PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the las-vegas-dreams-dashed dept
It's been a good week for articles that interest me personally, a good thing as I've been asked to write this post about my favorites! First mention has to go to Jonathan McIntosh's great recap of the problems he's had to go through at the hands of Lionsgate. In short, despite his Twilight remix video having been mentioned by the US Copyright Office itself as an example of fair use, he still struggled to convince YouTube to keep it up since Lionsgate didn't want to keep it up without obscuring it with ads (despite the current version being ad free and not monetized by McIntosh in any way himself). It's a nice illustration of how even those who try to keep within the law fall foul of corporate greed if they decide they don't like something. If something already illustrated as fair use can be treated like this, imagine the problems faced by anyone in a grey area!
On a similar note, rapper Kid Cudi yet again noted how disappointed he was in his label's commitment to his new single, just one year after having similar problems with his last album. While some were noting that he was silly to have signed for a label in the first place, this was another illustration as to how even successful artists can be let down by the legacy industry and how many artists simply don't need them.
Something slightly more disturbing to me personally is the story about a gambling software programmer being shut down and raided. The story appears to go that despite offering services that are perfectly legal everywhere that he licensed the software, he fell afoul of the US's inexplicable anti-gambling obsession anyway because he's based in the US and people in NY may have somehow touched his software. As someone who working in Gibraltar, a place whose industry is largely built by offshore gaming companies (some of whom were similarly attacked when US authorities suddenly decided that their companies were offering illegal products), this is a worrying trend. It also sadly means that my dreams of being invited to help set up a Las Vegas branch of one of those companies might still be a long way away!
On a lighter note, UK police were arguing about who first thought up their Twitter offers of free iPads to lure the stupidest criminals alive into their arms. Neither of them apparently remembering the episode of The Simpsons where Homer was successfully lured by the promise of a free boat.
Meanwhile, back in the entertainment industry, Sony offered the most naked example yet of profiteering and the back of what should be public domain material when they released a new Bob Dylan compilation entitled the "Copyright Collection Volume 1." Regionally restricted, of course, and containing rare material that will inevitably be pirated as it's not available anywhere else. It's particularly odious because the mere 100 copies they released were openly intended to stop classic material from going back to the public under the original deal made when they were recorded. At least they've dropped the pretense of helping the fans, I suppose.
The movie industry also made some wrongheaded moves in an attempt to promote their silly Ultraviolet service (yet another in a long line of DRM that offer customers less than a pirated version under the pretense that it somehow benefits the consumer). The pretense is that by offering free movies with purchases of TVs and Blu ray players, they can convince people to use and love it. Having unfortunately tried it myself (unsuccessfully) on a movie I received for Christmas, I suspect it will just let people know not to bother.
Finally, on a lighter note, it's nice to see some figures for Kickstarter's year and their great success in funding a wide range of projects. Over 2 million people funded projects this year (myself included), so here's hoping that many more independent artists get funded in 2013!
Re: Re: Re: Wow, talk about a joke
"Contrary to what Whatever claims"
...lies truth and reality. He's not only one of the more pathetic local trolls, he takes great care never to accidentally say something accurate.
Re:
Define "best". Is it of any real importance or impact in real life? No. Is it a prime example of a conversation that would never be allowed if fair use was not present? Absolutely.
Re: glad thats over
"Now the DOJ can distribute those ill gotten Kim DotCom gains to the rights holder"
The ones that paid Megaupload to legitimately store backups and distribute their own content, some of whom have been trying to battle in court to get access to their own files that were seized by the US government? Or is this a case where only a handful of major corporations get a look in, if anyone does?
Re:
On a side note, why is it that the contrarian dickheads on this site can never work would how to click "reply" so that people can actually follow the conversation? Deliberate misdirection, or an indication of the mental deficiencies that lead them to hold such ridiculous opinions in the first place?
"Suppose Netflix/Hulu/etc cut their prices and their customers base doubles"
Suppose the ISPs actually use the massive amount of public funds they've been given to increase capacity to actually do it? Why is it that people like you think it's impossible for the US to do what every other first world country is doing without resorting to such measures?
Re: Re:
Don't worry. As with healthcare, the ISPs will find a way to fool idiots into thinking that the way they've chosen to rape peoples' wallets is all the fault of regulation, as if they'd have given customers a fair deal otherwise. Those of us in civilised countries that don't have to deal with "OMG socialism" every time something's done for the public benefit will continue sitting back and laughing.
Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
"It's the fraud that all Internet consumers are equal, that they want and need what the government decides they want and need."
Sorry, but you're still attacking a phantom that only exists in your own imagination. It's the ISPs who would restrict what people can access - by throttling traffic, or charging more for access to competitors. Net neutrality ensures that they cannot do that, and that consumers can access everything equally without restriction.
Your fear of the government boogeyman actually has you rooting for the people who want to reduce your freedom for profit.
Re:
"Enjoy that $200+ cable bill. It's not going anywhere. Ever."
You honestly think it would have magically reduced if the provider could carry on as they were and block out their competition in the meantime? Please...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Internet would surely still exist without initial gov involvement."
Yeah, that infrastructure that wasn't profitable for decades, and the web that grew completely from free and open standards would definitely have appeared in the same way if corporations built it from the ground up :rolls eyes:
OK, so you're anti-government nutball who doesn't mind getting screwed so long as it's by a corporation rather than someone he can vote for.
It's a shame you can't see the actual issues being discussed, but you're clearly so biased that no actual facts will get through to you.
Re: Re: Re:
"Net neutrality wouldn't exist at all without government coercion. "
The internet itself wouldn't exist either. So?
"It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds."
No, it's saying that if McDonalds own part of the path that leads to the food court, they can't built a toll booth in front of the part that leads to Burger King.
Please, understand the actual issue instead of reacting in a knee jerk fashion because you read the "government".
"As to competition in allegedly low competition regions (which I guess is where I live), what exactly will "net neutrality" do for me"
It means that your ISP has to treat every packet that you access equally, not filtering their competitors, slowing down some of the services you use in order to drive you to their preferred partners, creating high barriers to new competitors entering the market, charging you extra to have full speed on the services you want, etc., etc.
Again, read up on what the issue ACTUALLY is about, not whatever you falsely assumed it was.
"What's the sense of that?"
Well, you asked that the ISPs be able to maximise their profit. That's the result you get. Since there's no competition, who do you want to get them to offer lower priced plans to your neighbours?
"And I'm not particularly concerned with "monopolies""
Then, you *really* don't understand the issues and behaviour being discussed and the issues that led to this discussion in the first place. Hell, your own example of your neighbour indicates exactly why a monopoly is bad (if there were competition, your neighbours could move to a cheaper competitor offering the plan that suits them, without competition, the ISP isn't going to lower their prices).
Re:
So, it's OK for patent law to be abused and not to call for its reform because you don't agree with the business practices of the current target? That's pretty dumb, and very short sighted.
Re:
"the continued support of a government engendered "net neutrality" has been bothering me."
Probably because net neutrality isn't "government engendered". Net neutrality protects what already exists, it's not the government inventing something new.
You're confused because you're contemplating a fiction. Try the real-life version now, you'll feel better.
"TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world"
This is true. Now, consider the broadband ISP market in most US jurisdictions. Most have one (maybe 2 if they're lucky) options. Not exactly a free market, is it? On top of that, consider that the trend among those ISPs is to collude and block competition. Also consider that they've already demonstrated a willingness to negatively impact competing video streaming service, for example.
This is good to you? Or, would you agree that something needs to keep them in check? If you agree, where are those checks going to come from, considering that there is zero competition in many areas for unhappy customers to move to and affect the market that way?
"I still wish that they had the freedom to do so if they deemed it necessary for their own personal economics."
You realise that this means you're supporting their rights to maintain monopolies and rip you off wherever you can, without so much as a competitor to move to if you disagree? Right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Daily Mail... and most of their readers seem to have a pathological hatred"
You don't need to even specify the rest of that sentence, it's pretty much true of anything they regularly write about.
Unless you want to add the words "stirred up by often misleading and/or outright false articles written in the Mail", in which case the clarification is useful to understand why.
Re: Picture in Picture
You really didn't need to post 3 times in a row just to say "I have contrarian opinions, and some really horrible ideas that would reduce viewership even further".
Re: Re: Re:
Yep:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150212/09200930005/red-bull-disputes-old-ox-brewery-trademar ked-logoname-because-seriously-ox-is-just-castrated-bull.shtml#c172
Re:
We *are* talking about the company that included videos it directly authorised YouTube to host in the list of "infringing" videos during its lawsuit against YouTube. They need a common sense / "how to communicate between your own divisions" class before they graduate to fair use lessons.
Re: Why?
"At this point, I have to wonder why real people actually use YouTube to post videos anymore"
Name recognition and familiarity, a much larger potential audience, a lot of devices have YouTube built in but not the other services (e.g. my Blu Ray player has a YouTube button on the remote), integration with other services, etc.
Re:
Hey there chicken boy, hadn't seen you around these parts. I thought the regular stories about indefensible actions by your corporate heroes had finally scared you off.
Re: Re: Re:
"There should definitely be a financial penalty. Every time. Just as long as there is a financial penalty for every case of PROVEN infringement."
...and ONLY with financial penalties comparable to the ACTUAL losses incurred by the act of infringement. Not $100,000 per song just because.
That's more like it. If the attacks were both correctly targeted and proportionate to the act, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
Re: Re: Re:
"Of course, it causes absolutely zero harm because no one is watching my video to secretly pirate music, they're watching it to see my video."
There is an exception to that, of course - cases where copyright, licencing or other factors cause the song not to be available via legal means for streaming or download. The solution to this is making the song legally available, not trying to sue anyone who lets others hear your music, but sadly we're still at the "we only want to do that if the artists can instantly retire from the royalties" stage with many of these fools.
Re:
The trend has since moved overseas unfortunately, but on my visits to the US I was always struck by how the credits would be squashed to one side to make room for an advert for the next show. So, not only do the names of the cast and crew become unreadable, you're literally pushing them aside for the next show before the audience knows who they are.
That's another time irony plays strong here - when this happens, the unedited pirated copy is giving more credit to the people who made the thing than originating network is giving.