David Carr, New York Times; Heedlessly Hijacking Content:
"Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was not the only one who had a tough week at the office.
Last Monday, the word got out that Rolling Stone had a stunning piece about General McChrystal, in which he and his aides were critical of the White House. It’s the kind of scoop that thrills magazine editors, and no doubt they couldn’t wait to get their issue on the stands.
The problem was, nobody else could wait either. On Tuesday morning, a PDF of the piece the magazine had lovingly commissioned, edited, fact-checked, printed and distributed, was posted in its entirety on not one but two Web sites, for everyone to read without giving Rolling Stone a dime.
It was a clear violation of copyright and professional practice, and it amounted to taking money out of a competitor’s pocket. What crafty guerrilla site or bottom-feeder would do such a thing?
Turns out it was Time.com and Politico, both well-financed, reputable news media organizations, that blithely stepped over the line and took what was not theirs.
Both companies said that a frenzy involving a significant national issue was under way and that because Rolling Stone itself did not post the article on its site, they took matters into their own hands. Each said that when Rolling Stone protested, it was taken down, and that when the magazine put up the piece at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, their sites linked to that instead.
Content-makers had a rough week across the board. A federal judge granted summary judgment to Google, whose subsidiary, YouTube, had been sued by Viacom for $1 billion for copyright infringement. Judge Louis Stanton of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that even though thousands of clips of Viacom shows had been uploaded to the site, YouTube was shielded from damage claims because of “safe harbor” provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Google was busy elsewhere, filing an amicus brief in a New York case against an aggregator called Theflyonthewall.com, for its appropriation of proprietary bank research. Lawyers for Google, along with Twitter, asked a federal appeals court to reverse a decision upholding the so-called hot news doctrine, which gives the publishers of up-to-the-minute news the sole rights to that content. They called that doctrine obsolete.
News organizations, including The New York Times, The Associated Press, Gannett and others, filed a brief of their own in the case, suggesting that, “unless generalized free-riding on news originators’ efforts is restrained, originators will be unable to recover their costs of news gathering and publication, the incentive to engage in the news business will be threatened and the public will ultimately have fewer sources of original news.”
In the Rolling Stone case, it wasn’t tech companies arguing for the right to appropriate content, but content-makers themselves.
The magazine delivered an advance copy to The A.P. on Monday afternoon (many magazines try to promote coming articles that way) with some restrictions. When The A.P. article ran with some highlights and excerpts, other news outlets, including networks and major newspapers, asked for a copy. Politico and Time Inc. did not receive copies from Rolling Stone directly.
Some party, probably a news outlet seeking comment, gave copies to both the subject and the White House — a pretty naughty move in and of itself. And by some point on Tuesday morning, the Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings had become a piece of electronic samizdat, passed around and, eventually, published.
Several commentators suggested that Rolling Stone brought this on itself by not immediately publishing the McChrystal article on its own site (the magazine had planned to publish online but on its own schedule).
“That’s like saying, ‘She had it coming,’ ” Eric Bates, executive editor of Rolling Stone, said in an interview on Thursday. “The decision about when to publish our material is ours and ours alone. It was completely inappropriate.”
Reached by e-mail on a plane, Jim VandeHei, executive editor and a founder of Politico, suggested that the imperatives of the news cycle superseded questions of custody. “Our reporters got the article from sources with no restrictions,” he wrote. “It was being circulated and widely discussed among insiders, and our team felt readers should see what insiders were reading and reacting to. Rolling Stone raised a reasonable objection once they posted the story, so we quickly agreed to link to their URL.”
Time Inc. is in the print magazine business, and Ann Moore, its chief executive, has been a vigorous public defender of copyright. Last year, in an interview with The Telegraph of London, she said, “Who started this rumor that all information should be free, and why didn’t we challenge this when it first came out?”
The folks running Time.com apparently missed the memo, but they are now in receipt of its message.
“Time.com posted a PDF of the story to help separate rumor from fact at the moment this story of immense national interest was hitting fever pitch and the actual piece was not available,” a spokeswoman for Time wrote in an e-mail message. “We always had the intention of taking it down as soon as Rolling Stone made any element of the story publicly available, and we did. It was a mistake; if we had it do over again, we would only post a headline and an abstract.”
(A spokeswoman for Ms. Moore said Ms. Moore believed it was a mistake and that it would not happen again.)
Publishing a PDF of somebody else’s work is the exact opposite of fair use: these sites engaged in a replication of a static electronic document with no links to the publication that took the risk, commissioned the work and came up with a story that tilted the national conversation. The technical, legal term for what they did is, um, stealing.
Media organizations can file all the briefs they want about protecting their work product from free-riders and insurgent hordes of digital pilot fish, but once they break their own rules and start feeding on one another, the game is sort of over.
These were decisions made in the midst of a white-hot news cycle, and perhaps cooler heads will prevail the next time around. But if some of the biggest names in the business are not above cut-and-paste journalism when it suits their needs, how can they point a finger at others?
“This is not about our slow-footedness on the Web, but our right to publish on a schedule we chose. To me, this was really a transitional moment,” said Mr. Bates of Rolling Stone. “We’ve had fan sites that have published the text of some stories, but what these two big media organizations did was really off the charts. They took something that was in a prepublished form, sent out to other media organizations with specific restrictions, and just put it up.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/business/media/28carr.html?scp=1&sq=david%20carr%20rolling%20stone&st=cse
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups; Wired.com, 6/25/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups:
"The association representing 380,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and others associated with the music industry has begun a fund-raising campaign to stifle groups that support free culture and digital rights.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers is urging the membership to donate money to battle the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and even Creative Commons.
In a letter sent to members this week, ASCAP said those groups and unnamed “technology companies” are “mobilizing to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright.’ ”
The letter continues, saying “the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.”
The fund-raising campaign came a day after Victoria Espinel, the nation’s copyright czar, outlined an intellectual-property enforcement plan that did not include a call to push internet service providers to adopt policies to cut service to repeat copyright scofflaws. Such a policy, referred to as “three strikes” or “graduated response,” was strongly backed by the motion picture and recording industries, and opposed by EFF and Public Knowledge.
Instead, Espinel said the nation’s “intellectual property-enforcement efforts should be focused on stopping those stealing the work of others, not those who are appropriately building upon it.”
The ASCAP, which also distributes royalties, said those groups are “influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.”
ASCAP did not return messages seeking comment.
ASCAP’s attack on EFF and Public Knowledge are farfetched. Those groups do not suggest music should be free, although they push for the liberalization of copyright law.
But the attack on Creative Commons is more laughable than ASCAP’s stance against EFF and Public Knowledge.
While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators.
The non-profit has issued various licenses to approximately 350 million pieces of content to writers, musicians, scholars and others. Flickr, for example, is filled with pictures licensed by Creative Commons.
The licenses allow the works in the public domain, with various rules regarding attribution, commercial use and remixing.
The group’s creative director, Eric Steuer, said nobody forces anybody to adopt the Creative Commons credo. “I think it’s false to claim that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s an opt-in system.”
Following Wednesday’s fund-raising letter from Paul Williams, ASCAP’s president, Steuer said several ASCAP members who also use Creative Commons licenses have donated money to Creative Commons."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/#ixzz0s13zbKVN"
"The association representing 380,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and others associated with the music industry has begun a fund-raising campaign to stifle groups that support free culture and digital rights.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers is urging the membership to donate money to battle the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and even Creative Commons.
In a letter sent to members this week, ASCAP said those groups and unnamed “technology companies” are “mobilizing to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright.’ ”
The letter continues, saying “the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.”
The fund-raising campaign came a day after Victoria Espinel, the nation’s copyright czar, outlined an intellectual-property enforcement plan that did not include a call to push internet service providers to adopt policies to cut service to repeat copyright scofflaws. Such a policy, referred to as “three strikes” or “graduated response,” was strongly backed by the motion picture and recording industries, and opposed by EFF and Public Knowledge.
Instead, Espinel said the nation’s “intellectual property-enforcement efforts should be focused on stopping those stealing the work of others, not those who are appropriately building upon it.”
The ASCAP, which also distributes royalties, said those groups are “influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.”
ASCAP did not return messages seeking comment.
ASCAP’s attack on EFF and Public Knowledge are farfetched. Those groups do not suggest music should be free, although they push for the liberalization of copyright law.
But the attack on Creative Commons is more laughable than ASCAP’s stance against EFF and Public Knowledge.
While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators.
The non-profit has issued various licenses to approximately 350 million pieces of content to writers, musicians, scholars and others. Flickr, for example, is filled with pictures licensed by Creative Commons.
The licenses allow the works in the public domain, with various rules regarding attribution, commercial use and remixing.
The group’s creative director, Eric Steuer, said nobody forces anybody to adopt the Creative Commons credo. “I think it’s false to claim that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s an opt-in system.”
Following Wednesday’s fund-raising letter from Paul Williams, ASCAP’s president, Steuer said several ASCAP members who also use Creative Commons licenses have donated money to Creative Commons."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/#ixzz0s13zbKVN"
In Documentary, Wall of Sound Meets Wall of Law; New York Times, 6/27/10
John Anderson, New York Times; In Documentary, Wall of Sound Meets Wall of Law:
"BETWEEN recording sessions here in 1973, John Lennon called Phil Spector and told him to come back down to the studio. “Someone’s ripped you off, Phil,” Mr. Lennon said. When Mr. Spector arrived, a projector had been set up, a film began to roll, several familiar drumbeats were heard and then, the wail of the Ronettes.
The song was “Be My Baby,” the movie was “Mean Streets,” and no one had told Mr. Spector anything about it.
“I said, ‘Who is this guy Skeezy?’ ” Mr. Spector recalls during “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector,” which opens Wednesday at the Film Forum in Manhattan. “I called my lawyers, I said, ‘Kill it!’ ” Martin Scorsese had used his music without permission, and “I never give permission for anything.”
Only Lennon’s intercession stopped Mr. Spector from seeking an injunction that could have pulled the movies out of theaters. They may not have known it at the time, but Mr. Scorsese, Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel came close to having their careers derailed by Mr. Spector — the creator of rock’s fabled “Wall of Sound,” the Svengali of the ’60s girl groups and the producer of the Beatles’ “Let It Be.”
The anecdote is perhaps the most startling contained in “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector,” a documentary by Vikram Jayanti, and not only because it’s being told by a man who, for 50 years, has avoided the news media like the plague. Built around interviews at Mr. Spector’s home during his first murder trial in 2007 — he was convicted in the shooting death of the actress Lana Clarkson after a second trial in 2009 — the film employs a greatest-hits collection of 21 Spector songs, played or performed in their entirety. And it does so without having obtained Mr. Spector’s written permission. Thus the film could become the latest flashpoint in the debate over what’s generally known as fair use, and copyright law. (Fair use refers to the right, under certain circumstances, like criticism, to use copyrighted material without permission. But the exact amount one can legally use remains a murky proposition.)
Mr. Jayanti, however, isn’t expecting any legal trouble, even though Mr. Spector twice sued his (former) friend and lawyer, Robert Shapiro, to reclaim a $1 million retainer and was appeased by Mr. Scorsese only when he promised to pay for future music use.
“Phil wanted the film made, he wanted the music given freely, he was cooperative about making it,” said Mr. Jayanti, who sat with Mr. Spector during most of the 2007 trial in Los Angeles.
Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Spector’s wife, Rachelle, said she hadn’t seen the film and didn’t think her husband had either. (He is serving 19 years to life at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran.) Mr. Jayanti disagrees. “Of course he’s seen the film,” he said. “We made sure he had a copy. We gave his lawyers copies of the film. And I don’t think if he looked at it in a rational state of mind, he’d have any problem with it. I think it does what he dreamed it would do.” Namely, to rewrite the lead of his obituary: from “convicted murderer” to “musical genius.”
Anthony Wall has produced the documentary program “Arena” for nearly 35 years, out of the BBC offices at Bush House, and it was Mr. Wall who asked Mr. Jayanti to direct the Spector film. They’d previously made “James Ellroy’s Feast of Death” together. Separately Mr. Jayanti has directed films like "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine" and was an executive producer on “When We Were Kings.”
“Running a program like this, you have your particular heroes or favorites,” Mr. Wall said. “The Top 3 for me were always Dylan, the Beatles and Phil Spector. I thought it would be difficult to get any of them, but that we’d never get Phil, because he has so resolutely refused to even give a newspaper interview. He just doesn’t do it.” The weird thing, Mr. Wall said, was that he had so few expectations, adding, “When Vikram asked me one day whether I’d actually written to him to give him the chance to say no, I hadn’t.”
Mr. Jayanti overnighted a letter to Mr. Spector and got a positive response three days later. Mr. Wall and Mr. Jayanti went to the Spectors’ home in Alhambra, Calif. — where a sign outside reads “Phil Spector’s Pyrenees Castle” — and did two days of interviews. A planned five-day shoot was interrupted by Mr. Spector’s trial preparation; a subsequent gag order on Mr. Spector ended all communication between subject and director. But Mr. Jayanti decided he had everything he needed — except, perhaps, that signed release.
For safety’s sake BBC lawyers looked at a possible fair use defense and decided the film was defensible. “It was an exploratory process that we entered into quite innocently,” Mr. Wall said.
“But what we’re looking at, in terms of it possibly being a precedent, is the law bending to reflect what’s really going on,” he said, meaning the Internet, the global marketplace and disparate views of copyright. “What we need is a new rule book. What it’s about is control, whether the Internet can be controlled, and the way our lives are controlled. It’s been a long time, after all, since ‘Steamboat Willie.’ ”
Mr. Wall’s reference to Walt Disney’s original Mickey Mouse cartoon points up a nettlesome issue in the realm of United States copyright law: Each time the 1928 “Willie” has been poised to enter public domain, Congress has extended copyright protection. But the larger point for rights activists is whether a culture can survive without being able to feed upon itself.
“Can you imagine the original guy who told the story of King Lear?” Mr. Jayanti asked. “What if he had been able to block Shakespeare, who picked up a story that was simply in the air? I’m not saying I’m Shakespeare, or that Phil Spector is doing what Shakespeare did with King Lear, but if we don’t have the ability to harvest and process and sample our own culture, then I think the culture dries up.”
The fair use issue is close to the heart of Patricia Aufderheide, director of the Center for Social Media at American University, which has developed the Code of Best Practices in Fair-Use, a documentary-industry standard. “One of the things that is not O.K. is to use music as soundtrack, for ambience or aesthetic,” Dr. Aufderheide said. But Mr. Jayanti’s argument — that Mr. Spector’s records cannot be appreciated or assessed except in their entirety — “is a nonaesthetic, nonsoundtrack reason,” and is quite plausible, she said.
There’s another side to the issue of course. “Filmmakers pay for actors, they pay for film stock, they pay for electricity,” said Robert Clarida, a partner with Cowan, Liebowitz, Latman, who is representing the recording industry in the continuing file-sharing case Arista Records et al. v. LimeWire. “Why shouldn’t they pay for music?”
Mr. Clarida conceded the merits of fair use in some instances, but said the use of an entire work, like a song, has rarely held up and cited two relatively recent and disparate decisions, one involving Elvis Presley and the other a 1947 performance by the singer Lily Pons, used on the cable program “Classic Arts Showcase.”
Mr. Jayanti said he hopes any discussion of copyright issues doesn’t overwhelm his motivations in making the movie in the first place, namely the celebration of what Mr. Spector achieved before calamity struck, and his directorly obsession with “geniuses under duress.”
“I’ve always wanted to do two documentaries that can’t be done: Napoleon on St. Helena and the trial of Oscar Wilde,” he said. “With Phil, I got to do both.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/movies/27spector.html
"BETWEEN recording sessions here in 1973, John Lennon called Phil Spector and told him to come back down to the studio. “Someone’s ripped you off, Phil,” Mr. Lennon said. When Mr. Spector arrived, a projector had been set up, a film began to roll, several familiar drumbeats were heard and then, the wail of the Ronettes.
The song was “Be My Baby,” the movie was “Mean Streets,” and no one had told Mr. Spector anything about it.
“I said, ‘Who is this guy Skeezy?’ ” Mr. Spector recalls during “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector,” which opens Wednesday at the Film Forum in Manhattan. “I called my lawyers, I said, ‘Kill it!’ ” Martin Scorsese had used his music without permission, and “I never give permission for anything.”
Only Lennon’s intercession stopped Mr. Spector from seeking an injunction that could have pulled the movies out of theaters. They may not have known it at the time, but Mr. Scorsese, Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel came close to having their careers derailed by Mr. Spector — the creator of rock’s fabled “Wall of Sound,” the Svengali of the ’60s girl groups and the producer of the Beatles’ “Let It Be.”
The anecdote is perhaps the most startling contained in “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector,” a documentary by Vikram Jayanti, and not only because it’s being told by a man who, for 50 years, has avoided the news media like the plague. Built around interviews at Mr. Spector’s home during his first murder trial in 2007 — he was convicted in the shooting death of the actress Lana Clarkson after a second trial in 2009 — the film employs a greatest-hits collection of 21 Spector songs, played or performed in their entirety. And it does so without having obtained Mr. Spector’s written permission. Thus the film could become the latest flashpoint in the debate over what’s generally known as fair use, and copyright law. (Fair use refers to the right, under certain circumstances, like criticism, to use copyrighted material without permission. But the exact amount one can legally use remains a murky proposition.)
Mr. Jayanti, however, isn’t expecting any legal trouble, even though Mr. Spector twice sued his (former) friend and lawyer, Robert Shapiro, to reclaim a $1 million retainer and was appeased by Mr. Scorsese only when he promised to pay for future music use.
“Phil wanted the film made, he wanted the music given freely, he was cooperative about making it,” said Mr. Jayanti, who sat with Mr. Spector during most of the 2007 trial in Los Angeles.
Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Spector’s wife, Rachelle, said she hadn’t seen the film and didn’t think her husband had either. (He is serving 19 years to life at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran.) Mr. Jayanti disagrees. “Of course he’s seen the film,” he said. “We made sure he had a copy. We gave his lawyers copies of the film. And I don’t think if he looked at it in a rational state of mind, he’d have any problem with it. I think it does what he dreamed it would do.” Namely, to rewrite the lead of his obituary: from “convicted murderer” to “musical genius.”
Anthony Wall has produced the documentary program “Arena” for nearly 35 years, out of the BBC offices at Bush House, and it was Mr. Wall who asked Mr. Jayanti to direct the Spector film. They’d previously made “James Ellroy’s Feast of Death” together. Separately Mr. Jayanti has directed films like "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine" and was an executive producer on “When We Were Kings.”
“Running a program like this, you have your particular heroes or favorites,” Mr. Wall said. “The Top 3 for me were always Dylan, the Beatles and Phil Spector. I thought it would be difficult to get any of them, but that we’d never get Phil, because he has so resolutely refused to even give a newspaper interview. He just doesn’t do it.” The weird thing, Mr. Wall said, was that he had so few expectations, adding, “When Vikram asked me one day whether I’d actually written to him to give him the chance to say no, I hadn’t.”
Mr. Jayanti overnighted a letter to Mr. Spector and got a positive response three days later. Mr. Wall and Mr. Jayanti went to the Spectors’ home in Alhambra, Calif. — where a sign outside reads “Phil Spector’s Pyrenees Castle” — and did two days of interviews. A planned five-day shoot was interrupted by Mr. Spector’s trial preparation; a subsequent gag order on Mr. Spector ended all communication between subject and director. But Mr. Jayanti decided he had everything he needed — except, perhaps, that signed release.
For safety’s sake BBC lawyers looked at a possible fair use defense and decided the film was defensible. “It was an exploratory process that we entered into quite innocently,” Mr. Wall said.
“But what we’re looking at, in terms of it possibly being a precedent, is the law bending to reflect what’s really going on,” he said, meaning the Internet, the global marketplace and disparate views of copyright. “What we need is a new rule book. What it’s about is control, whether the Internet can be controlled, and the way our lives are controlled. It’s been a long time, after all, since ‘Steamboat Willie.’ ”
Mr. Wall’s reference to Walt Disney’s original Mickey Mouse cartoon points up a nettlesome issue in the realm of United States copyright law: Each time the 1928 “Willie” has been poised to enter public domain, Congress has extended copyright protection. But the larger point for rights activists is whether a culture can survive without being able to feed upon itself.
“Can you imagine the original guy who told the story of King Lear?” Mr. Jayanti asked. “What if he had been able to block Shakespeare, who picked up a story that was simply in the air? I’m not saying I’m Shakespeare, or that Phil Spector is doing what Shakespeare did with King Lear, but if we don’t have the ability to harvest and process and sample our own culture, then I think the culture dries up.”
The fair use issue is close to the heart of Patricia Aufderheide, director of the Center for Social Media at American University, which has developed the Code of Best Practices in Fair-Use, a documentary-industry standard. “One of the things that is not O.K. is to use music as soundtrack, for ambience or aesthetic,” Dr. Aufderheide said. But Mr. Jayanti’s argument — that Mr. Spector’s records cannot be appreciated or assessed except in their entirety — “is a nonaesthetic, nonsoundtrack reason,” and is quite plausible, she said.
There’s another side to the issue of course. “Filmmakers pay for actors, they pay for film stock, they pay for electricity,” said Robert Clarida, a partner with Cowan, Liebowitz, Latman, who is representing the recording industry in the continuing file-sharing case Arista Records et al. v. LimeWire. “Why shouldn’t they pay for music?”
Mr. Clarida conceded the merits of fair use in some instances, but said the use of an entire work, like a song, has rarely held up and cited two relatively recent and disparate decisions, one involving Elvis Presley and the other a 1947 performance by the singer Lily Pons, used on the cable program “Classic Arts Showcase.”
Mr. Jayanti said he hopes any discussion of copyright issues doesn’t overwhelm his motivations in making the movie in the first place, namely the celebration of what Mr. Spector achieved before calamity struck, and his directorly obsession with “geniuses under duress.”
“I’ve always wanted to do two documentaries that can’t be done: Napoleon on St. Helena and the trial of Oscar Wilde,” he said. “With Phil, I got to do both.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/movies/27spector.html
You can't beat the sports TV pirates, so join them; (London) Guardian, 6/25/10
Seth Freedman, (London) Guardian; You can't beat the sports TV pirates, so join them:
"As millions sat glued to their television screens watching the epic Isner-Mahut tennis battle this week, countless others took the opportunity to watch the match illegally over the internet. Thanks to the proliferation of illicit websites offering live streaming of every major sporting event, huge amounts of broadcast revenue are being siphoned out of the world of sports – threatening the industry in the same way that Napster and Limewire decimated the music business.
I watched the final three games of Isner-Mahut via one such feed, and in terms of quality and timing there was no difference whatsoever from watching the game via a conventional, legal TV broadcaster. Gone are the days when low-resolution, high-interruption feeds were the only way to watch pirated sports games: today's technology makes watching ripped-off streams virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.
Sport, like music and mainstream media beforehand, has a stark choice before its governing bodies. If they remain resolute in their determination to follow old-school methods of disseminating their product, they will quickly drown under the deluge of fraudsters and pirates all too eager to capitalise on their mistakes. On the other hand, if they realise that they have to adapt to financially survive, they need to move fast to prevent a potentially catastrophic loss of income.
In some quarters, sporting bodies are moving with the times. The Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket games are broadcast live and free via YouTube, effectively heading off at the pass any rogue broadcasters seeking to steal their feed for themselves. The IPL authorities have a guaranteed income from their YouTube deal and, with a dedicated millions-strong audience subscribing to their feed, advertisers know how many people they can reach via the stream and how much each commercial slot is worth.
Likewise, this year's Wimbledon can be watched via pay-per-view on the tournament's official website, although given that this requires significant payment from the consumer, pirate sites still have the upper hand over the organiser's package. The choice between paying $9.99 (£6.50) for a "day pass" to online Wimbledon or a simple Google search for live, free tennis-streaming is not a hard one for most casual viewers to make, given that they get the exact same product with either option.
The malignant symptoms present themselves even more prevalently in the realm of top-tier football. The English Premier League and the Spanish Primera Division are two of the most heavily pirated leagues in the world, and despite the best efforts of regulators the problem is only getting worse with every passing year. Match highlights have been all but lost to copyright infringement, with uploads made by the thousand on YouTube and its peers, and touted on dedicated, legal sites such as 101greatgoals. Live games are increasingly going the same way, thanks to the authorities' refusal to accept that they can't beat the free-view pirates and should therefore join them instead.
Gambling companies have been quick to realise the potential draw of live feeds on their sites, especially in the realm of horse and dog racing, but also in slower-paced, more popular sports such as football and tennis. Betfair and Bet365 offer live broadcasts to punters with active betting accounts, easily reaping back in gambling revenue the outlay made to buy broadcasting rights.
Yet with all the signs pointing to a brave new world of online broadcasting, the industry dinosaurs continue plodding along the road to extinction. Premier League enforcers boast of their success in shutting down a handful of illegal feeds, but most online sports piracy goes unpunished. With mobile phones providing yet another alternative to television in the race for audiences, there is even more pressure on rights owners to be proactive rather than simply shut the stable door behind the bolting horse.
On anecdotal evidence alone, it is clear that there is a serious problem at the heart of the sports industry's broadcasting policies. In Tel Aviv, my peers and I watch football in bars with illegal satellites or via pirated internet feeds on laptops hooked up to plasma screens. No one bothers paying for dedicated sports packages when the alternatives are so free and easy, just as huge amounts of people illegally download films and TV series rather than spend money on DVDs.
The route chosen by the dogged likes of Rupert Murdoch in demanding money for access to his newspapers and sports packages is doomed to fail as long as there are equally determined rogue operators prepared to keep coming up with illegal alternatives. On the strength of this week's illegal tennis feed, the pirates have the upper hand; if the industry is to emulate Isner rather than Mahut, their style of play needs to change fast to redress the balance."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/25/tv-sports-pirates-premier-league
"As millions sat glued to their television screens watching the epic Isner-Mahut tennis battle this week, countless others took the opportunity to watch the match illegally over the internet. Thanks to the proliferation of illicit websites offering live streaming of every major sporting event, huge amounts of broadcast revenue are being siphoned out of the world of sports – threatening the industry in the same way that Napster and Limewire decimated the music business.
