We noticed you’re using an ad-blocker. Oh really?

Like any self-respecting web user, I’ve used ad-blocking extensions for years now - since at least 2006. There are some sites so peppered with ads that browsing them without an ad-blocker just isn’t viable (I’m thinking in particular of some F1 sites I like to check frequently). Some sites are so bad that if it came to a choice between visiting them without an ad-blocker, or not visiting at all, I’d pick the latter, frankly.

Intrusive web adverts are annoying. There’s no getting around that. Equally, though, I’m not so away-with-the-fairies that I don’t recognise that a lot of this nice stuff we’re used to accessing freely on the net has to be paid for by someone, somewhere. Ads are the obvious way of doing that, but the dynamics of this model have changed hugely over the years and are becoming, by degrees, harder to sustain. (So I hear anyway.)

The use of paywalls is becoming worryingly commonplace – both across web content in general and streaming media in particular – and this approach flies directly in the face of some of the key founding principles of the web. And in this increasingly confused and scary world we live in, I think the need for the web to respect the principle of giving information freedom is more important than ever.

In the last couple of years, an increasing number of websites feature code to check whether visitors have ad-blockers installed. Where an ad-blocker is detected, the visitor sees a message of thinly veiled emotional blackmail or, increasingly, out-and-out pleading, asking the visitor to disable their ad-blocking functionality or to whitelist the relevant website. Some sites even prevent you from reading the article until you do one of these two things.

Most news agencies have used this tactic for some time, but other types of sites are now following suit. Even the ten-a-penny technology sites which regurgitate already regurgitated non-news, FUD and trite observations are doing it. I know. You wouldn’t think they’d have the nerve to try to guilt-trip visitors into viewing ads.

Almost invariably, I ignore all pleas of whitelisting. The one exception I made was for the Guardian’s website. Hey, I have to get my do-gooding, left-wing libertarian kicks somehow.

The bottom line is that web ads need to be more palatable and less intrusive. If there weren’t so many of them and if they weren’t so damned distracting and annoying, visitors would be less inclined to block ads in the first place. It’s a bit like the situation a decade ago when copyright holders were rightly lampooned for over-charging for their content, not doing enough to make it easily-accessible to customers in innovative ways, while struggling to understand why many users were choosing to download content unlawfully using peer-to-peer file sharing software. Thankfully, we’ve seen a lot of progress on that front (think: Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime, for example).

Back to web ads. The ones which get most on my thrupnies adopt the shock ‘n’ awe approach in which banner ads abseil down from the top of the screen, bumping the page content asunder in unnerving jolts, with the lower page content then being flanked by further ads. As these then load, the page content re-renders again so your eyes are bouncing around the page trying to catch up and you’re quickly reduced to a quivering nervous wreck. It’s a bit like expecting web users to browse the web high on crystal meth. It’s unacceptable and it’s disrespectful to the site’s visitors. And it’s no wonder use of ad-blockers has skyrocketed in recent years.

So, please, ad-makers and sites which feature them: try and be a bit more subtle and less annoying. Else the chances are your ads being unblocked are pretty much nil. And if that happens, we’ll all end up losing in the longer term.

Important Principles of Publishing Law

Guest Post

Although the basic principles of publishing law generally remain unchanged, the law that governs the publication of books, magazines, newspapers and – in particular - their digital equivalents is constantly evolving. This constant evolution is necessary now more than ever, due to the impact the internet has had on how material is distributed, and the increasing importance of digital copyright law. In today’s digital age, what is legal in one country may not be permitted in another, and this patchwork of very different sets of laws represents a real problem for authors and publishers throughout the world.

Unsurprisingly, the countries of the world have attempted to regulate this by means of international treaties. There is now the International Court of Justice at The Hague (mainly referred to for war crimes), and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, these only operate in certain jurisdictions and their judgements are usually regional rather than global. There is no truly global International Court, and although many feel that the internet requires something similar, it appears to be a long way away from actually happening.

