While attempting to draft my last post evangelizing Tide to Go, I naturally went looking for a picture of the product. When I got to the site, I right clicked on the image and was greeted by an alert box that said “Sorry, right click has been disabled for pictures.” [1]

What type of marketer goes to their web development team and says, “Be sure to disable right click. We don’t want anyone stealing our pictures!” [2]

It’s a 400px by 100px picture of a disposable consumer product. If I worked for Procter & Gamble, I would be begging people to take my content and republish it. Why proactively make it harder for your fans to spread the word?

=-=-=-=-=-
[1] This was technically not true. They forgot to code for Firefox so it was, in fact, not disabled.

[2] Apparently only the marketer in charge of Tide. Notably, other P&G Brands such as Bounty, Cascade, Crest and Tampax don’t employ these tactics. Makes me wonder what Tide is trying to protect itself from.

I just got around to reading Jonathan Lethem’s truly inspired piece entitled The Ecstasy of Influence in the February Issue of Harpers Magazine. The piece explores plagiarism and influence in art. It is a must read. I really like what Lethem is doing with his own art. He isn’t merely philosophizing on copyright, he is walking the walk. Check out his Promiscuous Materials project where he has given non-exclusive rights to various stories and music lyrics for a dollar. He also recently decided to give a free option to the film rights for his latest book You don’t love me yet to one lucky filmaker.

Many folks in the blogosphere are linking to a website that wants to start a campaign for everyone to send back their MP3s to the RIAA.

It sounded like a cruel joke to me when I first heard it. The RIAA doesn’t own the copyrights. So in essence, you wouldn’t be sending them back, you’d be forwarding them on to the RIAA (along with your personal info).

Ernest Miller has this to say:

The problem is that emailing MP3s to the RIAA is a violation of copyright (the RIAA doesn’t actually own the copyrights). Additionally, by emailing the MP3s, you are (unless you are carefully taking precautions) telling the RIAA exactly who you are. At a minimum liability of $750 per MP3 mailed, the joke could turn sour very quickly. While I don’t think that the RIAA will actually sue people who do this, they just might, or at least take a closer look at those who have (are you sure the RIAA doesn’t have any evidence of your previous file-sharing?).

Arrested Development (of early 90s Hip Hop Fame) is suing Fox for trademark infringement. Thomas v. Twentieth Century Fox, No. 03CV10389-4 (DeKalb Super. filed Oct. 16, 2003). In the complaint, the band calls the name of the new sitcom a “confusingly similar imitation” of the band’s name.” Wait a minute… that looks like the “same name” as the band’s name. The funny part is that AD alleges that Fox’s new sitcom is causing “irreparable harm” to the band’s name and reputation.

Ok, guys. I was down with “Tennessee” and “Mr. Wendal” back in the day. But let’s be serious - your reputation has been shot for about a decade. You should hope people get confused…

Via Cicero’s Ghost

Update: Speech had this to say about the law suit - via Launch media:

Fox has no more right to use ‘Arrested Development’ for its show than a band would have to name itself after one of Fox’s sitcoms

According to the article, Arrested Development, which broke up in 1996, has re-united and is currently working on a new album, Among The Trees, which will be released in 2004. I think it is hilarious that this article is on KKYX.com a “Classic Country” radio station’s website.

This is why I need to get into government. The FCC is caving to pressure from Jack and the gang and is about to sign some laws in to effect that are down right scary. You can read about it here.

Basically, the FCC wants to have “broadcast flags” embedded in all digital television. They also want all hardware manufacturers (computers, DVD players, etc.) to build “broadcast flag” compliant products. Supposedly this will help thwart the copying and disseminating of “high value”content on the Internet.

There are so many problems with this. Top on my list is the fact that the government should not be regulating how our emerging technology gets built. This could have a drastic effect on innovation. Smaller issues include the fact that consumers may be forced to buy new systems, and I cannot believe that the MPAA has this much say. The quote below is from the article linked above:

Of greatest concern to some opponents, including major technology companies such as Microsoft Corp., is that device makers, tech firms and the entertainment industry could not agree on the technology that would be used in devices to recognize the flag and act accordingly.

Instead, the FCC has been working from a proposed rule drafted by the Motion Picture Association of America, which gives the moviemakers a strong hand in evaluating which technologies to use.

That is terrifying… the MPAA has the only seat at the table. They are literally writing the rules.