Results tagged “Big Copyright”

Dear Lovefilm, thanks for taking the time to compose such a thorough response explaining what you are doing with your customer proposition.

Netflix on the Boxee media centre Netflix is on my media center, why aren't you?

Unfortunately, you haven't addressed the core of my question which was to do with the commercial background to your customer experience design. My point is, the way you've approached this you are simply spreading ill will and damaging what is really quite a nice brand.

Lovefilm was built on a great service experience that trumped the video rental store by not relying on trickery, customer inertia and subterfuge to generate revenue.

Not only was Lovefilm a fairer and more transparent offer (and therefore more likely to engage the customer in the longer term) but the range extended far beyond what Blockbuster could hope to stock. You guys were basically, a 5-star service with a market-leading customer proposition.

So why make a mess of your online offer?

You need to stop explaining how content owners set pricing and new releases cost more and mensch up a bit and design an offer that shields the customer from the greed and foul-play of Big Copyright. The video-on-demand offer needs to give the same ubiquitous access to content the Disk-to-home service does and needs to avoid becoming a 'two tier' experience.

Some suggestions:

  • Lose the multiple price points. The more price points you have the more you feel desperate like a cheap hotel that charges for wi-fi
  • Offer Lovefilm at a single price-point: say £10.75/month gets you unlimited streaming access to the entire film library
  • Avoid using the word "package". Packages are all about making life easier and more profitable for distributors and not about getting the customer a better experience. Lovefilm shouldn't be like one of those satellite television brands that forces people to buy 300 channels they don't want just so they can see the football
  • Lovefilm could be a quality proposition that has "members" and membership gets you into the club (and what a club, where else can I get Russ Meyer, Godard and Die Hard 4 delivered to my door at a moment's notice?)

If you absolutely can't monetise without premiumising new releases, then distribute them through a completely different channel ("Amazon Hot Stuff" or something) so it doesn't dilute the Lovefilm proposition.

From a brand-building point of view, I really hope your research shows that for film-lovers, media quality and the range of the library trump newness in the long run. The movie industry just doesn't release enough good blockbusters to sustain a genuinely high-quality "all new, all of the time" proposition and after all, your logo says it all: "Love Film".

Thanks for your support and please do keep up this fantastic service.

On the left above, some lovely work available for sale on Etsy and on the right, a tote bag for sale at Paperchase spot any similarities?

Yup, it's another sad tale of copyright abuse... Check out Eloise's post Cannot chase Paperchase

She suggested we write to Paperchase using their online contact form so I did:

Paperchase. You are commissioning, stocking and selling products which use a copy of an independent artist's work. She has contacted you expecting a rapid and amiable resolution but you have refused to desist.

As this artist cannot afford a lawyer, I am starting a crowdsourcing operation to attach photographic evidence of your sweatshop copy to every instance of the products as they appear on the social web.

This initiative has already started with the addition of a range of customer userpics to the Amazon.co.uk website.

This activity will continue until the offending products are removed and the artist has received compensation.

Regards,
Dug Falby

Incidentally, one of the reasons this makes a mockery of copyright law is that the ripoff team has judiciously changed 7 items in the picture (background, curl of hair, motif of dress etc) so that in court, a heavily-financed legal team could easily get a magistrate to find in favour of the retailer.

This is depressing because looking at the works as an ordinary human, it's obvious one is a copy of the other. Heck the creative commons is about building on other artist's shoulders, not looking over them photocopier in hand.

Emily riffs and builds on the work of the Pre-Raphaelites, of Dick Bruna and many others. As she does this, she creates her own individual vision which takes its place alongside the work that inspired her. This is why we need a Creative Commons and this is where the spirit of Copyright Law needs to move to.

The 'artist' who created this copied stuff didn't riff or build, he simply cut, paste and twisted with a view to the bare minimum he could get away with. This is both sad and frustrating as it helps preserve the very copy protections that are hampering innovation and choking out our creative industries:-(

Also, please upload the following graphic to your Amazon customer pictures. Let's see how long it takes them to remove the items:-)

Eloise's artwork on sale at Amazon

This latest example takes the biscuit. I have read several documents produced by a number people inside and outside of the mobile industry that clearly describe the service or one just like it. Also, Nokia, Craigslist and others are already doing this.

One of my colleagues described it as the "ubiquitous flea market" an online system to match-make and alert participants on the basis of shared location data mashed up with the matching of stated haves and needs.

What irks me is that this is just the natural progression of a good quality mobile network enriched by the advent of smart mobile computing on top of the internet. In case anyone forgets, the network effects we're all benefiting from come from us (the subscriber) and are built with our money, financed by all those 24-month contracts we've been signing up to. In a sense, this is just best practice and should be available everywhere. If this patent goes through, the service will be closed, difficult or impossible to federate, you'll have to wait forever for the business to create a client for your phone and in the end the service may not even be that good...

A much better scenario is for all of us to try and build the service (and a rich ecosystem of client apps and widgets) and let the users decide which market experience they want to invest their time in.

To get an idea of how potentially ridiculous software patents are, take a look at some previously approved patents for the European Union I love the one about selling using ecommerce.

Sigh... I guess big IP marches on...

publicknowledge.org on copyright

Some nicely written thoughts on copyright over at publicknowledge

On why we have copyright and why it doesn't last in perpetuity:

The concept of "returning" works to the public suggests that no new idea is truly new, that it is only built from some previous societal knowledge. Perhaps this return concept can be best understood through the words of Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The Constitution specifies, "limited times" to ensure that artists to not rest on their laurels but continue to innovate.

Love the quote from Sir Isaac--no surprise that scientists are leading the push for the timely return of knowledge to the commons.

Public knowledge also provides link to some of the limits on copyright:

The record industry makes no bones about trying to keep the following out of the public's awareness. As the EFF article points out

For instance, the RIAA tells kids, "Never copy someone else's creative work without permission from the copyright holder"--omitting the important right to make creative fair use of existing content.

sigh... OK I'll stop with the ranting now, it's just every time i get my EFF newsletter I totally loose my rag.

Schoolkids to assist with propaganda

Another chilling article on the RIAA over on the EFF website:

after spending countless dollars on failed advertising campaigns against peer-to-peer file-sharing, the RIAA has created a classroom activity to outsource the campaign to schoolchildren. Next up: A classroom activity where kids police peer-to-peer networks in search of potential infringers!

propaganda.png

The sooner musicians can work with companies that aren't part of the RIAA the better. Maybe labels should produce an "artists advisory" sticker: "attention: this company supports civil misinformation and the removal of citizen's fair-use rights by any means. Get someone else to distribute your music".

Home sewing is killing fashion

I've just done something a bit odd. I watched Jonathan Ross' Film 2009 on BBC1 and then called the duty officer (well, invested 50p on directory assistance to get the duty officer's number). He's not called the duty officer anymore and doesn't have a phone number as such... In today's BBC one uses the internet to do these things :-)

I just posted the following comment on the official complaints site:

To whom it may concern:

I would like to complain about the segment on copyright theft in tonight's Jonathan Ross film 2009.

I have three specific complaints.

  1. The piece was not balanced and presents a one-sided view. All quotes were from film-industry representatives and all opinions reflect those of powerful copyright lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA
  2. The segment failed to discuss the relevant and significant trend that many, many law-abiding, tax-paying, child-rearing citizens are deciding to exercise their fair-use rights under copyright legislation. These citizens are trying to effect democratic change and create better and fairer copyright law. The segment derides their activities as plainly criminal
  3. The segment repeats a number of damaging and discredited clichés and makes no effort to explain any of the issues beyond those clichés. In particular, the phrase "piracy is killing the film industry" is repeated in a couple of formats.

Just as video didn't kill Hollywood and home taping did not kill the music industry, the market forces and technical, cultural and economic ecosystems in which the players in the copyright wars are currently fighting are complex and deserve a measured, in-depth explanation.

I expect no less of the BBC.

and as I was looking for the details Google let me to the fabulous "home sewing" graphic :-) The artwork and blog post it goes with are the work of Bo Peterson from Malmö, Sweden (thanks Bo).

EFF free speech bannerI know I bang on and on about this stuff (go on, you know you want to support the EFF) but the more I follow the news of the FSF and the EFF's progress in the American courts the more I feel like a new deal on copyright is just around the corner...

In a filling with the US Copyright Office, Mozilla and Skype have added their voices of support to a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to iPhone jailbreaking.

(via appleinsider)

Oh thanks Mark this is just wonderful on so many levels :-)

Check out the The Overdub Tampering Committee manifesto

We are a group of musicians who have downloaded newly leaked albums by popular artists, quickly recorded many subtle overdubs over the work, and then re-leaked it to the internet.

Subverting Big Copyright in new and joyous ways...

Well it used to be Big Oil or Big Business but we really are seeing the emergence of Big Copyright

Ohna's award-winning short film has been pulled by Google because of an automated copyright alert. This smells exactly the same as Google's ongoing mistreatment of the little guy. The same rules apply: justice cannot be applied by formula or filter. Unless each case is handled (note 'hand' as in 'human') individually by a trained adjudicator a never ending stream of injustice ensues.

I suggest Google work out how to pay for this adjudication service soon as sooner or later they're going to need a new business model...

Ohna reports:

Yesterday our short film SON was taken off YouTube's screening room because someone at Paramount Pictures copyright police company decided that maybe we had used some footage from Son Of Rambow. Whoever made this decision had obviously not watched the film as SON is obviously all original footage and in fact the only ressemblance to Paramount's film is the word SON in the title and the fact that there is a young boy in the cast. Despite the obvious blunder Paramount are making no effort to remedy the situation by removing their notice from YouTube and by doing so are damaging our reputation and possibly causing us loss of income.

The woman could use some words of support. Go comment on her post

And if you are aware of similar events, make you register each and every case with the EFF's chilling effects website.