Presumably if Amazon become the licence holder for written works derived from certain TV shows, then they'll spend most of their time taking legal action against anyone who publishes fan fiction for free online based on those same TV shows (i.e. if you don't publish it through Amazon - the copyright holder - then you'll be sued).
While existing copyright holders "don't mind [free fan fiction] (with a few notable exceptions) as long as nothing is being sold" I suspect Amazon will.
Regarding cc-nc licences and republication of diagrams, etc. in journals:
Is it the case that the republication of a cc-nc licensed diagram in another cc-nc licensed journal article would be legitimate non-commercial use (since the journal article is free and therefore no exchange of goods is taking place)?
Whereas only republication is a traditional pay-for-access journal would be forbidden (unless the second article pays for commercial publication rights to the diagram in the usual manner).
I'm not disagreeing with the overall point of the article, but if what I've said is correct (I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong) then surely this particular part of the license is encouraging further *free* publication (by essentially waiving re-publication fees for other free publications, whilst charging journals which are not free to access).
Out of the 227 first-timers, 14 artists did it own their own; approximately 106 were signed to a major; the rest were signed to indies.
I'd be interested to know how many "failed" at the first hurdle.
For example, if 500,000 artists tried to get signed to a major in order to come out of obscurity (we'll use their definition for the time being), and only 106 broke the "obscurity line" (the vast majority being rejected by the major label in the first place) then the failure rate for the "major" route to success could be higher than the "indie" or DIY options.
"There were technical glitches at launch that geographically hobbled the Hulu stream (then fixed by Hulu's coders staying up all night to do so)"
The Hulu stream is still hobbled - it shows a message saying "We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States".
There's a link to find out more, which leads to an FAQ answer saying:
"For now, Hulu is a U.S. service only. That said, our intention is to make Hulu's growing content lineup available worldwide. This requires clearing the rights for each show or film in each specific geography and will take time. We're encouraged by how many content providers have already been working along these lines so that their programs can be available over the Internet to a much larger, global audience. The Hulu team is committed to making great programming available across the globe."
So the problem is definitely Old Media "rights/distribution" issues - albeit the fault of teams of lawyers representing old media companies that have crippled Hulu to force them to fit their old view of the world, rather than a specific decision by Whedon & Co.
Chet - I think you're right about what the real story is here.
With regards to the economic model, I think a massive mistake has been made - by restricting the freebie stuff to a geographic region (US-only), the people behind this venture have fundamentally misunderstood the intrinsically global (I'm tempted to use the William Gibson phrase "post-geographic") nature of the net.
And this is where I think such experiments will fail - as long as the old media content-producers keep trying to force their view of the world (i.e. as a number of geographically-defined distinct/separate markets, where they can set different price-points/licenses in different geographic areas) onto a global network like the internet then they're working against their potential customers.
In this case I think it's more a case of the news reporters that you link to discovering the internet long after everyone else.
Joss Whedon has been producing internet video since at least 2005 (such as the "R. Tam Sessions" he created as an internet-only spin-off for Firefly/Serenity ). OK, that's only 3 years ago, but...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Paul Watson.
Another monopoly?
While existing copyright holders "don't mind [free fan fiction] (with a few notable exceptions) as long as nothing is being sold" I suspect Amazon will.
Re: Re: (as Paul)
(untitled comment) (as Paul)
Is it the case that the republication of a cc-nc licensed diagram in another cc-nc licensed journal article would be legitimate non-commercial use (since the journal article is free and therefore no exchange of goods is taking place)?
Whereas only republication is a traditional pay-for-access journal would be forbidden (unless the second article pays for commercial publication rights to the diagram in the usual manner).
I'm not disagreeing with the overall point of the article, but if what I've said is correct (I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong) then surely this particular part of the license is encouraging further *free* publication (by essentially waiving re-publication fees for other free publications, whilst charging journals which are not free to access).
(untitled comment)
I'd be interested to know how many "failed" at the first hurdle.
For example, if 500,000 artists tried to get signed to a major in order to come out of obscurity (we'll use their definition for the time being), and only 106 broke the "obscurity line" (the vast majority being rejected by the major label in the first place) then the failure rate for the "major" route to success could be higher than the "indie" or DIY options.
Re:
"There were technical glitches at launch that geographically hobbled the Hulu stream (then fixed by Hulu's coders staying up all night to do so)"
The Hulu stream is still hobbled - it shows a message saying "We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States".
There's a link to find out more, which leads to an FAQ answer saying:
"For now, Hulu is a U.S. service only. That said, our intention is to make Hulu's growing content lineup available worldwide. This requires clearing the rights for each show or film in each specific geography and will take time. We're encouraged by how many content providers have already been working along these lines so that their programs can be available over the Internet to a much larger, global audience. The Hulu team is committed to making great programming available across the globe."
So the problem is definitely Old Media "rights/distribution" issues - albeit the fault of teams of lawyers representing old media companies that have crippled Hulu to force them to fit their old view of the world, rather than a specific decision by Whedon & Co.
Re: I think you missed the story on this one.
Chet - I think you're right about what the real story is here.
With regards to the economic model, I think a massive mistake has been made - by restricting the freebie stuff to a geographic region (US-only), the people behind this venture have fundamentally misunderstood the intrinsically global (I'm tempted to use the William Gibson phrase "post-geographic") nature of the net.
And this is where I think such experiments will fail - as long as the old media content-producers keep trying to force their view of the world (i.e. as a number of geographically-defined distinct/separate markets, where they can set different price-points/licenses in different geographic areas) onto a global network like the internet then they're working against their potential customers.
News Reporters discover the internet and find that some TV Folks are already there
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Paul Watson.
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