I'm wondering where companies like Amazon, Apple or Microsoft fit in with this? They were, as far as I can tell, originally looking at the big picture (charge less, keep people happy longer) but now seem to be incumbents, to me at least. Not disagreeing with the overall article one bit, just wondering if these three count as incumbents or not?
I am amazed that nobody has thought to ask "WHY is infringement, counterfieting and piracy growing at such a huge rate?" If it's growing faster now than any time in the last 300 years since copyright was invented, there should be discussion on why.
If it was just because "it' easier" then why does "everybody does it"? Surely that should show how much lack of respect there is for copyright, trademarks and IP in general. Maybe it's time to chnge the laws to match ociety.
I've realised why the US government isobsessed with IP laws: That's the only place left making money. Manufacturing i largely outsourced to south east Asia (mostly China) or Mexico, building houses is pretty much out, the motor industry is losing ground to foriegn competition, farming is subsidized to not grow too much** ando so IP is all that's left. The govornment wishes to keep it's tax income flowing somehow and if IP is the only thing making money, IP is it!
**Note: My info on American Farming Subsidis is something I read about two decades ago so my information on it is hideously out of date. Feel free to update it for me.
I would like to agree with you on the 2001/BTTF part. The thing is, those were technological advances that were imagined COULD happen. We simply don't have the technology yet. Yes, they could do manned space travel but the time involved would be too great for the average human to deal with. We still don't have proper suspended animation (a la Lost In Space) or stasis (a la Red Dwarf).
Meanwhile, the technology to doworldwide distribution of TV shows transmitted in multiple languages simultaneously (sp?) has been available since at least 2001.
I once read the following on Wikipedia: "It is commonly said in the U.S. industry that 'syndication is where the real money is' when producing a TV show. In other words, while the initial run of any particular television series may theoretically lose money for its producing studio, the ensuing syndication will generate enough profit to balance out any losses."
I read that and I finally understood why the TV networks / TV producers hate YouTube and Hulu so much: They think they will loose the profitability of the syndiction market if people can "just watch it online". The result is stuff like SOPA/PIPA of course. Plus some of the major networks trying to kill Hulu.
Of course, there is no reason why streaming cannot be as profitable as syndication. Streaming is another form of syndication,, where the consumer is the purchaser/right-leasor of the show, rather than a TV station. Syndication won't die out either, with many people still prefereing to watch "whatever is on" or recording shows to DVR's to watch later. Not to mention DVD sales still exist.
I've been meaning to post this for months but never bothered till now. This has nothing to do with Senator Ron Wyden or his post but t does have to do with why TV hates the internet. Except for Conan ;)
P.S: Why is Hulu called Hulu? Because you have to jump through hoops to watch it. (Hulu Hoops!)(I'm Australian, I don't get Hulu here)
Tomorrow I need to have an operation on my eye, involving lasers. I will probably need to wear an eye patch for a few days. I am a regular TechDirt reader and I think Mike is great. Will all this, especially the eye patch, make me a pirate?
There's some reordings of Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos performed by Rachmaninov that Naxos released under their public domain "Naxos Historical" label. I wonder if they're still available? I'd love to get them but my local record store wouldn't order them for me.
"On 22 August 2008, Woolworths announced it was launching a new identity for all its supermarkets.....The logo, which had been in use for 21 years, was replaced with a new brand image, designed by Hans Hulsbosch with a new green tinted icon representing the 'W' in Woolworths with the addition of a stylised leaf to suggest fresh produce. It is also reminiscent of a 1970s Woolworths logo.....In September 2009, this rebranding scheme was extended to New Zealand stores where the new Woolworths symbol is to be used alongside the Countdown brand."
I like this part: "In October 2009, it was reported that Apple Inc. had lodged an objection to Woolworths' trademark application with the Australian Government's intellectual property agency IP Australia, claiming that the logo resembles its own. The reports said that Apple was concerned that Woolworths had applied for a blanket trademark for the design, so it could be placed on any product – even on electrical goods like computers and music players. Woolworths was not selling its own brand electrical goods then, but a spokeswoman for the company said that, 'While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment'."
