Category: Media Moguls

Orrin Hatch has introduced the “Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act,” which is meant to Protect the Children from Evil P2P Panderers Which Suck Them into a Life of Intellectual Property Infringement — but which instead, by this detailed analysis, looks more like it’s design to let media conglomerates sue anyone who might provide anything that could be used by anyone to steal something they claim is theirs. Swell.

The commentary would be hilarious if the law in question weren’t so bloody awful.

Mr. President, it is illegal [If it is already illegal, why do we need a statute?] and immoral to induce or encourage children [Will someone please think of the children?] to commit crimes. Artists realize that adults who corrupt or exploit the innocence of children are the worst type of villains. [Well, call me morally challenged, but I consider murderers worse. And I take it these are different artists than the ones that corrupt children through that “rock and roll” or “rap” noise?] In Oliver Twist, Fagin and Bill Sikes profited by inducing children to steal. [Hatch fails to note that Oliver was forced into the streets when the moralistic parish authorities sent him to a workhouse that nearly starved him to death and then sold him to an abusive undertaker as a slave/apprentice when he asked “for more.” I think one of the points Dickens was making was that if you treat people better, there will be less cause for them to turn to crime. Sort of like if the RIAA treated people better they might not engage in infringement.] In the film Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang, the leering “Child-Catcher” lured children into danger with false promises of “free lollipops.” [Actually, the Child-Catcher was acting as an agent of the government because a nonsensical law banning children had been passed by a ruler who feared kids, sort of like other nonsensical laws banning things those in power fear.] Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal – that they can legally lure children [Will someone please think of the children?] and [millions of] others with false promises [If the promises are false, then no infringement takes place, right?] of “free music.” [Tragically, some major corporate copyright holders now seem to think that they can legally profit by getting laws passed that inhibit innovation and free speech.]

(via BoingBoing some more)

UPDATE: Les has more (heh). My favorite bit is this sound by from Leahy:

“The makers of electronic equipment, the software vendors who sell e-mail and other programs, the Internet service providers who facilitate access to the Web–all of these entities have nothing to fear from this bill. So long as they do not conduct their businesses with the intention of inducing others to break the law–and I certainly have not heard from anyone who makes that claim–they should rest easy.”

Right. And people who act in good faith and conscience and are innocent of crimes should never worry about police abuse (who needs all that Bill of Rights jazz) or frivolous law suits. Because the world is full of all-wise and all-compassionate powers that would never, ever mistreat anyone, even if given the legal ability to do so (coughDMCAcough).

Yeesh.

As part of a ruling slamming the recording industry for price gouging, said industry was supposed to donate many, many CDs for free to libraries and schools.

“Well, heck, guys,” you can just imagine some industry bigwig saying, “seems to me we’ve been paying a lot of money to warehouse a bunch of crap music nobody wants to buy. Sounds like a great solution to our problem, don’tcha think?“

Among them are the librarians at the Tacoma (Wash.) Public Library, who last week received a shipment of 1,325 CDs that included 57 copies of “Three Mo’ Tenors,” a 2001 recording featuring classically trained African American tenors Roderick Dixon, Thomas Young and Victor Trent Cook; 48 copies of country artist Mark Wills’ 2001 album “Loving Every Minute,” 47 copies of “Corridos de Primera Plana,” a greatest hits compilation by Los Tuscanes de Tijuana (2000); 39 copies of “Yolanda Adams Christmas” (2000); 37 copies of Michael Crawford’s “A Christmas Album” (1999) and 34 copies of the Bee Gees’ “This Is Where I Came In” (2001).

No doubt there’s a lot of demand every holiday season for Michael Crawford’s Christmas album. Ho, ho, ho.

“Not to disparage the artists represented, but I was pretty surprised by the numbers,” said librarian Lara Weigand, noting that the library system normally would stock no more than two copies of the most-popular titles at each of its 10 branches. “I didn’t know what the terms of the settlement were for schools and libraries, but I did not think that it was the intent that we would get more copies than we could use.”

Ya think?

The RIAA blames a “computer glitch” on the mess-up, and says it’s All Fixed Now. Libraries which have already received their shipments are busy contacting each other to see who needs their extra copies.

Yeah. That’ll learn those recording labels. You betcha.

(via BoingBoing)

The CEO of Time Warner Cable, Genn Britt, explains why you’ll never get a la carte cable channels: because most cable channels are crap.

WIRED: You’re already giving us video-on-demand and DVRs. Isn’t à la carte cable TV the logical next step?
BRITT: À la carte is really a step backward – you would end up with a lot less choice, less diversity. People like having maximum choice. We carry many channels that appeal just to niche groups and minorities. It’s by no means clear those could survive in an à la carte regime.
So those channels aren’t really supported by the marketplace. If I could pay for just the channels I want, I’d be a lot more valuable to advertisers.
Cable isn’t about having a few channels that appeal to everybody, it’s about having a lot of channels that appeal to everybody. You may not watch C-Span every night, but it’s good to know it’s there.

Which is why I’d probably include C-Span on my monthly order, even if I only watch it once every few months. But I’d give a shiny nickel to not have to pay for (or wade through) about 7/8 of what I get in my cable package — channels I am forced to pay for/wade through in order to get the few channels I do want.

Cable and satellite are in cutthroat mode. Couldn’t à la carte be an opportunity for you to differentiate Time Warner Cable from its competitors?
If that’s what people wanted, yes. But the assumption is wrong. Every time we’ve tried to offer more packages with fewer channels – more toward à la carte – consumers always went for the big packages. People actually like this service, which is why 90 percent of the homes in the country buy it.

No, offering packages with fewer channels isn’t a la carte — it’s offering fewer channels.

Offer me channels on a by-channel basis, with discounts for buying lots of channels, and I guarantee that I — and zillions of other folks — will leap at the opportunity.

(via Hit&Run)

Microsoft might not really have the patent on Zeroes and Ones, but it does appear to have (gag) obtained a patent on double-clicking.

Well, not quite, but the abstract for the actual patent is still appallingly broad.

A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed. A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click.

So if you want to invent a device or computer interface where different functions occur when you press a button once, hold it down for a while, or press it down quickly twice, then you’re in violation of Micro$oft’s patent.

Yeesh.

Consumers Union is sponsoring an e-letter-writing campaign to encourage Congress to promote competition in the cable/satellite TV industry, and to provide better choice from cable companies, e.g., a la carte selection of channels. Interested? Click here.

Got my check from the CD anti-trust law suit. $13.96. I’m tempted to go out and buy a CD with it …

Quote the famous “I have a dream” line from Martin Luther King’s Mall speech, and you’re probably okay.

Show the same brief snipped on TV, and it’s no problem.

Print the speech as a whole? Or broadcast it completely — or even substantially — and the King family lawyers will sue the snot out of you. Unless you pay a licensing fee.

See, King’s speech — and most of his papers — are copyrighted. That the speech he wrote was delivered publically, and was a major news and historical event, seems to make no difference — it’s considered a creative work, and the family aims to keep it that way, accruing some $10MM a year in licensing fees via Time-Warner.

USA Today discovered this when it reprinted the full text of the “I Have a Drea-” oops, I mean The Famous Speech On The Mall – and was sued for copyright infringement.
Gannett, which owns the paper, settled out of court for $1,700, plus legal fees.
Then CBS, whose cameras captured King delivering the speech live on Aug. 28, 1963, was sued. Its mistake was including excerpts from its archives in its documentary series, “The 20th Century with Mike Wallace.”
CBS settled the case before it went to trial.
Harry Hampton, producer of the marvelous series on the civil rights era “Eyes on the Prize” was sued by the Kings, and settled for an amount “under $100,000,” according to news accounts.

And so fewer and fewer people are likely to know much more of one of the most famous speeches — and influential speakers — of the late 20th Century, beyond the same canned footage of four words.

Which hardly seems conducive toward promoting that Dream in the first place.

(via BoingBoing)

God Considers Smiting Bible Pirates:

Vatican City – God did not rule out smiting as a final measure against those who share his most famous work, the Bible, on the Internet. […] Citing misuse of His word, misquotation, and putting hardworking Bible printers out of work, God said he would now start hunting Bible pirating around the globe. “I have to defend both my world-famous brand – the Bible and its distinctive likenesses – and the livelihood of those who create and distribute legal copies of it. Sure, they live not by bread alone, but website hits – someone else’s website mind you – don’t pay the bills for these folks.”
Since large portions of the Bible are many centuries old, many people believe the work to be in the public domain. Not so, said God. “Look, most copyright laws are based on something like the author’s lifetime plus, let’s say, 15 years. News flash: I’m still here.”

Heh.

(via BoingBoing)

Vivendi is selling the MP3.com domain to CNet. Okay. But they’re not selling the 250k songs in the respository. Instead, they’re simply deleting them. Musicians with music there received the following e-mail:

Your personal information, music, images, related content or other information will not be transferred to CNET Networks, Inc. or any other third party… Please note, however, that promptly following the removal of the MP3.com website, all content will be deleted from our servers and all previously submitted tapes, CD-ROMs and other media in our possession will be destroyed. We recommend that you make alternative content hosting arrangements as soon as practicable.
It has been a privilege to host one of the largest and most diverse collections of music in the world. MP3.com wishes to express its sincere thanks to each of you for making our website an important part of your musical journey. We wish you continued success.

“… but don’t try coming home again, because on 2 December we’re changing the locks, selling the house, and dumping the stuff you left in your room at the local Salvation Army. Have a nice day.”

At least it takes an effort to burn books. Servers can be wiped with a couple of simple commands.

Another reason to always keep backups. And to not trust free repositories beyond what you pay for them.

(via BoingBoing)

The music industry claims it is being hammered by Evil Pirates, which causes people to swipe their tracks, rather than pay inflated prices for their CDs.

So, in a bold, exciting, and revolutionary move, the music industry is …urging bands to reduce the tracks on their albums.

Yup. The music industry wants artists to provide less product.

Do we assume that prices of CDs with less music will cost consumers less? I don’t.

Do we assume that the labels will pay their artists less, since they are providing less? I do.

Do we assume that this is all some massive rip-off? I certainly do.

Record labels are urging the clampdown on album tracks as a way of reversing a three-year-long slump in album sales.
“The final choice will always be the artist’s, but I feel – and consumer research bears it out – that the public thinks albums have too much filler,” Mr Ienner told the paper.

I see. The assumption is that artists are just cranking out “filler,” rather than hit tracks. People aren’t buying CDs because they’re not able to just get the hit tracks.

As if the labels know which tracks are going to be hits ahead of time. Of course, they know which tracks they’re going to promote heavily. But how often have “B-side” tunes turned out to be surprisingly good, popular, and profitable?

“We all should be concerned about giving music buyers good value, whether they’re getting eight, 10 or 20 songs.”

The industry folks note that CDs allow much more music than LPs. Thus, Bruce Springsteen’s classic Born to Run in 1975 had only 8 tracks, whereas many CDs have a dozen, two dozen, or more.

So, I guess the theory goes, if we have fewer tracks, the albums will be better, right?

Right?

Disposable DVDs, or “EZ-Ds,” don’t seem to be catching on. Test marketing of the concept — DVDs that, once opened, deteriorate to unusability in 2 days — in several states has led to very slow sales.

One problem may be the offered price. At $7, the cost is around that of a movie ticket, and a lost higher than a movie rental.

Another problem seems to be consumer mistrust of the product. How well, they wonder, will it play, if it deteriorates in two days?

Drop the price to $3, offer a free sampler, and provide a decent selection of discs, and the things will fly off the shelves.

Which, actually, brings up one of the more amusing bits from the article.

Pellegrino said he hasn’t seen one customer purchase an EZ-D, though some of them have been shoplifted out of the store.
“The good thing is that they tear them out of the packages and they don’t realize that they’ve started (the EZ-D’s) disintegration,” he said.

The Real Live Preacher lauds praises on those friendly, helpful, generous, and personally validating people at AOL. How charitable of him.

