David Sanger’s Techdirt Profile

davidsanger

About David Sanger

http://www.davidsanger.com
http://www.facebook.com/davidsangerphotography
http://www.twitter.com/davidsanger

http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidsanger



David Sanger’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 18th, 2013 @ 9:49pm

    (untitled comment)

    Yes some of those industries are profitable exactly because they have tended to abuse copyright, to wit the publishing companies which have regularly exceeded the terms of the licenses granted to them

  • Oct 23rd, 2012 @ 9:28am

    And what about the Church?

    I'm surprised they didn't charge the local Catholic Church for not being sufficiently prayerful, or for uttering ineffective prayers.

    Maybe they are next.

  • Jun 16th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

    Violating a Twitter name

    Clearly the most egregious and illegal activity was violating his twitter name!!

    Eh, what??

  • Apr 25th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

    was it used

    Mike, it is unclear from the article whether the researcher actually ended up publishing the image.

    If not, why the reticence in discussing details?

  • Mar 14th, 2012 @ 1:05am

    (untitled comment)

    There's probably a market opportunity then for non-SABAM books free from any such restrictions.

  • Mar 14th, 2012 @ 12:48am

    It's a joke

    Instead of music consider another medium. Let's say you think of a hilarious joke (like the one about the three nuns in a taxi…..) and you tell a friend. She thinks it's the funniest thing she's ever heard and tells her friends and they tell all their friends and soon it spreads like wildfire. You go on a trip to another state and are at a party and someone asks you "did you hear the one about the three nuns in a taxi? " You say "hey that's my joke, you stole it. You can't tell it. You have to pay me."

    Now it sounds ridiculous but digital content is somewhat like this. In economic terms it is non-exclusive, meaning it's not really possible to prevent it spreading. Try telling people not to tell your joke.

    To be sure there are still differences between music. Oral jokes are not copyrightable; but if you wrote it down after you told it, then it would be. Also joketelling is not a commercial enterprise so you aren't expecting to be paid. But in terms of how easy it is to transmit and how unlikely you are to be able to prevent it spreading, it is very similar indeed.

    That's the larger problem we are facing long-term, not copyright, but that with digital technology created content is becoming less like a private good, such as books and cars, and more like a public good, such as language, and we don't know exactly what to do about it

  • Dec 30th, 2011 @ 12:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    well I'll just charge them $3 for the privilege of receiving my payment

  • Dec 30th, 2011 @ 10:39am

    Competition from backlist

    Ebert mentions "Competition from other forms of delivery" and you add "Competition from other forms of entertaintment."

    More significant I think is competition from all the other movies made in the past.

    You can't see them in theaters, but only via home rentals of some sort. With today's technology we are no longer restricted to seeing just the few films most recently released and being marketed, but can, at our leisure and on our own time, see any of tens of thousands of films.

    I'd gladly have seen 3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, Gone With the Wind in theaters last year but they weren't showing anywhere so I watched them on Netflix.

    There aren't enough cinemas to show even a fraction of films people want to watch and this is an inevitable consequence of today's technology.

  • Dec 27th, 2011 @ 9:04am

    Trademark

    What about the fact that they registered a trademark in the word Righthaven?

    "IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Searching and retrieving information, sites, and other resources available on computer networks for others. FIRST USE: 20100301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100301"

  • Nov 17th, 2011 @ 12:11am

    Movies and Music

    Although SOPA refers to copyrighted material the motivation behind it is exclusively focused on Hollywood films and big label music.

    Does anyone think for a minute that the Attorney General, or the ISPs or anyone else will be interested in, or capable of, identifying infringements of photographs, poems, fonts, children's drawings, quotations, logos and distinguishing them from licensed usages or fair use? Not a chance.

    This in effect provides for elevated copyright protection for a very small subset of content, films and music, supported and paid for by MPAA and RIAA.

    Not a good idea at all.

  • Mar 29th, 2011 @ 8:51pm

    It's a question of price

    I read the NY Times quite often and enjoy it as one of my news sources along with BBC Reuters the Washington Post and (recently) Al Jazeera, and sohave no problem paying a small amount for doing so with ease.

