DanZee 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (155) comment rss

  • On the post: A Copyright First: Bogus Copyright Takedown Leads To Australian Court Awarding $150k Damages

    DanZee ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 01:46pm

    Guessing

    I'm guessing Steele may be trying to claim a copyright on her cut of the film. And I'm further guessing she may claim that Bell owns the footage, but doesn't own the copyright.

    Obviously, we need to know more about how the film was made and what working arrangements they had. For example, did Steele do all the work and Bell paid for some of the cost? There have been court cases where if the parties did not have a strict work-for-hire relationship, the "employee" may have some IP rights to the work they did. Comic book artists, in particular, through the help of fellow artist Neal Adams, were able to get their artwork back to resell as art since they did not work under a strict work-for-hire agreement. Could be something similar in this case.

  • On the post: Guy Loses Probation Because Court Decides That Facebook & MySpace Are 'Electronic Bulletin Boards'

    DanZee ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 01:21pm

    Fuzzy legal language

    Well, let's admit the guy is a bad dude, and the reason he's returning to jail is because he violated a lot more rules than just using Facebook. (I would think moving without telling his probation officer is a biggie!)

    But lawyers are the world's worst writers, and the legal system is rife with arcane language that even lawyers can't agree with each other on what some of it means.

    In this instance, instead of listing places he couldn't go, the order should have been written to say what specific activities the court didn't want him to do on the Internet. For example, instead of saying he couldn't use file sharing software, say instead he's not allowed to download or upload kiddie porn! That's pretty clear. Instead of saying he can't use IRC, say instead that he's prohibited from contacting anyone under the age of 18! (That would allow him to have a Facebook page, but not go trolling for teenage girls. Likewise with the prohibition from using newsgroups, tell him he can read the technical ones, but he has to stay out of the porn ones.

    He went to jail for very specific reasons, his probation should have specific activities he can and can't do on the Internet. There just shouldn't be vague wording that can be interpreted in different ways.

    I agree with some of the comments here that if you're trying to keep him off Websites with BBS functionality, well, that's most of the Internet these days, including this Website!

  • On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians

    DanZee ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 07:37am

    It's interesting this is happening because college professors were doing the exact same thing in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, they were photocopying chapters out of textbooks, magazine and newspapers with no regard for copyright, assembling their own course materials, and sending students to nearby copy shops to "buy" their copyright infringed textbooks.

    The college textbook publishers found out about this and the practice was stopped. Some publishers did license their material for reprints, but most didn't, and instead kept pushing the cost of textbooks higher. It's just strange that colleges are doing almost the same thing again.

  • On the post: Public Domain Starves While Copyright Office Struggles To Modernize

    DanZee ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Copyright term

    Leigh Beadon gave a good answer for the printed part of your comment. As for the music side, no musical recording goes into the public domain until Feb. 15, 2067! The song-writing copyright is in the public domain before 1923, which means you can sing and record the song without paying a royalty, but the actual sound recording is locked up for another 55 years!

  • On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?

    DanZee ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Re: A question

    You can translate them, but you can't post them, print them or distribute them without permission. I'm assuming you want to put them on the Internet. In the US and Europe, everything exists under a copyright unless the copyright holder gives up some of their rights in a Creative Commons statement.

    E-mail the editors.

  • On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps

    DanZee ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 08:10am

    DVD

    Well, the DVD and BluRay is out now, so it sort of eliminates half of the argument!

  • On the post: Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy

    DanZee ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 08:00am

    Re: Re:

    Regarding iTunes, most "experts" believe Apple just breaks even on the iTunes site, but may make as much as $100 per iPod/iPhone. So that's how Apple makes its money. 90% of what iTunes collects go to the recording companies. Oh, and to get Universal Music to agree to license its songs, Apple had to give it a royalty on each iPod sold (which the other labels also received through a mutual benefit clause). Apple is basically doing the record labels a favor!

  • On the post: Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In

    DanZee ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Re: not quite agree

    When you're earning by touring and playing live, you can't squeeze in more concerts than you physically can. And you can't raise ticket prices infinitely as well. So your income is limited, even if your music is terribly popular.

    I think you have this wrong. As an act gets bigger it moves to bigger venues. Lady GaGa has made $100 million the last two years touring. Her first go-round, she played 3,000-seat concert halls. Her second tour, she played 16,000-seat stadiums. In the last two years, Katy Perry has earned $50 million. Pink in the last few years has earned $40 million. And The Rolling Stones earned $160 million in each of their last 18-month world tours. How much do you think their CDs earned them in the same period?

    These days the CD is the promo items that gets people into the concerts, not the other way.

  • On the post: Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In

    DanZee ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 11:37am

    Re: not quite agree

    >>When you're earning by touring and playing live, you can't squeeze in more concerts than you physically can. And you can't raise ticket prices infinitely as well. So your income is limited, even if your music is terribly popular.

  • On the post: MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content

    DanZee ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 08:04am

    Frustrated Lawyers

    Being a lawyer is a pretty uncreative job most of the time, so when they get a chance to start making up reasons for an injunction or lawsuit, apparently they go over the top with their analogies. Give them enough rope and they'll eventually claim that ripping a DVD will bring about the Apocalypse!

    The funny thing is that the studios could probably make more money by making movies MORE accessible than less accessible. For example, we've seen computer games WITHOUT DRM sell a heck of a lot more games than games WITH DRM. And O'Reilly Books has found that the more its books get "pirated" the more printed versions it sells. (IT guys apparently like to preview books before they buy them!)

    And there's also synergy that the studios still seem to be ignoring. Ask George Lucas how that worked out. He made more money by selling Star Wars toys and books than he did from his movies. And Disney has known this for decades. The amusement park business kept Disney alive when it was turning out crappy movies.

    Getting the studios to see the light is going to take a lot of time and effort!

  • On the post: How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years

    DanZee ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 01:10pm

    Prohibition

    This is basically why Prohibition didn't work. It would be better to legalize the use of copyrighted works rather than trying to stamp it out. For example 95% of what's on Google is "copyright infringement." Anybody who put a song under their home video is a criminal. Or wedding videos. Most wedding photographers have given up trying to tell the bride and groom they can't have "Time or our Lives" or some such song on their video and just do it. There should be some fair use provisions that allow people to use music or clips in their own productions.

  • On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims

    DanZee ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Music Sales

    I couldn't listen to any of the music released 2000 to 2009, which were mostly rap and R&B. CD sales have actually picked up when the number of pop albums increased. Artists like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Adele have actually stopped the sales decline!

  • On the post: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde Questions Why We Let Dying Industries Dictate Terms Of Democracy

    DanZee ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 11:56am

    New Paradigms

    Well, the movie and record industries have to be shown that they can make more money by opening up rather than hunkering down. For example, home video companies ignored the MPAA's lawsuit against the Sony Betamax and helped show the industry that there was more money to be made in the home video market than the theatrical market without losing any money in the theatrical market. Internet companies are doing the same.

    For example, movie studios could virtually stop the effects of piracy by making all of their movies available online for free. No need for piracy if it was all free. You would just have to sit through, say, 6 minutes of commercials that would generate the same revenue as a DVD would. Studios would make more money and piracy wouldn't be a problem. DVD sales are already declining because of Video On Demand (not piracy). Studios could reclaim the revenue via Internet streaming rather than just waiting until the DVD market dries up.

    There are other revenue streams that might work. The porn industry has led the way with subscriptions. They could follow the Netflix model where everything is free with a monthly subscription, or have a Blu-Ray club where if you buy 5 Blu-Rays a month you get all the movies you want online.

    There are many ways to make money online, but the movie and record industry would rather maintain the status quo, and in the end, lose the market.

  • On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal

    DanZee ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2012 @ 07:42am

    Re: Monopolies

    Actually a lot of people think monopolies increase prices, but in the Standard Oil case, Rockefeller kept prices on gas and oil low to keep out competitors. Microsoft kept the price of Windows low for years to keep out competitors, and raised prices when there were actual competitors (Apple, Red Hat, etc.). Like Google, monopolies can often keep prices low because being large, they're more efficient. Standard Oil was broken up into 34 different companies, including Exxon and Mobil, which raised operating costs and raised prices (and also made Rockefeller much richer than if the company was kept together).

  • On the post: How Much Of The Collapse Of Recorded Music Sales Revenue Was Due To The End Of Illegal Price Fixing?

    DanZee ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 01:21pm

    Illegal?

    What? The record companies were doing something ILLEGAL? They accuse everybody else of doing illegal things!

  • On the post: NBCUniversal Pirates NBCUniversal SNL Skit That NBCUniversal Refuses To Put Online

    DanZee ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 01:47pm

    Infringement

    It's only infringement if somebody else does it!

  • On the post: Photographer Appeals Ruling Saying It's Not Infringement To Have Vaguely Similar Photos

    DanZee ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 01:27pm

    Smiling

    I own the copyright of people smiling in a photo. I'm currently in the process of suing everyone on earth who has a picture of people smiling in a photo!

  • On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation

    DanZee ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 01:22pm

    Re: Re: Focus too tight

    You have to agree to erase any memories of a movie from your brain after you've seen it.

  • On the post: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Would Like To Know What You Think Of Them (Sorta)

    DanZee ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 09:32am

    Kicked me out

    I thought it was interesting that I checked the box that said I was only somewhat familiar with the WIPO, and this is what it told me:

    "The survey questions are of a very detailed and specific nature that requires a strong familiarity with WIPO and its operations.

    "In the interest of your time the survey will terminate here."

    I guess only experts need apply.

  • On the post: Romanian Prime Minister Admits He Has No Idea Why Romania Signed ACTA

    DanZee ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2012 @ 09:17am

    Nobody reads these things

    Apparently, it's not just Congress that votes on laws nobody has read! It seems to be a world-wide problem!

Next >>