's that aren't one extreme or the other.
IP's can give ideas as to whereabouts/residency, but not necessarily the actual person illegally file sharing. We have a general idea that people within the Spanish government are doing this, but can't consider it reliable enough to accuse any one specific employee.
This is exactly the same as Mike and others have argued previously. Places where more than 1/2 people live and public places with free wi-fi make a mockery of IP as evidence of any specific individual and thus insufficient evidence on its own to block someone.
This is a perfect example of Disruptive Innovation.
Look at it from the business perspective, like Microsoft to hep illustrate this.
Microsoft sells its software upfront, and creates it in a way where most of the cost of creating said software is on them. They look across to open source back in the early 90's. All they see are crappy customers - people who aren't as demanding, and consequently less willing to pay. Meanwhile the software that's being produced at the time isn't quite as marketable theirs, so they're not too worried. They're "hobbyists", or whatever other dismissal you can come up with. In other words, small fry, business and customers they don't are about.
Open source improves and moves upmarket. The software gets better, it invades businesses, but alas they're not as demanding and were subsequently not as jazzed about their previous deal with Microsoft. MS still doesn't care - it's still comparative small fry to where they could be heading upmarket.
And so on, until MS is backed into a high end, lucrative niche with nowhere else left to go, with open source business models having mostly taken over.
Of course the reality is still a bit different, due to other complications like their monopoly power. However, this does fit rather well with MS vs Apple, along with what's been happening in emerging markets with don't already have those barriers.
The Innovator's Dilemma actually specifically states that it's the nature of business for companies to effectively become immovable objects in the face of change and disruptive innovations.
Even if managers and the like spot the change, everything is naturally set up in a way to actively work against making that change from within the existing structure.
Companies only evolve so far as it allows them to do what they currently provide but better (sustaining innovation). As soon as something appears to break that with something that is good enough (disruptive innovation), the incentives work to ignore or flee.
I recently made a post summarising some things free/open source games could do. Most of them were things already in place for proprietary games, or were ideas taken from Techdirt.
This seems like one that should be added. I originally forgot to add a micropayments section. Methinks it'd be good if Techdirt did a CwF + RtB game edition, as many assume that there aren't many (if any) viable alternatives to selling games upfront.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
The game had a hat system added to it a little while ago. These hats are gained semi-randomly based on play time, or through the crafting system. They've been doing special events where hats are only available for a certain period, and recently have attathed hats to pre-orders of other games through Valves Steam service.
http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=3698&p=
http://www.teamfortress.com/pumpk inpatch/
On the post: Murdoch Gets His Feet Wet In Bringing Hot News Lawsuit Against Briefing.com
Re: Re: Stay classy Dow
On the post: Murdoch Gets His Feet Wet In Bringing Hot News Lawsuit Against Briefing.com
Stay classy Dow
TAM?
So many things wrong with this opening statement alone. No one told them the interwebs is an inherently free rider tolerant system.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
The short term value estimate will inherently outweight any kind of idea or insight into the long term.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
On the post: In The Name of Microsoft, We Oppress This Media!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In The Name of Microsoft, We Oppress This Media!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In The Name of Microsoft, We Oppress This Media!
Re:
On the post: Has the New York Times Run Afoul of the FTC's Endorsement Guides?
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Update the link
http://www.riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=Techdirt-On-Performance-Rights-Act
On the post: Copyright Worries Threaten The Best Thing To Come Out Of The New Star Wars Movies
Though maybe they simply got the "rights" on the cheap simply because they were crap films. I know with Rifftrax they don't sell movies alongside their riffs, except for short films which are public domain (a lot of old informational videos and the like) and 1 or 2 DVD's.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Key phrase
Of which there are several problems you haven't recognised the magnitude of, yet oddly mentioned:
This inherently stacks things in favour of the accuser, against most ideas of due process and fair trials. With no requirement to establish whether a work or use of a work comes under fair use before content has to be taken down, companies filing DMCA notices have little incentive to think twice about sending them, even in situations where it may be obvious that fair use would apply and such a requirement would therefore violate freedom of speech.
All incentives lean towards content hosters (not just ISP's but service providers like Youtube and individuals hosting their own) to remove content, as there are many cases where fair use may be more complex to figure out. To expect a host to be that proficient in figuring out when such content is fair use, or to even want to put themselves in such a difficult position which may entail large risk is a seemingly stupid burden to place on a private, disinterested entity. You're passing a large part of what should be the job of the courts onto service providers to even get the initial chance to defend yourself.
If fair use is considered an extension or protection of free speech in how it interacts with copyright, then a system such as this undermines free speech. All incentives are to service providers and individuals to remove content straight away as a means to come under safe harbor, due to the kind of risk and burden you're placing on what is fundamentally the wrong party to be putting any of that responsibility on. Fair use is a matter that should be decided by the courts, especially in how complex deciding such a thing can be.
This is without taking into consideration the the raising of costs this creates should someone want to argue their case, due to the affects of the above.
Ergo, stifling free speech.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Key phrase
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Key phrase
On the post: Spanish Gov't Officials Active Uploaders And Downloaders Of Unauthorized Content
Re: FAIL either way
IP's can give ideas as to whereabouts/residency, but not necessarily the actual person illegally file sharing. We have a general idea that people within the Spanish government are doing this, but can't consider it reliable enough to accuse any one specific employee.
This is exactly the same as Mike and others have argued previously. Places where more than 1/2 people live and public places with free wi-fi make a mockery of IP as evidence of any specific individual and thus insufficient evidence on its own to block someone.
On the post: The Siren's Call Of Complexity: How Legacy Businesses Get Led Astray
Re: Open Source
Look at it from the business perspective, like Microsoft to hep illustrate this.
Microsoft sells its software upfront, and creates it in a way where most of the cost of creating said software is on them. They look across to open source back in the early 90's. All they see are crappy customers - people who aren't as demanding, and consequently less willing to pay. Meanwhile the software that's being produced at the time isn't quite as marketable theirs, so they're not too worried. They're "hobbyists", or whatever other dismissal you can come up with. In other words, small fry, business and customers they don't are about.
Open source improves and moves upmarket. The software gets better, it invades businesses, but alas they're not as demanding and were subsequently not as jazzed about their previous deal with Microsoft. MS still doesn't care - it's still comparative small fry to where they could be heading upmarket.
And so on, until MS is backed into a high end, lucrative niche with nowhere else left to go, with open source business models having mostly taken over.
Of course the reality is still a bit different, due to other complications like their monopoly power. However, this does fit rather well with MS vs Apple, along with what's been happening in emerging markets with don't already have those barriers.
On the post: The Siren's Call Of Complexity: How Legacy Businesses Get Led Astray
Re: Complexity Not the Fundamental Problem
Even if managers and the like spot the change, everything is naturally set up in a way to actively work against making that change from within the existing structure.
Companies only evolve so far as it allows them to do what they currently provide but better (sustaining innovation). As soon as something appears to break that with something that is good enough (disruptive innovation), the incentives work to ignore or flee.
On the post: CAFC Won't Rehear Patent Case Of Editing XML
Re: How Can Mike Masnick Defend Microsoft?
Assuming of course that Mike was defending Microsoft as the hero in all of this, when he clearly wasn't.
On the post: Results From Dungeons & Dragons Online Going Free: Revenue Up 500%
More ideas to add to the pile
http://somethingmild.blogspot.com/2010/03/ideas-to-fund-foss-games.html
This seems like one that should be added. I originally forgot to add a micropayments section. Methinks it'd be good if Techdirt did a CwF + RtB game edition, as many assume that there aren't many (if any) viable alternatives to selling games upfront.
Next >>