Hopefully, though I think more work is needed - awareness / support is still quite uneven. I was at the London protest on Saturday. There were a decent number of people there (maybe 300), though this number was dwarfed by the crowds in other cities. To have a serious impact, more countries need the levels of awareness seen in places like Poland and Germany.
This is actually a good case. We've seen on several occasions that judges appear to want to deliver the verdict they think is right, even if they have to twist copyright law a bit to get there. This isn't great in cases like Limewire, where the defendant was generally perceived to be a bad actor, but was very valuable in some of the RightHaven cases, where it has started to clarify some important aspects of fair use.
My hope is the judge will come back again and say, "Don't be a muppet," and provide important case law for others faced with, and contemplating, similar action in the future.
Though the UK did *not* set a good precedent here...
Courts in other countries have given very mixed rulings on this. The US and Singapore seem fine with remote DVRs, while Korea and Japan have found them to be infringing. As I was writing this story up, we have a preliminary ruling in Australia that such remote DVRs are legal.
Just for reference, making such temporary copies should be legal in the UK
Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable—
(a)a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b)a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.
Yes, actually. This. It would be (mostly) OK for Spotify, YouTube, etc., where the consumer has no expectation of a perpetual licence over the music or video, but that cuts out a large number of business models.
Of course YouTube's ContentID does some of this already. And, I guess, it largely works, though there are problems with misidentification and all sorts of (potential) fair use cases like sampling, remixing, incidental background music in a documentary outdoor scene, news reports about music that includes a brief excerpt, countries outside the US that have different fair use / dealing legislation or case law.
That said, I think it's largely moot, as Big Content is currently more concerned about control (what they believe will be the only source of profits in the future) than making money. Though in the case of YouTube, they do often work with Google to license songs, give people (largely) what they want and make money (through Vevo, through ads and "buy this song" links). All it needed was for someone to become too big to fail - or push around - and then Big Content decided to work with them, rather than attempting to crush them.
The judge attempts to fudge this issue by insisting on the work having resulted from sufficient "intellectual creative effort" (see Mike's comments on the judge as an art critic) and also allows an independent creation defence (see my comment below somewhere), but, that apart, yes I believe you could.
One of the other things about the judgement that concerned me was the judge's reliance on independent design, noting that if the defendant had come up with his image without using the claimant's creation as a reference it would have been fine. Seems to be dangerously close to creating a 'first to publish' right with similar images for copyright. Though the judge apparently has no problem with the claimant being similarly 'inspired' by Schindler's List.
This seems pretty broad already. According to the bill, this picture (somewhat suggestive stock photo of woman in short crop top) and this picture (bikini model) would both be classed as 'nudity' and thus fall under the 'obscene depiction' clause.
It would make the use of the Internet for anything other than as a medium for watching "approved" channels of "approved" content too much of a risk for much of the general population.
Abe is a forward-thinking teacher who wants to do the best for the children he teaches. By making his lessons easily available even when he isn't there, the children can review difficult work or catch up if they were ill. Sadly, Abe's contract with the school where he works states that his class notes are works for hire and, due to the slow grinding wheels of local government, he does not yet have permission from the school to post his classes online at SunStream.
One of Abe's favourite discussion topics on SpeakFree is local politics. There have been elections nearby recently, during which Abe and others vociferously discussed the positions of the candidates. Abe in particular was fond of quoting candidates themselves and other opinion pieces as part of his arguments with people from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Abe uses Abe's Truths as a personal blog to talk about his life to friends and family. He recently went on holiday with his children and wrote about it when he returned, including some of the best shots he had taken while they were away. However, to get an extra 2GB of free space on the PickUpShelf server, Abe agreed to license any photos he uploaded to them exclusively through PickUpShelf. Rather than trying to get their complex embed tool to work, Abe just used the simple 'upload photo' button on his blogging software to get the photos in his post.
Thus, through Abe's actions, PickUpShelf, SunStream, SpeakFree and NewLeaflet may all be infringing copyright and thus may all, if enough other Abes do the same, be shut down under SOPA.
Sure there's a lot more to making a successful album than just sticking it on iTunes, and sure timing the release is important. I used to help run a business selling niche fitness products, and there is a huge boom in these in the run up to Christmas and in January. It makes a lot of sense to launch new products then - just check out the number of new fitness DVDs on Amazon now.
But the point I think PaulT, Mike and many others on here are making is that many of the things record companies do actively harm their sales and their artists by restricting availability, delaying releases excessively and denying artists the chance to build relationships with their fans. Behaviour and processes that were desirable or necessary 20 or 40 years ago are no longer desirable or necessary.
Should artists still release albums (a byproduct of the length of an LP), or focus on releasing singles more often (see iTunes)? Album artwork is cool, but is it really as important now most people see it as a small square in iTunes or Spotify? Videos are important, but perhaps you could get away with just uploading the tune with your logo as a visual (see, for example, Skrillex)?
