Category: Media Moguls

While the tech companies argue over which next-generatoin DVD format is likely to be the “winner,” and media companies try to push as much as they can on the current DVD before getting everyone to buy (the same) stuff in the new format, the whole removable format concept is going the way of the dinosaurs.

Good. The longer it takes, the less chance any format of DVD has of having a place in the future of home entertainment. Don’t look now, but the price and size of hard drives have fallen like a rock, while capacities have soared, with no slowdown in site.
Which leads to the question — What is the best way to distribute content? DVDs which will be limited in capacity to 9.4gbs on a single DVD for another year, and then after that 50gbs on a single disk for years to come after that, or rewritable media that can hold 2gb already in a device half the size of a pen, or in a hard drive that can hold 200GBs plus in a drive the size of your cell phone?

With electronic delivery of media, the idea of CD racks and DVD shelves, etc., suddenly sounds like having a carriage house or a coal chute …

(via BoingBoing)

The Ludlow Music folks have dropped their case against Jibjab after lawyers for the latter discovered that — whoops! — Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” is actually in the public domain.

While researching the case, the EFF discovered that Woody Guthrie published a songbook in 1945 that included “This Land Is Your Land.” At that time, copyright holders owned their work for 28 years, and could renew the copyright once during the first term, for another 28 years. When Guthrie published the songbook, that “started the clock ticking on the 28 years,” Schultz said. Guthrie never renewed it, meaning the terms of the copyright expired in 1973.
Ludlow, meanwhile, registered the song under copyright in 1956 as an original copyright registration, not the renewal. The company was apparently unaware that because Guthrie had already published the song, the terms of copyright began in 1945, not 1956, Schultz said. “The clock starts ticking when either the papers are filed or you publish,” Schultz said.
Ludlow then renewed the copyright in 1984, which was 11 years too late, he said. The EFF found a copy of the songbook at the Library of Congress.

Heh. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of IP Hoarders.

(via Les)

So, is it really Quentin Tarantino’s blog or not? You decide. If not, it sure is a fun read.

(via Seki)

The motto of the Olympics is Citius, Altius, Fortius. But Olympic athletes aren’t only expected to Do Their Best, they’re expected to keep quiet about it — at least until the games are over.

Athletes may be the center of attention at the Olympic Games, but don’t expect to hear directly from them online — or see snapshots or video they’ve taken.
The International Olympic Committee is barring competitors, as well as coaches, support personnel and other officials, from writing firsthand accounts for news and other websites.
[…] The IOC’s rationale for the restrictions is that athletes and their coaches should not serve as journalists — and that the interests of broadcast rightsholders and accredited media come first.

I think it’s the latter reason that’s the center of this. Media make or break the Olympics from an image standpoint, as do broadcast rights sales from a financial one. Putting a gag order on athletes helps ensure that the media get to cover all the stories.

Participants in the games may respond to written questions from reporters or participate in online chat sessions — akin to a face-to-face or telephone interview — but they may not post journals or blogs until the Games end Aug. 29.
To protect lucrative broadcast contracts, athletes and other participants are also prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the Games, unless they get permission ahead of time. (Photos taken by accredited journalists are allowed on the personal sites.)
[…] The Olympic guidelines threaten to yank credentials from athletes who are in violation as well as to impose other sanctions or take legal action for any monetary damages.

Ch-ching. Those aren’t just the Olympic rings chiming …

I haven’t even gotten the new ON DEMAND service at our house (Comcast is doing a good impression of the Three Stooges in coordinating someone coming out and replacing our old digital cable box), and I’m dubious about the service.

With video on demand, you can choose to watch games, movies and shows whenever you want. Best of all, you won’t have to wait for them to air. Just make your selection from an easy-to-use onscreen menu. While you’re watching, you can pause, rewind and even fast-forward programming. With flexibility like that, video on demand offers TV on your terms.

Two questions:

1. How much does it cost?
2. What shows are included?

The answer seems to be “Wait and see,” since the web page doesn’t really make it clear. It doesn’t sound like all programming is available, by any means, and it sounds like it’s available only within a broad time slot (no saving up several weeks of show X to watch), and it looks like some stuff will be free and other stuff won’t be.

It sounds like a crappy mix between a DVR like TiVo and Pay-per-View. I remain skeptical.

On the other hand, even if Comcast did offer some sort of DVR solution (which they don’t, yet, in our area), it would probably be crappy, too.

I’m a scosh dubious about Quentin Tarantino doing the next Bond film (both conceptually and as to its likelihood), but he certainly has some interesting ideas that would nicely shake up the franchise:

The film-maker Quentin Tarantino has disclosed his ambition to direct a James Bond film. Tarantino, who is best known for his darkly humorous and extremely violent films, has offered to remake Casino Royale, Ian Fleming’s first book, with Pierce Brosnan.
The director said that while the last three films were “great” they really were “spoofs” of the true James Bond character. His notion was to set the picture in the Sixties after the events of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, when Bond’s wife was gunned down by Irma Bundt, Blofeld’s sinister henchwoman, minutes after their wedding.
He wanted Bond to be “in mourning” when he falls for Vesper Lynd, the woman in Casino Royale.
Tarantino thinks that the producers, Barbara Broccoli and her step-brother Michael G Wilson, who own Eon Productions, have nothing to lose by hiring him. “They’ve got this gigantic franchise, they can’t do anything wrong with it.”

