BMI Says A Single Person Listening To His Own Music Via The Cloud Is A Public Performance
from the looking-to-the-sky-and-seeing-unlicensed-clouds dept
There's no time like late on a Friday to send out disturbing missives. Companies who need to let staff go often find it easier to let the week "play out" before handing out the pink slips. Congressmen who need to shove through some questionable legislation often wait until the papers have gone to bed, or at least a majority of the voting citizens.Martin Berenson, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for BMI has decided there's no time like Friday evening to kick out an editorial about streaming music via the "cloud."
Berenson chooses to couch his arguments in the relative safety of Capitol Records (and others) ongoing legal battle with MP3tunes.com, a "subscription Internet music 'locker' service," before launching a grazing attack on "cloud-computing" in general. While the legality of MP3tunes' actions is still under question, Berenson expresses his concern that its legal arguments could "create loopholes in the copyright law relating to the public performance right."
There's a lot to unpack in this editorial, but what it all boils down to is this: BMI wants a chunk of this "cloud" money.
MP3tunes logically points out (in its arguments against Capitol Records) that a user making a copy on a "dedicated, private, remote storage device" and playing it back to himself is a private performance and, therefore, needs no licensing. Google, the EFF and Public Knowledge have all entered amici briefs (or "broad attacks on the performing right," according to Berenson) stating that, "if a user initiates a stream, it should not be considered a public performance" by the service.
This seems to be a logical thought: one person listening to his or her own music is not a public performance. But, won't someone please think of the licensing? No worries, Berenson has that covered:
As previously noted, BMI argues that the public performing right has long applied to on-demand, interactive streaming. Additionally, it makes no difference if the audience for the transmission is only one person, who may receive the program at a unique time, and that MP3tunes’ attempt to make one to one transmissions into private performances is contrary to established law. We stress that it was only the existence of the unique copy made by each subscriber that was the critical factor that saved Cablevision from being an infringer. MP3tunes cannot evade that essential aspect of the court’s ruling on the grounds it would be more efficient to infringe with one copy in storage for all recipients.
Well, there you have it:
- The right to collect licensing fees has "long applied" to streaming services, and since it's been there before, it logically follows that it should always be that way, no matter the differences of each situation.
- It makes no difference if only one person is listening -- it's still a public performance. BMI and their fellow performance rights groups have always been willing to grant individuals the rights of a crowd.
- Storage efficiency = infringement.
But Berenson's just warming up, and this is where it gets really interesting (and by "interesting," I mean "ludicrous"):
The strength of the public performing right would be threatened by a ruling that broadens the Cablevision court’s private-performance ruling to otherwise-unlicensed services. Cloud computing will no doubt grow tremendously in the future and if MP3tunes’ argument is adopted by the court, unlicensed entertainment services in “the cloud” will steal audiences from existing licensed streaming services (as well as from more traditional media entities), and copyright owners will be harmed by such a ruling.
From that point, Berenson takes a quick run at Amazon's Cloud Drive, mSpot and underdog neo-Luddites, Zediva (in particular, noting that Zediva's DVD player farm "competes unfairly with licensed services" -- which is a totally understandable statement, because the film industry has always been nothing but fair when dealing with competitors and customers).
While Berenson does not specifically attack or threaten Amazon's new service/player, one can only gather from this editorial that the rent-seekers (BMI, ASCAP, etc.) are beginning to formulate their plan to get a piece of this hot, new action, if not already forming an orderly line outside the virtual door. The sentence, "The issues are not confined to MP3tunes," seems to indicate that he considers these services to be next in line for the MP3tunes treatment.
After all, Berenson equates listening to unlicensed music streams to "theft" and there's really nothing more sincere than an "editorial" from a self-interest group. In closing, he offers this baffling line:
These efforts to diminish or circumvent the performing right point up the need for heightened vigilance on our part.
Godspeed, BMI. The more you can do to separate people from their music, the richer you should become. And with an entire nation of individual listeners billable as one (1) crowd, the sky's the limit. (Hence, the "pointing up," I assume.) Just watch out for those pesky "clouds".
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: cloud, performance, public performance
Companies: bmi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The following two cases ....
"However, MP3tunes contends that Cablevision shouldn�t rest on the making of a unique copy for each subscriber and that lockering should be permissible where each subscriber sends a copy individually, and represents that it has legal ownership of the copy. It contends that it should not have to engage in wasteful duplication of storage just to provide a service that is otherwise lawful."
In Zediva's case the key point is.
"Zediva�s contention is that it is nothing more than a DVD rental service with a remote access feature."
Now combine them. For each copy you purchased you can stream it to a single person for profit, and you only need to have a single copy stored to stream upto the number of copies you purchased.
