ejoftheweb 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (9) comment rss

  • On the post: The Economist Shreds BSA Cloud Credentials Piracy Numbers

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    bogus arithmetic

    I worked in copyright licensing for twenty years. I still think that authorship creates some kind of link to the work authored, which is the principle at the heart of copyright. In the business, I spoke out against using bogus arithmetic to support ludicrous claims. Real numbers based on solid evidence make a real - if not so spectacular - case. But the people who paid me didn't want to hear me telling them not to be stupid.

    So now I'm a baker. Oh well.

  • On the post: Patent Office Seeking Comments On How To Implement A 'First To File' Regime Instead Of 'First To Invent'

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2012 @ 06:48am

    a third method

    Since a patent is essentially a limited monopoly in exchange for publication of the invention, it should be neither first to file nor first to invent but *first to publish* (in a form readily understood by one skilled in the art).. These days, fairly easy to determine, competing services could offer signed proof of publication, would make patent searching easier and mechanisable. Statute and caselaw should provide that obfuscatory drafting of the spec would nullify a claim to priority, since publication is the aim.and if you've tried to hide the invention by not being clear about how it works you haven't published and shouldn't get priority.

  • On the post: Bollywood Movie Released On YouTube Same Day As Theatrical Release

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 01:37am

    Movie Windowing

    It's certainly making less and less sense, but there is a logic to it. Chemical 70mm movie prints are expensive to make, so only a limited number of movie theatres can show a picture at the same time - obviously, there are more prints made of blockbusters than of arthouse releases. That's why we in Europe get to see scratched and poppy releases of US films, up to six months later than you lot in the US - because the actual reels have been through lots of US projectors before we get to see them. And Hollywood still wants us to pay top dollar to see the latest blockbuster as an event for a night out (and I think they're probably right to do so, even though I prefer to watch movies at home) - so theatre release comes first.

    Needless to say, in this as everything else, digital changes the economics profoundly, because digital prints are much cheaper than chemical ones to make. And globalisation - we now get to see films only days or weeks later than you, instead of months when I were a lad, and often highbudget turkeys get an immediate global release to maximise take before the punters realise what turkeys they are.

  • On the post: Whaddya Know… Popular Mechanics Connects With Young Fans With T-Shirts And A Contest

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2010 @ 12:54am

    t-shirts are a rubbish proxy

    Take one cheap t-shirt, made in a sweatshop in Bangladesh from cotton irrigated by water from dying inland seas...

    print it up with a bit of apparel-unrelated branding...

    sell it at a fat markup... based on some cultivated loyalty..

    use the excess profits to pay professional musicians/journalists as professionals.

    Sorry, but as a business model this sucks: making more crap stuff destined for landfill because we haven't figured out how to make money to pay professionals as professionals is unsustainable in so many ways. When the professionals are producing stuff you can't touch, like music, sooner or later we are going to have to work out how we can get punters to pay for stuff you can't touch. That may or may not involve copyright; it almsot certainly involves trust; but tangible proxy value-carriers like t-shirts are a terrible idea.

  • On the post: Consumer Electronics Firms Fighting Against Copyright Levies In Europe

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2010 @ 12:21am

    Re: Re: not still illegal

    Indeed, the UK has "fair dealing" instead. It's quite different to, and much more circumscribed than, US-style fair use. It's still the nearest thing to "private copying".

  • On the post: Consumer Electronics Firms Fighting Against Copyright Levies In Europe

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 12:20am

    not still illegal

    a minor correction: the levies are supposed to compensate for legal "private copying", not to compensate for illegal copying. Levy-free countries like the US and the UK have "fair use" and "fair dealing" instead of private copying, which is subject to a fairness test, whereas in a levy country, even unfair private copying is allowed.

    The problem is that the music industry has now said, unofficially but pretty publicly that private copying (e.g. ripping CDs you have bought) is allowed, with or without a levy.

  • On the post: Could Radiohead's Success Spell Doom For Music Collective Bargaining?

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2008 @ 08:07am

    Re:

    I don't think that's the reason at all; it's so the societies can enforce the rights and go and sue the restaurants and hairdressers that don't have a licence from them for public performance of music. But it's a bad legal argument these days.
    Problem is, if I give MCPS all the mechanical rights in my music, I can't then upload it to a website because, hey, I just gave MCPS the exclusive rights to do that for me. And MCPS can come back at me for the money they would have charged that website for that use of my music. These are the rules Radiohead had to bend for their experiment, which is OK for them.

  • On the post: Could Radiohead's Success Spell Doom For Music Collective Bargaining?

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2008 @ 07:13am

    Re: Re:

    It's not that inefficient; it's collected lots of money for performing and mechanical rights that couldn't have been collected any other way.

    But, like I say in my main comment, the societies need to switch to non-exclusive mandates. There's no compelling legal or commercial reason for them not to, other than inertia, and frankly, it will make them a lot more attractive to any artists starting up.

  • On the post: Could Radiohead's Success Spell Doom For Music Collective Bargaining?

    ejoftheweb ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2008 @ 07:09am

    collecting societies

    The music societies have done a great job for musicians with the old tech. But they're collective bodies and naturally can't be as innovative as a single established band like Radiohead which could afford to lose a lot of money, or a new band still with day-jobs.

    The societies don't have money to risk: it belongs to their musician members. So they have to play a safe game.

    But there is one very simple thing that they could and should do, which is to switch to non-exclusive mandates for their members. I believe that ASCAP and BMI in the US are non-exclusive; but PRS-MCPS in the UK take an exclusive assignment. This would allow their members to try innovative approaches, if they wanted to.