Even as the movie business has had yet another record breaking year at the box office, we still hear claims from Hollywood that online downloading of unauthorized movies is going to kill the movie business. And yet, where there’s demand, new business models will be created. ethorad points us to the news that UK retail giant Tesco is getting into the business of producing movies itself based on the books of some very famous authors. The movies will be direct-to-DVD and direct-to-the-internet, but the idea is for Tesco to use these movies to generate more traffic to their stores (both online and off). In fact, if you look at the retail business, music and movies have long been used as a loss leader of sorts, to drive traffic to get them to buy other, much higher margin, goods. This is really an extension of that, but all the way to the point of helping to fund the production of the movie itself. Also, while it will have a window of exclusivity at the beginning, it sounds like Tesco is quite open to other stores selling the movie as well. Either way, it’s interesting to see other third parties recognize that they benefit from having movies made, and thus are willing to partially fund the production of those movies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Mozilla’s Weave leaves beta behind, but it’s not yet the problem-free syncing solution for Firefox that it’s intended to be.

Originally posted at The Download Blog

Continue reading →

Starting March 1, Internet Explorer users must be running at least version 7 of the browser in order to properly use Google Docs and Google Sites.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Continue reading →

We’ve seen how various book publishers have freaked out about the growing popularity of ebooks, often with a price capped at $10 — arguing that it’s cannibalizing the higher margins found on hardcover books. And yet, at the same time, some of those very same publishers are perfectly happy to offer up free ebooks as promotional items. While some publishers are complaining that this is “devaluing” ebooks, others are recognizing that free can be quite useful in helping an author get past the obscurity barrier. We’ve already seen how many “top selling” Kindle books are actually free, and it’s good to see publishers looking to take advantage of that, even if they haven’t quite figured out that similar economic logic can apply to cheap ebooks as well. However, given the success of free ebooks, it seems likely that those publishers who are fighting against the tide will eventually come around to recognize the benefits of such things.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Despite widespread demands from politicians around the globe, combined with promises from the USTR to be more open and transparent (despite unsubstantiated and totally ridiculous claims that countries would leave the negotiations if details were made public) and even entertainment industry lobbyists admitting that the process could be more transparent, ACTA negotiations are continuing in a veil of total secrecy to the public (unless you’re a big industry lobbyist — then it’s open). The latest meetings in Mexico were again held in total secrecy, where public concerns were mocked, but appear to have continued to move the negotiations forward with claims coming out that the document is in “final drafting stages.”

Yes, without any transparency or participation allowed from those who it would impact most: the public.

How is it that any government is willing to participate in such a process? It’s a massive travesty. The details that have been revealed suggest that this is a sneaky way to significantly impact copyright laws around the world, greatly in favor of a few industries that have been unwilling to adapt to a changing marketplace. This is protectionism at its worst. At the same time that US politicians are slamming China for its internet restrictions, ACTA seeks to place the same type of limitations on ISPs around the world that the Chinese government places on its ISPs, all done through a secret process with no public input — even from many elected officials who are greatly concerned about both the content of the agreement as well as the way in which it has been drafted.

That the US government is orchestrating the whole thing at the behest of the MPAA and the RIAA, among others, is a disgusting display of industry influence in government policy. The administration should be massively ashamed of itself for not just participating in such a travesty, but in many ways leading the way and providing cover for the bogus claims of industry representatives and lobbyists that this is a minor trade harmonization issue, rather than a significant change in policy and an attempt to route around existing venues (that are willing to listen to the public and consumer concerns) in order to push through these changes on a widespread level.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

With lots of people finding it rather amusing that a grand total of 35 people have subscribed to Newsday’s paywall, a Newsday exec has responded by saying the purpose of the paywall was never about getting people to pay in the first place. It’s all about reducing churn from cable subscribers. While the exec claims that those mocking the low number of subscribers ignored this, that’s not at all true. In fact, at least in our case, the very title of our post about Newsday’s paywall was all about how it was designed to reduce churn for Cablevision subscribers. The bigger point that people were making wasn’t specifically about Newsday, but to alert all of those other folks who seem to think that people will jump up and pay for online access to their local newspaper. As Newsday is discovering, that’s not the case.