Kind of a game changer isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
One of my professors was signed on to an amici brief against the Cablevision decision, feeling that it misread the applicable section of the Copyright Act [I believe his reasoning was that the law specifies streaming a work to the public rather than a copy, so the focus on "one customer, one copy" didn't seem right]. Since the new breed of streaming services are dead-set on testing the limits of the Cablevision argument, I guess we'll see if the courts want to try and close Pandora's Box or embrace what they've started.
Me, I think we just need to rewrite the damn Copyright Act again, because judicial and legislative band-aids are not helping the 1976 one's fundamental principles jive well with the realities of modern tech. (But then, of course, any rewrite comes with the inherent risk of letting legacy industries screw things up even more...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
I am actually placing my bets on the tech sector coming out on top. The big four record labels are a 10 billion dollar market cap industry, and thats highly over valued based on the trends and lack of adaptability. The top 5 tech firms have a 1 Trillion dollar combined market cap.
The tech sector is beginning to wake up to the fact that they are being bullied by the entitlement freaks of the content industry. You are seeing more friends of the courts briefs, more lobbying, and more of them telling the content industry to go screw themselves.
Now that the tech giants have begun taking notice expect the momentum to increase and more things to go in favor of the tech companies and against big content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlepn_casey-heynes-vs-bully_fun
http://www.penny-arca de.com/comic/2011/3/18/
http://www.caseyheynes.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
It's only fun being the 800 pound gorilla in the room when there are other things to throw around, once they have tossed all the entertainment industries out the window, they will turn to what's left.... their customers
You don't think the entertainment industry started out crapping on their customers, do you? They worked long and hard to eliminate all the competition and gain control of everything first... only after they had no competition that they could directly face (those evil 'pirates' are so hard to catch) did they start destroying their customer base...
I guess when you're an 800 pound gorilla, everything looks like something to be thrown, eaten, or crapped on, it's anyone's guess as to which one the industry is doing now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
this is blockbuster but on the internet. if they are out of discs, they are out of streams.
so, 1980s idea plus1995 format plus 2007(ish) technology.
bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The following two cases ....
insert 'clamor for edit bar' comment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only a matter of time before we have to pay licenses to listen to the music we've already bought. What?! You think the music you stream over speaker wires and earbuds is free?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what if it does? It's not like it'll apply for this technology era, but the next one.
Just like all the laws before it (we're using digital laws set in 1990s over CD technology now).
Besides, piracy will win the war. It's record stands at an impressive 21-0.
>:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This needs to be repeated to the faces of every major label executive as often as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy, it's not just for spam anymore
This is why I don't use remote backup, I won't store anything on a "cloud" (aka server I don't own), I won't use photo share sites or upload anything I can't keep off the internet. I don't want to deal with these people who think my data may fall within their jurisdiction somehow. I don't want to be a party of some dispute where I'm breaking some license agreement. Forget that. Instead, if I want to share data with my friends, they will simply have to drive to my home and plug their storage device into my private network. Not only that, I can share terabytes of data in mere minutes, rather than hours. Plus, I won't bust any data caps. Makes sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy, it's not just for spam anymore
Nice choice of words, G.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A tale of two performances
Performance #1:
I upload it to, say, Google Music and listen to it on headphones plugged into my mobile phone. This is a public performance according to BMI?
Performance #2:
Now, instead I put that same paid for, licensed mp3 file directly onto my phone device and listen to it through headphones. That is perfectly okay?
(Assumption: I'm assuming that with the mp3 file I paid for from Amazon, licensed for private use to an individual, it is okay for me to actually listen to it on my mobile phone in the case of performance #2. But I could be wrong. Probably I should consult a lawyer.)
So how is listening on headphones on my mobile phone different when the music comes from a private storage (eg Google Music) vs physically storing the music on the device?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A tale of two performances
Does BMI think that is a public performance? I hope not.
Just because you store music as a digital file and put that file on a server, it doesn't mean that you've given it to some other service. If the service is simply renting space, then the contents are yours. Just because you live in an apartment it doesn't mean you lose your right to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A tale of two performances
Soon enough we will all need a lawyer just to listen to music at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a problem for me, mind you: I haven't listened to retail music since 2009. But it still baffles me how any usage a customer gets out of the product they market is "stealing" something or "devaluing" something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music.google.com/about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Berenson will be the first to step forward to register as a sex offender for the public display of his naughty bits in his own private residence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop feeding them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, the industry demands draconian laws due to "losses" due to "piracy"... and the lawmakers listen to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Implication RE Internet Radio
Does it matter who "owns" the electronic "copy" if it is deemed that personal backups on cloud devices are legal (as I suspect they will be)?
In other words can John share his locker with Ben as long as they are not both listening to the music in two different places at the same time? In the same way that physical media can be borrowed?
If that is legal, then note: Why couldn't Pandora do the same? Or your local library for that matter? As long as only one device is receiving the stream at a time, then you could make the argument that if the service purchased the music, and as long as only a single person (device) was listening at a time, then there are no additional licensing that needs to be paid. And if you want to stream the same song to more than one device at a time? Easy - buy multiple copies. Still no need to pay recurring licenses from that point on.
Am I missing something?
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implication RE Internet Radio
The funny thing is that as more and more models for paying for and digitally streaming music are tried, the counterarguments from the dinosaurs will twist and tangle into contradictions of their earlier arguments.
Today doing X with music will require licensing some right A. Tomorrow doing the same thing (X) will be reclassified to require licensing right B instead. (Or in addition to.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implication RE Internet Radio
Have an option that allows your music to be shared with others and allows you to partake in what others have shared (if you don't opt in you still can use the service with just what you have). No single 'copy' will be allowed to be played by more than one person at a time. You might even be able to set it up such that if I want to listen to the music that is mine, but all the licenses are being used it would cut off somebody without their own copy. That might be enough incentive for people to continue to add music/movies/...
Very interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implication RE Internet Radio
The current model in libraries does include the purchase of multiple licenses for popular ebooks, only one or two for less popular ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implication RE Internet Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implication RE Internet Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI Poop
Why must you constantly
Poop in my consumer Eye!
They remind of a bunch of greedy seagulls crapping on the people that feed them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about you pay me to take your artists music and play wherever I go?
Wait a minute, why I am even talking to you. You don't manage any of the artists I follow.
But if you are looking for somebody to sue try me. I stream every time I hear a good song. Just ask my neighbors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wondering
I wonder what BMI thinks of that?
I wonder what they'll think when I start uploading the music to multiple cloud services if/when we each get a cloud locker. (I'm thinking we might want different cloud lockers so our playlists and such are separate).
Personally I think if they don't like it they can go screw themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop right there, criminal scum!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever get the feeling alienating fans isn't working, isn't the answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take a look at Google's opposition to Do Not Track. Why does Google want advertisers to have the right to store mountains of data about you? Because they control a multi-billion-dollar ad network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moochers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to have a public performance
2) Find a spot in a local park
3) Connect pair of speakers to your audio device using 3G network (mp3 player optional substitute)
4) Play music loudly
5) When police arrive, tell them you forgot to pay BMI license for service.
6) Hilarity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to have a public performance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to have a public performance
8. PROFIT
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI, etc.
What's funny about it is that they have a real opportunity here: if they were to socialize their profits, i.e. provide artists lower down on the food chain enough to live on (or at least, say, group insurance at subsidized rates) they could probably get real support -- and dare I say it, love -- from the artistic community, no matter what their vig.
Would never happen, though. Can you say "entitlement"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if a song is streamed from the cloud
I'll often leave music streaming on all day at home, even if i'm at work... i know this is neither great for the environment or my power bills, but is it really a public performance...
i think not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vig
Public performances are so last century. Now a days, we call them blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish more people would just say no and start some kind of civil disobedience movement to simply download all their music, for each track donating some money in some kind of fund for the artists. I sincerely despise this industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all are idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all are idiots
Why should someone pay *you* to distribute your stuff? Seems it should be the other way around.
Why should someone pay *you* to store/stream something they already bought? You got paid once for one license (which entitles the purchaser to place shift), now bugger off.
The rest of your post is hyperbolic babble that ignores too many other realities to address. I hold out hope that it's satire, but I have a sinking feeling it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a red herring
I have _never_ owned the music I bought
Even in the days of vinyl and before the advent of cassette tapes I only had a license to listen to the recorded music - The copyright remained with the artists, labels, studios, distributors etc.
But that makes no difference to my right to play the music to whomever I wish, never mind to myself
I have _always_ been licensed to play the music to others, never mind myself
Otherwise I could never have held a party in my own home at which my guests listened to prerecorded music by a third party
Copyright law here is such that so long as I do not charge people to listen I may play the music to as many people as I wish in my own home and I am not in breach of any copyright because it is not a _performance_ because I am not playing it to a paying _public_ - It is not a 'for profit' event
I may sample it, remix it, do what I like with it in my own home without breaching _any_ copyright, so long as I do not play the resulting material outside my own home
So the BMI can suck on _that_ lemon for as long as they wish and can try taking me to court if they like - If the case even gets that far in the first place my legal representatives will be laughing all the way to the bank
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for Berenson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if i'm not entitled to play the music that i purchase on the cloud, then why pay anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye Kinkos
So, isn't this what Kinko's can do for you? They have set up a service (photocopying), solicited customers (I've seen the ads) and provided the infrastructure (heck, they'll even do it for you).
I could go on, but it seems as if Marvin L. Berenson wants to roll back time and pretend that many advances of the past 50 years had not occurred and that this discussion had never happened before.
In a graduating class, someone always has to be at the bottom and yet, he's got a job somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI
Record companies have been screwing customers for as long as we can remember!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI money grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]