Christopher Best's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the another-week,-another-best-of-article. dept
If you’re like me, and you work in an office, then teleconferences occupy a special place in your heart. One executive at a Canadian energy company in particular couldn’t manage to keep to himself just how much he was enjoying the conference call he was on.
Now, I personally have accidentally let things slip during a teleconference, only to quickly cast a horrified glance at the speakerphone to make sure it’s still muted. We’ve probably all done it at one time or another. The consequences had the microphone not been muted is probably a recurring nightmare for many of us. That being said, accidental naughty words during earning reports aren’t really Techdirt material.
So how did this non-story end up here? When the company responsible started filing frivolous DMCA notices to have a recording of the call taken down. Hello Streisand Effect. I’ve seen some performances during conference calls that were probably worthy of academy awards (primarily from salesmen), but I don’t think that a call to report earnings really meets the necessary requirements for copyright. Anyway, a minor faux pas has been turned into a bit of a media circus, and now people like us, who’d never even heard of Encana are talking about it.
Though I suppose they’d rather we talk about this than their disappointing earnings, the criminal investigations they’re under, or how their stock price is taking a beating!
Speaking of abusing the law, the US Department of Justice apparently admitted in congressional briefings this week that the reason they were trying so hard to make sure Aaron Swartz got convicted of SOMETHING was because they didn’t want to look bad. No real surprise there. I mean, what’s the point of a witch hunt if no one gets burned at the proverbial stake at the end.
Many people have already spoken much more eloquently than I am capable of on this particular tragedy, so I won’t dwell on it any further. I’d make some comment that hopefully these revelations will lead to reforms of how the DoJ prosecutes these sorts of cases, but... yeah...
Meanwhile, in a sudden outbreak of common sense (Well, not so much common sense as recognition of reality) Mandar Thakur, an executive in the music division of "the largest mass-media company in India," claimed something very strange: Piracy may actually have had positive effects on the music industry. He suggested that the only reason the industry has adopted more modern distribution methods and started innovating is due to the challenges presented by piracy. He then went on to suggest that all this increasing bandwidth and access that people are getting is creating new markets and opportunities for the industry to take advantage of. Real heady stuff, here.
I fully expect him to be picked up and reprogrammed by RIAA wetworkers any day now.
Really, though, articles like this both depress me and give me hope. Depress me in that I know such thoughts are absolute anathema in my own country. But I do see a ray of hope in that no matter how much U.S. industries and officials refuse to adapt to a changing world, someone in some developing economy somewhere is going to “get it" and leave us in the dust.
And maybe they’ll let me emigrate there.
Another company in India seems to be recognizing the benefits of piracy, as well. Seems they were caught uploading a pirated version of their own film to their official YouTube channel. And, I mean, who can blame them? Have you ever tried ripping one of your own DVDs to put on a media server or portable device or something? If there’s a lot of seeds on a quality rip, it’ll certainly save alot of heartburn to just torrent it instead of doing it yourself...
Back to the music industry: 2012 was the first year since I started college that global music revenue actually rose. Only by 0.3%, mind you, but it wasn’t a decrease! The cynical jerk in me wonders if maybe the market just finally bottomed out, but what other explanations could there be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 2012 was the first full year Spotify was available in the US, the first full year Google Play Music was available, the first full year the Amazon Cloud Player was available... Need I continue? While a couple industry analysts tried to claim it was a reduction in piracy that led to these improved numbers, I think it’s at least equally as likely that the massive expansion in ways to purchase/consume music led to a reduction in piracy. Or less people are seeding, throwing off the “file sharing" numbers...
Now if only HBO would care enough about piracy to take this lesson to heart and offer some other way to get their stuff...
In other happy news: North Korea.
I was really worried things would get less entertaining on the North Korea front, what with Dear Leader moving on to fight evil in another dimension. But they really stepped up their game lately. Iran has a long way to go to catch up with North Korea in the “so crazy it’s kind of sad" department. I don’t have much else to say on that, other than that I can definitely make some more suggestions for epic video game music for future videos.
Oh, hey, remember HBO not caring about piracy from earlier? Seems one of the directors that worked on some HBO show claimed he didn’t really fret over the piracy of his shows, and that piracy probably helped create a lot of buzz around his work, much to his benefit. Of course, once this was reported, he immediately took to Twitter to make sure that he @replied anyone and everyone who would listen to make sure they knew he thought PIRACY IS TOTALLY NOT COOL! This led some to wonder if perhaps someone at HBO had gotten to him.
I don’t think that was what happened. I really think this was a case of someone having an “Oh God, did I just say that?" moment. Like when you say something and realize that someone could misinterpret it as slightly racist...
Really though: At this point I don’t think it’s necessary for any pressure to be applied by The Powers That Be to cause someone that works in content production to suddenly have a crisis of faith and prostrate themselves before the Altar of Copyright. The mere fear of consequences for being seen as not sufficiently devout is enough to keep people like Mr. Petrarca in line. Which I, of course, really think is a shame. Everything the guy said seemed to me to be the mark of a reasonable, pragmatic individual. Nothing in his comment seemed to be condoning piracy, or saying “I wish people would download my stuff more!" and I’m very happy to see his hurried responses at least recognizing that actually providing people more convenient ways to pay for your stuff is the best way to cut down on piracy. If you care about that sort of thing. Which HBO apparently doesn't.