That's true: Woolworths sells hardly anything electrical (a couple of kitchen appliences and the occasional TV and DVD player), all of which are branded by someone else. They are usually cheap pieces of crap that we (the Australian public) buy because their cheap and a good temp-job if we need it in a hurry. I don't know anyone here who would willingly buy a Home Brand TV. (Home Brand = Woolworths' Generic "In-Store" brand)
The NZ Woolworths also has that logo. I stumbled upon it when I visited the MasterChef New Zealand website last week!
I used to think it looked stupid when they (Woolworths of Australia) brought it in, it's a deformed W that's green. Then I went "Oh, it's meant to be an apple to represent how fresh they are". I'm not a moron but I was in a hurry that day.
This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss. (This is my point and I believe in it so much that before I hit "submit" I'm putting it at the start as well!)
I've posted about this at a few places. I'm starting to feel like a parrot who talks to deaf owners. Why? Because nobody who is in a position to do anything about it listens to me! If I had the money, I'd attempt this myself.
Did you see what happened at the one minute mark? A commercial break! A loaded-separately commercial break! Now, if YouTube is able to do that, I think they have the perfect streaming-video-on-demand service.
There could easily be multiple levels of video like this available, not just from YouTube, but from everywhere. The cheapest level is "free" - video on demand, streaming or download, with advertisements built in. Yes, I hate ads as well, but not all ads are bad. However, with the ability to locate you via your IP address, they can select appropriate advertising for your area. A sign-up option could allow a user to select advertisements they may find interesting through optional user settings.
And then for the paid options, there could be the "cheap" version, with a small amount of advertising (say an ad or two before each show) in the download or stream, then the "expensive" version with no advertising.
There needs to be no digital rights management other than no ability to skip advertisements (is that possible in a download?) - maybe offer an "upgrade" version? Get it for free with ads and if the user likes it, paying for it will strip all advertising and related DRM from the file.
The files will need full portability: it will work on a PC, a tablet, an iPod, etc, with no additional payment needed. Pirate versions already offer this, why should a legitimate paid for copy remove a vital feature?
The tricky part is a combination of making the full catalogue of existing TV shows available to go with new shows. And, of course, music rights, the stumbling block that has made "The Wonder Years" not available on DVD. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the right to use a song in a TV show or movie should automatically mean the right to include it on a DVD or in a download or stream of a show.
As we move closer to computer based television viewing, the old television systems (PAL, NTSC and SECAM) can disappear. No more PAL speedup of 24 frames per second material. No more 2:3 pulldown. And why not have the original aspect ratio as well? A TV show made in 4:3 can be viewed on a 16:9 screen with either black bars down the side or the viewer's graphics display can stratch it out however they see fit.
Of course, this will mean a new business model for the television industry. Make a show, play a show, sell it through syndication, yes (not everybody wants to cut their cable) but also be prepared to sell it to consumers via video on demand as well as on DVD, straight away. No delays. Some people don't want to wait for three months past the current season for the DVD. This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss.
Watching that video, knowing it's an anti-piracy advertisement, the message that I still got from it was that sharing music is important. Yes, indeed, music matters. I agree with that.
Where does it start/end?
I'm wondering where companies like Amazon, Apple or Microsoft fit in with this? They were, as far as I can tell, originally looking at the big picture (charge less, keep people happy longer) but now seem to be incumbents, to me at least. Not disagreeing with the overall article one bit, just wondering if these three count as incumbents or not?
(untitled comment)
I am amazed that nobody has thought to ask "WHY is infringement, counterfieting and piracy growing at such a huge rate?" If it's growing faster now than any time in the last 300 years since copyright was invented, there should be discussion on why.
If it was just because "it' easier" then why does "everybody does it"? Surely that should show how much lack of respect there is for copyright, trademarks and IP in general. Maybe it's time to chnge the laws to match ociety.
