Universal Music Prevents Popular Play From Showing In Stockholm, Despite Not Having The Legal Rights

from the copyfraud... dept

As the major record labels and their lawyers and lobbyists run around the globe demonizing anyone for any sort of copyright infringement, we keep hearing stories of how they falsely claim rights over music for which they do not hold them. We recently covered the story of Edwyn Collins and his inability to offer free downloads of a popular hit song -- because Warner Music Group put in a copyright claim on the song. Reader Marius points us to a similar situation, over in Sweden. Despite theaters in Sweden being covered by a license agreement on musical performances by STIM, the Swedish performing rights collection society, apparently some music publishers claim that theaters still owe more money.

In one case, Universal Music (I assume its publishing arm...) threatened a theater because a popular play (that had toured without incident all over Europe) included a part where a Simon & Garfunkel record was playing in the background. The theater owner actually wrote a letter to Paul Simon to find out what his complaint was -- and received a response saying that Universal does not represent Paul Simon's music in theater contracts. Now, it's possible that there was some misunderstanding (language, cultural or legal), but this sort of thing seems to be happening more and more. When the theater owner informed Universal of this, Universal apparently retracted its demands for payment -- but the theatre company putting on the performance had already decided not to risk doing the play.

It's difficult to see how anyone comes out ahead in such a scenario. The Swedish public doesn't get to see the play or hear the music. Paul Simon doesn't get to attract new fans. Universal Music doesn't get anything other than a lot of ill will from the theater community. Why even bother at all?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Eminem's Misguided Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Set To Start

from the apparently-not-yet-settled dept

Back in 2007, we noted that Eminem's publisher was suing Apple for offering Eminem tracks on iTunes. Apple pointed out that it had an agreement with Eminem's record label, and we wondered why Eminem wasn't suing Universal Music, rather than Apple. So, earlier this year, when Eminem and Universal Music went to court we assumed that the lawsuit had been refocused on the proper party. Apparently, we were wrong. The lawsuit against Apple is scheduled to begin Thursday if no agreement is reached today. However, remember that lawsuit against Universal earlier this year? Well, Universal won, with the court saying that Universal had the right to distribute digital offerings. So... why is the lawsuit against Apple still going forward? Am I missing something...?

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Refuses To Dismiss Allman Bros. Lawsuit Against UMG; iTunes Royalties At Stake

from the a-license-or-a-sale? dept

There have been a number of lawsuits over the past few years from artists who are complaining about how the major record labels account for iTunes sales. The question is whether or not a song sold on iTunes is the same as a CD sale (a tiny tiny royalty) or more like licensing a song for a commercial (more like a 50% royalty). Obviously, the record labels want iTunes treated like a CD. But musicians have a reasonable argument that an iTunes sale may be a lot more like a typical license, as a big part of the reason in the discrepancy in the royalty rates is that there's no (expensive) physical packaging and distribution to handle. The Allman Brothers were one of the first to file lawsuits on this issue suing both Sony Music, and then a couple years later, Universal Music Group (I'm still not clear why they sued the two separately, years apart). Eminem also had sued UMG over this issue and lost, as a jury said iTunes was more like a CD sale.

UMG tried to get the case from the Allmans dismissed, but davebarnes alerts us to the news that the court has refused to dismiss the case, and it will proceed to a full trial. Of course, like Eminem, the Allmans may lose the trial, but it's better than having the case dismissed outright. Of course, if the Allmans win, it will create a bunch of similar lawsuits in short order, as pretty much every artist will be demanding a lot more iTunes revenue.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Tosses Universal Music Suit Against Veoh; Safe Harbors & Common Sense Prevail

from the google-should-be-happy dept

In a ruling that has to make the folks at Google/YouTube happy (despite not being a part of the case), a judge has granted summary judgment to Veoh over Universal Music, claiming that Veoh's video hosting site is protecting from liability of infringing videos due to the DMCA's safe harbors. This case, which has many similarities to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, has gone against Universal Music in almost every way. This is now the second time that Veoh has had such a lawsuit dismissed, and hopefully the judge in the YouTube case recognizes that this is, in fact, the right decision under the DMCA. This latest ruling isn't a huge surprise. Earlier this year, the judge seemed to reject all of Universal's arguments for why safe harbors shouldn't apply. Universal also got smacked down (twice) in its attempt to separately sue Veoh's investors for the actions of the company's users.

While Veoh, as a company, may be struggling, this is a huge victory for common sense. This case describes exactly the sort of situation that the DMCA safe harbors were designed to deal with. A service provider who has no direct say in what content is uploaded by users should not be liable for that content. It's great that judges are seeing this, and hopefully the judge in the YouTube case sees it the same way. Veoh's case isn't "over" yet, though, since Universal will appeal -- and has already claimed the ruling is "wrong." Yet, so far odds of a successful appeal are not looking good. Hopefully, the appeals courts will also correctly interpret safe harbors (and common sense) to recognize that a service provider should never be liable for the content put up by users.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Major Record Labels Sorta, Maybe Embracing Direct-To-Fan Projects

from the but-it's-more-than-just-the-platform dept

While we definitely knock the major record labels for their legal strategy and occasional business blunders, in the last two years or so, there has actually been some recognition within the record labels that finally they need to focus on giving fans what they want, rather than just suing them and hoping that the old CD business model magically returns to its former highs. There have been hints and glimmers of hope from the major record labels -- though, even those inside the labels who seem to get it will quietly admit that it's sometimes a struggle to get some of this through to "the old guard."

The question, though, is how much of this is real, and how much of it is the old guard putting on a show, picking up on a buzzword and insisting that this time, they've got it. A few years ago, all the talk was about "360 Deals" and how that would get the labels off of the CD revenue IV drip. But, many artists (smartly) balked, seeing such deals not as an industry adapting to change, but one looking to just get a larger piece of the pie -- and doing so without adding much value, and after decades of screwing over the artists. So that hasn't worked out so well for the most part.

It appears that the latest buzzword that the majors are picking up on is this concept of the "direct-to-fan" model. This is a bit of an offshoot of my own mantra of getting creators to connect with fans. And, for more independent artists, a number of platforms and companies have sprung up to help them more easily connect with fans, whether it's MySpace or BandCamp or TopSpin or TuneCore, or whoever else. And, of course, most of those companies also have relationships or deals with the major record labels, but it seems that the majors are realizing that they need to have a real "direct-to-fan" strategy themselves.

Just recently, we saw Warner Music sign a deal with Cisco to use Cisco's EOS platform for direct-to-fan efforts. And, more recently, Universal Music announced that it was working with Echospin to provide direct-to-fan offerings. I have no doubt that EMI and (probably way way way at the end of the line), Sony will get around to making similar announcements.

While I think it's a great thing that the labels are experimenting with smarter models that actually do focus on bringing the musicians closer to the fans and providing a much more compelling offering that goes beyond brochureware, I'm a bit skeptical that they'll really pull it off successfully in the short term. Direct-to-fan offerings is more than a platform. It's an actual business model and marketing strategy and it's unclear if the labels have actually figured that part out yet. Yes, they're adopting platforms and they're taking steps in the right direction -- so let's give them some credit. But until they really understand what fans want and how to better help musicians provide it, setting up a "direct-to-fan" platform won't make a big difference.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Virgin Does Music Deal With Universal; Everyone Involved Forgets The Past

from the let's-look-back-a-bit dept

There's lots of news coming out today about how UK broadband ISP Virgin has signed a deal with Universal Music to allow unlimited access to Universal Music's catalog (downloads and streams) for a set price. Various execs and politicians are talking it up like it's the greatest thing ever. It's as if they think that people can't remember back just a few months.

That's because it was just a few months ago that Virgin was set to launch a similar offering that included all of the major record labels, but then a few of them got greedy and said they'd only agree to it if Virgin also employed Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) techniques to track the file sharing and cracked down on any sharing of MP3s. Virgin resisted -- after all, just a few months before that, it had insisted that it would never cut subscribers off the internet for file sharing. So... wouldn't you know it... a part of this plan is to cut file sharers off the internet.

So, let's take a look at this "wonderful" and "amazing" new agreement. You get a vastly limited catalog (only Universal Music -- and who the hell knows what label their favorite bands are on these days?). It's not clear how the usage is tracked, but given the earlier reports, we have to wonder if it involves DPI spying on your usage... and Virgin is committed to cracking down on file sharing and even "temporarily" cutting off access to the internet (Virgin claims its okay, because the cutoff is only "temporary"). Perhaps there are some folks out there who will sign up for such a service, but it's difficult to see who. They aren't offering any benefits or additional value.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cher Lawsuit Highlights How Record Labels Screw Over Artists

from the protecting-the-artists? dept

It's certainly nothing new to find out that record labels rarely have the best interests of the musicians at heart (despite their proclivity to claim so -- especially to Congress and the press). However, a new lawsuit (sent in by a bunch of you) that pits Cher and the heirs of Sonny Bono, highlights some of the many ways that labels screw over musicians. In this case, Cher is alleging that Universal Music funneled revenue through international subsidiaries in order to completely hide how much revenue was made on Sonny & Cher music, in order to avoid paying the contractually agreed upon royalties. Again, such charges of creative accounting are legion in the industry, but it's nice to see a lawsuit detail exactly how some of the funny accounting is done. Whenever major record label folks insist that the labels have the artists' best interests in mind, it seems worthwhile to point out these sorts of stories.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal Music Told, Once Again, It Can't Sue Veoh's Investors For Veoh's Actions

from the good-news dept

Back in February, Universal Music got slapped down for its highly questionable attempt to sue the investors in Veoh for the actions performed by the company itself. We've never quite understood why the major record labels have tried, repeatedly, to sue the investors of sites and services they don't like. It's hard to see how that's justified, because if those investors are found liable, it would create a huge liability for any investor. Investors don't have day-to-day control over a company, and trying to make them liable for the actions of the company makes no sense. However, not only was Universal shot down in this attempt, but it tried to refile the lawsuit against the investors... and was shot down yet again. The judge noted that Universal Music presented no evidence as to why the investors should somehow be responsible for the actions of the company and tossed out the lawsuits against them again. Hopefully this wakes up EMI, who recently sued the investors in a small startup as well.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal, YouTube Collaboration To Be Run By Someone Who Sees The Bigger Picture

from the a-good-first-step dept

At the beginning of March, I questioned the wisdom of Universal Music and YouTube teaming up to create a separate site just for Universal Music, called Vevo. While I thought it could be interesting, it really depended on the execution, and the early talk about it seemed to miss the point. That is, it said that YouTube would supply the "technology" and Universal would supply the music. Of course, what that's missing is that much of the value in YouTube isn't in the technology (which many others have replicated), but in the community. So, if Vevo was to get anywhere, it would need to recognize that fact, rather than simply looking at YouTube as a tech vendor.

At the end of March, in a totally separate post, I wrote about my surprise at seeing my fellow keynote presenter at the Leadership Music Digital Summit, Rio Caraeff of Universal Music, present a reasonable vision for where the music industry needed to be: getting away from selling "music" and in creating better, more valuable experiences that simply can't be replicated by file sharing. This was in stark contrast to what Universal Music's own CEO had been saying for years. While Caraeff admitted that it was still a struggle to get this message through to everyone at Universal, he believed in it strongly.

