<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;vivendi&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:40:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Universal Sued For Screwing Over Its Own Sister Company</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130301/02573122169/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-universal-sued-screwing-over-its-own-sister-company.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130301/02573122169/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-universal-sued-screwing-over-its-own-sister-company.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed a few times the concept of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=hollywood+accounting">Hollywood Accounting</a>, which covers the various tricks of the trade pulled by the big studios to basically keep all the money for themselves, and guarantees that the movie is never, ever seen as "profitable," as that would mean they would need to share some of the profits.  It appears that we may be about to see significantly more dirty laundry revealing some of that Hollywood Accounting in detail.  And this time, it's extra special because it involves two companies who were <i>corporate siblings</i> for much of the time in dispute, as both were owned by Vivendi.  However, StudioCanal is now <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/studiocanal-sues-universal-claiming-millions-425415" target="_blank">suing Universal</a>, claiming that Universal pulled accounting tricks to deny giving StudioCanal many, many millions of dollars that were owed.
<blockquote><i>
For nearly ten years, Universal was delighted to accept StudioCanal's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to offset Universal's financial obligations.  During most of this period, StudioCanal and Universal were corporate siblings through common ownership by the French company Vivendi.  The StudioCanal/Universal joint venture financed forty-four Working Title motion pictures, including <u>About A Boy</u>, <u>Bill Elliot</u>, <u>Bridget Jones Diary</u>, <u>Frost/Nixon</u>, <u>Love Actually</u>, <u>O Brother Where Art Thou?</u>, <u>Pride And Prejudice</u>, and <u>United 93</u>.
<br /><br />
Last October, StudioCanal concluded an audit of the joint venture's development and overhead expenses, which Universal had managed.  StudioCanal also concluded audits of Universal's distribution of several of the joint venture-produced motion pictures, in several (but hardly all) Universal-assigned territories and in several (but hardly all) media.
<br /><br />
Those audits revealed that Universal was violating its fiduciary and contractual obligations to StudioCanal.  For example, based on the audit reports, StudioCanal is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that: <b>(a) Universal intentionally hid from the partnership and kept for itself benefits it derived from off-balance sheet financing arrangements; (b) Universal failed to report, or reported negligible amounts of, ancillary revenues from sources such as music publishing, only to somehow "find" several million dollars in such revenues after receiving the audit reports; (c) Universal retained for itself financial benefits from vendors, thereby profiting for itself at the expense of its partners; (d) Universal double-charged the partnership for producing and other fees paid to Working Title without StudioCanal's knowledge or approval; and (e) Universal deducted millions of dollars in unsubstantiated expenses before reporting the results to its partner StudioCanal.
</b></i></blockquote>
Of course, none of this should be remotely surprising.  We've seen so many stories of movie financing shenanigans that these stories hardly sound unique.  It's just that the lawsuit might make some of the actual details public, which would certainly be educational.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130301/02573122169/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-universal-sued-screwing-over-its-own-sister-company.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130301/02573122169/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-universal-sued-screwing-over-its-own-sister-company.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130301/02573122169/hollywood-accounting-strikes-again-universal-sued-screwing-over-its-own-sister-company.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>family-feud</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130301/02573122169</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:21:41 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Activision Comes To Its Senses; Allows King's Quest Fan Game To Live On (Again)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03153110003.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03153110003.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nearly five years ago, we wrote about how some fans of the video game King's Quest, of which there hadn't been an official release in years, had decided to put together a fan-created version.  Vivendi, who owned the rights to the game, initially sent in the lawyers with a cease-and-desist, but later <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051212/0143203.shtml">backed down</a>, and gave the go ahead, so long as the name of the game was <i>The Silver Lining</i>, rather than <i>King's Quest IX</i>.  But, of course, you may recall that earlier this year, Activision, who had merged with Vivendi, suddenly decided that the old permission <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml">no longer applied</a>, and demanded that all work on the game cease and go away.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, Nick Coghlan alerts us that, after many months, this story actually is turning into a repeat of the 2005 story, as <a href="http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/6/28/kings-quest-returns-silver-lining/" target="_blank">Activision has come to its senses</a> and is letting the game live on.  Apparently the negative publicity over Activision's previous position convinced the company that it was making a mistake, and it rescinded the cease-and-desist.
<br /><br />
While this story appears to have a happy ending where common sense prevails over ridiculous legal threats, the whole situation once again highlights the problems of permission-culture.  These fans were trying to build something that celebrated a game that hasn't been commercially released in ages.  And yet, twice now, they've had to deal with threats to be shut down, with the second time coming after they'd already secured "permission."  This is not how culture is supposed to work.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03153110003.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03153110003.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03153110003.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>permission-culture</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100629/03153110003</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:17:53 PST</pubDate>
<title>Activision Kills Fan Game Project, Despite Fan License Granted By Previous Rightsholders</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently some fans of the video game series <i>King's Quest</i> have been working for eight years on a fan-made sequel to the last such game.  Back in 2005, Vivendi (then the rights holder) sent them a cease and desist, but eventually worked out a "non-commercial fan license" that allowed them to continue.  Fast forward to today, and Activision now owns those rights and <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/01/0546238/8-Year-Fan-Made-Game-Project-Shut-Down-By-Activision?from=twitter" target="_blank">has decided that the fans' efforts should all go to waste</a>.  The company has told the fan group to <a href="http://www.tsl-game.com/" target="_blank">shut it all down</a>:
<blockquote><i>
After talks and negotiations in the last few months between ourselves and Activision, they have reached the decision that they are not interested in granting a non-commercial license to The Silver Lining, and have asked that we cease production and take down all related materials on our website.
</i></blockquote>
This is "promoting the progress"?  You have to hand it to Activision, though.  Not only has it pissed off a large group of fans, it's stomped out eight years of their hard work as well.  I'm sure that will make those folks that much more excited about purchasing Activision games.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0045448331.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>evil</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100301/0045448331</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>US Court Brings Back Price Fixing Lawsuit Against Major Record Labels</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0905077729.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0905077729.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've wondered why the major labels haven't gotten in trouble for what appears to be clear <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050925/2229220.shtml">price fixing</a> -- having all of the major labels band together to both demand identical wholesale pricing <i>and</i> attempt to dictate retail pricing by partners as well.  There have been various investigations by both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051223/203253_F.shtml">local</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060303/0147200.shtml">federal</a> officials, along with a few lawsuits -- but nothing has really gone very far.  One lawsuit was tossed out by the district court back in 2008, but in a surprising move, the 2nd circuit appeals court <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60C3Y020100113?type=technologyNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&#038;feedName=technologyNews&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2FtechnologyNews %28News %2F US %2F Technology%29" target="_blank">has revived the lawsuit</a>, claiming that the evidence is "sufficient to plausibly suggest" price fixing by the major labels with regards to digital music.  So now it goes back to the lower court.  I still doubt this will really have much of an impact, but it's nice to see some recognition of what's seemed pretty obvious for quite some time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0905077729.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0905077729.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0905077729.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>all-priced-the-same?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100113/0905077729</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Bill Squier alerts us to the news that <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/06/02/apple_sued_over_methods_for_repeat_itunes_app_store_sales.html" target="_new">a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information</a> and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site.  The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/04/week-in-patent-litigation-april-610.html" target="_new">sued back in April</a>.  The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others.  The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes &#038; Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others.  So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.
<br /><br />
As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens."  The specific patents are <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=-hqqAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,376,621" target="_new">7,376,621</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=PJ-AAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,249,099" target="_new">7,249,099</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=gc-nAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,328,189" target="_new">7,328,189</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3-x-AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,177,838" target="_new">7,177,838</a>.  Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay.  Since the patent system defenders among our readers get <i>quite</i> upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around.  Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies.   He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to <i>share an office</i> (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case.  At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pay-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090602/2115555102</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Does ActiBlizsion Make Sense? Can A Merged Activision And Blizzard Really Work?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/000705.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/000705.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The big news in the tech world this weekend, of course, is the slightly complicated <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03activision.html?pagewanted=all">merger between video game firms Blizzard and Activision</a> to form the not-particularly-creatively-named Activision Blizzard.  You can read the link above to figure out the complicated parts, including Vivendi's role, as well as the various amounts of cash going into the deal from both sides.  As for the rationale behind the deal, it's one of those deals that seems to make sense on paper.  It makes the combined company somewhere around the size of EA, the major player in the space.  It also aligns the complementary strong points of each firm.  Activision is big in console games like <i>Guitar Hero</i> while Blizzard is big in multi-player online games like <i>World of Warcraft</i>.  Blizzard also has a strong presence in Asia.  So, on paper, it sounds like a great deal.  The tricky part will be actually making it work.  Even with such clear complementary successes, it's not always so easy to merge two large players like this with different approaches to the market.  What almost always happens when two large companies merge is that one side ends up taking over and the other group fights for a while and then leaves -- taking much of the reason for the merger away.  Even more complicated in this case is that both companies are pretty dependent on coming up with new "big hits" on a regular basis to keep bringing in the revenue.  EA's success (whether on purpose or not) has largely been driven by the ability to release "franchise" games that people will buy the next version of every year -- particularly in the sports arena.  If the merger makes the company take its eye off the ball, leading to a weak set of products, it could be quite damaging.  Maybe the companies will pull it off.  Maybe they can figure out a way to actually build on their separate strengths without fighting themselves -- but it's a big bet to take.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/000705.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/000705.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/000705.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-studio-model-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071203/000705</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:47:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Universal Music Execs Finally Recognizing That It Needs To Make Its Money On Complementary Goods</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/015211.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/015211.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The press and various tech blogs have had something of a field day with the news of Vivendi's CEO, Jean-Bernard Levy, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL2488079220070924">calling Apple's iTunes' contract "indecent."</a>  Vivendi, of course, owns Universal Music, a company that has been rather aggressive in trying to squeeze money out of just about everyone while searching for new business models.  However, reader <b>Cannen</b> writes  in to point out that, while the "indecent" quote is getting all the headlines, there's a much more interesting quote buried further down in the article.  Levy then is talking about Universal Music's plans to make money, and there are a few very interesting quotes:
<blockquote><i>
Fleshing out UMG's strategy, Levy said it planned to focus on better exploiting the "monetization of an artist's image" which included branded clothes and TV shows.

"This is what we hope will revive our business," Levy said. "People indulge in piracy but spend a lot of money on many other things that are linked to an artist."

Levy forecast that "in the not so distant future", traditional music products such as DVDs and CDs would make up less than 50 percent of music publishing revenues.
</i></blockquote>
That sounds shockingly similar to what some of us have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">advocating</a> for about a decade -- which had record industry insiders telling us we didn't understand their business at all.  Of course, it's not all the way there.  What's missing is the realization that if you stop thinking of it as "piracy" and start thinking of it as "promotion" then you <i>want</i> people to share the content, recognizing that it will spread further, creating more fans with more interest in buying all those other things linked to the artist.  Of course, if any of the record labels want to get a better idea of how to do this, they should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/contact.php">contact us</a>.  We could have helped them avoid much of the mess of the past ten years.  There's still time to make sure that the next ten aren't even worse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/015211.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/015211.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/015211.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>slowly,-but-surely</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070925/015211</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>