Furthermore, if the goal was just to reduce churn, with no interest in getting outside subscribers, why offer a subscription plan at all? Why not just limit access to those who subscribe to Cablevision? Claiming no interest in signing up outside subscribers is shown to be a lie in the fact that they set up a system specifically to do just that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

One issue that comes up in discussions of copyright quite often is the idea of whether or not you could change copyright law to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use. In some ways this is quite appealing, and Cory Doctorow’s latest column makes the case for at least exploring those distinctions. However, even he admits that there is a gray area, and I wonder if that gray area is really complex. I don’t think it would necessarily make copyright law any worse, and my guess is that, at least initially, it would make copyright function better. After all, copyright law itself was really intended for commercial use (though, there are some lobbyists who falsely claim otherwise). It’s only in this day and age when everyone has the tools of content creation, reproduction, performance and distribution in their pockets and on every desk that the old copyright laws have been shown to not function properly at all.

So perhaps separating out commercial and non-commercial use is a step in the right direction. But I’m still confused about how you determine what really is commercial use vs. non-commercial use. If I use your information to make an investment, is that commercial use? If I have a blog that uses a bit of your content, but has ads on it, is that commercial use? There are some RSS feeds that declare “not for commercial use!” But, if I put that RSS into my feed reader and read it for work, is that commercial use? It’s not really that clear. And given that many individuals and companies feel that any even (borderline) commercial use of their works deserves compensation, you could see an awful lot of lawsuits filed as we try to define the borders. Perhaps copyright law could be written to make the border clear (though, I doubt it). Perhaps the lawsuits would establish clear boundaries as well, after a bit of upheaval and lawsuits. But I think that there will always be new situations that again test the fuzzy border between the two types of use, and drawing any sort of bright line distinction won’t really fix very much.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

By saying it no longer wants to offer censored search results in China, Google hopes it could change the way the country enforces censorship laws, according to its CEO.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Continue reading →

A little while ago, we had a rather long and heated discussion over the question of whether or not embedding/hotlinking is infringement when the original content is hosted/served from elsewhere (in an authorized manner). I cannot see a truly defensible legal explanation for how that is infringing (the content exists solely in two places — the original server and the browser of the user, both of which are authorized). However, some lawyers clearly disagree. Over in the Netherlands, in fact, a court has disagreed and claimed that embedding is, in fact, infringement. While I think this is a poor ruling that makes little sense, there’s something more interesting in this particular ruling (sent in by an anonymous reader). It turns out that, in explaining why embedding should be considered infringing, the judges plagiarized the exact wording of a blog post by a Dutch lawyer.

Now, plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different (though sometimes overlapping) things, but it does seem a bit ironic — and even under Dutch copyright law, this bit of copying could be seen as infringement as well. Apparently, the judges directly cut and pasted the following two sentences:

“in case law and legal literature it is generally held that an embedded link constitutes a publication. After all, the material can be viewed or heard within the context of the website of those who placed the link, and placement causes the material to reach a new audience.”

The exact quote above came from a blog post by lawyer Douwe Linders, who had no idea the judges were going to copy it. While it seems like a simple quote like this should be perfectly legal in any context, let alone a legal decision, the discussion of this notes that while Dutch copyright law does let you quote short bits of content from others for a variety of reasons, it requires attribution. In this particular case, no attribution was provided.

What makes it even worse, of course, is that the quoted/plagiarized/infringing bit might not even be accurate. As we discussed in our own post on the subject, there appears to be significant disagreement over whether or not embedding authorized content could be seen as infringing — and apparently, there is a widespread debate about it in Dutch legal circles as well, saying that it is far from readily agreed upon in the legal literature.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

In the past, we’ve seen various attempts by people to claim they had some sort of intellectual property right over a TV show or movie about them, but those claims rarely get very far. We’ve also seen people in prison with too much time on their hands suddenly claim IP rights over their name or likeness. Now, it appears that convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal (Ilich Ram&#237rez Sanchez) has decided that his life is his own and no one else can report on it without his approval. CitMediaLaw alerts us to the news that Carlos’ wife/attorney has sued the production company of a documentary about Carlos’ life. She is demanding that the master copy be given to them as soon as it is done, and that she and her husband get to review all the content and demand changes. It seems unlikely that this gets very far, but it’s yet another symptom of our age when people begin to think that pretty much everything can be “owned” via intellectual property.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →