LAB 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (231) comment rss

  • On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits

    LAB ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2015 @ 08:47am

    For 1,159,000 spins, Pandora paid a total of about $1,370.[http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars]
    Streaming services pay less then other forms of radio even with the performance royalty and the statement "They'd already convinced Congress to force internet streaming sites to pay compulsory performance royalties (at insanely high rates),"Just shows the author's inherent bias. Other countries pay performance royalties. Is there some reason the U.S. should not? These are the "insanely high" performance rates for the 3 different webcaster types:

    Broadcasters Per Performance Royalties

    2011 – $.0017 per performance
    2012 – $.0020 per performance
    2013 – $.0022 per performance
    2014 – $.0023 per performance
    2015 – $.0025 per performance

    Statutory Webcasting Per Performance Royalty Rates

    2011 – $.0019 per performance
    2012 – $.0021 per performance
    2013 – $.0021 per performance
    2014 – $.0023 per performance
    2015 – $.0023 per performance

    Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates

    2011 – $.00102 per performance
    2012 – $.00110 per performance
    2013 – $.00120 per performance
    2014 – $.00130 per performance
    2015 – $.00140 per performance

    http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2011/03/articles/final-webcasting-royalty-rates-published-a-comparison-of-how-much-various-services-pay/

    The amount streaming services pay is well documented as unsustainable and many artist will continue to pull their catalogs in Taylor Swift fashion if they don't increase. It is interesting to imply that content is asking too much without exploring whether streaming services are paying too little.

  • On the post: Court Soundly Rejects Watchmaker's Attempt To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Sale Of Its Watches At Costco

    LAB ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2015 @ 08:11pm

    Re: copyright properly enforced

    Though I often disagree with author on many things copyright, his analysis here is spot on. This was a waste of a lot of time and money when the underlying issue had previously been decided. The same rationale applied to hair care products purchased abroad and textbooks printed for foreign markets has resulted in the same outcome.

  • On the post: Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video

    LAB ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2014 @ 08:25am

    Re: Re:

    I'd say 1.287 million first week sales. I applaud the move. If they aren't going to pay realistic royalty rates, other artist will follow.
    "I'm not wiling to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music," Swift told Yahoo! this week. "And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free."
    A fraction of a cent per play is not sustainable and does not compensate the artist. Saying they (Spotify) pay most of their money to artist while refusing to generate more income(ads, just like terrestrial radio) on a free service is misleading at best. It also highlights the flaw in the business model.

  • On the post: Microsoft Takes Down A Bunch Of Non-Infringing YouTube Videos Over People Posting Product Keys In Comments

    LAB ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 03:55pm

    Re:

    Why post product keys in the first place if not for some nefarious purpose.

  • On the post: Dish Wins Yet Again Over Networks Looking To Kill Off New Innovations With Questionable Copyright Claims

    LAB ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re:

    The Aereo decision made more sense to me. If you act like a cable service provider you are. Here, if it acts like a VCR it is.

  • On the post: Dish Wins Yet Again Over Networks Looking To Kill Off New Innovations With Questionable Copyright Claims

    LAB ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 08:30am

    I always felt the argument against the hopper was weak. The hopper in function seems like an automated programmable digital VCR and the courts decided the non-infringing validity of the technology years ago.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Important Fair Use Win Concerning University 'E-Reserves' — But Potentially For Good Reasons

    LAB ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 03:17pm

    I agree with much of the authors analysis. What I found most disturbing about the original ruling was percentage analysis used by the judge to come to a fair use determination. A percentage to determination is not in the copyright statute and I felt was judicial activism in the extreme.

  • On the post: Seventh Circuit Court Upholds Fair Use Win, But Does So With Some Convoluted Reasoning And Bad Assumptions

    LAB ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 06:01am

    "it's another win for transformative creations, even if it's one that is skewed to statutory factors rather than the concept of fair use itself."

    Fair Use is defined by statute under U.S. law. The decision should be skewed to statutory factors. To use an arbitrary concept of fair use (in that each has there own definition if the statute were not used) would not instill predictability in the courts. However, the comments about where the image was appropriated sound like someones personal feelings and is definitely not in the statute. Nor does the new work having commercial value bar a fair use defense.

  • On the post: Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid

    LAB ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2014 @ 07:48pm

    Evolve or die. Those in the music industry was shown what happens when you don't years ago. Visual media will learn as well. If you know where you're going, you won't be left behind.

  • On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

    LAB ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2014 @ 07:09pm

    Re: Re:

    " where the contention enters the picture is what happens when the artist(or more often their label) doesn't feel like they are being 'monetarily rewarded' enough, and decide to break out the lawyers/laws to 'fix' it."

    I am not sure what being monetarily rewarded enough means. Lawyers get involved when someone breaks the law. I have not heard often "that business is getting paid 'enough' so I will break the law and acquire their product." A label is nothing more than a business that sells music. The monetary liability for breaking said law can be quite excessive and I believe should be adjusted. However,generally businesses exist to provide a service or sell a product in order to turn a profit, so it is only logical they would take action when something interferes with that.

  • On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

    LAB ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2014 @ 12:49pm

    I think the underlying issue Bono is addressing is, obviously, piracy. In that regard, I agree. The value of the artist in society is that they create art with intrinsic qualities that differentiate it from the creation of another. So much so that people desire to experience it and realize they themselves have neither the time nor talent to make this creation. To the artist maybe the art is spiritual or cathartic in nature. I believe we should monetarily reward the artist if we enjoy their art and to foster the creation of more art. If you truly enjoy an artist support them. Some approach art is if the artist is only "hocking their wares." However, many artist spend hours and years practicing their art and that has, in my eyes, a monetary value that society tends to devalue, especially in this digital age.

  • On the post: Forbes Praises YouTube Censoring Steven Sotloff Beheading Video

    LAB ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2014 @ 05:56am

    "YouTube is a major resource for video sharing in this country and it is wrong for YouTube to censor a video that has public value and news value."

    No it is not. Youtube is a private entity, a company whose purpose is to make $$. They are not a government actor and have no duty to attempt to be one. They can refuse to host whatever they like. If the argument is they should lose ad revenue to play videos counter to their content policy because they have public or news value, I'm sure youtube would tell you go start up your own video hosting channel and stop trying to dictate their content. In addition, they might exclaim "we are trying to run a business here."

  • On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6

    LAB ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2014 @ 01:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It really doesn't matter how much YOU value your work, what really matters how much your customer is willing to pay for it."

    Here is the crux of the issue. How much is the customer willing to pay for it by LEGAL means. I think to gloss over that the behavior as ILLEGAL is not intellectually honest and places the behavior in some neutral category. An article asking if what the guy did( break the law multiple times )is punished too severely based on morality? just the same as asking the question if infringement is morally wrong. Is that how we evaluate crime and punishment? No. My whole line of reasoning was to show we obey many laws that do not have a moral connection. In addition I outlined most people pay for intellectual goods. They don't have debates on how netflix or having cable effects the public domain.

    "If that number happens to be zero for infinitely reproducible items, so be it."

    Not if The number Zero is achieved by illegal activity. I am not bemoaning anything, especially not a price point conditioned by someone breaking the law. Why should anyone have to compete against someone breaking the law. Is that fair? Should we discuss in terms of equity or legality or morals? A justification for why they are breaking the law is a justification for ILLEGAL activity.

    "If you really wanted to begin to restore my respect of copyright, you could start by lowering copyright length to reasonable time frames."

    I totally agree but I am not willing to throw out the entire construct. I see it having way too many, real world commercial benefits to do so. Again, my ideas are not to persuade you to obey the law, like the law, agree with the law or be pro copyright. I before gave the caveat I express views of how the law operates now and how I deal with it on behalf of creators wishing to financially gain from their creations. I don't think obeying only the laws we like is how it's supposed to go. We all can agree that intellectual property isn't really property....that isn't really important to me. and it's not really that important to me
    whether you call copyright infringement "stealing" because I have already separated morality the argument. It's just breaking the law.

  • On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6

    LAB ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2014 @ 08:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll answer :)

    "Are you mixing up value and price? Because if they thought it had no value, why would they even click on it?"

    We live in a capitalist so let us assume that they are related. I will leave it to you to give me examples. In a capitalist society, items of value generally have a cost associated with them.( and please don't give me examples of sunsets and kind words are things that are valuable, or a lover's touch, YOU KNOW what I mean :)

    "Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument.

    Do you really see people arguing this? Because I don't recall ever hearing anyone say that."

    If you get works for free isn't that what you are saying? The justification for pirating is that they are not loosing any money because it's just a digital copy that costs nothing. That is the justification, that is the argument.

    "Creators have never been entitled to monetary gain."

    Nope but under the law they are entitled to a fair shake at doing so. The person in this case was selling someone else's product for his own profit. Doesn't sound like they were getting a fair shake to me. Please understand, the views I express are not how I think things should be, these are the laws on the books. I see them as the means business is conducted on an everyday basis in the realm of media.

  • On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

    LAB ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2014 @ 01:15pm

    I think it's all about the antennae for aereo. This is really just a VCR and falls right in line with the Sony decision years ago.

  • On the post: Indian State Says You Can Be Jailed If They Think You'll Infringe Copyrights Or Share 'Lascivious' Content In The Future

    LAB ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2014 @ 08:55pm

    Re:

    Ha! beat me to it!

  • On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6

    LAB ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2014 @ 08:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No. I believe most of society is not a good barometer for what we should do or behave in many instances. It would seem that you imply most of society thinks deeply about the function of copyright. I do not believe they do. To assume most of society knows what or how to pirate software or music or movies is a falsehood. Most people pay for downloads and don't even think "is it right that I could find a way to get movies and music for free, should I?" Or that they think "what would the world be like without copyright...." They just have cable or netflix or some other way to enjoy content. The thought that people on sites like these are representative of the general public is quite odd. I comment on these topics because it's what I deal with for a living so I am not representative of the general public either.

  • On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6

    LAB ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2014 @ 08:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I believe most of society doesn't think art or creative works have value because they can click on a link on the internet and get it for free. The law says otherwise. Which begs the question if they had value before, ie a vinyl record, because the format has changed does it mean it has less value? No. That would imply that the value of a vinyl record lay in the vinyl itself, which we both know is not true. Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument. Is that yours? Is your argument against copyright the creator is not entitled to monetarily gain from his/her creation because technology has made it less expensive to distribute? If that is the case then should all computer programs be free? Copyright does benefit a select few, generally the creator or someone who has PAID the creator to own the expression of the idea. Should you or anyone else have it for nothing? If it has no value why do you want it? if you want it why are you not willing to pay for it?

  • On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6

    LAB ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2014 @ 03:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If we did a survey and found that an overwhelming percentage of the population didn't view failing to pay federal income tax as immoral would you then advocate eliminating federal income tax?

    substitute: speed limits,printing counterfeit currency..etc

    No, I would not.

  • On the post: Putting Body Cameras On Cops Won't Fix Misconduct, But It's A Good Start

    LAB ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2014 @ 08:50pm

    Um, Daytona Beach, Florida cops have been using body mounted cameras for awhile now and they like them....

Next >>