That's why it's noteworthy that Caraeff has now been put in charge of the Vevo project. I'm still not convinced it's anything more than a boondoggle that will go nowhere quickly, but putting Caraeff in charge of it immediately makes it a much more interesting project to follow. The real question is what he does with it, and whether the bosses back at Universal Music actually give him enough free reign to let him turn the site into what it needs to be. I wish I could be optimistic, but given the major record labels' track record in dealing with such things, I still think the chances are pretty slim.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

There May Be Hope For The Recording Industry, Yet

from the let's-wait-and-see... dept

As noted, I'm at the Leadership Music Digital Summit to give a keynote talk tomorrow. Today's keynote is from Rio Caraeff, the executive VP of the eLabs group of Universal Music Group. Listening to his talk, it's impressive to see that it appears someone within Universal Music Group actually seems to understand what's going on. That may seem a bit dismissive of Universal Music Group, but it's not my assessment, but what the CEO of Universal Music Group flat out said just a couple of years ago, in noting that he had absolutely no clue about digital music and didn't even know how to hire the right people.

Caraeff, however, seems focused on all the right things. He talked about how access to music is more important than possession. He talks about how it's the experience that has always made music valuable, noting "you can't steal experience." In fact, he points out that the concept of the album is dead, but that UMG (and others) need to build a true "living album" that goes beyond the music: adding a full experience that can update over time, that allows fans to access the music however they want, and that enables interaction with that music -- including fan participation and user-generated content associated with the music. And he wants it all built on open standards, to avoid a situation like the Blu-ray consortium where only a few companies have control of the system.

"How do we compete with piracy? It's creating a unique experience that can't be easily replicated through file sharing."

He then goes on to say that the business of "licensing music" is a dead end because it's just not scalable (whoo hoo!) noting that it's killing innovation. Even saying that they need to acknowledge that they need to enable letting a thousand innovators bloom.

He did admit that the team at UMG is still struggling to figure out the best way to make money in this new world -- but he recognizes this is where things are going:

"I'd rather have access to all my music, tv shows and movies anywhere on any device, rather than "own" 100 files. This is going to be a swift transition. It's taken us less than 10 years to go from plastic discs to digital files. It will take 5 years or less to go from digital files to cloud-based services, which will make the music even more valuable."

This is all good news. It's someone who clearly recognizes the shift that needs to be made by a major record label. But, the real question is how much influence he actually has at Universal Music Group. We've seen similar recognition among employees at other record labels, including Warner Music and EMI -- but the "top management" at both of those firms has continued to go in the opposite direction, focusing on stomping out innovation, rather than encouraging it.

Unfortunately, this may be a real issue. He did admit:

"Universal Music is a big company and not everyone there is on the same page, but I was put into this job to make these changes. Turning a big ship around is slow. It's not a lack of desire, but it's a question of when not if. A lot of what I do is talk and evangelize to others within UMG to try to raise the consciousness level about where our business is going, to bring us to a path to growth again. It's not about how do we stop the decline of our business, but to find another billion dollar business for us. I'm not interested in how to I sell more MP3s on Amazon or to create new competitors to iTunes. That's important, but that's not going to transform our business. It's difficult in the day-to-day grind to turn a big company around, but it starts with passion. Passion sells. This is how it works."

It's great to see some optimism coming from within one of the major labels, recognizing all of the opportunities out there. Hopefully, it actually leads to something useful.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Eminem Loses Lawsuit Against Universal Music: Jury Says Digital Music Sales Are Like CD Sales

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

A few years back, a few bands, including Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers sued their record labels claiming their cut of iTunes sales wasn't right. It was basically a contractual suit. Since there are a million and one different licenses to deal with, the record labels were treating digital sales the same way they treated CD sales -- of which the artists get a tiny tiny percentage. However, these bands noted that it seemed like digital sales was much more similar to a deal where they were licensing their music for use in another product -- such as a commercial or a movie. In those deals, the bands get a much bigger cut. A little while later, Eminem filed a similar lawsuit -- though somehow (great lawyers there...) thought that it was all Apple's fault and sued Apple. It looks like that got sorted out eventually, and Eminem refocused the lawsuit on Universal Music. And... didn't get very far. Last week a jury found that Universal Music was right: a digital sale is just like a physical sale, and thus the significantly lower royalty rate applies. You can bet pretty much every major record label just breathed a huge sigh of relief (even though an appeal is likely), because a ruling in the other direction would take away a hefty chunk of margin from their digital sales.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal, YouTube Collaboration All Depends On Execution... And Community

from the give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

A bunch of different sources are reporting on a "near deal" between Universal Music and YouTube to create a special stand-alone music video site, sort of like a "Hulu for music." As has been widely reported, all of the major record labels have been in talks to try to come up with new deals with YouTube -- with most of the earlier focus concerning how to deal with user-uploaded clips that contained music. Famously, Warner Music pulled out of discussions, when it was angry about the terms of the deal. Sony Music, however, recently renewed their deal. The Universal Music deal would be something much larger -- focusing more on content put on an entirely new site by the label itself. The other major labels have been offered the option of joining in as well.

Of course, no deal is definite, and with all of these things, the devil is in the details. The News.com report notes that the "benefits" that each party brings to the table is that Universal would bring the music, while YouTube/Google would bring the technology. If that's really all there is to it, then it's missing the point of YouTube. The value has never been in the technology itself -- which isn't even as good as some others', and not all that hard to replicate. The value in YouTube has always been the community. Many people now go to YouTube first to find any kind of video they're looking for -- and there's a large and growing community of folks who use YouTube to communicate with others. Creating an entire site to get rid of the riffraff just for the sake of selling higher CPM ads may sound good at first, but if it does so in a way that diminishes the value of the community, it may limit the usefulness or success of the site. In fact, at just about the same time that news of this possible deal was leaking, news was breaking that PluggedIn, a site that tried to be a "Hulu for music" and apparently had wonderful technology, was shutting down.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal Music Just Realizes That Digital And Physical Distribution Should Be In The Same Group?

from the a-bit-behind-the-times,-eh? dept

We were pretty shocked that it took until just last summer for the LA Times to realize that it didn't make sense to have separate digital and print newsrooms, yet it seems that some other industries are just now learning the same lesson. Universal Music has had a reorganization, where it's finally admitting that digital and physical sales should be in the same group. This is the sort of thing that should have happened at least five years ago, if not ten. The fact that they're just coming around to this realization now suggests how out of touch the major record labels remain.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal Music Group Slapped Down (Again) In Case Against Veoh

from the can't-sue-the-investors dept

The ongoing lawsuit between Universal Music Group and online video site Veoh is seen by many as a precursor to the various lawsuits against YouTube (or, more specifically, the "big" lawsuit from Viacom). So far, it's not going well for the content companies. In another lawsuit, filed by an adult video company, Veoh won easily. In the UMG case, the judge has already shot down Universal Music's arguments for why Veoh shouldn't get DMCA safe harbor protection.

The latest news is that the judge has also dismissed Universal Music's attempt to include Veoh's investors as a part of the lawsuit. Universal's attempt to do this matched Universal's decision to sue Bertelsmann, a competitor who was also an investor in Napster. This made little sense to us at the time. Making an investor liable for actions of a company they invest in seems to open up a pandora's box of problems. Think of all the "shareholder lawsuits" you now see against management for corporate misdeeds... and turn that around, whereby anyone hurt by a company's actions could sue all of the investors. If investors are liable for a company's misdeeds, then suddenly it becomes a huge liability to invest in anything.

Eventually, Universal Music bought Bertelsmann... and rather than continue suing itself, Bertelsmann "settled." Bertelsmann (now UMG) later settled similar lawsuits brought by other labels, so the full issue of investor liability wasn't really addressed. In this case, the judge found that the only way Universal could make a credible claim that the investors were also liable was to show that they were actively encouraging increased copyright infringement after it was established that Veoh was infringing. That hasn't been established yet, at all, and it appears that the investors were actively pushing Veoh to block infringing content. So, Universal's claim against the investors has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF Explains Why You Should Be Allowed To Sell Promo CDs

from the first-sale-first-sale-first-sale dept

Last summer, a district court ruled that selling promo CDs is perfectly legal. This was an important ruling, because it reinforced the right of first sale -- which has been a part of copyright law for ages -- and it made it clear that companies couldn't wipe out the limits of copyright law simply by declaring them void. The case involved a guy, Troy Augusto, who was selling CDs on eBay. Many of the CDs were "promo" CDs that had been sent to reviewers and radio stations -- stamped with the words to the effect of "Promo: Not for Resale." I've got a few such CDs in my own collection.

Universal Music Group claimed that these CDs remained its property because of that stamp. However, that goes against the entire first sale doctrine concept -- which has always allowed individuals to resell copyrighted products that they possess. Universal's claim was that the stamp meant that it continued to own the CD, even though it never asked for such CDs back. If allowed, this would effectively let any company create their own copyright laws by simply stamping the content with the rules. So, forget the current, already ridiculous, term for copyright. New authors or musicians could just stamp every product with "Property of the content creator" and you would never actually own the product.

Luckily the court disagreed... but Universal has appealed, and the RIAA has filed a brief siding with UMG as well. The EFF has now filed its own brief, noting the ridiculous consequences of any ruling where Universal wins. Allowing Universal to win would effectively mean that all of the extremely important (and already diminished) limits found on copyright today no longer apply. That would be a travesty and go against everything that copyright was originally designed to represent.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Record Labels Kill Off 'Legal P2P' Before It Even Gets A Chance

from the another-shot-in-the-foot dept

One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.

That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Veoh Gets Another DMCA Safe Harbor Win, This Time Against Universal Music

from the good-decisions dept

You may recall that last year, the video hosting website Veoh had a big win when a court ruled that the site was protected by DMCA safe harbors from infringement committed by users. Of course, that particular lawsuit was only one of a few that Veoh is involved in. In a separate case, brought by Universal Music Group, UMG made some somewhat twisted arguments as to why Veoh shouldn't qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections. Basically, it said that Veoh gave up its safe harbors by creating copies of the video in transforming their format and creating copies that were in smaller "chunks" than the original. UMG also went out on a limb claiming that the fact that users could stream videos and download whole videos also took away their safe harbor protections. It's hard to see how those arguments make any sense at all, and it sounds like UMG lawyers were just throwing every possible argument against the wall, knowing they had little to work with.

The good news is that the judge has rejected all of those arguments, saying none of them seemed to mean Veoh gave up its safe harbor protections. The lawsuit isn't over yet, and the court hasn't ruled on whether Veoh (overall) is protected by the DMCA, but in rejecting UMG's weakly reasoned arguments for why Veoh had given up those protections, it suggests that Veoh is likely to prevail here too.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal Music CEO Still Doesn't Believe In The Promotional Value Of Music

from the how-does-this-guy-stay-in-charge? dept

A year ago, we were fairly shocked at an interview with Universal Music CEO Doug Morris. The guy gleefully explained how clueless he was about technology, and said that he didn't even know enough to hire people who could properly guide him to understanding how technology was impacting the music industry. Furthermore, he displayed an ignorance of basic economics and basic finance at the same time by insisting that any sort of promotion that might pay back tenfold at a later date was bad business because it meant someone was "taking advantage of you." Yes, apparently, the idea of spending a dollar today to make back ten next year makes no sense to the CEO of a large company. We wondered how Universal's shareholders could possibly let someone so gleefully clueless continue to run the company.

Apparently, he's still at it, and still not afraid to open his mouth and expose his ignorance. In Morris' latest interview he insists that the company doesn't believe in promotions, but wants to get paid for every single use of its music:

"We don't look at anything as promotion. Take a look at MTV. It turned out to be a disaster for us. We sold some records, but they built this huge company and we gave them our (music) for nothing, and what did we get?"

If this sounds familiar, it's probably because fellow big record label boss, Edgar Bronfman recently used the same fallacious logic in claiming that video games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band were getting all the benefits from Warner Music's bands, without giving anything in return. In both cases, you have content providers who are significantly overvaluing the content, while significantly undervaluing the way that content is used. In this case, notice that Morris is admitting that MTV actually did help Universal sell more records. So what's the "disaster"? It's that another company, MTV, also got big. As we recently explained, this psychological phenomenon is seen throughout the big record labels. They care less about their own absolute success than they do about their relative success compared to others. They would prefer that they actually bring in less money for shareholders, as long as it means other companies do even worse.

I guess I can understand that, as a record label boss, you might overvalue the content, but to insist that there's no value in promotions -- even when there's increasing economic evidence that such promotions can greatly expand your market (at a time when your old strategy has resulted in a rapidly diminishing market) screams of corporate malfeasance. It makes you wonder what Universal Music's parent company, Vivendi is thinking. Are Morris' bosses just so impressed with the fact that Morris once wrote the song "Sweet Talk Guy" that they let him sweet talk them into letting him continue to run the company into the ground?

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Metallica Still Struggling With Embracing The Whole File Sharing Thing

from the no-interview-for-you! dept

While Metallica is claiming (this time around) they don't mind that the latest album is being shared online, someone forgot to tell the band's representatives. TorrentFreak notes that the band's European record label, Universal Music (in the US, the label is Warner Brothers Records) has canceled the band's scheduled interview with a Swedish newspaper after a reviewer for the paper reviewed a remixed version of the album that he admitted he had downloaded via The Pirate Bay.

Universal's claim was that this is "totally unacceptable" seems destined to backfire. This is only going to provide a lot more attention to the fact that there's a different remix of the album available online that many people find better than the official version. Plenty of other artists like and encourage others to remix their music, because it tends to get fans much more involved with the music and can help attract new fans while making existing fans more connected to the band. For all of Metallica's talk of really embracing online fandom this time around, it keeps showing that it puts up roadblocks all around, rather than really connecting with the fans.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

But What If A Takedown Notice Isn't Actually A DMCA Takedown?

from the legal-gymnastics dept

We already covered the judge's ruling about how copyright holders need to consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice, but there's another part of Universal's position in this case that has been widely ignored (even by the judge in the case), but which Ethan Ackerman wisely calls attention to: Universal claims that the takedown letter doesn't violate the DMCA because it wasn't actually a DMCA takedown. Instead, they said it was just a friendly "request."

This may seem like a silly assertion or, at best, a minor side point, but it could become quite important. The DMCA has some very specific conditions that those sending takedowns need to meet -- but there's nothing really stopping anyone from sending a request that isn't specifically a DMCA takedown notice. For copyright holders, this would remove some of the power of the takedown notice, as it wouldn't require the service provider to react, like a DMCA notice does. However, if rulings like this one stand, adding some amount of liability to copyright holders sending DMCA takedown notices, some may actually find it safer to send non-DMCA takedowns on the assumption (probably correct) that most service providers will treat them exactly the same as a DMCA takedown. In other words, would copyright holders "opt-out" of the DMCA terms in order to avoid that liability? It will be worth watching.

Of course, in this case, the court just assumed that even if it didn't hit all the criteria, it was for all intents and purposes a DMCA takedown letter. But that won't always be the situation in future cases -- especially if copyright holders become even more explicit that the letters aren't DMCA takedowns, but some other type of takedown request. And, of course, this could expand as well -- where a total non-copyright holder could send such "requests" for takedowns, and they conceivably might not be violating the DMCA's provision against false takedowns, because they won't even fall under the DMCA. One way or the other, you can bet lawyers are going to be busy.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..