Is Sony's New E-Reader Ushering in a World with No Copyright?

Sony recently announced their Kindle-Killer, the Sony Reader Daily
Edition. Why do I think this is the beginning of the end for copyright in the world? Well, honestly, I don't, but effectively, that's what the new RDE will do--whether industry will accept it or not is not up to me.

See, while Sony's new e-reader allows you to do everything the Kindle can do, book-wise anyway (there's no browser), it also allows you to take out library books. That's right. Library books--you "take them out" by downloading them wirelessly to your RDE. They expire after a given time, fulfilling the "returning your library book" part of the traditional equation without you having to do a thing--but right there is the part where copyright breaks down.

Unlike a real book, this is an an e-book--a digital copy of a book--there's no need for you to return it so someone else can check it out. This means that you can just take it out again and again. Effectively, you own the e-book without actually paying for it.

Sure, the library could apply rules that would determine how many times in a row you could check a book out, but since it's digital this is literally a creation of artificial scarcity. Sony's technology has jumped the capitalist shark and can provide unlimited copies of any book in any library that's part of it's network. So, why ever buy books again?

Now, I'm not really saying this is the end of copyright, but I am saying it might as well be. Once libraries start making their multimedia collections available for digital download (which they'll do eventually), that'll pretty much be it.

For me, this is just a replay of every argument against technology since the Church went after Galileo. Eventually science won out because it could prove that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The same loss hit the MPAA when VHS proved to be a technology Hollywood could actually work with.

Now it's just up to the Entertainment Industry to work out a new business model that will allow them to peacefully co-exist with this technology before they are out-evolved by it.

Adapt or die, folks...

Read more about Sony Reader Daily Edition on Mashable.com or in an article at CRN.com.

Is America Getting Copyright/Patent Crazy?

The above screencap comes from a TUAW.com post (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…ion-cards/ ) on a lawsuit being brought against Apple Inc for violating a patent on "retail point of sale for online merchandising"--aka gift cards you buy in a store and redeem online. This is a seriously absurd idea to me--does someone own a patent on gift cards you buy in a store and use in a store? Does someone own a patent on buying things with a credit card? How can you patent a concept so common and logical that you'd expect that it's just a natural part of evolving commerce?

A few weeks back, I posted the first part of my vlog series on waiting for my XO laptop to show up (see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…-day-4-pt1 ). I posted it to Revver who, at first, rejected it because it contained footage of me on hold. What's that got to do with anything? Well, the hold music was copyrighted. They didn't want to get sued if the copyright-holder of the crappy music got mad. Of course, my video is a documentary, technically, so the music was part of the event I was documenting--so, it falls under fair-use. Still, it was enough for Revver to be paranoid. After telling them to send any interested lawyers my way, they let the video get posted.

Then, while shooting another Vlog entry just a few weeks later, I wondered if my footage of Hollywood Boulevard would get my vlog entry rejected from Revver because of all the copyrighted logos I was capturing outside the Hillary/Obama debate that night. The vlog post didn't get rejected and you can see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…and-barack

Still, it made me think about one of my favorite shows on TV--"Mythbusters" and how every time they have a brand name logo on a T-shirt, bucket or anywhere else, the post-production guys have to blur said logo out.

Then there was the case of the YouTube video that inspired Prince's lawyers to send a C&D letter because one of his songs played in the background of the video which featured a baby doing something cute.

It's one thing to protect yourself or your company from a genuine loss of business, revenue or reputation. However, to me, suing because of any of the above examples seems idiotic and greedy. Not EVERY use of copyrighted material or patented processes equates to lost revenue or a ruined reputation.

Remember that time Oprah said she wouldn't eat hamburgers ever again?

First off, yeah RIGHT.

Second off, she got sued by a bunch of meat industry guys.

So much for free speech, huh?

I mean, I HATE Oprah--her saying she'd never eat a hamburger again made me WANT to eat more burgers!!

Publicity is publicity, guys. Unless you're some fool who decided patenting a process as basic as selling gift cards you redeem online. That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why not patent coupons?

Here's an idea, let's patent "the process of displaying logos, products and slogans with the intent to entice monetary transfer in exchange for product or service included in display."

We'll call it "ADVERTISING!"

Sorry, I tend to be cranky in the mornings.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.