Copyright Law

Despite the aforementioned problems with the application of international publishing laws, copyright law is relatively well enforced globally. This is due to one of the world’s longest-running treaties, the Berne Copyright Convention of 1886, now acceded to by over 160 countries. The Berne Copyright Convention obliges members to apply reciprocal ‘national treatment’ in their own courts to works produced by members of other member states. The TRIPS Treaty also requires member states to enforce copyright effectively.

Copyright is a form of intellectual property that exists from the moment a work of creative, intellectual or artistic nature is created in a fixed, tangible form of expression (Ideas and information are not covered by copyright law – only the form and manner in which they are expressed is.). Copyright grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution – usually for a limited time. In the case of works made for hire, the employer - not the creator of the work - is considered the author. Updated in 1988 and unchanged ever since, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 remains one of the key principles of publishing law.

Assignments & Licenses

An assignment of copyright is a transfer of ownership of the copyright. By assigning your copyright to another person or organisation, you are effectively providing them with the legal right to exploit the material however they wish. You will no longer own it; the recipient of the assignment will have full rights to the material. And if you publish your work after you have assigned it to another party, you are committing copyright infringement – even though you were the original author of the work.

If you grant someone a copyright license, you retain ownership of your copyright but give the other party permission to use some or all of your copyright rights. You may grant a publisher the rights to publish your work in print and/or as an ebook, but retain the right to create an audio version of your work. Any type of right can be retained or granted as required, which can allow the author of the work to profit by producing and distributing the work in other formats, or even expanding upon it.

Written Contracts

Almost all publishing agreements should be in writing. Whilst English law does allow for unwritten contracts, those contracts which involve assignment of copyright or a licence of copyright within the meaning of the legislation must be in writing. Even where a publishing agreement does not involve an assignment or license, getting the terms of the contract written down is always a good idea. A written agreement provides evidence that the contract actually exists, helps ensure that all parties are ‘on the same page’, reduces the risk of a legal dispute occurring and also helps with the resolution of a dispute should one arise.

Payments and Royalties

A publishing agreement will usually state methods of payments to the author, which are typically either by the payment of an agreed fee or by the payment of royalties. With royalty payments there may also be an advance, which will need to be earned-out before any royalty payments commence. Publishing contracts that are based on assignments of copyright usually include up-front, fee-based payments, while payments made under licences of copyright are often royalty-based. In practice, however, many publishing contracts combine assignments and royalties or licences and fees.

Infringement of Legal Rights

There are multiple ways in which an author’s legal rights can be infringed when a piece of work is published. For example, a work could infringe copyright, moral rights, database rights, trade mark rights, design rights, rights in passing off, or any other intellectual property rights. Because of this, it is vital that publishing companies fully research the work they are given to publish, and authors are fully aware of the rights they hold in their work.

ARK Group is a leading B2B publishing and events company providing leading products for the legal and information management markets. ARK Group’s information products help professionals and organisations work more intelligently by delivering reliable information and techniques that can be used to benchmark, develop and improve fundamental business processes and procedures.

How Can You Protect Your Intellectual Property?

Guest PostAre you designing a new product? Have you written a book or produced a musical album? Without protection, your intellectual property could be used by others and exploited for commercial gain. The experts at Vannin Capital spoke to us recently to share the following advice;

In the UK, intellectual property – whether it’s the plans for a new technology, a film script or a computer game – is protected against unauthorised use, modification or theft by trademarks, design rights, patents and copyright.

While these four categories of intellectual property protection may seem similar to each other, they each serve a different purpose. Copyright protects creative works like music, literature or visual art from piracy and imitation.

Patents, on the other hand, protect new technologies and inventions from copycats to protect their original inventors. Images and phrases that represent brands can be  protected through trademarks, while unique designs are protected by design rights.

If you understand the differences between these categories and forms of protection, you may have noticed a question: What happens to intellectual property that’s both creative and technological, or a unique design that’s also a trademark?

Not all ideas and inventions fall into multiple categories, but some do. Whether you wish to protect a unique creative work or a new technology, the first step towards a form of intellectual property protection should be a conversation with a lawyer.

The most popular form of intellectual property protection is copyright. This form of protection covers creative works like visual art, literature and music. Although you may have heard that copyright needs to be ‘registered’, most art gains copyright as soon as it’s created and identified as the unique work of the original artist.

In order for an artist to identify themselves as the creator of their work – whether it’s a novel or a painting – they need to visually identify it using their name and its creation date. In the UK, this provides 70 years of protection against unauthorised use or imitation for the original artist or rights holder.

When the period of copyright protection ends, works enter the public domain. You may have seen famous compositions or films on public domain websites. For music, it’s often just the score that enters the public domain – new performances of a piece of classical music, for example, are still protected by copyright.

Inventions and designs are protected against unauthorized use or imitation through a different process. Inventions, for example, are protected by patents. In order for an invention to be protected by a patent, it needs to be completely original and able to be created and implemented in a viable form.

This means that modifications of an existing technology can’t be protected using a patent. Likewise, patents are only issues for usable technologies. A mathematical formula, for example, can’t be patented because it’s a concept that can be used but not created.

Not all inventions are physical. Numerous patents have been awarded for unique ideas for software or computer security, neither of which are physical objects. For any invention to be patented, it needs to be able to be created and used by people and/or machines.

Visual identifiers like the Nike logo or Mickey Mouse graphic aren’t protected by copyright, but by trademark law. Any visual design that’s used to identify a brand, product or business is protected from imitation or unauthorised use a trademark.

Finally, designs for specific products such as the form factor of a device generally aren’t able to be patented. Visual designs and schematics are protected by design rights, which allow designers to control the use of their creative designs.

The average consumer product may be protected by several forms of intellectual property protection. An iPhone, for example, may be protected by all four: it uses patented technology, contains copyrighted software, uses a protected design and comes in packaging adorned with trademarked graphics.

Microsoft to re-brand SkyDrive after Sky victory

From Windows IT Pro (written by Paul Thurrott) 01/08/13:

Microsoft confirmed on Wednesday that it will not fight a July ruling by the England and Wales High Court in which it was found to have infringed on British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) trademarks for the term “Sky.” As a result, Microsoft has agreed to rebrand its SkyDrive cloud storage service with a new, as yet-unknown name.

Under the settlement, Microsoft can continue to use the SkyDrive name for a reasonable period of time while it implements a new brand.

BSkyB is a UK-based satellite broadcaster, Internet provider and telephone services firm. It does not make or sell any cloud-based storage services, nor is it clear how the firm could have obtained multiple trademarks for a term as general as “sky.”

Oh, Paul.  Where do we begin?

Perhaps it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the basic criteria a mark must meet to be capable of being registered as a trademark under English law.

Providing the mark meets the basic requirements under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (principally that the mark is distinctive - or capable of distinguishing - one proprietor’s goods or services from another’s and that the mark is capable of being represented graphically), there’s nothing stopping an application being made to register the mark in relation to several categories or ‘classes’ as they’re known.

Funnily enough, ‘cloud-based storage services’ isn’t a class per se. As Paul himself might say, “Go figure”.

Amongst others, the word “Sky” is registered in 2 classes for services (as distinct from goods) - class 38 and class 42.

Class 38 includes computer aided transmission of messages and images and, separately, telecommunications information. Class 42 includes the rental of computer software and home computing services generally.

In its July ruling, the UK court noted that a survey of consumer found that some people did indeed assume that SkyDrive was a BSkyB brand and that such people “should not be regarded as especially unobservant or lacking in ‘circumspectness’.”

Another key point is that “Sky” isn’t just a trademark of BSkyB – it’s their trading name.

On reflection, then, it’s not tough to see why Microsoft’s use of the word “Skydrive” infringed Sky’s trademark.

