Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub

Culture

from the nice-of-them dept

Remember the Hobbit pub in the UK that was threatened with legal action from the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) for infringing on the supposed rights SZC held in the Hobbit movie? The bad publicity resulted in SZC offering up a cheapo license, and now two of the actors appearing in The Hobbit movie — the hugely popular Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen — have said that they’ll pay the license fee for the pub. Both actors had spoken out pretty early on about their disgust over the moviemakers bullying the pub this way, with Fry going so far as to apologize for his industry’s actions. Taking it even further by agreeing to pay the license is certainly a nice gesture and shows (yet again) the value of actually connecting (and being human and awesome). It still amazes me that so many companies don’t recognize how badly these kinds of things will backfire.

Filed Under: hobbit, ian mckellen, license, stephen fry
Companies: saul zaentz company

The Right Way To Deal With Copying: Be More Open

Culture

from the progressive-solutions dept

We recently covered the indy developer Nimblebit and their friendly-but-snarky response to Zynga copying the mechanics of one of their games. As I argued in the comments to that post, I think people sometimes fail to recognize that copiers do add something of their own—at least, the successful copiers do. Nevertheless, there is a lot of copying in the game industry, and it can lead to a great deal of ire in the community. As Nimblebit demonstrated, there are ways to approach the problem that don’t involve immediately going legal.

It’s nice to see more developers acknowledging this. At the Game Developers Conference, Rami Ismail and Jan Willem Nijam of Vlambeer said they are getting tired of the same old debates about copying, and want to move the discussion forward. Their suggestion is to worry less about patents and ownership rights, and more about the actual impact of copying—and then address it by being more open, not less:

The pair acknowledged that protecting game designs with patents might actually damage innovation, but argued that this sort of legal protection is separate from the issue of whether game cloning is helpful or harmful to the industry. And make no mistake, clones are hurting the industry, Nijam said, both by diverting skilled developers towards work on soulless copies and demotivating skilled developers who put a lot of effort into truly original games.

What’s worse, a preponderance of low-quality clones is training consumers to expect a lack of originality in the industry, Nijam said, a loss of “gaming literacy” that drags the whole industry down. “Players will get all those bad games and stop recognizing actual good games,” he said. “If you only eat bad hamburgers, you’re not going to recognize a good hamburger.”

The natural reaction to this kind of rampant cloning among many developers might be to hold their cards close to the vest, keeping a new idea totally secret until dropping it on an unsuspecting public. But Ismail said the solution to the cloning problem is actually the opposite—educating gamers by developing games out in the open and showing them the real work that goes into an original design. Detailed development blogs, documentaries like Indie Game: The Movie, and websites that dig deep into game design process all help improve gaming literacy among the public and build a foundation for an audience that values original games.

I can only hope other developers at the conference heed his call. The simple fact in any creative industry is that if someone can beat you by copying your work wholesale, then either they are doing something you’re not, or you are failing to connect with your audience. Perhaps, as Ismail argues, this can even become a broader cultural problem that needs to be addressed by the industry as a whole—and that’s a good challenge to take on. After all, what’s more productive? A bunch of developers suing each other without always distinguishing between genuine bad-actors and actual innovative copying? Or a bunch of developers working together to enhance the industry as a whole, better connecting with fans and letting originality emerge organically? The answer, I hope, is easy.

Filed Under: competition, copying, open
Companies: nimblebit, zynga

Tool Singer Defends His Lawn: Decries Our Entitled, Uncreative Society

Culture

from the fear-of-progress dept

Reader vegetaman points us to some comments made by Maynard James Keenan (best known as the singer for the band Tool) in an Oregon radio interview that suggest he’s reached the “get off my lawn” phase of his career. When asked about music piracy and its effect on the industry, he responded:

I think it’s a much bigger conversation. I think part of the problem with most of that is just the foundation of respect or entitlement. I think ‘entitlement’ is probably the better word. I think, just in general, our society has gotten to the point where just you click a button, you get what you want when you want it. So until we get to a point where we realize you don’t necessarily always get what you want when you want it, we’re gonna have a problem. So it stems from there. And then things like file-sharing and the Internet kind of lend themselves to that mindset. So, some day, hopefully, we’ll adjust that perspective … And until somebody has actually written a check to record their own record and see everything that goes into it, they don’t really understand that if you just take it… The current state of music, I’m sure there’s a lot of creative stuff going on out there, but there certainly isn’t—of course, I’m being nostalgic—but it doesn’t seem like there’s as much, creatively, going on, ’cause most people can’t afford to do it.”

Perhaps he chose “entitlement” over “respect” because he realized that “kids these days don’t have any respect” is a bit of a cliché, and not a positive one. But I’ve heard this “entitlement” complaint before too, and it still doesn’t make any sense. People aren’t so much entitled as they are accustomed, and that’s a natural result of progress. Sure, people (especially digital natives) get frustrated when they can’t find what they are looking for online, but how is that different from getting frustrated when you can’t find a gas station? It’s not some grand sense of technological entitlement, but rather the fact that we structure our lives around the tools that are available to us, and thus come to rely on them. On the internet, the simple fact is that you can get what you want at the click of a button, and people aren’t going to pretend that’s not true out of respect for those who predate the privilege. The real sense of entitlement is believing that you don’t have to grow and adapt to changing technology, and that you can refuse to give your customers what they have grown accustomed to (and can get elsewhere) and expect them to stick around.

Then there’s his perception that there is less creativity today, and at least he acknowledges that he’s being nostalgic, because he’s certainly not being accurate. The cost of creating, distributing and promoting music have all fallen drastically, allowing musicians to bypass gatekeepers and resulting in more music being made, and more financial opportunities for artists, than ever before. To claim that the cost of making music is limiting creativity is just weird (and not the good kind of weird like Tool’s album art). Keenan does have an affinity for expensive productions, but it’s a shame that he seems to think creative value is directly linked to budget.

Increasingly I feel like someone needs to sit all these aging musicians down and explain to them that the internet is pretty awesome, and it isn’t going away.

Filed Under: copyright, entitlement, maynard james keenan, piracy, tool

DailyDirt: Grabbing A Burger

Culture

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Hamburgers are one of America’s best-known foods, and McDonald’s has popularized this kind of fast food all over the world. (The Economist even publishes its Big Mac Index to compare national economies according to the price of McD’s iconic burgers.) Here are just a few more interesting tidbits with all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions — all on a sesame seed bun.

• McDonald’s stopped using pink slime in its burgers since about August of 2011. It’s interesting that no one seemed to notice any difference in taste over the last few months…. [url]
• Happy Meal toys cost extra in San Francisco, due to a city law aimed at preventing kids from eating unhealthy fast foods. Outlaw toys and only outlaws will have toys? [url]
• Japanese folks who love burgers will be able to order a Big Mac from their car’s navigation system. Next: autonomous vehicles will pick up your food and deliver it to you. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what’s floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: big mac, burgers, food, happy meals, jamie oliver, pink slime, toys
Companies: mcdonald's

When Entertainment Industry Numbers Are More Suited To Comedy Than Analysis

Culture

from the sorry-MPAA-but-nobody's-buying-it dept

We’ve often criticized the entertainment industry for their use of utterly bogus math to claim massive, completely unrealistic losses from piracy. As Mike once noted, “it would actually be kind of funny… if policy makers and the press didn’t actually believe those numbers and pass bad legislation based on them.”

That said, it can still be pretty damn funny, as this brilliant 5-minute TED talk by Rob Reid demonstrates:

If you didn’t watch the video (you should), it’s a sarcastic take on “©opyright Math™” in which Reid plays along with the industry’s numbers in order to expose how ridiculous they are:

The movie folks also tell us that our economy loses over 370,000 jobs to content theft, which is quite a lot when you consider that back in ’98 the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that the motion picture and video industries were employing 270,000 people. Other data has the music industry at about 45,000 people. And so the job losses that came with the internet and all that content theft have therefore left us with negative employment in our content industries. This is just one of the many mind-blowing statistics that copyright mathematicians have to deal with every day. And some people think that string theory is tough.

Reid doesn’t do any actual debunking, because he doesn’t need to—the numbers are so plainly false that just putting them in the spotlight is enough to get the audience laughing. It’s a lot of fun, but it also underlines the bigger question: why do journalists and policy makers still blindly accept and repeat those same numbers? Hopefully, as more and more people recognize the industry’s claims for the comedic fiction that they are, that will begin to change.

Filed Under: bad math, piracy, rob reid, ted talks
Companies: mpaa

Kiwi Musician Says Public Domain Only Exists So You Can 'Rip Off Dead People's Works'

Culture

from the someone-send-him-a-copy-of-james-boyle's-book dept

Here’s a brief article from New Zealand, which suggests that part of the US’s proposal for the TPP agreement is to extend copyrights across the various participating countries to life plus 70 years — what it already is in the US, but 20 years longer than it is in many countries. That’s not too surprising. However, what struck me was a quote from New Zealand musician Ray Columbus who appears to be in favor not just of extending copyright, but of wiping out the public domain entirely:

“Some people believe in public domain. Why? Just so you can rip off dead people’s works? That’s pathetic.”

No, Ray, what’s pathetic is not knowing how culture works, and the importance of building on those who came before. Having never heard of Ray Colombus, I decided to look around — and lo and behold, it appears that in his younger days Columbus recognized this. An interesting bio of Columbus reveals that his band, Ray Columbus and the Invaders, was originally a cover band who copied their dance moves (and, yes, as crazy as it seems, dance moves can be covered by copyright) from American servicemen on leave in New Zealand. Oops.

Other bios note how strongly he was influenced by other artists, such as Elvis, Cliff Richard and the Beatles. His one big hit, She’s a Mod, is a cover song. Yes, it was licensed, but apparently the changes they made to the song were basically to copy things from the Beatles. And that’s fine, because the fact is, people build on culture. It’s not just about “ripping off” others. So it’s rather hypocritical of Columbus to decry others for the same practice.

What it comes down to is that poor Ray Columbus seems to think copyright is a welfare system because he apparently failed to invest wisely or plan for retirement:

When 60s pop star Columbus suffered a stroke nearly four years ago, he was able to pay the bills because every time a song he has performed gets played, he still collects a fee.

“The performing fees I get give a dribbling of an income that’s so important to artists.”

How is that fair compared to most other professions? The bricklayer who has a stroke isn’t able to pay the bills because by collecting a fee every time someone uses a building he built. No, the bricklayer and pretty much everyone else in every other profession has to actually save money and plan for their future. What makes Columbus so special that he gets to skip over that part?

Filed Under: copyright, inspiration, new zealand, public domain, ray columbus, tpp

Collection Society To Libraries: No Story Time For Kids Unless You Pay To Read Aloud

Culture

from the are-there-no-limits? dept

If there’s a common trait of the various rightsholders groups around the world, it is their sense of entitlement. If anyone does anything with a work under copyright, they feel they have a right to regulate it and be paid for it. A good example is the claim by the Authors Guild that owners of Kindles weren’t allowed to use an experimental text-to-speech feature, since that would infringe on the entirely made up concept of “audio rights” — and hence, presumably, require further payment.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Belgian rights group SABAM has already established itself as a copyright hardliner with its attempts to force ISPs and social networks to set up monitoring and filtering systems to combat copyright infringement. Its latest demand shows the same apparent indifference to the negative consequences of its action:

It’s worth emphasizing that these are volunteers, so this is in no sense a professional “performance”. It’s just public-spirited people generously doing exactly what parents do when reading to their own children. Indeed, it’s not hard to imagine SABAM trying to claim money for that too, one day.

Of course, if SABAM refuses to back down here, the likely outcome will be that many libraries throughout Belgium will cancel these reading sessions for children. As a result, fewer young people will be introduced to the world of reading, fewer of them will grow up to be readers, and writers will have fewer fans and less money. In other words, SABAM’s attempt to extend its reach to new areas will harm not only children — about whom it is obviously indifferent — but also the very people it purports to serve.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: audio right, belgium, copyright, kids, libraries, story time
Companies: sabam

Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

Culture

from the just-saying dept

Every time you think we’re done seeing totally ridiculous arguments about file sharing, the old really silly ones pop back up. Musician Logan Lynn has written a pretty silly rant on Huffington Post entitled Guess What? Stealing Is Still Wrong. And, indeed, it is. But nowhere in the article does he actually discuss stealing. He discusses infringement. In silly black and white terms that assumes that every single download is absolutely a lost sale, that no one who downloads ever gives him any money and that his biggest fans are criminals. Crazy stuff.

The music industry has been ravaged by the digital age, the primary culprit being illegal file sharing on websites with practically zero regulation. The past two decades have been something of a Wild West on ye olde Interwebs. No rules, no accountability. By the time the music industry reacted to what was happening, it was too late.

Almost nothing in this paragraph is true. It’s a nice fiction that the RIAA/MPAA have been telling the world, but it’s simply wrong. The music industry? Growing. Zero regulation? Try 15 anti-piracy laws passed in the last 30 years. No accountability? Should I list out the tens of thousands of lawsuits that copyright holders have filed against those who were file sharing? If you can’t get the basics right, it’s kinda difficult to take your complaints seriously.

While performing at and attending the CMJ music conference in New York City in fall 2009, I learned that at that time, 91 percent of all new music was downloaded illegally over the Internet instead of purchased. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Record stores are closing, music rags are shutting down, and the glory days of rock and roll are over…

Actually the popular stat at the time was 95%, and it was bogus. And, there’s a lot of evidence that the number has actually been dropping, not rising. Record stores closed because they sold CDs which are increasingly obsolete. Music rags are shutting down because music blogs are running rings around them online. The glory days of rock and roll were never quite as glorious as you think…

which I actually don’t give even half a shit about. In fact, I’m glad the music industry got destroyed. It was fucked-up anyway, so who cares? Poor (filthy rich) record executives making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of artists. Boo-hoo. I’m crying for you. Really. I am.

It sure seems like you’re complaining.

What pisses me off is having over 91 percent of my personal intellectual property stolen, often before it even has the chance to be finished and released to the world. As a professional musician, a lot of time, hard work, and money goes into making a record. As an independent musician, that money comes directly out of my own pocket. Being a starving artist honestly isn’t all it’s cracked up to be anymore, people, and getting ripped-off has always sucked.

You didn’t have 91% of your intellectual property “stolen.” First of all, the number — whatever it is — was a general number across the entire global market. That doesn’t mean it’s the same for all artists. This is basic stats. Second, if tons of people are downloading your works it’s because they like your music and that’s a good thing and then there are all sorts of ways to get paid.

Even when I was on a major label, I got totally screwed because so much money was put into the recording, printing, PR, and distribution side that trying to recoup from consumer sales based on that 9 percent of people obtaining the album legally was almost impossible. Everyone had the record months before it came out anyway, because of file sharing. The week before it was released, one site that posted download counts on files reported over 18,000 illegal downloads of my record before my lawyer had them take the file down. That alone comes out to $180,000 — for my songs — of which I saw $0. My record deal was a 90/10 split at the time, but guess what 90 percent of $0 is? You guessed it! Still $0.

First of all, the “numbers” posted on those sites are usually made up, not real. Second, assuming that every one of those 18,000 people would have paid $10 for the album is simply delusional. Some of them might have. Others might have downloaded first and then decided to buy later. Others might have downloaded, and then told 20 of their closest friends how awesome you are and told them to go buy your album. Or go see a live show. The assumption that this is $180,000 gone is simple fantasy.

Think of it this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn’t you be upset if someone broke into your studio, took your unfinished paintings, and hung them in their public gallery without your permission? Let’s say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they removed it from the wall, tucked it under their arm, and left without paying for it? What if 100 people came to your show opening and 91 of them decided to steal one of your paintings off the wall? Then what? Paint faster to keep up with the demand?

Think of this way: if you were a painter and were putting the finishing touches on your pieces for a show, wouldn’t it be awesome to find out that thousands of people were so eager to find out about your works that they were clamoring for copies online? Let’s say you had some finished work hanging for sale in your own space, but every time someone saw something they liked, they made a copy and told a bunch of others about it — and then paid you to do more paintings? What if 100 people came to your show and 91 of them liked you so much they decided to make copies and find out more about you and how they could support your future work? Then what? Things would be pretty good, right?

I know this is the part where all the kids and hipsters start to roll their eyes and say things like, “You just don’t get it, grandpa,” and, “It’s freedom of speech,” but I don’t actually believe that stealing my intellectual property is your constitutional right. Sorry, everybody.

If you’re going to mock those who are arguing against you, it helps to actually understand their argument. The free speech argument is not that infringement is free speech. It’s that ridiculous laws like SOPA create massive collateral damage that do serious harm to free speech.

Next time you hear a song you like, I encourage you to purchase it instead of stealing it. Supporting independent musicians just feels better than robbing us of our livelihood. I promise! Hell, you could even go to your favorite local record store, buy a CD, and look at the cover art for hours. You know, for old times’ sake.

Next time you have a fan come to your site, I encourage you to offer them proactive reasons to buy instead of just demanding that they hand over cash. Treating your fans as fans and giving them lots of ways to support you just feels better than treating your biggest fans as criminals. I promise! Hell, you could even offer up cool products and bundles, or try a name your own price offering, or any number of other cool new ideas. You know, for modern times’ sake.

Filed Under: copying, entitlement, infringement, logan lynn, pipa, sopa, stealing

Michael Jackson, Pirate Remixer

Culture

from the but-of-course dept

We always hear stories about how copyright has to be protected to “protect the artists,” and yet time and time again we learn that some of the biggest name artists will often copy directly from each other without credit or payment. It’s the way music is made. In James Boyle’s excellent book, The Public Domain, there’s a really fantastic chapter giving plenty of examples of this in practice. However, Rob Hyndman recently pointed us to another such example, found via Wikipedia, but backed up via its sources of course. The discussion? It’s about where Michael Jackson’s famous song Billie Jean came from. Turns out, Jackson himself admitted to copying the bass line directly from a Hall and Oates song:

According to Daryl Hall, when Jackson was recording ?We Are the World,? Jackson approached him and admitted to lifting the bass line for “Billie Jean” from a Hall and Oates song (apparently referring to Hall?s “I Can’t Go For That (No Can Do)” from the 1981 album Private Eyes): “Michael Jackson once said directly to me that he hoped I didn’t mind that he copped that groove.”

Of course, the really amusing part? Hall responded to Jackson… by telling him he had done the same thing himself to get that bassline in the first place! “It’s something we all do,” Hall later explained.

Indeed. And yet, under today’s laws, it’s still considered infringement, and we still hear people looking down on “remixing” or people who create works in this manner, by building on the works of others. And yet, this is one of the most successful pop songs of all time. And the bass was a big part of that. Elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, there’s a discussion of how the producer of the song, Quincy Jones, hated the song, and specifically the bass line. Yet Jackson insisted that the bass line was the key to the song, and the two of them fought over it until Jackson won. And the bassline was completely copied.

It’s stories like this that make us wonder how people can say with a straight face that copying something can’t help to create something new.

Filed Under: bass line, billie jean, copying, copyright, daryl hall, hall & oates, michael jackson, music, remix

An Open Letter To Content Creators: One 'Pirate' Explains Why He Infringes & How To Get His Money

Culture

from the the-power-has-shifted dept

We launched our Step 2 discussion platform last fall, just before the whole SOPA/PIPA fight heated up. It was just the first part of a much bigger planned program to better engage the wider community around here, with more parts rolling out as we move forward. The timing was interesting, and while we had intended to feature more content from Step2 on Techdirt early on, the SOPA/PIPA debate took precedence. However, even without us constantly tending to Step2 — or even mentioning it — over at Techdirt, a group of you took to it and have built up some interesting discussions. I wanted to highlight a few of the discussions there you might have missed over the past few months, starting off with one of the most popular ones on the site: An Open Letter To Content Creators from user Bobbi Smith, explaining “why he pirates.” It’s a long open letter, but if you want to understand the mindset, it’s an important read for content creators.

I’m sure some will — quite incorrectly — try to summarize the point as one of entitlement, but if you read the details, it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s the story of someone who’s sick of the sense of entitlement from big entertainment providers — those who want you to pay top prices for mediocre content — and then expect you to come back for more. If there’s one key theme running through the discussion it’s that control has shifted. The big gatekeepers used to have full control of the market, but now there’s been a massive market shift: to the consumers. Smith isn’t arguing that he “just wants everything for free” or that he feels entitled to things for free. Actually, he makes it clear that he willingly pays for things all the time — when the content makes him “happy,” when the offering doesn’t try to limit him and when the price is reasonable.

If you read the full thing, you’ll realize that the article is not a defense of piracy. It’s an argument for how content creators can do better — something that we’ve been seeing more and more content creators figure out. Content creators who understand this letter will recognize that it’s not about piracy so much as about how to satisfy a market and make money doing so.

Filed Under: convenience, piracy