What is it with random companies springing up claiming to have legal download offerings that don’t pass the laugh test. Remember a year ago, we talked about a company called Bluebeat.com that claimed to be the only site where you could legally buy Beatles MP3s, based on a bit of absolutely ridiculous logic, that it was using “psycho-acoustic simulation” to recreate the tracks, thereby giving it a brand new copyright. That company also got a registration for these “new” works by the Copyright Office, hoping that most people wouldn’t notice that the Copyright Office registration process is a pure rubber stamp effort, and conveys no actual legitimacy to a bogus copyright.

Well, it looks like we’ve got another similar situation, as some mysterious company called ZapTunes is claiming to offer unlimited MP3 downloads for $25/month — with an initial “free” period, though you have to hand over your credit card details. The whole thing sounds highly questionable, however. The store claims to have licensed the work from all the major labels, including being able to offer Beatles MP3s and AC/DC MP3s — which have not been offered in MP3 format anywhere.

In the comments on that Hypebot article, some point out that the company appears to just be scraping Last.fm data, as it found a track that one guy had created himself, which only lived on his computer (but which had been “scrobbled” and the info was sent to Last.fm). The company also claims to have raised “about $5 million in funding from various Venture Capitalists,” but doesn’t seem to name any of them.

Despite the claims from the company that they’ve secured the necessary licenses for this, it appears not everyone agrees. EMI is apparently already starting the legal process. The whole thing really makes me wonder if these sites honestly think that people will buy their claims when there seems to be little evidence to support them. There are plenty of sites out there that offer up such content in a clearly unauthorized manner — but at least they’re honest about what they do. It seems pretty silly and destined to fail massively to falsely claim the legal rights to music you almost certainly did not license.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

What is it with random companies springing up claiming to have legal download offerings that don’t pass the laugh test. Remember a year ago, we talked about a company called Bluebeat.com that claimed to be the only site where you could legally buy Beatles MP3s, based on a bit of absolutely ridiculous logic, that it was using “psycho-acoustic simulation” to recreate the tracks, thereby giving it a brand new copyright. That company also got a registration for these “new” works by the Copyright Office, hoping that most people wouldn’t notice that the Copyright Office registration process is a pure rubber stamp effort, and conveys no actual legitimacy to a bogus copyright.

Well, it looks like we’ve got another similar situation, as some mysterious company called ZapTunes is claiming to offer unlimited MP3 downloads for $25/month — with an initial “free” period, though you have to hand over your credit card details. The whole thing sounds highly questionable, however. The store claims to have licensed the work from all the major labels, including being able to offer Beatles MP3s and AC/DC MP3s — which have not been offered in MP3 format anywhere.

In the comments on that Hypebot article, some point out that the company appears to just be scraping Last.fm data, as it found a track that one guy had created himself, which only lived on his computer (but which had been “scrobbled” and the info was sent to Last.fm). The company also claims to have raised “about $5 million in funding from various Venture Capitalists,” but doesn’t seem to name any of them.

Despite the claims from the company that they’ve secured the necessary licenses for this, it appears not everyone agrees. EMI is apparently already starting the legal process. The whole thing really makes me wonder if these sites honestly think that people will buy their claims when there seems to be little evidence to support them. There are plenty of sites out there that offer up such content in a clearly unauthorized manner — but at least they’re honest about what they do. It seems pretty silly and destined to fail massively to falsely claim the legal rights to music you almost certainly did not license.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

A few of you sent over this bizarre story of how famed electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors apparently need to pay a $275,000 fine for lacking a “Certificate of Conformity” from the EPA, needed to comply with the Clean air Act. As is noted in the article, it doesn’t seem like Tesla should have to get such documentation in the first place, seeing as it doesn’t even have a tailpipe, but such is the nature of regulations being a bit behind the technology times.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

A few of you sent over this bizarre story of how famed electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors apparently need to pay a $275,000 fine for lacking a “Certificate of Conformity” from the EPA, needed to comply with the Clean air Act. As is noted in the article, it doesn’t seem like Tesla should have to get such documentation in the first place, seeing as it doesn’t even have a tailpipe, but such is the nature of regulations being a bit behind the technology times.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Last week, we briefly mentioned how sad it was that Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s boss Irving Azoff seems so confused into thinking that stronger protectionism really is better for content creators. In that post, I mentioned that last year I spoke with a few top Live Nation execs, who appeared to understand the value of treating customers right, and looking for ways to enable CwF+RtB-style business models. They even talked about using companies like Zappos — a company which has built up incredibly loyal customers though amazing customer service, even if it means taking a big financial hit itself — as an example to learn from. I have to admit that I was impressed, but realized the company had a huge negative image to overcome — and that merging with Ticketmaster wasn’t going to help. Still, I thought that it would be quite a story if the company really could embrace that kind of thinking and rebuild its reputation.

So far, it doesn’t look good. Beyond Azoff’s bizarre anti-consumer tweeting, the company’s plans seems to be about as tone deaf to consumer concerns as you can imagine. Now, obviously, this is a giant company, and it has Wall Street investment bankers to please, so it has to tell some sort of numbers-based story. But, the story it’s telling is basically “we can squeeze more money out of consumers and artists overseas, so we’re going to focus on that,” which isn’t compelling to anyone (artists, fans or investors — who note that the company hasn’t had as much success overseas).

It seems like perhaps there’s a tale of two views at Live Nation: one that’s actually focused on building out a sustainable business, and the other that appears to have gotten data happy. I’m a big fan of collecting and analyzing as much data as possible, but it’s possible to get lost in that data at times, and lose sight of the big picture. So, right now, the data is telling Live Nation that US fans don’t want to pay as much, and US artists want a bigger cut. So it wants to focus elsewhere. But, it seems to be forgetting to figure out why that is. Azoff seems to want to blame file sharing, but that’s a red herring. Perhaps the company should look at the company’s own image and how widely it’s hated out there. People pay for Ticketmaster/Live Nation tickets in spite of the company, not because they like the company.

Azoff apparently scolded investors asking him questions about the company’s poor performance, blaming them for not “getting the message.” This is the same approach the company recently took in trying to explain its ticket fees, saying that the problem was that fans just didn’t get what Ticketmaster was doing. Blaming everyone else for just “not getting” you, isn’t an approach that’s going to win over many people. You need to actually start showing people through actions.

One of the reasons why the company’s margins might be so tight in the US is that it has focused on trying to squeeze every last dime out of fans without giving them enough value in return. Zappos isn’t the cheapest retailer out there, but people buy from them because they know the experience is worth it. Perhaps Live Nation/Ticketmaster should take a step back from the data and look at ways to actually wow fans and artists with an experience that over-delivers, rather than has them holding their nose every time they have to hand over money. That is, why not focus on actually adding value, rather than looking for every nook and cranny to charge people more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Last week, we briefly mentioned how sad it was that Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s boss Irving Azoff seems so confused into thinking that stronger protectionism really is better for content creators. In that post, I mentioned that last year I spoke with a few top Live Nation execs, who appeared to understand the value of treating customers right, and looking for ways to enable CwF+RtB-style business models. They even talked about using companies like Zappos — a company which has built up incredibly loyal customers though amazing customer service, even if it means taking a big financial hit itself — as an example to learn from. I have to admit that I was impressed, but realized the company had a huge negative image to overcome — and that merging with Ticketmaster wasn’t going to help. Still, I thought that it would be quite a story if the company really could embrace that kind of thinking and rebuild its reputation.

So far, it doesn’t look good. Beyond Azoff’s bizarre anti-consumer tweeting, the company’s plans seems to be about as tone deaf to consumer concerns as you can imagine. Now, obviously, this is a giant company, and it has Wall Street investment bankers to please, so it has to tell some sort of numbers-based story. But, the story it’s telling is basically “we can squeeze more money out of consumers and artists overseas, so we’re going to focus on that,” which isn’t compelling to anyone (artists, fans or investors — who note that the company hasn’t had as much success overseas).

It seems like perhaps there’s a tale of two views at Live Nation: one that’s actually focused on building out a sustainable business, and the other that appears to have gotten data happy. I’m a big fan of collecting and analyzing as much data as possible, but it’s possible to get lost in that data at times, and lose sight of the big picture. So, right now, the data is telling Live Nation that US fans don’t want to pay as much, and US artists want a bigger cut. So it wants to focus elsewhere. But, it seems to be forgetting to figure out why that is. Azoff seems to want to blame file sharing, but that’s a red herring. Perhaps the company should look at the company’s own image and how widely it’s hated out there. People pay for Ticketmaster/Live Nation tickets in spite of the company, not because they like the company.

Azoff apparently scolded investors asking him questions about the company’s poor performance, blaming them for not “getting the message.” This is the same approach the company recently took in trying to explain its ticket fees, saying that the problem was that fans just didn’t get what Ticketmaster was doing. Blaming everyone else for just “not getting” you, isn’t an approach that’s going to win over many people. You need to actually start showing people through actions.