Releasing music today is more like making a website than making a print publication. With the print publication, everything has to be perfect and finished before it goes to prepress. With a website, things can be missing, or slightly broken; you can add them later. And there can be big gains from releasing something that you know isn't everything you want it to be - yet.
One of the running themes on Techdirt is that a lot of the problems Big Content and their artists face could be solved if the artists were allowed to be more a part of people's lives. That means ceding some control - to the artist, to social media, to fans - but ultimately those who create value in this relationship will benefit.
If we go along with the assumptions and figures given to justify this bill, then all I have to say is thank you very much.
I don't live in the US, so I'm not going to be subject to these tariffs, but I'll still benefit from cheaper Chinese products because of their reported ca. $60bn 'theft' of US IP. Plus this tax will make US businesses less competitive, as they have to pay more for Chinese-made (but probably US-branded) goods than companies based elsewhere, helping to boost my local economy at the US's expense.
I should probably be clear: I don't think that what Amazon did is a good thing (except perhaps serendipitously) - they clearly shouldn't have reduced his book to $0 as they did. But, as you (and many others) said, this mistake probably going to work out for the best for him going forward, and his actual lost sales are probably pretty small. I certainly hope he sees it that way.
Although this time my comment was approved instantly *and* 2 of my URLs were converted into links. I think the comment engine is doing this on purpose... :)
According to the book's product page on Amazon, Blood Soaked and Contagious currently has a sales rank of 64,240 paid in the Kindle Store. I believe that the sales rankings at this sort of level are recalculated approximately weekly, so there should certainly have been enough time for Amazon's sales ranking to reflect paid sales from 20 Oct to 8 Nov. This chart [1] from Foner Books suggests he would be selling about 5 books per week, which seems consistent (give or take a factor of 10) with the 6 sales in one day Crawford mentioned on his blog [2].
Of course I don't have access to Crawford's sales figures and I'm doing quite a lot of hand-wavy speculation here, but if we assume he would have experienced roughly consistent sales over the free book period 30 Sep - 20 Oct* then he's missed out on around 100 purchases, or just over $200 royalties [3]. While I'm not hugely up on advertising rates, $200 seems pretty cheap for articles about your book on PaidContent, Techdirt and shared on Twitter & FB, not to mention the additional exposure through 6000 new readers. Personally, I'd make the most of Amazon's mistake. :)
* His sales before and after the period seem fairly similar.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. Sure it's in MS's interest to have people using their software for free than using others' software for free, and sure the actual cost of the donated software is going to be a lot less than $844m (and, more to the point, lost sales are going to be considerably less than $844m too), but that doesn't mean it's not significant. (And this ignores the approx. $100m that was not software and 380,000 hours of donated time.)
To take another example, the sanofi-aventis Patient Assistance Foundation has apparently given $321m as of 2009. (I'd link to it, but the last comment I posted with a link was blocked.) Their aim is "to assist U.S. patients with limited financial resources in accessing needed sanofi-aventis medications". I bet those medicines didn't cost $321m to make, but I imagine the people who received those medicines were no less grateful because of that.
There's value in breaking down these figures to see how large such a donation really is, and there's also value in exploring the benefits Microsoft accrues from such acts, but please don't be too cynical about it.
On the post: Mass Protests Against ACTA All Across Europe
Re:
On the post: Photographer Appeals Ruling Saying It's Not Infringement To Have Vaguely Similar Photos
Re:
My hope is the judge will come back again and say, "Don't be a muppet," and provide important case law for others faced with, and contemplating, similar action in the future.
Though the UK did *not* set a good precedent here...
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
Just for reference, making such temporary copies should be legal in the UK
Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable—
(a)a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b)a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.
On the post: Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Re:
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re:
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
That said, I think it's largely moot, as Big Content is currently more concerned about control (what they believe will be the only source of profits in the future) than making money. Though in the case of YouTube, they do often work with Google to license songs, give people (largely) what they want and make money (through Vevo, through ads and "buy this song" links). All it needed was for someone to become too big to fail - or push around - and then Big Content decided to work with them, rather than attempting to crush them.
On the post: UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph
Re: Hurry and copyright the portrait
On the post: UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph
Re:
On the post: UK Court Says You Can Copyright The Basic Idea Of A Photograph
On the post: Georgia Lawmaker Looking To Make Photoshopping Heads On Naked Bodies Illegal
Beware of photoshopping crop tops
On the post: German Court Decisions Make Everyday Use Of The Internet Increasingly Risky There
Though even that may not always be enough to prevent a lawsuit.
On the post: Major Labels, RIAA, Homeland Security All Spotted 'Pirating' Works
Dammit
On the post: The Very Real Risk Of Overly Broad Censorship Under SOPA
Abe's actions
He has never infringed on any copyright and each of the entities charged with enforcing SOPA know that he hasn't.
Sadly, this may not be true.
As well as sharing photos of his children, Abe made use of PickUpShelf's new video upload features to share a short clip of his children dancing to music at a carnival during the summer.
Abe is a forward-thinking teacher who wants to do the best for the children he teaches. By making his lessons easily available even when he isn't there, the children can review difficult work or catch up if they were ill. Sadly, Abe's contract with the school where he works states that his class notes are works for hire and, due to the slow grinding wheels of local government, he does not yet have permission from the school to post his classes online at SunStream.
One of Abe's favourite discussion topics on SpeakFree is local politics. There have been elections nearby recently, during which Abe and others vociferously discussed the positions of the candidates. Abe in particular was fond of quoting candidates themselves and other opinion pieces as part of his arguments with people from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Abe uses Abe's Truths as a personal blog to talk about his life to friends and family. He recently went on holiday with his children and wrote about it when he returned, including some of the best shots he had taken while they were away. However, to get an extra 2GB of free space on the PickUpShelf server, Abe agreed to license any photos he uploaded to them exclusively through PickUpShelf. Rather than trying to get their complex embed tool to work, Abe just used the simple 'upload photo' button on his blogging software to get the photos in his post.
Thus, through Abe's actions, PickUpShelf, SunStream, SpeakFree and NewLeaflet may all be infringing copyright and thus may all, if enough other Abes do the same, be shut down under SOPA.
On the post: 'Pro-Artist' Gatekeepers Continue To Separate Artists From Their Fans
Re: Re: Re:
But the point I think PaulT, Mike and many others on here are making is that many of the things record companies do actively harm their sales and their artists by restricting availability, delaying releases excessively and denying artists the chance to build relationships with their fans. Behaviour and processes that were desirable or necessary 20 or 40 years ago are no longer desirable or necessary.
Should artists still release albums (a byproduct of the length of an LP), or focus on releasing singles more often (see iTunes)? Album artwork is cool, but is it really as important now most people see it as a small square in iTunes or Spotify? Videos are important, but perhaps you could get away with just uploading the tune with your logo as a visual (see, for example, Skrillex)?
Releasing music today is more like making a website than making a print publication. With the print publication, everything has to be perfect and finished before it goes to prepress. With a website, things can be missing, or slightly broken; you can add them later. And there can be big gains from releasing something that you know isn't everything you want it to be - yet.
One of the running themes on Techdirt is that a lot of the problems Big Content and their artists face could be solved if the artists were allowed to be more a part of people's lives. That means ceding some control - to the artist, to social media, to fans - but ultimately those who create value in this relationship will benefit.
On the post: Rep. Steve King Decides American Consumers Should Pay For Chinese IP Violations
Re:
Though I must say Mike looks quite fetching with all that eye shadow...
On the post: Rep. Steve King Decides American Consumers Should Pay For Chinese IP Violations
Thanks!
I don't live in the US, so I'm not going to be subject to these tariffs, but I'll still benefit from cheaper Chinese products because of their reported ca. $60bn 'theft' of US IP. Plus this tax will make US businesses less competitive, as they have to pay more for Chinese-made (but probably US-branded) goods than companies based elsewhere, helping to boost my local economy at the US's expense.
Sounds perfect for anyone not based in the US.
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re:
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re:
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Of course I don't have access to Crawford's sales figures and I'm doing quite a lot of hand-wavy speculation here, but if we assume he would have experienced roughly consistent sales over the free book period 30 Sep - 20 Oct* then he's missed out on around 100 purchases, or just over $200 royalties [3]. While I'm not hugely up on advertising rates, $200 seems pretty cheap for articles about your book on PaidContent, Techdirt and shared on Twitter & FB, not to mention the additional exposure through 6000 new readers. Personally, I'd make the most of Amazon's mistake. :)
* His sales before and after the period seem fairly similar.
1. www.fonerbooks.com/kindle.htm
2. www.bloodsoakedandwriting.com/2011/10/09/two-things-you-need-to-see-for-the-following-saga-to-make-s ense/
3. paidcontent.org/article/419-amazon-wont-pay-self-published-author-for-books-it-mistakenly-gave-away/
(I'm sorry for the footnotes instead of hyperlinks - if I use real links it seems to end up in spam.)
On the post: Microsoft's $844 Million Software Giveaway To Nonprofits: Pure Charity Or Cheap Marketing?
To take another example, the sanofi-aventis Patient Assistance Foundation has apparently given $321m as of 2009. (I'd link to it, but the last comment I posted with a link was blocked.) Their aim is "to assist U.S. patients with limited financial resources in accessing needed sanofi-aventis medications". I bet those medicines didn't cost $321m to make, but I imagine the people who received those medicines were no less grateful because of that.
There's value in breaking down these figures to see how large such a donation really is, and there's also value in exploring the benefits Microsoft accrues from such acts, but please don't be too cynical about it.
Next >>