The news cycle has been abuzz about digital music and iTunes‘ ascendance to a position as the country’s leading music retailer. Likewise, the mainstream press has continued to feed its desire for an iTunes-Amazon.com octagon-style retail death match, and steadily has been promoting Amazon.com’s mp3 download service as a worthy challenger to the iTunes hegemony.

(The music labels, long irritated with Steve Jobs‘ control of the legal download market, silently would approve of such a challenge.)

We don’t see what the big deal is. There are several problems with music downloads, and none of them have anything to do with three-letter acronyms that purport to “protect” the underlying content. The primary problem with downloaded music is that it sucks.

(more…)

Right before the Man of Steel celebrates its 70th birthday, a federal court judge has ruled (.pdf) that the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel could claim an ownership share of the character’s domestic copyright. The ruling vests in Siegel’s heirs ownership in the first Superman comic, Detective Comics’ Action Comics No. 1.

Wikipedia has informative biographies for Siegel and his partner, Joseph Shuster, while William Patry (whose work the opinion cites 14 times) provides additional analysis and insight. The case centered on whether Siegel’s estate successfully had terminated the copyright pursuant to Section 304(c).

Siegel and Shuster sold the rights to the comic 70 years ago for $130 (or $14814.32 in today’s money). In comparison, Warner Bros. collected more than $200 million in domestic box office for the 2006 film Superman Returns. This total excludes ancillary (and lucrative) licensing income from all manner of tchotchkes from T-shirts to lunch boxes.

What immediately struck us was the diligence of Siegel’s estate in pursuing this issue. We compare this to the untidy, legally chaotic, and “deplorable” condition of the James Brown estate, which owes $400,000 in taxes and needs to sell memorabilia to preserve its assets.

Michael Cieply. Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright. The New York Times. March 29, 2008.

See also:
Joy Howe. James Brown’s Estate To Be Sold. WJBF-TV (Augusta, Ga.) Feb. 29, 2008.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

“The [music subscription] services also have to overcome a conceptual hurdle with many consumers. Most music fans want something tangible when they buy songs. Subscription services, however, are like cable TV: They sell access to entertainment, not packaged goods. And like cable, they’re not easily portable, which is a real problem when it comes to playing music in a car. It would be a different matter if people were continuously connected to the Net and could hear any song they wished, anywhere, any time. But in the current circumstances, music subscriptions work best as ways to sample music — not as a substitute for buying it.” — Jon Healey.

Jon Healey. If Yahoo can’t do it … LATimes.com. Feb. 4, 2008. Both a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board and editor of the paper’s Bit Player blog, Healy asks whether subscription music services are a viable business model in light of Yahoo!’s announcement that it would end its subscription music service and support RealNetworks’ Rhapsody service. Since so many of us at the Cense are heavy music listeners and buyers, we can confirm Healy’s insights. Almost all of us choose to buy music on compact disc (then rip to iTunes) rather than buy music on iTunes or some other service. Not only do we get better sound quality when we buy and rip, we own something, which is important to us.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Eric Bangeman. Debating Copyright Reform: Time for Compulsory Licenses? ArsTechnica. Jan. 21, 2008. Ars reports on a copyright panel convened at the Consumer Electronics Show entitled Washington, Intellectual Property and Your Living Room, which was moderated by Ars editor Kenneth Fisher. The panel seemed fairly balanced, which is unusual for these panels, and everyone allegedly agreed some sort of copyright reform was necessary.

Surprisingly, though, compulsory licensing was discussed, and at least one panelist positioned compulsory licenses as a way of providing compensation in light of the fact that copyright owners no longer can control their works. There are two basic elements to the compulsory license issue. On one hand, a compulsory license would force media companies to license their works at an established, set rate. (For example, royalties for cover songs are paid according to a rate set in a compulsory license.) Additionally, it would eliminate the often licensing negotiations, many of which can be ridiculous and random. (The music industry, in particular, suffers this problem when it comes to digital sampling.)

On the other hand, U.S. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters is on record as opposing compulsory licenses because it hurts “creators.” As we mentioned last week, though, one must be careful with the label “creators”: are we talking about individuals, or multinational corporations that own and control the copyright monopoly? We’re unsure what Peters means when she refers to “creators.”

Nevertheless, this is the first time we recall hearing someone — anyone — talk seriously about compulsory licensing as an option worth investigating. Also, it is the one of the first times we can recall any person who deals with copyright for a living bluntly proclaim that control of protected works no longer is possible or realistic.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings, where it was an Article of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Gordon Cairns. Boxed Sets Exhaust Back Catalogue. Sunday Herald (Scotland). Jan. 28, 2008. The Herald is a new addition to Clippings, and its coverage of the UK DVD market suggests the film industry is beginning to feel the decay from which the music industry has suffered. The details are not encouraging: the number of DVD releases (through 3Q, 2007)dropped 15%. What’s more pressing, though, is that the candidate pool of older television shows that could be re-released is shrinking rapidly. Here at the Cense, we are big fans of American TV shows compiled on DVD box sets, but with each passing year, the offerings seem to become increasingly tepid. “Gilligan’s Island” is OK for an occasional trip down memory lane, but coughing up $30 to see Ginger prance around in the sand for more than 15 hours? We’re really not feeling it like that.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

“One way to look at plaintiff’s difficulties here is as further evidence of the disproportionate difficulties African-Americans have had in getting the benefits of IP protection.” — Rebecca Tushnet.

43(B)log. Strikeout: Baseball Player’s Claim Against Cards Fails. Jan. 5, 2008. Georgetown law professor Tushnet (no, the junior Tushnet) ends her analysis of a lawsuit against the Topps trading card company with this interesting comment. The lawsuit (which was based on right of publicity, trademark and related claims) was brought by the daughter of legendary Negro Leaguer James “Cool Papa” Bell, alleging that the trading card company did not have permission to print Bell’s likeness on a trading cards released earlier this decade. Tushnet’s summary says Bell granted to the Baseball Hall of Fame permission to use his name and likeness on various products. (Bell was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1974.) Tushnet’s comment raises interesting issues about IP protection and race.

Stories are legion about the extent to which creative, technical, or scientific achievements by African-Americans have been appropriated without initial or residual compensation. And strains of complaint often make it into the lyrics of contemporary music. (Even Jay-Z once said in “H.O.V.A.” “I’m overcharging labels for what they did to the Cold Crush.”) We would be very interested in seeing any articles, reports, books, or scholarly work that addresses this phenomenon and estimates the lost value therefrom.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings, where it was a Quote of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Larry Barrett. Publishing Company Settles Software Suit With SIIA. Internetnews.com. Jan. 18, 2008. We find it interesting that while SIIA promotes that it will pay informants up to $1 million to snitch on others for alleged copyright infringement, the lobbying group (which counts among its membership Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Reed Elsevier, and Copyright Clearance Center) has paid out only $39,500, or an average of $2,821.43 per informant. This makes us wonder whether McNulty and Greggs pay Bubbles better for his information than the multinational database content industry pays for its information.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense