Tech Scoop - Hot Technology Gossip

Earlier this summer, a musician named Indiana Gregg made the mistake of demanding The Pirate Bay stop allowing people to find her music. The Pirate Bay responds publicly to such letters and doesn't take down the torrent links, so it tends to not do anything good to send such a letter. Gregg made things worse by arguing with the folks at The Pirate Bay, showing little command for the subject matter. Later, she wrote a long, rambling post for TorrentFreak warning people that "the police were coming" to the "wild west" of the internet, and basically dismissing out of hand any new business model that turns any kind of "piracy" into an advantage, claiming that its the users, not the musicians, who need to change how they deal with music.

You can certainly understand where she's coming from, as a musician who's traditional business model is under threat. However, contrary to the opinion of some, it's the consumers who eventually determine how a market works -- and treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire in a big way -- especially when other artists are figuring out ways to create business models that work without treating fans as criminals.

The good news is that Gregg seems to be willing to try out new ideas. Her and her producer (who's also her husband) are apparently planning to launch an ad supported music site that will allow musicians to upload their music and receive a cut of any advertising revenue associated with each stream or download. The details aren't entirely clear, but I don't think this plan is going to work all that well. While it is good that she's trying out new models that end up being free to the end user, ad-supported revenue models are going to be tough -- and it seems a bit extreme to claim, as Gregg has, that this is a way to "beat piracy."

Ad-supported websites are already having enough trouble making enough money to survive online, so Gregg's going to quickly discover that the ad money won't flow as quickly as she expects. Is she going to claim that the police are coming after the folks using ad-blockers as well? Also, given the convenience of other sites where music is available, expecting them to go to a different site to get their music may not be very convincing. The problem with an ad-supported music site is that it doesn't add any value to the end user. Trent Reznor's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Jill Sobule's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Gregg's solution doesn't add more value to the end user, and for that reason is going to have a difficult time succeeding, let alone "beating" piracy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this summer, a musician named Indiana Gregg made the mistake of demanding The Pirate Bay stop allowing people to find her music. The Pirate Bay responds publicly to such letters and doesn't take down the torrent links, so it tends to not do anything good to send such a letter. Gregg made things worse by arguing with the folks at The Pirate Bay, showing little command for the subject matter. Later, she wrote a long, rambling post for TorrentFreak warning people that "the police were coming" to the "wild west" of the internet, and basically dismissing out of hand any new business model that turns any kind of "piracy" into an advantage, claiming that its the users, not the musicians, who need to change how they deal with music.

You can certainly understand where she's coming from, as a musician who's traditional business model is under threat. However, contrary to the opinion of some, it's the consumers who eventually determine how a market works -- and treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire in a big way -- especially when other artists are figuring out ways to create business models that work without treating fans as criminals.

The good news is that Gregg seems to be willing to try out new ideas. Her and her producer (who's also her husband) are apparently planning to launch an ad supported music site that will allow musicians to upload their music and receive a cut of any advertising revenue associated with each stream or download. The details aren't entirely clear, but I don't think this plan is going to work all that well. While it is good that she's trying out new models that end up being free to the end user, ad-supported revenue models are going to be tough -- and it seems a bit extreme to claim, as Gregg has, that this is a way to "beat piracy."

Ad-supported websites are already having enough trouble making enough money to survive online, so Gregg's going to quickly discover that the ad money won't flow as quickly as she expects. Is she going to claim that the police are coming after the folks using ad-blockers as well? Also, given the convenience of other sites where music is available, expecting them to go to a different site to get their music may not be very convincing. The problem with an ad-supported music site is that it doesn't add any value to the end user. Trent Reznor's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Jill Sobule's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Gregg's solution doesn't add more value to the end user, and for that reason is going to have a difficult time succeeding, let alone "beating" piracy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NBC apparently got about 72 million video streams during this Olympics season, and is touting this as a great success. It's true that this is a lot more than any previous Olympics, but I don't think NBC has anything to crow about. Remember, this is the most famous sporting event in the world, and it got non-stop media coverage for close to a month. Yet in a country with 300 million people, they only got a total of 72 million streams? That's less than one stream for every 4 Americans. And as Ben Worthen points out, YouTube streamed 4.2 billion videos—60 times as many—in the month of May. So people are clearly watching a lot of videos. Most of them just aren't NBC's Olympics videos.

Amazingly, NBC is "using the Olympics to assert that TV is the preferred medium of consumers," with 93 percent of all viewing. I think this says less about consumers than about NBC's own marketing decisions. The problem is that despite its protests to the contrary, NBC wasn't serious about web-based coverage of the Olympics. They held back the most popular coverage for television audiences, forcing online viewers to wait until later (sometimes much later due to a desire for tape delays) to watch the stuff they were really interested in. It looks like they also forced anyone who wanted to watch the video to download and install Microsoft's Silverlight plugin. And of course they've gone out of their way to make embedding impossible, cutting off one of the most popular ways of expanding the reach of content. Not surprisingly, when NBC makes the Internet a second-class medium for Olympics coverage, most people watch TV instead.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apparently, the head of the British Cartographic Society is no fan of Google Maps. She's complaining that Google Maps doesn't include the additional geographic information that makes maps so great, claiming:

"We're in real danger of losing what makes maps so unique, giving us a feel for a place even if we've never been there."

Except, that's not quite true. After all, Google Maps allows all sorts of overlays and additional info. With Google Maps you can also get the satellite view, which is likely to give you a much greater feel for a place than a map. And, of course, many areas have the "Street View" feature as well -- again, providing a much greater feel for a place you've never been. As for certain landmarks and such not being added to Google Maps, more seem to be added every day, and with Google letting people add their own information to maps as well, it's only going to get better and better.

If anything, it seems like this guy is complaining not because Google Maps isn't useful, but because she's afraid that the need for traditional cartographers may not be as strong (which I doubt will actually be the case). Besides, if she's so worried that certain information isn't included on Google Maps, why not create a mashup overlaying all the info she feels has been left out -- because that's rather easy to do with Google Maps.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apparently, the head of the British Cartographic Society is no fan of Google Maps. She's complaining that Google Maps doesn't include the additional geographic information that makes maps so great, claiming:

"We're in real danger of losing what makes maps so unique, giving us a feel for a place even if we've never been there."

Except, that's not quite true. After all, Google Maps allows all sorts of overlays and additional info. With Google Maps you can also get the satellite view, which is likely to give you a much greater feel for a place than a map. And, of course, many areas have the "Street View" feature as well -- again, providing a much greater feel for a place you've never been. As for certain landmarks and such not being added to Google Maps, more seem to be added every day, and with Google letting people add their own information to maps as well, it's only going to get better and better.

If anything, it seems like this guy is complaining not because Google Maps isn't useful, but because she's afraid that the need for traditional cartographers may not be as strong (which I doubt will actually be the case). Besides, if she's so worried that certain information isn't included on Google Maps, why not create a mashup overlaying all the info she feels has been left out -- because that's rather easy to do with Google Maps.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

My soon-to-be colleague David Robinson has a great post about the recent dancing toddler copyright story, in which he tries to puzzle out the DMCA's implications for automated takedown programs. The DMCA provides copyright holders with a remedy for online materials they believe to be infringing: they may send a notice to a relevant ISP demanding that the materials be removed. ISPs have a strong incentive to comply with such requests, because doing so gives them immunity from liability for the copyright-infringing activities of their customers. Hollywood has used this process aggressively, sending thousands of takedown notices to companies like YouTube. To prevent abuse of the takedown power, the DMCA also provides that anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents" the copyright status of a work is liable to the target for damages and attorney's fees.

One interesting question is whether the DMCA allows fully automated takedown requests, or whether the law requires that a human being review each takedown notice before it is sent. The law requires copyright holders to state that "the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." The key phrase here is "good faith belief." In order to state that one has a good-faith belief, one presumably has to form a good-faith belief in the first place. And obviously, an automated script is incapable of forming a good-faith belief about anything, so any takedown sent by an automated script would be a lie.

David suggests that copyright holders could form "good faith beliefs" in a statistical sense—that if their script were accurate enough, they could form a "good faith belief" that the vast majority of materials identified by the script was infringing, even if they hadn't identified each one individually. But I don't think this line of reasoning works. As EFF's Fred Von Lohmann notes in the comments, the liability provision isn't an aggregate inquiry. It asks, for each takedown, whether the copyright holder had misrepresented the copyright status of the work in question. If a copyright holder sends an erroneous takedown notice, it is of no comfort to the recipient—and of no relevance to the law—that the copyright holder also sent a number of valid takedown notices the same day. For each mistaken takedown notice, the question the courts must ask is whether the misrepresentation was "knowing" and "material."

One plausible interpretation of this language would be that since no human being reviewed the takedown notice, the mistake couldn't have been "knowing," and therefore the sender of an automated takedown could never be liable. This, however, would make a mockery of the purpose of the statute, which was to deter reckless or malicious use of the takedown power. If failing to examine material at all before issuing a takedown were sufficient to confer immunity, that would totally undermine the purpose of the statute. For this reason, I think the test put forward by EFF in the dancing toddler case—whether a copyright holder exercising reasonable care should have known the material was not infringing—makes more sense. And on this reading, companies would likely be free to issue automated takedowns, but they would be liable for any takedowns that were clearly erroneous. As Fred points out, this gets the incentives right, because it gives Hollywood a strong incentive to use automated takedown scripts judiciously.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this year, we wrote about Verizon suing Time Warner Cable over a misleading advertisement, where Time Warner Cable claims that Verizon is "catching up" to Time Warner Cable in offering fiber optics. This is misleading, at best. Verizon is installing fiber to the home with its FiOS service, providing significantly faster connections. What Time Warner Cable is claiming is that it uses fiber in its network, not to the home. It's true that TWC and plenty of other broadband providers have used hybrid fiber solutions at the network level for many years, but that's totally different than connecting all the way to the home with a fiber optic connection.

Now it turns out that TWC is hardly the only broadband provider doing this. Apparently lots of broadband providers are now running ads against Verizon where they claim that they've offered fiber for longer than Verizon. That's totally misleading. Having fiber somewhere in the network is not at all an equal comparison to running fiber all the way to the home. As Broadband Reports asks, it's difficult to see how these claims from others isn't false advertising. They're clearly implying that their fiber is the same thing as FiOS when that's not true at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We were pretty surprised a few weeks back when the European Commission endorsed a plan for copyright extension, despite ample evidence that retroactive copyright extension is a bad idea. Soon after that announcement, a group of European academics sent a letter warning that such extension would harm innovation. The academics keep piling on, as Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, the director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) has sent an open letter to the Commission blasting them for ignoring all of the research showing that copyright extension is bad. Specifically, Hugenholtz is amazed that the Commission relied only on reports prepared by industry, and willfully ignored research prepared by independent academics, such as his own group, claiming that by ignoring such studies, the Commission has a clear intention to mislead the rest of the EU by hiding the research that shows why copyright extension is a bad idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the years, I've written plenty about the economics of infinite vs. scarce goods. Too often (and I do this on occasion as well) people default into thinking of "tangible" goods as being the scarce ones, and digital goods or information goods as being the infinite ones. But the definitions can certainly expand beyond that -- and there's also the possibility that material, tangible goods could one day lose much of their scarcity. Economist Arnold Kling, riffing on a post by Will Wilkinson about why energy isn't really scarce points out that, if energy isn't scarce, matter isn't scarce either.

In theory, as you solve "the energy problem" and figure out how to create energy cheaply, then you can make any material you want as it's needed cheaply as well. Then you're in a bit of the Star Trek replicator universe where even tangible products become much more abundant. We're still a ways off from that point, but it's worth thinking about as a thought experiment (especially as 3D printer technology improves rapidly). Indeed, Chris Anderson is also thinking along these lines, noting that technology is likely to solve both of the big "shortage" problems we're facing these days: energy and food -- if only government regulations would let them.

For those who think that copyright holders should try to artificially maintain scarcity, this may be a scary situation. After all, then the same "problem" facing copyright holders, will also face makers of tangible goods. But the truth is even if you switch tangible goods from scarce to abundant, it doesn't mean that you run out of scarcities to sell. Music is more abundant thanks to digital technologies, and there are still plenty of scarcities to sell for the music industry. There are always scarcities -- it's just that they're no longer tangible goods. Instead, business models will start to revolve around those non-tangible scarcities as well, such as time, attention and reputation. But these changes could create a rather radical shift in how economies function. So, even if it's pretty far out, it's worth considering the possibilities already.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've seen a few such cases in the past -- and they usually end with a judge telling the suing company to shove off, but here we have yet another company upset that its being labeled as an adware/spyware provider. In this case, it's a company called 7Search, which is suing McAfee. 7Search is claiming that McAfee's warning about "downloads" from its site having been "credibly" called adware or spyware are false and defamatory because 7Search no longer offers software for download off its site (though it apparently did in the past).

As Eric Goldman notes in the link above, just bringing these types of lawsuits tends to backfire. As we noted above, they rarely, if ever, win, and simply filing the lawsuit draws much more attention to the company -- often including reports from users about why they do think the software in question is adware or spyware. In the meantime, if 7Search no longer offers downloads, then it's not clear what it's upset about either, since it's not like the McAfee warning is going to stop people from downloading its software -- since, apparently, there's no software to download.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story