Är det stöld att hoppa över tv-reklamen?

Det är seriöst en fråga som tv-bolagen funderar på att låta domstolarna ska ta ställning till:

TV Network Execs Contemplate Going To Court To Say Skipping Commercials Is Illegal | Techdirt

Late last week Charlie Ergen and the folks at Dish Networks presented the TV networks with a bit of a conundrum. You see, the company decided to actually give consumers what they want: setting up a special DVR system, called Auto Hop, that would let viewers not just automatically DVR the entire primetime lineup of all the major networks with the single push of a button — but also to automatically skip commercials when watching the playback, as long as it wasn’t the same day the shows aired.

Vi tar det en gång till:

fildelning. är. inte. stöld.
kopiering. av. en. digital. fil. är. inte. stöld.
att. inte. se på. en. reklamfilm. är. inte. stöld.

För att det ska vara stöld så måste den som blir bestulen förlora möjligheten att nyttja det stulna…

Fildelning är ett brott mot upphovsrätten och det är möjligen, men inte garanterat, en missad försäljning.

RIAA anser att limewire ska betala 75 000 miljarder i skadestånd

RIAA Thinks LimeWire Owes $75 Trillion in Damages | PCWorld

The music industry wants LimeWire to pay up to $75 trillion in damages after losing a copyright infringement claim. That’s right . . . $75 trillion. Manhattan federal Judge Kimba Wood has labeled this request “absurd.”

You’re telling me. To put that number into perspective (I bet a lot of you didn’t even know “trillion” was a real number), the U.S. GDP is around 14 trillion — less than one fifth of what the music industry is requesting. Heck, the GDP of the entire world is between 59 and 62 trillion. That’s right, the music industry wants LimeWire to pay more money than exists in the entire world.

Låt oss se nu, RIAA tycker alltså att Limewire ska betala 75 000 miljarder för fildelning av 11 000 musikfiler. USA har en BNP på ungefär 15 000 miljarder. 75 000 miljarder är mer än jordens all BNP tillsammans. RIAA har just bevisat att de inte bor på samma planet som oss andra…

Uppdatering: Det verkar som denna historia var mer än ett år gammal och stämningen förlikades med ett skadestånd på $105 miljoner. Jag hittade den först via en notis på Brooks review: RIAA Math — The Brooks Review, där länkades vidare till PC World artikeln jag har länkat till ovan och jag missade att den var daterad den 26 mars 2011. Mike Masnick har skrivit en bra artikel som verkar reda ut begreppen: No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad) | Techdirt

Anyway: basically this story is bogus. Well over a year ago, the RIAA made a ridiculous attempt to seek damages on every download. No specific amount was named, and no matter how you do your math, that $72 trillion number never made any sense at all. It was just a reporter looking for a good headline. Either way, the judge totally rejected that plan 15 months ago, and the entire case settled a year ago.

Album som läcks innan skivsläppet säljer bättre

New Study Says Leaked Albums From Popular Artists Lead To More Sales | Techdirt:

TorrentFreak alerts us* to an interesting new research paper from Robert Hammond, an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, looking at the direct impact on sales when albums are leaked early online. The study is pretty thorough in trying to separate other factors and isolate the actual causal impact. It’s a bit of an extrapolation to claim that the study says “file sharing boosts music sales,” as I don’t think the paper actually goes that far. It seems to suggest, however, that for popular artists, having an album leaked appears to lead to a small, but significant, increase in sales. The impact is not seen for newer or less-well-known artists.

* BitTorrent Piracy Boosts Music Sales, Study Finds | TorrentFreak

93891327-Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak

För mycket upphovsrätt

Too Much Copyright: This Generation’s Prohibition | Techdirt

The Mickey Mouse curve: längden på upphovsrätt följer Musse Piggs ålder

Vartefter Musse Pigg har riskerat att inte vara upphovsrättsligt skyddad så har skyddstiden förlängts.

En kuggfråga: Hur många verk blev släppta från upphovsrättsligt skydd den 1 januari 2012 i USA?

Om man har skydd 70 år efter upphovsmannens död så borde ju en del verk komma över den gränsen varje nyår?

Svaret är 0 verk. Läs mer på sidan Public domain day.

What is entering the public domain in the United States? Nothing. Once again, we will have nothing to celebrate this January 1st. Not a single published work is entering the public domain this year. Or next year, or the year after that. In fact, in the United States, no publication will enter the public domain until 2019. And wherever in the world you live, you will likely have to wait a very long time for anything to reach the public domain. When the first copyright law was written in the United States, copyright lasted 14 years, renewable for another 14 years if the author wished. Jefferson or Madison could look at the books written by their contemporaries and confidently expect them to be in the public domain within a decade or two. Now? In the United States, as in most of the world, copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime, plus another 70 years. And we’ve changed the law so that every creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if the author does nothing.

Piratkopieringens kostnad?

