More Research: Competition Makes Groups More Creative

from the in-case-you-didn't-realize-it dept

One of the key elements of things like copyright and patent laws, are that they are really attempts to eliminate certain forms of competition. That’s always struck me as an odd idea, since it’s competition that leads to greater innovation — as has been shown over and over again in the economic research. So this following study shouldn’t surprise anyone, but Glyn Moody points us to a new study that shows that groups who are put in greater and greater competitive situations, come up with more creative solutions to challenges they’re given.

This should be common sense, of course. However, what strikes me is why people think it actually makes sense to limit competition in the creative industries, where you would think that greater competition, leading to greater creativity, would be a good thing? Already, we’re seeing that smart creative types have realized that they need to “compete with free” and they do so in increasingly creative ways. Shouldn’t we be encouraging that kind of creativity from the creative community?

Filed Under: competition, creativity

Professor Says News Should Get Special 24 Hour Protections So No Aggregator Can Link To It

from the um.-what? dept

We’ve seen all sorts of really bizarre and downright dangerous plans to change copyright law to favor newspapers, but a new one, posted at Henry Blodget’s Business Insider may be the most ridiculous of all. It starts off with a bunch of really bad assumptions, and then suggests special copyright protections for publications against aggregators, including that no one could repost (even fair use reposting) any content from a daily publication for 24-hours or a week for weekly publications:

A first suggestion would be to provide newspaper and other journalistic content special protection, so that no part of any story from any daily periodical could be reposted in an online aggregator, or used online for any use other than commentary on the article, for 24 hours; similarly, no part of any story from any weekly publication could be reposted in an online aggregator or for any use purpose other than commentary, for one week.

This comes from a Wharton operations professor, Eric Clemons, and a lawyer, Nehal Madhani. There are all sorts of problems with this, starting that the whole assumption that “aggregators” are somehow the problem. We’re still trying to figure out what’s wrong with aggregators. Clemons and Madhani insist that Google is somehow a problem:

Using aggregators like Google and others, I can access essentially in real time the lead paragraphs of almost any story from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or indeed any other major news service.

Okay, that leaves out some rather important details. First, those newspapers can very easily block Google News via the magic of robots.txt. Second, if the only value you, as a publisher, provide, is the lead paragraph, then you’re not providing much value and you deserve to go out of business. Third, and most importantly, the whole point of this is that Google News sends those sites tons of traffic. This is why “search engine optimization” is such a huge field today — because most sites want that traffic. To argue that the same traffic is somehow damaging is ridiculous.

But Clemons and Madhani ignore all of that. Instead, they claim that Google News and similar aggregators are why “print media publications are dying.” Except they provide no evidence for that statement, because there is none. Revenue from those publications has been in decline for many years — well before Google and the internet existed. The biggest problem many of the bigger publications faced was taking on ridiculous debt loads. On top of that, most of them failed to provide value to their community, as competitors stepped in to serve those communities. That’s not about aggregators.

The proposal also makes a few other whoppers:

The net is a pretty robust institution by now, and if we were suddenly not able to access articles from the Post (Washington or New York) until they were 24 hours old the net would, indeed, survive. In contrast, big city newspapers are dying from the east coast to the west, and without that change to reuse of newspapers’ content, it actually is not clear that investigative journalism as we know it will survive much longer.

This is hogwash, frankly. There is plenty of new investigative journalism going on, done by institutions who are putting in place smarter business models. Telling aggregators they can’t point people to news for 24 hours (or a week in some cases) is just ridiculous and would do a hell of a lot more harm by effectively hiding stories.

Of course, the most ironic of all of this is that this little bit of pure linkbait is published on BusinessInsider, which is famous for republishing huge chunks of articles from other sources with no commentary whatsoever, and just a link back to the original.

Filed Under: copyright, eric clemons, hot news, journalism, nehal madhani

ACTA Negotiators Don't Seem To Know Or Care About What They're Negotiating

from the that-is-downright-scary dept

With the latest round of ACTA negotiations going on this week in Washington DC, following pressure from various public interest groups, a hasty lunch was organized that was apparently quite informal. Attendees from the event have been posting their notes, and there are a few interesting tidbits. James Love notes that US negotiators don’t seem to realize or care that ACTA goes against US law, as they note that the US will just ignore the parts that don’t mesh with current law. Other countries are probably out of luck though:

The U.S. negotiators at the ACTA meeting have, over the past year or so, been remarkably indifferent to the fact that the US positon in the negotiation runs counter to about a dozen U.S. statutes where remedicies are now limited by statute, contrary to the plain language of the ACTA text advanced by the U.S. government.

At the lunch meeting the U.S. negotiators explained the reason for this — they said it was obvious that regardless of what the ACTA provisions say, the U.S. can ignore the provisions in cases where there are statutory exceptions. “It is not necessary to say that in the ACTA text” I was told. “It’s obvious.”

At the lunch there was discussion among the Australian, Japan, US and Singapore negotiators over this issue. Some delegates pointed out that the U.S. had spent a lot of time talking about the fact that this was an executive agreement, and therefore “could not” change U.S. law. Therefore, they argued, it was understood that ACTA would grandfather in any inconsistency between U.S. law and ACTA. People were not so sure how this worked for other countries in the negotiations — including those where the ACTA provisions would clearly require changes in national laws, if taken seriously. Some delegates indicated that it was hard to understand what ACTA meant, at this point, given the many brackets in the text, and a lack of understanding about how the “general” and “high level” provisions of the ACTA would apply to a country’s actual laws. Other delegates said the issue of exceptions to ACTA obligations, while important, had not really been addressed in the negotiations.

Yes, it appears we’re negotiating an agreement where the US isn’t too concerned with the fact that it goes against key points in US law because we’ll just ignore the parts we don’t like. But, you can bet that we’ll put massive pressure on any other country that tries to do the same. And, when there’s any discussion of improving US law, we’ll be told we can’t, because of our “international obligations” under ACTA.

As for that last point about how “it’s hard to understand what ACTA meant” at this point, Michael Palmedo from American University sent over his notes from the meeting, which I’ve published below with permission. The key scary point in his notes was that the top European negotiator, Luc Devigne, doesn’t seem to realize or care that this is supposed to be an “anti-counterfeiting” agreement, but insists it’s an “intellectual property agreement.” Perhaps they should rename it, then. Here was the key part:

Luc Devigne (Head EU Negotiator) is gung ho that patents will be in. He thinks that medicines have been addressed and therefore medicines are not an issue. He asked more than once how you could have an ‘IP Enforcement’ treaty and not include patents – and dismissed suggestions that ACTA was specifically an ‘Anti-Counterfeiting’ treaty rather than a broader enforcement treaty.

When you compare both of these points from Palmedo and Love, what you come up with are negotiators who are negotiating an agreement without much concern for what the agreement is supposed to be about or what it will actually do. That’s downright scary.

Anyway, we’ve included Palmedo’s full notes after the jump, so click on through if you want to read the differing views on patents, safeguards and key issues like access to medicine.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, intellectual property, negotiators

Porn Company Embracing 'Pirates,' Planning To Monetize Experiences

from the connecting-with-fans dept

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about an economist who tried to apply the whole CwF+RtB concept to the porn industry. Apparently, some porn execs have been doing exactly the same thing. Private Media Group is a publicly traded, multi-million dollar porn company, that has been a leader in porn in Europe for many, many years. The company just went through a management shakeup, bringing back an old CEO, Berth Milton (the son of the company’s founder). In discussing his initial plans, he said that the internet “turned into the worst thing that’s ever happened to the adult business.” But, if you read between the lines, he isn’t saying that it’s the internet that’s the problem, but that the internet pulled the rug out from old business models. He immediately followed it up by saying:

But there are also plenty of opportunities. There are ways of making money from non-paying traffic and that’s what Private is going to do. I can’t reveal anything more about our strategy, but we’re going to be more and more free, which will help us recruit paid subscribers.

That was just a few weeks ago… but he’s now moving forward with those plans, and is saying that he wants to embrace “pirates,” in a new interview with NewTeeVee:

“We will be extremely happy the more people are pirating our content and the more they look at it.”

Why? Well, it looks like Milton has come to the same conclusion as many others in terms of content business models: set the infinite goods free, and look for ways to sell the scarce. He realizes that fighting unauthorized access is a losing battle, noting that he just has to “look at my own kids, because that’s the best way to know where the market is going. It doesn’t matter if I tell them that it is illegal to download. As soon as they close the door to their room, they download.” As NewTeeVee explains:

In short, Private wants to go from making money with porn to monetize actual sexual experiences. It recently teamed up with a San Francisco-based swingers club to shoot a movie, and it wants to turn some of the lessons learned into a business, connecting people involved in alternative sexual lifestyles through exclusive websites. This will first be tested in Europe, where Private is already in negotiations with a swingers community site as well as a hotel property, but Private could eventually import it into the U.S. as well.

Milton also expressed optimism that advertisers will eventually start to embrace adult traffic, and said Private would offer adult toys and other additional products for sale. Private will make 95 to 99 percent of its revenue in these areas in five years, he predicted, adding that DVDs will be dead by then.

He makes some key points in the interview that really apply to so many other industries as well. He admits that, in the short term, this is a challenge and that “our easy way of getting revenue will disappear,” but in the long term, it’s a huge opportunity, because: “there’s never been so many people watching adult content.” He points out that the focus is on making money from “things you can’t copy.” Unlike execs in so many other content industries, it seems like Milton really recognizes why this is an opportunity, rather than a threat. It’s amazing that so few entertainment industry execs have figured out the same thing.

Filed Under: berth milton, business models, cwf, experiences, porn, rtb, scarcities
Companies: private media group

Will Kids Change Their Names As They Become Adults To Hide From Their Google Permanent Record?

from the modern-problems dept

Nearly five years ago, we wondered what would happen when the generation that grew up with the internet and social media started running for office. The idea was that when you’re kids, you often do silly things that you regret later in life. In the past, those things fade away as memories. However, these days, many of them are now recorded for posterity and easily findable on a search engine. We’ve wondered if this will lead more people to brush off youthful indiscretions, but there’s another possibility as well. Perhaps it will become more standard for kids to change their names as they reach adulthood. That, at least, is the suggestion made by Eric Schmidt in discussing how society hasn’t yet come to grips with a world in which so much data is recorded and available. Of course, it’s a pretty simple database mapping to link one to the other, so I do wonder whether or not that really makes a difference for other than the most basic of searches.

Still, I often find these discussions by adults to be a bit condescending towards kids. Yes, kids do all sorts of silly things, some of which they may regret later, it’s not as if everything they do is regrettable. On top of that, I tend to believe kids are a lot smarter than many adults make them out to be. While there may be many things that make adults cringe, I would bet a lot more kids understand what they should avoid doing online than adults give them credit for.

Filed Under: children, eric schmidt, names, privacy
Companies: google

John Mellencamp: The Internet Is An Atomic Bomb For Music

from the that-radioactivity-may-have-gone-to-your-brain dept

What is it with old, out of touch and just downright wrong music industry folks slamming things they just don’t understand? Following U2 manager Paul McGuinness’ recent rant, rocker John Mellencamp has announced that “the Internet is the most dangerous thing invented since the atomic bomb,” and that “It’s destroyed the music business. It’s going to destroy the movie business.” Funny. If it’s the atomic bomb, it seems that living here in the nuclear winter is actually quite nice. After all, more new music is being released than ever before in history, more artists are making money from their music, and the overall industry (if you don’t just look at direct music sales) appears to be continually growing.

That’s a funny sort of “destroyed” industry, and a funny sort of atomic bomb. The music industry appears to be absolutely thriving. It’s true that the selling music business may be having some trouble, but that’s not the music industry. So why does the press simply take the obviously false claims of folks like John Mellencamp and repeat them? Aren’t journalists supposed to point out when people say things that are false?

Either way, this isn’t the first time Mellencamp has made this sorts of claims. Last year, he wrote an article about the mythical good old days of the music industry, where apparently his success came from the ground up — as compared to today… when it’s all top down. Of course, that made us scratch our heads, because Mellencamp was a major label artist, who benefited tremendously from major label (i.e., top down) promotions. And that was fine. Because there was no bottom up option in those days for most artists. Yet, today, we hear about totally independent artists building successful bottom up careers all the time. So, once again, it seems like Mellencamp has a view of the industry that might sound good from where he’s sitting, but don’t seem to reflect reality.

Filed Under: internet, john mellencamp, music

Las Vegas Review-Journal Thinks Suing Sites Over Copyright Will Mean More People Link To It

from the uh,-try-less dept

We’ve been following the lawsuits filed by Righthaven for a few months now. If you haven’t been following the story, this is the company, funded by the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that is suing a bunch of sites (over 100, and increasing rapidly) for reposting content from the LVRJ. In many cases, the lawsuits hit message boards, where the site owners have clear DMCA protections. Also, Righthaven does not issue any DMCA takedown notices — it just goes straight to suing. Joe Mullin has a story about Righthaven that includes a few more details, including the fact that about 30% of those sued have settled — but for amounts ranging from $2,185 to $5,000 — well below the $75,000 demanded. And, none of the settlements have resulted in anyone turning over their domain, as demanded. So, if we assume 30 of the lawsuits have paid $5,000 (we’ll take the upper bound), that’s $150,000 over the course of about 4 or 5 months. Take away the “cost” of buying the copyrights, and filing the lawsuits (a few hundred bucks) and this hasn’t been a hugely lucrative business. Some of the sites that haven’t settled are gearing up to fight this in court (we’ve heard from a bunch), and suddenly whatever Righthaven earned seems to go negative fast if it has to spend time in a courtroom.

But, even more ridiculous are the laughable claims from Steve Gibson, the guy behind Righthaven, and Mark Hineuber, the general counsel for the parent company of the LVRJ. Hineuber is claiming:

“My hope,” says Hinueber, “is we will raise awareness of copyright laws, and have more links back to our site, and have less of our material infringed on the Internet.”

Yeah, right. Suing people linking to you is going to get more links? Considering that some of the examples of sites being sued included one that posted just 4 paragraphs of a 34-paragraph article… with a link, it seems that these lawsuits are almost guaranteed to lead to less linking.

Gibson keeps claiming that his is not a legal shakedown business, but a technology business. This is pretty laughable too. If they invested in technology beyond “searching Google,” they’ve wasted money here. But even more ridiculous is the claim that this somehow makes business sense:

“Since the advent of the Internet, there has been an ocean of infringements of copyright that have gone unaddressed,” Gibson says. “I’ve also seen that many media companies have been facing financial difficulties. I was inspired to pursue technological solutions and marry them with the available legal machinery.”

Actually, no, that’s not true. It hasn’t gone unaddressed. Lots of companies have tried suing, and so far it’s been a dismal failure, costing a lot more money than it ever brought it and calling much more attention to the ability to infringe. To ignore that basic history is pretty laughable.

Amusingly, the article also has the Righthaven folks admitting some “kinks” that need “to be worked out,” such as the time it sued the very source for an article (apparently, this has happened more than once). In the one case that we wrote about, after that came to light, Righthaven dropped the lawsuit. I’m guessing that after some more lawyers start fighting back against Righthaven, it’s going to discover quite a few more “kinks” in its system.

Filed Under: copyright, las vegas, lawsuits, links
Companies: righthaven