Can You Name An Example Where Suing For Copyright Infringement Made Business Sense?
from the thinking...-thinking... dept
Responding, in part, to our analysis of how Hasbro's handling of the Scrabulous situation was about as poor a business decision as it could make, Information Week's Mitch Wagner asks a very good question: Can you name a company that has aggressively fought so-called "piracy" of its products and found that to be a successful business strategy? As he notes, there are plenty of examples of the opposite -- companies that have learned to embrace such "piracy" and build business models around dealing with it. In fact, Matt Mason has a whole book of examples of that.
But is there a single company that aggressively sued for copyright infringement, and found that strategy to make good business sense?
It hasn't worked with the recording industry -- which is seeing more and more unauthorized file sharing every day, as its own sales decrease (and, it would seem, its legal bills increase). So, let's help Mitch out. Can anyone think of a company where this strategy was actually net positive for the business?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Definitely not today in the Information Age where information and ideas get copied, derived, distributed so easily, that by the time the copyright holder tries to sue and win, people either have moved on to the next big thing, or people have already developed a negative attitude and perception towards the copyright holder, and that's even more damaging.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
may be an example?
I am not sure if this is a good example, but Adidas got a few millions a while ago for 3 stripes. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/07/adidas-v-payless-100-million-for-every-stripe-payless-could-pay- more/
Copyright helped quite a lot IBM during the 60s and 70s. After all everything in/out/around the computer was IBM, not a change for a competitor to come in.
Apple suing a company, that sold PCs with Mac OS preinstalled.
Basicly an example might come only from a competition between two companies. In the case of RIAA - it is suing it's customers, a bad example of a business model!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Apple Corp vs Apple Computer/Inc
Trademark infringement cases, not copyright, but Apple Corp has done all right before, during and after all the legal squabbles with keeping Steve Jobs in check. The Beatles Empire rocketh forward mightily with or without iTunes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I heard there were a few companies out in Silicon Valley's branded communities that made excellent business decisions in doing so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here is an example.
Nothwithstanding the Scrabulous situation which was probably a bad move given the relatively easy work arounds and easy access to a market in many industrial situations it makes perfect sense to sue for copyright infringement.
I recall a case where industrial machinery was being manufactured in China and imported back to Australia and sold to mining company's undercutting the local manufacturer. The Australian company was able to prove the design was theirs (various design features that required significant research to perfect) and conversely the importer was not able to demonstrate any design processes.
(so the design appeared to be just be a copy of the original with minor variations).
Anyway the importer was stopped on the basis of copyright infringement in that they had been built to the same specifications or plan. Architects designs are similarly copywright protected as well and they usually are keen to pursue people who copy them - albeit its a grey area to prove at times.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The prisoner dilemma
To me, suing for copyright infringement is akin to the prisoner dilemma. Company A and Company B are in a copyright battle. They would most likely both benefit from not suing each other, but Company A assumes B will sue and vice versa.
Also, assuming companies operate in a closed economic system, lawsuits take money out of the system through legal fees.
The answer to the copyright problem is idyllic, but not as out of reach as most people believe it to be. Like prisoners in the prisoner dilemma or the townspeople in the tragedy of the commons, companies profit most when they exist on a level playing field - i.e. a free market. They profit most when they spur each other on to produce newer products and cheaper goods. Competition breeds better and newer products and also expands the economy.
People need to have more faith in humanity. Just believing that people are good and responsible would help eliminate a lot of the world's problems.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Probabilities
Actually, you probably have this one backwards, as it's the THREAT of being sued that actually protects most of the content out there.
If it didn't, if there was no chance of being sued for infringement, then companies would build web sites that hosted every song in existence, youTube would have no qualms about streaming every TV show, radio stations would play anything and everything with no royalties, rogue businesses would copy and press the latest CDs and DVDs and immediately reprint bestsellers, pirate theater chains would show movies copied from legitimate chains for a buck, and so on.
Without copyright and the deterence effect of lawsuits, and the legal penalities that ensue, the entire existing content creation chain would fall apart.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's all about control - if all your analyses omit trying to calculate the value of control (they do) then they are all inadequate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Probabilities
I seriously doubt people would stop producing musics, arts, and games if the copyright regime fall apart....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
But
Every movie would be low-budget shot on a camcorder with home PC special effects, every album would be an indie album.
I think the poster that said company A suing company B that is trying to compete unfairly is what it's for. MAFIAA suing consumers is just dumb.
60 Minutes had a story a while back where Callaway golf clubs started doing brisk business in Asia after eliminating all the copycats through lawsuits, even though it had been expensive and difficult.
Basically, until it's like Star Trek and we all have matter rearrangers that make us a steaming cup of Earl Grey, it will be like this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: But
Better got on with that patent for a matter rearranging device then... and the business process... and the software too. BTW I've just trademarked the term "Matter Rearranging" so please take this post down or I'll set phaser to "kill"...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So plenty of examples already and a flawed initial premise by comparing companies suing each other to the RIAA suing consumers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Danger, Danger....FALLACY Alert
What are you 12? Seriously, mike.
Have you ever heard of anyone who was happy because they had to sue someone in small claims court?
This is just another attack on music industry, because you could fix everything, because obviously you are a genius. I thought you had "bigger fish to fry."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Compliance
Suing for use of copyright outside scope of license (i.e., they kept using the software, photos, etc. beyond the term of the license) or for non-licensing (bars that don't get the appropriate licenses) is usually pretty successful, since there's no question there's been an infringement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Every Single Case of Copyright Makes Business Sense
Every Single case involving copyright makes business sense to the lawyers on both sides.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Probabilities
I seriously doubt people would stop producing musics, arts, and games if the copyright regime fall apart.
Perhaps, but it's highly probable that the population of music, arts and games creators would decline. Sure, you'd get some of those things, but not nearly as much as you do now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You're skirting right past the real issue of property ownership and rights to that ownership. Most often it doesn't pay for both parties in a lawsuit, due to the amounts of money required to wage a legal battle. Embrace piracy? Why stop there? Embrace auto theft. Embrace shoplifting. I can just hear your excuse for that: Well, since there are so many shoplifters stealing from your store, why not come up with a way to just emabrace all those shoplifters and work with them to build a new business model.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Again, it makes perfect sense to the lawyers on both sides. What is the single expense you mention as the 'wage' ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: But
Actually basic economics suggests the opposite:
When content was scarce and audience attention abundant, there was little incentive to compete on quality since people would be forced to watch, read, or listen to whatever you gave them.
Now that content is abundant, and audience attention scarce, the incentive to compete by increasing quality is finally present since people can reject low-quality content and still have a plethora of content to choose from.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
You're outta your head. If you think that the benefit of having a monopoly on an item injected to the mainstream (the internet, TV and radio), is more advantageous than the public domain. If we could all use each others work, do you really believe their would be LESS content? Negative. You'd have to be smoking crack. If I could just derive any content I wished to use (mind you, Disney, Viacom, Warner, and any one else) could do the the same, there would be FAR more works of content on the order of magnitude. Everything you see in science and technology, dare I say, advancement as a society, builds on what precedes it. Copyright is a horrible idea, and it hobbles the idea of self expression.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Intellect is not Property Damn It.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
GOD Damn It !!!
Who owns the Bible ?? What 'intellectual property right' is placed upon the Bible ? Think about it people. This is not right. Copyright is a horrible crippling effect on humans. 'Intellectual Property' is not to be OWNED.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mike
Thank you for bringing those expressions out of me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
According to the Supreme Court, Piracy != theft. So shoplifting and auto theft do not apply here. Try again.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: GOD Damn It !!!
The group who did the translation, unfortunately. The group who translated the NIV, which is one of the most popular translations around, has thoroughly locked it down and is the least cooperative with third-parties. There has never been, to my knowledge, a third-party software version because they refuse to license it out. It boggles the mind.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Translations
Seek others
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Probabilities
Without copyright and the deterence effect of lawsuits, and the legal penalities that ensue, the entire existing content creation chain would fall apart.
The key phrase here? The entire existing content creation chain. If that falls apart, who's to say a bigger, better, more creator-friendly content creation chain wouldn't take its place? Nature does abhor a vacuum, after all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: may be an example?
That case dealt with trademark infringement, not copyright. I think copyright infringement makes business sense in very limited situations. Any situation where the defendant is the customer is difficult, however, in the software context, while the customer is still involved, larger companies are included.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who
Who should own words?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You're right, intellectual property law is silly (huh?)
Mike, I'm sorry to say that you've missed an important distinction on this one.
Your argument makes reasonable sense in the context of CUSTOMERS 'stealing' copyrighted material, like music. It's tough to sue your customers, it's tough to change behavior, and there can be even more compelling business models based on the economics of viral distribution.
But when COMPETITORS misappropriate copyrighted (or patented, trademarked) material, the story is entirely different. It makes compelling economic sense to block those activities, maintain overall market share and a 'monopolistic' position with respect to your own content, and generally block competitors who decide not to bear the cost of developing content, technology, or brands. The legions of well-payed IP attorneys and the value that any venture capitalist places on original IP are testimony to the economic sense of IP protection.
Scrabulous is a competitor of Hasbro, not a customer. The value of the Scrabble brand lies in Hasbro's exclusive use of the Scrabble brand and its exclusive right to sell the Scrabble game. While they may have not managed the exercise of those rights as effectively as possible in the context of online social networking, it is absolutely in Hasbro's best interests to vigorously protect those rights that form the basis of the brand's value.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: GOD Damn It !!!
Yeah, I followed that too. Was it International Bible Society or Zondervan? Who knows.
I enjoy reading the New Living Translation (NLT), and what's interesting is that NLT's work is owned by a trust.
Not sure why, but their copyright is far more flexible than NIV. This I didn't know until I started researching it!
Copyright
The text of the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio) up to and inclusive of two hundred and fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses quoted do not account for more than 20 percent of the work in which they are quoted, and provided that a complete book of the Bible is not quoted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Apple's business model has kept it afloat, not maximized its profits.
Apple suing clones isn't a good business model. Apple was superior to early PC's in every way except one -- it's business model. Apple thought it was selling hardware. But it's real product was the Mac OS. Unfortunately Apple made software under the control of their hardware people. The hardware people saw every clone as one less piece of hardware they could sell.
Contrast this to the PC. The hardware had open specs and no one had a lock on royalties. IBM probably adopted this model for all the wrong reasons. (Basically, they wanted to have a PC for business to keep keep companies like NEC from creeping into pure blue IBM customer's shops, but they didn't want to be bothered with the details of the useless little buggers that were starting to litter some people's desktops.) The point is that open specs made the PC a success, not the superiority of the equipment.
IBM even left the OS open. You could run PC-DOS from IBM, but you could run some CPM-86 or some chopped down versions of Unix. (I remember recommending CPM-86, but I don't admit that in public anymore.) Microsoft had the cheapest OS out there at the time, and it was super easy to pirate. In the pre-Windows 95 era the main thing that kept more people from pirating MS-DOS and Windows was that they were so cheap to begin with. MS was able to leverage its wide popularity into its monopolistic market position
The bottom line is that keeping the market locked up is not a good business model. Give me a competitive product and a good business model any day over an premium product with a poor business model. The latter has been Apple's choice since the Mac, and it why they still have a tiny market share.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How about Tivo?
Tivo successfully sued, and in the same East Texas courts, Echostar. Granted Tivo still hasn't climbed out of the cloud, but hey won that case and succeeded to keep Echostar from cloning their technology and using their presence in homes to win out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
DITO!!!!!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: But
Right, just look at all the quality contect on youtube, myspace, etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A clear example....
There's a clear example, and one of the most famous.
Back in the early 1980s, a company called Franklin Computer sold computers that were compatible with the Apple II personal computer. Franklin did this by copying the Apple II's firmware and operating system. The Franklin computer was aggressively marketed to the same market as the Apple II, including the education market.
Apple sued for copyright infringement, and in 1983, obtained a ruling that Franklin infringed Apple's copyrights through its copying of Apple's firmware and operating system. Franklin was forced to take its Apple II compatibles off the market until it could write its own code (without copying Apple's). By the time Franklin finished doing that, the Apple II was old news and there was no market for its s product. Franklin was then relegated to making ultra-lame handheld computers (which they continue to do today.)
This is a clear example of how copyright law made perfect business sense for Apple. It removed a fierce competitor from the market for a critical period and prevented Franklin from undercutting Apple's profit margins. The Apple v. Franklin case itself became one of the first decisions to recognize that computer programs were protectable under copyright laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Apple's business model has kept it afloat, not maximized its profits.
Sorry this is a little off topic, but your comment about Microsoft having an easy to pirate OS and it was cheaper than the alternatives is interesting.
One of the reasons Apple has grown is that Microsoft has increased its OS pricing and started to make pirating it a PITA. Instead of Microsoft spending millions on its new advertising campaign, it could just remove Activation and set up friendly home user pricing (Vista Upgrades for up to 5 home PCs for $99, etc.).
Microsoft pushed pass their customer's cost/pain point for their OS and now folks are looking at alternatives. So in many ways, Microsoft is now an example of how locking down your product is having a negative affect on them.
I actually think Microsoft is starting to wake up to this. Their latest activation scheme in Vista won't shut it down if it isn't activated. It will nag you to death, but it won't shut it down.
As an aside (on top of the already aside - smile), what happens when Microsoft doesn't want to run it's activation servers for XP or older versions of Office? Seriously, think 20 years in the future, there will be someone out there that still needs it running for whatever reason, hardware crashes or they swap over to a virtual machine and no activation server will be available. If companies are going to implement DRM and/or Activation Servers, there needs to be a laws in place that require them to run them for 50, 100 or more years or have expiring DRM/Activation schemes in place so that after 5 years you don't need it or it turns into non-protected software.
I personally would push really hard to be part of any class action lawsuit where a company shuts down activation or DRM servers to help these companies understand the full cost of their decision. To make them understand that they've just signed up for an indefinite contract to provide DRM/Activation servers for their product that was made 25 years ago.
Freedom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Probabilities
I read somewhere that J.K. Rowling is now a billionaire. Good for her.
Suppose there were no copyright laws. Chances are, at least one other person would have released Harry Potter books copied verbatim or near-verbatim, possibly giving themselves authorship credit, before the first novel had even become a best-seller. And after the series became popular, of course, many more "publishers" would've rushed out to provide this "important service to the world's reading public."
So how many Harry Potter books would Rowling have written under that scenario? I'm guessing not much more than one or two.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
History has indicates that this is not a likely scenario. Also, the marketplace has shown preferences for original works.(HINT: Authentic artworks sell far more than copycats)
Techdirt itself also work as an illusory example of originator' prevalence over copycats.
In the days when there were no copyright protection for foreign authors, American publishers "pirates" British authors' work on a massive scale. This has proven a huge boon to the American public as they get lot of cheap books and literacy spread.
However, it also proves a huge boon for British authors as well because American publishers jockey for the first to publish the manuscript and is willing to pay for that privileges. As a result, British authors were compensated, sometime even more than the royalty they received in their own country.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Also, the marketplace has shown preferences for original works.
Maybe, but one of the main premises of this blog seems to be that many consumers don't see a big difference in value between the work sanctioned by the original author and publisher, versus a copy (even with loss of fidelity) from an unsanctioned source.
However, it also proves a huge boon for British authors as well because American publishers jockey for the first to publish the manuscript and is willing to pay for that privileges.
That's interesting, but how is that relevant to modern times? Today's pirate distributor pays either nothing, or for one inexpensive copy at a retail store.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: But
I am not sure how the quality (or lack thereof) of free content on Youtube is supposed to confirm or deny my assertion.
My assertion is of course that when competing commercially, the more choices the audience has, there more incentive there is to invest in quality. It is very important to add: quality as defined by your audience, since they are the ones consuming the content.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
photographers, artists and content creators
I know plenty of instances where photographers work was used or duplicated without authorization. In every instance where attempts to receive fair compensation failed, a copyright lawsuit made excellent business sense.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyright is not always about business
In most cases I'm against copyright, but I can see how it makes sense for the little guys, such as for my dad who is a photographer -- similar to what comment 42 pointed out.
But I also want to point to that is not always about the $$$. There are religious artists who have had their work infringed upon, where the work itself has often been donated but where the the artists want to remain the religious integrity (in this case depiction of Hindu deities).
A monk or nun that expresses their devotion to the divine, obviously don't want to see their work used to sell alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs, or to market what they consider incorrect interpretations of their faith (western variations of their religion). From their point of view the piece of art they meditated on, and worked on for a long time, put their heart and effort into, would of course be devastated if it was used irresponsibly, which makes their entire effort counter productive.
To use a western example, sort of like a newly created original piece of art showing Mother Mary, that is used by a third party without permissions to sell sex. I'm sure that the a devout catholic monk artist would do what they can using copyright to rectify the situation from their point of view.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Another example?
Ferrari sued all of those companies that were converting old Pontiac Fieros into Ferrari knockoffs. The knockoffs were quite convincing in some cases. But a few lawsuits put that practice to and end such that those companies can now have to introduce some differences in their designs to distinguish them from original Ferraris (which, because those losers utterly lack any creativity, means those cars be butt-ugly!)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The prisoner dilemma
assuming people are fundamentally good is a pretty stupid way to live. if people were honest with themselves and each other about how we're fundamentally interested in survival NOT being good, it would eliminate a lot of humanity's problems.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Schammwow will clean up that shill delimma
Hi it's Vince with Schammwow! You'll be sayin wow every time you use this towel It's like a chamois it's like a towel it's like a sponge A regular towel doesn't work wet - this works wet or dry This is for the house the car the boat the RV Schammwow holds twenty times its weight in liquid Look at this It just does the work Why do you want to work twice as hard? Doesn't drip doesn't make a mess you wring it out wash it in the washing machine You can cut it in half use one as a bath mat drain ya dishes with the other one use one as a towel Olympic divers they use it as a towel Look at that Completely dry Put a wet sweater roll it up it dries your sweaters Here's some cola... wine.. coffee... cola... pet stains Not only is the damage gonna be on top - there's your mildew That is gonna smell See that The most absorb Were gonna do this in real time Look at this Put it on the spill turn it over Without even putting any pressure fifty percent of the cola right there You follow me camera guy? The other fifty percent the color starts to come up No other towel's gonna do that It acts like a vacuum And look at this - virtually dry on the bottom See what I'm tellin' ya? Schammwow, You'll be sayin' wow every time!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
See this link for starters!
http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm
Copyright didn't keep Rowling from "borrowing" - ideas, at least, and probably much more.
Paul
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
only one business makes money
It's rather easy to find the successful corporations that profit from this...... The Law Firms hired to sue they get
paid and get paid well..... win or lose.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
You're outta your head. If you think that the benefit of having a monopoly on an item injected to the mainstream (the internet, TV and radio), is more advantageous than the public domain. If we could all use each others work, do you really believe their would be LESS content? Negative. You'd have to be smoking crack. If I could just derive any content I wished to use (mind you, Disney, Viacom, Warner, and any one else) could do the the same, there would be FAR more works of content on the order of magnitude. Everything you see in science and technology, dare I say, advancement as a society, builds on what precedes it. Copyright is a horrible idea, and it hobbles the idea of self expression.
Really? Smoking crack, is it? Please, then, tell us how there would be so much more content out there if everyone could copy everything freely. Because it seems to me that a creator would not be as inclined to create new original works if he knew that anyone could misappropriate his works without regard for the author.
Mr. Eleete, I've seen your website, and it appears to me that you are a computer programmer, not an artist or an author. So I find it a bit disingenuous of you to make these bald assertions as if you would know what drives an author or an artist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: only one business makes money
It's rather easy to find the successful corporations that profit from this...... The Law Firms hired to sue they get
paid and get paid well..... win or lose.
Except that law firms are not corporations.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Here is an example.
I agree that the Chineese company should have been sued for just copying the Australian machinery piece for piece, but this exposes a fundamental issue. This Chineese company was able to make the exact same machinery and sell it at a much lower price. Although this would put workers at that machinery company out of a job, it would create many more by allowing more industrial companies to open because they could now afford the machinery, thus boosting the local ecconomy and possibly creating more competition.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Copyright protection came into being in the late 1700s. Which coincidentally - or not - is when the renaissance ended.
The renaissance is considered by many to be the period of mankind's greatest advances in the arts, as well as philosophy, politics, science, and religion.
When Mozart composed his music, when Da Vinci composed his many masterpieces in many media, there was no copyright, and the conditions of the time (lack of global communications, lack of documentary mechanism such as photography and time stamping) made it easier and more likely then today that "anyone could misappropriate his works without regard for the author".
Yet strangely, great works of art were not misappropriated, great artists were celebrated, and although many starved - on the whole, they starved a lot less than most of their compatriots - remember the times.
Most of all, artists were prolific and the volume of great art was arguably more than today.
How did this happen without copyright?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A clear example....
This is a clear example of how copyright law made perfect business sense for Apple.
Except that the lack of compatible products was one of the main reasons for Apple's decline in the marketplace during the 90s.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: GOD Damn It !!!
"The text of the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio) up to and inclusive of two hundred and fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses quoted do not account for more than 20 percent of the work in which they are quoted, and provided that a complete book of the Bible is not quoted."
Read Revelations. I'll see you in Hell.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
I would love to jump on this bandwagon. Let other people make the investment in creating a new, original work, and then I can come along, scarf up a carbon copy, and sell copies to my heart's content. Of course, I would add more content so that the public domain is replenished...i.e., a link to my PayPal account.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
I see that you have no substantive answer to my question, so you are making an emotional appeal.
Ok, I will make an emotional appeal too: why is it that a surgeon who creates a life saving surgical technique is expected to share it with the world, and continue doing operations for a living? Why can't this surgeon stop performing operations, sit back and live off of the royalties (look up the origin of that word) from other people performing the surgical technique he has invented.
Why is a fashion designer expected to continue producing new fashion designs when the are not "incented" by perpetual royalties from their designs? It would only be fair that they get a royalty every time one of their designs appears on television, after all the composer of the music that is playing in the background does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Guess you didn't see my photography, or videography sites, and programs are covered by copyright as well as trademark, thanks for showing up though.
And you're a fool if you think creativity would not flourish without the fear of lawsuits and a flourishing public domain. Then I gather you're the one not an artist, and guess that you are counsel.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
A programmer can't also be an artist or author? How snobbish.
And just where is your website, Willton?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Well said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Here is an example.
But they could afford it cause they didn't spend any money on R&D, unlike the inventors who deserve to be paid back for it
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Guess you didn't see my photography, or videography sites, and programs are covered by copyright as well as trademark, thanks for showing up though.
Are you trying to profit off of your videography or photography? My guess is you are not, considering I could not find said photography or videography, let alone a method of profiting from it. But feel free to show me otherwise.
And your programs are not covered by trademark because (1) you're not using them as a mark, and (2) they would be descriptive of whatever it is you're selling.
And you're a fool if you think creativity would not flourish without the fear of lawsuits and a flourishing public domain. Then I gather you're the one not an artist, and guess that you are counsel.
Maybe from the folks who are not trying to profit from their works, perhaps like yourself. However, I find it hard to believe that an artist would continue trying to make a living being an artist if he could not exert some control over his works. So, unless you think art only comes from altruists, you'll have to show me how the ability to control one's works is of no moment to artists.
Yes, I am a budding lawyer (law student, to be exact) who has had some intimate experiences in the music industry and currently has family members who write for a living. So believe me, I know what drives artists who wish to make their art their profession.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who
Who should own words?
Is anyone asserting that words can be copyrighted?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
A problem is that only one/s who can exert the rights afforded by copyright are generally the well-to-do and legal entities, not necessarily Joe Author. For example, Winston Groom, the man who wrote Forrest Gump, was paid peanuts because the movie had trouble netting a profit? Meanwhile, it's rumored that Hanks made $40M.
Creative accounting is another service a resourceful, modern legal entity can afford... That Joe Author doesn't have access to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
In earlier times, top musicians such as Mozart and artists such as Leonardo were sponsored by royalty or aristocratic patrons. There weren't enough of those positions to go around, so if you couldn't get a sponsor you were out of luck. And I don't see counterparts to the de Medici family or the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire sponsoring scads of artists today.
As for comparing the volume of great art, then and now, that is highly debatable. One can argue that there were more landmark works of Western symphonic music composed during Mozart's time, but the attention of musicians and the public has since shifted to other kinds of music. The novel only became a serious art form starting with the 18th century (aside from isolated works like Don Quixote), and of course film began in the 20th century.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You would be singing a different tune..
Those of you saying that suing for copyright infringement would be singing a different tune if you actually had anything worth protecting. There is as much or more money in intellectual property as real property these days and you can bet people will do what they have to do to protect it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Who
It isn't words that are copyrighted, but the arrangement of those words. It is also pictures, movies, music, art, etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
And your opinion? That mostly it is due to having a monopoly on the content they create ? Is it only for the money Wilton ? Is that the only incentive to create ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Good answer, correct. Mostly. You neglect the troubadours. Many musicians survived quite well without patronage.
As well, I would suggest that there is in fact the seeds of the re-emergence of patronage: Mike has blogged about a few examples here.
As for novels being post renaissance, the oral equivalent was alive and well in the troubadour tradition, and all the eighteenth century brought was the printing press which is perhaps the most relevant issue to discuss when discussing copyright because it was likely the printing press and its cost which brought about copyright legislation.
Copyright was instituted to incite printing press owners to invest in distributing ideas, not to create a sinecure for musicians and other artists.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
see my post above, copyright legislation has been from the start a boon to publishers, not authors and other creators.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
So your government doesn't provide money (tax payers money, the same source as royalty got their money from) to the arts?
Here in Australia the government spends hundreds of millions (if not billions)on the arts . The ABC is governemnt funded, film studios receive some funding not to mention tax breaks. The various orchestra's (Sydney Philharmonic (sp?), Melbourne etc etc) all receive grants from the state and/or federal government.
The government owned art galleries/museums buy works of art from artists to hang in their galleries, that is government patronage.
Why does the argument about getting paid/royalties etc always come up?
Why does an artist have a RIGHT to make a living by their art?
No-one has the RIGHT to make a living doing a specific job they love doing. I have no right to make a living working in IT. If IT doesn't pay the bills, I need to change careers, or work a 2nd job.
Why is it not the same for artist's? If you aren't good enough to get a patron, find another job and work at art part-time or as a hobby, like anyone else has to do who is not good enough at what they love doing.
And if there aren't enough patron's to go around for all the 'good' artists, so what? The best will get patronage (or maybe the best at politics), and the good but not good enough will have to find a job that will pay their bills.
When I was at university, I knew several guys who loved astronomy and astrophysics. They were all brilliant, all top 0.5%.
However, they worked out how many jobs there were (at least in Australia) for astrophysicsts, and determined that there were only 5 jobs in the country for the studies they were undertaking. All occupied, mostly if not all tenured. And, based on the age of the people in those jobs, you'd get one job position opening up about every 5 years. So if all 3 pursued their love, only 1 of them within 5 years of graduation would be able to get the job (assuming there was no-one from any competing university!).
So they had some hard choices to make not just about if they were good enough, but practical consideratoins as well. They might be good enough, but that doesn't help if there are no job openings at all.
Same situation with being an artist, just because you are good, brilliant even, doesn't mean you will be able to support yourself, or that you deserve or have a right to support yourself as an artist.
There aren't many professional racing yachtsmen in the world, yet an aweful lot of people punt around harbours on the weekend in small sailing boats...I bet they'd love to be able to live off of sailing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
"Copyright was instituted to incite printing press owners to invest in distributing ideas, not to create a sinecure for musicians and other artists."
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I have always understood that the precursor of what we know as copyright was contained in the Statute of Anne in the early 1700's, with its purpose being to blunt what up until that time had been special prerogatives granted by the Crown to a select few.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Everyone, including artists, has the right to try and make a living. Copyright affords those who create original works that opportunity.
No one (other than perhaps a competitor) gives a darn about yet another useless memo prepared by an employee sitting in a cubicle. The same is not necessarily true for one who creates original works that may be favorably received by the public. A typical employee is compensated for his/her time spent on the job, and our laws and courts exist in part to ensure that the "work for pay contract" is paid heed. The equivalent "contract" for authors are the provisions of copyright law, with the difference being that an employee is entitiled to be paid, whereas the author hopes this proves to be the case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Business vs. Litigation
As a veteran commercial litigator, my experience is that litigation increases when business decreases. When companies are making money, they are not interested in litigation. Their interest turns to litigation when their business is hurting.
Companies that have successful business models, who find their copyrights infringed, are more interested in getting cease and desist agreements than they are in tying up time and resources in court cases that do not need to be brought.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
A final comment re the Statute of Anne. Much gnashing of teeth takes place because of possible criminal penalties associated with copyright infringement. Should you choose to read the statute, or even the original US Copyright Act of 1790, you will note each includes provisions for the forfeiture of monies by an infringer to the sovereign.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Probabilities
Perhaps, but it's highly probable that the population of music, arts and games creators would decline. Sure, you'd get some of those things, but not nearly as much as you do now.
Actually, there's very little evidence to suggest this is true. If there's demand for such content, there are business models that can be used to create them that don't rely on copyright.
In fact, the vast majority of content being produced today is not done for copyright purposes (even though thanks to a quirk of the law it's still covered by copyright).
As the tools of production have made it easier for anyone to produce, an increasingly small percentage of content is being produced *because* of the copyright. So it's quite difficult to believe Willton's unsubstantiated claims that content would decrease.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You're right, intellectual property law is silly (huh?)
Your argument makes reasonable sense in the context of CUSTOMERS 'stealing' copyrighted material, like music. It's tough to sue your customers, it's tough to change behavior, and there can be even more compelling business models based on the economics of viral distribution.
Yes. But I'd argue that it doesn't make sense against competitors either.
But when COMPETITORS misappropriate copyrighted (or patented, trademarked) material, the story is entirely different. It makes compelling economic sense to block those activities, maintain overall market share and a 'monopolistic' position with respect to your own content, and generally block competitors who decide not to bear the cost of developing content, technology, or brands. The legions of well-payed IP attorneys and the value that any venture capitalist places on original IP are testimony to the economic sense of IP protection.
That's like saying the legions of well-paid glaziers and the value that construction crews put on windows are a testimony to the economic sense of broken windows.
I'd argue not.
Scrabulous is a competitor of Hasbro, not a customer. The value of the Scrabble brand lies in Hasbro's exclusive use of the Scrabble brand and its exclusive right to sell the Scrabble game. While they may have not managed the exercise of those rights as effectively as possible in the context of online social networking, it is absolutely in Hasbro's best interests to vigorously protect those rights that form the basis of the brand's value.
Other than, as I pointed out, Hasbro's actions have kicked off a rather loud and vehement boycott of Hasbro products, and only drawn more attention to their "competitors" in the space.
Also, I'd argue that you're wrong in claiming that Scrabulous "didn't bear the cost of developing...". I could just as easily point out that Hasbro did not bear the cost of developing the Facebook app and finding the community.
The two sides used some of what the other had done in the past, and that's what good competition is all about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How about Tivo?
Tivo successfully sued, and in the same East Texas courts, Echostar. Granted Tivo still hasn't climbed out of the cloud, but hey won that case and succeeded to keep Echostar from cloning their technology and using their presence in homes to win out.
That's patents, not copyright, and I'd argue it was a mistake for TiVo again in that situation, because it's now pissed off a lot of EchoStar users who aren't necessarily interested in moving to TiVo, but are pissed off at TiVo for hurting their experience.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Another example?
Ferrari sued all of those companies that were converting old Pontiac Fieros into Ferrari knockoffs. The knockoffs were quite convincing in some cases. But a few lawsuits put that practice to and end such that those companies can now have to introduce some differences in their designs to distinguish them from original Ferraris (which, because those losers utterly lack any creativity, means those cars be butt-ugly!)
Well, that was a trademark suit, and you left out some of the details. In that case, NO ONE was being hurt. The buyers of the "fake" Ferraris knew they were fake and weren't tricked at all. There were no "losses" to Ferrari, because the buye