“It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.”
- Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1882)
True to its form, it comes up with a physical product – the Ringle. Basically, it’s a cd with one hit single plus a ringtone version, plus two extra songs (presumably too weak to merit their own Ringle). – all for $6.98. (Note that the iTunes usually sells songs/ringtunes for under $2).
It’s an idea so monumentally stupid, and symptomatic of the recording industry’s refusal to move on from a dead-end format (the cd, which at least justifies their price structure).
But then again, if this doesn’t work, they can always resort to suing the fans. Things might be a bit difficult for them, though. A federal appeals court ruled that RIAA’s “insta-lawsuit” strategy – churning out thousands of unspecific, boilerplate “John Doe “complaints, is illegal. Now isn’t it sweet that they’d have to make a specific case just for you?
The creators of South Park entered into a deal with Viacom that will put original Southpark content into the Internet. Something they should have figured out eons ago.
Bootleg versions of Southpark, mashups and spoofs (see below) have long been available online, and it’s ironic that the show’s creators are playing catchup to the viral video phenomenon.
An interesting feature of the deal, rare in the entertainment industry, is that the creators get a share of the revenue (instead of a salary) and retain ownership of their work. In traditional deals, entertainment execs can justify getting a lions share plus copyrights because of the capital requirements of distribution in a mass-media setting. With digital distribution, that logic begins to disappear.
David Lynch (great director I admire, and who doesn’t) said in a recent interview with MTV that he’s quit using film (you know, those celluloid strips used by ancient cameras) and is going digital from now on:
MTV: You shot “Inland Empire” using digital technology. Will you ever go back to film?
Lynch: Never. Digital is so friendly for me and so important for the scenes, a way of working without so much downtime. It’s impossible to go back. Film is a beautiful medium, but the world has moved on. The amount of manipulation we can do, anybody can do, is so much the future. Film is so big and heavy and slow, you just die. It’s just ridiculous.
Anti-”piracy” rhetoric carry some moral currency when you consider how bloated and expensive film and its related technologies are. Traditional film outfits invest a lot of money, and as a matter of policy, the law should protect their expectation of a reasonable return. But digital technology (lighter, cheaper, more accessible) changes the calculus. When it costs so much less to produce movies, does it still make sense legally protecting old business models?
After upgrading my linux partition, I go ahead with installing Firefox 1.5 (go get it) and Open Office 2.0. I’m proud to report that 95% of my workflow runs on free and open source software
Lego’s Canadian patent on its blocks has expired, and competitors like Mega Blocks *should* have had the right to create “compatible” bricks. That’s the way the Intellectual Property System works (or at least the utilitarian flavor we subscribe to): you’re given a chance to exclusive rights (essentially, a legal monopoly) over your work, but after a while it should belongs to everyone. Ideas aren’t like physical objects – distribution does not translate to lower density, and value is not derived from “fencing off”. If I get your poem you do not have one poem less. The theory our law is based on is not a “natural right” to ideas, but an economic hypothesis – to reward creativity, and to induce the development of arts and science.
That’s why it’s reprehensible when Lego tried to short circuit that balance by “extending” its expired patent by resorting to trademark protection. Lego’s theory seems to imply that consumers are so stupid we can’t tell Lego branded blocks from lower-priced Megablocks. Good thing the Canadian judges would have none of that.
Entries (RSS)