reboog711 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (229) comment rss

  • On the post: Fox Tries To Kill Watchmen

    reboog711 ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 12:42am

    Watchmen is more than just a "concept"

    I think Watchmen is more than just a concept.

    A concept might be "A world where superheroes are depicted as real people". I think the story that different people would create around that concept would be radically different.

    Watchmen is much more than a concept. It has specific characters and plot. If the creator of the work wants to sell exclusive rights to that work, then I see no reason to disallow him from that.

    A concept might be a "man who can fly"; yet Hancock and Superman are radically different.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 02:30pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    Let's go through the metaphor:

    I open a coffee shop, and can prevent someone from stealing my stock. I can't prevent someone opening another coffee shop. True. I can prevent them from making coffee using my "custom" recipe, though. Of course, they won't know what that recipe is just from buying coffee.


    When you sell a copy of a song to someone - either by commission or a previously created work there is nothing you can really do to stop them
    reselling it


    I cannot stop them from reselling the copy of the song I sold them. I have no problem with them having that ability. Just like, I can't stop them from reselling the same cup of coffee I sold them, either.


    Nowadays you will automatically get your monopoly, now called a copyright


    Not true in the US. Once I start the song for sale, I am legally obligated to let any other person create their own version and sell it. It is called a compulsory license.

    (Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license )

    They do have to compensate me for distribution.


    ...but the coffee shop owner would be fined and possibly jailed if they succeeded in getting theirs, and people are generally supportive of the outcome in both cases. Can you explain how there is a difference between the two?


    I lost you here. Why is the coffee shop owner jailed for having a monopoly?
    The coffee shop owner retains the right to use and protect his coffee recipe. The songwriter retains the right to use and protect his master recordings. I think one difference is that I'm forced to let others use my song, whereas the coffee owner can keep his recipe as a trade secret.


    And no the creative effort is not necessarily the differentiating factor, the idea of setting up the shop is no more the finished product than for you idea of making a song about the evils of war is [snip] The coffee shop owner researches coffee, you war and its detrimental effects, he [snip] develops different products and establishes supply lines, you develop verses and a chorus (presumably?) and work to coherently link them together and finally you both have to promote and sell the end result.


    No arguments. Both approaches take time.


    You both expend time and creative effort, and if anything his capital investment is more than yours so it could even be argued that he deserves his monopoly more than you deserve your monopoly (your copyright)!


    I'm not sure if the capital investment is 'easy' enough to compare between any two ventures. Before looking at a music career, I took 15 years of private music lessons in multiple instruments. I continued to do so while pursuing one. I also had to rent a studio and hire musicians. And buy performance equipment and instruments. The coffee shop owner, perhaps got a college degree in business school, or perhaps took an apprenticeship with a cook. He probably spent a significant time researching coffee beans and building the right taste. Of course, some people just pick up a guitar and are self taught and writing songs in a matter of months. Some people just stumble into business succesfully.

    I don't think the capital outlay can be genericized to say one approach to business is different from another.

    I'll add that I do not believe that books or movies or fixed music recordings have the same "compulsory" license guidelines that songs do.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 02:06pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    If I understand correctly, I would lose right of first publication if I do not publish within five years. That makes no sense to me.

    Once I publish / release the song there is nothing I can do to prevent others from using the song. I can prevent them from using my recording of the song, though. I believe they can get a compulsory license (don't quote me on that name), and there is no way I can deny it to them.

    Although, they have to re-create their own version. I still retain rights to my recording.

    I believe things are different for books / movies than songs, though.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 02:01pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    Yes, I could.

    I perceive that there is not enough financial gain in that to make it a worthwhile venture. However, the songs have value to me, the creator, beyond commercial use.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    Sounds like you're in a bad business for yourself then.

    I also own a company creating software products. I plan to invest time [now] creating products and hope to still be able to sell said products in 5 years or so.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 01:53pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    Anyone who wants a CD can Google the band name and find it for sale on CDBaby or on our band web site. We haven't sold any in many years.

    Why should my rights expire just because I'm not making any money off it now. I may want to re-use that material at some future point.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 01:47pm

    Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    I believe I'm saying I don't want other people selling or distributing my music. Listening is not a commercial use.

    Right now I have to do nothing to renew my copyrights every five years; why would I want an extra administrative burden?

    Why would I lose my rights if I'm not using it commercially? That makes no sense to me.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2008 @ 08:44am

    As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this

    As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this idea. Just because the band I was in stopped gigging (and selling CDs) five years ago, why should I lose the rights to the songs I wrote?

    Along with that I don't want the expense of renewing such rights every five years.

    I don't understand why copyright should ever expire, except perhaps upon the death of the creators.

  • On the post: Kia Decides That It No Longer Wants Its TV Commercials To Be Entertaining

    reboog711 ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2008 @ 10:55am

    Are we missing context?

    The article at Advertising Age, where the quote originates, was under lock and key so I didn't read it.

    However, Are we missing the context here? One translation of that quote may be that they are moving on to more immersive, longer, forms of advertising.

    But, it is hard to tell from that one quote.

  • On the post: easyJet Wants To Sue Websites That Send It Business

    reboog711 ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2008 @ 03:57am

    I'm surprised..

    This can be a tricky situation at times. And based on the other comments, it is not as black and white as techdirt made it sound.

    I recently discovered someone was syndicating my podcast RSS feed, republishing it to their web site, and throwing Google ads around it. All of this w/o my permission.

    Could this bring the podcast more exposure? Potentially! However it bugged me they took my content and threw ads around it. There was no 'value add' for listeners. The site had no contact info and a private registration. It took me a while to track down the 'owners'. I was able to contact them through their "Private registration company" and they removed my feed [much to my surprise].

