from the dmca-failures dept
If you look, you can see a bunch of takedown requests for Megaupload links in the past month.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Sep 7th 2012 5:29pm
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 6th 2012 10:11am
I waited nearly a full year to watch Game of Thrones, because that's how long it took to get from HBO to iTunes. If I had any interest in purchasing a Avatar 3D Blu-ray, I would have either had to buy a Panasonic 3DTV or wait three years just for the right to spend thirty bucks on FernGully with giant blue cat-people having tail sex.This is why I've always been arguing from the position of copyright holders and the content creators for why they shouldn't just scream about how awful piracy is, but rather learn from it, and note that many people who are infringing are getting a better user experience. When they don't do that, the end result may not be "infringement," but it may just be people dropping out of the market entirely. Lately, that's what I've done with movies. Despite being a movie buff, the limitations and controls on movie efforts has just made the whole thing not worth it. Combined with less time than I used to have (yay, family life), it's made me pretty much stop watching movies or TV shows over the past two years. These days, the market is so fragmented, and the offerings still all seem so half-baked, that I'd rather spend my time reading or writing or just spending time with friends and family. I don't necessarily feel like a "sucker" as Brian does, but I find that it's just not worth the hassle.
Even content that's accessible doesn't often make much financial sense. Amazon's the most reasonably priced e-retailer in the world (seriously, it's got 1,000 albums for five bucks each right now), but even it can be fraught with peril and annoyance. Ebooks that cost more than their paperback equivalents. The specter of DRM haunting every click. A layout so unnavigable you feel like you're being punished.
Want to comparison shop? Forget about it. Ecosystems aren't just apps and software anymore, they're movies and TV shows and everything you'd ever want to watch, read, or listen to. On any given day the best price might be on Amazon or iTunes or Google Play or Xbox, but if you want the simple comfort of knowing everything you paid for with your own American dollars lives in one place? Expect to pay full freight for most of it.
by Tim Cushing
Wed, Aug 22nd 2012 9:33am
Let me get this straight. I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I'll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want. They need to earn my money.Well, of course they could "go without." Everyone has that option. Do without. That's the "honorable" way.
Maybe the editors of Maxim or Playboy could write an open letter asking the women to "do better" at satisfying them and until then, they'll act like rakes or cads.
Or maybe I can just write an open letter to cancer and ask cancer to do better or else I'll refuse to die. Yeah. That will work.
So I can just write my own open letter and ask Bobbi Smith to "do better" and cough up more cash for my work. After all, that's the mechanism that's supposed to work. It's like a magic wand, only with text.
What is fascinating is that there's little acknowledgement that there are living, breathing humans on the other side of the transaction. There's no acknowledgement that the creators need to eat, pay the rent, and purchase health insurance. Nope. It's all a focus on the consumer who is supposedly allowed to simply stamp his/her feet and if the hard working creators don't snap to it, the consumer will feel free to simply take it. Wow, that's a model of one spoiled brat.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jul 19th 2012 10:11pm
It goes on to note that some of their videos... have advertisements before them, and it's possible that "Radical Media produced both the "advertisement" and the "content"!" Of course, I'm not so sure why or if that's all that surprising. As we've been pointing out for years, it's not just that advertising is content, but that content is advertising as well. Good content always advertises something. Bad content doesn't advertise anything, even if it's designed as an "advertisement."
Here's how Radical Media describes its "entertainment" division:
AS THE LINE BETWEEN advertising and entertainment blurs, our Entertainment division is a solution to a changing media landscape. In conjunction with our Design + Digital Group and Integrated Marketing team, we work closely with our agency, network, and brand partners to integrate their visions into the DNA of the content we create.
In addition to films and music videos, Radical Media also makes television commercials and, well, "transmedia."
Here's where it gets really confusing: While Radical Media is essentially an advertising firm, it was purchased in 2010 by the RTL Group, which owns 46 television channels and 9 radio stations and is Europe's largest mass media company. In other words, a media company owns an advertising firm that moonlights as a media company. Huzzah!
