"Consumers who flirt with the morally ambiguous line of content consumption spend more money, according to a survey released by the Australian Department of Communications. Over a three-month period among respondents aged 12 and over, the survey found that those who consumed a mixture of copyright-infringing and non-infringing content spent on average AU$200 on music, AU$118 on video games, AU$92 on movies, and AU$33 on TV content. Consumers who only consumed non-infringing content spent only AU$126 on music, AU$110 on video games, AU$67 on movies, and AU$22 on TV; whereas pure copyright-infringing content consumers spent a mere AU$88 on music, AU$24 on video games, AU$53 on movies, and AU$8 on TV content... "Rights holders' most powerful tool to combat online copyright infringement is making content accessible, timely, and affordable to consumers," Turnbull said on Wednesday."
Showing posts with label rights holders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights holders. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
People who pay for content but also infringe copyright spend more; ZDNet, 7/22/15
Chris Duckett, ZDNet; People who pay for content but also infringe copyright spend more:
Monday, May 4, 2015
Grooveshark Shuts Down to Settle Copyright Infringement Suit; New York Times, 4/30/15
Ben Sisario, New York Times; Grooveshark Shuts Down to Settle Copyright Infringement Suit:
"Add Grooveshark to the list of music websites that have been sued out of existence over copyright infringement. On Thursday, Grooveshark, a free streaming site that once had 35 million users and advertising from the likes of Mercedes-Benz — but which drew the ire of major record companies for failing to receive permission for hosting music — agreed to shut down, ending a series of lawsuits stretching back four years. In a statement posted on its site, Grooveshark said, “We started out nearly 10 years ago with the goal of helping fans share and discover music. But despite best of intentions, we made very serious mistakes. We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service. That was wrong. We apologize.” Grooveshark said it had also agreed to “wipe clean all of the record companies’ copyrighted works and hand over ownership of this website, our mobile apps and intellectual property, including our patents and copyrights.”"
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Proposed EU Copyright Rules Could Aid Pandora, Spotify, Netflix, Lovefilm, In Fact Every Streaming Firm; Forbes, 12/10/13
Tim Worstall, Forbes; Proposed EU Copyright Rules Could Aid Pandora, Spotify, Netflix, Lovefilm, In Fact Every Streaming Firm:
"The European Union is proposing some changes to how copyright works inside the bloc and one of the things they’re discussing could make it much easier for the streaming companies like Netflix NFLX +2.1%, Spotify, Pandora and all the rest. This is just, in this area at least, something under discussion, open for commentary, but it is one of those things that sounds like a good idea. The problem is that the EU market for copyright is extremely fragmented: to put it in US terms it’s almost as if each State offers copyright on things in that State."
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes; Intellectual Property Watch, 9/10/13
Intellectual Property Watch; Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes:
"“Evaluating Graduated Response,” authored by Rebecca Giblin of the Monash University Faculty of Law, is available here.
The abstract of the paper reads: “It has been more than three years since the first countries began implementing ‘graduated responses’, requiring ISPs [internet service providers] to take a range of measures to police their users’ copyright infringements. Graduated responses now exist in a range of forms in seven jurisdictions. Right-holders describe them as ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ and are agitating for their further international roll-out. But what is the evidence in support of these claims?”
The paper looks at schemes in France, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States and evaluates “the extent to which they are actually achieving the copyright law’s aims,” it says."
Saturday, December 4, 2010
US Online Counterfeit Crackdown Has Industry Beaming; Intellectual Property Watch, 11/29/10
Intellectual Property Watch; US Online Counterfeit Crackdown Has Industry Beaming:
"In a move aimed to protect domestic intellectual property rights, the United States Justice Department today announced the suspension of 82 internet domain names on suspicion of selling counterfeit sports equipment, clothes and DVDs, music and software. But some used the opportunity to engage in scaremongering such as safety of families from harmful counterfeits, though none of the products involved appeared to fit that fear."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/29/us-counterfeit-crackdown-has-industry-beaming/
"In a move aimed to protect domestic intellectual property rights, the United States Justice Department today announced the suspension of 82 internet domain names on suspicion of selling counterfeit sports equipment, clothes and DVDs, music and software. But some used the opportunity to engage in scaremongering such as safety of families from harmful counterfeits, though none of the products involved appeared to fit that fear."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/29/us-counterfeit-crackdown-has-industry-beaming/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Google Wins Viacom Copyright Lawsuit; Wired.com, 6/23/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; Google Wins Viacom Copyright Lawsuit:
"Google-owned YouTube won a major victory Wednesday when a federal judge ruled the video-sharing site was protected under U.S. copyright law.
Viacom, which vowed an appeal, was seeking $1 billion in damages in a case testing the depths of copyright-infringement protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
The ruling, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom, especially as it applies to search engines, video-hosting companies, picture-hosting services like Flickr, social-networking sites like Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter. But it will make it all the more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.
In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.
“Today’s decision isn’t just about YouTube,” said Center for Democracy & Technology lawyer David Sohn. “Without this decision, user generated content would dry up and the internet would cease to be a participatory medium.”