So why did Paul miss this?

It took just a couple of minutes to look up on the trademark register exactly what classes Sky have registered marks in and compare that to the list of classes available for services.

On top of that, it would have taken a matter of seconds to identify that “Sky” was the trading name of BSkyB.

On the Windows Weekly podcast, Paul often bemoans slipshod and lazy bloggers who fail to do their homework but then have the audacity to sully the internet with their inferior writing. He’s certainly got a point (particularly in the tech sphere) but the record has worn rather thin. Following this latest blooper, maybe it’s time Paul became a little less critical of others and a bit more self-reflective.

Just a thought.

To kill a mockingbird - I wish someone had killed me

Anything would have been better than reading that thing!

You’d have had to been holed up somewhere for your entire life to not be familiar with the award winning novel by Harper Lee. It’s often cited as being a must-read novel for aspiring lawyers and listed amongst the top 10 legal reads of all time.

I read it at school years ago as part of a GCSE English assessment. And I absolutely hated it. Every last word.

I’m not going to hold back here; I simply cannot recall a book I liked less. I found it utterly depressing, entirely un-compelling and am thankful I had no interest in a career in law at that point. It might have put me off for life. Even the copy I was dished up with at school stunk to high heaven of the wretched fish glue that bound it. That kind of literary experience takes some bouncing back from, believe me.  The fact our English teacher raved about, served only to heighten my disinterest. 

Adolescence and GCSEs is a tough combination at the best of times, but having to wade through a novel like that nearly finished me. Just over a third of the way through I gave up with that sucker and never looked back. Thank God for York Notes – that’s all I can say.

Anyhow, that’s enough of the schoolboy reverie. This post was intended to have some bearing on copyright (honest).

From the 1709 blog 05/05/13:

[The author of to Kill a Mockingbird,] Harper Lee, now aged 87, does not own the copyright to her book. That is owned by Samuel Pinkus, the son-in-law of Lee's former literary agent, and a company he allegedly created. The author has now filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan, to re-secure the copyright and claiming unspecified damages[.]

The 87-year-old author alleges that in 2007, in a "scheme to dupe”, Pinkus took advantage of her declining hearing and eyesight to get her to assign the book's copyright to him and a company he controlled.

The lawsuit bids the court to assign any rights in the book owned by Mr Pinkus to Lee and asks that she be returned any commission he took from 2007 onwards saying

"The transfer of ownership of an author's copyright to her agent is incompatible with her agent's duty of loyalty; it is a gross example of self-dealing".

For all those interested in copyright law, this might be one to keep an eye on. To all students studying to kill a mockingbird, you have my profound sympathy.

Copyright Infringement: taking the moral high ground

I guess that’s an alternative way of doing it.

Found here.

Publication Review: From Goods to a Good Life

From Goods to a Good Life by Prof. Madhavi Sunder examines how, for the greater good, hard-edged commercialism in intellectual property law can (and should) be tempered by a healthy dose of social conscience and culture.

From the very outset, the author recognises the enormity of her task; challenging the centuries-entrenched focus of commercial endeavour that lies at the heart of international IP law sounds like an impossible task. Still, it a task Sunder takes on with gusto.

She poses an uncomfortable series of questions in which the value and composition of a “good life” are broken down and micro-analysed. Many readers may find the observations made by the author painful. The shallow materiality of the typical western way of life can be a difficult truth to acknowledge.

Sunder’s arguments focus on the need for intellectual property to be reconceptualised so that it takes better account of a plurality of stakeholders, social and cultural factors and various other 21st century considerations.

The author weaves a compelling web of arguments which span culture, commerciality, and philosophy – as well as the complex interplay between them. A colourful array of analogies and anecdotes add weight to her arguments and a richness to the text.

While it is pitched predominantly at the US market and legal system, the vast majority of points and arguments hold equally true for UK readers.

The book provides a refreshing, stimulating and thought-provoking read which is, for the most part, well-argued. It is let down only occasionally by a needless verbosity which can detract from the arguments being made and the flow of the text.

Every lawyer needs the chance to step away from black letter law and reflect on broader societal issues from time to time. From Goods to a Good Life provides exactly that opportunity.

It would make an excellent gift for any lawyer – past, present or prospective – as well as anyone who shares an interest in intellectual property law and its effect on the way we all live our lives.

From Goods to a Good Life was published on 23rd August 2012.

Copyright Infringement: that’s an interesting approach

You can find a lot of interesting shows stuff on YouTube these days.

Don’t look at me like that.  I’m certainly not condoning copyright infringement but, you know, if it’s available on YouTube, what’s the harm in a quick butchers?  But be snappy about it: they might have pulled the content by the next time you go back.

I’ve always had a penchant for a good detective series (even though there are some which I simply cannot abide).

Whilst catching up on a classic mid-nineties episode of A Touch of Frost recently, I was amused by the attempt at a disclaimer the uploader had included:

Ah – that’s all right then.  Ahem. 

Now I’ve had my eyes opened, I’ve seen it used more and more.

Watching laypeople wrestle with the concept of disclaimer can be an interesting experience.  More entertaining than the actual show in many cases.

Btw, does anybody else get a kick out of watching compilations of TV ads from their childhood? 

Perhaps it’s just me then.

Ofcom releases draft code for online copyright infringement

From Ofcom 26/06/12:

Internet users will be encouraged to download music and films through legal channels under measures outlined today by Ofcom.

Oh no! Don’t open that spectacularly nasty can of worms again. I remember attending the Parliament & Internet Conference back in 2009 when the (then) ill fated Digital Economy Bill was the talk of the town and BIS’ inconsistent use of the terms “legal” and “lawful” resulted in a lot of head-scratching and looks of bewilderment amongst attendees.

Surely they knew there was a difference? I don’t think anyone dared ask the question for fear of what the answer might be!

But that wasn’t just an exercise in pedantry; the ill-conceived and half-baked ideas that (sadly) came to fruition in the Digital Economy Act were bad enough, without adding confusion and ignorance into the mix.

Ofcom has published a draft code for consultation that would require large internet service providers (ISPs) to inform customers of allegations that their internet connection has been used to infringe copyright.

The code, which Ofcom is required to publish under the Digital Economy Act 2010,1 includes measures to help inform the public and promote lawful access to digital content such as music and films.

Phew – we’re back on track now (just the inconsistency between legal and lawful to try and grapple with). Oh, and the simple trick of actually getting content creators (or more specifically, their greedy publishers/labels) to get over themselves and start charging sensible prices via attractive means to consumers. ISPs black listing torrent sites will be about as much use as a tin tack in a jockstrap in stopping anyone with half a brain downloading content unlawfully (if they want to).

Yep – good luck with that one.

When notifying customers of reported infringements, ISPs must explain the steps subscribers can take to protect their networks from being used to infringe copyright and tell them where they can go to find licensed content on the internet.

Copyright owners are expected to invest in awareness campaigns to help educate consumers about the impact of copyright infringement and further to develop attractive online services to offer their content. Ofcom will report regularly to the Government on the effectiveness of both the code and these broader initiatives from copyright owners.

I don’t hold out much hope.

Something tells me that overseas providers offering Virtual Private Network (VPNs) to internet users in the UK will soon be enjoying a tasty increase in business as users look at technical ways to get around the UK’s ill-conceived and botched copyright infringement laws.

By the way, something smells bad in here. Oh wait – it’s the DEA festering in the corner.

Booo, I say, Booooooo!

Speed reading Ts&Cs

Lawyers are always reckoned to be the guiltiest when it comes to failing to read terms and conditions properly (outside the course of work, that is!!)

So you’re not alone in happily planting a tick in the ‘yep I’ve read and digested each of the terms’ box before ordering something online – (when, in fact, you’ve done no such thing). 

Ahem. 

So far as the least-read documents on earth are concerned, I think EULAs just edge out the terms of most online stores.  And what’s the harm, scooting down to the bottom and emphatically whacking the ‘I Accept’ radio button when you’re installing something? After all, Microsoft haven’t come over and sued your sweet merry ass yet, right? 

Better watch it though: you might just be caught out.

Nah… Redmond wouldn’t have the sense of humour for that! 

Found here.

That’s… an interesting approach

 

If you find the average EULA (End User Licence Agreement) a touch trying for its verbosity, awkwardness and generally unappealing nature, how does the above grab ya?

The lawyer in me is screaming in pain at this. The free-radical hippie undercurrent(that’s probably more under than current) is whooping for joy.

Found here.

Welcome to Goldeneye Law…

Fom ISP Preview 28/09/11:

Golden Eye International, a law firm that claims to hold numerous film copyrights and is linked with the Ben Dover porn brand in the UK [yep – of ‘fancy an Indian’ fame - ahem], has attempted to sue three broadband ISP customers for "illegal" internet copyright infringement (piracy) after at least one of the accused failed to respond when a letter arrived demanding a payment of £700 (i.e. "speculative invoicing") to settle the dispute.

I think those “air quotes” were more apt than the author thought. I love it how many niche journalists who should know better get in a pickle over illegality and unlawfulness.

But ok, we all get it: these actions are too silly for words.

Boob number two, though - Golden Eye International don’t seem to be a law firm per se. They kind of position themselves as the A-team of the IP world, flying hither and thither jumping in with their size tens where there’s a sniff of IP infringement and often when there isn’t.

Actually, they’ve instructed Tilly Bailey & Irvine to act for them in this case.

Surely it was self-evident.  I know the credibility of the profession is in relative tatters out there, but really -  ‘Golden Eye Law’?  Don’t tell me – the list of senior partners includes Pussy Galore* and Auric Goldfinger?

* I assume that’s not PC any longer and we have to substitute her name with that of Alota Fagina.

Speeding motorist nabs police’s domain name

From Raw Justice.com 08/10/10:

Most of the time, if you get a speeding ticket you just grumble about it and pay the fine. It’s usually not a big deal for most people unless it happens a lot or they get caught going a ridiculous amount over the posted speed limit. You can fight it in court or just pay the ticket, and for most people those are the only options.

However, after receiving a $90 speeding ticket in Bluff City, Tennessee, Brian McCrary discovered a third option. The Bluff City Police Department had forgotten to renew their domain name, BluffCityPD.com, and let it expire. McCrary bought the domain name for $80 and posted his side of the story with information about speed traps in Bluff City and the $250,000 per month they cost the town’s 1,500 residents.

The police department had no idea their domain name had expired and that McCrary owned it until reporters started calling them to ask about it. Bluff City Police Chief David Nelson said they may approach McCrary about buying the domain back from him, but they are not optimistic.

Quite how the police department let their domain expire in the first place is beyond me. Even the most rudimentary domain name vendor offers to update you by email during the final few months of the term so you can renew.  Or, perhaps more obviously, why wasn’t it set to renew automatically?  

The US do have, of course, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act but McCrary’s actions fall well outside of its scope - unless I’ve missed something.  As it stands, it looks like what happened was due to sheer shrewdness on his part and the fortuitous timing of the domain expiring.

I bet they regret pulling him over now. 

Facebook sues Faceporn

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

SarkMark – The new symbol to express sarcasm

From the Guardian 15/01/10:

The SarcMark, as it has been named, is designed to be used in the same way as an exclamation or question mark.

Anyone concerned that the irony of their email or text message might not be appreciated by its recipient can use the symbol to close their sentence, thereby avoiding awkward misunderstandings.

The symbol – a dot inside a single spiral line – can be installed onto any PC running Windows 7, XP or Vista, as well as Macs and Blackberry mobile devices.

