Intellectual Property


6
Apr 11

Grooveshark Pulled from Android Marketplace

Grooveshark is gone from the Android Market. The popular music streaming service was removed from the Market yesterday because it violates Google’s terms of service. The exact terms were not revealed, but CNET notes that Grooveshark’s ongoing dispute with record companies over music streaming – and Google lawyer Kent Walker testifying before the U.S. House Judiciary committee on copyright violations – may have had something to do with Grooveshark’s removal.

via Androinica » Grooveshark gets ganked from Google Android Market. Should Amazon Cloud be nervous?.

So here’s my question: Does this even matter? Since the Android Marketplace is not the only place you can get apps for an Android device, this may make little or no difference in the long term. In fact, from my experience so far, the Amazon App Store is a superior experience to the Google Android Marketplace.  Obviously Amazon can sell / give away their cloud player app through their own marketplace, right?

Either way, what happens to Grooveshark is of little bother to me. They’ve been notorious for breaking copyright – as I explained in my book, Starving the Artist.


3
Apr 11

Music Industry to Force Licenses for Amazon’s Cloud Music?

As anyone who knows me can attest, I am a huge proponent of intellectual property rights. This, however, gives me some pause.

It appears that the major music labels are upset with Amazon for not securing licenses for their cloud music player system. I honestly don’t really understand what the issue is here – it’s really no different from having a portable hard drive you take with you everywhere you go, is it?

Amazon argues that Cloud Drive and Cloud Player are just services that let users upload and play back their own music, just like “any number of existing media management applications.” After all, licenses shouldn’t be necessary for users to play their own music, right? The labels seem to disagree — they expressed shock following Amazon’s announcement, with a Sony Music representative implying that the company was looking into legal options.

via Music Industry Will Force Licenses on Amazon Cloud Player — or Else | Epicenter | Wired.com.

And by the way, if you’re looking for a cheaper solution that so far isn’t under any scrutiny I’m aware of, check out Winamp Orb. Basically it allows you to make your music collection on your home computer available for you to access anywhere. I’m assuming it is a bit more complicated for casual users than Amazon’s cloud is though.


29
Mar 11

Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble over the Nook’s use of the Android OS

Microsoft Corp. has sued Barnes & Noble Inc., as well as the manufacturers of the bookseller’s Nook electronic book reader, for patent infringement related to the device’s use of Google Inc.’s Android operating system.

via Legal/Regulatory – Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble over the Nook’s use of the Android operating system – Internet Retailer.


17
Mar 11

White House Calls For Stricter Copyright Laws, Greater Enforcement Authority – Tech Daily Dose

Looks like the White House is definitely looking to protect the value of our intellectual property. Makes sense, since it’s one of our most valuable exports.

Of specific note:

Espinel urged Congress to make illegally streaming copyrighted content online a felony offense in some instances.

Online piracy and counterfeiting, her report notes, are “significant concerns” for the White House. Such infringement causes “economic harm and threaten the health and safety of American consumers,” Espine report reads.

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/03/white-house-calls-for-stricter.php


30
Jun 10

Interview at The Copyright Alliance about ‘Starving the Artist’

Recently I was contacted by The Copyright Alliance to answer a few interview questions about my latest book, Starving the Artist.  Part One of the Interview is now available, and Part Two is coming tomorrow can be read here..

For those of you unfamiliar with The Copyright Alliance, they are a “a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth.” They’re also the recent recipient of the Arnold Broido Award for Copyright Advocacy.

All-in-all, they’re a fantastic organization (in my opinion), and one that any creator or individual who cares about copyright or artists’ rights should be aware of and follow. You can learn more about them here.


1
Jun 10

J.A. Konrath Is Not “Embracing Piracy” With His Free eBook Experiment

So this past Sunday, independent author, J.A. Konrath decided to run an experiment.  In order to prove his theory that piracy doesn’t hurt sales he’s encouraging people to steal one of his books for the next month.  Yes, that’s right – he wants people to freely trade, post, share, and distribute his eBook, Jack Daniels Stories for the next thirty days.  The way the experiment is set to work (note this is my simplified explanation) is that he will keep track of the current sales and ranking of the book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. and see how free trading of his books affects their sales.

To help spur this trading/sharing, he’s offering a zip file containing multiple formats of the e-book on his site. He’s also encouraging those who download the file to upload it to all the file sharing sites they use and distribute it in any way possible (or, if they prefer, not distribute it at all).  Basically he’s giving permission for people to steal his book so he can see if it really hurts sales.

The problem with this experiment however, is that it’s really nothing more than a marketing tactic. By giving permission for people to share this book he’s not, in any way. embracing piracy, but rather he’s embracing alternative distribution channels.  Copyright law grants the copyright holder or administrator the right to determine the price and distribution allowed for any work owned/administered, so obviously if he’s telling people to trade the file and download it without payment, that’s his right to do as the copyright holder. All he’s done is lowered the price of this book to zero for the duration of his experiment.  (If this non-price will continue to be enforced once the thirty days are up, and if so, whether he decides to do anything about it are unknown.) Continue reading →


26
May 10

The Erosion of Price Due to the Pervasiveness of “Free”

When it comes to any product, there are costs involved in its creation.  For things such as cars or waffles or underpants, part of that cost is purely in raw materials.  Each of these items is a physical good, requiring actual matter to create.  The same is the case for items like DVDs, books, CDs and videogames. The difference in these verus the formerly mentioned physical goods, however, is that the vast majority of their primary value (the reason that someone actually wants them) can be replicated digitally, without raw materials other than those that are typically already possessed by people, such as free space on a hard drive. Their primary value is information, and as such it can be broken down into simple bits and bytes and easily distributed for minimal cost.

The other portion of the cost that both of these types of items have is the cost of actual manpower to create.  There’s someone designing the underpants, just like there’s someone writing and performing the music. This even includes if a waffle was made by some sort of automatic waffle maker – that automatic waffle maker was created by manpower (or the robots that created it were created by people who programmed the robots). Or, if the music is completely computer-generated, someone created the computer program that allowed the music to be created. If a person’s time or talent has value, then creation has a cost.

The point I’m trying to make here is that everything has some sort of cost involved in creating it. Nothing is free to create.

With this cost come questions for creators. Do I pass any of that cost on to the consumer? What is my purpose for creating?  What is the price of my creation?

If any of the reason for the creator is monetary, then there must be some price to be paid by someone for some aspect (no matter how vaguely connected) to your creation.  If it’s not monetary, then what did you create it for?  Was it simply to better the human race?  Perhaps it was to strengthen the acceptance of a cause you feel strongly about. In both of those cases you’re at least charging the cost of a person’s time to consume your creation. There are plenty of creations out there that fall into all of these camps, and a lot more.  As such, there’s a lot of competition out there.

The easiest way to compete in business is by offering a lower price. If you are okay with assuming your time, knowledge, talent and effort are worth nothing monetarily, then it’s easy to offer your content for free.  With millions of people creating content today, a percentage of them are willing to offer their creations for free, and that percentage of a lot of people turns out to still be a lot of people. So what we have is a lot of content for free, competing with some content with a price. How does one compete with free? Continue reading →