I watched the final three games of Isner-Mahut via one such feed, and in terms of quality and timing there was no difference whatsoever from watching the game via a conventional, legal TV broadcaster. Gone are the days when low-resolution, high-interruption feeds were the only way to watch pirated sports games: today's technology makes watching ripped-off streams virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.
Sport, like music and mainstream media beforehand, has a stark choice before its governing bodies. If they remain resolute in their determination to follow old-school methods of disseminating their product, they will quickly drown under the deluge of fraudsters and pirates all too eager to capitalise on their mistakes. On the other hand, if they realise that they have to adapt to financially survive, they need to move fast to prevent a potentially catastrophic loss of income.
In some quarters, sporting bodies are moving with the times. The Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket games are broadcast live and free via YouTube, effectively heading off at the pass any rogue broadcasters seeking to steal their feed for themselves. The IPL authorities have a guaranteed income from their YouTube deal and, with a dedicated millions-strong audience subscribing to their feed, advertisers know how many people they can reach via the stream and how much each commercial slot is worth.
Likewise, this year's Wimbledon can be watched via pay-per-view on the tournament's official website, although given that this requires significant payment from the consumer, pirate sites still have the upper hand over the organiser's package. The choice between paying $9.99 (£6.50) for a "day pass" to online Wimbledon or a simple Google search for live, free tennis-streaming is not a hard one for most casual viewers to make, given that they get the exact same product with either option.
The malignant symptoms present themselves even more prevalently in the realm of top-tier football. The English Premier League and the Spanish Primera Division are two of the most heavily pirated leagues in the world, and despite the best efforts of regulators the problem is only getting worse with every passing year. Match highlights have been all but lost to copyright infringement, with uploads made by the thousand on YouTube and its peers, and touted on dedicated, legal sites such as 101greatgoals. Live games are increasingly going the same way, thanks to the authorities' refusal to accept that they can't beat the free-view pirates and should therefore join them instead.
Gambling companies have been quick to realise the potential draw of live feeds on their sites, especially in the realm of horse and dog racing, but also in slower-paced, more popular sports such as football and tennis. Betfair and Bet365 offer live broadcasts to punters with active betting accounts, easily reaping back in gambling revenue the outlay made to buy broadcasting rights.
Yet with all the signs pointing to a brave new world of online broadcasting, the industry dinosaurs continue plodding along the road to extinction. Premier League enforcers boast of their success in shutting down a handful of illegal feeds, but most online sports piracy goes unpunished. With mobile phones providing yet another alternative to television in the race for audiences, there is even more pressure on rights owners to be proactive rather than simply shut the stable door behind the bolting horse.
On anecdotal evidence alone, it is clear that there is a serious problem at the heart of the sports industry's broadcasting policies. In Tel Aviv, my peers and I watch football in bars with illegal satellites or via pirated internet feeds on laptops hooked up to plasma screens. No one bothers paying for dedicated sports packages when the alternatives are so free and easy, just as huge amounts of people illegally download films and TV series rather than spend money on DVDs.
The route chosen by the dogged likes of Rupert Murdoch in demanding money for access to his newspapers and sports packages is doomed to fail as long as there are equally determined rogue operators prepared to keep coming up with illegal alternatives. On the strength of this week's illegal tennis feed, the pirates have the upper hand; if the industry is to emulate Isner rather than Mahut, their style of play needs to change fast to redress the balance."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/25/tv-sports-pirates-premier-league
Friday, June 25, 2010
New US IP Enforcement Plan May Have International Impact; Intellectual Property Watch, 6/23/10
Liza Porteus Viana, Intellectual Property Watch; New US IP Enforcement Plan May Have International Impact:
"The Obama administration’s release of its national intellectual property strategy yesterday was welcomed by many groups representing businesses and intellectual property holders who said it could serve as an example to other countries.
The strategy encompasses 33 enforcement strategy action items that fall within six categories of focus for the United States: (1) leading by example; (2) increasing transparency; (3) ensuring efficiency and coordination; (4) enforcing our rights internationally; (5) securing our supply chain; and (6) building a data-driven government.
“Combating counterfeiting and piracy requires a robust federal response,” says the introduction of the report, which was released by President Obama’s intellectual property enforcement coordinator (IPEC), Victoria Espinel, who was joined by US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joe Biden, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “Our status as a global innovation leader is compromised by those countries who fail to enforce the rule of law or international agreements, or who adopt policies that disadvantage American industries.”
“I say to those who are suffering from infringement: ‘Help is on the way,’” Espinel said during a press conference releasing the report.
Watch a video of the press conference here.
Biden said a comprehensive approach thus far has been lacking in this country, further alluding to the fact that up until now, there has been no proper cracking down on piracy at the federal level.
“Piracy hurts. It hurts our economy,” as well as citizens’ health and safety, he added, taking a hardline position. “Whether we’re talking about fake drugs that hurt instead of help the patient or knockoff car tires that fall apart at 65 miles per hour that cause injury or death, counterfeits kill. Counterfeits kill. There’s a reason why they’re counterfeit – they don’t know how to do it in the first place. It also, to state the obvious, stifles creativity.”
He continued: “Piracy is theft – clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. … Intellectual property is no different.”
While acknowledging the need to control IP infringement, public interest groups, academics and some US trading partners have continually raised concern that overly strong or unbalanced protection measures can also stifle creativity and innovation as well by limiting access to ideas and knowledge...
Mark Esper, executive vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center, said this strategy may cause others to ponder similar plans. The instalment of Espinel as the IPEC may also hammer home the idea that the United States is taking IP enforcement seriously, he added. As of January 2007, 23 countries and/or regions had intellectual property strategies included in WIPO’s IP and New Technologies Database.
“Those two go hand in glove,” Esper told Intellectual Property Watch. Other countries may conclude that “they, too, will need somebody at the top of their government focused solely on IP and creativity.” He said the European Union is pondering the idea of such an official.
The Chamber commended the administration, specifically, for acknowledging the increasingly sophisticated problem of internet piracy. Biden also called on the private sector to do more to combat this type of theft.
“I am encouraged to see they have taken on the issue area growing the most quickly, the one that will be the most difficult to get under control,” Esper added.
Biden also specifically applauded search engines like Yahoo, Google and Bing, which in recent weeks took steps to stop selling advertising to illegal internet pharmacies.
Applause and comments also came from other groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, Copyright Alliance, Progress & Freedom Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers and American Apparel & Footwear Association, as well as lawmakers such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was the lead author of the 2008 legislation creating Espinel’s post. Leahy said he will discuss the plan with Espinel at the Judiciary Committee’s IPEC oversight hearing today."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/23/new-us-ip-enforcement-plan-may-have-international-impact/
"The Obama administration’s release of its national intellectual property strategy yesterday was welcomed by many groups representing businesses and intellectual property holders who said it could serve as an example to other countries.
The strategy encompasses 33 enforcement strategy action items that fall within six categories of focus for the United States: (1) leading by example; (2) increasing transparency; (3) ensuring efficiency and coordination; (4) enforcing our rights internationally; (5) securing our supply chain; and (6) building a data-driven government.
“Combating counterfeiting and piracy requires a robust federal response,” says the introduction of the report, which was released by President Obama’s intellectual property enforcement coordinator (IPEC), Victoria Espinel, who was joined by US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joe Biden, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “Our status as a global innovation leader is compromised by those countries who fail to enforce the rule of law or international agreements, or who adopt policies that disadvantage American industries.”
“I say to those who are suffering from infringement: ‘Help is on the way,’” Espinel said during a press conference releasing the report.
Watch a video of the press conference here.
Biden said a comprehensive approach thus far has been lacking in this country, further alluding to the fact that up until now, there has been no proper cracking down on piracy at the federal level.
“Piracy hurts. It hurts our economy,” as well as citizens’ health and safety, he added, taking a hardline position. “Whether we’re talking about fake drugs that hurt instead of help the patient or knockoff car tires that fall apart at 65 miles per hour that cause injury or death, counterfeits kill. Counterfeits kill. There’s a reason why they’re counterfeit – they don’t know how to do it in the first place. It also, to state the obvious, stifles creativity.”
He continued: “Piracy is theft – clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. … Intellectual property is no different.”
While acknowledging the need to control IP infringement, public interest groups, academics and some US trading partners have continually raised concern that overly strong or unbalanced protection measures can also stifle creativity and innovation as well by limiting access to ideas and knowledge...
Mark Esper, executive vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center, said this strategy may cause others to ponder similar plans. The instalment of Espinel as the IPEC may also hammer home the idea that the United States is taking IP enforcement seriously, he added. As of January 2007, 23 countries and/or regions had intellectual property strategies included in WIPO’s IP and New Technologies Database.
“Those two go hand in glove,” Esper told Intellectual Property Watch. Other countries may conclude that “they, too, will need somebody at the top of their government focused solely on IP and creativity.” He said the European Union is pondering the idea of such an official.
The Chamber commended the administration, specifically, for acknowledging the increasingly sophisticated problem of internet piracy. Biden also called on the private sector to do more to combat this type of theft.
“I am encouraged to see they have taken on the issue area growing the most quickly, the one that will be the most difficult to get under control,” Esper added.
Biden also specifically applauded search engines like Yahoo, Google and Bing, which in recent weeks took steps to stop selling advertising to illegal internet pharmacies.
Applause and comments also came from other groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, Copyright Alliance, Progress & Freedom Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers and American Apparel & Footwear Association, as well as lawmakers such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was the lead author of the 2008 legislation creating Espinel’s post. Leahy said he will discuss the plan with Espinel at the Judiciary Committee’s IPEC oversight hearing today."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/23/new-us-ip-enforcement-plan-may-have-international-impact/
Feds won't get involved in "three strikes," website blocking; ArsTechnica.com, 6/22/10
Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Feds won't get involved in "three strikes," website blocking:
"For months, we've been nervously awaiting new White House intellectual property "czar" Victoria A. Espinel's Joint Strategic Plan, and the White House published it (PDF) this morning. But the document turned out to be fairly innocuous; fair use even gets a few mentions. Rightsholders who hoped the federal government would start running "three strikes" Internet copyright tribunals or start ordering ISPs to block websites were disappointed."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/ip-boss-calls-for-transparency-in-copyright-enforcement.ars
"For months, we've been nervously awaiting new White House intellectual property "czar" Victoria A. Espinel's Joint Strategic Plan, and the White House published it (PDF) this morning. But the document turned out to be fairly innocuous; fair use even gets a few mentions. Rightsholders who hoped the federal government would start running "three strikes" Internet copyright tribunals or start ordering ISPs to block websites were disappointed."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/ip-boss-calls-for-transparency-in-copyright-enforcement.ars
US goes after movie pirates in Estonia, counterfeiters in Tanzania; ArsTechnica.com, 6/24/10
Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; US goes after movie pirates in Estonia, counterfeiters in Tanzania:
"As we've reported, the White House released its Joint Strategic Plan for intellectual property enforcement this week, courtesy of its new "IP Czar," Victoria Espinel. Vice President Joe Biden was at the press conference to grab the sound bite crown:
"Look, we used to avoid saying this in this town... Piracy is theft," Biden declared. "Clean and simple. It's nothing but theft."
But the report itself shuns the limelight—as well as recommendations like government-mandated website blocking and three strikes rules, we're happy to note. Instead it cautiously urges the government to avoid buying counterfeit items, and to be more transparent in its IP enforcement policies.
All this got us wondering, though: what's the government already doing about this stuff? Turns out the US was all over the world in the last year, spending tax dollars on IP enforcement in all sorts of ways."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/meet-uncle-sams-global-ip-enforcement-team.ars
"As we've reported, the White House released its Joint Strategic Plan for intellectual property enforcement this week, courtesy of its new "IP Czar," Victoria Espinel. Vice President Joe Biden was at the press conference to grab the sound bite crown:
"Look, we used to avoid saying this in this town... Piracy is theft," Biden declared. "Clean and simple. It's nothing but theft."
But the report itself shuns the limelight—as well as recommendations like government-mandated website blocking and three strikes rules, we're happy to note. Instead it cautiously urges the government to avoid buying counterfeit items, and to be more transparent in its IP enforcement policies.
All this got us wondering, though: what's the government already doing about this stuff? Turns out the US was all over the world in the last year, spending tax dollars on IP enforcement in all sorts of ways."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/meet-uncle-sams-global-ip-enforcement-team.ars
Canadian copyright reform debate turns nasty; Hollywood Reporter, 6/24/10
Etan Vlessing, Hollywood Reporter; Canadian copyright reform debate turns nasty:
"Canadian federal politician James Moore has lashed out at opponents of his made-in-U.S.A. copyright reform package as "radical extremists."
"They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a year-long comprehensive effort to get something right," Moore, the federal heritage minister in charge of copyright reform, told a G20 Chamber of Commerce gathering in Toronto.