Given that the actual Bond books are nasty and brutal (in between the Clancyesque attention to verisimilitudious detail), Tarantino might certainly do some interesting Bond work. On the other hand, I don’t see Eon being at all likely to take that sort of risk.

(via the Flea)

One would think the utterences of the President of the United States, as President, would be quotable and usable as part of the public record of our highest elected official.

But what if they’re uttered on a copyrighted news show? That’s the situation here, where NBC has refused to grant permission to a documentary producer who wants to use a clip of Bush on Meet the Press. While, in theory, “fair use” would allow such a limited excerpt, film producers rarely buck resistance from copyright holders because of the costs of defending against an infringement suit.

Fortunately, the documentarian, Robert Greenwald, is going to take the plunge in asserting the fair use rights to the clip (along with, implicitly, the uncopyrightability of what our Chief Executive says in a public forum). Good for him.

Regardless of the use to which he’s putting the material, anyone who believes in the value of public discourse and freedom of thought, expression, and the press, ought to be rooting for him in this effort.

If NBC wants to keep people from rebroadcasting MtP, or even from using the footage of Tim Russert (the MtP interviewer) asking questions, that I can go along with. But to keep someone from utilizing a video clip of the statements of the President seems pretty goofy (and, from NBC’s perspective as a news organization, a pretty dangerous precedent to establish).

I consider colorization an aesthetic abomination. Black and white hold no horrors for me — my earliest TV-viewing days were during the very end of the B&W era (“IN COLOR!” was the mantra immediately thereafter), and I had a B&W TV set in my room as a kid for years. The idea that B&W films and features are unmarketable is a mystery to me.

However …

I am willing to accept Sony’s decision to colorize some Three Stooges shorts, but only because they are offering the same in B&W on the same DVD set. Those who want to see them as-is can, those who would never deign to watch them because they’re B&W can now do so in colorized comfort.

It’s a mixed compromise, but it’s better than nothing. Which, apparently, is the alternative.

Note that I don’t actually like the Three Stooges, but I think the the principle applies to any B&W production. I hate what they’ll do, but as long as they’re doing the preservation/restoration work and making the B&W as available, I really can’t complain that much.

Imagine, if you will, that your spouse got you your own domain name years ago, nearly back at the dawn of the Internet age (1996). And it was a domain of yourfirstname.com. Thrilling! And you liked it so much that you put up photo albums there, a chat room (in fact, you go into business running the chat room), your mail accounts, your resume, etc.

And then, a few years later, someone else who shares your first name writes a book about how they were molested by a pedophile after going to an online chatroom. And that person (and publisher) names the book (without ever consulting you first) … yourfirstname.com …

Welcome to the world of Katie Jones, whose katie.com continues to be flooded by unsolicited e-mails from folks describing how they were molested, inquiries from friends and family about whether she was the one in the story, and — of course — harrassing requests from the publisher and author’s lawyers asking her to sell them the domain name … or, better yet, simply give it to them.

Today I also had a very unpleasant phone call from a lawyer working with Katie Tarbox, the author of the book. She tried to convince me that I should donate the domain name to them. Somehow this would resolve my problem. OK so not only do I get walked all over, my life invaded by this book, treated badly by the publisher/author who refuse to acknowledge that they’ve done the wrong thing, but then I get to hand it over to them on a silver plate and I not only have suffered all this aggravation but ultimately have lost the thing that I care about. Exactly HOW does this resolve anything other than give them the thing they want which they have done everything to hijack without any care and consideration for what is right and just?
Secondly, she tells me that they’re planning on launching some school curriculum thing to teach kids about online safety – and they’re calling it Katie.com. Are they insane? No wonder they want me to hand it over.
Thirdly she tells me I can’t really sell it on to anyone because the name is now associated with the book. This seems absurd, this is MY DOMAIN NAME!!!!. Infact, I haven’t ever solicited selling this site – infact I’ve turned down many offers, some very high, because I WANTED TO KEEP IT! I’m actually in the process of considering changing my mind about this now – I’m getting thoroughly fed up with all this, not to mention bully boy tactic phone calls from lawyers, so if you want it, let me know (sigh) and I’ll think about it further.

Rrg.

(via BoingBoing)

The copyright holders to Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Was Made for You and Me” is threatening to sue the creators of this hilarious Flash film that sends up both Bush and Kerry.

“This puts a completely different spin on the song,” said Kathryn Ostien, director of copyright licensing for the publisher. “The damage to the song is huge.”
TRO believes that the Jibjab creation threatens to corrupt Guthrie’s classic — an icon of Americana — by tying it to a political joke; upon hearing the music people would think about the yucks, not Guthrie’s unifying message. The publisher wants Jibjab to stop distribution of the flash movie.

Can you say, “pa-ro-dy”? Yeesh.

One irony here is that Guthrie himself used to use copyright notices like:

This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.

Enjoy the tune while you can.

(via BoingBoing)