Negotiating Through Lawsuit Continues: EMI Drops Lawsuit, Signs Deal With Grooveshark

from the all-in-the-negotiation dept

We've noticed a troubling trend in how legitimate online music services are being pressured into deals with the major record labels. The labels begin the negotiations on licenses... and then sue the company. That, of course, makes life difficult for the startup, which is then pressured to offer even better (read: ridiculously onerous) terms to the labels. We've seen it happen over and over again, and saw it happening when EMI sued Grooveshark this past summer. And, of course, a few months later, the lawsuit is dropped and a licensing deal has been reached, though you can bet the terms are not quite what Grooveshark originally intended. That's what happens when part of the "negotiation" involves a lawsuit.

Filed Under: lawsuits, negotiation
Companies: emi, grooveshark

More Industry Anti-Piracy Propaganda: Former EMI Anti-Piracy Boss Launches 'Educational' Program

from the 2+2=? dept

With the school year having only recently started up, we had already covered the RIAA's silly propaganda campaign masked as an "educational resource." Of course, that's not the only such program. The MPAA has offered up its own "copyright education" as has The Copyright Alliance -- an operation whose entire purpose appears to be to push entertainment industry nonsense and propaganda without any factual support or basis. It looks like there's another such program coming out of the UK as well. Torrentfreak alerts us to the news that EMI's former anti-piracy boss just happened to have "left" EMI in time to create her own "educational campaign" about copyright for school children as young as five. The good news, though, is that the reporter from The Daily Mail wasn't buying any of it, raising questions about why five year olds should be learning about copyright from industry supplied sources. The article also questions the claim that this campaign was financed independently from the recording industry, calling out the fact that the woman's own LinkedIn profile indicated otherwise, until she changed it right after being interviewed (funny, that...).

Filed Under: copyright, educational campaigns, propaganda, uk
Companies: emi

A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]

from the missing-the-point dept

In my last post about Lily Allen's hypocrisy in uploading tons of songs without authorization, while saying it's good to cut off internet access for regular uploaders, one of the commenters made a good point: we should use this as a teaching moment, to try to show Ms. Allen why her position is wrong, rather than focusing on calling her a hypocrite. And, indeed, that would be great, but it seems like a difficult lesson for some -- including Ms. Allen -- to grasp. Her response to my post seems to come up with a variety of excuses, none of which actually touch on the actual point:

i made those mixtapes 5 years ago, i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then...

The point is that, thanks to today's technology, it's quite easy for people to infringe while doing what they think is a good and reasonable thing. Lily, you created these mixtapes to promote both your own music and the music of others you liked. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's infringing. Think of all the other people who are just like you 5 years ago. They don't have knowledge of the workings of the music industry, and they're trying to promote themselves or share music they like. But, based on the laws that you yourself now support, the Lily of 5 years ago might not have an internet connection. Even though the "infringement" you did was for entirely innocent reasons. How is that fair or just?

The point (and this was the same point we tried to make with our original post about copying a Techdirt post) is that incidental infringement is almost impossible to avoid. Everyone infringes in some way or another in the course of a day. One paper found that people infringe many times over in the course of a single day. Everyone does. And while your infringements are a bit more... um... blatant than most, it highlights the problem of having such a draconian action against file sharers. Cutting them off from the internet for something that everyone is doing all the time seems quite problematic, doesn't it?

So, a quick question for you, Lily: Is "well I uploaded those songs before I knew how the music industry worked" a reasonable defense to prevent Lord Mandelson from taking away your internet access or the internet access of anyone else?

As your article clearly states , lilyallenmusic.co.uk is an EMI run website, which is exactly why i don't acknowledge it (i think theres a link to it on my myspace(which i do run), thats purely because, my record contract states i cant sell my merchandise online anywhere else on the net . i don't post on there, i dont even look at it. the record company run it.

Fair enough, but really the fact that it's a major label owned site was a separate issue (having to do with EMI's claims in its lawsuit against MP3Tunes). It still doesn't change the fact that you created these mixtapes, and used them to advance your career. And now you are claiming that the very same tactics should not be allowed for others?

In your original post pushing back on the Featured Artists Coalition, you complained about how they were all big stars, and how their plan would hurt the up-and-coming artist. And yet, when you yourself were an up-and-coming artist, you used free music distribution to your own advantage. Now you're not only looking to take that option away from up-and-coming artists, you're looking to kick them entirely offline for a period of time. It seems like that's a much bigger "harm" to up-and-coming artists than people sharing their music and promoting them for free.

But just like you mocked the FAC artists for having an unfair advantage for being big, you seem to be in the same position. You want to take away tools from up-and-coming artists that you yourself used.

Anyway the snippets of songs you hear on those mixtapes are about 30 seconds to 1 minute in length, in traditional mixtape style, it is infringement, correct, but it's not my site, it's EMI's. i am not a hypocrite, i don't illegally download music, and i still think unauthorised file sharing is wrong.

But you were the one who created the mixtapes, correct? You were the one who infringed and uploaded them and offered them to the world. That they're now on a site controlled by EMI is quite besides the point.

If you truly believe that regular uploaders should have their internet access taken away, why not make an example of yourself? Why not take away your own internet access for a year to prove the point? Or do you not think the laws you want to apply to everyone else should apply to you?

Again, the whole point here is that what you did was entirely natural and made plenty of sense. Lots of people do it today. They do it because they love music. There's nothing wrong with that, and you know it (or, apparently, knew it at one point in the past). And, there are many ways to take advantage of that fact. Just as 50 Cent does. Just as you did. Going to war with the fans who made you who you are today, in part because of your own infringing behavior, just doesn't make any sense. You keep saying that file sharing harms artists, but it existed five years ago as well, and didn't harm you. It helped you. So why would you want to take that away from everyone else?

Update: Wow. In the half an hour or so that I took to write this post, Lily erased the blog post where she responded (I've got a screenshot if anyone wants to see it), and just added a note to Twitter, saying that she's shut down the entire blog due to too much abuse. Lily, it's not abuse if we're just asking you to rethink your positions that appear to not be particularly well thought out.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: emi

Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes

from the put-the-stone-down-lily,-that's-a-big-glass-house dept

Really don't want to turn this into an all Lily Allen all the time blog, but reader Peter has sent in something rather interesting: When Lily was first trying to get attention, she created a couple of mixtapes with a ton of songs from other artists... available as MP3 downloads, and mixing in her own tracks. This is a well-known tradition in some circles and a great way to get some attention. We're all for it. But... it seems quite hypocritical of Ms. Allen to claim that file sharing is somehow evil and destroying the industry when she appears to be an active participant and used it to promote herself (oh my goodness! free music working as promotion!). According to the tracklisting of the second mixtape, it included 19 tracks by artists other than Lily Allen. Both mixtapes (mixtape 1 and mixtape 2) are available directly off of Lily's website, LilyAllenMusic.com, which has a copyright notice at the bottom from EMI.

So, when Lily notes on her anti-piracy blog that:

Also the government legislation is targeting uploaders -- people that make music available illegally

It appears that she actually qualifies. Quite directly. She's offering music from, among others, Jay-Z, Jefferson Airplane, The Specials and The Kinks. Admittedly, it's just a quick look around, but it appears many of the artists whose works she's distributing for free have no connection with EMI. Even if they did, remember EMI was recently claiming that it's never authorized MP3s for distribution for publicity purposes. Uh oh.

So... while the hypocrisy of Allen's copying a Techdirt post was still misunderstood by some (including Ms. Allen), I'm curious how anyone can say she isn't in serious trouble at this point. She claims that people who make music available illegally should have their internet connections removed. Yet, these two mixtapes, hosted directly on her own (EMI copyrighted) website, seem to suggest a pretty massive illegal distribution attempt. Given how much the music industry was awarded from Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum for distributing significantly fewer songs... not only should Allen be kicked offline, but she should be fined too. Or am I missing something from the recording industry's "education campaign" on this topic?

Honestly, this whole thing is so insane, I'm beginning to wonder if the blog and the statements from Lily Allen are really from her. How could someone who is still directly distributing free music from others from her own major label site claim a moral high ground against music being free?

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: emi

Michael Robertson Wants To Crowdsource Proof Of EMI's Lies: You Lie EMI Bookmarklet Available

from the have-fun-with-it dept

EMI has been involved in a lawsuit with MP3Tunes for a while now. The whole lawsuit seems weird, since MP3Tunes is about creating a storage locker for the songs you already have. But one of the points that MP3Tunes made in response to EMI's claims is that EMI was lying in saying that it has never authorized MP3s to be available online. Yet, MP3Tunes had found plenty of promotional tracks that EMI had clearly put online, and it was wondering why others were allowed to link to them, but EMI claimed it was infringement for MP3Tunes to point to those same songs. In presenting this point in court, MP3Tunes has been looking for more evidence of authorized EMI mp3s, and Michael Robertson has announced the "You Lie EMI" bookmarklet (found via Hypebot), that lets anyone help MP3Tunes find more authorized EMI mp3s. Basically, as you surf around, if you come across authorized songs that are available, you can click the bookmarklet, and it checks to see if the artists is an EMI artist, and then lets you submit the details. Whatever happens with the lawsuit itself, it's cool to see someone crowdsourcing data for their defense.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, lies, michael robertson, mp3s
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

EMI Loses Its Other Silicon Valley Wiz

from the that-didn't-take-long dept

Well so much for that. About a year ago, it seemed like perhaps (just perhaps) EMI would be the first of the big major record labels to really learn how to embrace the digital era. First, it talked about leaving the RIAA and IFPI. Then, it talked about the importance of learning from Radiohead's success with the "pay-what-you-want" experiment. Finally, it hired some Silicon Valley stars. First, it hired Google's CIO Doug Merrill, and soon after that brought on Second Life's co-founder Cory Ondrejka. Suddenly, we began to wonder what would happen if a major record label actually had management talent that understood digital technologies.

But... it quickly became clear that this was not to be the case. EMI seemed to view both Merrill and Ondrejka as being in the "digital silo." And, if there's one thing we've learned, if you have a chief digital officer in a media company, you're doing it wrong. Pretending that digital is a "silo" is wrong. Digital impacts every area of your business, and pretending that it's separate suggests you don't have the right strategy in place.

And, of course, the fact that EMI become one of the most aggressive companies suing every potentially innovative startup out there didn't engender much confidence that the company had figured out how to embrace the new online world.

So it wasn't much of a surprise when Doug Merrill left after less than a year. However, the company then promoted Ondrejka. I saw Ondrejka speak at least year's Midem, and he talked up all these pie-in-the-sky ideas that never actually seemed to show up. Last month, when EMI's CEO admitted the company had lost touch with consumers and didn't know how to fix it, you had to wonder what the company had been doing.

And, now comes the news that Cory Ondrejka is also leaving EMI. He lasted just slightly longer than Merrill, sticking around for an entire 14 months, where it doesn't appear that EMI did anything particularly creative on the digital side, but did sue a whole bunch of innovators. Oh yeah, and it launched a blog. As far as I can tell, that's about the most innovative digital thing it's done in a while (yes, there's sarcasm there).

Oh well. It makes you wonder what could have been.

Filed Under: cory ondrejka
Companies: emi

EMI's CEO Admits Company 'Lost Touch' But Doesn't Seem To Know How To Fix It

from the perhaps-by-not-suing-everyone dept

Well, this is rather incredible. EMI was one of the major labels that, for a brief period of time, seemed like it might actually have figured stuff out. You see, it got taken over by some folks from outside the recording industry, and they talked about how they needed to pay attention to experiments like Radiohead's and learn how to better respond to customer desires like that. That was two years ago. The company was also the first of the major labels to dump DRM. It then pulled back on its support for the RIAA and IFPI (after threatening to withdraw completely), saying that the strategy of suing fans was a dead end. On top of all that, it hired some Silicon Valley techies. For a while, we actually thought EMI might be the most interesting of the major record labels to follow.

But... old habits die really hard, apparently. The company has been suing pretty much every innovative startup that comes along, often targeting execs personally in attempts to bankrupt them. Sometimes it's been going after hobbyists or investors beyond just the actual companies. Often times, the company seems to be negotiating with innovators on the one hand, while filing unexpected lawsuits at the same time. One of the key techies it hired, Doug Merrill from Google, left after less than a year. More recently, the company refused to agree to more reasonable (but still high) streaming rates to get music back on YouTube in the UK.

Basically, it appears that EMI said it wanted to do something new, but couldn't resist doing everything it could to snuff out innovation. It takes more than words to actually convince both consumers and musicians that you're really adapting. Is it any wonder that people aren't fans? EMI's CEO is now admitting that the company "lost touch" with consumers:

"Music is in demand and the demand is growing all the time, but we've clearly lost touch with our consumers. I passionately believe that if we listen to our consumers, this gap will become our opportunity."

Ok, so start listening! STOP SUING INNOVATORS. Stop suing executives and investors in those innovators. Stop using lawsuits as a negotiation tactic. Start focusing on giving fans what they want. Start focusing on enabling new business models that work for artists. Stop thinking about getting a transaction on every piece of music played, but start looking at ways to use the music to create additional products people want to buy. Stop trying to limit users and limit musicians. Enable them both. Also, over a year ago, Topspin's Ian Rogers wrote a brilliant open letter to EMI execs suggesting a rather smart way it could leverage its existing artist relationships. It doesn't seem like EMI listened at all.

If EMI wants help in listening, why not contact some of us who have been presenting solutions and showing what works? We're not that hard to reach, and I'm sure plenty of folks in our community would be more than willing to provide some incredibly useful suggestions.

Filed Under: customers, elio leoni-sceti, lost touch, record labels
Companies: emi

Dear EMI: Pretending The Old World Still Exists Won't Get You Into The 21st Century

from the economic-efficiency-anyone? dept

As you may know, over in the UK, the music collection society PRS has been in rather contentious negotiations with various online services over streaming rates. Due to these fights, services like Pandora have shut down in the UK, and YouTube has pulled major label music videos. A couple months ago, PRS tried to compromise by announcing lower rates, which the press hailed as the record labels finally recognizing that their old monopoly rent royalty rates were no longer sustainable. Except... not everyone got the message. Even though these lower rates have been rejected as too high by the various online music streaming services, apparently EMI is arguing in the opposite direction, refusing to license its catalog at the lower rates.

It's difficult to see what EMI gets out of being stubborn here. It's clear that streaming services won't even accept these rates. All EMI is doing is pissing off artists on the label who can't figure out why their fans can't hear their music, making it harder for them, as musicians, to build up the necessary popularity to put in place any number of smart business models (you know, the models that EMI seems incapable of helping them implement).

Filed Under: royalty rates, streaming music, uk
Companies: emi, prs

Record Labels Continue 'Negotiating Through Lawsuit'

from the it's-why-they're-so-lovable dept

We've noted in the past that the record labels have a pretty well established operating procedure when it comes to "negotiating" with startups that are actually doing the innovative things in the music delivery and promotion space. They open "negotiations" with these startups... and then after a certain point, they file a lawsuit. It's purely a negotiating tactic (and a way for record label lawyers to keep busy), that makes the "negotiation" a lot more antagonistic, and often ends with the startup agreeing to give up way too much. Warner Music perfected this trick, such as when it sued iMeem only to then invest in the company as part of the settlement. Of course, because iMeem had no choice but to cave in order to deal with the lawsuit, the terms of the deal were so onerous that iMeem nearly went out of business -- until Warner Music wrote off the investment and recently renegotiated.

As unbelievable as it may be, the major record labels apparently don't recognize that "deals" negotiated at the end of the barrel of a gun tend not to work out very well in the long run. They're certainly not mutually beneficial.

And yet... the process continues. While Warner Music has done a bunch of these sue-to-negotiate deals, EMI seems to be involved in many of the more recent lawsuits of this nature. Its latest target is GrooveShark, one of a bunch of sites that lets you listen to streaming music online. Apparently the two companies had been negotiating terms... and then suddenly EMI sued. Par for the course. In the meantime, if you're a music startup hoping to do a licensing deal with a major label, make sure you have some litigators on your legal team. You're going to need them.

Filed Under: licensing, music, negotiations, streaming
Companies: emi, grooveshark

New Danger Mouse CD Released As A Blank CD-R Due To Legal Fight With EMI

from the now-that's-creative dept

If you follow copyright issues, you're no doubt aware of Danger Mouse. He's the DJ who got quite a lot of attention a few years back for creating one of the very first mainstream mashups -- mixing the Beatle's The White Album with Jay-Z's The Black Album to create the rather unique The Grey Album. Of course, one of the main reasons why the album became so well known was because EMI sent cease-and-desist letters to everyone who posted copies of the album, and then to anyone who posted that they were going to participate in the "Grey Tuesday" protest. The whole thing seemed pretty silly. It's not as if anyone listening to The Grey Album would find it a substitute for either of the other albums.

Since then, of course, DJ Danger Mouse has gone on to even more mainstream success with his Gnarls Barkley project, a collaboration between Danger Mouse and Cee-Lo Green. However, it looks like DJ Danger Mouse has another album that he's been working on, in association with Mark Linkous (of Sparklehorse). Yet, due to ongoing legal troubles with EMI, he can't actually release the music. So he's come up with a rather creative solution. Found via Andrew Dubber, the news is that the next album will be released as album artwork with a blank recordable CD.

Yes, a blank CD-R.

There is no music on it. Because if there were music on it, it would get him in more trouble with EMI. Yet, if you have that blank CD and all the artwork, you certainly could (not that they're suggesting you do...) find that music elsewhere and burn it to the CD. The statement from Danger Mouse reads:

Danger Mouse's new project Dark Night Of The Soul consists of an album length piece of music by Danger Mouse, Sparklehorse and a host of guest vocalists, along with a collection of original David Lynch photography inspired by and based on the music.

The photographs, which provide a visual narrative for the music, are compiled in a limited edition, hand numbered 100+ page book which will now come with a blank, recordable CD-R. All copies will be clearly labeled: 'For Legal Reasons, enclosed CD-R contains no music. Use it as you will.'

Due to an ongoing dispute with EMI, Danger Mouse is unable to release the recorded music for Dark Night Of The Soul without fear of being sued by EMI.

Danger Mouse remains hugely proud of Dark Night Of The Soul and hopes that people lucky enough to hear the music, by whatever means, are as excited by it as he is.

In some ways, this is reminiscent of what the band Green Day did many years ago, offering up blank CDs with artwork for fans who had downloaded the music from unauthorized sources. Yet, in this case, it's even more interesting since there are no authorized sources at all for the music. It'll be fun to see how EMI reacts. Update: Meanwhile, the folks at NPR alert us to the fact that they're hosting a streaming version of the album for anyone who wants to hear it.

Filed Under: blank cd-r, copyright, danger mouse, legal fight, music
Companies: emi