Universal's MP3.com Clone Loses in Court 88
erc writes: "According to this article, Universal Music Group's Farmclub.com online music service streamed songs without obtaining licenses from music publishers. According to the Court, Universal must obtain separate licenses for songs it wants to distribute over the net. Turn about, fair play!" Well, the courts are fairly consistent - if you don't have licenses from everyone and their brother, you can't play music online.
Re:If you buy rights to play it... (Score:2)
Re:If you buy rights to play it... (Score:1)
maybe good, maybe bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:maybe good, maybe bad (Score:1)
The point that everyone is missing here is that the people that own the rights to the music are doing nothing illegal. There's no reason to change the laws! If anything record companies should be pressured to change their regulations of music. If someone could actually show them that there is a benefit to freely-available music they would do it. At this point all they can see is lost profits...
Re:maybe good, maybe bad (Score:1)
Well it looks like the court ruling says they are doing this specific business illegally.
Re:maybe good, maybe bad (Score:1)
The point I was making is that there are viable ways to have streaming audio services. You have to license it properly and you have build a business model that supports it. It's not as if the law says there are absolutely no possibly ways to stream audio as had been insinuated.
openAudio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:openAudio (Score:2, Interesting)
Another friend who was a dance instructor also faced the same problem, she was hit with a nasty letter from a set of lawyers demanding she pay some huge licensing fee. It would've wiped out her meager profits so she's no longer a dance instructor.
I'm not saying that this is really fair play (the licensing fee should be based on the audience size and profit potential etc), but all of those classical CDs would have payed a licensing fee.
Re:openAudio (Score:2, Informative)
The licenses for public performance are in fact based on audience size and particualr use, if you get permission in advance it can actually be quite cheap. It is only if you are caught not paying that they try to ream you. Even restaurants and stores are supposed to be paying these fees, that's why services like DMX, Musak, etc are popular with these groups, the licensing fees for public performance are built in.
Dear Universal: Be careful what you wish for. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the courts sent a message saying the almighty big corporations can't violate the law. It's kind of funny that they're tripping on their own shoe laces. (See: the lawsuit this company launched against mp3.com)
It's going to be quite interesting to see the repercussions as Universal tries to appeal this ruling... in effect, they're saying, "We can e-broadcast copyrighted works without paying a license, but we'll put any citizen who does it, behind bars, forever!"
And I wonder how much all these licenses will cost Universal Music Group. Maybe it will be so prohibitively high that they'll start wanting to nix the law in Congress
Note to Universal: "Be careful what you wish for." - Wishmaster
Hmm (Score:1)
the U.S. courts say this what about china ? (Score:1, Flamebait)
what would be news is if someone in a country where CD copying goes on under the noses of the authoritys
like china or
realistically the U.S. seems to be how long you can drag it out in court
IBM got done for same thing as MS differance IBM lasted for 17 years in court but MS got there in a year and still is not out of it
"we are born in open feilds and die in a dark forest"
regards
john jones
Re:the U.S. courts say this what about china ? (Score:1)
(What is a deltic??)
/. hypocracy (Score:2)
Re:/. hypocracy (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that the court decision is right. You cannot start a service after you sued an identical service out of business (the court reasoning is different, btw...)
Re:/. hypocracy (Score:2)
Nope, it's still 'wrong, bad, anti-freedom.' However this time it's 'wrong, bad, anti-freedom' in a method that's affecting one of the primary people that caused the original 'wrong, bad, anti-freedom' to happen. As such we find humour in the situation as an 'Instant Karma, just add water' style situation.
Not to mention the whole, "Woohoo! Serves 'em right for being such prigs in the first place" sort of mentality.
Re:/. hypocracy (Score:1)
It is interesting that this ruling went against a major record label, however, consistent rulings aid in the enforcement of law.
In defense of /. (Score:5, Insightful)
- It establishes a level playing field. Big studios like Universal have to go through the same legal hoops as everyone else. From the article: "'This decision means record companies aren't in total control of how music will be exploited on the Net,' said Whitney Broussard, a music lawyer at Selverne Mandelbaum & Mintz. 'They are going to be on the same footing as other Webcasters, and they will have to negotiate publishing rights as well.'
- Universal is being hung up, as it were, by its own petard. The same legal hurdles that hurt MP3.com and Napster apply to Universal. From the article: "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes." Also from the article: "Universal spokesman Bob Bernstein said the company 'disagrees with the court's opinion, and we intend to appeal.'"
This isn't about taking a shot at a big company. It's about the rules being the same for everyone, and big studios not getting any extra help from the courts. SoSo, what does this mean, you ask? If Universal wins, the rules are rolled back and sites like MP3.com can go back to business without interference from the big boys. If they lose, they are forced into, gasp, fair market practices.
Consistently stupid,
Re:In defense of /. (Score:2)
Except that MP3.com is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal.
The Hive Mind hereby serves notice (Score:1)
Does it occur to you that more than two people might exist on Slashdot? And that their opinions may differ?
Irony, anone? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Irony, anone? (Score:1)
What is the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think this whole napster and online music "controversy" has blown way out of proportion, almost to the point of absurdity. Let's face it, almost everything they play on the radio sucks. There may be a catchy tune every now and then, but its all so... formulated. The lyrics are almost universally un-inspired, banal. Most of the rhyming songs sound like something a 5th grader would produce. Let's see, is this really worth a few million dollars: "Oh baby baby I love you... baby my baby!"
If you want music, if you're entertained by this, then pay for it and shut up. However, if you recognize what a scam the music industry is by selling worthless CDs with worthless music on them, then don't even fight about it. Vote with your wallet and just stop buying and stop listening to the crappy music that they're selling. Why waste harddrive space with such stupid songs anyway? Even if "fair use" entitles you to have them on your machine, just play your CD on a CD player. It's not that big of a deal.
If you don't like their policy, and you like the music, then you need to make a decision. Are you just a whiner or are you going to do something about it? Either listen to the music and play by their rules (that means PAY $$$) or else stop listening entirely, with your conviction based on principle. Yes, even if you like the music this applies. If you feel like you're "sacrificing", then you should be paying for the music. This is America (for many of us at least) and that's now capitalism works. You pay for goods and services, and shouldn't expect any free lunches. You know they're screwing you, and there's only one way to screw them back. Don't fight about fair use, just stop giving any money to them in the first place, but simultaneously stop listening to their pitiful music. Then go convince everyone you know to do the same.
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:2, Informative)
Building a massive distribution network like the major labels have done is not a trivial task. It adds tremendous value to a musician's earnings.
Do some musicians, after they get started, suddenly feel ripped off? Sure, and some go their own way, and frequently earn less money. Some do start up their own companies for just these reasons. The Beatles did. Ever hear of United Artists? Same thing, but by actors for movies.
This is just socialist nonsense that the massive means of distribution, created by very hard work by the record companies, should be used by musicians at the whim of and under terms of the musician.
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:2)
.... this popular artist [salon.com] doesn't seem to think so, as well as many others that I've heard about, and a few that I've known.
What a bunch of wankers (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure it's mostly to do with the fact that if I download music, they don't get the opportunity to ram BS advertising down my throat like they can with radio.
Maybe all these wankers should get out of the courtroom for a while, and move into the meeting room and get some damn details hammered out.
Then maybe the music listening public will finally get what it wanted to begin with.
MUSIC
A deeper problem with the music industry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout all these talks and other stories, we're seeing a bigger problem in the music industry that relates to copyrights and royalities; namely, that for any one song, there are 3 people and/or groups that can claim some form of ownership on it, legally or ethically. These are the performers themselves, the distributors that typically own the copyrights on the performce over the performers, and the publishers and songwriters that typically own the copyrights on the lyrics and sheet music but not the performance itself.
Too many cooks can easily spoil the broth.
This is why I think indy artists are gaining more and more attention. First, they typically are their own performers and publishers, which means they at least own the copyright on the lyrics and music. Secondly, most indy labels have much more lax contracts in that the label itself doesn't own the copyright on the performed work, and it is still held by the indy group. These situations allow the indy group to have full control on how to distribute and publish their work. And most good indy groups appear to understand that if they write good songs and yet release some of their works on the net, they will still take in a modest profit from touring and CD sales with the increase in their fan base. Only with that amount of control can situations like that happen.
