Killer Cool's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the the-good,-the-bad,-and-the-ugly dept
This week had a lot of articles that I really enjoyed. Between great articles, and good articles that spawned great comments, I had a hard time keeping this post short enough to keep anyone's attention. So, let's get to the week.
First, I really liked Monday's article about DRM lock-in. I always hate to see content producers getting caught up in a DRM craze. It NEVER works like they intend, since all DRM is quickly broken. The only differences between DRM schemes are in how the legit consumer gets impacted. When it doesn't work, it's either broken (and a huge waste of production money) or ineffectual (and a huge waste of production money). When it does work, it's only due to the fact that it doesn't feel like DRM. Take Steam. They are a great example of "feels okay" DRM... and consumer lock-in. I have over 200 games from them. I enjoy the competition's product (Good Old Games, etc.), but I feel obligated to check whether the products they offer are also available through Steam, since I've sunk so much money into them already. If they go out of business, I will lose access to all of my library, so it's in my best interest to make sure they stay in business.
Tuesday had great news for the Vandals. I've been following this story since the Mike first posted about it, two years ago. Yeah, it took two years for Variety to (effectively) drop a case against a victim who had actually complied with their demands. Seeing as how fair use/parody laws are a thing, I would have liked if the Vandals could have fought this out in court from the beginning. While I wouldn't wish a real fight in court on any reasonable person, SOMEONE has to stand up to the guys with the big guns, or they never go away. There was also a good write-up on why content isn't an end product. Mr. Grasmayer's breakdown of the benefits of viewing content as added value for a product was an interesting read. The discussion that followed in the comments, defending/clarifying some of the examples, was fairly enlightening for me, and more than a little entertaining.
Wednesday brought us the twin travesties of "Linsanity" trademark abuse and the MPAA trying to defend their stance on personal copying. Due to the widespread belief that everything has to be owned by someone, at least two opportunistic... jerks tried to trademark "Linsanity." What?! Apparently, since no-one had already registered the trademark, that means that someone MUST have a right to it. Right? Ugh.
As for the other article, I thoroughly enjoyed (read: gnashed my teeth and silently raged at) the self-righteous and condescending tone adopted by the MPAA (and, apparently, their toady). Obviously, being forbidden by law to conduct an activity that is only illegal because of DRM, and is, in fact, legal otherwise, is for our own good. Because (and I quote) "Think of ripping a DVD as the first step towards piracy. You may not intend it, but it happens often enough." According to this fellow, then, we must all forget that anyone who actually wants to pirate already has many highly functional tools at his disposal to rip movies from their discs. But that's ok. Mother says someone might slip up, so we should all just do as Mother tells us, and leave the (possibly) naughty toys alone.
Morons.
On a more cheerful note, Thursday brought us the tale of the latest censorship fiasco (JotForm). Despite the disheartening nature of the article, I still consider this a high point for the week, thanks largely to our very own Marcus Carab and his (mostly) calm discussion with a very determined AC. Long after I would have been reduced to incoherent sputtering, he kept dissecting and rebutting every claim about why, just this once, it would be okay to censor many people in order to slightly inconvenience some (allegedly) "bad guys." Bravo, sir!
Friday started with some schadenfreude, for me at least. When a service, whose sole purpose is to support a failing business model, tells the ones using that model to shape up, there is a serious problem. I mean, Takedown Piracy is telling their clients that they have a problem so serious, actions that would leave Takedown Piracy largely obsolete are the only real solution. But, in the meantime, they'll gladly take a chump's money, since he's too stupid to spend it elsewhere.
I leave you with this: Net-savvy entrepreneurs are quickly turning away from the USA. On the bright side, businesses (and their tax money) leaving is a story all politicians can understand. Contact your elected officials. Tell them jobs are being lost. Tell them tax money is disappearing. Tell them their policies' effects are damaging our economy. Tell them you can see for yourself that they are failing you, and you will not be quiet. Tell them that they should shape up before they are replaced.
For those that have gone too far, remind them that November is coming.
Y'know. Elections.
Re:
My god. You're right! I've never seen such a thing before! It's like, for some reason, a single person can do or say things at one point in time that are positive, and then later do something that is negative or dumb! Well, we should all just judge a person based on one of those things, and not on what they do or say at other points in their lives, as well.
Because judging them based on ALL of their actions, and not just the ones that paint them in the light we prefer?
THAT is unforgivable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to miss a very important point here: your money is lost when we decide not to pay you.
Period.
After that point, what matters is if we go to the competition, decide not to consume any product, or obtain your product through infringement.
If we go to the competition, you have lost our dollars and your "opponent" has gained them. If we decide not to consume, we spend our dollars in an entirely different manner.
However, if we pirate, you have lost our dollars, but not our support.
Frankly, you should pay attention to the pirates, not as enemies, but as potential customers. Every movie they watch illicitly is a movie that, under different circumstances, they would have given you money for.
Yes, some pirates are completely unwilling to give you money, ever. Ignore them. Your efforts to punish them are futile because, even if you succeed, you will never see their money. They will feel no remorse, and will learn no "lesson".
The others are fertile ground, though. Just try to see what they want.
Are they pirating because you have decided to enact release windows based on geography? Don't do that.
