Universal Music 'Settlement' With Bolt Makes A Mockery Of The Law; Common Sense
from the ridiculous dept
Last September, Universal Music's CEO, Doug Morris, threatened to sue both YouTube and MySpace, claiming both sites owed Universal Music millions. Morris was completely wrong on this assessment in almost any way you looked at the law. First off, many of the videos that contained UMG's music were clearly using them in a manner consistent with fair use. However, much more importantly, Morris was going after the wrong targets. The law is exceptionally clear that the service provider is not responsible for what its users do. To claim that YouTube has liability for a user uploading a video that contains some UMG music is clearly wrong -- and this view has been supported by numerous court rulings. Of course, soon after this, Google bought YouTube, and in the process gave a nice cash windfall to the big record labels, including Universal Music Group. The widespread rumor was that part of the deal was that the record labels wouldn't sue YouTube/Google... but absolutely would sue smaller competitors. Universal Music quickly complied and sued a few smaller sites, including Bolt.com and, a month later, sued MySpace as well.The news is spreading now that Universal and Bolt have reached a settlement -- though, the details suggest this isn't so much of a settlement as it is Bolt effectively paying a ton of money to Universal and more or less shutting down. All of this is despite the fact that Bolt has an incredibly strong legal position. It seems extremely unlikely that a court would find for Universal here -- but to continue to fight it is probably prohibitively expensive. Bolt, itself, can't afford the "fees" it has to pay under the settlement, so it's selling itself to a much smaller competitor who has some cash it can use to pay off Universal. Bolt's founders have apparently already moved on to some other startup. Realistically speaking, this is Univeral Music pressuring Bolt out of business (and even getting the company to admit it was "guilty" of violating a law it didn't break).
In the meantime, Doug Morris can chalk up another ridiculously hollow victory. He's the same guy who successfully convinced Microsoft to give him a cut of every Zune sold, despite no sane legal reason to do so. While Morris may think he's cleaning up by forcing companies to pay fees they shouldn't, he's actually shooting himself in the foot with each move. Videos uploaded to these sites that include background music from a UMG act hardly hurts sales. It seems almost laughably ridiculous to think that anyone would hear a song in the background of a video on YouTube (or Bolt) and decide that he or she no longer needs to buy a copy of that song from iTunes or via CD. Having these songs in the background of videos clearly acts as a promotion -- and it's a free promotion that Morris has just killed off for the short-term gain of a few million dollars. Morris is destroying Universal Music's long term chances with each "short-term" win -- and at the same time making a mockery of both the law that protects service providers and basic common sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, how do you really feel about this topic?
It is a real shame that Bolt! and other young companies are simply muscled into shutting down (and bankruptcy) by getting beseiged by deep-pocketed corporations that abuse the legal system with ridiculous lawsuits.
This has been a tactic used by Microsoft, Sun, et al since 1995... and it continues today.
And they say the IP system is broken....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
setting the record straight
I am inundated with calls, but I just wanted everybody to understand Bolt is not shutting down. We are merging with GoFish, settling our disputes, and refocusing our efforts on growth. I will leave the legal debates to the readership and attorneys. Check out GoFish's alexa and you'll see why we chose them among other things.
In addition, The NYT misquoted me significantly and should print a retraction. I never stated that we violated any copyrights. As in most settlements, we are settling to resolve litigation. There is no admission of wrongdoing on Bolt's part.
While there are legal arguments to be made that the DMCA affords protections to sites such as Bolt, I do think that. as an industry, we need to seek better business solutions for copyright holders. I'm happy to speak more about the process down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: setting the record straight
Thanks for stopping by to clarify!
I am inundated with calls, but I just wanted everybody to understand Bolt is not shutting down. We are merging with GoFish, settling our disputes, and refocusing our efforts on growth. I will leave the legal debates to the readership and attorneys. Check out GoFish's alexa and you'll see why we chose them among other things.
Would you have been merging with GoFish if you didn't have to settle this lawsuit? The fact that both are happening at the same time suggests that the reason has a lot more to do with the settlement than GoFish's traffic.
In addition, The NYT misquoted me significantly and should print a retraction. I never stated that we violated any copyrights. As in most settlements, we are settling to resolve litigation. There is no admission of wrongdoing on Bolt's part.
That's good. It's unfortunate that the Times misquotes you as they do. Either way, though, Universal will use it to suggest that you and others were guilty. It's a shame.
While there are legal arguments to be made that the DMCA affords protections to sites such as Bolt, I do think that. as an industry, we need to seek better business solutions for copyright holders. I'm happy to speak more about the process down the road.
There are a few issues here. The first is that, yes, it would be great if the tech industry helped come up with better business solutions for copyright holders, but that's not the same thing as rolling over and pretending their existing, obsolete business model needs to be protected -- or that you should cough up millions when there's no legal justification for it. I'm not saying you guys did anything wrong. In your shoes, I probably would have done something similar. I just think it's ridiculous that Universal Music was able to put you in that position that you had no real choice.
Was it the automobile industry's job to come up with a business model for buggy whip makers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money for nothing.
Meanwhile, we continue to jam out, to complaints from our friends that can't enjoy our efforts just because they can't travel to my living room to enjoy the show. Live shows there are problematic for a few reasons. For one, most of our friends work normal business hours, and we have to jam in the late afternoon. And only so many people can fit in my living room. Plus, my disability makes me have to stop and rest every other song, so it can be annoying for spectators to have to wait around for the next song. Posting videos of our jams would eliminate all these problems. That is what these sites were created for, and why people use them: to access entertainment they couldn't access any other way.
It's a shame the users can't post videos without risking losing everything they own to do so. It is just another fantastic service that will ultimately be killed off by Big Business' stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corp use of internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corp use of internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal is slick
I guess their lawyers must have leveled up their experience points :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a lot to learn Shawn
While I admit that there are companies that put profit first no matter what the consequences, commercialization of the internet is the only thing that has taken this far. If you want to go back to old BBS and plain inline text sites, then by all means... wait you want the fancy stuff we've got now? The stuff that groups invested many hours and much money to develope? They shared their developements, but trust me when I say they were rewarded for it (with a few exceptions, but again that goes to the few evil companies).
Ok, now you are just showing your ignorance. America handles their business as fair if not more so than anyone else could with that level of power. If you think you could do a better job with over 200 politicians involved, let's here some specific examples. Don't just give the standard "hate 'merica" slogans, I want some geniune thought put into your reply. And for shame on wanting humans to be targeted with a nuclear weapon. I have seen what the Atomic bombs did to Japan, both short and long term, and I would not wish that on even my worst enemy. Before you utter another word of hate, perhaps you should take a history lesson. Together we stand, divided we fall. That applies to human kind as well as any other group, but those who don't heed those words will be the catalyst to bring us all down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joining GoFish
We also failed to correct the misguided notion that we are moving onto another startup. Jay and I started another company -- Wikiyou -- a few months ago. When our transaction, closes GoFish will be a shareholder of Wikiyou and we will be discussing that company in the future. That said, Jay and I are joining the executive team of GoFish and will be working full-time at the company. GoFish, to its credit, gets that Jay and I both need outlets for our creativity and they have every right to participate or even finance anything we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solid legal ground?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solid legal ground?
The recent decisions interpret the clause pretty broadly, recognizing that it's basically designed to prevent those who had no part in uploading the content from facing liability. Based on that, it seems like as long as Bolt had reasonably competent lawyers, they'd win.
As for the precedent set here -- legally, there is none. Bolt didn't admit liability.
It's not about legal precedent (though, from the NYT it had sounded like the did admit liability -- it's only here in the comments that they deny it), but about perception. UMG can now used the "settlement" to pressure other companies and public opinion by noting that Bolt paid up, so *obviously* they felt they had done something wrong.
It's a mockery any way you look at it. The short term losers may be Bolt and plenty of consumers -- but the long term losers will be UMG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]