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Jun 19th 2012 10:41am
While on a 1:1 audio call, users will see content that could spark additional topics of conversation that are relevant to Skype users and highlight unique and local brand experiences. So, you should think of Conversation Ads as a way for Skype to generate fun interactivity between your circle of friends and family and the brands you care about. Ultimately, we believe this will help make Skype a more engaging and useful place to have your conversations each and every day.Now, I've been a big believer that good advertising is relevant content, and not just intrusive content. So I can understand the basics of what they're saying. But there's almost nothing in the execution that suggests that the folks at Skype actually understand why "advertising is content" works. It's because it provides useful or compelling content in a manner such that people want to seek it out, not have it suddenly jump up in the middle of their conversation.
Skype has provided a great service for years, keeping us connected with friends and family. But there's always been one thing missing—marketers interrupting calls with giant display ads.This stinks of an idea that some committee came up with, where no one on that committee actually uses Skype.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jun 7th 2012 9:25am
...the MPAA Members’ position continues to be that if the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers. In addition, in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users. Whether and under what conditions the Mega defendants should have access to the servers (again, assuming they are subject to the control of the Court) is a separate issue.Of course, this assumes it's even possible to prevent 100% of infringement. Which it's not. And that's probably the point. The MPAA gets to pretend that it's being "reasonable" by saying some access is okay... but immediately including an impossible caveat on top of that. It's a neat way to pretend to be open to compromise, while really sticking to an extreme position.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Mar 26th 2012 1:25pm
I think once you publish something, you lose control of it. At worst, you inspire mockery and parody. At best, you become material for future work, because what you’ve made is successful, interesting, or relevant. Usually, it is both.So many excellent points in such a short comment. In fact, economic studies have actually shown, in fairly great detail, that it's exactly these kinds of "spillovers" that lead to economic growth (in fact, they were regularly called spillovers, until the economic language finally clarified a bit further). The fact that you can build on ideas is a natural resource that only expands. It's not limited by scarcity, like many natural resources. It's the nature of an idea to be infinitely copyable at no cost that acts as a resource multiplier that leads to economic growth. That's what's so powerful about it.
All work produces spill-over repercussions that usually go against the will of the work’s creator. The creator wishes to retain authorship and control the work, while those in the culture wish to use, transform, and remix it. If the work is truly successful, it will defy authorship and turn into a shared experience for everyone. Those works are the hardest to control, because they diffuse, and spread wide by permeating into the air. The become a shorthand for those who make or enjoy similar work, becoming a shared vocabulary.
The situation requires things from both those who create the work, and those who wish to use it.
For the initial creator, they must resign most control upon publication, especially on the internet. Their work will be used to say and do things they don’t intend. Ideas, in truth, go further when others carry them, and this usually means they will go in directions the original author did not intend or imagine. For instance, I’ve had a quote of mine (“People ignore design that ignores people.”) taken out of context and used to justify two completely contradictory design methods. So it goes.
For those that use the things made by others, they should credit where possible, and have their work be transformative in some way. They can carry the ideas of others, but they must to take it further or a new direction. Then, they are obliged share alike. To not do both is to go against the goodwill initiated by the work’s creator.
And for both, we should recognize that all creative processes use materials from those who came before us, and respect the meaningful influence of others. We’re part of a long line of people who make things. It is a privilege to get to use the work of others in our own.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Mar 15th 2012 9:38am
"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."Actually, no, tons of others create content that people want to have, and it's the real reason you're struggling so much today. You're not used to competing with those outside your little club.
"Right doesn't always prevail," Attaway said of SOPA and PIPA. "This time, it didn't, because our opponents were able to energize a grassroots response. In my view, and I think all of us would agree, [the protest against SOPA and PIPA was spread] primarily through disinformation and spinning their interest in a way that captured the attention of a number of consumers."This is such a load of hogwash. The MPAA has been a master at disinformation campaigns throughout its history. It's why it's been able to continually ratchet up copyright law in its favor for decades. This is the same industry who declared that the VCR would kill it... and now whines that the home video market that wouldn't even exist if it had gotten its way is being decimated by the internet. Did some folks on the anti-SOPA side get some of the facts wrong? Yeah, but it wasn't a disinformation campaign. That's what the MPAA ran. And, the only reason there was some misinformation in the campaign against SOPA was because the MPAA went so far in its initial version of the bill (and make no mistake, the bill came from the MPAA), that people reacted to that. It's true that eventually some of the worst parts were removed and people who didn't realize that still referred to the original text. But it's not like they made things up wholesale. The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.
The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA. "The digital tsunami we encountered with SOPA and PIPA—we're not going to get the same kind of engagement when we talk about statutory damages or open works," he said. "We'll have the opportunity for a more rational discussion."You see, in Sherman's mind, any time anyone disagrees with the RIAA's stated position, that's no longer a "rational" discussion. But because "statutory damages" sound so boring, he's hopeful that they can pass even worse laws to make the already insane damages rates even more insane.
by Leigh Beadon
Fri, Mar 2nd 2012 12:05am
It's a great little production, because not only does it effectively portray the potential of what is variously called open journalism, citizen journalism and participatory journalism, among other things, it also serves as a good example of a common mantra around these parts: advertising is content, and content is advertising.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Nov 11th 2011 4:05pm
Explore some core concepts:
|10:35||Judge Richard Posner's Ruling In Wacky 'Banana Lady' Case Highlights Just How Wrong Judge Kozinski Was About Copyright (20)|
|09:33||The Most Bizarre Response To The Pulitzers Yet, From The Guy Who Authorized CIA Torture (32)|
|08:34||Dianne Feinstein Asks DOJ To Investigate Leak Of Torture Report Summary To McClatchy News Service (17)|
|07:16||Why We Filed An Amicus Brief In Garcia v. Google: Blaming 3rd Parties Has Serious Impact On Free Speech (20)|
|05:16||Would You Trust The NSA's Advice On How To Deal With Heartbleed? (37)|
|03:12||Yes, Net Neutrality Is A Solution To An Existing Problem (23)|
|00:15||Judicial Branch Finally Acting As A Check Against Government Overreach (7)|
|20:13||Akamai Admits Its Heartbleed Patch Was Faulty, Has To Reissue All SSL Certs And Keys (12)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Algorithms + Cameras = Awesome (1)|
|16:12||There Are No Good Guys In A Battle Between (Likely) UFC And Ultimate Gay Fighter (14)|
|15:06||Even If NSA Didn't Use Heartbleed In The Past, It Still Could Be Making Use Of It (8)|
|13:59||Pulitzers Make Rep. Peter King Mad (52)|
|12:55||The Guardian And Washington Post Win Pulitzers For Snowden Coverage (11)|
|12:03||Bullied Student Records Bullies, Gets Threatened With Felony Charges For Violating Wiretapping Law (79)|
|11:02||Hollywood Has Been Pressuring Australian Attorney General To Pressure ISPs Into Being Copyright Cops (28)|
|10:03||Heartbleed Suspicion And NSA Denial Show Why NSA's Dual Offense/Defensive Role Must End (17)|
|09:02||FBI Abruptly Walks Out On Senate Briefing After Being Asked How 'Insider Threat' Program Avoids Whistleblowers (44)|
|07:40||Obama Tells NSA To Reveal, Not Exploit, Flaws... Except All The Times It Wants To Do The Opposite (32)|
|05:31||Would You Pay $50 Per Episode To See Game Of Thrones? (93)|
|03:33||Government Forces Free Press Advocacy Group To File Its Amicus Brief In NSL Case Under Seal (14)|
|12:00||Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (40)|
|12:00||A Look Back In Techdirt History (24)|
|09:00||Awesome Stuff: Functional Fashion (5)|
|19:39||Supreme Court May Take A Shot At Defining The Point At Which Protected Speech Becomes An Unprotectable 'Threat' (41)|
|18:36||That Time A Star Trek Captain And A Physicist Got Tricked Into Doing A Documentary On Geocentrism (41)|
|17:31||Los Angeles Cops Found To Be Tampering With Mandated Recording Devices (39)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Eating Actual Dirt (1)|
|15:32||History Repeats Itself: Patent Abusers Successfully Stymie Anti-Patent Troll Bill In The Senate (45)|
|14:33||DOJ Issues Scathing Review Of Albuquerque Police Department' Use Of Force, Tempers It By Prioritizing Officer Safety (33)|
|13:29||Journalists Sue Government After Military Security Seizes Cameras And Deletes Photos Of Publicly-Visible Structures (24)|