Pandora locks out European listeners. RIAA wins, artists and listeners lose

Another "victory" for the intellectual property fascists. I've bought at least 20 CDs, or iTunes CDs, in the last nine months because of what I've heard on Pandora. No more, though.

Today we have some extremely disappointing news to share with you. Due to international licensing constraints, we are deeply, deeply sorry to say that we must begin proactively preventing access to Pandora's streaming service for most countries outside of the U.S.

It is difficult to convey just how disappointing this is for us. Our vision remains to eventually make Pandora a truly global service, but for the time being, we can no longer continue as we have been. As a small company, the best chance we have of realizing our dream of Pandora all around the world is to grow as the licensing landscape allows.

We show your IP address is '62.xx.xxx.xxx, which indicates you are listening from Denmark. If you believe you are seeing this by mistake, we offer our sincere apologies and ask that you please reply to this email.

Delivery of Pandora is based on proper licensing from the people who created the music - we have always believed in honoring the guidelines as determined by legislators and regulators, artists and songwriters, and the labels and publishers they work with. In the U.S. there is a federal statute that provides this license for all the music streamed on Pandora. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent license outside the U.S. and there is no global licensing organization to enable us to legitimately offer Pandora around the world. Other than in the U.K., we have not yet been able to make significant progress in our efforts to obtain a sufficient number of international licenses at terms that would enable us to run a viable business. The volume of listening on Pandora makes it a very expensive service to run. Streaming costs are very high, and since our inception, we have been making publishing and performance royalty payments for every song we play.

I guess my problem is that I don't buy Madonna or Shakira.

Technorati : Pandora, RIAA

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 12:48am in Intellectual Property, Music, Online Media | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0)

Lord, save us from the Margaret Boribons of the world

The New York Times reports that a Belgian court has called Google's linking to newspaper articles "copyright infringement."

The group that brought the case, Copiepresse, manages copyright issues for more than one dozen Belgian newspapers, most published in French. It said it had also asked the French division of Yahoo to stop showing the group's news reports.

"Today we celebrate a victory for content producers," said Margaret Boribon, secretary-general of Copiepresse. "We showed that Google cannot make profit for free from the credibility of our newspaper brands, hard work of our journalists and skill of our photographers."

Why old media continues to take this dinosaur approach is beyond me, but they are abetted by a particular mentality too often found in Europe, a mentality rooted in a technophobic public sector & academia, but made worse by a deep fear of not being in control. It's bad enough in Scandinavia, but it France and Belgium, it's oppressive. Want proof? Here's an excerpt from an interview with Boribon by Groklaw's Sean Daly.

Q: You could say for example, if I play devil's advocate, I am with Google, I can say, well in fact, there have existed since the dawn of the Internet as we know it in the 1990s, systems for search engines, for spiders, the famous robots.txt which you can place on a site, or the metatags which allow it at page level. In addition, Google, for example, has a procedure where, upon request, a media organization can be delisted rapidly. So, in fact -- they are actually rather simple to implement, these methods, but for you, the idea is --

MB: They are not acceptable.

Q: -- This is not a way to work?

MB: This is not acceptable. No. No, no. We cannot choose between being dispossessed of our content or erased. It is not acceptable. It is not Google who can make the laws governing our content. That is not acceptable. And all the standards and techniques they use, as brilliant as they may be, are techniques which belong to them, but which have no legal value. None whatsoever. They are not standardized, they have no legal status, there is no law which says: if you are not opposed, it's normal that we take; there is no law which says that.

Q: There is no jurisprudence over their opt-out?

MB: No. Their opt-out, it's their own strategy but it has no legal basis.

Q: Finally, the robots.txt, the metatags, they are common to all search engines --

MB: That's not a reason to say that -- that they constitute a legal basis. I mean, it's just something which is technologically proven, which works well. And let me remind you what I said to you at the beginning of the interview: as long as they behaved as a search engine, we never had the slightest reproach or the slightest difficulty. It was the launching of the Google News service, presenting themselves as an information portal, which started our actions, those of the WAN, and that of the AFP. It's not the search engine we blame. It's a fabulous tool, we completely agree. Now, I would say, as a citizen, leaving aside the problems of copyrights, of my members, etc. -- as a simple citizen, I have difficulties when I find myself facing a monopoly, a near-monopoly such as this one, because the influence that can have in terms of indexing or non-indexing of information, it's not neutral -- politically, globally, it is frankly not neutral. I mean, the attitude of Google and other search engines to the Chinese government accepting censorship, or selling keywords or ad pages to the National Front... where are the ethics in all that? I want to say that I don't particularly want Google to lay down worldwide law on the Internet. That's not OK. There have to be alternatives. There has to be fair competition. There has to be respect for content and the legal frameworks of the different parts of the world. Google cannot self-proclaim itself Emperor of the Internet. It's not possible. There are major political consequences in all that.

Q: So, for you, is this Google versus the publishers, or for you, there is, with Google, really a threat in a larger sense to the availability of information, to the classification of information?

MB: Absolutely. Absolutely. That's clear. The seizure by Google of Internet search has major political consequences. Numerous lawyers have contacted us at this point saying indeed, if tomorrow Google decides that leftist publications should no longer appear, they can do that. Or no more publications in a certain language. Or no more -- they can decide the rules and the manner of classifying information, to make it appear first on the list or last... they are the masters of that. And that is nevertheless dangerous for the freedom of information, access to information... they present themselves as Robin Hood, offering everything free to the great mass of the population, they are fabulous, etc... but it's not true. They are not an NGO. This isn't -- they are not there to -- they are not a foundation. They make gigantic profits. They are listed on the stock market, they have lost a lot of money already now with this affair, their stock price has already gone down. They are not philanthropists. They are businessmen. And so, in principle, with businessmen, we should be able to find a common ground. But obviously, since their model has worked like that for a certain amount of time, it is difficult for them to question it. That much is clear. And that's why we need to create solidarity and coherence between content producers, not just the written press but radio, television, magazines and others, so there can be a common front.

It's clear Boribon's problem with Google has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with resentment of -- and fear of -- Google's success. But not just Google's success. This is fear -- and again, sadly, it is so deeply rooted in many parts of European academia and public administration that it will take a generational shift to root it out -- this is fear of technology, decentralization, business in general, globalization and free information. I refer you to the highlight I made in the last para. Boribon hates Google because it is a business. In her ideal world, decisions about access to content wouldn't be decided by successful American technology companies. Instead, they would be made by "philanthropists" (probably made in her image) who, paternalistic and elitist to the bitter end, would ensure you and I are able to access content only under their loving care. Of course, they would have to charge us for it: philanthropy begins at home, for one thing, and content just shouldn't be free. Not if the Margaret Boribons of the world have anything to do with it.

Ironically, Google was doing an excellent job of sending readers to Copiepresse's member publications -- something the member publications should have been grateful for. But, again -- none of this is about business. It's all about fear.

Technorati : Copiepresse, Google, Groklaw, Margaret Boribon, copyright, technophobia

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 05:39pm in Intellectual Property | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (3)

DRC scraped off by Mobitype

[UPDATE: This post was first titled DRC ripped off by Mobitype, a Löic Le Meur venture. At the time of the post, Löic Le Meur was listed as the chairman of Mobitype's board. In the days after this post, both Le Meur and Mobitype denied any connection, and Le Meur was removed from the board list.

Furthermore, after talks with Mobitype's CEO, I believe the scraping is not a cynical attempt at content rip off, but simply an inept effort to bring RSS to mobile devices. ]

Brother Lee Hopkins  interrupted my first Sunday coffee with this email:

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:54pm in Bizarre & Unexpected, Blogging for Benjamins, Intellectual Property, Law, Scams | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (4)

Sony faces another class action

While still clueless, Sony has enough money to fend off lots of lawsuits.  Still, it's nice to see lawyers lining up to do what they do best. Here's a snippet from Brian Krebs' post from WaPo:

Sony Faces Another Class-Action Suit

Sony BMG is facing yet another class-action lawsuit stemming from the controversy over its anti-piracy software, this time from a New York attorney who filed a federal case that could potentially include consumers in all 50 states.

Krebs links to filings for both the California and the New York suits (PDFs).

Technorati tags:
Sony
Sony Music
Sony boycott
Sony virus
Sony lawsuits

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:56am in Business, Intellectual Property, Is Tedious in the House?, Marketing, Music | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (2) | TrackBack (0)

Doctorow rips into Sony's EULA; Symantec finds Sony worm vulnerability...

Update 13 November 2005: Eric Eggertson is following this outrage pretty closely... I'd quote some of his stuff, but I would swear violently, and I don't like to do that on Sundays. Just go read.

Is Sony Music winning this week's Bacon's Information Cluelessness Award?

It would appear so.

Cory Doctorow uses his bully BoingBoing pulpit to tear apart Sony Music's EULA.
 

Sony's EULA is worse than their rootkit
If you're unfortunate enough to buy music from Sony, you may think that the worst thing they'll do to you is screw you by infecting your computer with malicious rootkit software. Not so! Rootkits are only the beginning. If you want to see how Sony really gives its customers the shaft, have a look at these conditions in the license you have to agree to when you put a Sony music CD in your computer:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside....

There's plenty more.

Still  considering buying Sony CDs. Then ponder this from today's Boston Globe:

Computer Worm Exploits Software on Sony's CDs

By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff  |  November 11, 2005

People who bought music CDs from Sony BMG Music Entertainment may have exposed themselves to a dangerous new computer worm.

Symantec Corp., the leading maker of antivirus software, said the worm has infected computers that played Sony BMG recordings. Two other antivirus firms, BitDefender Labs and Sophos PLC, also issued warnings yesterday.

The Sony BMG disks install software that is supposed to prevent the user from making illicit copies of the music and distributing them over the Internet. But the anticopying software conceals itself so that the computer user can't easily remove it.

Now someone has written a ''Trojan horse" program that exploits this feature of the Sony BMG software. The program, which is spread through spam e-mails, uses the Sony BMG code to hide itself. Then the Trojan horse uses the Internet to contact its creators for further instructions.

Eggertson calls for a Sony boycott: It will be a cold day in hell before I buy anything from Sony. I don't actually care if they are being scapegoated by bloggers and others. They deserve every bit of damage to their brand that they suffer.

Parmet asks: Why do companies act this way? And what makes them think that in the long run they can get away with it?

To which I can add only: Any company promoting Shakira, Ricky Martin, and Destiny's Child deserves an exclusive circle of hell.

Technorati tags:
Sony
Sony Music
Sony boycott
Sony virus
Bacon's Information

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 10:15am in Business, Intellectual Property, Is Tedious in the House?, Management, Marketing, Music | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (1) | TrackBack (1)

On "Blogging for Benjamins"

Joseph Jaffe is confused about what Blogging for Benjamins is... Bubba, just ask: The Desirable Roasted Coffee Dictionary is an open book.

blog'ging for ben'jamins. The act of weblogging for the purpose of direct fee earning from visitors to the weblog, generally through advertising click-through or the sale of reports of dubious quality; often  characterized by excessive interest in search-engine optimization, Technorati rank, "professional" blogging and "monetizing the blog". [f. E weblogging + benjamins (US street slang for 100 dollar bill, f. image of Benjamin Franklin on bill)]

Regular readers of Desirable Roasted Coffee know exactly the type to which I refer.

Update:  Blogger for Benjamins Muffin Komando writes in today's McPaper about Blogging for Benjamins.  Hey, Steve! Sign her up for the Pro Bloggers Association. I am sure y'all could make her a licensed blogger. She doesn't blog, but her heart is in the right place.

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 08:53am in Blog Management, Blogging for Benjamins, Intellectual Property | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (1) | TrackBack (1)

On Your Mark (Part 2): Louise Lego Andersen Whips LEGO in Court

Blogger for Benjamins Jaffe recently vented spleen over LEGO's request that we call their toys and bricks "LEGO bricks" or "LEGO toys", rather than simply "Legos".  It was a silly vent, one that illustrated Jaffe knows little about protecting intangible assets, and Jeremy Pepper was quite right to call him out on it.

(To get you up to speed: LEGO is a Danish maker of toys, especially distinctive building bricks. Jaffe practices PR, I believe, somewhere in New England, I believe).

The real LEGO & Intellectual Property story this week is entirely different.

I am a big fan of LEGO. Years ago, they were a client of mine.  I have -- on behalf of two children -- invested heavily in their wonderful products. And, seeing LEGO up-close & local as I do, have nothing but respect for their corporate governance and care for employees.

But even I have to admit they went off the rails when they sued Louise Lego Andersen, an art dealer and gallery owner,  for trademark infringement.

Here in Denmark, the name Andersen is extraordinarily common. As with Jensen, Hansen, Rasmussen, you can't throw a brick down the street without braining an Andersen. So it's common practice for people with common surnames to be known by their middle name -- a sort of surrogate surname. This isn't about vanity; it's just handy. Ask a Dane about Poul Rasmussen and Anders Rasmussen and you will get a blank look. Ask about Poul Nyrop (Rasmussen) and Anders Fogh (Rasmussen), and  she'll know you are talking about the former and present Prime Ministers.

So it's not surprising that Louise Lego Andersen  -- who goes by Louise Lego --  chose to call her gallery  Galleri Lego.

LEGO sued. Trademark infringement. Dropped on her like a jaguar out of a tree.

But... as Berlingske Tidende reports today, Louise Lego whipped LEGO in court yesterday:

"The Admiralty and Commercial Court handed down an preliminary ruling giving Louise Lego Andersen relief in 95% of her case, which is about whether her gallery can be called 'Galleri Lego'."

The ruling becomes a verdict in the next week or so. Either party can appeal the verdict to the Court of Appeals or, in the meantime, agree to a court-proposed settlement. Both parties are weighing their options.

The "5%" that's still in question?

"'The remaining five percent, where the court ruled against us, is about how Louise's name will appear in search engine queries', said attorney Egil Lego Andersen. 'Obviously, we don't agree with that part of the ruling, but that's small stuff.  I believe the court reached the right conclusion.'"

I think Egil Lego knows more about SEO than he lets on.

Technorati tags: lego louise lego

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 10:39am in Bizarre but Expected, Corporate Governance, Denmark, Intellectual Property, Law | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (1)

On Your Mark (Part 1): Garrison Keillor Sues Blogger Over Parody T-Shirt

Today's category at Desirable Roasted Coffee is going to be Trademarks and their (mis)uses, apparently whether I like it or not.

First up is American humorist Garrison Keillor, best known as the host of A Prairie Home Companion, a radio show, and as the author of several bestsellers, including Lake Wobegon Days. For those unfamiliar with his work, let's just say it centers on his droll musings about small-town life in Minnesota.

Now, Garrison is one of the nicest, most laid-back people you are ever going to meet (he used to live here in Copenhagen and would occasionally drop by our local  Marching, Chowder & Writing Society). And I would reckon he has as little use for lawyers as any of us.

So it was with great amusement that I read that Garrison is suing MNSpeak.com, a blog, for producing Prairie Ho Companion tee-shirts.

Why on earth?

First, the shirt is sort of funny, though I suppose it doesn't exactly square with solid Midwestern values (and, while we are on it, why is it that only the Midwest has solid values? You never hear solid Southern values... why not?).

Second, as Claire Suddath points out, Garrison should be pleased kids half his age know his stuff well enough to make parody about it. He'd be a lot worse off if they didn't get the joke.

Third, he could throw it back at them in his inimitible manner:

"It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon. Clarence Bunsen had a corn removed, which had been bothering him. And Ralph got a shipment of Prairie Ho fashionwear. It's not selling that well, though, although Myrtle Krebsbach thinks the Prairie Ho camisole might be the thing to get Florian back into the bedroom..."

Or again, maybe not.

Hat tip to Claire Suddath at Pith in the Wind--Nashville Scene Weblog.
Technorati tags: keillor prairiehomecompanion midwest

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:46am in Bloggers, Intellectual Property, Writers | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0)

Search for Creative Commons Content in Yahoo! Advanced Search

Via Joi Ito comes welcome news: You can search for Creative Commons content in Yahoo's Advanced Search.

Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:14pm in Citizen Journalism, Current Affairs, Intellectual Property | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0)