A French court has ruled against Google in a potentially far-reaching decision regarding use of trademarks.

The civil court in Nanterre, near Paris, fined Google €75,000 ($126,000) for allowing advertisers to link text internet advertisements to trademarked search terms and gave the company 30 days to stop the practice, common at internet search services.
The ruling, handed down last week, is believed to be the first in which the owner of a trademarked term successfully sued an internet search service for allowing advertisers to use protected terms in text ads.
If it is upheld on appeal and validated in other countries, the decision could force the search services to pre-screen search terms for trademarks before letting advertisers use them.

Google, like most other search engines, makes money through advertising. When you search for, say, “jelly beans,” then the page will also come up with ads, on the side, for candy stores who have paid for placement. (Google does, btw, a much better job than some search engines in noting ads vs search results.)

But let’s say you search on the word “xerox,” which is a trademark. Should advertisers be able to request that Google, when that word comes up, place their ad on the page? Is that an illegal use of a trademarked phrase, particularly if it brings up ads not just from Kinkos, but also from Sharp and Canon and other Xerox competitors?

The French court seems to think so.

In the trademark case, the owner of the name, internet travel agent, Bourse des Vols, wanted Google to stop allowing competitors to include its name as a term that would generate an advertisement and link to their own site that internet searchers could click on.
Google had refused, arguing its French arm was not responsible, that the term Bourse des Vols was not protected by a valid trademark and that the issue was technological and could not be resolved.
But the court found for the plaintiff on all three counts, said Fabrice Dariot, who owns the trademark to Bourse des Vols. […] The result of the decision is that any time the name Bourse des Vols is typed in, only ads for that specific site can be posted with the search results, Mr Dariot said.

As was noted on the Volokh entry that I found this on, why, if this is a trademark violation, put the onus on Google? Is not the true violator the company that requested that as a search term (and is that any different from the practice of putting trademark’s in a page’s metadata — and would Google be liable for using that in their search index)?

(tip o’ the title hat to Adam)

The Third Circuit Court has confirmed (in a footnote on another case) that AOL Time Warner owns the rights to “Happy Birthday” (the song, not the phrase), and will until 2030 — assuming Congress doesn’t extend everyone’s copyright yet again, thus ringing in the bucks everytime it’s played in public.

Hence, one might note, the flurry of generally wretched HB tunes that different restaurants make up for their patrons. What hath copyright wrought?

(via Volokh)

Pathé was a British newsreel company that started back at the turn of the last century, and produced bi-weekly news bulletins between 1910 and 1970. Their archive footage, some 3,500 hours, is online and freely available, thanks to a grant from Britain’s national lottery.

Specialists at Pathé spent over 50,000 hours to process the priceless 35mm film archive to digital video.
The film had been stored in 30,000 square feet of specialised warehousing. Its digital descendant, however, takes up about five square feet on a Pathé storage computer.

It’s designed for streaming video, even at modem speeds. It’s also been broken out into some 12 million still shots.

Very, very cool.

(via Doyce)

No, not to eliminate stupidity. To cover it up.

That’s the only thing I can figure behind the suit filed by SunnComm against Alex Halderman for revealing the big secret to bypassing SunnComm’s music CD copy protection scheme: hold down the Shift key.

See, SunnComm’s software is on the CD itself, and is read/installed automatically when the CD is put into a PC’s drive. Except you can apparently bypass that automatic installation by holding down the Shift key when loading the disc; the user gets the option of what components to run/install, and can simply skip over the protection programs.

Halderman posted this information on his web site. SunnComm, horrified that someone could reveal their cunning plan (and threaten the revenues they are counting on from the music industry) is suing.

“SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm’s MediaMax technology,” it said.
SunnComm, which trades on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board, said it has lost more than $10 million of its market value since Halderman published his report.

Halderman also noted that the protection scheme could be disabled by stopping certain drivers the software loads. This, SunnComm claims, means that Halderman has violated the DMCA — not for actually doing anything, but for discussing how someone could do it.

(Insert usual rant about the DMCA. I have too much to do.)

(via Stupid Evil Bastard)