Copyfight

A Little Light Weekend Reading - Google Books Settlement

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:46:01 -0500

In case you didn't have enough reading to do this weekend, here are couple of items analyzing the Google Books settlement.

First, Fred von Lohmann at EFF just published his third blog entry on the topic.

The first piece, very short, points out the key conflict of this settlement: we're trading off increased access to works that might otherwise be difficult to find, but at a potential cost in lost privacy, lock-ins that discourage competition, and limits on what otherwise would be fair use.

The second entry, much longer, looked at the issues around access. Access is the big promise of what Google is doing - you can not just search, but read online, millions of books that would otherwise be inaccessible to most people.

Item the third, in yesterday's column, are the downsides - the price of that access. The big fear here is not that access will be denied, but that it will be controlled. It will be for pay - rather than free in a library - and on Google's terms, rather than US Copyright law fair use terms. Those terms, von Lohmann argues, are potentially monopolist or at least highly anti-competitive.

From von Lohmann's postings you can jump directly to the 300-page PDF of the settlement to read the relevant bits for yourself.

Or, if that's too much heavy reading for you, the Copyright Clearance Center has put online a 21-minute podcast of their analysis by Lois Wasoff (also available as transcript). CCC would also like you to note that they're hosting an online seminar Dec 10th with Ms. Wasoff. CCC is a rights-holders organization and so approaches this settlement from the point of view of those who might want to claim rights over the books that Google has (or will) include in this plan.

"Veihl'd" Assumptions

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:17:50 -0500

It has been pointed out to me that I may have underestimated the impact of some of Lynn Viehl's hypotheticals in yesterday's Blink. Although the statement she posted is indeed a factual description of her income, the column surrounding it has several big "if"s in the middle that I glossed over on first read.

First, she's confused about what qualifies someone for food stamps. Federal poverty guidelines appear to be based on adjusted gross income, not net income. Her AGI is well above poverty level even with just one book.

Second, there's an assumption that this one-book-per-year gig is the sole source of income for a family of four. I don't know Ms. Viehl's personal situation but I think it's safe to say that anyone who is sole support for a family of four is probably holding down either multiple jobs (one of which may indeed be "writer") or is trying for a job with a predictable income large enough to feed said family, and writing is far from a predictable income stream. Finally, even if one is a full-time writer, one has other sources of income available such as speaking fees, and possibly royalties from other books.

That does not mean Ms Viehl's column is wholly misleading; at base I think she's trying to give people a more realistic view of writing for a living. You can't just take one number - the advance - and draw conclusions from it.

Income Breakdown for "Best Selling" Author

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:35:04 -0500

One would think that the authors' positions in publishing, being better than the artists' positions in the recording industry, would lead to somewhat better incomes. No such luck. Rob Beschizza at boingboing pointed to Lynn Viehl's posting of her latest royalty statement. Significantly, this is a book that's been on best-seller lists and stocked well in stores. Ms Viehl calculates that one such book per year would probably leave her qualifying for food stamps.

Cognitive Dissonance Writ Large

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:06:59 -0500

Nate Anderson provides extensive coverage of Michael Fricklas's talk at Yale Law. Fricklas is top legal attack dog for Viacom, and the headline on the ars piece highlights the lawyer's admission that the Cartel's jihad against its own customers was... well, a jihad, though he uses the word "terrorism" which is an equally emotionally laden term.

Viacom, says Fricklas, isn't out to destroy fair use. Indeed, the company has won lawsuits and published Web sites based on fair use principles. It's just that, like the rest of the Cartel's philosophy, it wants your fair use to be on its terms and under its conditions.

For example, Viacom supports a "three strikes" policy - another terrible bit of info-propaganda. When people say "three strikes" they're usually referring to things like state laws that assign extra punishment to people who have been convicted in courts of breaking felony statues multiple times. When the Cartel says "three strikes" it means "we accused you of three copyright violations."

And of course if you've been accused by the Cartel you MUST be guilty, so it's OK to take away your Internet. And your household's Internet, too. Damned terrorists... oh, wait, it's Viacom who are the terrorists. Can we take away their Internet?

Fricklas is also still a big fan of DRM, a position for which Cory has no sympathy at all, calling it "magic bean syndrome." In essence, the Cartel have sunk so much money, time, and public image into the idea and implementation of DRM that they're unable to understand that it's the cold fusion of the content world. Fricklas appears to believe that the problem isn't DRM-the-concept, it's just the specific DRM that the Cartel have used to date. I don't think, so, Mr. Fricklas.

So what do we make of this set of admissions and non-admissions? I think it's important to remember that Fricklas is not an independent person. He's paid to create and promote the party line and that's what he's doing. It's no surprise to any sentient observer that the Cartel have figured out that suing their customers is a disaster from both financial and PR standpoints, so backing down there is a given. But in a sense this is a diversionary tactic. The Copyright Wars are, and have always been, a struggle for control. Viacom is just shifting which weapons it uses to maintain and extend that control.