Moore, who is looking to get Bill C-32 and its amendments to the federal Copyright Act into law, has come under attack from artist and consumer advocates for proposing to bar Canadians from picking a digital lock on music, film or any entertainment product protected from duplication
"There are those cited as experts by the media who are not in favor of copyright reform. They are in favor only in weakening legislation, and only gutting tools that would allow those who are investing in and creating jobs to continue to have those jobs," Moore insisted.
"When they speak up, we need to confront them," he added.
But Moore's call to arms met with an immediate barrage of complaints from opposition politicians and copyright reform critics.
Charlie Angus, a broadcast critic for the opposition NDP party, said Moore attacking artists and consumers posing legitimate questions about Bill C-32 was "ridiculous."
"Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out," Angus said.
Michael Geist, an Internet and e-commerce law professor at the University of Ottawa, in a blog criticized Moore for looking to discredit and confront opponents of his proposed copyright reform package.
"To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright," Geist said.
The Canadian mud fight over copyright reform comes as Ottawa looks to get back in Washington's good books after being placed by the U.S. Trade Representative on its "priority watch list" for piracy.
Moore's proposed copyright reforms include a first-time "notice-and-notice" regime where copyright holders can warn Internet service providers of suspected piracy, and the ISP will then be compelled to tell their customer they are breaking the law.
The long-awaited reforms to limit consumer protections will also narrow Canada's fair dealing provision, albeit with extensions for the recording of content for news reporting or parody, for example, if copyright infringement is not intended.
Bill C32 will now go to committee in Ottawa for likely amendments before the Canadian Parliament gets a chance to vote on the new legislation."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i4398ded06f46a32c46ea40e0f6d0562e
"Canadian federal politician James Moore has lashed out at opponents of his made-in-U.S.A. copyright reform package as "radical extremists."
"They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a year-long comprehensive effort to get something right," Moore, the federal heritage minister in charge of copyright reform, told a G20 Chamber of Commerce gathering in Toronto.
Moore, who is looking to get Bill C-32 and its amendments to the federal Copyright Act into law, has come under attack from artist and consumer advocates for proposing to bar Canadians from picking a digital lock on music, film or any entertainment product protected from duplication
"There are those cited as experts by the media who are not in favor of copyright reform. They are in favor only in weakening legislation, and only gutting tools that would allow those who are investing in and creating jobs to continue to have those jobs," Moore insisted.
"When they speak up, we need to confront them," he added.
But Moore's call to arms met with an immediate barrage of complaints from opposition politicians and copyright reform critics.
Charlie Angus, a broadcast critic for the opposition NDP party, said Moore attacking artists and consumers posing legitimate questions about Bill C-32 was "ridiculous."
"Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out," Angus said.
Michael Geist, an Internet and e-commerce law professor at the University of Ottawa, in a blog criticized Moore for looking to discredit and confront opponents of his proposed copyright reform package.
"To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright," Geist said.
The Canadian mud fight over copyright reform comes as Ottawa looks to get back in Washington's good books after being placed by the U.S. Trade Representative on its "priority watch list" for piracy.
Moore's proposed copyright reforms include a first-time "notice-and-notice" regime where copyright holders can warn Internet service providers of suspected piracy, and the ISP will then be compelled to tell their customer they are breaking the law.
The long-awaited reforms to limit consumer protections will also narrow Canada's fair dealing provision, albeit with extensions for the recording of content for news reporting or parody, for example, if copyright infringement is not intended.
Bill C32 will now go to committee in Ottawa for likely amendments before the Canadian Parliament gets a chance to vote on the new legislation."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i4398ded06f46a32c46ea40e0f6d0562e
Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'; TechDirt.com, 6/23/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists':
"Anshar alerts us to the news that the driving force behind Canada's new copyright bill, Heritage Minister James Moore, at a Chamber of Commerce event, apparently claimed that those who are opposed to Canada's attempt to put in place a version of the DMCA are just a group of "radical extremists." Really? So, people who just want to make sure that copyright law doesn't lock up culture and harm creativity are "radical extremists"? How does he figure that? Meanwhile, in response to this, Michael Geist has started putting together a list of these "radical extremists" who appear to be just about everywhere, including littered throughout all of the major political parties, and appears to include such "radicals" as the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian Bookseller Association (radicals! all of them!). I guess since Moore doesn't appear to want to have to actually defend the more worrisome parts of the legislation (mainly the "digital locks" anti-circumvention provisions) he figures the next best thing is to demonize people who actually care about consumer rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1658319925.shtml
"Anshar alerts us to the news that the driving force behind Canada's new copyright bill, Heritage Minister James Moore, at a Chamber of Commerce event, apparently claimed that those who are opposed to Canada's attempt to put in place a version of the DMCA are just a group of "radical extremists." Really? So, people who just want to make sure that copyright law doesn't lock up culture and harm creativity are "radical extremists"? How does he figure that? Meanwhile, in response to this, Michael Geist has started putting together a list of these "radical extremists" who appear to be just about everywhere, including littered throughout all of the major political parties, and appears to include such "radicals" as the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian Bookseller Association (radicals! all of them!). I guess since Moore doesn't appear to want to have to actually defend the more worrisome parts of the legislation (mainly the "digital locks" anti-circumvention provisions) he figures the next best thing is to demonize people who actually care about consumer rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1658319925.shtml
ASCAP Files 21 Copyright Suits Against Bars and Clubs; New York Times, 6/21/10
Joseph Plambeck, New York Times; ASCAP Files 21 Copyright Suits Against Bars and Clubs:
"The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said on Monday that it had filed copyright suits against 21 bars, nightclubs and restaurants across the country, including Doug’s Burger Bar in Imperial, Mo., and The Vibe in Riverside, Calif.
The performing rights group, which represents more than 380,000 songwriters and publishers, said in a statement that each of the businesses did not have the required license to allow performers to play copyrighted songs or have failed to make the payments required by the license.
Any venue that hosts musicians who perform any of the 8.5 million copyrighted songs overseen by the performing rights group, which collects royalties for song writers, is supposed to pay an annual licensing fee.
“Having music in an establishment is an enhancement that draws many patrons to these venues. A music license is a basic cost of business recognized in hundreds of thousands of bars, restaurants and other venues across the U.S.,” Vincent Candilora, the group’s senior vice president of licensing, said in a statement. “The 21 cases filed today aim to heighten awareness among music users and the public that it is a federal offense to perform copyrighted music without permission.”"
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/ascap-files-21-copyright-suits-against-bars-and-clubs/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said on Monday that it had filed copyright suits against 21 bars, nightclubs and restaurants across the country, including Doug’s Burger Bar in Imperial, Mo., and The Vibe in Riverside, Calif.
The performing rights group, which represents more than 380,000 songwriters and publishers, said in a statement that each of the businesses did not have the required license to allow performers to play copyrighted songs or have failed to make the payments required by the license.
Any venue that hosts musicians who perform any of the 8.5 million copyrighted songs overseen by the performing rights group, which collects royalties for song writers, is supposed to pay an annual licensing fee.
“Having music in an establishment is an enhancement that draws many patrons to these venues. A music license is a basic cost of business recognized in hundreds of thousands of bars, restaurants and other venues across the U.S.,” Vincent Candilora, the group’s senior vice president of licensing, said in a statement. “The 21 cases filed today aim to heighten awareness among music users and the public that it is a federal offense to perform copyrighted music without permission.”"
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/ascap-files-21-copyright-suits-against-bars-and-clubs/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Center Releases New Guide to Navigating Copyright Law; Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/23/10
Sophia Li, Chronicle of Higher Education; Center Releases New Guide to Navigating Copyright Law:
"Communications scholars often fret over the legal nuances of using copyrighted material in their research, says Pat Aufderheide, a professor of communication at American University and director of its Center for Social Media. Ms. Aufderheide and Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American, hope to help researchers rest easy with a new guide to using copyrighted work—like political cartoons or screenshots from online games—in their studies.
Because of the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, copyrighted work can be quoted if it is being used for a purpose different from its original intent, according to the report, which was vetted by a committee of lawyers.
The report, released today, gives communications scholars four types of research-related situations as examples: analyzing copyrighted material, quoting it to illustrate a point, using it to spark discussion, and storing it in a collection. The situations in the report were based on 387 responses to a survey of communications scholars conducted in collaboration with the International Communication Association.
The center's guides establish what's acceptable for a field and tell scholars how to apply the law to the cases they encounter, said Ms. Aufderheide.
The center plans to continue producing similar documents for other groups, like an association of research librarians, that want clearer guidelines on using copyrighted works, she added."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Center-Releases-New-Guide-to/25038/
"Communications scholars often fret over the legal nuances of using copyrighted material in their research, says Pat Aufderheide, a professor of communication at American University and director of its Center for Social Media. Ms. Aufderheide and Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American, hope to help researchers rest easy with a new guide to using copyrighted work—like political cartoons or screenshots from online games—in their studies.
Because of the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, copyrighted work can be quoted if it is being used for a purpose different from its original intent, according to the report, which was vetted by a committee of lawyers.
The report, released today, gives communications scholars four types of research-related situations as examples: analyzing copyrighted material, quoting it to illustrate a point, using it to spark discussion, and storing it in a collection. The situations in the report were based on 387 responses to a survey of communications scholars conducted in collaboration with the International Communication Association.
The center's guides establish what's acceptable for a field and tell scholars how to apply the law to the cases they encounter, said Ms. Aufderheide.
The center plans to continue producing similar documents for other groups, like an association of research librarians, that want clearer guidelines on using copyrighted works, she added."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Center-Releases-New-Guide-to/25038/
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
Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit; ArsTechnica.com, 6/23/10
Michael Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit:
"It was a billion dollar lawsuit, and YouTube has won—for now. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected Viacom's claim that Google's premier video site was guilty of massive copyright infringement. Instead, the court has granted Google's motion for summary judgment and asserted that YouTube fully qualifies for "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
"This is 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," Google just announced on its blog. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world."
Viacom had contended that most of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA did not protect Google from Viacom's infringement claims. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that if Viacom's arguments prevailed, they would severely compromise the viability of online content providers both huge and small, and would gut the DMCA's protections for sites that host or transmit other people's content. eBay, Facebook, Ask.com, and Yahoo! similarly weighed in on the case.
"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."
Viacom, it should be noted, doesn't agree with the sweeping judicial ruling (which was a relatively sparse 30-pager), as is evident from the press statement we just received. Viacom intends to appeal the case.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions," Viacom says.
Furthermore: "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process."
But for now, YouTube and Google have won a tremendous victory."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/06/google-beats-viacom-in-billion-dollar-lawsuit.ars
"It was a billion dollar lawsuit, and YouTube has won—for now. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected Viacom's claim that Google's premier video site was guilty of massive copyright infringement. Instead, the court has granted Google's motion for summary judgment and asserted that YouTube fully qualifies for "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
"This is 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," Google just announced on its blog. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world."
Viacom had contended that most of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA did not protect Google from Viacom's infringement claims. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that if Viacom's arguments prevailed, they would severely compromise the viability of online content providers both huge and small, and would gut the DMCA's protections for sites that host or transmit other people's content. eBay, Facebook, Ask.com, and Yahoo! similarly weighed in on the case.
"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."
Viacom, it should be noted, doesn't agree with the sweeping judicial ruling (which was a relatively sparse 30-pager), as is evident from the press statement we just received. Viacom intends to appeal the case.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions," Viacom says.
Furthermore: "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process."
But for now, YouTube and Google have won a tremendous victory."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/06/google-beats-viacom-in-billion-dollar-lawsuit.ars
Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom; TechDirt.com, 6/23/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom:
"Well this is a pleasant surprise. Like many others, I had assumed that the court reviewing the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit would not accept either side's position for summary judgment and the case would go to a full trial. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, the court has quickly ruled in favor of Google/YouTube, saying that it is, in fact, protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Here's the ruling..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1333269937.shtml
"Well this is a pleasant surprise. Like many others, I had assumed that the court reviewing the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit would not accept either side's position for summary judgment and the case would go to a full trial. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, the court has quickly ruled in favor of Google/YouTube, saying that it is, in fact, protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Here's the ruling..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1333269937.shtml
Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark Copyright Case; HuffingtonPost.com, 6/23/10
Michael Liedtke, AP via HuffingtonPost.com; Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark Copyright Case:
"A federal judge handed Google Inc. a major victory Wednesday by rebuffing media company Viacom Inc.'s attempt to collect more than $1 billion in damages for the alleged copyright abuses of Google's popular YouTube service.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York embraces Google's interpretation of a 12-year-old law that shields Internet services from claims of copyright infringement as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation.
That so-called "safe harbor" helped persuade Google to buy YouTube for $1.76 billion in 2006, even though some of the Internet search leader's own executives had earlier branded the video-sharing service as "a 'rogue enabler' of content theft," according to documents unearthed in the copyright infringement case.
Stanton "blessed the current state of play on the Internet," said Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University associate professor who specializes in high-tech law. The affirmation was cheered by Internet service providers and free-speech groups who believe the Digital Millennium Copyright Act helps give more people an outlet to express themselves.
"Without this decision, user-generated content would dry up and the Internet would cease to be a participatory medium," said David Sohn, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy & Technology."
Viacom, the owner of popular cable channels such as MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, called Stanton's decision "fundamentally flawed" and vowed to appeal. That virtually ensures a legal brawl that already has dragged on for more than three years will spill into 2011 and perhaps beyond.
"Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industries," said Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others."
The bitter battle revolves around Viacom's allegations that YouTube built itself into the Internet's most watched video site by milking unlicensed use of copyright-protected clips stolen from professionally produced show such as Viacom's "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show."
The pirated material came from the millions of people who have uploaded clips to YouTube since its 2005 inception. About 24 hours of new video is posted to YouTube every minute.
YouTube's whirlwind success led to the Google sale that generated huge windfalls for the video channel's founders, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim.
Citing e-mail exchanges among those founders, Viacom depicted the founders and other YouTube employees as video pirates who were more interested in getting rich quick than adhering to copyright laws.
But Stanton concluded YouTube's actions outweighed the words of the YouTube founders.
In dismissing the lawsuit before a trial, Stanton noted that Viacom had spent several months accumulating about 100,000 videos violating its copyright and then sent a mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007. By the next business day, Stanton said, YouTube had removed virtually all of them.
Stanton said there's no dispute that "when YouTube was given the (takedown) notices, it removed the material."
Since it was sold to Google, YouTube has developed a system that helps flag copyright violations when videos are posted. Viacom argues those copyright detection tools prove YouTube could have done more to keep illegal content off its site.
Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said the company is confident Stanton's decision will hold up. The 30-page ruling is "thoughtful, thorough and well-considered," Walker said in an interview. He also hailed the decision as "a victory for a new generation of creators and artists eager to showcase their work online," Walker said.
Facebook, eBay Inc. and Yahoo Inc. were among the Internet companies that had backed Google in its battle with Viacom.
The evidence that accumulated before Stanton reached his decision proved embarrassing for both sides.
An early e-mail exchange among Hurley, Chen and Karim showed at least one of them may have knowingly violated copyrights as they posted video clips during the service's early stages.
"Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site," Chen wrote in the July 19, 2005, e-mail. "We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it."
Other documents showed Viacom had hoped to buy YouTube before getting trumped by Google, making it seem as if the media company's later claims of copyright abuse may have been a case of sour grapes.
A July 2006 e-mail from Fricklas, Viacom's top lawyer, even disputed that YouTube was engaged in rampant copyright infringement. "Mostly YouTube behaves," Fricklas wrote."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html
"A federal judge handed Google Inc. a major victory Wednesday by rebuffing media company Viacom Inc.'s attempt to collect more than $1 billion in damages for the alleged copyright abuses of Google's popular YouTube service.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York embraces Google's interpretation of a 12-year-old law that shields Internet services from claims of copyright infringement as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation.
That so-called "safe harbor" helped persuade Google to buy YouTube for $1.76 billion in 2006, even though some of the Internet search leader's own executives had earlier branded the video-sharing service as "a 'rogue enabler' of content theft," according to documents unearthed in the copyright infringement case.
Stanton "blessed the current state of play on the Internet," said Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University associate professor who specializes in high-tech law. The affirmation was cheered by Internet service providers and free-speech groups who believe the Digital Millennium Copyright Act helps give more people an outlet to express themselves.
"Without this decision, user-generated content would dry up and the Internet would cease to be a participatory medium," said David Sohn, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy & Technology."
Viacom, the owner of popular cable channels such as MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, called Stanton's decision "fundamentally flawed" and vowed to appeal. That virtually ensures a legal brawl that already has dragged on for more than three years will spill into 2011 and perhaps beyond.
"Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industries," said Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others."
The bitter battle revolves around Viacom's allegations that YouTube built itself into the Internet's most watched video site by milking unlicensed use of copyright-protected clips stolen from professionally produced show such as Viacom's "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show."
The pirated material came from the millions of people who have uploaded clips to YouTube since its 2005 inception. About 24 hours of new video is posted to YouTube every minute.
YouTube's whirlwind success led to the Google sale that generated huge windfalls for the video channel's founders, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim.
Citing e-mail exchanges among those founders, Viacom depicted the founders and other YouTube employees as video pirates who were more interested in getting rich quick than adhering to copyright laws.
But Stanton concluded YouTube's actions outweighed the words of the YouTube founders.
In dismissing the lawsuit before a trial, Stanton noted that Viacom had spent several months accumulating about 100,000 videos violating its copyright and then sent a mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007. By the next business day, Stanton said, YouTube had removed virtually all of them.
Stanton said there's no dispute that "when YouTube was given the (takedown) notices, it removed the material."
Since it was sold to Google, YouTube has developed a system that helps flag copyright violations when videos are posted. Viacom argues those copyright detection tools prove YouTube could have done more to keep illegal content off its site.
Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said the company is confident Stanton's decision will hold up. The 30-page ruling is "thoughtful, thorough and well-considered," Walker said in an interview. He also hailed the decision as "a victory for a new generation of creators and artists eager to showcase their work online," Walker said.
Facebook, eBay Inc. and Yahoo Inc. were among the Internet companies that had backed Google in its battle with Viacom.
The evidence that accumulated before Stanton reached his decision proved embarrassing for both sides.
An early e-mail exchange among Hurley, Chen and Karim showed at least one of them may have knowingly violated copyrights as they posted video clips during the service's early stages.
"Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site," Chen wrote in the July 19, 2005, e-mail. "We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it."
Other documents showed Viacom had hoped to buy YouTube before getting trumped by Google, making it seem as if the media company's later claims of copyright abuse may have been a case of sour grapes.
A July 2006 e-mail from Fricklas, Viacom's top lawyer, even disputed that YouTube was engaged in rampant copyright infringement. "Mostly YouTube behaves," Fricklas wrote."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
File-sharing has weakened copyright—and helped society; Ars Technica, 6/21/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; File-sharing has weakened copyright—and helped society:
"Has file-sharing helped society? Looked at from the narrow perspective of existing record labels, the question must seem absurd; profits have dropped sharply in the years since tools like Napster first appeared. But a pair of well-known academics argue peer-to-peer file sharing has weakened copyright in the US... and managed to benefit all of us at the same time.
"Consumer welfare increased substantially due to new technology," write Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas. "Weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society.""
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/file-sharing-has-weakened-copyrightand-helped-society.ars
"Has file-sharing helped society? Looked at from the narrow perspective of existing record labels, the question must seem absurd; profits have dropped sharply in the years since tools like Napster first appeared. But a pair of well-known academics argue peer-to-peer file sharing has weakened copyright in the US... and managed to benefit all of us at the same time.
"Consumer welfare increased substantially due to new technology," write Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas. "Weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society.""
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/file-sharing-has-weakened-copyrightand-helped-society.ars
Monday, June 21, 2010
Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award; Wired.com, 1/22/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award:
"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”
A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.
“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”
The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”
Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”
The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.
Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.
“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.
The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.
Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.
The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.
More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.
One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"
"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”
A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.
“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”
The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”
Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”
The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.
Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.
“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.
The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.
Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.
The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.
More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.
One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"
First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day; Wired.com, 6/21/1
David Kravets, Wired.com; First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
E-Reader Prices Are Slashed; New York Times, 6/22/10
Brad Stone, New York Times; E-Reader Prices Are Slashed:
"A price war is brewing in the growing market for electronic reading devices.
Barnes & Noble, the national bookseller, announced Monday that it was dropping the price of its six-month-old Nook e-reader to $199 from $259 and introducing a new version of the device, which connects to the Internet only over Wi-Fi networks, for $149.
Responding rapidly, Amazon.com then cut the price of its popular Kindle e-reader below the Nook, to $189 from $259.
The price cuts were made as manufacturers of e-readers faced a mounting threat from Apple’s iPad. Even though it is far more expensive than the e-readers, the iPad, which starts at $500, performs a range of functions with a versatile, colorful display that contrasts sharply with the static, monochrome screen of e-book readers. Apple said it sold more than two million iPads in the two months since the tablet’s introduction.
“It was obvious that the price of stand-alone e-readers had to come down,” said James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, citing the threat by Apple and other tablet makers. “We just never thought it was going to happen this rapidly.”
Analysts had expected the prices of e-readers would gradually fall because of the natural decline in component costs and the increased profitability of e-books themselves...
With recent software upgrades, Barnes & Noble has improved the Nook, which now has features to counter Amazon’s aggressiveness on e-book prices and the brand power of the Kindle. Barnes & Noble allows Nook owners to read entire e-books within stores and lend e-books to friends for up to two weeks. Now, with yet another software upgrade, Nook owners have free access to AT&T’s nationwide Wi-Fi network.
“I don’t see more than two, or maybe three dedicated reading companies in the market for selling e-books,” said William J. Lynch, chief executive of Barnes & Noble, in an interview. “I think you are starting to see a shake-out now.”
Mr. Lynch also predicted that within 12 months, e-reading devices “that people will actually want to buy” could be available for less than $100."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/technology/22reader.html?hpw
"A price war is brewing in the growing market for electronic reading devices.
Barnes & Noble, the national bookseller, announced Monday that it was dropping the price of its six-month-old Nook e-reader to $199 from $259 and introducing a new version of the device, which connects to the Internet only over Wi-Fi networks, for $149.
Responding rapidly, Amazon.com then cut the price of its popular Kindle e-reader below the Nook, to $189 from $259.
The price cuts were made as manufacturers of e-readers faced a mounting threat from Apple’s iPad. Even though it is far more expensive than the e-readers, the iPad, which starts at $500, performs a range of functions with a versatile, colorful display that contrasts sharply with the static, monochrome screen of e-book readers. Apple said it sold more than two million iPads in the two months since the tablet’s introduction.
“It was obvious that the price of stand-alone e-readers had to come down,” said James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, citing the threat by Apple and other tablet makers. “We just never thought it was going to happen this rapidly.”
Analysts had expected the prices of e-readers would gradually fall because of the natural decline in component costs and the increased profitability of e-books themselves...
With recent software upgrades, Barnes & Noble has improved the Nook, which now has features to counter Amazon’s aggressiveness on e-book prices and the brand power of the Kindle. Barnes & Noble allows Nook owners to read entire e-books within stores and lend e-books to friends for up to two weeks. Now, with yet another software upgrade, Nook owners have free access to AT&T’s nationwide Wi-Fi network.
“I don’t see more than two, or maybe three dedicated reading companies in the market for selling e-books,” said William J. Lynch, chief executive of Barnes & Noble, in an interview. “I think you are starting to see a shake-out now.”
Mr. Lynch also predicted that within 12 months, e-reading devices “that people will actually want to buy” could be available for less than $100."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/technology/22reader.html?hpw
Friday, June 18, 2010
Spider-Man Is Among the Most Wanted; New York Times, 6/17/10
Marc Lacey, New York Times; Spider-Man Is Among the Most Wanted:
"Spider-Man has successfully taken on the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom, to name just a few of his foes over the years, but the web-spinning superhero was no match for Mexico’s federal police, who recently manhandled him and easily took him into custody.
Many piñata vendors duplicate popular children’s characters, but some companies want them to pay to do so.
In a crackdown on pirated piñatas some months ago, officials from the attorney general’s office and the federal police seized more than 100 of the papier-mâché party accessories, Spider-Man prime among them, and took into custody several real-life piñata vendors as well. The authorities said the raid was a response to a complaint filed by Marvel Entertainment, which owns the rights to the characters in question. Hulk, another Marvel character, was also overwhelmed by the men in black that day, as was Captain America.
But the story line got a twist when it turned out that the raid might have been as questionable as the piñatas that were seized. The attorney general’s office said it had no record of Marvel’s calling for such an operation, which existing law required before a raid could be conducted, and the company insists it had nothing to do with it. Federal officials later said that it was Televisa, a Mexican television conglomerate, that filed the complaint that led to the raid.
Whatever the raid’s provenance, the lawyer assisting the vendors, Fidel López GarcÃa, said that it appeared to have been aimed primarily at extorting money from the vendors and commandeering their wares, not an uncommon event in Mexico. Mr. López and the vendors say that, after seizing thousands of piñatas, the police and the officials not only began selling them on the street but offered to sell them back to the vendors.
A spokeswoman for the Mexican federal prosecutors dismissed the vendors’ accusations about the raid, saying simply, “It wasn’t illegal.”
The piñata roundup created a stir in this city’s piñata-selling zones, where Spider-Man, who goes by the name Hombre Araña here, used to hang out on the sidewalk with Snow White, Mickey Mouse, SpongeBob SquarePants and Lightning McQueen, to name a few of the popular piñatas awaiting purchase.
After being forced to pay hefty fines of thousands of dollars to the attorney general’s office, some vendors have eliminated Spider-Man from their shops and others have relegated him to the back. It is not as though proprietary characters have disappeared altogether, though. On a recent afternoon, Darth Vader (Lucasfilm Ltd.) was hanging next to Ben 10 (Cartoon Network), and Princess Tiana (Disney) was in close proximity to Thomas the Tank Engine (Gullane (Thomas) Ltd.), Tigger (Disney) and Shrek (DreamWorks Animation).
Piñatas are one small corner of the counterfeiting business, which is flourishing in Mexico. “The statistics don’t lie, and we had to do something because 8 of every 10 people buy counterfeit products, and 54 percent of the products on the market are falsified,” said Arturo Zamora Jiménez, a lawmaker who advocated for a beefed-up antipiracy law that has since been adopted.
Besides depriving the government of tax revenue and siphoning profits from corporations, piracy helps to fuel organized crime, the authorities say. Mexican drug gangs have embraced the business, the government said, trafficking in such things as pirated movies, computer software and apparel.
Critics of the government maintain that only the poor will suffer from any crackdown on counterfeit goods. “Instead of creating jobs, this government pursues people who have made the decision not to join the criminal element and who look for honest work to bring bread to their homes,” said Gerardo Fernández Noraña, an opposition lawmaker.
Standing amid Dora the Explorers, Barneys and Tinker Bells, some piñata sellers said they saw nothing wrong with providing customers with what they wanted, even without permission from a foreign corporation.
“A piñata is Mexican,” said Eduardo Bejaramo, a vendor who had been detained in the raid. “It’s just newspaper with paint on it. We’re not copying music or films. We’re doing all this by hand. How can we copy if Marvel does not make piñatas?”
Down the street, another piñata vendor, who declined to be identified out of fear that his comments could prompt a follow-up raid, said he would have to go out of business if he had to pay companies to use their characters.
“Traditionally, Mexican piñatas were made in the shape of stars,” he said, meaning celestial bodies, not celebrities. “But with TV, children began wanting a piñata like what they saw on the screen.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/americas/17pinata.html?scp=1&sq=pinatas%20spider-man%20mexico&st=cse
"Spider-Man has successfully taken on the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom, to name just a few of his foes over the years, but the web-spinning superhero was no match for Mexico’s federal police, who recently manhandled him and easily took him into custody.
Many piñata vendors duplicate popular children’s characters, but some companies want them to pay to do so.
In a crackdown on pirated piñatas some months ago, officials from the attorney general’s office and the federal police seized more than 100 of the papier-mâché party accessories, Spider-Man prime among them, and took into custody several real-life piñata vendors as well. The authorities said the raid was a response to a complaint filed by Marvel Entertainment, which owns the rights to the characters in question. Hulk, another Marvel character, was also overwhelmed by the men in black that day, as was Captain America.
But the story line got a twist when it turned out that the raid might have been as questionable as the piñatas that were seized. The attorney general’s office said it had no record of Marvel’s calling for such an operation, which existing law required before a raid could be conducted, and the company insists it had nothing to do with it. Federal officials later said that it was Televisa, a Mexican television conglomerate, that filed the complaint that led to the raid.
Whatever the raid’s provenance, the lawyer assisting the vendors, Fidel López GarcÃa, said that it appeared to have been aimed primarily at extorting money from the vendors and commandeering their wares, not an uncommon event in Mexico. Mr. López and the vendors say that, after seizing thousands of piñatas, the police and the officials not only began selling them on the street but offered to sell them back to the vendors.
A spokeswoman for the Mexican federal prosecutors dismissed the vendors’ accusations about the raid, saying simply, “It wasn’t illegal.”
The piñata roundup created a stir in this city’s piñata-selling zones, where Spider-Man, who goes by the name Hombre Araña here, used to hang out on the sidewalk with Snow White, Mickey Mouse, SpongeBob SquarePants and Lightning McQueen, to name a few of the popular piñatas awaiting purchase.
After being forced to pay hefty fines of thousands of dollars to the attorney general’s office, some vendors have eliminated Spider-Man from their shops and others have relegated him to the back. It is not as though proprietary characters have disappeared altogether, though. On a recent afternoon, Darth Vader (Lucasfilm Ltd.) was hanging next to Ben 10 (Cartoon Network), and Princess Tiana (Disney) was in close proximity to Thomas the Tank Engine (Gullane (Thomas) Ltd.), Tigger (Disney) and Shrek (DreamWorks Animation).
Piñatas are one small corner of the counterfeiting business, which is flourishing in Mexico. “The statistics don’t lie, and we had to do something because 8 of every 10 people buy counterfeit products, and 54 percent of the products on the market are falsified,” said Arturo Zamora Jiménez, a lawmaker who advocated for a beefed-up antipiracy law that has since been adopted.
Besides depriving the government of tax revenue and siphoning profits from corporations, piracy helps to fuel organized crime, the authorities say. Mexican drug gangs have embraced the business, the government said, trafficking in such things as pirated movies, computer software and apparel.
Critics of the government maintain that only the poor will suffer from any crackdown on counterfeit goods. “Instead of creating jobs, this government pursues people who have made the decision not to join the criminal element and who look for honest work to bring bread to their homes,” said Gerardo Fernández Noraña, an opposition lawmaker.
Standing amid Dora the Explorers, Barneys and Tinker Bells, some piñata sellers said they saw nothing wrong with providing customers with what they wanted, even without permission from a foreign corporation.
“A piñata is Mexican,” said Eduardo Bejaramo, a vendor who had been detained in the raid. “It’s just newspaper with paint on it. We’re not copying music or films. We’re doing all this by hand. How can we copy if Marvel does not make piñatas?”
Down the street, another piñata vendor, who declined to be identified out of fear that his comments could prompt a follow-up raid, said he would have to go out of business if he had to pay companies to use their characters.
“Traditionally, Mexican piñatas were made in the shape of stars,” he said, meaning celestial bodies, not celebrities. “But with TV, children began wanting a piñata like what they saw on the screen.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/americas/17pinata.html?scp=1&sq=pinatas%20spider-man%20mexico&st=cse
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Dispute Over File Sharing's Harm to Music Sales Plays Again; Chronicle of Higher Education: Wired Campus, 6/17/10
David Glenn, Chronicle of Higher Education: Wired Campus; Dispute Over File Sharing's Harm to Music Sales Plays Again:
"Last week in Vienna, where Beethoven, Haydn, and Mahler once walked, scholars came together to argue about Radiohead, file sharing, and the economics of music.
At a conference known as Vienna Music Business Research Days, two American economists renewed their long-running dispute about whether or not peer-to-peer file sharing is responsible for the worldwide decline in CD sales.
The quarrel centers on a widely cited paper by Felix Oberholzer-Gee, a professor at the Harvard Business School, and Koleman Strumpf, who now teaches at the University of Kansas. Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf argued that file sharing does not have a net negative effect on the recorded-music industry. They arrived at that conclusion by examining the relationships among American record sales, American file sharing, and school holidays in Germany during the last quarter of 2002. (If file sharing injures CD sales, the paper’s reasoning goes, then American CD sales should suffer especially during weeks when young Germans are home from school because Germany is a major source of files traded on peer-to-peer networks.)
From the time drafts of the paper first circulated in 2005, it has been attacked by Stan J. Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Dallas. (Some of Mr. Liebowitz's work has been financially supported by a music-industry trade group.) In Vienna last week, Mr. Liebowitz reopened the argument with a new line of criticism.
In his Vienna paper, Mr. Liebowitz argued that Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf’s central statistical model seems badly wrong in a way that he had not previously noticed. At one point their paper reports that a one-standard-deviation increase in the number of German students on vacation raised American file-sharing rates by half of their mean level.
But common sense suggests that the effect cannot possibly be so strong, Mr. Liebowitz’s Vienna paper says. If that were true, then “a power failure in a portion of Germany, or any event that caused German students to turn off their computers, would completely eliminate American file sharing. How realistic is that?” (Mr. Liebowitz and other skeptics have not been able to directly replicate Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf’s central analysis, because it is based on a confidential and proprietary data set from a file-sharing company.)
Mr. Olberholzer-Gee did not reply to a request for comment from The Chronicle. But he and Mr. Liebowitz had some heated words during the conference panel, according to an account by John P. Palmer, of the University of Western Ontario.
Later in the conference, Mr. Oberholzer-Gee presented a recent paper by himself and Mr. Strumpf. The new paper makes arguments that are less controversial than the previous one's were. First, they point out that file sharing has generated huge new complementary industries for MP3 players and other products. Second, they note that the amount of new music does not seem to have declined–so there is no strong evidence that file sharing has destroyed muscians’ incentives to create.
But even though they seem to be de-emphasizing the idea that file sharing does not hurt sales, Mr. Liebowitz did not give his colleagues any peace. In his Vienna presentation, he said that their new paper seemed to mischaracterize at least two recent studies of file sharing by other scholars.
On Page 16 of their Vienna paper, for example, Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf cite a 2007 paper in Management Science as one of several that found that “file sharing does not hurt sales at all.” But that phrase is badly misleading, Mr. Liebowitz said, because the paper actually concluded that file sharing reduces the amount of time that many albums spend on the music charts.
“It is not correct to say that our work shows file sharing is unrelated to changes in sales,” said the Management Science paper’s lead author, Sudip Bhattacharjee, in an e-mail message to The Chronicle.
The paper did not look directly at sales, only at chart longevity, also known as chart survival. And “we did report a decrease in survival over all,” said Mr. Bhattacharjee, who is an associate professor of operations and information management at the University of Connecticut."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Dispute-Over-File-Sharings/24881/
"Last week in Vienna, where Beethoven, Haydn, and Mahler once walked, scholars came together to argue about Radiohead, file sharing, and the economics of music.
At a conference known as Vienna Music Business Research Days, two American economists renewed their long-running dispute about whether or not peer-to-peer file sharing is responsible for the worldwide decline in CD sales.
The quarrel centers on a widely cited paper by Felix Oberholzer-Gee, a professor at the Harvard Business School, and Koleman Strumpf, who now teaches at the University of Kansas. Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf argued that file sharing does not have a net negative effect on the recorded-music industry. They arrived at that conclusion by examining the relationships among American record sales, American file sharing, and school holidays in Germany during the last quarter of 2002. (If file sharing injures CD sales, the paper’s reasoning goes, then American CD sales should suffer especially during weeks when young Germans are home from school because Germany is a major source of files traded on peer-to-peer networks.)
From the time drafts of the paper first circulated in 2005, it has been attacked by Stan J. Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Dallas. (Some of Mr. Liebowitz's work has been financially supported by a music-industry trade group.) In Vienna last week, Mr. Liebowitz reopened the argument with a new line of criticism.
In his Vienna paper, Mr. Liebowitz argued that Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf’s central statistical model seems badly wrong in a way that he had not previously noticed. At one point their paper reports that a one-standard-deviation increase in the number of German students on vacation raised American file-sharing rates by half of their mean level.
But common sense suggests that the effect cannot possibly be so strong, Mr. Liebowitz’s Vienna paper says. If that were true, then “a power failure in a portion of Germany, or any event that caused German students to turn off their computers, would completely eliminate American file sharing. How realistic is that?” (Mr. Liebowitz and other skeptics have not been able to directly replicate Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf’s central analysis, because it is based on a confidential and proprietary data set from a file-sharing company.)
Mr. Olberholzer-Gee did not reply to a request for comment from The Chronicle. But he and Mr. Liebowitz had some heated words during the conference panel, according to an account by John P. Palmer, of the University of Western Ontario.
Later in the conference, Mr. Oberholzer-Gee presented a recent paper by himself and Mr. Strumpf. The new paper makes arguments that are less controversial than the previous one's were. First, they point out that file sharing has generated huge new complementary industries for MP3 players and other products. Second, they note that the amount of new music does not seem to have declined–so there is no strong evidence that file sharing has destroyed muscians’ incentives to create.
But even though they seem to be de-emphasizing the idea that file sharing does not hurt sales, Mr. Liebowitz did not give his colleagues any peace. In his Vienna presentation, he said that their new paper seemed to mischaracterize at least two recent studies of file sharing by other scholars.
On Page 16 of their Vienna paper, for example, Mr. Oberholzer-Gee and Mr. Strumpf cite a 2007 paper in Management Science as one of several that found that “file sharing does not hurt sales at all.” But that phrase is badly misleading, Mr. Liebowitz said, because the paper actually concluded that file sharing reduces the amount of time that many albums spend on the music charts.
“It is not correct to say that our work shows file sharing is unrelated to changes in sales,” said the Management Science paper’s lead author, Sudip Bhattacharjee, in an e-mail message to The Chronicle.
The paper did not look directly at sales, only at chart longevity, also known as chart survival. And “we did report a decrease in survival over all,” said Mr. Bhattacharjee, who is an associate professor of operations and information management at the University of Connecticut."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Dispute-Over-File-Sharings/24881/
New Business Models Proposed In Debate On EU Culture And Copyright; Intellectual Property Watch, 6/9/10
David Cronin, Intellectual Property Watch; New Business Models Proposed In Debate On EU Culture And Copyright:
"Small fees for internet users could be used to pay musicians and other artists for the dissemination of copyright-protected work online, a Brussels conference has been told.
Following complaints that intellectual property rules are generally ill-suited to a world where digital downloading is becoming increasingly common, Green Party Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) hosted a discussion on 8 June about how easy public access to culture can be guaranteed in a way that ensures artists can make a decent living.
Philippe Aigrain, a founder of the French civil liberties group La Quadrature du Net, argued that the fundamental premise of any approach to charging for listening to music or watching films online should be that sharing files is a basic right. He took issue with major companies in the entertainment industry who have waged a long campaign against many forms of downloading. “Some big interest groups think the right to share is the root of all evil,” he said.
Aigrain recommended a new system whereby each internet subscriber would be charged a monthly fee of 5 to 7 euros and that this would generate a fund for paying artists whose work is shared on the internet. According to his calculations, such fees should yield between 1.2 billion and 1.7 billion euros each year in France alone – about one twentieth of the country’s “cultural economy”.
The income would then be distributed among artists based on surveys of a “huge panel” of individuals, who would anonymously give details of which files they had downloaded. For audiovisual work, one-third of the revenue generated would be used for remuneration and the remainder to support new productions. Yet the ratio should be reversed for music, considering that it is usually less expensive to record tunes than to make films, he added...
Maja Bogataj Jancic from the Institute of Intellectual Property in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana spoke of how “copyright is at war with technology.”
“Digital technology is the greatest threat to the copyright system but it is fair to say it is also the greatest opportunity for creation,” she said. The “Creative Commons” system – through which authors and artists can grant others permission to circulate their work on a non-commercial basis – has made the sharing of published material easier, she added. Some 350 million creative commons licenses had been issued worldwide by the end of last year.
“Creative Commons licenses are built on top of copyright law,” she explained. “They do not exist without copyright law.”
Austrian MEP Eva Lichtenberger contended that “culture and creative activity need to be supported in such a way that artists can have a dignified livelihood.”
She used colourful language to describe how the entertainment industry has kept a close watch on the European Union’s debates on intellectual property. “When we look at copyright and the reform of copyright so that it can be adapted to the twenty-first century, there is a veritable lobbying war going on. Lobbyists even follow you to the ladies’ room in order to continue discussions you have been having.”
Her French colleague Karima Delli noted that 1.6 billion people worldwide have the means to copy files. “This is the very basis for a shared culture; the internet should be the means by which we democratise culture,” she said. “There is no magic solution. We are going to have to try out new economic models to fight against the concentration of powers in many commercial systems applying to cinema and books, etcetera.”
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/09/new-business-models-proposed-in-debate-on-eu-culture-and-copyright/
"Small fees for internet users could be used to pay musicians and other artists for the dissemination of copyright-protected work online, a Brussels conference has been told.
Following complaints that intellectual property rules are generally ill-suited to a world where digital downloading is becoming increasingly common, Green Party Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) hosted a discussion on 8 June about how easy public access to culture can be guaranteed in a way that ensures artists can make a decent living.
Philippe Aigrain, a founder of the French civil liberties group La Quadrature du Net, argued that the fundamental premise of any approach to charging for listening to music or watching films online should be that sharing files is a basic right. He took issue with major companies in the entertainment industry who have waged a long campaign against many forms of downloading. “Some big interest groups think the right to share is the root of all evil,” he said.
Aigrain recommended a new system whereby each internet subscriber would be charged a monthly fee of 5 to 7 euros and that this would generate a fund for paying artists whose work is shared on the internet. According to his calculations, such fees should yield between 1.2 billion and 1.7 billion euros each year in France alone – about one twentieth of the country’s “cultural economy”.
The income would then be distributed among artists based on surveys of a “huge panel” of individuals, who would anonymously give details of which files they had downloaded. For audiovisual work, one-third of the revenue generated would be used for remuneration and the remainder to support new productions. Yet the ratio should be reversed for music, considering that it is usually less expensive to record tunes than to make films, he added...
Maja Bogataj Jancic from the Institute of Intellectual Property in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana spoke of how “copyright is at war with technology.”
“Digital technology is the greatest threat to the copyright system but it is fair to say it is also the greatest opportunity for creation,” she said. The “Creative Commons” system – through which authors and artists can grant others permission to circulate their work on a non-commercial basis – has made the sharing of published material easier, she added. Some 350 million creative commons licenses had been issued worldwide by the end of last year.
“Creative Commons licenses are built on top of copyright law,” she explained. “They do not exist without copyright law.”
Austrian MEP Eva Lichtenberger contended that “culture and creative activity need to be supported in such a way that artists can have a dignified livelihood.”
She used colourful language to describe how the entertainment industry has kept a close watch on the European Union’s debates on intellectual property. “When we look at copyright and the reform of copyright so that it can be adapted to the twenty-first century, there is a veritable lobbying war going on. Lobbyists even follow you to the ladies’ room in order to continue discussions you have been having.”
Her French colleague Karima Delli noted that 1.6 billion people worldwide have the means to copy files. “This is the very basis for a shared culture; the internet should be the means by which we democratise culture,” she said. “There is no magic solution. We are going to have to try out new economic models to fight against the concentration of powers in many commercial systems applying to cinema and books, etcetera.”
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/09/new-business-models-proposed-in-debate-on-eu-culture-and-copyright/
Recording Industry Says LimeWire on Hook for $1 Billion; Wired.com, 6/8/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; Recording Industry Says LimeWire on Hook for $1 Billion:
"The record labels have told a federal judge LimeWire is liable for possibly “over a billion dollars” — the latest sign that the industry is seeking to annihilate the New York-based file sharing company.
The Recording Industry Association of America’s court filing Monday comes a week after the labels asked U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood to shutter LimeWire (.pdf). Weeks before, the New York judge ruled LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that the Lime Group, the company behind the application, “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
“The amount of statutory damages awarded in this case easily could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars),” the RIAA wrote to Wood, in seeking a court order to freeze LimeWire’s assets (.pdf). The Napster case eventually settled for more than $300 million.
The RIAA’s latest court filings underscore that the record labels are seeking to shutter and financially decimate the company. Two weeks ago, Zeeshan Zaidi, LimeWire’s chief operating officer, said he was hoping to work out a licensing deal with the labels to enable them to sell their music on LimeWire’s online store.
The Copyright Act allows fines of up to $150,000 per infringement."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/limewire-owes-billion/#ixzz0r8P4iVmj:
"The record labels have told a federal judge LimeWire is liable for possibly “over a billion dollars” — the latest sign that the industry is seeking to annihilate the New York-based file sharing company.
The Recording Industry Association of America’s court filing Monday comes a week after the labels asked U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood to shutter LimeWire (.pdf). Weeks before, the New York judge ruled LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that the Lime Group, the company behind the application, “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
“The amount of statutory damages awarded in this case easily could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars),” the RIAA wrote to Wood, in seeking a court order to freeze LimeWire’s assets (.pdf). The Napster case eventually settled for more than $300 million.
The RIAA’s latest court filings underscore that the record labels are seeking to shutter and financially decimate the company. Two weeks ago, Zeeshan Zaidi, LimeWire’s chief operating officer, said he was hoping to work out a licensing deal with the labels to enable them to sell their music on LimeWire’s online store.
The Copyright Act allows fines of up to $150,000 per infringement."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/limewire-owes-billion/#ixzz0r8P4iVmj:
LimeWire Begs Music Industry for Second Chance; Wired.com, 5/25/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; LimeWire Begs Music Industry for Second Chance:
"The company behind the file sharing software LimeWire is considering aggressively filtering out pirated content and is hoping to strike a deal with the music industry in which it would be permitted to live on as a for-pay music download service, a company executive said Monday.
“The biggest challenge right now is changing the behavior of a generation of internet users to get them to pay for music,” said Zeeshan Zaidi, LimeWire’s 35-year-old chief operating officer, in an interview two weeks after suffering a crushing defeat in a copyright lawsuit that threatens to leave the company insolvent.
On May 11, a federal judge ruled that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that parent company Lime Group “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
The ruling sets the stage for a potentially massive damage award against the company that could leave it insolvent. Attorneys for Lime Group and the Recording Industry Association of America are expected to return to court next month to haggle over the company’s fate.
Zaidi said in a telephone interview that the company wants to convert its 50 million monthly users into paying music customers, and become a player in the paid music-distribution business. For now, the bulk of LimeWire’s traffic consists of unauthorized copyright material — some 93 percent, according to RIAA estimates.
“One way to address what the court is talking about, short of shutting down the network, which I think is overreaching and drastic, is to filter the network of these files in question,” Zaidi said. “This is a way for us to move forward in the case.”
Zaidi’s plan could put LimeWire on roughly the same course followed by Napster after its 2002 courtroom defeat to the RIAA. Roxio purchased the Napster brand and domain name at a bankruptcy auction and attached it to a legitimate music download service, which exists today as an also-ran in a field dominated by Apple’s iTunes.
Similarly, Swedish entrepreneur Hans Pandeya had dreams of legitimizing the The Pirate Bay, the world’s leading BitTorrent search engine. His plan was to strike licensing deals with content providers and sell movies, music, games and software on the notorious site, but he never managed to pull off the acquisition of The Pirate Bay’s domain name.
To be sure, moving from the pirate model to the pay-to-play model has many built-in assumptions.
Foremost, converting copyright scofflaws into paying customers is a tough sell. And for LimeWire, it may prove to be a futile endeavor to get the major record labels — which just defeated LimeWire in court — to cut licensing deals.
“Suffice it to say, we’re talking to all of the major players in the industry to try to get the licenses we need to get this service off the ground,” Zaidi said.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, which represents Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Music, said “we intend to pursue damages.”
Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA’s chairman, said two weeks ago that, “Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators.”
For now, LimeWire has about 5 million songs on its online retail store, none of them from the RIAA’s Big Four, Zaidi said. He declined to provide sales figures.
In its LimeWire lawsuit, the RIAA is seeking up to $150,000 per copyright violation, though the final damages have not been determined. It was the first case targeting a file sharing software maker following the 2005 Grokster decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for lawsuits targeting companies that induced or encouraged file sharing piracy.
Zaidi said the recording industry should take the opportunity to partner with LimeWire, “to put the most amount of money into the pockets of artists and those who own their copyrights.”
The music industry, he said, “is in the driver’s seat. What happens next depends on what they choose to do."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/limewire-filtering/#ixzz0r8O5w65F"
"The company behind the file sharing software LimeWire is considering aggressively filtering out pirated content and is hoping to strike a deal with the music industry in which it would be permitted to live on as a for-pay music download service, a company executive said Monday.
“The biggest challenge right now is changing the behavior of a generation of internet users to get them to pay for music,” said Zeeshan Zaidi, LimeWire’s 35-year-old chief operating officer, in an interview two weeks after suffering a crushing defeat in a copyright lawsuit that threatens to leave the company insolvent.
On May 11, a federal judge ruled that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that parent company Lime Group “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
The ruling sets the stage for a potentially massive damage award against the company that could leave it insolvent. Attorneys for Lime Group and the Recording Industry Association of America are expected to return to court next month to haggle over the company’s fate.
Zaidi said in a telephone interview that the company wants to convert its 50 million monthly users into paying music customers, and become a player in the paid music-distribution business. For now, the bulk of LimeWire’s traffic consists of unauthorized copyright material — some 93 percent, according to RIAA estimates.
“One way to address what the court is talking about, short of shutting down the network, which I think is overreaching and drastic, is to filter the network of these files in question,” Zaidi said. “This is a way for us to move forward in the case.”
Zaidi’s plan could put LimeWire on roughly the same course followed by Napster after its 2002 courtroom defeat to the RIAA. Roxio purchased the Napster brand and domain name at a bankruptcy auction and attached it to a legitimate music download service, which exists today as an also-ran in a field dominated by Apple’s iTunes.
Similarly, Swedish entrepreneur Hans Pandeya had dreams of legitimizing the The Pirate Bay, the world’s leading BitTorrent search engine. His plan was to strike licensing deals with content providers and sell movies, music, games and software on the notorious site, but he never managed to pull off the acquisition of The Pirate Bay’s domain name.
To be sure, moving from the pirate model to the pay-to-play model has many built-in assumptions.
Foremost, converting copyright scofflaws into paying customers is a tough sell. And for LimeWire, it may prove to be a futile endeavor to get the major record labels — which just defeated LimeWire in court — to cut licensing deals.
“Suffice it to say, we’re talking to all of the major players in the industry to try to get the licenses we need to get this service off the ground,” Zaidi said.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, which represents Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Music, said “we intend to pursue damages.”
Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA’s chairman, said two weeks ago that, “Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators.”
For now, LimeWire has about 5 million songs on its online retail store, none of them from the RIAA’s Big Four, Zaidi said. He declined to provide sales figures.
In its LimeWire lawsuit, the RIAA is seeking up to $150,000 per copyright violation, though the final damages have not been determined. It was the first case targeting a file sharing software maker following the 2005 Grokster decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for lawsuits targeting companies that induced or encouraged file sharing piracy.
Zaidi said the recording industry should take the opportunity to partner with LimeWire, “to put the most amount of money into the pockets of artists and those who own their copyrights.”
The music industry, he said, “is in the driver’s seat. What happens next depends on what they choose to do."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/limewire-filtering/#ixzz0r8O5w65F"
LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Lawsuit; Wired.com, 5/12/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Lawsuit:
"LimeWire was found liable of copyright infringement Tuesday in a decision that threatens to financially devastate the New York company behind the file sharing application.
