Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Hello fellow Techdirtheads. I’m Ima Fish and am an attorney with a concentration in IP law. But unlike most lawyers who study IP law, I want to drastically curtail how it presently operates. So when I talk about my “favorite” posts, I’m being satirical, of course.
As anyone who reads this site knows, ownership culture has gone way past mere copyright, patents, and trademarks. The pervasiveness of ownership culture can be seen in my favorite post of the week, Timothy’s post concerning Shawn Cheek, who believes he has a monopoly on writing letters on the keys of a keyboard to better teach students. Unfortunately, despite having no such copyright or patent, Mr. Cheek has had videos removed from YouTube. That’s very troubling.
Another troubling post is Mike’s from Tuesday and involves the patenting of vegetables in Europe. The mere idea of giving out monopolies over nature should send a shiver down everyone’s spine. Especially when, as the movie Jurassic Park taught us, nature finds a way. This can be seen in a related story, wherein experimental GMO wheat from Monsanto, never cleared for release, was found growing “naturally” by a farmer in Oregon. Will Monsanto go after the farmer who found it for violating their patents? If he had tried to harvest it rather than destroy it, Monsanto might have had a chance based upon the US Supreme Court decision in Bowman v Monsanto. Will farmers in Europe eventually face the same legal threat, merely because nature followed its course?
Simply put, patenting acts of nature actually make acts of nature illegal. Do you feel that shiver now?
One of my other favorite themes at Techdirt is the fact that the copyright industry does not operate in a free market. This can be seen in three posts this week. First, the news that police in the UK are allowing employees of the entertainment industry to arrest and interrogate alleged infringers. While it makes no sense to us, it does from the perspective of the copyright industry when you realize the industry does not actually have customers. It has government granted tolls people are obligated to pay under force of law. So it makes sense for the music and movie industries to hire a bunch of former police and prosecutors to ensure every dime is collected. But the fact politicians are allowing it is very troubling.
The next such posts are the RIAA’s outrageous claim that it has never stifled innovation and the depressing news concerning the aftermath of allowing the copyright industry to control innovation.
While stopping the progress of technology may seem outrageous to us, it makes sense for the copyright industry. Because the copyright industry has no actual customers, it has no clue how to compete. So whenever a new technology is released, rather than rolling up their collective sleeves and coming up with better product, the copyright industry sues, e.g., the player piano, the radio, cable TV, DVRs, etc. And as long as the copyright industry’s business is collecting tolls rather selling a product or service to customers, these attacks against technology will continue.
Another favorite theme of mine here is the copyright industry’s desire to eliminate the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA was enacted when I was in law school, and it was hotly debated among students and professors. The only commonality of thought we all had was that if the law was passed, it absolutely needed safe harbors. Even the copyright maximalists in the debate conceded that. It was clear to everyone that without safe harbors, the internet would be destroyed. But as Mike posted Wednesday, the RIAA is back at it again.
People tend to ask, “Why should internet providers act as the copyright industry’s police force?” But in my opinion, that’s not what this is really about. The RIAA and the MPAA do not really care about stopping piracy. Seriously. All they actually want is a new revenue stream. Forcing Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and others to pay is what the copyright industry considers a new business model.
This would basically be licensing. Let’s look back to when copyright first started covering performances. Back then, the music industry could have sued individual bands or audience members. Instead they sold licenses to bar, club, and theater owners. And by “sold” I mean owners were forced to pay for licenses.
The same will happen once Google and the rest start paying. For example, the music industry won’t have to concern itself much with selling CDs or advertising. It’ll just sit back and collect its tolls from large internet service providers, increasing those tolls every few years, of course.
My last favorite post involves the destruction of the right of first sale in relation to the console gaming industry. As posted by Timothy on Wednesday, it is hoped that Sony learns from the backlash and supports used games in the upcoming PS4.
In my opinion, don’t hold your breath. Sony is the same company that took away the “other” OS option in the PS3, installed root kids on PCs via music CDs, and came up with the most convoluted anti-consumer way to sell digital music ever conceived. If Sony is our only hope to save first sale rights, we’re screwed.
"the Rolling Stone University of Virginia rape story debacle, Newsweek getting the inventor of bitcoin wrong, and the traditional print media's complete failure to report on the known rape accusations against Bill Cosby, are the internet's fault too"
My forehead is gonna hurt so much after reading this.
Re: Re:
First, I'm responding to a very specific point raised by Tim, "If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions." My argument is that it's not the union's fault, it's our fault for letting it happen.
Second, there are such laws, but they're not enforced against cops as compared to the general population because politicians aren't willing to stand up against cops. No politician is willing to stand up against cops because s/he would likely not get elected unless s/he's strongly in support of law an order.