Must-See TV: ACTA

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:49:18 -0500

The indefatigable Michael Geist has posted the slides and audio of his "ACTA 101" talk. This is must-see stuff, covering pretty much everything you need to know about ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that's being negotiated mostly in secret right about now. (I had some problems with the embedded version - you might need to click through to blip.tv to watch it.)

As Cory says, ACTA "stands to fatally wound all user-generated content sites from mailing lists to YouTube; [...] criminalize kids for noncommercial file-sharing; [and] put your internet connection in jeopardy if anyone in your house is accused of infringement..."

Now THAT's Funny!

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:45:45 -0500

Remember how I said that the EFF weren't being sufficiently sarcastic in covering the Cartel's revelations about PVRs? Right, well, sometimes you do get good sarcastic commentary on the Web and today's helping is dished up by Cory over at boingboing.

He savages Rupert Murdoch for being the antiquated fossil he still is, someone who not only fails to understand the modern interlocked Web-centric methods of information distribution, but also someone who fundamentally opposes the very notion of fair use and seems to think if he just hires enough of the right lawyers he can make it go away.

OK, making fun of Rupert Murdoch is sort of shooting fish in a barrel but damn we need more funny stuff in these Copyright Wars.

In An Effort to Prove They Cannot Learn

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:23:47 -0500

...the Cartel are once again attempting to use law and regulation to control your home entertainment experience. Funny, it seems like just yesterday I was ranting about how they had stupidly misunderstood the value of PVRs. Oh, right, sorry, that was two days ago. Can't expect busy high-paid media executives to remember things for two whole days.

So (with a hat-tip to Boingboing again for the alert) I direct your attention to Public Knowledge's latest attempt to keep the Cartel from driving the home entertainment experience off a cliff. The details are long and boring - what you need to realize is that they are requesting permission to shut off part of your home entertainment system, whenever they think it's a good idea.

Of course, you'd have to buy all new equipment to comply with this. The straightjacket and compulsory eyes-open technology will no doubt be included, to ensure you're actually watching what and when they want.

Please, take a moment to read over Public Knowledge's suggested comments, make them your own (or write your own) and submit them.

It's People Like You What Cause Unrest

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:00:41 -0500

The shocking part about this whole thing is that now, ten years or more into the Copyright Wars, we still have such stupid people in positions of control. Take this week's example, Alan Wurtzel. This specimen of executivius fossilus cartellae works for NBC as, apparently, some president of some research of something.

Whatever he's researching, it's certainly not television because Mr Wurtzel is shocked by the "completely counterintuitive" result that if you let people watch TV how and when they want.. surprise! they watch MORE of it. Give the consumer what he wants - clearly a new and revolutionary idea, and one that a whole network's research department was unable to come up with. Simply shocking!

Sorry, dear readers, but even making fun of these idiots has gotten old for me. I'll just post the links and you can go read and nod your head sagely because we - you, me, all the rest of the readers here - have known this forEVER. And I bet we don't draw Mr Wurtzel's salary, either.

New York Times piece explaining how the Cartel has discovered that yet another technology (in this case the PVR) is benefiting their business.

EFF Deep Links it, with insufficient sarcasm (if you ask me).

Obligatory back-link to two weeks ago when I pointed out the difference between the fossils (as nicely summarized by Nate Anderson) and the very with-it and hip Warren Ellis.

Yet Another Study Showing That People Who Download The Most (free stuff) Actually Buy The Most. This one is sure to be ignored as well, as the UK continues it's pell-mell course toward copyright extremism. Boingboing! has been doing a fabulous job tracking this particular idiotic trend as well as related efforts by the EU to define war as peace, hate as love, and make darkness the standard.

Pandora in the NY Times

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:11:43 -0500

Earlier this week the Times Magazine online published an extensive piece on Pandora, a service I've used for several years and started paying the premium for a year or so ago. Surprisingly, it looks like Pandora might actually turn a profit this year, due in large part to a popular iPhone app. This despite 50% of their revenue going to copyright fees.

New Technology -> New Art

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:41:14 -0500

Sort of a case-in-point contrast to Nate Anderson's post, boingbong! highlights what are probably the first Google Wave mash-ups.

As I said last time, mash-up isn't really the right word to use here, but we still don't have better language so it's what I'll use for now.

In Their Own Words

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:37:31 -0500

I wanted to point to two very different published items, both of which bring thought to bear on the current state of the Copyright Wars.