If there is any other group beyond the performaces that are trying to get their hands in the honeypot as well, then all bets are off for strong control of distribution of their works.
This situation also calls for the development of music 'publishers' that are basically people that can help to press and burn CDs, and get them into distribution channel, but otherwise do nothing else with copyright, much like how people can get custom T-shirts made in large quantities; the t-shirt shop owns none of the copyrights on any logos or sayings, only does the job they are paid for. A shop that could offer a band to print, for example, a buck a copy for each CD, with $.10 being a profit for the shop, the rest into materials, operation, and distribution, could easily win out in such a situation. I'd also expect the shop to collect royalities, but again, most of these would go back to the band, the shop maybe taking only 10% of that as well.
Hopefully, more bands in the future will see that going indy, or at least staying away from RIAA, will earn them not only more respect from their fans, but possibly more money than they would have seen from signing with RIAA.
It's only but fair (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio stations have to pay to be able to air music. So do supermarkets, discotheques, or anyone that plays copyrighted music for large audiences. So, why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?
This "music should be for free" attitude has to change. Pirating music you didn't pay for is simply theft, just as software piracy is. There's no other way I can see it, really. Just because it's easy to pirate someone's music, doesn't make it legal.
Re:It's only but fair (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what's happening to the artists.
Re:It's only but fair (Score:1)
Crappy contracts may be only way to get radio play (Score:1)
Nobody's holding a gun to their head, saying that they can't create an alternate distribution scheme.
Nobody's holding a firearm to their head, but the labels are saying "All the major labels have essentially the same oppressive contract. All the major labels own the companies that give FM radio its playlists. If you don't sign our contract, you won't get any FM airplay, hardly anybody will know about you, hardly anybody will buy your CDs, and hardly anybody will go to your concerts." Now doesn't that have the same effect as holding a gun to an artist's head?
Re:It's only but fair (Score:1)
Re:It's only but fair (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio stations have to pay to be able to air music. So do supermarkets, discotheques, or anyone that plays copyrighted music for large audiences. So, why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?
Radio stations have to pay, but they don't have to get a license. There is a statutory license provided to them. Why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?
Re:It's only but fair (Score:1)
That happens to a lot of artists. It's called a recording contract. Nonetheless, we don't see Top 40 pop stars begging for handouts in the streets. The issue is not that they are lacking compensation. It's that they've discovered a new "economy" in their works and feel they are entitled to a piece of that pie as well. However, they are startled to find that the casual undeground economy they've discovered is not regulated by law, and no one really knows what goes on in it. There is exceedingly scant evidence regarding buying habits of people who indulge in digital music. You certainly aren't sharing any.
Radio stations have to pay to be able to air music. So do supermarkets, discotheques, or anyone that plays copyrighted music for large audiences. So, why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?
Good point. More interestingly, why does a large record company think they can do what a small startup cannot?
This "music should be for free" attitude has to change.
I don't know a lot of people who think it should be free. As a musician myself I certainly don't believe that. But it makes very little sense to erode the public's fair-use rights in order to prop up a shitty business model. There's the difference between the reasonable expectation that you get compensated, and the unreasonable expectation that you get compensated every time your product changes hands. There is a right of first sale, and that's about all that was guaranteed until recently.
Your simplistic reduction of this issue doesn't help discussion. I detest it when people attempt to reduce this to a) all digital copying is piracy b) piracy is bad c) therefore all digital copying is bad. It's sloppy thinking.
Re:It's only but fair (Score:1)
Just fine because I am not a greedy slacker who thinks that I should be able to coast for life on the work of a few weeks or months, however hard.
Please show me one hit of late that is not entirely derivative of earlier works. That would be an accomplishment worthy of a lot of money. Everything else is just a re-shuffle of someone elses ideas, and rarely worth more than a pat on the back.
Artists have a perfectly legitimate way of making a living. Performing. If they want to make good money, they should hit the road and earn it. Give people something that can't be duplicated.
Re:It's only but fair (Score:1)
Not to agree nor disagree with your point (my post is slightly off-topic), but this brings up another peeve of mine..
As an artist, I'd love that. Knowing that my art is being experienced by millions of people and my message could make an impact on that many people is an amazing thing, and everything an artist could hope for. These people are not "artists". They are employees...which is fine, as long as they don't try to claim that we are "stealing their blood, sweat, tears, dreams and emotions"(see Lars Ulrich). If your dreams and emotions can be bought and sold at the local shopping mall and are worth nothing more than the $12.95 some kid pays for them, then they've already been stolen long before MP3 got cool.
That's why I personally find it more important to support artists than the guys who write jingles for MTV commercials (read: "artists").
But no GPL violations. Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
Can anyone imagine the trouble and strife Universal would have had to withstand if it had been discovered that they were violating the GPL as well?
Is it me or are they proving *our* point? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been wondering how streaming over the net is different from radio boradcasts...apparently it is not save for over the air vs wires.
Heck even with the quote "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes."
Does anyone else find it strange that a Major Record label is trying to be the next Napster?
C'mon, instead of embrace, extend and extinguish it is Litigate, Subjegate, and Imitate/Steal.
All this Subscription as a Services seems like a really "Bad Idea(TM)" but no one seems to *GET IT*.
I'll spell it out (heck, I think I got this right at least in my own head):
Like a magazine subscription you actually *get* something for your money, something of value, something *tangible* at the very least.
With software, nope...unless the rules change drastically and someone gets a clue to align common sense with the law (long shot, I know).
Try explaining to "J6pk" that he does not *own* anything on his computer except maybe his data...hell, maybe not even that. You are in effect "leasing" the software...but here's where the 'red hot poker' comes in
Software? Nope. Except in the "warez" world where most of these ppl don't give a damn what the $ value is, as long as they can trade for something they do want/need...almost as if software is a
Heh, I'll be damned...that is what this is all about...*Computers are already a commodity!!* does it not stand to reason that *computer Software/OS's are on that 'slippery slope?'*
Cripes, sometimes I surprise even myself.
Moose
Re:Is it me or are they proving *our* point? (Score:1)
different from radio boradcasts...apparently it is
> not save for over the air vs wires.
If the digitization were not saveable locally, you would be correct.
Re:Is it me or are they proving *our* point? (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I love open source or I wouldn't read slashdot, but come on, When is the last time you saw an open source game completely on par with Quake III (especially one that wasn't commercial at some time), and the projects that still aren't even close, have been working at it for many more years than the Quake III team.
It is amazes me how Slashdot has such a high concentration of programmers yet would claim that a fellow programmer doesn't even deserve to get paid because he is creating something for your entertainment/benefit and you should be entertained/benefitted for free, while the poor programmer is stuck in a job he hates that puts less food on his family's table.
Re:Is it me or are they proving *our* point? (Score:1)
Short version: The software industry made software worthless.
We believe programmers should get paid, to be sure: take a poll as to how many readers would like to stuff Mattel execs into the driver's side of a Barbie Corvette, and you'll see this to be evident. Many of us remember a world when 20-30% royalties went to a SINGLE PROGRAMMER, and, for some reason, everyone made money. Now, the industry reaps record profits, rivaling other entertainment genres, and we have shutdowns and cutbacks that would make the airline industry blush. Just as people here claim that we should support indie music acts, we also claim to do the same when it comes to software.
Short version: Pay people who write programs, not people who make 8x10 cardboard boxes.
Re:Is it me or are they proving *our* point? (Score:1)
Attribute it to code bloat, bells and whistles that usually just piss off users/admins.
Truth is that I've argued against integration for quite a while. I *don't want* a web browser as part of my os/email/file browser/file viewer.
If an app can view more file types, cool, leave it to the app, not the os.
consider xview...if I used the app, it would make thumbnails which a file viewer could use...THAT is useful. It is also very close to the line of integration with out crossing it.
My argument against integration follows the house of cards train of thought...if you break one piece on windows...5 other apps are broken as well.
Break an app on unix, you've broken one app (this is not absolute, but usually the case).
This train of thought *also ties* into this story, where the napster/mp3 system was *broken* to begin with, and what did these idjits do?
They *integrated* it into a/their business plan.
Sheesh...how foolish can ppl be? No, wait. Don't answer that....
Moose.
I *am* interesting. I *am* insightful. I just can't articulate it with this 120 character li...
Music publishers are one big racket. (Score:2, Interesting)
Friends of mine submitted music to FarmClub.com, and, never having actually been to the site, I was under the impression that it was all unsigned bands trying to make their music more visible. I wonder if they can look forward to a piece of the pie.
Re:Music publishers are one big racket. (Score:1)
Now with the advent of digital recording and editing, production costs have decreased substatially. Now a band is like any other business, startup costs are within reason, and you'll be a small business in the beginning.
If you're really good at what you do, you'll sell.
That's nothing to labels... (Score:3, Informative)
But if you really want to make your band's lawyer shit a brick, show them the 60 page contract you have to sign if you are asked to perform on the TV show they have. I know of at least one act who refused an appearance on the show after seeing the contract. Naturally, there were lots of people who'd sign anything to get on TV, to replace them...
If you're really a friend of your friends on Farmclub, either persuade them to get off it immediately and consult a lawyer about their position, or at least convince them to run the agreements by their lawyer- ESPECIALLY if they 'get' to be on the TV program, the bait for most of the acts on Farmclub. You could call that show the parade of the damned- a revue of artists and bands who are already so contractually fucked that they will never have a career in the music business, even before they've sold a record.
Interesting Tactics?? (Score:3, Interesting)
On MP3 streaming... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem lies in the fine line between distribution and broadcast. When you distribute an MP3 online, you run the risk of violating the distributor's copyright to the actual CD medium. So, if that MP3 happens to be of a song by Metallica, and you don't have permission from the recording company, or its agent, you've violated copyright law for duplicating the CD (or a portion of it).
On the other hand, when you stream an MP3 online, you're broadcasting it. Broadcast isn't distribution, it's public performance. Public performance rights belong to the songwriters. If you broadcast that Metallica MP3 without permission from artist, or from one of the appropriate songwriter's associations, you've violated copyright law.
Thankfully, getting permission from the songwriter's associations--that's ASCAP, BMI and SESAC--is a piece of cake. The licensing rate depends on a number of factors -- available here [ascap.com], here [bmi.com] and here [sesac.com] -- but for the most part, for small internet broadcasters the fees are minimal. ASCAP charges about $250 a year to start... BMI is more expensive, SESAC is considerably less (something like $50 or $75 annually.)
The United States has additional rules for online broadcasters that don't apply to airwave broadcasters. For instance, you can't provide music on-demand... you can't announce your playlist in advance... and you can't play too many songs from the same artist/album in a row. Nor can your playlist repeat predictably or too frequently.
Other countries have less restrictive rules.
Where things get messy is where you start to provide audio on-demand, or whenever audio is made available for download. In those cases, distribution rights apply as well as (or instead of) public performance rights...
BRx.
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:1)
Huh. Guess that explains why radio stations would never play my *&%#$@ requests.
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:2)
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:1)
So if I set up a site where a user can choose what is *broadcast* to them (so they gotta listen to the song once to record it), and pay the annual fee, I'm basically good to go to set up my own broadcast site?
Certainly solve the bandwidth problem.
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:1)
Really?! Is this a U.S. law or is this RIAA rules? Why would the US pass a law regulating whether you announce your playlist in advance???
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:1)
Re:On MP3 streaming... (Score:2)
Can you tell me where/how you found out about the
additional rules for online broadcasters? It could be
relevant for a project I am working on.
Cover songs are illegal? (Score:2)
Re:Cover songs are illegal? (Score:1)
Lawyers and shareholders and their absurd expectations are destroying the culture of our age. I have this fantasy where I'm put in cryo suspension near the end of my life and wake up in a thousand years, just so I can prove if only to myself that most of the cultural output of the 20th century will vanish into a legalistic black hole.
Evolve new business models ! (Score:1)
1. Make the Content Easier and Cheaper to Buy Than to Steal
2. Use Digital Content to Promote the Traditional Product
3. Give Away (Some) Digital Content and Focus on Auxiliary Markets..
FarmClub.com? (Score:1)
Okay, maybe those songs where cats and dogs meow and bark Christmas carols.