Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Business
• Copyright
• Gadgets
• Gaming
• Law
• Law School
• Music
• NYC
• Sports
• Things that amuse me
• Things that bother me
• Trademark
• Web 2.0

• When will the NFL Network standoff end?

  Like so many others , I was furious when I couldn't watch the Packers-Cowboys games a few weeks back. The NFL Network is only carried on satellite which is simply not an option for many of us in urban areas like NYC. For those who haven't been paying attention, there's been a long-running standoff between the cable companies and the NFL network. (ComCast carries it at a premium, but neither Time Warner or Cablevision offer it, free or otherwise). To sum up: The NFL wants its network carried on basic cable packages with channels such as ESPN or CNN, where it can reach the broadest possible audience. Cable companies including Time Warner Inc. say it belongs on a sports package, or tier, where its audience would include only those fans willing to pay extra. I am a huge fan of the NFL and would certainly subscribe in a second. Much like the issues with net neutrality, the problem is that we're not dealing with a perfect market. If Time Warner doesn't offer me the ability... Posted Dec 27 2007, 12:22 PM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Things that bother me, Sports, Law, NYC

• Arguing Intelligently about Copyright

  Dare has a great rant on copyright . A key purpose of giving authors and other content creators exclusive rights to their intellectual property is to enable them to be rewarded financially from their works for some time before allowing these creations to become "owned" by society. This is supposed to be an incentive that enables the creation of a professional class of content creators and thus benefits society by increasing the number and quality of copyrighted works as well as creating a market/economy around copyrighted works. Most arguments against copyright laws are directly or indirectly an attempt to challenge the existence or benefits afforded the professional class of content creators. It should be noted that professionals dominate practically all areas of content creation (i.e. professionally created content is most popular or most valuable) even when you consider newer areas of content creation that have shown up in the past decade or so. It's because of posts like this that I... Posted May 01 2007, 10:36 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Copyright

• Taxing Virtual Economies?

  A congressional committee is exploring the idea of taxing in-game virtual economies . This is not a tax on the sale of video games themselves ( especially violent ones ), nor is it a tax on the sale of virtual assets in a real market like eBay. As Mike explains: Note that the politicians aren't talking about virtual items in the game that have been converted to real dollars or other assets. That's already taxable as income. Instead, they're looking at actually taxing the items within the game based on the perceived value of those assets. The complexity in even attempting such a system should be obvious. Different games have different economies and different currencies, and unless those currencies are convertible to real dollars there is no (easy) way to set the tax basis for the income. If the virtual assets are not readily convertible, this would be what is known as "phantom income" - that is, income in the eyes of the IRS but not in your pocket. This is a common topic with stock grants... Posted Oct 18 2006, 11:44 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gaming

• The Broadcast Flag and TiVO

  The EFF already defeated the Broadcast Flag once, but it's one of those things that Hollywood is not going to let go of. I noticed on Dave's site that DRM support was added to TiVO last year . This DRM allows content owners to specify how and whether TiVO users can record a flagged show: they either can't record, can keep it for seven days, or - as the case with this obscure, 40-year-old movie - can keep for 7 days but only have 24 hours to watch once they start. This is one isolated incident, and we can definitely look elsewhere for our DVR needs. (My DVR provided by Time Warner doesn't have DRM restrictions, nor does a Media Center PC). The danger of the Broadcast flag, though, is that it mandates these restrictions, giving the content providers complete control over how we can consume their content. I am not suggesting that we ignore the rights of the copyright holder, but we also can't ignore the rights of the consumer. Copyright is, of course, not an absolute right and there are necessary... Posted Aug 24 2006, 08:07 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright

• Gartner sends a cease and desist to remove a link

  Scoble passes along that James Governor, an analyst for RedMonk, received a C&D from Gartner for a link . Wow. I obviously haven't seen the letter, but I'm trying to imagine what possible legal recourse they have to linking to a publicly visible URL. Obviously there's no copyright infringement and there are standards you have to adhere to protect something as a trade secret. (Hint: putting something on a publicly visible server is not enough). Oh, and someone should tell Gartner that you can "redact" all the links you want but the Internet is forever . Here's the link - maybe I'll get my first C&D too. This is even worse than C&D'ing someone who is trying to help you . Tags: Gartner , RedMonk , CeaseAndDesist , Stupidity Posted Jul 11 2006, 01:15 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Things that bother me, Things that amuse me, Copyright, Business

• The problem with regulating what you don't understand

  This interview would be funnier if Senator Stevens wasn't involved in crafting Internet regulation. Stevens does an amazing job (jaw-dropping, really) of explaining how the Internet works and why network neutrality is a bad thing. Choice quotes: But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free. Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? And: They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in... Posted Jul 05 2006, 06:24 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0

• The Web 2.0 Trademark Debacle

  There has been a bit of controversy over O'Reilly's "Web 2.0" service mark cease-and-desist letter and their subsequent "we had to" response . I'd say Mike Arrington correctly predicted the lynching , though some are defending O'Reilly . ( Scoble is just upset he's no longer the King of Evil ). Fortunately, the issue has been resolved , but not before the PR damage was done. We're not claiming exclusive use of "Web 2.0" in all contexts. Our service mark applies only to "Web 2.0" when used in the *title* of "live events" such as conferences and tradeshows. Rob Hyndmann wrote exactly what I was thinking , especially the first and last points. First, there’s the effort (without any trace of irony, it appears) to restrict and monopolize the use of the term in connection with events held to educate and evangelize … a set of technologies that are about collaboration, sharing and open access to information. Next, there’s the threat against a non-profit, of all things, innocently trying to do nothing... Posted May 26 2006, 12:23 PM by Tim with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Web 2.0, Trademark

• Commercial Skipping

  There's been a bit of discussion on two patent applications filed by Philips on what the author of this NYT article refers to as "pay to surf" technology. Part of me hopes that they patented this simply to prevent others from using the invention, but somehow I don't think that's the case. ( Aside: Why the over-the-top rhetoric? I'm not exactly sure that the right to channel-surf during commercials or fast-forward through recorded is an "inalienable right". ) The principles behind copyright are meant to encourage expression, not protect business models. William Patry sums it up nicely in his discussion on the fourth fair use factor : The fourth factor analysis of harm to the market for the copyrighted work was a bunch of hoo-ha in [Sony]. The fourth factor concerns ways in which copying of the work itself damages similar or otherwise relevant markets for the particular type of copying done by defendant. The fourth factor most certainly does not concern harm to advertisers, nor does it reach... Posted May 10 2006, 04:20 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright

• Warner Bros to start selling movies on BitTorrent

  In another step towards legitimacy , Warner Bros announced that it will sell movies and television shows through BitTorrent in the US. ( The service already launched in Europe in March ). No mention of what format is being used, but the article mentions "new digital rights management (DRM) software from BitTorrent" which was a major element in the deal. (BitTorrent is strictly a transmission technology). This follows up on an announcement by seven studios last month who plan on selling movies MovieLink and CinemaNow . Warner Bros.' movies will also be released along with the DVD, but sounds like costs will be more inline with the DVD instead of in the 20-30$ range. Unfortunately, you still can't burn to physical media. I would still prefer to see a service where you could pay that $20 or $30 for the right to watch theater-release movies in the comfort of your own home, but obviously there are some complicated politics and economics involved there. Still, this sounds like a step in the right... Posted May 09 2006, 09:58 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Copyright

• MPAA, P2P and digital downloads

  The MPAA has launched a massive attack on P2P sites, but one of the sites is fighting back . TorrentSpy is a search engine for torrent files - it doesn't host the torrent files or the underlying protected material. In their response, they said that the MPAA might have just as well sued Google . Fred von Lohmann said , "on closer examination it looks more like a wholesale attack against Internet indexing generally." Fred questions whether copyright can (or should) make the distinction between a good index and a bad index. I guess TorrentSpy's main problem is that they haven't struck a deal with the MPAA . In related news, seven major studios will begin selling movies through MovieLink and CinemaNow. The downloads will be released at the same time that the DVD is released and will $20-30. Unfortunately, the studios still don't get it - you have to wait until the DVD is out, pay MORE than the DVD, and not get the physical media? (You can't even burn a copy). This would make a hell of a lot... Posted Apr 09 2006, 04:37 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Rants, Gadgets, Copyright