<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;fairness&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:51:52 PST</pubDate>
<title>House Judiciary Committee Denies That Its SOPA Hearing Is Stacked In Any Way</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17092216782/house-judiciary-committee-denies-that-its-sopa-hearing-is-stacked-any-way.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17092216782/house-judiciary-committee-denies-that-its-sopa-hearing-is-stacked-any-way.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already discussed how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml">deck is completely stacked</a> in favor of SOPA at the House Judiciary Committee meetings.  Considering they invited five folks who are already in favor of the bill, and only one against, you'd think that this was undeniable.  But in the intellectually dishonest vortex of Congress, where apparently you can deny reality and stick your tongue out at anyone who calls you on it, a nameless Judiciary Committee staffer has insisted that <a href="http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/showdown-looms-over-stop-online-piracy-act.php" target="_blank">nothing could be further from the truth</a>, and the hearings are perfectly well balanced.  
<blockquote><i>
    &ldquo;Throughout the legislative process, we have met with groups and companies with different views on how to address rogue websites. Earlier this year, the Committee held a hearing on the problem of rogue websites at which the public interest group perspective was represented by the Center for Democracy and Technology. We also heard from Floyd Abrams&mdash;a well-known constitutional scholar&mdash;who affirmed that the Stop Online Piracy Act is constitutional under the first amendment and provides sufficient due process. And tomorrow, we will hear from a representative of Google, which opposes legislative efforts to rein in rogue websites. Assertions that the legislative process has been stacked against the opposition are inconsistent with the facts. 
<br /><br />
    &ldquo;This bill has strong bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee. The theft of America&rsquo;s IP costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs. We must protect America&rsquo;s intellectual property from rogue websites. The Stop Online Piracy Act helps stop the flow of revenue to rogue websites and ensures that the profits from American innovations go to American innovators.&rdquo;
</i></blockquote>
Very little in that statement is true or accurate.  First of all, <b>Floyd Abrams is hardly a representative of the public</b> -- as his outreach was <i>on behalf of the MPAA</i>.  And, at the same time <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17382616784/over-100-lawyers-law-professors-practitioners-come-out-against-sopa.shtml">over 100 law professors, practitioners and scholars</a> -- including many of the brightest names in the field -- have written a letter disagreeing with Abrams (and they did so on their own behalfs, not for a client).  It's really incredibly sleazy for the committee to suggest that Abrams' testimony here is somehow part of the other side's views.  
<br /><br />
Separately, as we explained, Google is hardly the only voice speaking out against this bill, and putting them on the panel is the most cynical of moves by the committee.  After all, they've been trying to pretend that only Google is upset about this bill, so putting Google as the sole "against" speaker, makes them easier to marginalize.  Even worse, while it appears that Google shares some of the concerns of others lined up against this bill, its concerns are fairly specific to Google.  It's unlikely to address the concerns of tons of other technology companies, content creators, innovators and the like.  And, on top of that, there are no consumer, public or human rights organizations at the hearing.
<br /><br />
This is the most insane part of all.  Remember, <b><i>copyright's sole purpose is to benefit the public</i></b>.  To have <i><b>no one representing the public</b></i> is the ultimate travesty, and the ultimate insult to the very core of copyright law.
<br /><br />
Only inside the beltway does "bipartisan" matter.  And, for what it's worth, the bill also has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/09233216778/ron-paul-comes-out-against-sopa-joins-other-elected-officials-saying-no-to-great-firewall-america.shtml">strong bipartisan opposition</a> as well.  This isn't a partisan issue.  Whether it has bipartisan support or opposition only matters in the board games in the minds of Congressional staffers who think this is a game of red vs. blue, rather than mucking with the actual economy.
<br /><br />
Finally, as for "the theft of America&rsquo;s IP costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs" that's bullshit again.  First of all, it's <i>infringement</i>, not "theft."  That the "House Judiciary Committee" gets this basic terminology wrong again shows how they're insulting copyright law.  Second, the $100 billion number has been debunked so many times -- including by the Government Accountability Office -- that it's really shameful to even bring that number up, and shows that the depths of intellectual dishonesty going on here.  They'll cite any debunked number to prove a point.
<br /><br />
Let's face facts: the Judiciary Committee is simply too afraid to hear from those who oppose the bill, because we have the facts, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/00240216771/new-study-shows-majority-americans-against-sopa-believe-extreme-copyright-enforcement-is-unreasonable.shtml">the public</a> and the law on our side.  And when you're trying to ram through a bad bill, Congress has no time for anything like that.  So it sticks its head in the sand and pretends that's the way the world really is.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17092216782/house-judiciary-committee-denies-that-its-sopa-hearing-is-stacked-any-way.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17092216782/house-judiciary-committee-denies-that-its-sopa-hearing-is-stacked-any-way.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17092216782/house-judiciary-committee-denies-that-its-sopa-hearing-is-stacked-any-way.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>beltway-delusions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111115/17092216782</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 05:51:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5 To 1 In Favor Of Censoring The Internet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently the folks behind SOPA are <i>really</i> scared to hear from the opposition.  We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight.  In Congress, they rarely are fair fights.  But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings.  That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights.  We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111110/13455416712/house-judiciary-committee-refuses-to-hear-wider-tech-industry-concerns-about-sopa.shtml" target="_blank">rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings</a>.  At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA.  However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're <i>so afraid</i> to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up <b>five pro-SOPA speakers</b> and only one "against." 
<br /><br />
Why is the Judiciary Committee so afraid to hear the concerns of the wider internet industry?
<br /><br />
The five "pro" speakers are the Register of Copryights, someone from the MPAA, someone from Pfizer, someone from MasterCard, and someone from the AFL-CIO.  The choice of MasterCard is deliberate, since Visa is against the bill -- because Visa recognizes that supporting a bill that requires them to cut off customers based on accusations of infringement is going to be a huge burden, and one that isn't good for their own customers.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, the "one" against SOPA is going to be Google.  This is a strategic choice, because the pro-SOPA folks know that Google is easy to dismiss on this topic, because they'll claim (not accurately) that Google just wants to profit from infringement.  Google is already under a lot of scrutiny in Congress, and so it makes it much easier for pro-SOPA supporters to say that "ah, the only opposition is Google."  And, yet, that's not true.  Companies throughout the tech and internet industries have expressed concerns.  Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay and over 160 startups have all come out against the bill.  This isn't "just a Google issue."  This is an issue of the entertainment industry trying to change the fundamental legal and technical framework for how the internet has functioned -- and in doing so, creating tons of liability and compliance costs for the part of the economy that <i>is</i> growing and has been creating jobs.  Just because Hollywood is jealous, doesn't mean that they should get to use Congress to punish the industry that's doing well.
<br /><br />
Either way, it's quite stunning that the Committee has decided to go so far in stacking the deck, and it shows just how unwilling they are to hear the real concerns about the bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-are-they-afraid-of</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111114/23145216770</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:39:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Could Collection Societies Help Up-And-Coming Artists With A 20/80 Distribution System?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1622459794.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1622459794.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that I'm not a fan of music collection societies in general.  I tend to think that once they get the right to collect they begin to abuse that power in ways that actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100611/0351569781.shtml">harm musicians and songwriters</a> more than help them.  That's because once they're given a right to demand payments, they continually look to expand that right: covering more areas and increasing the amount they can demand.  
<br /><br />
While, at first, that might seem like a good thing for the musicians and songwriters they represent, what many don't take into account is the wider repercussions and unintended consequences.  For example, by making music more expensive to play, they actually take away a lot of the incentive for many places to play music -- thereby cutting down on promotional venues for certain artists.  This has hit coffee shops and other small venues <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml">especially hard</a>, and that's quite a problem since so many musicians actually get their start performing at various open mic nights.  The second problem, of course, is in distribution.  How do these collection societies accurately distribute money.  By their very nature, they really can't track how often songs from less-well-known artists and songwriters are played, and so they often <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090909/0318406140.shtml">just focus on bigger acts</a> -- effectively taking money that should go to smaller artists and giving it to bigger artists!  If you catch representatives from those groups off-guard, they even seem willing to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0916136988.shtml">admit that</a>, such as the time that a BMI exec responded to such criticism from a songwriter who wasn't getting paid: "I would like to tell him is that he needs to write a hit song."
<br /><br />
Andrew Dubber has been thinking about this issue, and is wondering if there might be a slightly better solution that would <a href="http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/how-to-solve-royalty-collection-societies.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">help up-and-coming artists</a>.  His idea is that these collection societies should take 20% of their overall pot of money, and divide it equally among the lower 80% of the musicians and songwriters who are members.  It wouldn't be that much money, but it would give them all <i>some</i> money.  The remaining 80% of the collection revenues would still be handed out as usual, using whatever techniques the collection societies use to figure out who gets what.  My first reaction on hearing this is that it would get people to sign up for a chance at "free money," making it something like a welfare system for musicians.  But, Dubber points out in the comments that in order to qualify, you'll still need to have a song that was used somewhere else.  You can't just say you're a musician.
<br /><br />
I'm still not totally convinced that this would work, and I'm also not convinced that the collection society setup is even worth saving at all.  But if such societies are going to be around (and it's almost certain they're not going anywhere), then we might as well look at ways to make them actually help more musicians, rather than simply propping up the top of the top, while holding back new comers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1622459794.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1622459794.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1622459794.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-idea</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100613/1622459794</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 07:26:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Could You Replace Copyrights And Patents With A Fairness-Based Legal Liability?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/0047117146.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/0047117146.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, I <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0341235843.shtml">recommended</a> the book <i>No Law</i> by David L. Lange & H. Jefferson Powell.  I still keep meaning to get around to writing a full review, but the book makes a very compelling argument that copyright law is a clear violation of First Amendment principles.  However, rather than wiping out copyright law, the book suggests something of an alternative.  In noting that the claim of "exclusive rights" has been bastardized from the original "exclusive rights to profits," they suggest that no one be barred from using the content of others, with the requirement that profits due to those uses must then be shared with the originator.  I have some issues with that conclusion, but it looks like others are investigating that concept as well.
<br><br>
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=fongandrew">Andrew F</a> alerts us to the latest work by Marshall van Alstyne, who we've mentioned before concerning his views on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090219/0248373834.shtml">journalism business models</a> and who did a great job at <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/0123254841.shtml">The Free Summit</a> put on by Tech Policy Central, and emceed by me.  His most recent paper, co-authored with Gavin Clarkson, explores both how strict intellectual property rights <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1514137" target="_blank">lead to socially inefficient outcomes, and how "fairness" principles could be much more efficient</a>.  The paper uses a combination of real world examples, previous research and game theory to make a rather compelling case.
<br><br>
Basically, it explains all the reasons why intellectual property leads to hoarding of information that slows innovation:
<blockquote><i>
Property rights provide incentives to create information but they also provide incentives to hoard it prior to the award of protection. All-or-nothing rights, in
particular, limit prior sharing. An unintended consequence is to slow, not has-
ten, forward progress when innovation hinges on combining disparately owned
private ideas.
</i></blockquote>
As to why this happens, it's due to the injunctive ability of intellectual property holders to not just stop the specific use of their expression or invention, but effectively everything else built on top of it:
<blockquote><i>
Infringement of copyright provides injunctive relief as remedy. This permits copyright
owners the use of take-it-or-leave-it offers as strategy. The trouble that results from such
a hold-up strategy is that it allows the injunctive rights owner, when bargaining with a
non-owner, to extract nearly the full value of any transaction (with full information it is
full value.) For recombinant works, this affords the last negotiating rights holder undue
influence much as the last negotiating landowner exercises undue bargaining power relative
to other landowners in any effort to develop a multi-parcel tract of indistinguishable parcels
of land. For works of modest value, such as a single sample of a song, image, or video,
negotiation costs can vastly exceed market value. For transformative works, insignificant
inclusions of lesser material can retard or reduce the progress of more valuable material as
when the release of the movie </i>12 Monkeys<i> was enjoined due to the appearance in several
scenes of a copyrighted chair.
</i></blockquote>
From there, they make the case models that follow on "fairness" and "liability" work much better than a strict "property rights" setup.  Along the way, they discuss the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/113123.shtml">study</a> we mentioned in the past about how people view fairness and relative compensation, as well as debunk the myth that if one person can take advantage of another they absolutely will.
<br><br>
The end result is a suggestion not unlike the one in <i>No Law</i>: that rather than setting up a system of artificial property-like rights called copyright and patents, there may be more social <i>and</i> economic efficiency in allowing unfettered usage of expression and inventions, with a system that then requires some sort of attribution and payment for a fair share of any of the profits.  That would then actually encourage much greater sharing of ideas and inventions in an effort to get those concepts included more widely.
<br><br>
It's definitely interesting to think about, and I agree that in many ways it would likely lead to great net benefit than an IP regime, but it could also generate many other problems, especially in situations of independent generation or incidental copying -- as well as long, and drawn out legal fights over these situations as well as a determination of what is, in fact, fair.  The paper does try to address the latter point with three responses, but I'm sure this won't be enough for some.
<br><br>
Either way, this is certainly an interesting paper that contributes to this ongoing discussion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/0047117146.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/0047117146.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/0047117146.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fairness-and-liability</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091201/0047117146</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:09:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If AT&#038;T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1446555383.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1446555383.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we covered AT&#038;T's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090403/0957534380.shtml">back and forth</a> over its terms of service, concerning whether or not services like SlingMedia's place shifting (streaming from your TV to a phone or laptop) was allowed.  Some had noticed that AT&#038;T's terms of service appeared to forbid it -- but then AT&#038;T said it was a mistake and took it out, only to change its position a little later, and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0947594868.shtml">reinsert</a> the language.  Because of that, Sling had to disable its own player from working when an iPhone is connected via the 3G cellular network, rather than a WiFi connection.
<br /><br />
Yet, recently, Major League Baseball's digital arm, MLB.com announced that it was going to start <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/mlbcom-streams-live-baseball-games-to-the-iphone/?em" target="_new">streaming video of games to its iPhone app</a>, even on 3G connections -- and AT&#038;T seemed fine with it.  However, this differential treatment is leading to <a href="http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/does-app-store-violate-net-neutrality/2009-06-22" target="_new">charges of favoritism and discrimination</a>, even bringing out the dreaded charges that "net neutrality has been broken."  The specific question is why AT&#038;T gets to choose which streaming video apps are allowed, and which are not.  If your regular ISP told you that you could watch Hulu, but not YouTube, there would be quite an outrage.
<br /><br />
AT&#038;T's response is disingenuous, at best, claiming:
<blockquote><i>
AT&#038;T said the MLB app streams video from MLB's website, while SlingPlayer streams from the TV set-top box Slingbox. AT&#038;T also said the company is only trying to ensure all users on its network get the best possible service.
<br /><br />
"We're certainly not crippling any apps," an AT&#038;T spokesman said. "This is an issue of fairness.... While we would like to support all video services across our network, the reality is that wireless networks simply lack the capacity to support customers streaming hours of cable, satellite or IPTV video programming to individual users."
</i></blockquote>
While this -- once again -- highlights the point that mobile cellular services are nowhere near legitimate competitors for real broadband services, note that the AT&#038;T person never actually answers the question.  The fact that Sling streams from a settop box and MLB streams from MLB's website is <i>functionally meaningless</i> to the iPhone.  To the iPhone user it's the same thing.  It doesn't care where the server is placed -- it's just receiving a video stream.  So AT&#038;T is not being honest or upfront about this at all.  If the network is a problem, then it shouldn't allow video at all.  Picking and choosing who gets to run video certainly smacks of discrimination and favoritism -- exactly the sort of thing the FCC claims is not allowed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1446555383.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1446555383.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1446555383.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>net-neutrality?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090628/1446555383</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 06:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Aretha Franklin Wants Royalties For That Hat She Wore...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0123464831.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0123464831.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's always amusing to see what people feel they "deserve."  Reader Brad writes in to point out that Aretha Franklin apparently told a radio reporter recently that she <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20090505/ENT07/905050341" target="_new">deserves royalties for any sales of the famous hat she wore to the inauguration</a>.  It's unclear if she was joking (one hopes she was)...  But it does seem to be a common theme, where people suddenly think they automatically deserve a cut of something, despite not having set up an agreement for that beforehand.  Newspapers want a cut of Google's revenues.  Record labels want a cut of ISP revenue (and Apple's revenue).  It just happens so often that it's worth calling out -- even in a totally ridiculous discussion about a hat.  No one deserves a cut of anything if they didn't actually negotiate it beforehand.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0123464831.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0123464831.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0123464831.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090511/0123464831</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 11:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Don't Newspapers Owe Google Money For Helping Them Research Stories For Free?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2146084821.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2146084821.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we parodied the mainstream press' criticism that everyone else "owed" them money because they were the original creators of a story, by noting that the press never <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/1544524544.shtml">paid the newsmakers</a> for creating the story in the first place.  Danny Sullivan has now taken a more serious look at this, noting that for all the talk about how Google is "stealing" from news publications, those same publications never seem willing to admit how much they rely on Google for their jobs these days -- and perhaps one could make an argument that these publications <a href="http://daggle.com/do-newspapers-owe-google-fees-for-researching-stories-611" target="_new">actually <i>owe Google</i> for helping make them more productive</a>.  After all, the newspapers claim they want a "fair share" of the money Google makes since it's using their content for "free."  But, the same argument works in reverse.  If it's "fair," then shouldn't Google get a share of the money the news publications make, since its reporters use Google's tools "for free"?
<br /><br />
Obviously, the real point is that both sides benefit, and each is responsible for putting in place business models that work.  Google has done that successfully.  Many news publications have not.  But no one should be claiming its "unfair" or that someone else owes them money.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, Sullivan's piece also goes into great detail about how a random AP story he found was written after an AP reporter found some stories on some blogs, and used them to do more research and publish his story.  But were the blogs on which he found the story credited?  Of course not.  Did they get "their fair share"?  Of course not.  Hell, unlike Google linking to publications' stories, these bloggers didn't even get <i>any</i> traffic or attention from the AP reporter, who simply wants to pretend he came up with the story from nothing.
<br /><br />
And the AP wants to claim that <i>it's</i> being treated unfairly?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2146084821.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2146084821.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2146084821.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-course-not...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090510/2146084821</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BBC Presents MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy, Claims It's 'Fully Balanced'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/2220564651.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/2220564651.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall back in 2007, that the BBC put on a program all about the "dangers" of WiFi that was <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070521/101533.shtml">entirely one-sided</a> and had <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070529/095328.shtml">shoddy reporting, bad science</a> and (best of all) conflicts of interest, as one of the main participants sells products to protect people from so-called radiation.  The program was widely criticized, and many months later, the BBC finally admitted it made <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/003533.shtml">some mistakes</a> with the program -- but the only one it would admit was that it was unfair in how it presented the one dissenter who pointed out that there's little to no evidence that WiFi causes any harm.
<br><br>
It looks like the BBC has done the same thing yet again.  TorrentFreak notes that it just did a segment <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/the-bbc-rehashes-mpaa-propaganda-090425/" target="_new">on all of the harm done by "piracy" to the movie industry</a>, including quoting the already discredited report, paid for by the movie studios, claiming that movie piracy <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/0025383981.shtml">funds terrorism</a>.  Beyond that, the BBC program speaks to four different people -- all of whom <i>agree</i> that movie piracy is a hugely dangerous problem that could (they claim) end the movie industry in the UK.  Do they present any evidence?  Other than the discredited Rand study, not a bit.
<br><br>
So when someone complained to the BBC about the piece, you would think that maybe they'd realize that the piece had been a bit one-sided, but instead, they responded:
<blockquote><i>
This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.
<br><br>
Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it's coverage of copyright theft. 
</i></blockquote>
You see, apparently there is no other side to the story, and you can take the word of the industry insiders, because they're the only ones who can or should comment on the issue.
<br><br>
Amusingly, TorrentFreak also points out that the previous segment on that same broadcast, was about pirate radio, where the participants are described as "lovable."  Yet, suddenly, when it switches to movies, they become "no laughing matter."  Why?  Did it ever occur to the folks at the BBC that perhaps the issues are actually the same -- and the people involved in both types of "piracy" are effectively doing the same thing?  Apparently not.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/2220564651.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/2220564651.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/2220564651.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>on-one-side-of-the-scale...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090426/2220564651</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>