Sony Stops Licensing Of Digital Streams As It Allows DRM-Free Music

from the interesting-timing dept

The timing on this one may be something of a coincidence, but it's worth noting that at just about the same time that Sony is getting a ton of press for finally realizing that DRM doesn't make sense, the company has also told the Harry Fox Agency to stop licensing its music for digital streaming (via Mathew Ingram). As Ingram points out, this decision is really about the rather arcane details of copyright law and two (of the many) different license requirements that are out there. The RIAA labels have all been pushing (not surprisingly) for whatever combination of licenses that will bring them the most money. This isn't new, of course. We saw it in the battle over what licenses satellite radio had to pay. The same battle is now happening with digital streaming services. The Digital Media Association has asked the copyright board for a ruling saying that an audio stream should only be required to pay a performance license (as it's a performance) rather than a reproduction license (like for a product that's actually being distributed). Because of that, Sony has basically said it won't be distributing any more music for streaming until this is settled. It's likely the other labels will follow as well. It's hard to see how they can really argue that an audio stream isn't simply a performance, since the whole point of a stream is for it to be fleeting, like radio, rather than a fully stored download. Yet, when you're unwilling to look at new business models, it's no surprise that you look for any opportunity to use whatever laws and government subsidies you can to your advantage.
Hide this

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

Filed Under: drm, royalties, streaming
Companies: sony


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jan 2008 @ 7:11am

    Typically dumb...

    So, they'll let you listen to music you've paid wherever you want now, but remove one way in which you can find the music in the first place? Intelligent and foresightful as always.

    I wonder how these guys would operate with terrestrial radio if payola didn't work for them so well?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Some Guy, 9 Jan 2008 @ 7:18am

      Re: Typically dumb...

      Actually, there's talk around here that the RIAA guys are pressing for Radios to pay the same (or similar) fees and licenses as "internet radio" and others. I think Techdirt even had an article about how the radio guys are getting upset about it, too little too late. It's all the same: the RIAA is putting lots of effort into making it difficult to ever learn about their music.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    shanoboy (profile), 9 Jan 2008 @ 10:21am

    The difference here is that the owners of radio stations usually have deep pockets (unlike most internet radio startups) so they'll be a bit more successful at fighting it.

    Whatever happened to the idea that playing music over the radio (terrestial, satellite and internet) was another form of advertisement?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bob3000, 9 Jan 2008 @ 10:27am

    Sony's idea of DRM-free music

    Infoworld - Users will be able to download just 37 albums DRM-free from Sony BMG

    "To obtain the Sony-BMG tracks, would-be listeners will first have to go to a retail store to buy a Platinum MusicPass, a card containing a secret code, for a suggested retail price of $12.99. Once they have scratched off the card's covering to expose the code, they will be able to download one of just 37 albums available through the service, including Britney Spears' "Blackout" and Barry Manilow's "The Greatest Songs of the Seventies."

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wizard Prang, 9 Jan 2008 @ 1:16pm

      So the strategy is apparently this:

      1) Offer a small selection of DRM-free music that few people want to hear.

      2) Make it as difficult to procure them as possible.

      3) Wait for the poor sales figures and blame it on "Piracy".

      4) The circle is now complete - back to DRM we go!

      PRANG!

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sum Yung Guy, 9 Jan 2008 @ 11:22am

    RIAA stupidity strikes again

    Is anyone at all surprised that the RIAA is behind this?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Nick, 10 Jan 2008 @ 12:03am

    not as easy as RIAA bashing.

    Hey,

    I'm never one to take the side of the "man" but a little clarification:

    - This is Sony ATV PUBLISHING company (Not Sony BMG - the two have completely different artist rosters) that is restricting the issue of mechanical licenses.
    - It's largely seen as a defensive move in reaction to DiMA's (an organization which includes Apple, AOL, Yahoo and others) brief to the Copyright board asking that INTERACTIVE streaming (not radio-esque non-interactive streaming such as SOMAFM) is not counted as reproduction and therefore not subject to a mechanical license.

    Whether you side with DiMA or Sony in this siutation, the point is that this is not Sony BMG. Artists have much more favorable terms with publishers and, due to the abhorrent terms in most record contracts, can see the majority of their income in their later careers come from the publishing side.

    For example, see Radiohead's decision to re-up with Warner/Chappell Publishing even after they dumped EMI - which leads me to another point -

    Radiohead recently signed an "experimental" deal with Warner Chappell publishing which effectively CUTS OUT Harry Fox and other collecting socieites and brings all licensing duties in-house to the publisher. I've heard the theory that this move by Sony is a pre-cursor to a similar move by that company.

    And what will be the effects of cutting out HFA? Well, at least one effect will be more favorable licensing terms, as well as the ability to license music for all of the novel new ways people want to use music these days. In the end, this could be another salvo in the digital evolution of the publishing industry.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.