    $35 a month is way way too high in my opinion. When I found out you could get full digital subscription by subscribing the Weekend Book Review for $1.75 a week I signed up. That's about $7.50 a month, which is more reasonable (the right price, I'd say, would be $4.99 a month)

    They since seem to have disabled the link, but you might still be able to get a subscription.

    As for hacks, the easiest way of all I found was to go to nytimes.com and then instead of clicking on links, do a right-click-copy-link-open-new-window-paste. No ?args. No paywall.

    Even so that's a pain and I chose the $7.50 a month instead.

    I donate $1 + a month to you, Mike, and they write many more stories than you do.

    Making it a highly porous barrier may turn out to be a fair compromise. Traffic will tell.

  • Mar 8th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

    (untitled comment)

    The Social Science Research Council’s study is a landmark in the copyright literature: an actual empirical investigation into what works and what doesn’t in the enforcement arena. If policy makers want to be guided by evidence and not rhetoric, they will begin with the Council’s study and stay with it for a very long time.

    — William Patry, senior copyright counsel, Google

  • Mar 7th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

    ten ones

    nice work he has there. funny that very few of the images are actually NY Times images. Most are artwork or historical

  • Mar 2nd, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    More at Volokh

    There's a lengthy discussion over at the law blog

    http://volokh.com/2011/02/25/suppression-of-jury-nullification-advocates-speech-outside-cour thouse/

  • Dec 10th, 2010 @ 10:58pm

    (untitled comment)

    The argument (perhaps from the studios) that it would not be fair for Netflix to buy just one dvd of a movie and then stream it tens of thousands of times, does make some sense.

    But a reasonable solution could be that if they buy (license) say, 10,000 copies at the dvd price, then they can stream up to 10,000 simultaneous showings of a movie.

    It wouldn't be too much of a hardship for viewers to understand that all the available films are being watched at some particular time and Netflix could manage their purchased to meet demand just like they do now with physical dvds.

  • Dec 10th, 2010 @ 4:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    So who has the copyright on the vuvu sounds. Surely they are creative, with beat and rhythm?

    Did Ubisoft get licenses from the copyright holders, the vuvu players, or did they just take the recordings and use them?

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 11:22am

    Re: Owning color in a specific trademark

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/

    Search Term: Susan G Komen
    Field: Owner Name and Address
    Result Must Contain: All Search Terms

    295 results don't seem to include the color. but lots of phrases.

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??

    Not always. Trademarks are there to avoid confusion for the consumer.

    I am a photographer. If I set up a website called "Red Cross Health Photographs" with a large red cross logo, I would expect customers to be confused and the real Red Cross to have an excellent case against me.

    That said, there is no doubt a trademark owner can be overly agressive is asserting broad rights where there may be little or no real customer confusion.

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 10:25am

    Trademark license for different product??

    Mike. your suggestion to "license" the trademark to other entities doesn't make sense. It would likely be considered "naked licensing" and they could lose their trademarks:

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naked-license/

    "licensing is generally permitted provided that the mark’s owner retains the right to approve the licensee’s use of the mark and supervise any element of quality control over the same. The logic is clear: if the mark is to have the import of signifying a particular source of certain goods or services and the public is going to have the right to rely on that mark for that significance, then when the mark is licensed to a party for use other than by the mark’s owner, the mark’s owner should be in a position to approve the use of the mark in relationship to the licensee’s good or services so that the public, upon seeing the mark in regard to those goods or services provided by the licensee, may rely on the same good will and quality it has come to know in relationship to that mark. " http://j.mp/g9gwOZ

    ps I am not a lawyer. But I also agree that it seems the claims appear overly broad (e.g. objecting to use of the color pink)

  • Dec 6th, 2010 @ 3:08pm

    (untitled comment)

    @Josh plus monitoring Facebook and Flickr for infringements.

    Except for one tiny problem. Aside from fair use, a copyrighted photo online may actually be licensed and there is no way to tell the license terms.

More comments from David Sanger >>