Obviously, they are facing part of the same problems Google is already facing. And one of the main issues highlighted in the final report of the group of experts appointed by the Commission is the legal certainty on their activity for both right holders and cultural institutions.

Some of the issues identified as critical by the Copyright subgroup are: the right to make preservation copies of copyrighted material by certain institutions, the necessity of coordination among the different initiatives and the costs related to some types of media (pictures and audiovisuals in particular).

Of particular interest – and somehow linked to the subject of my last post – is the problem of “orphan works”. I think that this is the perfect example of how western culture is different from India, since speaking about works that have no “father/mother” is the best index of how much we need a proprietor for creative works.

In some cases, in fact, right holders cannot be identified or located; as a result, works can be classified as “orphan”. This is one of the main obstacles to the free diffusion of contents trough the digital networks. Therefore, Copyright Subgroup recommends, alternatively, some non-legislative or soft legislative solutions that enhance transparency and/or prevent further expansions of the phenomenon of orphan works. From a non-legislative stand point, dedicated databases concerning information on orphan works and improved inclusion of metadata (information on right holders) in digital material are invoked, while, from a legislative point of view, the subgroup proposes a “soft law approach” achievable through contractual arrangements, combined with some support mechanism for voluntarily negotiated contracts.
The document is really interesting and opens a new window on problems related to the identification of the author, a milestone of our intellectual property laws but, as seen in the previous post, not always a big problem all around the world.

Shapiro says that RIAA, during its participation in the copy-protection technical working group, had omitted information, contained, instead, in the letter at hand.

In Shapiro’s opinion this is a clear signal that the Music Industry does not want to change its old-fashioned business model.

This is what Shapiro said (no comments are necessary, I think this is self-explanatory):

“We are pleased to see the RIAA letter finally confirmed, as we have long suspected, that no technical specification for an audio flag, or in fact anything else, exists and that the RIAA has stayed away from the copy-protection technical working group in part because it has nothing to propose … The letter also confirms that the RIAA’s interest lies solely in preserving its existing ways of business, with the hope that it can maximize profits by limiting innovation and undermining long-standing consumer rights”.

But the guys of thepiratebay.org give us a lesson on how to answer to a cease&desist letter… check out what they answered to the lawyers of EA Games accusing them of copyright infringement. They don’t care about who’s David and how’s Goliath; they rock!

Just a short extract to give you the idea:

EA: This unauthorized activity with respect to the distribution of EA’s software products constitutes infringement of EA’s intellectual property rights. EA enforces its intellectual property rights very aggressively by using every legal option available.

TPB: Please don’t sue us right now, our lawyer has passed out in an alley from too much moonshine, so please at least wait until he’s found and doesn’t have a huge hangover…

If I were a lawyer (who knows, maybe sooner or later) I would be quite puzzled by such an answer!

Amazing, big ups, and thanks to Ale for the hint!

The results are quite surprising, at least for those who, after Job’s Keynote of October 2006, thought that this partnership was the declaration of death of the “old” way these shows were enjoyed.

Actually, on the basis of what executive producer of NBC TV show “The Office”, Ben Silverman declares, the presence of its production on iTunes gave it another chance of success. Since its ratings had not quite matched the critical acclaim, Silverman praised NBC for its willingness to “dive into the iTunes relationship quickly.” He credited the download capability with boosting broadcast viewership.

And the numbers say he was right! iTunes downloads have not stolen audience from the network show but they created even more than before! The same for DVD sales, that have not decreased critically after the diffusion of the episodes over iTunes while the incomes from iTunes channel are more valuable since the distribution costs are almost null.

The catalogue of iTunes downloadable shows is growing and growing, and by now more than 12 millions video have been downloaded. It seems that the new “on the road” way of consumption of TV shows has been well received by the public and it is giving virtuous results also to media providers.

So, sometimes risks is well paid-back, isn’t it? Let’s wait for Charlie’s Angel on iTunes!

Let’s see what’s gonna happen and if, this way, something under the sun (or over the screen at least) is going to change. This will be another step towards change after the innovation of the content distribution proposed by Apple with video contents via iTunes. However Apple is not arrived to movies yet… and movies is the big cake to bite!

Maybe this is one of that cases where the market, so the public, is the best way to determine what is better. Nobody can foresee which the answer of the public will be: is seeing a movie in theatres a perfect substitute of a dvd or a cable tv show? Or people will continue going to theatres because of the related experience (like I’ll do)? This will be a good chance to have an answer, and public wants to have something to say about it.

In Italy, something similar happened last autumn, with Sydney Pollack’s “The interpreter”. Eagle pictures, having signed an agreement with H3G, was supposed to start the distribution over UMTS of its movies with this important one. But at the news that “The interpreter” would be distributed simultaneously in theatres and via mobile phones, the movie-theater owners association blocked the distribution of the movie.

So, the digital music lesson has not been well understood by the movie-guys, it seems. To block a distribution channel is not the answer, is just a way to increase piracy and under-consumption! If technology allows innovative uses, these uses have two ways to be exploited: legal and illegal ones, depending on the industry farsightedness. Changing is always scaring, but at a certain point is the only way.

Let’s see if Mr. Soderbergh and his companions will be able to give a better lesson…

Good luck!