First, Nate Anderson - who has been doing stellar work in the trenches of this slogfest for several years, primarily at ars technica - published a piece called "100 years of Big Content fearing technology". This gem simply puts together things that the Cartel have spewed as they dug in their heels and fought kicking and screaming against every innovation of the last century. We all know about Jack "Boston Strangler" Valenti's insane rant before Congress, but did you know that John Philip Sousa penned a screed against the gramophone?

The Cartel did manage to kill DAT (Digital Audio Tape) by convincing Congress to impose onerous fees but their success in suppressing other advances has been less. And everywhere they failed, they made money. If this makes any sense to you, then you are not like me.

Warren Ellis, for some months now, has been publishing an online Web comic called "Freak Angels." It appears approximately every week, for free, on Fridays. And like many who publish online for free, Ellis makes money from associated sales of merchandise including hardcopy versions of the comics. In today's "Interlude" page, he notes that the preceding strip, which ends in something of a cliff-hanger, is the end of what will be printed in Volume 3. And he has some amused comments about how some of his fans respond to the different availability of the free and for-pay print editions. It's an interesting contrast to the men that Anderson quotes.

Dear Ralph Lauren - Choose Your Targets Carefully

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:47:05 -0500

Actually that probably should be addressed to Ralph Lauren's lawyers, but in theory they're acting on behalf of the company, so we get to mock R.L., Inc.

The whole thing started with a photoshop disaster, reproduced here so you can see what we're talking about. The wholescale massacre of peoples' images for advertising purposes is well documented. You can go to YouTube and find a hundred videos showing Photoshop "makeovers" - one of the best is the "Dove evolution". But the gist is that anytime you see a model (almost always female) in a magazine, on a billboard, or any other advertising medium, she's been styled, made up, and then digitally altered so as to bear very little resemblance to how she actually looks. There are interesting Copyfight issues here about what is an original and what is a derivative work in this chain of illusion, but that's not what we're here to talk about.

No, instead I want to talk about how stupid a corporate lawyer can be. You see, that image there on the right? That's a Photoshop disaster. The retouching techniques have been taken so far that the person has ended up looking like a cartoon. If you search the blogosphere for "lollipop head" and "ralph lauren" you'll get a wad of scathing commentary on just how badly the image has been distorted. In fact the image was up on the "Photoshop disasters" blog for a while until they got a DMCA takedown notice and they or their ISP caved to it. (Interestingly, the top photoshop disaster currently shown is almost exactly the same disaster done to Brad Pitt, whose head and shoulders are grotesquely out of proportion to his hips and legs in the Edwin Jeans ad.)

Then a DMCA notice landed on boingboing's ISP. Dear lawyers, don't do that. Because not only will you not get your stuff taken down by doing that, you'll get mercilessly mocked. Which you roundly deserve. Copyfight salutes Boingboing's ISP for ignoring this threat and proffers a hat-tip to Cory for reminding us that sometimes humor is the best defense.

Dilbert Has a New Line of Business

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:50:08 -0500

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-09-09/. But... trademark? Everyone knows patents are more profit(eer)able.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:51:35 -0500

My wife pointed this one out to me. It's a couple years old but the message is sadly accurate.

The assertion is that kids - today's learners, tomorrow's adults - want to be able to create, consume, revise, remix, and share. Where are the 21st century technologies, teachers, and most importantly the 21st-century thinkers who will teach them how?

(And because I'm into shameless promotion of things I think are good causes, check out Donors Choose where you can find school projects (in America at least) that teachers have put together and are seeking funding to make happen.)

The Cartel Swallows Marvel - IP Contention Ensues

Posted by Alan Wexelblat — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:58:36 -0500

The geek news sources have been abuzz the past few days with the news that Disney acquired Marvel. The mainstream press is focused on the financials, of course, but I couldn't help but think about the implications of trying to find and corral all the Copyfight-related interests at play here. Marvel of course was first known for comic books but as its characters gained popularity a huge variety of other interests spun off.

I imagine many readers have seen the movies (the success of which I think were a prime motivator in the acquisition) but there are also numerous TV shows featuring the licensed characters as well as more merchandise than you can imagine. Everything from cheap T shirts and Halloween costumes to mega-million theme park rides can be found with the Marvel logo somewhere And all of those items were produced by companies other than Marvel itself, under a variety of licensing schemes, many of which overlap in one character. The company that makes the Spider Man movies is not the same one that makes the Spider Man pajamas my kids love so much. Each has some variety of licensing rights that it now will have to (re)negotiate with the Disney empire.

Marv Wolfman has an excellent post raising a number of intellectual property and competition issues. He notes that some of the existing Marvel deals are with companies like Universal and Sony, which directly compete with Disney in areas such as movies and theme parks. And as Patrick Goldstein points out in the LA Times story, Disney is a manufacturing empire with "merchandising assembly lines" that will likely bring it into cooperation or competition with a wide array of former Marvel licensees.

(props to nerdcore.de for the Mickey/Wolverine mash-up image.)