Did they pirate because you waited too long to release your product to homes? Don't do that.
Are they pirates because you priced your product at it's weight in gold, when it's really just worth a watch? Don't do that.
Re:
Well, copyright exists for the purpose of giving the artist a reason to make MORE art for the public to use.
I (and the judges quoted above) grok that as, the only reason the artist gets any exclusive benefit is because the public is supposed to get more art out of the deal.
Yes, the artist might get the first sequential benefit (he gets paid for his work), but the primary benefit is supposed to be owed to the public.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that's wonderful! So you admit that no amount of copyright, which is the only thing in the entire world that imposes any limitation on the number of copies of a digital good, will ever, ever incentivise another Beatles song.
So, why is their music still covered by copyright? (that was sold by Yoko Ono, who did not "own" the right, to Michael Jackson, who is also dead now, etc.)
Re:
???
Why is it unfeasible? Have you been ignoring all technological advances... Oh. Of course you have. I forgot. You're one of our regular semi-Luddite trolls. You dislike any and all technologies that could actually change things.
Re: Re: Stand Your Ground
I felt threatened. I'm pretty sure it flashed a gang sign at me, too.
No, just because Florida is famous for being the retirement destination of choice doesn't mean laws allowing violent enforcement of "Get off my lawn" reinforces any stereotypes.
What are you, ageist?
Re:
Aw dang. I can't seem to find the "I wish" button.
I had to opt out of all 3rd party text services (not just charged ones), including my school's emergency notification system.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As long as there are no increased fees for the remaining legit users, that would be fine. After all, I can't expect to use an email address without registering for one, and it's not really obstructive to do so.
Re:
Who said anything about rich? No, we're talking about enough money to not have to depend on government subsidies quite so heavily.
Also, you seem to ignore the fact that, unless you keep selling milk, there is no way your "milking lessons" will be able to stay relevant.
On the other hand, all of these other, more profitable revenue streams are, at heart, dependent on a continued supply of milk for them to have any value. I wouldn't want to buy cheese that claimed it was "the closest cheese to Brooklyn" if the milk came from Iowa.
@ Hotel radios
I bring my own music. Do I get to demand a discount equal to my share of the royalty payment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you haven't seen a plan that increases net profits while ignoring pirates, you have either a very selective definition of what qualifies as a successful plan, or you ignore anything you don't like.
Given your tendency to claim that a pirated copy is somehow more of a lost sale than not using the copyrighted material at all, I'd say you fall more into the category of "If it doesn't work for everyone, you can't call it successful."
Businesses ARE run on feelings: specifically, the willingness of your customers to pay you for your product/service. Whether I pirate the product later or not, the sale is just as lost the moment I decide you don't deserve my money.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, since a false dichotomy assumes incorrectly that there are only two options (You support SOPA, or you are a pirate), a TRUE dichotomy is a situation in which there actually are only two options.
Re:
I gotta tell you:
So far, nearly the only angry comments about infringing copyrighted material are from the people accusing anyone with a desire for privacy of it.
Unless, by "not customers", you mean those people who refuse to purchase or use copyrighted material "owned" by the terrible companies who all but accuse their paying customers of infringement. In that case, yeah, I'm not a customer either, anymore. More accurately, it's called a boycott. I am a disgruntled customer who refuses to use the product, and tries to convince as many people as possible to do the same. Terms of the boycott may include an end if the company changes it's ways, or (like GoDaddy) I may consider their transgressions too serious, and will only be satisfied by the company's demise.
Re: another rhetorical question
...I go there to buy Craftsman tools, and have an air conditioned 3/4 mile track to walk. If my Sears hits the cutting block, I will quite literally only go to the mall to walk.
Re: Re: DRM and Paywall!
You can tell he forgot his medication, mostly because he forgot the first paywall: you have to own a computer to use the content. Microsoft is a gatekeeper, yet nobody complains about them!
Oh, crap. I think I heard something in my skull pop. Ow.
Re: Re:
No, no, no.
You missed the part about the nearly empty minibar.
Apparently, when CLT gets drunk, he shifts from parody and mocking to full blown satire.
Re: At what point?
Ah, the good old used book store.
"♫ Half-Priced Books ♫ is for ♫"
CRIMINALS AND IP THIEVES.
Re:
No. They do not. I don't know how this (common) misconception happened, but in no way does anyone have to ask for permission to use a branded item in a film.
The reason brands are avoided in movies and TV shows is so that it is not mistaken for product placement. Such a mistake would possibly offend viewers, and would certainly upset any company that actually did pay for product placement.
Re: bronies
Brony here, and your comment made me wonder:
Perusing the source article, they only mention horses, but would these rules really apply to equines in general? I have had tasty donkey sausage (har har), but it was not for sale. I am told that it is a traditional Spanish dish.
The AP article is inaccessible, so I am at something of a loss.
Re: Missing the point (Re: )
Frankly, it seems to me EPIC is trying to claim that by changing their privacy policy (by combining/changing all privacy policies into a single policy), Google is somehow misrepresenting their privacy policy.
I get notifications nearly every day about the imminent policy changes. I don't see how warning all of your users for at least two months before a policy change can be construed as misrepresentation.