"Please do not download any of my books/CDs from Google. I filed FTC Complaint #25172648 against Google for those illegal downloads, don't be a pirate!"
Maybe she also files official complaints against the White Pages when she gets telemarketing phone calls.
Yet, to qualify for the safe harbors in ACTA, the bar is set much higher. This is hidden pretty deep, and you might miss it (this is done on purpose) if you're not reading carefully. It's in section 3(b)I and in footnote 6.
I'm not sure what the problem is. This section has been available for weeks in a dark cellar with no stairs in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Re: Re: Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
I think what he is saying is that if they can get their act together and help new bands come up with workable business models, everyone will be better off.
That's a mighty big if. It's like saying, if a fish were a chair, it would be a chair. The if is so big in fact that it's all but irrelevant to this discussion. The future of music, the solution that is truly going to make everyone better off, isn't going to include a company that will be recognizable as what the big recording companies are today.
If they don't, the gap between the reign of these big companies and up-and-coming companies that do "get it" will result in a lot of great bands never getting off the ground.
If that's what he really meant, I would agree. Your interpretation makes sense, but based on the tone of his editorial, I still think that's he's placing too much faith in the record companies, relying on them to solve the problem instead of the up-and-coming musicians themselves or news businesses that can help the up-and-coming musicians.
Also, so what if the recording companies fail and the "many talented bands" who put their faith in them never get off the ground? Since when has there been a shortage of talented bands? The issue is not whether thousands of bands will fail. That's happned ever since there have been bands. The question is will there be a shortage in the marketplace of music made by great bands. My opinion is that even if every record company in the world were to disappear today, there would still be plenty of really good music to listen to out there.
Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
"If record companies can’t adapt to this new world, they will die out; and without advances, so will the futures of many talented bands."
- Damian Kulash Jr
This is the point that I have a quibble with. Kulash appears to see the problems being faced by the big recording companies, but then misreads the solution. He's saying that the fates of both big music and musicians are inextricably tied together. But as his band proves, you can promote your band without a huge bankroll. If he doesn't want to or doesn't know how to monetize the attention from his videos, fair enough, but that doesn't mean that big music is the only ones that can do this. In short, if record companies can't "adapt to this new world", they will die out, not the talented bands.
"They [kids] break copyright laws in part because they believe that these laws are unjust."
In their current state, I would agree that copyright laws are unjust. They've gone beyond what was a reasonable compromise between the interests of creators and of society as a whole to a onesided crutch used by content industries.
I wonder if the author means that copyright itself is fundamentally unjust or just that current coypright laws are unjust?
I ask because the position of TD (as I understand it) is not that illegal fileshire is moral, but that while illegal filesharing may be immoral and/or illegal, it's not good business. For example, it's one thing to say Ubisoft is being (very) stupid for implementing draconian DRM for their computer games. It's another to say that people have the moral right to download a cracked version of the game for free.
I just don't see illegal downloads as being anywhere near living up to the term "civil disobedience". If you download a cracked version of Assassin's Creed II because you don't like the DRM, fine. But don't say that it's moral or that you somehow compare to Ghandi, MLK, or Rosa Parks.
Out of curiosity, how long should people be waiting to discuss the news before it stops being discourteous?
I don't think there is universally accepted, objective time limit. Like anything dealing with social norms and courtesy, it would depend on the individual. What I would say though is this duration is increasing with the growth of DVRs. In the last couple of years, it's become much mor common among my friends and co-workers for people to say "OK, who hasn't watched the latest episode of Lost?" or whatever show before starting a discussion on the show.
What if you're online and you stumble across a foreign news source?
It sounds like you think I'm suggesting some kind of Fairness Doctrine like agency that would monitor every news agency in the world to ensure they have an Olympic results blackout. If I personally don't want to know the results of an Olympic event, I would avoid media where I might get that information. In my mind, the trouble comes when you get surprised with a spoiler. You can stay off the web and even shut off the radio on the way to work, but you can't shut off your co-workers or friends. You have to rely on their courtesy and good judgement not to ambush you with a spoiler.
Don't force your preferred way of thinking on to everybody else.
Well, I didn't have to force anything on anybody; naturally, over time people have become more sensitive to the issue of spoilers. While many people have little consideration for the feelings and opinions of others, there are many others who understand that more and more of the people around them timeshift TV and maybe it would be nice not to blurt out a spoiler. So, it's not exactly my idea that I'm "forcing" on people. It's an idea that's been out there for a while, long before I said anything about it.
Once again, I understand this. My point is that even if NBC implemented the solution proposed by Mike -- airing Olympic events live -- the spoiler problem might be resolved for most of the people reference in the post, but you would not address the problem for the DVRers. What I'm trying to get across is that the problem of spoilers is bigger than just one group.
I was sitting around a table with several friends and we were talking about what happened on the last LOST episode, if someone in our group didn't want to hear it, they should excuse their self from the table and go to the bathroom.
Really? You and your friends have so little to talk about that you would force someone to leave the table rather than just move onto a different topic?
I have the responsibility, if I want to keep things suspenseful, to NOT put myself in places where the results of the "Big Event" would be announced.
I agree. Obviously the size of the event affects one's expectations on reasonably running across the results by accident. Superbowl? Lock yourself in your house, shut all the blinds, and don't turn on any electronic device. But the finale of a TV episode? I shouldn't have to go to extremes to avoid this being spoiled and I would hope that the kinds of people I call friends would have enough respect not to blurt out the ending before at least checking to see if the people at the table saw the episode.
I know this might be a shock to your system, but no matter what you think, you are not someone of that great importance; neither am I, and I certainly don't expect ANYONE to not talk about what they watched.
What does someone's view of their importance have to do with this topic? I'm not saying that any one person is so important that everyone around them has to bend to their will. What I am saying is that having DVRs and timeshifting shows is commonplace now and that social etiquette has to shift to accomodate this change in technology. Now, there's obviously a continuum in terms of how long the timeshift is. You'd get laughed out of the room if you got mad because you told people not to talk about who shot JR. What's the exact time period you have to give a spoiler alert? Who knows? But as more and more people timeshift, I think it will get longer and longer.
Maybe you should read the post again, because it's not the people who DVR the events that are complaining about the newspapers posting results early.
I understand the content of the original post. My question related to extending the point of the post to a different group of people, the DVRers. The point being that even if NBC were to broadcast the events live, this may solve the problem of spoilers for some people (the people described in the post) but not for other people (the DVRers).
when did become my problem that someone else decided to watch an event after it has happened?
From a purely selfish standpoint, it's not your problem. You don't have to refrain from talking about an already-aired sporting event or show. But courtesy is not about what you have to do, but what's the polite thing to do. So, feel free to be a jackass and blurt out the ending of the episode or who won the game. It's your choice.
Otherwise do we schedule all news releases in the world based on NBC's bad programming decisions?
I think you're omitting a middle ground of just giving people fair warning. If I go to a web site or open a newspaper, I can reasonably be expected to see the results of an Olympic event. It's all on one page, so it's hard to avoid. So if it's important to me, I wouldn't go to a news web site or read a newspaper until after I watched the event. But what about watching the news on TV or listening to the radio while driving to work where you're never sure when they'll discuss certain stories? I listen to a radio station that actually warns you about upcoming Olympics results. I think this is a good compromise.
Mike, your argument that by broadcasting Olympic events live, NBC would avoid some of these problems may be valid for diehard fans that would watch the events in off hours, but what about the people who DVR the events for viewing the next day? You have the exact same problem of Olympic events being spoiled by overzealous news organizations.
The problem is not about NBC's decision to delay broadcast of Olympic events. The problem is that the advent of the DVR requires a new etiquette regarding events and shows that are going to be timeshifted. When I go to lunch with co-workers, you can't just blurt out what happened on Lost the night before. You have to be aware that fans of the show may have DVRed it, but haven't watched it yet.
Mike, maybe your air quotes of "spoiler" indicates that you don't take seriously the idea that some people get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the anticipation involved in watching a TV show or a sporting event, but many of us do. When NBC decides to air Olympic events is irrelevant to the issue of being courteous and not spoiling the results for other people.
You know what they say, figures don't lie but liars figure.
Exactly. This reminders me of those asinine "knows someone who" study results. As in, "75% percent of high school students said they know someone who was sexually abused" or "90% of college students said they know someone who illegaly downloads music." Well, if you have five people who know each other and only one of them does the thing being studied, then 80% knows someone who is doing the thing. You can't factor how how many people know each other, so this kind of stat is worthless. This kind of study result, messing with the scale, and all of the other "liars figure" tricks should be taught in an Anti-Statistics class.
Common sense is not so common. And neither is critical thinking.
Literally speaking, you're correct...if they're hosting the whole file themselves. But what's not clear to me from reading the TD post or some of the linked articles is whether whole tracks were being posted or just snippets. Discounting the issue of who was hosting the files, if the bloggers were just using short snippets of the song, then this should fall under fair use and they shouldn't need the same licenses required to play the full song.
Just have everyone start posting links to a bit torrent site that has the entire album and stick it to the labels.
So, if BT sites are getting into trouble even though they're just posting links to files, not hosting the files themselves, what makes you think that there'd be any safety in linking to a link? Just because it's one degree farther away from what the BT site does wouldn't mean that someone couldn't get you on some contributing charge.
ebay is not a passive conduit in this respect. they're actively doing something to attract people to the almost-always infringing material.
eBay is buying ads from Google based on keywords (misspelled brand names). eBay is then almost certainly not pointing to specific auctions or sellers, but instead showing the results of a search based on the correctly-spelled brand name. So, no...they're not a "passive conduit", but we're not talking about copyright safe harbors here; we're talking about trademark, so their passivity is irrelevant. And personally, I don't see anything wrong with this nor do I think it's illegal.
If LV thinks that eBay is not doing enough to remove counterfeiters from the site, then this is the problem that should be addressed. Not something as tangential as misspelled keywords.
So, what happens when two entertainment industry giants collide in such a debate?
I've often thought that true IP reform will only come about from clashes between big content companies. Sure, I like reading TechDirt and believe that I've learned more about IP law and issues because of it, but most of my friends aren't aware of these issues, much less have a strong opinion of it. Not to downplay the effect of reform groups and the dramatic increase of people interested in the topic, but I think that IP reform will only truly go mainstream when the total lockdown mode of our current IP system starts to (visibly) hurt the profits of big companies.
While I agree with your overall point that eBay is not infringing on trademark, the counterfeiters are, I have to disagree with this statement...
Trademark law: Includes the right to defend someone using your name to sell a product
Again, I think that we're in agreement on the underlying principles, but literally there's nothing wrong or illegal with using someone else's trademarked name in the course of selling your product. It happens all of the time. When Target puts out a generic brand, they'll put "Compare to XYZ brand" right on the box. When Company X makes a commercial pointing out that their products are better than Company Y, they can use Company Y's trademark to get the point across. The key is you can use a trademark in the course of selling your product -- regardless of factors like the similarity of the business in the marketplace -- as long as a moron in a hurry wouldn't think that the actual company was selling the product instead of a counterfeiter.
no, the purpose of trademark law is to prevent anyone from using that name, or any similar name, to conduct any similar course of business.
By my reading, you've essentially paraphrased my description of the purpose of trademark. If you're saying that the "similar course of business" clause is somehow a critical distinction between what I said and what you did, I don't see how that is relevant to the issue.
if ebay is buying up misspellings of louis vuitton marks, and then linking them to unauthorized auctions (usually they're fake gear), it's trademark infringement. plain and simple.
eBay is not presenting itself as Lois Vuitton, so how can this be a trademark violation? A moron in a hurry would know that eBay is not LV. Now, if someone is selling fake LV merchandise, there's your trademark infringement. But how is eBay, a third party, responsible for the actions of the counterfeiters?
Why exactly is it that Google or Ebay should be able to make more money than most countries by selling someone else's name?
For the simple reason that there's no law that says they can't. Nor should there be. You're apparently under the false impression that the purpose of trademark law is for a company to weild absolute control over their their name and to prevent anyone from making a profit from any use of that name. This may be what many companies want people to believe, but it's quite false. The true purpose of trademark is for consumer protection. It's so that a consumer can be assured that if someone is selling a product with a trademark that the product is really associated with the trademark's company. One company simply referring to another company's trademark is not a violation of this purpose. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be?
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Google is to phone book as...
Maybe she also files official complaints against the White Pages when she gets telemarketing phone calls.
On the post: ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been
Beware of the Leopard
I'm not sure what the problem is. This section has been available for weeks in a dark cellar with no stairs in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
On the post: Ok Go Singer Explains How Lack Of Embedding Videos Hurts Everyone
Re: Re: Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
That's a mighty big if. It's like saying, if a fish were a chair, it would be a chair. The if is so big in fact that it's all but irrelevant to this discussion. The future of music, the solution that is truly going to make everyone better off, isn't going to include a company that will be recognizable as what the big recording companies are today.
If they don't, the gap between the reign of these big companies and up-and-coming companies that do "get it" will result in a lot of great bands never getting off the ground.
If that's what he really meant, I would agree. Your interpretation makes sense, but based on the tone of his editorial, I still think that's he's placing too much faith in the record companies, relying on them to solve the problem instead of the up-and-coming musicians themselves or news businesses that can help the up-and-coming musicians.
Also, so what if the recording companies fail and the "many talented bands" who put their faith in them never get off the ground? Since when has there been a shortage of talented bands? The issue is not whether thousands of bands will fail. That's happned ever since there have been bands. The question is will there be a shortage in the marketplace of music made by great bands. My opinion is that even if every record company in the world were to disappear today, there would still be plenty of really good music to listen to out there.
On the post: Ok Go Singer Explains How Lack Of Embedding Videos Hurts Everyone
Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
- Damian Kulash Jr
This is the point that I have a quibble with. Kulash appears to see the problems being faced by the big recording companies, but then misreads the solution. He's saying that the fates of both big music and musicians are inextricably tied together. But as his band proves, you can promote your band without a huge bankroll. If he doesn't want to or doesn't know how to monetize the attention from his videos, fair enough, but that doesn't mean that big music is the only ones that can do this. In short, if record companies can't "adapt to this new world", they will die out, not the talented bands.
On the post: Winning Essay In High School Ethics Writing Competition Argues That File Sharing Isn't Wrong
"They [kids] break copyright laws in part because they believe that these laws are unjust."
In their current state, I would agree that copyright laws are unjust. They've gone beyond what was a reasonable compromise between the interests of creators and of society as a whole to a onesided crutch used by content industries.
I wonder if the author means that copyright itself is fundamentally unjust or just that current coypright laws are unjust?
I ask because the position of TD (as I understand it) is not that illegal fileshire is moral, but that while illegal filesharing may be immoral and/or illegal, it's not good business. For example, it's one thing to say Ubisoft is being (very) stupid for implementing draconian DRM for their computer games. It's another to say that people have the moral right to download a cracked version of the game for free.
I just don't see illegal downloads as being anywhere near living up to the term "civil disobedience". If you download a cracked version of Assassin's Creed II because you don't like the DRM, fine. But don't say that it's moral or that you somehow compare to Ghandi, MLK, or Rosa Parks.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about courtasy
I don't think there is universally accepted, objective time limit. Like anything dealing with social norms and courtesy, it would depend on the individual. What I would say though is this duration is increasing with the growth of DVRs. In the last couple of years, it's become much mor common among my friends and co-workers for people to say "OK, who hasn't watched the latest episode of Lost?" or whatever show before starting a discussion on the show.
What if you're online and you stumble across a foreign news source?
It sounds like you think I'm suggesting some kind of Fairness Doctrine like agency that would monitor every news agency in the world to ensure they have an Olympic results blackout. If I personally don't want to know the results of an Olympic event, I would avoid media where I might get that information. In my mind, the trouble comes when you get surprised with a spoiler. You can stay off the web and even shut off the radio on the way to work, but you can't shut off your co-workers or friends. You have to rely on their courtesy and good judgement not to ambush you with a spoiler.
Don't force your preferred way of thinking on to everybody else.
Well, I didn't have to force anything on anybody; naturally, over time people have become more sensitive to the issue of spoilers. While many people have little consideration for the feelings and opinions of others, there are many others who understand that more and more of the people around them timeshift TV and maybe it would be nice not to blurt out a spoiler. So, it's not exactly my idea that I'm "forcing" on people. It's an idea that's been out there for a while, long before I said anything about it.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about courtasy
Once again, I understand this. My point is that even if NBC implemented the solution proposed by Mike -- airing Olympic events live -- the spoiler problem might be resolved for most of the people reference in the post, but you would not address the problem for the DVRers. What I'm trying to get across is that the problem of spoilers is bigger than just one group.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: It's about courtesy
Really? You and your friends have so little to talk about that you would force someone to leave the table rather than just move onto a different topic?
I have the responsibility, if I want to keep things suspenseful, to NOT put myself in places where the results of the "Big Event" would be announced.
I agree. Obviously the size of the event affects one's expectations on reasonably running across the results by accident. Superbowl? Lock yourself in your house, shut all the blinds, and don't turn on any electronic device. But the finale of a TV episode? I shouldn't have to go to extremes to avoid this being spoiled and I would hope that the kinds of people I call friends would have enough respect not to blurt out the ending before at least checking to see if the people at the table saw the episode.
I know this might be a shock to your system, but no matter what you think, you are not someone of that great importance; neither am I, and I certainly don't expect ANYONE to not talk about what they watched.
What does someone's view of their importance have to do with this topic? I'm not saying that any one person is so important that everyone around them has to bend to their will. What I am saying is that having DVRs and timeshifting shows is commonplace now and that social etiquette has to shift to accomodate this change in technology. Now, there's obviously a continuum in terms of how long the timeshift is. You'd get laughed out of the room if you got mad because you told people not to talk about who shot JR. What's the exact time period you have to give a spoiler alert? Who knows? But as more and more people timeshift, I think it will get longer and longer.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: It's about courtasy
I understand the content of the original post. My question related to extending the point of the post to a different group of people, the DVRers. The point being that even if NBC were to broadcast the events live, this may solve the problem of spoilers for some people (the people described in the post) but not for other people (the DVRers).
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: It's about courtasy
From a purely selfish standpoint, it's not your problem. You don't have to refrain from talking about an already-aired sporting event or show. But courtesy is not about what you have to do, but what's the polite thing to do. So, feel free to be a jackass and blurt out the ending of the episode or who won the game. It's your choice.
Otherwise do we schedule all news releases in the world based on NBC's bad programming decisions?
I think you're omitting a middle ground of just giving people fair warning. If I go to a web site or open a newspaper, I can reasonably be expected to see the results of an Olympic event. It's all on one page, so it's hard to avoid. So if it's important to me, I wouldn't go to a news web site or read a newspaper until after I watched the event. But what about watching the news on TV or listening to the radio while driving to work where you're never sure when they'll discuss certain stories? I listen to a radio station that actually warns you about upcoming Olympics results. I think this is a good compromise.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: It's about courtasy
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
It's about courtasy
The problem is not about NBC's decision to delay broadcast of Olympic events. The problem is that the advent of the DVR requires a new etiquette regarding events and shows that are going to be timeshifted. When I go to lunch with co-workers, you can't just blurt out what happened on Lost the night before. You have to be aware that fans of the show may have DVRed it, but haven't watched it yet.
Mike, maybe your air quotes of "spoiler" indicates that you don't take seriously the idea that some people get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the anticipation involved in watching a TV show or a sporting event, but many of us do. When NBC decides to air Olympic events is irrelevant to the issue of being courteous and not spoiling the results for other people.
On the post: Will People Pay For Content Online?
Re: Kudos!
Exactly. This reminders me of those asinine "knows someone who" study results. As in, "75% percent of high school students said they know someone who was sexually abused" or "90% of college students said they know someone who illegaly downloads music." Well, if you have five people who know each other and only one of them does the thing being studied, then 80% knows someone who is doing the thing. You can't factor how how many people know each other, so this kind of stat is worthless. This kind of study result, messing with the scale, and all of the other "liars figure" tricks should be taught in an Anti-Statistics class.
Common sense is not so common. And neither is critical thinking.
On the post: Is There Any Way To Be A Music Blogger Without Risking Takedown?
Re:
On the post: Is There Any Way To Be A Music Blogger Without Risking Takedown?
Re: Why must bloggers post actual music files?
So, if BT sites are getting into trouble even though they're just posting links to files, not hosting the files themselves, what makes you think that there'd be any safety in linking to a link? Just because it's one degree farther away from what the BT site does wouldn't mean that someone couldn't get you on some contributing charge.
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain to me ...
eBay is buying ads from Google based on keywords (misspelled brand names). eBay is then almost certainly not pointing to specific auctions or sellers, but instead showing the results of a search based on the correctly-spelled brand name. So, no...they're not a "passive conduit", but we're not talking about copyright safe harbors here; we're talking about trademark, so their passivity is irrelevant. And personally, I don't see anything wrong with this nor do I think it's illegal.
If LV thinks that eBay is not doing enough to remove counterfeiters from the site, then this is the problem that should be addressed. Not something as tangential as misspelled keywords.
On the post: Viacom To Record Labels: If You Want More Money For Music In Video Games, We'll Find Other Music
Clash of the Titans
I've often thought that true IP reform will only come about from clashes between big content companies. Sure, I like reading TechDirt and believe that I've learned more about IP law and issues because of it, but most of my friends aren't aware of these issues, much less have a strong opinion of it. Not to downplay the effect of reform groups and the dramatic increase of people interested in the topic, but I think that IP reform will only truly go mainstream when the total lockdown mode of our current IP system starts to (visibly) hurt the profits of big companies.
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain to me ...
Trademark law: Includes the right to defend someone using your name to sell a product
Again, I think that we're in agreement on the underlying principles, but literally there's nothing wrong or illegal with using someone else's trademarked name in the course of selling your product. It happens all of the time. When Target puts out a generic brand, they'll put "Compare to XYZ brand" right on the box. When Company X makes a commercial pointing out that their products are better than Company Y, they can use Company Y's trademark to get the point across. The key is you can use a trademark in the course of selling your product -- regardless of factors like the similarity of the business in the marketplace -- as long as a moron in a hurry wouldn't think that the actual company was selling the product instead of a counterfeiter.
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Re: Re: Explain to me ...
By my reading, you've essentially paraphrased my description of the purpose of trademark. If you're saying that the "similar course of business" clause is somehow a critical distinction between what I said and what you did, I don't see how that is relevant to the issue.
if ebay is buying up misspellings of louis vuitton marks, and then linking them to unauthorized auctions (usually they're fake gear), it's trademark infringement. plain and simple.
eBay is not presenting itself as Lois Vuitton, so how can this be a trademark violation? A moron in a hurry would know that eBay is not LV. Now, if someone is selling fake LV merchandise, there's your trademark infringement. But how is eBay, a third party, responsible for the actions of the counterfeiters?
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Explain to me ...
For the simple reason that there's no law that says they can't. Nor should there be. You're apparently under the false impression that the purpose of trademark law is for a company to weild absolute control over their their name and to prevent anyone from making a profit from any use of that name. This may be what many companies want people to believe, but it's quite false. The true purpose of trademark is for consumer protection. It's so that a consumer can be assured that if someone is selling a product with a trademark that the product is really associated with the trademark's company. One company simply referring to another company's trademark is not a violation of this purpose. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be?
Next >>