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of New York disagreed with Viacom’s claims that YouTube had lost the so-called “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA. Viacom, parent of Paramount Pictures and MTV, maintained Google did not qualify, because internal records showed Google was well aware its video-hosting site was riddled with infringing material posted by its users.
Stanton ruled that YouTube’s “mere knowledge” of infringing activity “is not enough.”
“To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA,” the judge wrote.
Stanton ruled that YouTube had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner, was a “fair use” of the material “or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting.”
Stanton added, “Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: When Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.”
Jonathan Band, a copyright attorney who helped craft the DMCA, said “The argument Viacom was making would have neutered the DMCA. I think the judge understood that.”
The DMCA, which was heavily lobbied into existence by the Hollywood studios, has been a boon for internet freedom. But it has been a bust in other areas.
Among its provisions, it prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. So a San Francisco federal judge ruled in March that RealNetworks breached the DMCA when it marketed a DVD-copying device, and precluded it from the market. Apple also claims the DMCA makes it unlawful to jailbreak iPhones.
The Motion Picture Association of America declined comment on Stanton’s decision.
What’s more, the DMCA’s “safe harbor” privilege comes with another price. The law demands intermediaries such as YouTube to take down content in response to a notice from rights holders, without evaluating the claim for reasonableness or accuracy, or considering the fair use rights of users. That has opened the door to many abuses of free expression, including Universal Music’s 2008 takedown notice to YouTube over a Pennsylvania woman’s 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.”
The YouTube-Viacom decision came nearly a year after a Los Angeles federal judge ruled similarly in a case against little-known, video-sharing site Veoh, which has gone bankrupt. The difference between Wednesday’s ruling and the Veoh outcome, Band said, is that YouTube is mainstream, used by millions daily and is owned by one of the world’s most popular and richest internet brands: Google.
Google, which purchased YouTube for $1.8 billion in 2006, hailed the decision, saying it was “an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other.”
Viacom, which brought the case three years ago, said “We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
Judge Stanton ruled the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision against Grokster did not apply. He said Grokster distributed software that allowed computer-to-computer exchanges of infringing material, “with the expressed intent of succeeding to the business of the notoriously infringing Napster.”
Here is the case’s entire docket."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/#ixzz0rjMsFe8I
"Google-owned YouTube won a major victory Wednesday when a federal judge ruled the video-sharing site was protected under U.S. copyright law.
Viacom, which vowed an appeal, was seeking $1 billion in damages in a case testing the depths of copyright-infringement protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
The ruling, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom, especially as it applies to search engines, video-hosting companies, picture-hosting services like Flickr, social-networking sites like Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter. But it will make it all the more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.
In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.
“Today’s decision isn’t just about YouTube,” said Center for Democracy & Technology lawyer David Sohn. “Without this decision, user generated content would dry up and the internet would cease to be a participatory medium.”
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of New York disagreed with Viacom’s claims that YouTube had lost the so-called “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA. Viacom, parent of Paramount Pictures and MTV, maintained Google did not qualify, because internal records showed Google was well aware its video-hosting site was riddled with infringing material posted by its users.
Stanton ruled that YouTube’s “mere knowledge” of infringing activity “is not enough.”
“To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA,” the judge wrote.
Stanton ruled that YouTube had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner, was a “fair use” of the material “or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting.”
Stanton added, “Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: When Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.”
Jonathan Band, a copyright attorney who helped craft the DMCA, said “The argument Viacom was making would have neutered the DMCA. I think the judge understood that.”
The DMCA, which was heavily lobbied into existence by the Hollywood studios, has been a boon for internet freedom. But it has been a bust in other areas.
Among its provisions, it prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. So a San Francisco federal judge ruled in March that RealNetworks breached the DMCA when it marketed a DVD-copying device, and precluded it from the market. Apple also claims the DMCA makes it unlawful to jailbreak iPhones.
The Motion Picture Association of America declined comment on Stanton’s decision.
What’s more, the DMCA’s “safe harbor” privilege comes with another price. The law demands intermediaries such as YouTube to take down content in response to a notice from rights holders, without evaluating the claim for reasonableness or accuracy, or considering the fair use rights of users. That has opened the door to many abuses of free expression, including Universal Music’s 2008 takedown notice to YouTube over a Pennsylvania woman’s 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.”
The YouTube-Viacom decision came nearly a year after a Los Angeles federal judge ruled similarly in a case against little-known, video-sharing site Veoh, which has gone bankrupt. The difference between Wednesday’s ruling and the Veoh outcome, Band said, is that YouTube is mainstream, used by millions daily and is owned by one of the world’s most popular and richest internet brands: Google.
Google, which purchased YouTube for $1.8 billion in 2006, hailed the decision, saying it was “an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other.”
Viacom, which brought the case three years ago, said “We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
Judge Stanton ruled the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision against Grokster did not apply. He said Grokster distributed software that allowed computer-to-computer exchanges of infringing material, “with the expressed intent of succeeding to the business of the notoriously infringing Napster.”
Here is the case’s entire docket."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/#ixzz0rjMsFe8I
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)