It can then be used in Word documents, instant messenger conversations, Outlook email and other programmes, just by pressing Ctrl and the full stop button.

The Michigan company behind the SarcMark have applied for a patent to protection their invention.

I absolutely love this idea but whether it takes off it another matter altogether. I guess people use the ‘tongue’ smily in this context at the moment but the idea of having a new character is a great one.  In principle, anyway.

Paul Sak of the firm said that the new punctuation mark was not a gimmick and had serious potential applications, such as allowing deaf people to pick up sarcasm in subtitles.

And that’s a great point; while smilies are great at helping to convey subtle meanings or expressions, they can seem a touch informal. That said, I’m still amazed at the increasingly widespread acceptance of using smilies in business emails.

But here’s the sticking point:

The symbol currently costs $1.99 to download – a price that many may think deserves a SarcMark of its own.

Lily Allen calls it a day (… fronting filesharing debate)

From The Guardian 24/09/09:

Just hours after saying she has no plans for a new album, Lily Allen has closed down her blog on music piracy, saying the "abuse" received had become too much to bear.

The singer posted messages on Twitter saying she was not going to attend an emergency meeting of music artists this evening to hammer out a unified position on illegal filesharing.

The star says: "Hello, there is a meeting today in London where artists are meeting to discuss Piracy. My job done.

"I wont [sic] be attending the meeting because it's going to be a press frenzy and I don't want to detract from the issues. I'm proud of the fact that I've been involved with this debate but I'm passing the baton on to other artists.

"And I've shut down the blog, the abuse was getting too much."

Allen had set up a blog "It's Not Alright" (in reference to her first album Alright, Still) collating the views of artists after her comments that "filesharing is a disaster" for new talent.

I’m fascinated to see what kind of deal can be thrashed out in the coming weeks. Inevitably, some form of compromise must be reached – to give consumers a fair deal, to preserve the sustainability of an important sector of the economy and protect and encourage the quality of creative energy out there.

Ultimately, though, record labels need to give more than take on this one, quite frankly, and for the creative industry to have half a chance at organically reducing copyright infringement and stop alienating music lovers the world over, the idea and extent of royalties is in dire need of being reconceptualised. The premise of gluttonous middlemen milking their cash cows for all they’re worth at the consumer’s expense is anachronistic and should be treated as such.

Sadly, I’m not at all confident much is going to change, not least by the close of play at tonight’s meeting. And what change does occur, I can’t imagine will involve much in the way of capitulation and compromise on the part of record labels; I’m having terrifying visions that Mandelson’s fatally-flawed 3-strike policy might actually come to pass.

Finally, as an aside, well done to Lily for snubbing wordpress, squarespace, typepad and all the other ‘pro’ solutions by going with blogger to host her now defunct blog!

Copyright Infringement Part of Advertising?

From Tech Dirt 14/09/09:

Famed rapper 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) was apparently on CNBC recently talking about his "business acumen." I have to admit that having three different people all trying to interview him at once is rather annoying -- as they almost never let him complete a thought. However, when they ask him about piracy, and whether or not it makes him angry (around 2 minutes), he responds that: he sees it as a part of the marketing of a musician, because "the people who didn't purchase the material, they end up at the concert." He says that people can fall in love with the music either way, and then they'll go to concerts. He notes that you can't stop piracy either way, so why try to fight it?

The idea that low grade quality material – be that music, film or other content – on the net can actually fuel consumption for the genuine article is far from new. It’s also a theory to which I wholeheartedly subscribe and have witnessed certain behavioural trends which bear it out many times.

I’ve always argued that such problems must be dealt with at the source; punishing those who would never have bought the content in the first place makes little sense.

More liberal concepts of copyright and methods of rights management are growing in popularity and many of the proponents are content producers themselves. For instance, Leo Laporte of TWiT fame often draws an analogy between content producers making material available online and street-side fruit sellers in New York. His theory, of course, is that while a small minority of ‘theft’ occurs, this pales in significance to the greater volume of sales gained by virtue of the optimised location with greater public access and a certain extent of ‘sampling’ of goods.

The Wings of Copyright in the Internet Age

Here’s a great quote on copyright in the internet age courtesy of photographer Thomas Hawk:

“When I make an image it belongs to me. It belongs to me while I take the photo. It belongs to me while it sits in my camera. It belongs to me while I process it on my Mac. It belongs to me while I let it sit in an archive folder waiting to be uploaded to the internet.

Then I upload it to the internet and it’s like I’m taking a bird and opening my window and letting it go. Off she goes. Her song to be enjoyed by the entire world — certainly no longer mine.”

“The missing detail in YouTube's media blitz”

(or short-sighted, sensationalist bias)

From Helienne Lindvall over at The Guardian’s Digital Content Blog:

YouTube, by pulling music videos off its site in the UK, is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, punishing innocent songwriters in the process. (Oh right, baddy number 1 then).

Google, the site's owner, accuse the Performing Rights Society of being greedy in negotiations, but what they conveniently fail to mention is the pittance that they pay for the professional content on YouTube. (That’s baddy number 2 identified).

The PRS is not a big corporate giant like Google – it doesn't have shareholders that need to see a profit - it's simply a society set up to collect royalties on behalf of songwriters for the use of their compositions and to represent them in negotiations. (Ah, bless them).

In the agreement Google made with the PRS in 2007, they tied the collection society to a confidentiality agreement [what a cheek!!] which means that they're not even allowed to tell their own members the details of the deal. But, as a songwriter myself, I can tell you that most songwriters haven't seen any income from YouTube at all, since a music video has to be viewed hundreds of thousands of time, to take it over the required threshold where you even get a payment.

Some argue ... that music videos are promotion, so songwriters shouldn't get paid at all. But it's becoming apparent that streaming - instead of owning - is how more and more music fans choose to enjoy their music, as they don't want or need to clog up their hard drives with huge catalogues of songs.
(Simple solution then: have the music industry stop making promotional videos, if that’s your argument Helienne. While you’re at it, why not go and dust your busking bowl off if you’re feeling that hard-done-by).

uTorrent usage up - Limewire down

From Torrent Freak 26/04/08:

New data on the ever changing P2P landscape shows that the number of uTorrent users worldwide has more than doubled compared to last year. The BitTorrent client is most popular in Europe - with an install rate of 11.6% - and least popular in the United States, where 5.1% of the PCs have uTorrent installed.

From December 2006 to December 2007 LimeWire lost approximately 25% of its user base. By the end of 2007, 17% of all PCs in the United States had LimeWire installed, compared to 23.3% last year. Similar drops occurred in Europe, Latin America, and the rest of the world.

File sharing has been in the news a lot recently what with the growing concerns over net neutrality, packet shaping practices by ISPs and the ever-present issues of piracy.  I don't consider myself to be a massive P2P user and am very picky - I prefer to think of it as discerning - over what clients I use.  For instance, I've always kept Limewire at arms length for a variety of reasons and probably always will.  I've known others who have been badly 'bitten' in using it and after their experiences, have always steered clear.  That said, I also know of people who love it and have used it for years without a single problem.  Still, for me, the memories of Limewire being a hotbed for spyware and worse run pretty deep and have always refused to give in and install it on one of my own machines. 

I do, though, use uTorrent on occasions and found it good, on the whole.  I have used others in the past, but uTorrent is the only one I return to.  I should point out here that I don't download files illegally but merely enjoy the convenience of a P2P client for downloading certain types of content. I find it surprising, sometimes, the number and and particularly the types of people that install and use peer-to-peer file sharing clients.  I also remember reading a couple of articles  about 3 years ago that predicted such clients would be dead in - you guessed it - 3 or so years time.  How wrong they were; while the file sharing landscape is a complex one that's always in a state of flux, one thing it certainly isn't is dead.