Once again, this is not the union's fault or the lack of laws, it's our fault.
The sad thing is that my first thought was, "Well, as far as government graft goes, $81 million isn't really a lot of money."
It's easy to blame the unions, but the reason police unions have power is because we, through our politicians, give them power.
Factory workers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. Teachers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. The police still have strong unions because politicians will bend over backwards to protect cops. Because they feel they have to be "law and order" in order to get elected.
We could weaken police unions just like we did every other union, but no one is willing to take that first step.
Re:
You're over-thinking this. Right now there is no copyright protection on an actor's performance. There is a copyright on the recording of the performance, but the performance itself has no protection in the US.
So there is no point talking about whether it was a work for hire, as that erroneously assumes there is copyright protection.
"If an actor did not add sufficient originality to a performance, which actor a studio hired simply would not matter."
But it appears that the opposite is true. In other words, if an actor did add sufficient originally to a performance, it would matter which actor a studio hired.
My point is, does the actor hold a copyright on that sufficient originality? In other words, if an actor is replaced in a role, can that first actor collect a licensing fee from the replacement actor based upon his "originality"? Would each new actor be forced to act differently than the previous actors to avoid infringing the first actor's sufficient originality?
Let's take it further, could Bruce Willis copyright his "cool under pressure/everyman" persona? Does Jason Statham violate Willis' copyright?
It's been said before, bad facts create bad law. I hate to say it, but I hope the studios fight strongly against this. To think that an actor should have a separate copyright in his or her performance is disturbing.
When are the major television networks finally going to sue toilet manufacturers for interfering with the viewing of commercials?
Keurig should have the right to lock down it's products anyway it likes. Neither the government nor competitors should be able to tell it how to build its products (other than for safety reasons, of course.)
However, the DMCA should not act as a shield to bar competitors from reverse engineering Keurig's designs.
Now I'm going to have to file a C&D! My son and I created (i.e., thought about) an "adult swim" styled cartoon about a caveman and a time traveling duck and the wacky journeys they'd have.
This unnamed redditor obviously took my idea and cleverly changed it so it would no longer violate my copyright. That bastard!
"bizarre requests from the City of London Police"
Bizarre indeed. Everyone knows the NYPD has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter.
I thought this was obvious, but copyright law is not intended to help content creators. It's to strengthen the middlemen. E.g., the publishers, the labels, the performance societies.
The middlemen know there will always be content creators, regardless of copyright. They just want exclusive control over what is created.
Can we stop buying into their arguments and stop calling them "fast lanes." Fast lanes sound awesome. Who wouldn't want a fast lane to the net?
Let's call them what they really are: Throttled Lanes. Throttled for those sites that are not willing to pay twice.
What you call "free advertising" an IP maximalist calls an "untapped revenue stream."
"however the manner in which he lures the officers in is concerning"
Oh yeah, those poor innocent officers are like moths to his overwhelming flame.
Maybe this is subtle bragging. E.g., "I sure hope nobody finds out that I attended an awesome sex party!!!"
Think about it, what guy does not want to be associated with sex parties?! He's not going to stop until everyone knows. Or until he gets invited to another one.
Technology companies tend to over-promise and under-deliver. You'll read complaints from customers concerning soft/hardware where certain promised features were never included. My answer to that problem is to only buy what's sold, not what is promised to be sold.
And here's Keith proving my point. He wants to be paid a million a month, for a total of 18 million dollars for a product he promises to patent in 18 months.
I don't think customers would be getting much value for their money. Can you imagine if Nvidia sold a graphics card with the promise of patented technology a year and a half from now? Good luck with that.
Re:
The problem with the "moral rights" argument is that it's used to defend real "artists", but unfortunately is applied to everything.
For example, the RIAA claims that remixing an album for release on CD constitutes an entirely new copyright. Seriously, just messing with the bass, treble, and volume, and then putting it in a fixed state, is an entirely new copyright. Does that deserve a moral right to you? Do you feel the need for such a right every time you adjust the tone when you're listening to music?
And if I set up a camera to randomly take pictures, where does the lifelong "moral" right come from? Randomness, for some bizarre reason, is given a copyright. But seriously, where is the morality?!
And what about using software, or interns, to collect facts and push out newspaper articles? A collection of facts deserves copyright protection, unfortunately, but do you honestly think there's a moral component to that?
The purpose of copyright in the US was not to enforce some standard of morality. It was originally to compensate artists and writers to incentivize the continued creation of such works. Nothing more.
Tom Sydnor is also ignoring the fact that the 1790 Copyright Act did not cover or protect musical compositions.
Well, we've learned one thing. The pharmaceutical industry has more clout with the feds than the shipping Industry. FedEx might want to consider giving some cushy jobs to outgoing Washington insiders. Among other things.