Wait ... what?
It seems to me that you are saying that the use of the legal system is a valid to to simply say "We're watching you"?
That is a complete waste of the courts time and money (our money). If they want to say "we're watching you", they shouldn't use a lawsuit as the communications medium.
I just read the summary for this story on Slashdot, which says that the students notes were NOT deleted. From the complaint (PDF) itself:
The notes are still accessible on the Kindle 2
device in a file separate from the deleted book, but are of no value. For example, a note such as
"remember this paragraph for your thesis" is useless if it does not actually a reference a specific
paragraph.
Personally, I have been buying games for years almost exclusivly through Steam. Steam has its own kind of DRM, (in addition to what the publishers themselves have) although its not "DRM" per se. You simply have to sign in. Games are tied to your account. While this makes it easy to transfer your personal game to any machine that you use, you are subject to what Steam allows you to do with your game. This includes the inability to resell any of your legally purchased games.
Steam makes it incredibly easy to buy new games. I can (and have) bought games on a whim that took 1 minute for the purchase and about 2 hours to download, all without leaving my chair. Their massive collection of games, great community, and constant deals that makes it a juggernaut of video game distribution that completely negates any resell of an individual game.
A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer - after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases - you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year.
The scary part is: Steam has done so much right that people will continue to use it (like me), which will push the industry in the direction of no second sales. In this case, the market forces are actually moving against second sales because Steam's model is so successful.
P.S. Steam: If my friend doesn't have a toaster, a used one is still a valuable gift ... you asses.
What I find interesting about this is not the parallels with the Shepard Fairey case, but the Judge's reasoning. It is a clear and concise description of a transformative work. This Judge clearly understands Fair Use.
Back to Shepard Fairey, what Mike didn't post was the section fo the ruling that could be, almost word for word, why Shepard Fairey's poster is fair use:
The fourth and final statutory factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ... [Sedgwick] argues that "the fourth factor weighs in [its] favor because Delsman's alteration, public display of altered photographs and public distribution of the same have injured Sedgwick's potential ability to continue to use the photos of its CEO and CFO (sic) for future marketing purposes." However, the relevant question is not whether the work itself has lost value, but rather, whether the secondary use has usurped the commercial demand for the original. Here, there is no such demand, since there is no commercial market for them. And even if there were, Defendant's use of the photographs is sufficiently transformative that it would not be a "substitute" for the original.
Moreover, the possibility that Defendant's use of the photographs has undermined Sedgwick's ability to use them in the future is not remediable under the Copyright Act. As the Supreme Court explained ..., "when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act." The Court finds that the fourth fair use factor favors Defendant.
Parent is right. Mike, RTFA! From your post: "The agreement is an astounding 25% of revenue as a bare minimum, with a requirement to kick-in $25,000 just to be a webcaster at all."
This is incorrect. From the article that you linked to:
"Small sites with less than $1.25 million in revenue, like AccuRadio, Digitally Imported, and RadioIO, will pay 12 to 14 percent of it in royalties. All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments."
The bare minimum is the annual $25,000, not the 25% of revenue. The 25% will apply to very few webcasters. (The article mentions only Pandora and Slacker) Most will pay around HALF of the only percentage that you included in your post, and in the headline nonetheless. Also, although this is probably an extension of the "bare minimum" inaccuracy, the $25,000 is not in addition to the percentage of revenue, which is what I initially interpreted your above quote to mean. Don't start this shit.
However, I still wholeheartedly disagree with this outcome. The descrepancy between 4% and 12% is pretty astounding. ([Citation Needed] for the traditional broadcasters royalty rates) SoundExchange is simply trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of webcasters. They DO NOT have the artist's best interests in mind, which is who the purported non-profit organization supposedly represents.
Note to parent: The article did not mention the 7% of expenses or the 30 day period for webcasters. Do you have a link?
What we need is some method to discourage frivolous (read: stupid, absurd, etc.) lawsuits. The above is just one way. I would go so far as to make it criminal. Lawyers won't help you sue if they can go to jail for it!
And they fail miserably. Any programmer who has had to work with their API will tell you that its a nightmare. I've never seen M$ Money's API but that is now a moot point.
I agree with you, but the problem with "updat[ing] the law with regards to internet regulation" is that Congress really does not understand technology. Regulation, while necessary IMO, can have drastic and unintended consequences when the underlying medium is not fully understood. Not to mention the influence of lobbyists which rarely represent the good of the people. The obvious example is the DMCA which is commonly used as a strong-arm tactic against people that can't afford to go to court. (I know about the whole counter-notification thing, but that doesn't change the fact)
I obviously don't know a solution, but I lack faith in Congress to come up with one.
I had a similar experience with the game Mass Effect. Its DRM (SecuROM I think, but not sure) completely failed on Vista with UAC enabled. After trying it a few times, I googled the problem and found out the steps involved to make it work were insane and that I had already surpassed its 3 install limit. Of course contacting the company did NOTHING. $40 for a day or two of frustation.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Seems reasonable to me (as Norm)
Correction: "...the use of the legal system is a valid tool to simply say..."
Hit Submit by accident instead of Preview.
Re: Seems reasonable to me (as Norm)
Wait ... what?
It seems to me that you are saying that the use of the legal system is a valid to to simply say "We're watching you"?
That is a complete waste of the courts time and money (our money). If they want to say "we're watching you", they shouldn't use a lawsuit as the communications medium.
The stuents notes were NOT deleted. (as Norm)
I just read the summary for this story on Slashdot, which says that the students notes were NOT deleted. From the complaint (PDF) itself:
Scary part about well-done DRM (as Norm)
Personally, I have been buying games for years almost exclusivly through Steam. Steam has its own kind of DRM, (in addition to what the publishers themselves have) although its not "DRM" per se. You simply have to sign in. Games are tied to your account. While this makes it easy to transfer your personal game to any machine that you use, you are subject to what Steam allows you to do with your game. This includes the inability to resell any of your legally purchased games.
The scary part is: Steam has done so much right that people will continue to use it (like me), which will push the industry in the direction of no second sales. In this case, the market forces are actually moving against second sales because Steam's model is so successful.Steam makes it incredibly easy to buy new games. I can (and have) bought games on a whim that took 1 minute for the purchase and about 2 hours to download, all without leaving my chair. Their massive collection of games, great community, and constant deals that makes it a juggernaut of video game distribution that completely negates any resell of an individual game.
From Steam's "Purchase Gifts and Guest Passes" page:
P.S. Steam: If my friend doesn't have a toaster, a used one is still a valuable gift ... you asses.
Re: Judge (as Norm)
Sorry, one quick thing:
The above coupled with the photo's transformation is why its fair use. Not just one or the other, but both.
Judge (as Norm)
What I find interesting about this is not the parallels with the Shepard Fairey case, but the Judge's reasoning. It is a clear and concise description of a transformative work. This Judge clearly understands Fair Use.
Back to Shepard Fairey, what Mike didn't post was the section fo the ruling that could be, almost word for word, why Shepard Fairey's poster is fair use:
The fourth and final statutory factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ... [Sedgwick] argues that "the fourth factor weighs in [its] favor because Delsman's alteration, public display of altered photographs and public distribution of the same have injured Sedgwick's potential ability to continue to use the photos of its CEO and CFO (sic) for future marketing purposes." However, the relevant question is not whether the work itself has lost value, but rather, whether the secondary use has usurped the commercial demand for the original. Here, there is no such demand, since there is no commercial market for them. And even if there were, Defendant's use of the photographs is sufficiently transformative that it would not be a "substitute" for the original.
Moreover, the possibility that Defendant's use of the photographs has undermined Sedgwick's ability to use them in the future is not remediable under the Copyright Act. As the Supreme Court explained ..., "when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act." The Court finds that the fourth fair use factor favors Defendant.
Sedgwick = Associated Press
Delsman = Shepard Fairy
CEO/CFO photos = Obama photo
Re: Thsi is what I want (as Norm)
My Tech Dirt T Shirt
I am angry dude
On Tech Dirt
There ... fixed that for you!
Re: How often will we get updates about sales? (as Norm)
I second this. What better way to show that CwF + RtB can be successful? (Also, I'm just curious)
Re: (as Norm)
The difference is that these are physically SIGNED copies of said book/albums.
Re: Uninteresting because fake (as Norm)
http://xkcd.com/331/
Re: 25% (as Norm)
Parent is right. Mike, RTFA! From your post: "The agreement is an astounding 25% of revenue as a bare minimum, with a requirement to kick-in $25,000 just to be a webcaster at all."
This is incorrect. From the article that you linked to: "Small sites with less than $1.25 million in revenue, like AccuRadio, Digitally Imported, and RadioIO, will pay 12 to 14 percent of it in royalties. All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments."
The bare minimum is the annual $25,000, not the 25% of revenue. The 25% will apply to very few webcasters. (The article mentions only Pandora and Slacker) Most will pay around HALF of the only percentage that you included in your post, and in the headline nonetheless. Also, although this is probably an extension of the "bare minimum" inaccuracy, the $25,000 is not in addition to the percentage of revenue, which is what I initially interpreted your above quote to mean. Don't start this shit.
However, I still wholeheartedly disagree with this outcome. The descrepancy between 4% and 12% is pretty astounding. ([Citation Needed] for the traditional broadcasters royalty rates) SoundExchange is simply trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of webcasters. They DO NOT have the artist's best interests in mind, which is who the purported non-profit organization supposedly represents.
Note to parent: The article did not mention the 7% of expenses or the 30 day period for webcasters. Do you have a link?
Re: (as Norm)
[Citation Needed]
Sorry, couldn't resist.
http://xkcd.com/285/
Re: Fees.... (as Norm)
Ditto.
What we need is some method to discourage frivolous (read: stupid, absurd, etc.) lawsuits. The above is just one way. I would go so far as to make it criminal. Lawyers won't help you sue if they can go to jail for it!
Re: Why Money lost... (as Norm)
"Quicken strives to be interoperable."
And they fail miserably. Any programmer who has had to work with their API will tell you that its a nightmare. I've never seen M$ Money's API but that is now a moot point.
Re: Is it that hard? (as Norm)
Ditto
Re: Devious (as Norm)
I agree with you, but the problem with "updat[ing] the law with regards to internet regulation" is that Congress really does not understand technology. Regulation, while necessary IMO, can have drastic and unintended consequences when the underlying medium is not fully understood. Not to mention the influence of lobbyists which rarely represent the good of the people. The obvious example is the DMCA which is commonly used as a strong-arm tactic against people that can't afford to go to court. (I know about the whole counter-notification thing, but that doesn't change the fact)
I obviously don't know a solution, but I lack faith in Congress to come up with one.
Re: ... (as Norm)
I had a similar experience with the game Mass Effect. Its DRM (SecuROM I think, but not sure) completely failed on Vista with UAC enabled. After trying it a few times, I googled the problem and found out the steps involved to make it work were insane and that I had already surpassed its 3 install limit. Of course contacting the company did NOTHING. $40 for a day or two of frustation.