In a 4-year-old case brought by The Recording Industry Association of America, U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that the Lime Group, the company behind the application, “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
The RIAA was seeking up to $150,000 per copyright violation, though the final damages in the lawsuit have not yet been determined. The lawsuit claimed at least 93 percent of LimeWire’s file sharing traffic was unauthorized copyright material.
Limewire claims “50 million unique monthly users.” Its website says its “software is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times every day and boasts millions of active users at any given moment.”
It was the first case targeting a file sharing software maker following the 2005 Grokster decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for lawsuits targeting companies that induced or encouraged file sharing piracy.
Before the RIAA filed suit, the record label’s trade group urged LimeWire to license its material or shut down.
“LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services,” Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA’s chairman, said in a statement. “Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators.”
George Searle, LimeWire’s chief executive, said in a statement that the company “remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission.”
Searle was not immediately available for comment.
Judge Wood scheduled a June 1 hearing to determine how to proceed.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/limewire-crushed/#ixzz0r8Mg5a3p"
"LimeWire was found liable of copyright infringement Tuesday in a decision that threatens to financially devastate the New York company behind the file sharing application.
In a 4-year-old case brought by The Recording Industry Association of America, U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement” (.pdf) and that the Lime Group, the company behind the application, “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”
The RIAA was seeking up to $150,000 per copyright violation, though the final damages in the lawsuit have not yet been determined. The lawsuit claimed at least 93 percent of LimeWire’s file sharing traffic was unauthorized copyright material.
Limewire claims “50 million unique monthly users.” Its website says its “software is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times every day and boasts millions of active users at any given moment.”
It was the first case targeting a file sharing software maker following the 2005 Grokster decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for lawsuits targeting companies that induced or encouraged file sharing piracy.
Before the RIAA filed suit, the record label’s trade group urged LimeWire to license its material or shut down.
“LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services,” Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA’s chairman, said in a statement. “Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators.”
George Searle, LimeWire’s chief executive, said in a statement that the company “remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission.”
Searle was not immediately available for comment.
Judge Wood scheduled a June 1 hearing to determine how to proceed.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/limewire-crushed/#ixzz0r8Mg5a3p"
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
When Titans Clash: Comic-Book Creator Edition; New York Times, 6/16/10
Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; When Titans Clash: Comic-Book Creator Edition:
"Comic-book creators are generally better known for imagining and illustrating the larger-than-life conflicts of fearsome opponents, not for engaging in them themselves. So it was somewhat unusual to find Neil Gaiman, the best-selling fiction writer and comics author (“Sandman”), in a Wisconsin court on Monday, where he is suing his onetime colleague Todd McFarlane over royalties that Mr. Gaiman says he is owed from Mr. McFarlane’s Spawn comics series.
The Associated Press reported that both Mr. Gaiman and Mr. McFarlane gave testimony in a United States District Court in Madison, in the latest round of a dispute involving characters from Spawn, a series about a murdered C.I.A. agent who becomes a warrior for hell after selling his soul to a demon.
Mr. Gaiman said that a character called Dark Ages Spawn was essentially a copy of Medieval Spawn, which he had created for Spawn issue No. 9 in 1993, and that angel characters called Domina and Tiffany were copies of Angela, who also had first appeared in that issue.
Mr. Gaiman said, ”It looks like the same kind of thing,” after being shown an image from a Dark Ages Spawn comic book. ”It’s a knight-in-armory kind of Spawn.”
Mr. McFarlane said all the Spawn characters share certain features. The writer Brian Holguin, who was also involved with the creation of the Dark Ages Spawn character, testified that the similarities were unintentional.
”We were trying to sell comic books,” Mr. Holguin said, according to The A.P. ”We could have done Italian Renaissance Spawn, but I’m not sure it would have sold as well.”
A jury found in 2002 that Mr. Gaiman was a co-copyright holder for the Medieval Spawn and Angela characters, as well as a third named Cogliostro, and was owed royalties. They have yet to come to an agreement on payment. Lawyers for Mr. Gaiman said the author will donate any money from the case to charity."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/when-titans-clash-comic-book-creator-edition/?scp=1&sq=gaiman%20spawn&st=cse
"Comic-book creators are generally better known for imagining and illustrating the larger-than-life conflicts of fearsome opponents, not for engaging in them themselves. So it was somewhat unusual to find Neil Gaiman, the best-selling fiction writer and comics author (“Sandman”), in a Wisconsin court on Monday, where he is suing his onetime colleague Todd McFarlane over royalties that Mr. Gaiman says he is owed from Mr. McFarlane’s Spawn comics series.
The Associated Press reported that both Mr. Gaiman and Mr. McFarlane gave testimony in a United States District Court in Madison, in the latest round of a dispute involving characters from Spawn, a series about a murdered C.I.A. agent who becomes a warrior for hell after selling his soul to a demon.
Mr. Gaiman said that a character called Dark Ages Spawn was essentially a copy of Medieval Spawn, which he had created for Spawn issue No. 9 in 1993, and that angel characters called Domina and Tiffany were copies of Angela, who also had first appeared in that issue.
Mr. Gaiman said, ”It looks like the same kind of thing,” after being shown an image from a Dark Ages Spawn comic book. ”It’s a knight-in-armory kind of Spawn.”
Mr. McFarlane said all the Spawn characters share certain features. The writer Brian Holguin, who was also involved with the creation of the Dark Ages Spawn character, testified that the similarities were unintentional.
”We were trying to sell comic books,” Mr. Holguin said, according to The A.P. ”We could have done Italian Renaissance Spawn, but I’m not sure it would have sold as well.”
A jury found in 2002 that Mr. Gaiman was a co-copyright holder for the Medieval Spawn and Angela characters, as well as a third named Cogliostro, and was owed royalties. They have yet to come to an agreement on payment. Lawyers for Mr. Gaiman said the author will donate any money from the case to charity."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/when-titans-clash-comic-book-creator-edition/?scp=1&sq=gaiman%20spawn&st=cse
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Razor-thin copyright line; Variety, 6/2/10
Melinda Newman, Variety; Razor-thin copyright line: Approximating temp music for trailers is tricky business:
"How close is too close for comfort?
That's the question many movie trailer composers are asking themselves. With increasing frequency, executives at studios and movie trailer houses are requesting they replicate the temp music in a trailer when the original tunes aren't available or are too expensive.
"As time goes along, they're more and more demanding that we get as close as possible without plagiarizing, and it's gotten dicey," says composer John Beal, who has written music for more than 2,000 trailers.
Scott Ogden, former creative director at trailer house Flyer Entertainment and the newly named producer at Herzog & Co., freely admits, "We bring in composers when we have a piece of music that everyone loves, but we can't license it. We ask them to do an interpretation of it."
Ogden calls it an "interpretation"; others call it "parallel music" -- the one thing no one wants to call it is copyright infringement, and composers worry that the line between imitation and duplication is getting razor thin.
"I have had instances where I've said (to the studio or trailer house), 'It's my advice to you that I think we've gone too close.' If it's gets into a situation that's very tricky, we hire a musicologist," says composer Veigar Margeirsson, who's written trailer music for such movies as "Iron Man," "Transformers" and "Hancock." "I never say we'll just knock it off and hope for the best."
Sometimes, a studio or trailer company pushes too hard. "Several years back, I was doing something orchestral for a trailer, and they decided, 'We love this song by a certain band.' It wasn't a very famous band, but it was a recognizable song," Margeirsson recalls. "They wanted to go so close, at a certain point, I said, 'I can't do this anymore.' They were literally asking me to duplicate note for note what I was supposed to do. I said I have to stop."
Adding to the composer's challenge is that he or she is usually tasked with creating music that has the same tempo as the temp score, although some musicians have found a way around that. "We had a trailer several years ago and everything was hard cut, I think to a Beastie Boys tune," says Jeff Eden Fair, who, with his wife, Starr Parodi, has scored such trailers as "United 93," "V for Vendetta" and "War of the Worlds." "We realized we could get that effect by using a different time signature and make it totally unique and still hit all the marks."
Composers say they frequently get trailers with as many as 20 different music snippets in the two-and-a-half-minute reel. It's their job to compose something new that manages to hit all the high points as the temp music or write the bridge between licensed tracks.
"The most I've ever seen is 30," Beal says. "They say, 'Here's what we feel works best for each of the cuts; we'd like for you to write original pieces of music.'?"
Beal, who has been scoring trailers since the '70s, says it wasn't always this way. He recalls a time when he was handed a trailer with no temp music and told to compose his own new score. That changed 10 or 15 years ago. "There was a shift in testing trailers, and there was more temp music being used during the focus group process," Beal says. "At that point, people became so concerned about the numbers they were getting from the focus group, they didn't want to take a risk on anything original. And when they couldn't license that music, we'd get calls to emulate that music."
Now, Beal says "100% of the time there is a temp score, and 90% of the time I'm asked to get close to it."
When trailer editors aren't hiring composers, they are more frequently turning to libraries, which offer pre-cleared music that is often cheaper than creating scores from scratch or licensing tracks. Most composers either own their own libraries or supply music to one.
Beal says that for smaller films, the scoring trailer budget may be 10% of what it was 20 years ago. On major studio films, fees are as little as half of what they once were, although for blockbusters, the budget still remains high, if not growing.
But there's another reason composers say studios and trailer editors are going more readily to libraries from the start: It's a sure-fire way to avoid what composers call "temp love." "Certain executive have told me they fully believe it's the route they should take," Fair says. "Not because it's creative, but so they don't have to sell music to the movie director twice.""
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020113.html?categoryid=4051&cs=1
"How close is too close for comfort?
That's the question many movie trailer composers are asking themselves. With increasing frequency, executives at studios and movie trailer houses are requesting they replicate the temp music in a trailer when the original tunes aren't available or are too expensive.
"As time goes along, they're more and more demanding that we get as close as possible without plagiarizing, and it's gotten dicey," says composer John Beal, who has written music for more than 2,000 trailers.
Scott Ogden, former creative director at trailer house Flyer Entertainment and the newly named producer at Herzog & Co., freely admits, "We bring in composers when we have a piece of music that everyone loves, but we can't license it. We ask them to do an interpretation of it."
Ogden calls it an "interpretation"; others call it "parallel music" -- the one thing no one wants to call it is copyright infringement, and composers worry that the line between imitation and duplication is getting razor thin.
"I have had instances where I've said (to the studio or trailer house), 'It's my advice to you that I think we've gone too close.' If it's gets into a situation that's very tricky, we hire a musicologist," says composer Veigar Margeirsson, who's written trailer music for such movies as "Iron Man," "Transformers" and "Hancock." "I never say we'll just knock it off and hope for the best."
Sometimes, a studio or trailer company pushes too hard. "Several years back, I was doing something orchestral for a trailer, and they decided, 'We love this song by a certain band.' It wasn't a very famous band, but it was a recognizable song," Margeirsson recalls. "They wanted to go so close, at a certain point, I said, 'I can't do this anymore.' They were literally asking me to duplicate note for note what I was supposed to do. I said I have to stop."
Adding to the composer's challenge is that he or she is usually tasked with creating music that has the same tempo as the temp score, although some musicians have found a way around that. "We had a trailer several years ago and everything was hard cut, I think to a Beastie Boys tune," says Jeff Eden Fair, who, with his wife, Starr Parodi, has scored such trailers as "United 93," "V for Vendetta" and "War of the Worlds." "We realized we could get that effect by using a different time signature and make it totally unique and still hit all the marks."
Composers say they frequently get trailers with as many as 20 different music snippets in the two-and-a-half-minute reel. It's their job to compose something new that manages to hit all the high points as the temp music or write the bridge between licensed tracks.
"The most I've ever seen is 30," Beal says. "They say, 'Here's what we feel works best for each of the cuts; we'd like for you to write original pieces of music.'?"
Beal, who has been scoring trailers since the '70s, says it wasn't always this way. He recalls a time when he was handed a trailer with no temp music and told to compose his own new score. That changed 10 or 15 years ago. "There was a shift in testing trailers, and there was more temp music being used during the focus group process," Beal says. "At that point, people became so concerned about the numbers they were getting from the focus group, they didn't want to take a risk on anything original. And when they couldn't license that music, we'd get calls to emulate that music."
Now, Beal says "100% of the time there is a temp score, and 90% of the time I'm asked to get close to it."
When trailer editors aren't hiring composers, they are more frequently turning to libraries, which offer pre-cleared music that is often cheaper than creating scores from scratch or licensing tracks. Most composers either own their own libraries or supply music to one.
Beal says that for smaller films, the scoring trailer budget may be 10% of what it was 20 years ago. On major studio films, fees are as little as half of what they once were, although for blockbusters, the budget still remains high, if not growing.
But there's another reason composers say studios and trailer editors are going more readily to libraries from the start: It's a sure-fire way to avoid what composers call "temp love." "Certain executive have told me they fully believe it's the route they should take," Fair says. "Not because it's creative, but so they don't have to sell music to the movie director twice.""
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020113.html?categoryid=4051&cs=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)