Det är inte så lätt som vissa vill få dig att förstå:

Hulu, Pricing Strategies, and the Costs of Piracy | Cato @ Liberty

To illustrate, let’s imagine television show that initially streams online for free with advertising, garnering a million viewers per episode and earning $1 per viewer in ad revenues, for a total of $1 million. A small number who really dislike ads, or have connections too slow for streaming, let’s say 5,000, download pirate copies anyway—but the vast majority watch legally. After building an audience and generating some good word of mouth, the accountants suggest that it might be more profitable to stop the free streaming and instead sell ad-free episodes for $4, in hopes that enough dedicated fans will pony up to compensate for the predictable drop in viewership once the program is no longer free to watch. The paying audience does indeed drop to 255,000, which still leaves the company slightly better off for the switch, but 100,000 viewers decide to keep up with the show (at least initially) by downloading pirated copies. A subsequent price hike to $10, however, turns out to be a money loser. Now the show has only 80,000 paying viewers, while 150,000 are engaged in piracy.

Undoubtedly that piracy is costing the show’s producers something: If piracy were impossible, some unknown fraction of those who download illegally would be willing to pay the asking price. But just crudely using the actual market price at each stage—even if modified by some constant “displacement rate” to acknowledge that not every illicit download represents a lost sale at that price—yields some perverse results. As the pricing strategy for the show changes, the “cost” of piracy rises from $5,000 to $400,000 (even as revenue rises) to $1.5 million (while revenues drop by $20,000). Obviously, something is wrong here.

It’s no great mystery what: The problem is that the rate of piracy, the price of a digital good, and the “displacement rate” (the percentage of the pirates who’d buy at that price in a world of perfect copyright enforcement) are not independent variables. And, of course, the interdependency runs both ways: Pricing decisions are influenced by the knowledge that we don’t live in a world of perfect enforcement, and you can tell plausible stories according to which this might keep prices higher or lower than they’d be under perfect enforcement, depending on your assumptions about the conditions under which a particular audience will substitute the pirate for the legal good.

Googles fiberplaner gör MPAA nervösa

Google har planer på att lägga ner fiber i marken till hemanvändare och det gör Hollywood nervösa.

It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. “This new thing is great, but… piracy!” The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes.

Google’s Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy? | Techdirt

The fact that the MPAA can’t get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn’t bode well for Hollywood’s future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they’re probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they “can’t compete”.

Statligt missbruk

Law Professor: Megaupload Prosecution A ‘Depressing Display Of Abuse Of Government Authority’ | Techdirt

The more we hear and see about the government’s case against Megaupload, it really appears that the government was relying almost entirely on the fact that Megaupload looked bad. It’s hard to deny that there were plenty of things that Kim (in particular) did that makes him appear pretty obnoxious. But being a crass showoff doesn’t automatically make you a criminal. Even worse, the government’s action in the case to date seem to be doing everything possible to undermine their own case as they try to railroad Megaupload.

DRM hindrar legitim användning, inte olaglig fildelning

HBO Decides It Still Isn’t Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows | Techdirt

It’s truly amazing that companies like HBO still pursue such strategies. There is not, and never has been, a form of DRM that effectively prevents piracy—but every single form of DRM reduces the value of the product to legitimate subscribers. It’s pretty bizarre to continually punish the only people who aren’t engaged in the behavior you want to stamp out.

The Guardian: Battle for the Internet

The Guardian har börjat en sjudagars serie om kriget om internet som verkar bli intressant:

Over seven days the Guardian is taking stock of the new battlegrounds for the internet. From states stifling dissent, to the new cyberwar front line, we look at the challenges facing the dream of an open internet.

  • Day one: the new cold war
    China’s censors tested by microbloggers who keep one step ahead of state media | Technology | The Guardian
    Nervous Kremlin seeks to purge Russia’s internet of ‘western’ influences | Technology | The Guardian
    Internet censorship: how does each country compare? | Datablog | Technology | guardian.co.uk
  • Day two: the militarisation of cyberspace
    Internet attacks on sovereign targets are no longer a fear for the future, but a daily threat. We ask: will the next big war be fought online?
  • Day three: the new walled gardens
    For many, the internet is now essentially Facebook. Others find much of their online experience is mediated by Apple or Amazon. Why are the walls going up around the web garden, and does it matter?
  • Day four: IP wars
    Intellectual property, from copyrights to patents, have been an internet battlefield from the start. We look at what SOPA, PIPA and ACTA really mean, and explain how this battle is not over. Plus, Clay Shirky will be discussing the issues in a live Q and A session
  • Day five: ‘civilising’ the web

    In the UK, the ancient law of defamation is increasingly looking obsolete in the Twitter era. Meanwhile in France, President Sarkozy believes the state can tame the web.

  • Day six: the open resistance

    Meet the activists and entrepreneurs who are working to keep the internet open

  • Day seven: the end of privacy

    Hundreds of websites now know vast amounts about their users’ behaviour, personal lives and connections with each other. Find out who knows what about you, and what they use the information for