Techdirt. Stories filed under "publicity" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "publicity"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 6 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Ads Gone Wrong Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml don't really care about people as much as profits. Here are just a few advertisements that might have just missed getting their message across. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110222/02530313202 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:44:00 PST Film Distributor Convinced Oscar Nominees To Take Down Their Own Short Films, Because No Real Film Would Be Online Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml they needed to take their films down from any online site. Why? Because, apparently, online stuff is too lowbrow, and no serious filmmaker would ever promote their films online. From the letter:
The fact that all the films were put online is perplexing as Academy voters have other and better means of viewing the films, including through the Academy-provided DVDs of all the Live Action and Animated short film nominees sent to all voting members. Making the films available online creates no competitive advantage.

Unlike Webbies or Ani's, the Academy Award is designed to award excellence in the making of motion pictures that receive a cinematic release, not an online release. Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater. This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies--no feature length film would consider a free online release as a marketing tool!
First off, that last statement is pure hogwash. A large and growing number of feature length films have been released online for free as a marketing tool. There's a whole company called Vodo.net that has helped filmmakers do that. All the way back in 2008, we wrote about director Wayne Wang (who has directed movies like The Joy Luck Club, Smoke and Maid in Manhattan) releasing his latest feature length film... free and online. Another success story involved a relatively unknown indie filmmaker who got his film on Hulu (for free), where it became the most watched thing on Hulu for a while. And, of course, Nina Paley famously released Sita Sings the Blues for free online. The idea that no maker of a feature length film would ever use the internet to release it for free is simply untrue.

And, in many ways, it seems even dumber to remove these short animated films from the internet. As many people have noted, obscurity is a much bigger threat to most content creators than anything else, and one way to guarantee further obscurity is to make sure your work cannot be found or seen easily. Somehow, I doubt that any of these animated short filmmakers are seeing that much money from whatever limited theatrical release Pilcher is able to give them. And yet, by taking their works offline, they may be missing out on building a much bigger and more loyal fanbase, which can help support future projects (Kickstarter, anyone?). The idea that no real filmmaker would promote their films online is something that comes from the viewpoint of an obsolete industry, not someone who is looking out for today's filmmakers' best interests.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> wtf http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130225/02341122096 Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:47:00 PDT Porn Copyright Troll's New Tactic: Maybe Public Humiliation Will Magically Make People Pay Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120822/18184920128/porn-copyright-trolls-new-tactic-maybe-public-humiliation-will-magically-make-people-pay.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120822/18184920128/porn-copyright-trolls-new-tactic-maybe-public-humiliation-will-magically-make-people-pay.shtml going to start posting information it's collected on people it accuses of infringement directly on its website, hoping this will create incentives to pay up, without the company having to go through any actual legal process. Of course, threatening to expose information about you unless you pay up, sure sounds an awful lot like extortion...

The article also notes that some legal experts believe that this move will violate Germany's (somewhat strict) privacy laws. Either way, U+C claims that it has a list of 150,000 people who it wants to pay up. I actually wonder if a list quite that large actually makes it counterproductive. When you're in the company of so many people, perhaps it's not quite so embarrassing... Of course, given that, perhaps it's not surprising that U+C has indicated elsewhere that it's going to be releasing the info in drips and drabs, and will be targeting those who have the most to lose if it's exposed that they were downloading hardcore porn.
According to comments an Urmann insider made to Wochenblatt, the law firm is planning to target the most vulnerable people first – those with IP addresses registered to churches, police stations and – quite unbelievably – the embassies of Arab countries.
How nice of them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> well,-that's-one-strategy http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120822/18184920128 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:33:34 PDT How Important Is Attribution In Copyright Issues? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/01540718164/how-important-is-attribution-copyright-issues.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/01540718164/how-important-is-attribution-copyright-issues.shtml attribution is more important than much of what is in copyright law, and at times there have been efforts to focus more on the question of attribution over infringement. A recent study has tried to quantify some issues around this idea and put questions about the value of attribution into context. Eric Goldman points our attention to this recent paper by Christopher Sprigman, Christopher Buccafusco and Zachary Burns which is entitled Valuing Attribution and Publication in Intellectual Property.

The paper's authors seek to get a real sense of what the tradeoffs are for content creators -- and they quickly discover that content creators are willing to accept significantly less money in exchange for attribution and publicity. They also discover -- as their own previous studies have shown -- that content creators tend to significantly overvalue their own works. But the key finding is that attribution has tremendous value to content creators -- both amateurs and professionals alike. You can read the full details of the experiments in the study, but the researchers came up with a clever way to effectively get photographers to value a work with the possibility of getting a large cash reward for it vs. the possibility of having the image published with credit in a major publication. Notably, the impact was much stronger with professional photographers, since to them making people aware of their work had much greater value, even if it meant getting paid much less. It was also interesting to see that amateurs valued publication without attribution less than just getting paid, but for professionals, they were willing to get paid less if the image was published somewhere major even without attribution. Not surprisingly, getting published with attribution was the most desirable, and for that the pros were willing to accept the lowest payment.

I know that some copyright maximalists love to bash those of us who point out that there is significant value for content creators in getting their works out there and accessible in ways that people see/hear/experience them -- and this study presents some empirical evidence to support the idea that it's a pretty strong effect. Towards the end, the study digs a bit into the policy questions and suggests that requiring attribution (a la moral rights) as a mandatory part of copyright law actually could be harmful, in that it would take away a key negotiating point over which prices could change drastically. Coupled with the fact that artists have been shown to overvalue their rights, such an attribution right actually makes it more difficult to come to an agreeable price on content, and limits how much content is likely to be sold. Definitely an interesting read overall.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> summing-it-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120320/01540718164 Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:00:00 PST DailyDirt: Epic Fail In Advertising Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1238548620/dailydirt-epic-fail-advertising.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1238548620/dailydirt-epic-fail-advertising.shtml
  • Some advertisers are rushing to Rush Limbaugh, against the tide of sponsors running away from him. After Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, it seems that a couple escort services would like to advertise their services on Limbaugh's show (and apparently these companies are just fine with Rush's use of the word slut). [url]
  • Mommy bloggers are not a group you want to offend, and it might seem cute to try to have a little fun with some motherhood observations... However, the makers of Motrin found out the hard way that it needs to choose its words more carefully. [url]
  • Woody Harrelson doesn't actually mean "ask me anything" when he talks to people online. Harrelson just wanted to promote his new movie, but instead enraged would-be fans in a discussion that went downhill pretty quickly. [url]
  • To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  
    • By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100318/1238548620     Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:39:01 PDT Movie Makers Use 'Fake' Piracy Numbers To Score Distribution Deal Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090902/0142026076.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090902/0142026076.shtml X's and O's were thrilled that their movie was widely shared on file sharing networks, because the attention it got helped land them a big DVD distribution deal, and potentially a television deal, helped along by the attention received from that file sharing. Of course, there's just one little problem. The FreakBits guys noticed that the number of downloads the movies' creators are citing are almost certainly false. Apparently some sites post fake download numbers as a part of their advertising, and the movie makers used those fake numbers. But... it seemed to get them attention to get more deals, so more power to them. No matter what, it suggests that (once again) obscurity is a much bigger problem than piracy.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     well,-good-for-them? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090902/0142026076     Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:19:19 PDT UK ISP That Used To Cut Off Users On Accusation Now Wants Court Order Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1843465832.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1843465832.shtml cutting them off on the very first accusation, with no real recourse. Except, after all the publicity from the original BBC report and others discussing it, Karoo quickly caved in, and said it would switch to a three strikes policy. Now, a few weeks later, the company is admitting that it will only disconnect someone over file sharing if it gets a court order. So in the period of just a few weeks, a little publicity turned a bad situation into a much better one.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     see-what-publicity-can-do http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090810/1843465832     Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:38:00 PDT Maybe The Pirate Bay Should Just Pay Hollywood For All The Advertising It's Done Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/0348184633.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/0348184633.shtml ruling is now quite tainted, and about to go through at least an appeal if not a full retrial, it seems that the entertainment industry has wasted no time at all using the ruling to threaten a bunch of other sites, telling them that the're next if they don't shut down. In fact, some already are shutting down, as they'd rather not deal with a similar lawsuit.

    Obviously, the entertainment industry still thinks it won this case. But, as we noted when the ruling came out, it's actually quite a loss for the industry, because it makes them think the legal response is working. Their reaction to the result highlights that. But look a bit closer at the details and you realize just how badly the industry is shooting itself in the foot (repeatedly). Lots of people have pointed to the fact that the Pirate Party in Sweden has rapidly grown in membership, making it one of the larger political parties in the country, and its political ambitions are growing.

    But... even more interesting, as pointed out by Michael Scott is the news that The Pirate Bay itself has seen its own traffic and popularity grow noticeably thanks to the trial. Once again, the entertainment industry's strategy has only driven more people to find out about the site and what it does. What's amazing is that the entertainment industry should already know this. After all, what kicked this whole trial off was a big raid which briefly shut down The Pirate Bay, but which also put the site into the worldwide media, and massively increased awareness of the site... a trend that only grew as the press coverage continued.

    By far, the biggest promoter of The Pirate Bay has been the entertainment industry itself. If the Pirate Bay guys owe the entertainment industry any money at all, it should be for all the promoting the entertainment industry has done for the site.

    Meanwhile, as Hollywood stupidly celebrates all this as a victory, others are noting that the next generation of file sharing systems coming down the road will be nearly impossible for the entertainment industry to stop. The entertainment industry doesn't even realize what battle it's fighting, which is why it still thinks this trial has been a victory.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     this-isn't-going-to-end-well... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090424/0348184633     Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:57:00 PDT IBM Abandons More Outrage-Provoking Offshoring Patent Requests Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090408/0659264428.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090408/0659264428.shtml theodp writes "As we've seen before, sometimes all it takes is a little bad PR to get IBM to ditch a patent. More recently, Big Blue took a break from its stealth U.S. layoffs to withdraw a patent application for offshoring jobs while maximizing government tax breaks, saying it was 'filed in error'. And before bad PR lightning could strike thrice, IBM preemptively abandoned another patent application last Friday, this one for Selecting Shared Service Centers in another country ('e.g., India') and staffing them with less-productive-but-cheaper IT workers. Guess this one was 'filed in error' too!"

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     patent-review-by-pr http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090408/0659264428     Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:24:24 PDT PRS Threatens Woman For Playing Radio To Her Horses Without Paying A Licensing Fee Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml music videos to be pulled from YouTube after demanding much more money than was economically feasible. But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance."

    The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

    Obviously, this is not a case of random excessive attempts by PRS to squeeze more money out of people. It's become systematic. The group seems to believe that playing music in almost any situation now constitutes a public performance and requires a licensing fee. You just know they're salivating over the opportunity to go after people playing music in their cars with the windows down.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     this-is-called-extortion http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090327/1113014276     Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:22:00 PST Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/1511393886.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/1511393886.shtml contributions from groups not allowed to be involved in lobbying, is continuing to push forward with its campaign to claim that radio is a kind of piracy and demanding legislation that forces radio stations to pay extra to play music. For most of the history of radio, radio stations have paid songwriters and publishers royalties for playing music on the radio, but they didn't pay the musicians (really: the record labels). In fact, the money often (illegally) went in the other direction, with the labels paying the radio stations to play certain artists to help promote them.

    However, these days, with the recording industry unable to adapt to the changing marketplace, they've taken to demanding that others (individuals, ISPs, video games, Apple, webcasters, etc...) simply give them money instead. Their latest target, of course, is radio stations. It started with that silly claim that radio is a form of piracy -- then advanced to a bill, being introduced by a Congressional Rep, John Conyers (whose last campaign was heavily funded by those connected to the labels and this lobbying group), to force radio stations to pay the record labels as well.

    MusicFIRST's latest effort was to drag its dog and pony show to Congress, where it paraded a bunch of musicians in front of Congresscritters to whine about how unfair it was that radio stations helped promote their music without paying them. Of course, it looks like MusicFIRST should have talked to the musicians a bit more carefully first. One of the musicians they trotted out, Matt Maher, less than 24 hours before going before Congress, noted on his Twitter account how such royalties could hurt radio stations and worried that it would cause some stations to shut down. Apparently, someone went a bit off the reservation and made exactly the opposite point that MusicFIRST wanted him to make....

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     and-even-screws-that-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090224/1511393886     Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:41:00 PDT Recording Industry Calls Radio 'A Kind Of Piracy' Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080624/0254081491.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080624/0254081491.shtml has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

    It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

    But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

    To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

    Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     and-mocks-broadcasters http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080624/0254081491     Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:35:00 PDT MPAA Decides Pullmylink.com Doesn't Have Enough Publicity Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080418/010122883.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080418/010122883.shtml a ton more traffic, the MPAA keeps on suing. These lawsuits don't slow the pace of unauthorized sharing one bit, but they do generate a ton of publicity for the activity the MPAA thinks it's "cracking down" on. The latest is Pullmylink.com. It's a site I've never heard of, but thanks to a brand new lawsuit from the MPAA, plenty of people are learning all about the site. Even worse, like some of its ilk, Pullmylink appears not to actually host any infringing content. It merely links to it -- which makes the claims of copyright infringement even more questionable. Surprisingly, even the Reuters report notes how questionable this is, quoting people pointing out that making linking illegal has all sorts of unintended consequences. In the meantime, the folks at Pullmylink should be happy. They're about to get a ton more traffic.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     definition-of-insanity http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080418/010122883