Netflix's Move From DVDs To Streaming Shows The Massive Value Of First Sale Doctrine

from the those-exceptions-are-important dept

We've pointed out many times in the past that exceptions to copyright (such as fair use and the first sale doctrine) may actually be a lot more important than copyright itself in "promoting the progress." For example, we've highlighted CCIA's study that uses the identical methodology used by the entertainment industry to claim that copyright contributes $1.52 trillion to the economy to show that exceptions to copyright law (again, things like fair use and the first sale doctrine) contribute significantly more. However, have we ever really quantified specific exceptions? We recently covered how the movie studios were upset about Netflix, and demanding much higher fees for allowing streaming -- and that actually highlights how damaging a loss of those copyright exceptions can be.

Edwad Epstein has a post over at TheWrap.com pointing out the massive differences in costs facing Netflix between buying DVDs that it can rent by mail and licensing movies for streaming. The key issue: the first sale doctrine. If Netflix wants, it can buy DVDs from any particular source and then use them in its business. It need not get any licenses with the movie industry. Yet, for streaming, there is no first sale situation, so it needs to license. And the differences in costs to Netflix are substantial. Epstein notes that it costs Netflix about $15 to buy each DVD, but to license a single movie title the industry wants $16 million for a two year license.

Where Netflix can buy 10,000 copies of a major title for $150,000 to mail out, it will need to spend about $16 million to license it for streaming. Such a hundredfold increase in price can obviously be deleterious to profits especially since Netflix still has to maintain its mailing centers, and buy DVDs, for the subscribers who elect to continuing using the mail-in service either because they prefer DVDs’ higher quality and features or they don’t have the apparatus to receive digital streaming.

First of all, $16 million for a single title? Yikes. Someone please tell me that's only for the really big titles. But, even if the numbers are slightly off, think about the obvious impact here. When you make the product much more expensive, you're definitely going to limit its availability to the public. Netflix will either choose to stream fewer movies or it will have to increase its own prices, creating a net loss for the public. In this case, the right of first sale allows Netflix to bring the cost of doing business down by an order of magnitude, since it is not wholly locked to the studios.

Of course, it's a little more complicated than that. As we've seen with Redbox kiosk DVD rentals (and, to a lesser extent, Netflix), the movie studios have worked hard to get around first sale rights, by telling wholesalers not to supply DVDs to DVD rental companies if those companies won't cough up some sort of revenue share plan. Those actions (which certainly seem to violate antitrust laws) suggest that the studios recognize how much value there is in killing first sale rights.

But as a society, this should concern us greatly. The move to digital actually allows the studios (and other content producers) to effectively kill off such first sale rights. We've seen this in other industries as well. There have long been questions about whether or not you can sell an iTunes song you legally purchased -- and the video game industry has been so desperate to kill off the secondary market, that it's quite excited about the move to digital.

This should be a concern for everyone, however. Studies have shown that a robust secondary (used) market actually helps drive the primary market and makes it larger. If you know you can resell something you bought, it makes you more willing to buy it (minimizing your risk) while also increasing the value of the product (since it can bring in some money on the back end). Yet, in the big content business's short-sighted attempts to kill off the secondary market by going digital, they may do harm to the primary market as well.

Of course, the real issue is going to be that, one of these days, someone's going to test the first sale rights on digital goods too, and I would imagine that there will be quite a giant lawsuit around that.

Filed Under: buying, copyright, dvds, first sale, licensing, movies, streaming
Companies: netflix

University Of Glasgow Frees Up Research Instead Of Trying To Sell It All

from the good-for-them dept

We've pointed out how badly many universities have fallen for the myth of magical profits from tech transfer efforts. In the last 30 years or so, there's been this massive effort for some universities to try to profit off of "commercializing" their research. What they did was set up expensive "tech transfer" offices that were in charge of taking university research, patenting it, and then trying to find buyers. The theory, then, was that the university would make lots of money and companies would get access to all this great university research. The reality is that this hasn't worked out at all. First of all, that whole theory skipped over the part that prior to locking up all that research, companies already had access to it -- and were able to actually make use of it quickly because they didn't have to go through a crazy and expensive licensing process.

The other problem is that, since these tech transfer offices are focused on making money, and all they have to sell is patents, they started to overvalue the patents themselves, making them prohibitively expensive, which actually decreased the ability to get those ideas out to the commercial sector and to turn that research into big money. And, did we mention how expensive it is to set up and run some of these tech transfer offices? A study from a few years back found that the majority of tech transfer offices lost money, with only a tiny handful (somewhere around a dozen) actually making money.

Oh, and on top of all that, this focus on putting up locks for the sake of charging has actually made basic research much harder as well, since much of it is based on freely sharing ideas -- which is made more difficult when you want to hoard the idea in order to get a patent.

At some point, you would think universities would recognize this. They're losing money, harming their own research and going against their basic principles as institutions for disseminating knowledge. Thankfully, some are finally starting to get the message. James Boyle points us to the news that the University of Glasgow has announced that it will be offering up most of its research under a free license. It is still reserving a few "key" bits of research for fee-based licensing, but it appears the default will now be free, which seems like it should be a good thing in terms of actually commercializing the research out of the university.

Filed Under: free, licensing, research, tech transfer, universities
Companies: university of glasgow

How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?

from the evidence-based dept

One of the major problems we have with the way copyright law today is developed is how much of it is faith-based -- with supporters insisting that more stringent copyright law is obviously "better," without presenting any evidence to support that. The history of copyright law is filled with examples of this sort of argumentation in favor of stronger copyrights. Thomas Macauley famously (and quite eloquently) argued against such things in the UK House of Commons 160 years ago, and his words still stand today. Here are just some brief excerpts, though the whole thing is worth reading:

I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Companys monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essexs monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good....

... consider this; the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration. A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the contrary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible. We all know how faintly we are affected by the prospect of very distant advantages, even when they are advantages which we may reasonably hope that we shall ourselves enjoy. But an advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody, we know not by whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action...

The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is that my honorable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax and makes scarcely and perceptible addition to the bounty.

But, that, of course leads to the question of just what is the benefit that copyright provides. If you talk to many of today's copyright system supporters, they will claim the benefit (or even the entire purpose) of copyright, is to provide remuneration to creators. That, of course, ignores the basic history of copyright law, but even if we assume this is true, then copyright does not seem to serve that purpose. After all, very few content creators get remuneration for their creations, and among those who do, fewer still get enough remuneration to make a living.

In discussing how copyright law might be rethought, Cory Doctorow does a nice job pointing out the extremes which disprove the common claims of copyright. After all, he notes, if copyright is about helping content creators make a living, then the "best" solution would be to simply award content creators a living wage. So arguing that copyright is designed to serve that purpose is misleading. Similarly, in measuring the overall impact of copyright, you can't simply add up the aggregate amount made from copyright -- as some copyright system defenders love to do with the oft-cited $1.52 trillion dollar number. Doctorow again disproves that as the proper measuring stick, by again taking it to the extreme: if only one person were to make all that money thanks to copyright, no one would think that was a good program.

So, how do you judge the benefits of copyright? Cory's suggestion is the following:

In my world, copyright's purpose is to encourage the widest participation in culture that we can manage -- that is, it should be a system that encourages the most diverse set of creators, creating the most diverse set of works, to reach the most diverse audiences as is practical.

While this sounds nice, I still don't believe this is the proper way to measure copyright, either. After all, one could easily take this to the same extreme and note that if we get the widest participation but, in doing so, it creates disincentives for great artists to create their works, is that the best system? I'm not convinced that's the case either. This is also why I think Cory's piece, which starts out so promising, goes somewhat askew at the end, in proposing a blanket music tax for file sharing -- an idea that I believe is actually quite a bad one due to serious unintended consequences.

So I would posit that the way you judge the "benefit" of copyright is the way economists judge such things: you look at the aggregate marginal benefit across all stake holders. That is, what is the marginal benefit to everyone in society from a specific change to copyright. Does it increase output but decrease consumption? Thus, you should be looking at not just if it makes artists better off, but by how much, and whether or not it makes others better off and by how much. This may not be easy to measure, but it is how to best think about the impact of changes in copyright law. Look at both the increases and decreases in "benefits" to everyone in the ecosystem and see which maximizes the overall societal benefit.

This is also why I disagree with Cory's concept of "balance" -- a concept I have argued against in the past. If you are striving for "balance," you are arguing for what everyone must give up. Yet, if you are looking for the greatest marginal benefit, you are seeking the result where you are maximizing overall social benefit -- meaning, you are increasing opportunities for content creators to create and to make money, while at the same time increasing the social benefit that others can get out of their art by consuming it, by sharing the experience associated with it, by building on it, etc.

The goal should not be to "balance" what needs to be taken away or to just focus on one side of the equation (artists or "participants"), but to seek out what policies would actually maximize the marginal benefit to all.

Filed Under: benefits, copyright, cory doctorow, economics, licensing

AFP Still Not Giving Up On Its Bizarre Claim That Twitpic Images Are Freely Licensed To Anyone

from the common-sense-ruling dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about an absolutely bizarre lawsuit, where the newswire AFP -- a company who has claimed that merely linking to its stories is infringement -- had sued a photographer whose photograph AFP had used without permission (and with a false credit). The story was so convoluted and filled with confusion that it was really quite amazing that anyone involved is still pushing forward with the case. The "short" version is that a photographer in Haiti when the earthquake happened earlier this year opened a Twitter and a Twitpic account soon after the earthquake, in order to show off some of the photographs he had taken. Another person copied those photos and pretended they were his (also on Twitpic) and offered to license them. The AFP saw the photos from the second person (who didn't actually have the rights to them) and then posted them on its own stories, crediting the second guy.

Soon after this, the actual photographer saw the photos and sent a cease & desist. The AFP then sued the actual photographer, claiming that it had not violated his copyrights. The AFP's argument for this was so confused that it raised questions about whether or not the AFP even really understood what the company had done. First, it claimed that Twitter's terms of service says the following:

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

It seems the AFP somehow interpreted this to mean that any content posted to Twitpic could be freely used. There are two massive problems with this line of argument. First, Twitpic isn't Twitter (something that no one involved in the lawsuit on either side seemed to realize -- which is just downright sloppy) and posting an image to Twitpic has nothing to do with Twitter's terms of service. Second, even if the images were covered by Twitter's terms of service, those terms are boilerplate language describing the license between the user and Twitter -- not between the user and any third party. This is plainly obvious from the language of the clause, which notes that it "grants us" the license. The "us" is Twitter. Not any third party. The Twitter license then does allow Twitter to post that content elsewhere -- but that right does not just extend to any third party. This is pretty standard stuff that is found in just about any internet service's terms of use.

I had kind of figured that after this rather massive set of mistakes was highlighted, AFP would realize its errors and back off from the lawsuit. No such luck apparently. Venkat Balasubramani has an update on the case, suggesting that the AFP is sticking by its totally illogical claims. What brought this on is that Twitter has apparently clarified its terms of service, to avoid this sort of situation (even though the original terms seemed pretty clear), but the AFP is still insisting that its tortured interpretation of the terms supports its position. It's somewhat bizarre to see that no one involved in the lawsuit has realized just how insanely weak this position is. It seems like a huge waste of effort for an interpretation of terms of service that, if actually believed, would likely come back to haunt AFP.

Filed Under: licensing, photos, twitter
Companies: afp, twitpic, twitter

If Spotify Is Making Labels So Much Money In Europe, Why Are They Still Demanding Crazy Upfronts In The US?

from the major-label-logic dept

For a few years now, people have talked about Spotify as the "next great hope" for the recording industry. For those who haven't seen it, it's effectively an "iTunes-in-the-cloud." I've played around with it, and it's definitely a hell of a lot nicer than most other things out on the market and the company continues to improve the product and to play around with some interesting additional models. I'm always a bit wary of anything that people think will "save" an industry, and Spotify is no exception. I think it's nice and useful, but it alone certainly isn't going to be the answer to the recording industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. That said, one of the more amusing things to watch has been the fight over bringing Spotify to the US. It's been rumored to be "coming soon" for about a year and a half now and every time there's some rumor about it getting close, there's another rumor about the ridiculous terms and conditions the labels are insisting on to launch it here. They already have deals in Europe, but apparently, the labels want much better deals in the US.

The latest rumor says that Spotify is (once again) closing on deals with the major labels for a US launch, though it's going to involve massive upfront payments to the major labels (don't expect any of that to actually go to the artists). This has become pretty typical for the majors -- demanding massive cash up-front, which is why so many music-related startups have died an early death. The startups simply couldn't make enough money to cover those huge upfront fees. Now, Spotify might be a bit different in that it's raised a ton of money on the strength of its success in Europe and so it probably can handle the cash payment, at least initially.

But here's the thing that's strange. Just as the news of these huge upfront payment demands is leaking, Sony and Universal Music are both admitting that they're making more from Spotify in Sweden than any other retailer -- including iTunes (which, by the way, sort of puts a dent in Apple's attempt to spread FUD about Spotify to the labels).

So, here's the thing: if the labels are making so much money from Spotify in Europe, why have they fought so hard against doing a deal in the US without huge upfronts and/or guarantees? Part of it may be that the money in Europe has really only ramped up in the past few months, but part of it might just be how the major labels deal with music startups these days -- as seen by various quotes from major label bosses that suggest a jealousy of any other company being successful in the music business even if it helps them succeed as well. Basically, if another company is successful, these execs seem to think that they must have been given a bad deal. It's as if they don't understand how a non-zero sum market works. They believe if someone else is doing well, they must have been ripped off, so they want to make deals that practically cripple any other company, so that at least they're not doing as badly as those new companies.

Filed Under: europe, licensing, music
Companies: sony music, spotify, unversal music

CBC Stops Using Creative Commons Music Over Concerns About Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use

from the clear-as-mud dept

A whole bunch of you have been sending in variations on the story, first highlighted by Michael Geist that the CBC (Canada's public broadcasting offering) has stopped using Creative Commons music in its podcasts. That was first revealed in the comments to a recent show, when someone asked why there were no links to Creative Commons music (something the show had apparently done before). In response, Dan Misener wrote:

There's simply no Creative Commons music used in this episode. By management decree, CBC podcasts are no longer permitted to use CC music. Instead, we're using the APM Music library (http://www.apmmusic.com/), which is copyright cleared and fully licensed by the CBC.

People quickly (and rightly) started complaining that this was ridiculous, and then Lily Mills from the CBC tried to provide more info, saying:

It turned out that our use of Creative Commons licensed music was going against some of the details in collective agreements we hold with certain talent agencies. As such, we had to discontinue our use of it.

Of course, that doesn't make much sense. What sort of agreement would forbid you from using Creative Commons music? Later on, Lily tried to clarify, and said that APM was just more cost effective:

I asked around and it sounds like APM was the most cost effective choice for production music. We're actually simply piggy-backing off the use license acquired from CBC Television (a license that can be used for the entire network).

Again, this makes no sense. The Creative Commons music is free to use, so, how could that not be cost effective?

Eventually, Chris Boyce, the Programming Director for CBC radio chimed in to explain, that it's really about problems with "commercial use" restrictions on some CC music:

The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, some of which are deemed to be "commercial" in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use.

In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our podcasts as this music has the proper usage rights attached.

Now, that makes a lot more sense. The early responses didn't make much sense. And this is perfect timing as we've just been having some discussions on this very topic, explaining why commercial use restrictions might not be such a good idea, and even noting that I'm often hesitant to use CC content that has a commercial use restriction because almost anything could be seen as commercial use at times. While it's unfortunate that the CBC won't be using CC content in certain areas any more, perhaps this will give more people reasons to rethink the value of commercial-use restrictions. I would guess that most of the artists featured in CBC podcasts who used CC licenses were happy about that exposure. Now they'll be missing out because of their worries about commercial use.

Filed Under: cbc, commercial use, creative commons, licensing, music, podcsts
Companies: cbc, creative commons

If The BSA Is So Sure Companies Would Pay For Software, Why Did It Use Free Webserver Software?

from the well,-look-at-that dept

We recently did our latest debunking of the BSA's latest laughable report on "piracy" of software and its impact on the economy and jobs. We have to do this every few months, as the BSA continues to trot out the same laughable and debunked analysis, including the flat-out ridiculous idea that every unauthorized copy is a $1 for $1 lost sale. A few years ago, when a BSA VP and IDC VP called me up to defend the report, they insisted that "their research" showed the $1 to $1 ratio was pretty accurate, insisting that companies who need software really want proprietary software, and that open source or other alternatives generally aren't what they're looking for.

Of course, most people know better than this, but a recent Matt Asay column highlights how more and more of the world moves to open source and cloud-based solutions could seriously change that equation. In it, there's a lovely tidbit about how much the BSA itself doesn't seem to believe its own claims about open source software -- or, even that good software is worth paying a license for:

Ironically, the BSA has discovered one of the few ways to "pirate" open-source software, and is apparently an advocate. The BSA's website apparently runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone CentOS. Surely a license-respecting organization like the BSA would want to pay full freight for a RHEL license rather than undermine Red Hat by choosing CentOS? Evidently not.

Yes, so even in a case where the BSA itself can pay for a nice open source license, it chose to go with a free version instead. This is, of course, perfectly legal. But it seems pretty ridiculous that the BSA would claim that others wouldn't do what it seems to have done. That said, as you look into the details, it appears that the main BSA site does, in fact, run on Microsoft IIS (I'm sure with a nice license from BSA favorite member, Microsoft). The site that was claimed to be on CentOS was a separate "educational" (and I use that term loosely) site called b4usurf.org (gotta love the attempt to sound relevant using txt-spk). Oddly, I can't find any info on what that site now runs on Netcraft. Anyone have a better way of figuring this out?

Filed Under: free, licensing, open source, software
Companies: bsa

Canadian Recording Industry Demands 45% Of Revenue; Then Blames 'Pirates' For No Streaming Music Services

from the wow dept

Ah, the recording industry. We've already discussed how ridiculously complex it is for a music startup to obtain the licenses it needs. Combine that with the ridiculously high rates demanded by the record labels and the fact that they demand licensing for things that shouldn't need additional licenses, and you understand why it's so difficult for music startups to survive, and why the market is so fragmented.

You hear it all the time. Spotify isn't available in the US. Pandora isn't available outside the US. And so on. Name the startup and there are serious restrictions on it. Things in Canada are pretty bad, where they basically don't have any of these music services, and it's because the Canadian recording industry is apparently demanding absolutely, positively insane fees -- such as 45% of gross revenue. Yes, gross revenues. If you know anything about the finances of these kinds of businesses, that's laughable. As Pandora's Tim Westergren notes, Canadian radio stations pay approximately 2.1% of gross revenue to the recording industry.

As I read the article, what struck me about it is that, for all the complaints about how Canada was supposed to be some evil "pirate haven," here was a clear case of how its ridiculous copyright situation was keeping new music services out. If copyright were really so weak in Canada, you wouldn't have this issue at all. And then I got to the end of the article, where the Canadian Recording Industry Association boss, Graham Henderson, made the following guffaw-inducing statement:

The music industry, meanwhile, says its fees are not the problem. It says music-related businesses are reluctant to enter Canada because of the country's reputation as a file-sharing haven where music fans can download songs illicitly without fear of penalty.

"Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?" said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels.

"[Canadians] just seem to have no appetite for a legal marketplace."

This comes after 26 paragraphs discussing all the different music services that want to enter the Canadian market, but can't because of the ridiculous rates that the recording industry wants to charge. It always shocks me that folks like Henderson can make such blatantly false statements like this and people don't call him on it. He gets away with it because no one points out that his statements make no sense.

Filed Under: canada, graham henderson, licensing, rates, streaming
Companies: cria

Questionable Site Claims To Legally Offer Unlimited MP3 Downloads... Record Label Lawyers Already Springing Into Action

from the sounds-dodgy dept

What is it with random companies springing up claiming to have legal download offerings that don't pass the laugh test. Remember a year ago, we talked about a company called Bluebeat.com that claimed to be the only site where you could legally buy Beatles MP3s, based on a bit of absolutely ridiculous logic, that it was using "psycho-acoustic simulation" to recreate the tracks, thereby giving it a brand new copyright. That company also got a registration for these "new" works by the Copyright Office, hoping that most people wouldn't notice that the Copyright Office registration process is a pure rubber stamp effort, and conveys no actual legitimacy to a bogus copyright.

Well, it looks like we've got another similar situation, as some mysterious company called ZapTunes is claiming to offer unlimited MP3 downloads for $25/month -- with an initial "free" period, though you have to hand over your credit card details. The whole thing sounds highly questionable, however. The store claims to have licensed the work from all the major labels, including being able to offer Beatles MP3s and AC/DC MP3s -- which have not been offered in MP3 format anywhere.

In the comments on that Hypebot article, some point out that the company appears to just be scraping Last.fm data, as it found a track that one guy had created himself, which only lived on his computer (but which had been "scrobbled" and the info was sent to Last.fm). The company also claims to have raised "about $5 million in funding from various Venture Capitalists," but doesn't seem to name any of them.

Despite the claims from the company that they've secured the necessary licenses for this, it appears not everyone agrees. EMI is apparently already starting the legal process. The whole thing really makes me wonder if these sites honestly think that people will buy their claims when there seems to be little evidence to support them. There are plenty of sites out there that offer up such content in a clearly unauthorized manner -- but at least they're honest about what they do. It seems pretty silly and destined to fail massively to falsely claim the legal rights to music you almost certainly did not license.

Filed Under: beatles, copyright, downloads, licensing, mp3s, music
Companies: emi, zaptunes

Ridiculous Content Restrictions Mean NBC Loses Viral Buzz For Emmy Clips

from the how-to-fail,-ungracefully dept

I'm not a big fan of award shows and can't remember the last time I watched one, so it's no surprise that I missed the Emmy's this past weekend. However, in an age where mocking the hosts of these shows for doing a terrible job is considered common practice, apparently a lot of people were impressed by some of Jimmy Fallon's work hosting the show. Too bad NBC can't let people see why. Staci Kramer, over at PaidContent notes that the opening musical sequence (a play on the TV show Glee with Fallon and various other TV personalities singing a Springsteen song) got a really good response online... but NBC can't post it online due to "restrictions." That is, NBC didn't secure the rights to repost the song online, losing out on any potential benefits from helping make the video go viral.

Of course, it's not clear who's "at fault" here, but either way NBC ends up looking clueless (yet again!). It had to know that there would be value in getting such things online, and while the license holders might not have wanted to license it, NBC should have made the point that if it wasn't put online legally by NBC, surely plenty of others would put it online elsewhere for all to see, without NBC or the rightsholders getting any direct benefit. It's really a tremendous "head-in-the-sand" approach to dealing with these issues. Anyone who says they can license music for the show on TV, but not online, is missing the point, and NBC's inability to explain this to them coherently is a negotiating blunder. And, because of that, others get all the benefit of the viral content, and NBC looks clueless online.

Filed Under: emmy awards, jimmy fallon, licensing, music
Companies: nbc