And in a final upbeat note, a certain fictional group has showed how the lessons of patent trolling can be turned into a get rich quick, make money at home scheme: Make up a serious sounding name for yourself and randomly claim copyright on people’s YouTube uploads. Since copyright claims cost you nothing, even if only 1% of uploaders don’t dispute your claim and let you monetize, it’s still pure profit!
But the problem is companies like Google don’t do ENOUGH to help content creators deal with people uploading their stuff without permission... Riiiiiiight...
Re:
(untitled comment)
Yes, as some already have. I wouldn't expect most to say it, but when pressed on details I wouldn't be surprised to find a majority of public universities actually not supporting free expression. FIRE exists for a reason.
<EM>If some tiny college group wants to invite a controversial speaker to campus to speak, where 90% of the campus doesn't want them anywhere near the campus, the administration is simply supposed to keep its hands tied?</EM>
YES. Why would you advocate otherwise?
<EM>Punishing "shout-downs"? That's a pretty bald-faced acknowledgement that this bill will curb the free speech of students in favor of the free speech of invited speakers. In other words, this bill cuts in only one direction: students that are paying to attend school now have less speech rights than guests invited onto the campus.</EM>
Depends on what's meant by shout-downs. If hecklers are inside a venue AND disturbing the ability of others to hear the speaker they've showed up to hear, then they should be removed. If they're outside of the venue (and NOT physically preventing people from attending), they shouldn't be subject to any punishment.
As far as a committee calling out Universities for not actively protecting speech rights of invited speakers--consider times in history where the police turned their backs (or even took an active part) and allowed crowds to commit crimes against the disfavored. For example, the police being complicit in beatings of the Freedom Riders. There are definitely cases recently where Universities have abdicated their responsibility to keep the peace (e.g. Berkeley). I'm not sure what the right thing, if anything, is to do about this, but threatening funding seems to be a go-to way for legislatures to get compliance out of entities they don't directly control.../div>
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Zillow = bad
Yes the house five lots down went for 1/3 of what we were asking for, but that's because the family got foreclosed and it sat abandoned for over a year and got trashed. Using that as a data point to determine what a well taken care of house is worth because it's nearby and you (incorrectly) think it has the same number of bedrooms is stupid./div>
Re: Re: Zillow = bad
On the other hand, why is the onus on me (someone who doesn't use their damn site) to fix their info for them?/div>
Re: Re: Zillow = bad
Zillow = bad
Considering how awful they seem to be at estimating things, I'd rather they didn't do it, but a lawsuit doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.../div>
Like the old saying...
When the law is against you, pound the facts
When both are against you, pound the table/div>
Why in God's Name...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The results are in. Between the three of us...
One sees no implication that the article is blaming Trump, stating: "Trump appears to be a man who wants to bring the press to heel, especially in light of the comments made about him during the election. To me the real news it that we allow public officials to abuse power and write it off as a common practice"
One only has a problem with the line:
Stating "calling the arrests 'another first' here kind of makes it sound like this is new for the Trump age, even if he does say this has been happening a lot elsewhere in the article."
And then there's me. To play armchair quarterback: I'd of reversed the order of the article. Talk about the arrests, then talk about the fact that oh, by the way, these arrests (and tons of others) were under the 'most transparent administration' in history that constantly paid lip service to the importance of a free press. Finally, point out the new guy has been very public about his disdain for the press and his desire to bring them to heel (to borrow an apt phrase from a coworker), so if you think this is bad, you'd better buckle up...
But then again, I make buttons for a living, not write articles, so my thoughts on the matter are of dubious value. ;)
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, this might just be a problem with me. Kinda fed up with bad examples of "Trump so bad!" He's bad enough w/o blaming him for other people's crap.../div>
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the same banal bullshit that's been happening forever: journalists get swept up in a mass arrest during a riot/protest. Nothing new or special.
The US Attorney pushing the charges is an Obama appointee. That's probably the only novel thing about this, I suppose: DC is the only city where a Federal prosecutor will end up trying to lock you up journalists who get swept up like this. Normally it'd be a local schmuck (e.g. Carlos Miller is probably on a first-name basis w/ attorneys in the Miami DA's office by now...)
TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates "OMG Trump!" with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some *new* troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights./div>
(untitled comment)
Are we sure Chumley isn't some sort of Google Deep Mind AI project that's using a neural network to generate things that look like Bills?/div>
What apology?
I could definitely see how a casual reader could read their "apology" and assume that the only thing they should question was whether "Jackie" was raped, but still assume her account of the supposed coverup was credible./div>
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Yeah, about that...
Yeah, about that...
Oh hey, TD even covered this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130323/16493322431/sega-offers-half-hearted-non-apology-mas sive-youtube-takedown-promises-not-to-do-it-again-with-caveats.shtml/div>
Re:
Re:
Innocence is not a requirement for due process.
Besides, we're all guilty of something./div>
More comments from Christopher Best >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Christopher Best.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt