DanZee 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (155) comment rss

  • On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better

    DanZee ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2012 @ 09:10am

    Free Movies (updated)

    ...that should read "each ad *block* would generate $12 for the studio." I'm not saying the movie studio would only make $12.

  • On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better

    DanZee ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2012 @ 08:53am

    Free Movies

    Since Netflix and Amazon already stream movies, why don't the movie studios do it themselves? Make you watch 6 minutes of ads, like they do in the movie theaters, and you get to see any movie you want for free! If the studios charged $1 per 30-second ad, each ad could generate $12 for the studio, which is probably what they make from a DVD. It would kill piracy's advantage overnight!

  • On the post: Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is

    DanZee ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2012 @ 09:14am

    Re: Re: yeah..

    The government does this all the time. It started with phone hackers who were charged with causing millions of dollars of damage even though all they did was make free phone calls. Then there's a kid in Britain who broke into NASA's computers looking for UFO info and he's been charged with causing millions of dollars of damage. Now downloading a song causes millions of dollars of damage. Same tactic.

    The difference is that judges and juries use to believe the government's claims. Hopefully, people are familiar enough with the Internet to dismiss these kinds of claims -- that is if the case actually makes it to trial! (It may take 3-5 years before MegaUpload will have its day in court!)

  • On the post: Even Thieves Are Ignoring DVDs And CDs As Worthless

    DanZee ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2012 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: AUDIO DVD

    There is an audio DVD format (DVD-A) but consumers didn't see a need for it since MP3s and CD quality was fine with them.

    Some movie soundtracks on BluRay, however, are presented in non-compressed, 96k quality. But that's the closest you'll currently get to audiophile quality sound.

  • On the post: Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The Public Domain

    DanZee ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Feb. 15, 2067

    Actually, sound recordings were not covered by federal copyright laws, rather they were covered under the laws of individual states. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act will allow pre-1972 recordings to go into the public domain on Feb. 15, 2067. 2067! I'm afraid I won't live to see it!

  • On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law

    DanZee ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Copyright-free Music

    I would have thought the cousin would have had access to copyright-free tracks specifically made for the video production industry. You buy the CD, you buy a license to use the music for videos. He shouldn't have even thought about using a consumer track. There are also Creative Commons songs he could have used.

  • On the post: Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists

    DanZee ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2011 @ 09:23am

    Struggling Artists Might Make it Quicker

    All perceptive comments.

    I would just add that a writer like Stephen King wrote novels for years without making any money, just receiving rejection notices from publishers. If the Internet had existed, he would have been able to post his earlier unsold works like Thinner and Running Man (while still retaining publishing and movie rights), and he could have built an online fan base that might have made him famous and brought him money EARLIER in his life. I also give him credit for seeing the value of the Internet in writing a subscription-only story. If I remember correctly, he did make about a million dollars from the attempt!

    So other than telling a writer his work is worthless, I think the Internet can serve as an incentive to write because their fans will always ask for more. If you look the lively fan fiction category, those folks are not writing for any money -- in fact, their stories violate copyright laws and will probably NEVER be "published" -- but because they're motivated by the fans that read their works online and give them encouragement.

  • On the post: Seizing The Public Domain: Europe Trying To Extend Copyright Term Retroactively [Updated]

    DanZee ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2011 @ 01:15pm

    Endless

    The ironic thing is that copyright laws are protecting a tiny percentage of information and literature. Probably more than 99% of stuff that's printed is NEVER reprinted, meaning that it's inaccessible since there's no incentive to print it until it goes into the public domain (which it never will).

    I love how Goggle has digitized entire libraries, totally ignoring copyright laws. They're sitting on a database that contains almost the entire literary output of the world since the beginning of time. But they're not allowed to share it freely.

    The bottom line is that works should go into the public domain after a reasonable length of time. Families members who weren't even born during Faulkner, Hemingway and Fitgerald's lives should not be profiting from their works,

  • On the post: Fox News Tells AP Not To Use Clips From GOP Debate; AP Apparently Unfamiliar With Fair Use

    DanZee ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2011 @ 07:55am

    Smear Fox News

    I agree with many of the other commentators that grabbing clips is pretty standard practice and this report seems created just to smear Fox News as if it's some sort of Pravda of the Republican Party. Very strange report.

  • On the post: CoC's 'Victims Of Internet Piracy' Look More Like 'Victims Of Propagandist Exploitation'

    DanZee ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    Synergy!

    Well, one way to market an independent film is what Kevin Smith is doing with a cheapo horror film he made. He's personally taking it on a road tour where it's combined with a personal appearance by himself. He introduces the film, shows the film, and then talks about the film and takes questions and answers. This way, you're getting more than a film that can be copied, you're getting a personal appearance. And, by the way, Kevin Smith gets to keep ALL THE MONEY (not a percentage or royalty payment)!

    I've seen the bits and pieces of Flatland that's free and the filmmakers could make money by giving away the film but selling T-shirts, mugs and posters based on the film. You can make more money from T-shirts than you can charging for digital downloads!

    These days, you have to think outside the box. Filmmakers who just want to sit back and sell it to a distributor for flat fee or royalty is going to lose. But if you get 10 million views on YouTube, there's a chance that 100,000 people might want to buy a T-shirt based on the film. You've got to think beyond just collecting payments for people downloading or viewing a movie online.

  • On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six

    DanZee ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2011 @ 09:08am

    Alternative means of income

    Well, you can't really win this argument of whether piracy is good or bad, but I would offer that many artists have decided to ignore the issue and concentrate on other means of income.

    For example, Katy Perry will probably make more money selling T-shirts at her concerts than she will get from her record company in royalties. And from her concerts alone she will probably rake in about $50 million, so who cares about lost income from piracy? It doesn't matter to the artist.

    A good example from history is Mark Twain. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were pirated so greatly that Twain only saw royalties from his British publisher. But when Twain went broke (from his bad investments, not from a lack of writing income), he went on a world speaking tour and raked in the equivalent of millions of dollars (which he promptly spent).

    You've probably heard the overused statement of creating your own brand, but this is where things are heading. A writer can make money being invited to speaking engagements. Also, there's been some experimentation with inserting paid "advertisements" within stories (such as if your detective drives an old, but dependable Toyota Corona with 300,000 miles on it or orders Cuty Shark at a bar). There's also opportunities to license merchandise, such as buttons or posters - things that can't be easily pirated over the Internet. You just have to be a bit creative, which some people have embraced.

  • On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up

    DanZee ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2011 @ 01:51pm

    Licensed the music, stole the art

    I've got to agree with a lot of other posters. Maisel was so careful to license the music, but when it came to the art, he just decided to copy it.

    You get into trouble when you copy an iconic image like this one. Even if it's not an exact duplicate, the intellectual property behind it is protected by copyright law.

    Now if he had had Homer Simpson blowing the horn on the cover, or Laura Croft, it would have been an obvious parody and protected speech.

    But the images are so close, it looks like he simply placed the album cover on a scanner and scanned it, which is copyright theft.

  • On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?

    DanZee ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2011 @ 07:58am

    You have to read Lord of the RIngs first ....

    The interesting thing here is that you have to have read The Lord of the Rings to know what The Last Ring Bearer is all about. So the Tolkein estate has not lost any revenue from the fan fiction, and it actually may spur additional sales of the books. But these days, being a copyright holder is all about restricting rights and not sharing rights.

  • On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?

    DanZee ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2011 @ 02:13pm

    RIAA makes the same bad analogy

    The RIAA makes the same bad analogy when they say Internet piracy hurts the musical artists. That's funny, considering most musicians never see their promised royalties every materialize from their record company. Musicians make their money from playing live and touring, and a lot of them are figuring out they can make a lot more money by giving away their music online for free. More fans turn out for their concerts.

    Likewise, Shakespeare might have profited from the Internet. If more people were reading his plays, they might just want to see them performed on stage.

    Book authors should adopt a similar strategy. Give their books away for free on the Internet and charge people for autographed copies of books they self-publish. That way, they could keep all $20 of the cover price rather than the measly $1 a copy the publisher "might" give them in royalties.

  • On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?

    DanZee ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2011 @ 09:40am

    Good theory

    I think it's a good theory. The broader picture here is that we build technology on top of older technology.

    But it is possible to "lose" technology. For example, the Roman formula for concrete was lost for about 700 years. (Imagine if they had concrete for building Medieval fortresses instead of stone.) Likewise, all of the technology used in Roman baths have not been fully rediscovered. The Romans used air channels in the walls and under floors to heat rooms and water to different temperatures. We're not 100% sure about how they were able to adjust the temperatures.

    And certainly some technology in ancient times may have been independently developed, such as pyramid building in the Old and New Worlds. But it's a good theory.

  • On the post: Stevie Nicks Claims The Internet Destroyed Rock; Seems To Think You Need A Record Label

    DanZee ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2010 @ 01:07pm

    Record companies are not your friend

    Ah, yes, things were nice back in the '70s when you were the biggest band in the world. Your record company spent $1 million in studio fees to have you record "Tusk" which immediately went into the cutout bins by the millions.

    But you haven't been paying attention. When the record companies consolidated down to just 4 major players, they CUT hundreds of rock bands, some of whom had hit records. They didn't sell ENOUGH hit records to matter to the accountants who took over the music business.

    They decided that rock wasn't necessary and concentrated on hip-hop and r&b acts since that segment was selling the most CDs. Well, you don't expand any business by contracting your field of interest. And that's what the record industry did.

  • On the post: TV Station Tells Blogger To Delete Twitter Message Or Face Legal Action

    DanZee ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2009 @ 08:33am

    Time honored legal ploy

    This is just one of the disadvantages of the US legal system. You can use threats of legal action to make people back down and even give up their legal rights, because who has $20,000-$60,000 just to present a defense at a legal proceeding?

    This is what the Recording Industry Association of America has been doing, sending out thousands of threat letters to either pay $1,000-$8,000 or face a legal bill of $40,000 and fines up into the millions if you lose! Most people opt for the blackmail payment.

    And Disney has done this for years. I remember they sued a restaurant in Maine because it called itself Pinocchio's! Pinocchio is a character from a book that's in the public domain, and the restaurant was not using Disney's version on anything. In that case, Disney backed down a little and agreed to pay for all new signage if the restaurant changed its name.

  • On the post: Discovery Channel Sues Amazon Over Ebook Patent

    DanZee ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2009 @ 08:42am

    Go back to inventions

    The Patent Office should go back to patenting inventions instead of methods. Anyone can dream up anything, but actually making work it is another thing. Under the current law, I could submit a patent on a time machine despite the fact that neither I nor anyone else could make a working model. It doesn't make sense.

  • On the post: Google 'Requests' That We Not Copy Works That Are Already In The Public Domain

    DanZee ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2009 @ 12:46pm

    Bill Gates does it

    Bill Gates has been doing a similar thing with Corbis. He's been buying up the copyrights of pictures taken of great works of art that are in the public domain. Any photo taken after 1923 has a copyright on it, even if the art in the picture of is in the public domain.

    So if you need a picture of the Mona Lisa, for example, for a book or some other purpose, Corbis owns the right to a photo of that artwork. The Louvre won't let you in to take a professional picture of it. The best you might be able to do is take a snapshot through the bulletproof glass and the dim lighting. If you need a professional photo of it, the only way is to pay Corbis a fee to use their picture, despite the fact that the Mona Lisa is in the public domain. Corbis makes money on a work in the public domain, and keeps you from accessing it directly.

    Google seems to be leaning in that direction: we scanned it, we own the rights to that scan. It may be in the public domain, and we'll let you look at it, but it's our scan and you can't use it for any other purpose than looking at it.


    It also falls within the category of intellectual property rights. Google has a database of public domain material, but it did the work of collecting it, and if you copy it without permission, you're violating Google's intellectual property. If you want your own database, you have to go out and scan the books yourself.

  • On the post: We Can't Own 'Sci Fi', So Let's Change Our Name To Something Stupid

    DanZee ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2009 @ 08:29am

    It's suppose to be NICHE programming

    The whole idea behind Universal owning a bunch of cable channels is to provide niche programming. One channel gets women. One channel gets men. One channel gets teens. One channel gets tweens. Etc. All of the stations combined gets a mass audience. As many people stated above, as soon as you try to turn a niche channel into a mass channel, you lose the audience you had and you only marginally attract new viewers.

    When you lose your core, loyal audience, you only attract people popping in for a particular show. You lose the people who use to routinely tune into the Sci-Fi Channel for science fiction. People then turn to Tivo to program their own sci-fi channel, bouncing between the other channels to get their sf programming. You then become a channel like all the other channels.

Next >>