Why IP is "important"
I've realised why the US government isobsessed with IP laws: That's the only place left making money. Manufacturing i largely outsourced to south east Asia (mostly China) or Mexico, building houses is pretty much out, the motor industry is losing ground to foriegn competition, farming is subsidized to not grow too much** ando so IP is all that's left. The govornment wishes to keep it's tax income flowing somehow and if IP is the only thing making money, IP is it!
**Note: My info on American Farming Subsidis is something I read about two decades ago so my information on it is hideously out of date. Feel free to update it for me.
Rediculus Internet Acronyms Abound (RIAA)
Global
On
Line
Freedom
Act
or the GOLF Act
Tiger Woods should like that =)
Re: We (Don't) Have The Technology
I would like to agree with you on the 2001/BTTF part. The thing is, those were technological advances that were imagined COULD happen. We simply don't have the technology yet. Yes, they could do manned space travel but the time involved would be too great for the average human to deal with. We still don't have proper suspended animation (a la Lost In Space) or stasis (a la Red Dwarf).
Meanwhile, the technology to doworldwide distribution of TV shows transmitted in multiple languages simultaneously (sp?) has been available since at least 2001.
Re: Re: Oreos In Australia
I must correct myself (or, rather, clarify) and say "Most of the biscuits from Nabisco in Australia are made in China."
Remember when....?
Remember when rentals came six months before the video tape went on sale to the general public?
I know how he can get into the US
I know how he can get into the US: Start a website linking to infringing material!
Off Topic A Bit Here: TV vs YouTube/Hulu
I once read the following on Wikipedia: "It is commonly said in the U.S. industry that 'syndication is where the real money is' when producing a TV show. In other words, while the initial run of any particular television series may theoretically lose money for its producing studio, the ensuing syndication will generate enough profit to balance out any losses."
I read that and I finally understood why the TV networks / TV producers hate YouTube and Hulu so much: They think they will loose the profitability of the syndiction market if people can "just watch it online". The result is stuff like SOPA/PIPA of course. Plus some of the major networks trying to kill Hulu.
Of course, there is no reason why streaming cannot be as profitable as syndication. Streaming is another form of syndication,, where the consumer is the purchaser/right-leasor of the show, rather than a TV station. Syndication won't die out either, with many people still prefereing to watch "whatever is on" or recording shows to DVR's to watch later. Not to mention DVD sales still exist.
I've been meaning to post this for months but never bothered till now. This has nothing to do with Senator Ron Wyden or his post but t does have to do with why TV hates the internet. Except for Conan ;)
P.S: Why is Hulu called Hulu? Because you have to jump through hoops to watch it. (Hulu Hoops!)(I'm Australian, I don't get Hulu here)
(untitled comment)
Cool! I like Penn and Teller =)
Question:
Tomorrow I need to have an operation on my eye, involving lasers. I will probably need to wear an eye patch for a few days. I am a regular TechDirt reader and I think Mike is great. Will all this, especially the eye patch, make me a pirate?
(untitled comment)
Steve Jobs died. Bunches of APPLES were left at his grave.
Rachmaninov
There's some reordings of Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos performed by Rachmaninov that Naxos released under their public domain "Naxos Historical" label. I wonder if they're still available? I'd love to get them but my local record store wouldn't order them for me.
Wikipedia to the rescue!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolworths_%28supermarket%29
"On 22 August 2008, Woolworths announced it was launching a new identity for all its supermarkets.....The logo, which had been in use for 21 years, was replaced with a new brand image, designed by Hans Hulsbosch with a new green tinted icon representing the 'W' in Woolworths with the addition of a stylised leaf to suggest fresh produce. It is also reminiscent of a 1970s Woolworths logo.....In September 2009, this rebranding scheme was extended to New Zealand stores where the new Woolworths symbol is to be used alongside the Countdown brand."
I like this part: "In October 2009, it was reported that Apple Inc. had lodged an objection to Woolworths' trademark application with the Australian Government's intellectual property agency IP Australia, claiming that the logo resembles its own. The reports said that Apple was concerned that Woolworths had applied for a blanket trademark for the design, so it could be placed on any product – even on electrical goods like computers and music players. Woolworths was not selling its own brand electrical goods then, but a spokeswoman for the company said that, 'While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment'."
That's true: Woolworths sells hardly anything electrical (a couple of kitchen appliences and the occasional TV and DVD player), all of which are branded by someone else. They are usually cheap pieces of crap that we (the Australian public) buy because their cheap and a good temp-job if we need it in a hurry. I don't know anyone here who would willingly buy a Home Brand TV. (Home Brand = Woolworths' Generic "In-Store" brand)
Re: Not New Zealand
The NZ Woolworths also has that logo. I stumbled upon it when I visited the MasterChef New Zealand website last week!
I used to think it looked stupid when they (Woolworths of Australia) brought it in, it's a deformed W that's green. Then I went "Oh, it's meant to be an apple to represent how fresh they are". I'm not a moron but I was in a hurry that day.
Video On Demand: My Favourite Topic
This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss. (This is my point and I believe in it so much that before I hit "submit" I'm putting it at the start as well!)
I've posted about this at a few places. I'm starting to feel like a parrot who talks to deaf owners. Why? Because nobody who is in a position to do anything about it listens to me! If I had the money, I'd attempt this myself.
Look at this video here at YouTube:
It starts with a commercial, as some videos do now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1sy_8rQksA
Did you see what happened at the one minute mark? A commercial break! A loaded-separately commercial break! Now, if YouTube is able to do that, I think they have the perfect streaming-video-on-demand service.
There could easily be multiple levels of video like this available, not just from YouTube, but from everywhere. The cheapest level is "free" - video on demand, streaming or download, with advertisements built in. Yes, I hate ads as well, but not all ads are bad. However, with the ability to locate you via your IP address, they can select appropriate advertising for your area. A sign-up option could allow a user to select advertisements they may find interesting through optional user settings.
And then for the paid options, there could be the "cheap" version, with a small amount of advertising (say an ad or two before each show) in the download or stream, then the "expensive" version with no advertising.
There needs to be no digital rights management other than no ability to skip advertisements (is that possible in a download?) - maybe offer an "upgrade" version? Get it for free with ads and if the user likes it, paying for it will strip all advertising and related DRM from the file.
The files will need full portability: it will work on a PC, a tablet, an iPod, etc, with no additional payment needed. Pirate versions already offer this, why should a legitimate paid for copy remove a vital feature?
The tricky part is a combination of making the full catalogue of existing TV shows available to go with new shows. And, of course, music rights, the stumbling block that has made "The Wonder Years" not available on DVD. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the right to use a song in a TV show or movie should automatically mean the right to include it on a DVD or in a download or stream of a show.
As we move closer to computer based television viewing, the old television systems (PAL, NTSC and SECAM) can disappear. No more PAL speedup of 24 frames per second material. No more 2:3 pulldown. And why not have the original aspect ratio as well? A TV show made in 4:3 can be viewed on a 16:9 screen with either black bars down the side or the viewer's graphics display can stratch it out however they see fit.
Of course, this will mean a new business model for the television industry. Make a show, play a show, sell it through syndication, yes (not everybody wants to cut their cable) but also be prepared to sell it to consumers via video on demand as well as on DVD, straight away. No delays. Some people don't want to wait for three months past the current season for the DVD. This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss.
Re:
They can't get along! How could they take us over if they're to busy squabbling amongst themselves?
Terminated
So I guess the machines won't be taking us over any time soon then?
(untitled comment)
EMI = Every Mistake Imaginable
Re:
Watching that video, knowing it's an anti-piracy advertisement, the message that I still got from it was that sharing music is important. Yes, indeed, music matters. I agree with that.