  • On the post: The Browser Is The New Operating System

    reboog711 ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2008 @ 04:47am

    Flash Local Storage

    Just wanted to point out that the mechanism for local storage in the Flash Player is a Shared Object. Shared Objects are limited to 100K. It's better than the 4K allowed in browser cookies, but no replacement for the off-line storage of an OS.

    In my experience this functionality of the Flash Player is rarely used. Most people use a database server for the bulk of data within Flash Player applications; which [as you probably guessed] is not local.

  • On the post: Santa Fe Ignores WiFi Allergists; Recognizes Setting Up WiFi Isn't A Violation Of The ADA

    reboog711 ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2008 @ 12:16pm

    I wouldn't mind..

    I wouldn't mind if my tax dollars went to a study to examine the effects of stuff in the air ( WiFi, Bluetooth, Cell Phone, Radio ) on people.

  • On the post: U2's Manager Lashes Out Yet Again: Blames Absolutely Everyone For Not Making U2 Even Wealthier

    reboog711 ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2008 @ 03:14pm

    Radio Industry and Recording Industry...

    [quote]
    The radio industry, for years, has helped promote the recording industry. Does he believe the recording industry is morally obligated to pay the radio industry?
    [end quote]

    For years the radio industry was paid to help promote the recording industry. They still are. Every song you hear on major radio is indirectly payed for by a label.

    Middleman companies are called "Indies" in the industry. The "Indy" goes to a radio station and says "play what I tell you to play and I'll give you X amount in promotion money." The radio station says yes. Then the Indy goes to the record label and says "I'll get your songs played here for X amount."

    Because the Indy is separate from both the record label and the radio station, Payola laws do not apply.

  • On the post: If You're Going To Claim That WiFi Violates The ADA, Shouldn't You Need To Prove It Actually Hurts People?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 27 May, 2008 @ 08:04am

    Lots of air spectrum pollution...

    There are a lot more things floating through the air today than 10-15 or so years ago. ( Cell Phones, satellite TV, WiFi, BlueTooth devices, etc.. ). It seems logical to me that all these could have an affect on humans (and other living things).

    I have no idea what that affect may be, but would be interested in long term studies.

    Kevin Trudeau wrote about how such things are bad in his book. Kevin is an Infomercial King who is either highly enlightened or a crazy conspiracy theorist. He wrote "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About".

  • On the post: Can We Send A Moron In A Hurry With A Mini Golf Club Over To Monster Cable?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 16 May, 2008 @ 08:02pm

    Don't forget Monster.com

    Don't forget about Monster.com the technical recruiting site, which in it's footer has a link to "monster cable".

  • On the post: RIAA Now Open To 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On ISP Fees

    reboog711 ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2008 @ 05:38am

    You often make the mistake...

    You often make the mistake of confusing the "record industry / RIAA" with "musicians". Yes, there are plenty of ways for musicians to create a profitable business by giving away music for free. ( One could argue that major label contracts have forced musicians to give away music for free long before the original Napster was conceived ).

    However, the recording industry is in the business of making and selling records. They don't usually get a piece of the band's concerts, T-shirt, songwriting royalties, or other related merchandise. I'm not surprised they are scared by giving away their only product.

  • On the post: Not Only Does The Olympics Want Special IP Protections; It Wants To Ignore Everyone Else's

    reboog711 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2008 @ 11:53am

    I don't understand...

    I don't understand why you think it is silly to try to protect copyrights on a simple game.

    If you read through the slashdot comments and related links, this is not just a concept knock-off. Actual game assets were copied and reused.

  • On the post: Why Is Adobe Trying To Add DRM To Flash?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2008 @ 09:38pm

    I'm confused..

    The article you link to does not quote any source for this claim, so I'm unsure how to take it.

    Adobe Flash Player 9 has been out for almost two years. I would not expect any major changes to the player to occur until Flash Player 10 comes out. Following previous release schedules I would expect this to be before the end of the 2008.

    If I had to guess, the article is probably referring to the Adobe Media Player (AMP). Information about this can be found here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/mediaplayer/

    Based on the Adobe Labs page, Adobe Media Player is a desktop application. The Flash Player is a browser plugin. The two are a bit different.

    If I had to guess, it seems likely to me that Media Player was built using ActionScript3 (Language of Flash/Flex) and the Adobe AIR runtime. Adobe AIR supports an embedded version of the Flash Player.

    If the article is truly are talking about AMP; then they are comparing apples to oranges. It would be like saying that "Microsoft adds DRM support to C#" when in fact they just built Windows Media Player DRM technology using C#.

    I have pinged some Adobe contacts regarding this, and asked for an official response.

    Jeffry Houser
    Adobe Community Expert

  • On the post: The Grammy In Mathematics… Or Copyright Infringement?

    reboog711 ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2008 @ 05:57am

    There are two elements to copyright in this case..

    There are two aspects to copyright in this case. Copyright of the songs and copyright of the recording. They are different.

    It seems likely that Woody Guthrie owns the copyright to the songs; but the bootlegger owns the copyright to the recording. The worst "crime" the bootlegger could be responsible for was breach of contract; which was made with the artists + venue when he bought the ticket.

    Mark, mentioned copyright was not granted until it was fixed. Although possible, it seems unlikely to me that this bootleg was the first time any of these songs put into a fixed format. And even if that were the case, I highly doubt that the bootlegger could lay any claim to the songs. For example, when a band goes into the studio to record songs the recording engineer does not walk out of there with copyright credit.

  • On the post: Chinese Professor Suing Google And Yahoo For Making Him Disappear From Chinese Search

    reboog711 ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2008 @ 08:08am

    Someone who understand the Streisand Effect?

    It sounds like someone might be using the Streisand Effect intentionally. Novel concept

Next >>