GetGlue, an iPhone app and Web site that lets you tell your friends what you’re reading or watching and also promises on-target recommendations, has a new deal with HBO.

Originally posted at The Social

Continue reading →

We were among those who were amazed at ASCAP’s misguided and factually incorrect attack on EFF, Public Knowledge and Creative Commons. ASCAP’s Paul Williams falsely made the claim that those three groups were against copyright and against compensating content creators. Nothing could be further from the truth. All three groups responded politely to the bizarre and factually incorrect attack, and many ASCAP members who support these groups and use Creative Commons licenses expressed their displeasure with ASCAP for such a blatantly misleading letter. Larry Lessig responded with a blog post, again pointing out the blatant errors in ASCAP’s attack, noting that these groups actually look to help content creators by providing them tools to better exercise their rights. In that blog post, Lessig also challenged Williams to a debate so they could iron out their differences and ASCAP could (hopefully) retract their false attacks on these groups, and focus on helping artists again.

Hephaestus points out that Williams and ASCAP have refused to debate Lessig, with an open letter that is so bizarre that I keep rereading it to make sure it’s not a joke. But, apparently, it’s no joke, and it gets more and more bizarre the further you read, down to the point where Williams suggests Lessig’s request for a debate is really an attempt to “silence” him. But, let’s start at the beginning:

Anti-copyright crusaders are currently engaged in a publicity campaign to discredit ASCAP’s efforts to defend the copyrights of our professional songwriter and composer members.

Again, the groups that Williams mentioned (though, amusingly, he does not rename them here) are not anti-copyright. And the statement is wrong as well. The only thing people are trying to “discredit,” are the blatantly false claims that EFF, Public Knowledge and Creative Commons are trying to undermine copyright or that “their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.” None of those groups makes any such claim.

The copyleft movement has encouraged a culture of disrespect for copyright by defending corporate and individual infringers; undermining every effort to provide more effective protection, no matter how limited or reasonable; promoting a reduction in copyright protection; supporting the dismantling of our rights through the courts; and questioning the basic premise that the tidal wave of infringements and unlicensed uses online hurts creators.

Well, that’s one way of looking at things. Even if it’s wrong. First of all, Creative Commons has done no such thing in “defending” infringers. That’s just false. EFF and Public Knowledge don’t defend infringement, either. They defend consumer rights, and advocate balance in how copyright law treats consumers. Copyright law in the US was always supposed to be about providing more benefit to society as a whole, not about protectionism of artists. That EFF and Public Knowledge get attacked for simply reminding people of that fact seems like a travesty. As for the final point: “questioning the basic premise that the tidal wave of infringements and unlicensed uses online hurts creators.” How does asking whether or not a claim made by certain organizations is true or false undermine copyright?

Has ASCAP really sunk so low that simply looking to see if something is factual is somehow “undermining” copyright? Really?

Then, in responding directly to Lessig’s debate challenge, Williams spends a few paragraphs talking about his own success as a songwriter, and how he now spends all of his time fighting for the right of songwriters to make a living. And, because of that, he doesn’t have time to debate Lessig, because he doesn’t see how it will “help” in this neverending fight.

Of course, this is ridiculous. Everyone wants content creators to be fairly compensated and to earn a good living. The EFF has even put together a proposal (which I don’t agree with) to create an ASCAP-like setup for digital music. Creative Commons gives content creators more options in easily licensing their music, to make it easier for them to get heard and to use within a business model. As for Public Knowledge, just a few months ago I was at an event they put on, which celebrated various content creators and their success stories in figuring out smart ways to earn a living. And, of course, many others who are regularly derided as being a part of the “copyleft” are successful content creators ourselves, and regularly highlight smart ways for content creators to earn a living. Suggesting that any of us are against helping content creators earn a living is both false and extremely disingenuous.

And then it gets bizarre. Williams simply repeats the false claims that were clearly debunked by tons of people in responding to his original letter:

I am well aware of those “copyleft” mouthpieces who take a highly critical view of ASCAP’s efforts to protect our members’ rights. That will not change ASCAP’s commitment to doing so. ASCAP exists for one purpose — fair payment to music creators for the use of their music by businesses and others who seek to attract viewers and customers. ASCAP has long welcomed and licensed new technological means of performing its members works, seeking only reasonable fees for those performances. Our members have every right to give their music away for free if they choose, but they should not be forced to do so.

People aren’t upset that ASCAP is trying to protect members’ rights. They’re upset that (1) ASCAP seems to stretch the legal boundaries to do so — such as claiming that ringtones or the 30-second “previews” on iTunes are “public performances” that require a separate licensing fee and (2) that you falsely claimed any of these groups were somehow seeking to “force” musicians to give away their music for free. No one has ever suggested that at all. That’s what got everyone upset. For Wiliams’ response to simply repeat that blatantly false claim is strange.

And then there’s this:

What I find most fascinating is that those who purport to support a climate of free culture work so hard to silence opposing points of view. They will not silence me.

Huh?!? No one has tried, at all, to silence Williams. In fact, people seem to have done the exact opposite. They’ve asked you to come out and talk about stuff in a public debate. That’s the opposite of trying to silence you. No one has any interest in silencing Williams at all. We just want him to stop making totally false claims and attacking groups who have worked hard to support artists as well by falsely suggesting they seek to undermine artists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

David Levine points us to the abstract of a recent study of the human genome, which shows how the parts protected by intellectual property resulted in a significant decrease in both scientific research and product development. This won’t come as a surprise to those of you who have been following the research on patents over the years, but it’s another bit of evidence to add to the (growing) pile. In this case, the researcher, Heidi L. Williams, had an interesting “natural experiment” to deal with. The race to sequence the human genome had two main players, the public Human Genome Project and the private company Celera — a massive supporter of patent rights. The paper notes that Celera got IP on genes it first sequenced, but that IP protection was “removed when the public effort re-sequenced those genes.” I have to admit I didn’t know that was the case, and don’t quite understand how or why that happened. Nevertheless, it created a natural set of data worth studying, and Williams conclusions suggest that IP doesn’t seem to promote the same kind of progress as opening up the data does.

This paper provides empirical evidence on how intellectual property (IP) on a given technology affects subsequent innovation. To shed light on this question, I analyze the sequencing of the human genome by the public Human Genome Project and the private firm Celera, and estimate the impact of Celera’s gene-level IP on subsequent scientific research and product development outcomes. Celera’s IP applied to genes sequenced first by Celera, and was removed when the public effort re-sequenced those genes. I test whether genes that ever had Celera’s IP differ in subsequent innovation, as of 2009, from genes sequenced by the public effort over the same time period, a comparison group that appears balanced on ex ante gene-level observables. A complementary panel analysis traces the effects of removal of Celera’s IP on within-gene flow measures of subsequent innovation. Both analyses suggest Celera’s IP led to reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development outcomes on the order of 30 percent. Celera’s short-term IP thus appears to have had persistent negative effects on subsequent innovation relative to a counterfactual of Celera genes having always been in the public domain.

Levine laments that the NBER version of the paper he links to is not available for free, but a quick Google search turns up a few publicly available versions of the paper (though, they appear to be earlier drafts) such as this one (pdf)). There’s also the following powerpoint presentation (pdf) embedded below, which highlights the key findings and data from Williams’ research:

The key slide is the fourth one, which reads as follows:

Celera IP on genes has strong negative impact on future research and
product development

• 35% fewer publications since 2001
• 16% points reduction in chance of gene having known uncertain
  genotype-phenotype link
• 2% points reduction in chance of gene having known and certain
  genotype-phenotype link
• 1.5% points less likely to be used in genetic tests

Also, Celera genes have not “caught up” with ex-ante similar genes
sequenced by HGP as of 2009

Now, it’s important to note that both the paper and the slide presentation note that you can’t necessarily conclude from this paper that IP slowed down the overall human genome sequencing efforts. It notes, for example, that the presence of Celera in the market, getting IP, may have created competitive pressure that sped up the Human Genome Project’s effort to sequence. However, it does note that given the competition between Celera and the Human Genome Project, it seems clear that Celera’s use of IP was clearly not the best way to create the greatest level of social benefit.

While the paper doesn’t delve into it, this is really another way of pointing to the difference between invention and innovation as a process. Innovation tends to be an ongoing process of continual improvements. And that’s where IP almost always seems to hinder activities, rather than help it. That’s because IP puts a giant brake or tollbooth into the process of all of that important follow on innovation. There may be some argument that IP can help in one-off situations where there is no ongoing innovation, but those situations are excessively rare in the real world, if they exist at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

New deal between the companies enables Amazon shoppers to receive product recommendations for themselves and their friends based on their Facebook profiles.

Originally posted at News – Digital Media

Continue reading →

Over the last few years, there have been countless stories about the supposed “return” of vinyl, as people have actually been buying more vinyl records in the past few years. It still remains a tiny part of the market, but it has continued to grow over the past few years. However, if vinyl is making a comeback, what about other supposedly “dead” formats? Brad points us to a report that cassette tapes are supposedly making a comeback as well, at least among a small group of garage rock bands. I have to admit, reading the explanations for why are pretty funny: “Tapes are great because they have a really nice warm and fuzzy sound.” I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard audio cassettes referred to as having a “warm” sound.

Others complain that MP3s are simply too disposable, and by giving people a cassette, it makes it seem more tangible, real and permanent. I can understand the thinking, but I wonder if it’s more wishful thinking than anything. And I say that as someone who still regularly buys CDs, but is increasingly wondering why I bother with so much useless plastic.

Either way, if we’re going to be reviving dead formats, how about the 8-track as well? The band Cheap Trick released their last album on an 8-track, but I haven’t heard that it’s catching on with anyone else just yet…

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Yet another reminder of why relying on Facebook for conversations or discussions is highly problematic. We’ve noted in the past that Facebook doesn’t allow any links to The Pirate Bay, even if the links are perfectly legal. But it appears to also be blocking mentions of its ongoing lawsuit with Power.com, which we were discussing just last week. Eric Goldman’s blog also had a blog post about the ruling (well worth reading, by the way). Goldman regularly mentions his blog posts on Twitter and has his Twitter account set to automatically post his updates to his Facebook account as well. He noticed, oddly, that the tweet about the Power.com case somehow did not make it to his Facebook account, and tried to post it manually… and was blocked. Apparently, Facebook ridiculously overaggressive “spam filters” block any and all mentions of Power.com.

After a little more experimentation, I discovered that every instance of the character string “power.com” is blocked in Facebook. Therefore, every time I put “power.com” into my status reports or in comments to those status reports–even if it’s the only content in the post/comment–I get the “blocked content” message. However, it’s easily avoided; I can post “power . com” (notice the spaces before and after the period) just fine. Basically, Facebook is using a very dumb word filter.

While Facebook didn’t respond to Goldman’s initial claim that this content was flagged in error, he reached out to press contacts there, who tried to defend the blanket “dumb word filter ban,” by saying that Power.com had done some spammy abusive things with user accounts. While that may be true, that’s no reason to block any and all mentions of Power.com especially when the company is currently involved in an important lawsuit with Facebook. Even if there are legitimate reasons for the “dumb word filter,” it makes Facebook look petty and as if it’s trying to deny all discussion of the important legal issues involved in the lawsuit.

Goldman points out that one aspect of the Power.com lawsuit is that the company is claiming Facebook is violating antitrust law. Given that, it seems like it might not look good for Facebook to (clumsily) block all conversations about Power.com. That would appear to play directly into Power.com’s claims of anti-competitive behavior.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Michael Geist points us to the news that The British Library has apparently come out with a new report entitled Driving UK Research — Is copyright a help or a hindrance? The paper brings together 13 different researchers to all share their opinions, and the general consensus appears to be that copyright today is a serious problem in need of reform (and, no, the “Digital Economy Act” in the UK didn’t help at all). Basically, the key points are that copyright shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way of research activities. As the overall report summarizes, four key suggestions for copyright reform come out:

• calls for an extension to fair dealing provisions under UK copyright
  law to bring them into line with fair use doctrine in the US. One author
  addresses the difficulties of applying fair dealing provisions in the study
  of music and sound recordings.
• allowing the use of ‘orphan works’. One submission advocates that
  ‘orphan works’ be placed in the public domain.
• enforcing creators’ moral rights in order to preserve future creativity,
  and the need for exceptions to copyright law not being overridden
  by contract or by technical protection measures.
• addressing the issue of text mining and data indexing in the context
  of the barriers posed by the existing copyright regime.

Funny, of course, that the Digital Economy Act, which was supposed to modernize UK copyright law didn’t appear to address any of these points. Well, no, actually. Not funny. Depressing. But the concern here is both very real and very serious. As Dame Lynne Brindley, the CEO of The British Library notes:

There is a supreme irony that just as technology is allowing greater access
to books and other creative works than ever before for education and
research, new restrictions threaten to lock away digital content in a way
we would never countenance for printed material.

Let’s not wake up in five years’ time and realise we have unwittingly
lost a fundamental building block for innovation, education and research
in the UK. Who is protecting the public interest in the digital world?
We need to redefine copyright in the digital age and find a balance
to benefit creators, educators, researchers, the creative industries –
and the knowledge economy.

The full report is below:

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

It would be amusing to watch the various parts of the legacy music business fight with each other over who can screw over artists faster if it weren’t so sad. The latest, found on Hypebot, is that music publishers — who used to be considered the part of the business whose interests were most “aligned” with songwriters — are now demanding the equivalent of “360 deals” from artists. Basically, since their own business is struggling, they’re trying to demand more rights from artists, who increasingly have other options and don’t need to deal with such middlemen. What’s amusing, of course, is that these publishers keep pretending they actually have the songwriters best interests at heart. Yeah, right.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →