Showing posts with label new business models. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new business models. Show all posts

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Perpetual Protection Of Traditional Knowledge “Not On Table” At WIPO; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/22/09

Kaitlin Mara, Intellectual Property Watch; Perpetual Protection Of Traditional Knowledge “Not On Table” At WIPO:

"The director general also weighed in on issues of copyright.

On the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Gurry said that WIPO too did not know a great deal about the talks.

“Naturally we prefer open, transparent international processes to arrive at conclusions that are of concern to the whole world,” he said, citing WIPO’s role as an international, United Nations agency. And, he added, “IP is of concern to the whole world.”

On copyright protection in the internet age, the “problem we have is massive,” he said, citing the example of the newspaper industry and the music industry, both suffering as new technology necessitates changes in old business models."

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/22/perpetual-protection-of-traditional-knowledge-%e2%80%9cnot-on-table%e2%80%9d-at-wipo/

Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal; Ars Technica, 10/23/09

Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal:

Would you start paying Hulu for content that you previously got for free? The company's backers sure hope so, and they want to stick some content behind a paywall as early as 2010. "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," said one exec.

"The free-for-all days of Hulu may soon be over. News Corp. executives indicated (again) this week that the free, ad-supported model wasn't bringing home enough bacon and that the company was preparing to start charging users for content as soon as 2010. This news comes as a harsh reality check to dedicated Hulu fans, and Hulu will have to offer them more than just a browser-based stream if the company wants people to start forking over money.

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said at the B&C OnScreen summit this week. "Hulu concurs with that; it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.""

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hulu-will-have-to-add-benefits-if-it-wants-to-start-charging.ars

Saturday, January 31, 2009

At Panel on Google Book Settlement, Support, Criticism, Contentiousness, Library Journal, 1/29/09

Via Library Journal: At Panel on Google Book Settlement, Support, Criticism, Contentiousness:

  • "Pricing issues unresolved
  • Is public library access “product placement”?
  • Will city managers think Google is a library?

    In a lively, sometimes contentious discussion Saturday at the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting in Denver, Dan Clancy, engineering director for the Google Book Search Project, diligently explicated the proposed settlement with publishers and authors over books scanned from libraries, but was unable to answer some pressing questions from librarians, noting that the settlement itself remains unresolved."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

iTunes Music Store Finally Ditches DRM, Adds New Prices, Wired.com, 1/6/09

Via Wired.com: iTunes Music Store Finally Ditches DRM, Adds New Prices:

"After years of fits, starts, threats and ultimatums, Steve Jobs and three major labels have come to terms on a deal: Music will be available immediately on iTunes without DRM restrictions. Free of the limitations that currently restrict music playback to Apple products, the new plan will let consumers choose from three price levels instead of the 99-cent song model the store implemented on day one."

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/apple-promises.html

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Culture Secretary suggests extending copyright term to 70 years, Music Week, 12/11/08

UK Cultural Secretary Andy Burnham, Via Music Week: Culture Secretary suggests extending copyright term to 70 years:

"The online revolution has changed all the rules and ever since we’ve been struggling to catch up. For creative talent like you, it’s a genuinely double-edged sword – liberating and democratising on the one side, allowing people to bypass the traditional gatekeepers to the creative system.

But on the other side, what the online revolution has done is promote a prevailing sense with the online generation that creativity is free to enjoy.

We enjoy a whole lot more choice and opportunity – which is good. And a lot of people enjoy all that for free – which is good for them but not for everyone –and not good for the long term prospects for new music and new ideas, and fresh talent coming through...

The big creative challenge now is to come up with the new ideas that keep people listening and which set a true and realistic value on talent. In short, we need to create a new business model that is fairer to everyone – music-buying public, performers, and those who have built up the industry."

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1036434&c=1

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Op-Ed: How to Publish Without Perishing, New York Times, 11/29/08

Op-Ed by James Gleick, via New York Times: How to Publish Without Perishing:

"Which brings us to the settlement agreement, pending court approval, in the class action suit Authors Guild v. Google. The suit was filed in September 2005 when Google embarked on an audacious program of copying onto its servers every book it could get its hands on...On its face this looked like a brazen assault on copyright, but Google argued that it should be protected as a new kind of “fair use” and went on scanning during two and a half years of secret negotiations (I was involved on the authors’ side)...

As a way through the impasse, the authors persuaded Google to do more than just scan the books for purposes of searching, but go further, by bringing them back to commercial life. Under the agreement these millions of out-of-print books return from limbo. Any money made from advertising or licensing fees will go partly to Google and mostly to the rights-holders. The agreement is nonexclusive: If competitors to Google want to get into the business, they can.

This means a new beginning — a vast trove of books restored to the marketplace. It also means that much of the book world is being upended before our eyes: the business of publishing, selling and distributing books; the role of libraries and bookstores; all uses of books for research, consultation, information storage; everything, in fact, but the plain act of reading a book from start to finish."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free, Wall Street Journal, 11/17/08

Wall Street Journal: Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free:

"This shift by Google led Peter Osnos, founder of PublicAffairs books, to wonder if the book settlement could have lessons for other owners of content. "Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free," Mr. Osnos wrote for the Century Foundation. "This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren't newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines? Why are they not getting a significant slice of the advertising revenues generated by use of their stories via Google?"

Alas for the troubled news media industry, so much of its news is commoditized that people won't pay for it online. But as digital media mature, we'll see more redefinitions of legal concepts such as fair use. There will also be revisions of business practices regarding who gets paid what by whom. The Google settlement is a reminder that owners of intellectual property can choose to lock it away, give it away, or, most sensibly, share it in exchange for reasonable compensation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688619008032339.html

Monday, October 6, 2008

Musicians Realize They Need Their Own Lobbying Group - Techdirt, 10/6/08

Musicians Realize They Need Their Own Lobbying Group:

"It's almost amazing it's taken this long, but a bunch of musicians, including Radiohead, are now forming their own lobbying/bargaining group, called the Featured Artists' Coalition. One of the goals, actually, is to put pressure on the record labels to allow the musicians to retain the copyright on their music, rather than handing it over to the labels...
Though, my fear is that this new group really just promotes more of the same, and doesn't focus on new business model opportunities, but again looks for ways to "protect" rather than to innovate."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081005/2310512458.shtml