Category: General

Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive http://bit.ly/d7YjrG Fashion industry also benefits from NO copyright.

Simply put, if the arguments of those in the entertainment industries were true, then there would be no innovation in restaurants or fashion because of the lack of copyright. (You can’t copyright a garment design or a food dish.) These industries thrive because of the lack of copyright.

When there is strong copyright protection – as the RIAA and MPAA have fought for over the years – the creators tend to sit on their hands and collect royalties (or those who actually own the copyright, rarely the actual creator) rather than go out and create more. The original intent of Copyright – grudgingly included in the US Constitution by the Founder – was to promote the creation of new works, by providing a limited time of exclusive rights before all creative works would fall into the Public Domain.

BTW, there’s actually a reasonable argument that since the US Constitution specifically:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Music, film and Television are not “Science” and “useful Arts” is correctly interpreted as those that make things –  like Carpentry. Note that our favorite “big copyright” claimers may not even have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

Anyhow, the article on how and why food and fashion thrive outside of copyright, is well worth the read.

Reader Ephraim points us to a recent post at the Freakonomics blog that highlights how the restaurant business absolutely thrives creatively, despite a lack of copyright protection. The main example: the rise of Korean taco trucks in LA. As you may or may not know (and trust me, you’re better off if you are familiar with this trend), a few years back, some enterprising folks set up a Korean taco truck in LA called Kogi. It quickly became a huge sensation, in part because the food is awesome and in part through smart marketing, including being one of the first food establishments to actively embrace Twitter. 

But what happened next is quite interesting. Throughout LA (and now around the country) there’s been an explosion of Korean taco trucks. And, it’s not just limited to trucks. As the article notes, the large chain Baja Fresh is now offering Korean tacos as well. Believers in strong copyright have trouble explaining why this happens. According to them, without copyright as an “incentive to create” people won’t innovate because they can’t be rewarded, but that’s not what’s happening at all:

RIAA paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 in 2008 to recover only $391,000!!! http://bit.ly/9jR8D8

Rather than actually work on a new business model to replace the one that served the labels well when distribution was by physical (and therefore limited/scarce) goods, but instead of facing the inevitable the RIAA has tried to sue its fans out of existence and lobby for changes to Copyright Legislation to support a business model that has been obsoleted by a market and technology that’s simply moved on.

It’s worth noting that, while the recorded-music-on-physical-media business (the only one the Record Labels are in) is dying, the overall music business has never had it better. Ditto the movie business. More music and movies being made than ever; more people making decent livings off their music or movie making than ever.

But one business model – like the buggy whip, lamplighter, Linotype operator, et. al – is becoming superceded. Unless they adapt dinosaurs like the RIAA and MPAA members will dies. And it cant’ be soon enough for my taste.

The RIAA paid Holmes Roberts & Owen $9,364,901 in 2008, Jenner & Block more than $7,000,000, and Cravath Swain & Moore $1.25 million, to pursue its “copyright infringement” claims, in order to recover a mere $391,000. [ps there were many other law firms feeding at the trough too; these were just the ones listed among the top 5 independent contractors.]

Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales http://bit.ly/cZJZjj

If any other organization – other than the MPAA’s studios – pulled off this type of scam, they’d be shut down and the heads of the company would go to jail. Why aren’t the RIAA and MPAA dead yet? Borderline criminal organizations both.

Read the whole thing – it’s long and complex but if you have any doubt about the immoral intent of these organizations, read it.

Why on earth would anyone want a recording contract in this day and age. Money actually gets made by bands that sack their Record company and go it alone, or who have never had a recording contract to rob them blind.

 

Sony adds to Samsung’s warning about watching 3D TV. http://bit.ly/cMpV58

Funny that Sony should add it’s warning to that of Samsung a while back – More Good News for 3D? back in mid April. Now ArsTechnica reports that both Nintendo and Sony are placing warnings:

“Some people may experience discomfort (such as eye strain, eye fatigue or nausea) while watching 3D video images or playing stereoscopic 3D games on 3D televisions,” the 3D section of the PlayStation 3 Terms of Service reads. “If you experience such discomfort, you should immediately discontinue use of your television until the discomfort subsides.” The other paragraphs consist of standard warnings: if your eyes hurt, stop playing until they stop hurting. Ask your doctor about younger children using 3D devices.

Reggie Fils-Aime, the President and COO of Nintendo of America, issued a similar warning when talking to Kotaku. “We will recommend that very young children not look at 3D images,” he said. “That’s because, [in] young children, the muscles for the eyes are not fully formed… This is the same messaging that the industry is putting out with 3D movies, so it is a standard protocol. We have the same type of messaging for the Virtual Boy, as an example.”

NYC court tosses FCC’s fleeting expletives policy http://bit.ly/9idM78

It’s always been unreasonable to hold the broadcaster responsible for the actions that happen on air that they have no control over – other than never really doing anything live, which kind of kills the last real opportunity for broadcasters.

An essential decision for the future of broadcasting live TV.

FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard had no immediate comment.

“The score for today’s game is First Amendment one, censorship zero,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, policy director of Media Access Project, which joined the case on behalf of musicians, producers, writers and directors.

Carter Phillips, a Washington lawyer who argued the case for Fox Television Stations Inc., called the decision satisfying. He said the court had “sent the FCC back to square one to start over” by not only tossing the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy but also a broader indecency policy as unconstitutionally vague.

 

. http://bit.ly/d8OhWF

The ACTA treaty being negotiated in secret will force countries that sign it to institute even stricter  copyright provisions, criminalizing what are civil disputes. There is no oversight, and the only meeting that get take are with heads of the five major copyright owners.

What’s ironic here is the the World Intellectual Property Organization is complaining because they should be the body where these types of international agreements are thrashed out. WIPO tried to put in place some very draconian, anti-competitive provisions that were beaten down by countries other than the USA and dropped the worst provisions.

This didn’t fit with the demands of “big copyright” to protect their dying business models so the even more onerous ACTA process came into being.

I’d argue that he’s being a bit too hard on himself. It’s not that the WIPO process doesn’t work (though, I do have some problems with the WIPO process as well), but that the copyright holders were upset that they no longer had near unilateral control over the process. It wasn’t that they felt WIPOcouldn’t address the issues, but that it would be much harder to get them addressed in the way industry folks wanted.

All this despite the fact that the US Congressional Budget Office has stated that weak copyright is better for society.

Why Can’t I Pay You? http://bit.ly/9pLIwl

This hits right to the heart of my complaint. I want an on-demand, ad-free service where net revenue to the copyright owner is the same as if it went to broadcast or cable. I want to pay a fair price for the service I want to buy.

Why won’t anyone take my money? Anyway, here’s Palmer’s gripe:

Who gets paid and how is always the number one question in the meetings I attend. With the advent and explosive growth of identifiable broadband devices, it’s really time to work on some systems that will allow us seriously reduce casual piracy. No one wants to be a criminal and most people who can afford smart phones and broadband plans are willing to pay fairly for what they consume … we just need to give them a way

Wow, shrewd of Apple… free 3-day summer moviemaking camp for 8-12 year olds. Get ’em hooked for life… http://bit.ly/14QCIc

Found by David Pogue and tweeted. This is a shrewd move on Apple’s part because if they can get everyone working with their visual storytelling tools when they’re young, they’ll have them for life.