One of the reasons why the company’s margins might be so tight in the US is that it has focused on trying to squeeze every last dime out of fans without giving them enough value in return. Zappos isn’t the cheapest retailer out there, but people buy from them because they know the experience is worth it. Perhaps Live Nation/Ticketmaster should take a step back from the data and look at ways to actually wow fans and artists with an experience that over-delivers, rather than has them holding their nose every time they have to hand over money. That is, why not focus on actually adding value, rather than looking for every nook and cranny to charge people more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Jedi Mind decides to change its name to Mind Technologies after LucasFilm sues the company for trademark infringement, and it removes all mention of Jedi from its offerings.

Originally posted at The Digital Home

Continue reading →

Reader don cox alerts us to an appeals court ruling that tosses out a trademark on a circular towel. The backstory is a bit involved and actually involves actor Woody Harrelson and filmmaker Bobby Farrelly of the Farrelly Brothers, but the key point is that this guy, Clemens Franek, started selling round beach towels, and received a trademark from the USPTO for “configuration of a round beach towel.” As the court amusingly notes, Franek came up with this idea the same year as Huey Lewis had the hit song Hip to be Square. However, many years later, Franek saw that Target and Walmart will selling round beach towels made by another company, Jay Franco & Sons, and sued the two retailers. Jay Franco, in response, sued to get Franek’s trademark tossed out. The lower court ditched the trademark and now the appeals court agreed. You can see the decision here:

The main problem? Trademarks are only supposed to apply to non-functional designs. Things like logo or a slogan don’t serve any direct purpose on the product. Unfortunately, a circular beach towel serves a purpose, and much of Franek’s advertising focused on the functional benefits of a round towel (something about moving with the sun). Basically, they suggest he could have tried to secure a design patent on this, but not a trademark, because that would limit anyone’s ability to improve upon the round towel:

To put things another way, a trademark holder cannot
block innovation by appropriating designs that undergird
further improvements. Patent holders can do this,
but a patent’s life is short; trademarks can last forever,
so granting trademark holders this power could permanently
stifle product development. If we found Franek’s
trademark nonfunctional, then inventors seeking to
build an improved round beach towel would be out of
luck. They’d have to license Franek’s mark or quell their
inventiveness. That result does not jibe with the purposes
of patent or trademark law.

Furthermore, the court points out that the practical reality here is that he was trying to limit the use of such a basic design element as a circle:

Franek wants a trademark on the circle. Granting a
producer the exclusive use of a basic element of design
(shape, material, color, and so forth) impoverishes other
designers’ palettes

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Reader don cox alerts us to an appeals court ruling that tosses out a trademark on a circular towel. The backstory is a bit involved and actually involves actor Woody Harrelson and filmmaker Bobby Farrelly of the Farrelly Brothers, but the key point is that this guy, Clemens Franek, started selling round beach towels, and received a trademark from the USPTO for “configuration of a round beach towel.” As the court amusingly notes, Franek came up with this idea the same year as Huey Lewis had the hit song Hip to be Square. However, many years later, Franek saw that Target and Walmart will selling round beach towels made by another company, Jay Franco & Sons, and sued the two retailers. Jay Franco, in response, sued to get Franek’s trademark tossed out. The lower court ditched the trademark and now the appeals court agreed. You can see the decision here:

The main problem? Trademarks are only supposed to apply to non-functional designs. Things like logo or a slogan don’t serve any direct purpose on the product. Unfortunately, a circular beach towel serves a purpose, and much of Franek’s advertising focused on the functional benefits of a round towel (something about moving with the sun). Basically, they suggest he could have tried to secure a design patent on this, but not a trademark, because that would limit anyone’s ability to improve upon the round towel:

To put things another way, a trademark holder cannot
block innovation by appropriating designs that undergird
further improvements. Patent holders can do this,
but a patent’s life is short; trademarks can last forever,
so granting trademark holders this power could permanently
stifle product development. If we found Franek’s
trademark nonfunctional, then inventors seeking to
build an improved round beach towel would be out of
luck. They’d have to license Franek’s mark or quell their
inventiveness. That result does not jibe with the purposes
of patent or trademark law.

Furthermore, the court points out that the practical reality here is that he was trying to limit the use of such a basic design element as a circle:

Franek wants a trademark on the circle. Granting a
producer the exclusive use of a basic element of design
(shape, material, color, and so forth) impoverishes other
designers’ palettes

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

The UK has really been quite aggressive in installing CCTV surveillance cameras all over, trying to spot trouble before it escalates, but apparently they’re not very good at it sometimes. Glyn Moody points us to the story of the police spotting a man, who had been previously convicted of assault, walking along with his fiancee. Via the CCTV footage, police determined that the guy, Stephen McAleer, was carrying a knife, and a few weeks later, the police showed up at his house in order to arrest him, tossing him in jail for three months. The only problem? It turns out that the “knife” was really a rose that he had bought for his fiancee. Apparently, it took three months and then a trial to get this all sorted out. Don’t you feel safer now?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →