Amazon Reverses Course, Signs Licenses With Music Labels To Allow File Matching

from the matching-offerings dept

In the spring of 2011, Amazon launched its cloud music streaming player to much fanfare, along with questions about its legal status. Amazon chose not to get licenses from the labels, saying (accurately) that since the service was just to allow individuals to upload and stream their own MP3s, there was no need to get licenses. While the labels indicated they disagreed with this assessment, none seemed willing to take on the legal fight against Amazon (or Google who initially made a similar choice). After both Amazon and Google launched their cloud offerings, Apple got attention for not doing a cloud player, but rather a matching and syncing system.

Now, Amazon has apparently decided that a similar matching system makes more sense... and has done licensing deals with the four major labels and a bunch of indies. The end result is that the streaming player is changing significantly. The free service is greatly limited, and they now want $25/year for more. If you pay, then it'll now match as many songs as it can on your hard drive with its own database, and automatically populate your account (similar to Apple's system). Thus, users no longer need to upload all their tracks.

Basically, Amazon bought a license to allow the matching, and then switched its whole service around to enable that (and to charge people). It'll be interesting to see how well this works. $25 isn't much at all, but in the year+ since Amazon's streaming player launched, I honestly can't remember ever hearing anyone mention using it. I'm sure there are some out there, but it never seemed that successful, so it may be a challenge to get people to pay the $25. Personally, I played around with Amazon's player a few times, but the storage limit as compared to Google's similar offering meant that I used Google instead. These days I tend to bounce back and forth between Spotify and Google Music, and can't think of a reason to use Amazon's service instead -- even with the matching.

Filed Under: licenses, lockers, music, streaming
Companies: amazon

It's An Olympics Tradition: How Difficult Can NBC Universal Make It To Enjoy The Olympics?

from the yet-again dept

Is it really that time again? When NBC screws up its coverage of the Olympics by showing people what it thinks they want to see, rather than what they actually want to see? Every two years, the Olympics does two appallingly annoying things: makes it difficult to watch the Olympics online... and refuses to show it live on TV. In the 20th century view of NBC execs like Rick Cotton, the only thing that matters is prime time television. So they hold off and focus everything around that prime time slot... effectively pissing off everyone else. As Erick Schoenfeld noted: "The only Olympics tweets I've seen all day are from people pissed that NBC is not broadcasting the opening ceremony live."

Hell, even when they go on Twitter the Olympics can't do things right. There was a lot of buzz around the fact that NBC and Twitter teamed up to create an "Olympics" hub. Great (though some people are pointing out that NBC's own Twitter feed is now tweeting stories that it refuses to broadcast live). However, as Canada-based reporter Mathew Ingram discovered in trying to look up the Olympics Twitter hub, thanks to NBC Universal restrictions, Twitter is geoblocking access. To check it out, I visited the Olympics hub site from the US and saw this: And, then, through the magic of the internet, "transported" myself (or, at least my connection) to Toronto, where I reloaded the page... and saw this: In the end, I'm not really sure it makes a huge difference. To be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand the point of the Olympics "hub" on Twitter, but it's yet another way in which NBC Universal seems focused on restricting access, rather than enabling access. It's 20th century thinking for a company that is in desperate need of 21st century leadership.

Filed Under: geoblocks, internet, olympics, prime time, streaming, tv, tweeting
Companies: nbc universal, twitter

Senator Coons Admits That SOPA 'Really Did Pose Some Risk To The Internet'

from the a-little-late-for-that dept

See update at the bottom.

A few folks have been sending over a recent article from Hillicon Valley, in which Senator Chris Coons, a co-sponsor of PIPA admits that SOPA "really did pose some risk to the internet."

Coons said it was "truly memorable" when one of his sons shook him awake and asked "why I wanted to break the Internet and why Justin Bieber thought I should go to jail."

The pop star had suggested that supporters of the Protect IP Act should be arrested after a campaign against the bill had claimed it could result in Bieber going to jail for singing songs that belonged to other artists.

"That was my first warning that we were not communicating effectively," Coons said. He added that he believes some elements of SOPA "overreached" and "really did pose some risk to the Internet."

Of course, I think that some folks are a little confused by this. The issue with Bieber wasn't actually about PIPA at all. Instead, Coons had directly sponsored (along with Senator Amy Klobuchar) a different bill, S.978, which would have made a felony out of certain forms of online streaming. This was at the center of the FreeBieber campaign, which was actually separate from PIPA (which was S.968). While the House version of SOPA pulled in similar language, PIPA was always separate from S.978. Coons, though, was a co-sponsor of PIPA as well. It's a little unclear from the context if Coons was really talking about S.968 or S.978 in what was quoted above.

Either way, it seems worth pointing out that, if it takes your kid to clue you in to the fact that you were pushing for legislation that "really did pose some risk to the internet," perhaps you shouldn't be putting forth that legislation in the first place. It certainly makes it clear that he didn't understand what he was supporting.

One hopes that Coons (and, really, all our elected officials) will use this as an opportunity to realize that jumping into regulating the internet without realizing what the hell they're doing is a mistake that should not be repeated. In the meantime, it looks like Coons may be trying to make amends to the tech community, and is now co-sponsoring the new Startup Act, which would provide a significant boost to entrepreneurs and startups by easing immigration laws for both entrepreneurs and highly skilled engineering students, allowing them to stay in the US where they can build companies that create jobs, rather than going back to their home countries to compete against Americans.

Update: Posted a slight clarification, as some insist that he was only speaking about SOPA -- the House bill, rather than PIPA, the Senate bill he co-sponsored. While the two bills were distinct, there were significant similarities -- especially on the key points that would have "posed some risk to the internet." If Senator Coons is making a material distinction between the two bills, that suggests he still doesn't understand the two bills he supported in the Senate and how they, too, had significant problems.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, chris coons, justin bieber, pipa, sopa, streaming

YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?

from the moore's-law-strikes-again dept

YouTube has announced that 72 hours of video is now being uploaded to its service every minute. Earlier this year, the statistic was that 60 hours of video was uploaded to its service every minute:

In 2007 we started at six hours [of uploads per minute], then in 2010 we were at 24 hours, then 35, then 48, and now...60 hours of video every minute, an increase of more than 25 percent in the last eight months.

This year, a 25% increase will probably take around around six months. In other words, the rate at which uploads occur is accelerating. Presumably at some point things will level off, but there's no sign of that yet, and it's not hard to see YouTube video uploads hitting 120 hours a minute or more.

Now consider the calls from some governments that Google and others pre-screen user-generated material. Just how do they think anyone can do that when every second there's one or more hours of new material flooding in? The challenge is particularly acute for video, which does not lend itself to automatic screening, unlike text, say. Such machine-based approaches are still extremely rough, and will either let through material governments want censored, or else err massively in the other direction, blocking all kinds of harmless footage.

As Google's latest figures for YouTube demonstrate, the mismatch between what governments want and what is possible is only going to get worse, thanks to Moore's Law and its analogs for storage and bandwidth. It's not clear how this is going to be resolved, but with more and more politicians calling for "something to be done", the chances of a good outcome based on rational policy making don't look good.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: moore's law, screening, streaming, video
Companies: google, youtube

Networks Go After Barry Diller Personally For The Insult Of Investing In Aereo

from the getting-desperate dept

It's amazing just how desperate the TV networks appear to be getting. We've already discussed how they've sued Aereo, the company that sets up individual antennas to get over the air broadcasts, and then streams them over the internet to people's homes. But, now they appear to be going after Barry Diller personally for investing in Aereo. They've subpoena'd info from him directly including:

All documents concerning Aereo or the Aereo service, including without limitation (i) communications with or about Aereo, the Aereo service or Aereo’s business plans, (ii) presentations or other documents received from Aereo, and (iii) documents or communications concerning the potential impact of Aereo or the Aereo service on broadcast television networks and stations, or the producers of broadcast television.

Diller is fighting this (as you can see below) but it's a pure intimidation technique to go after those "in the fold" who invest in disruptive innovation. We saw it a decade or so ago when some major labels sued Bertelsmann -- one of their own who broke ranks to invest in the original Napster. Investors are supposed to be protected from the actions of the companies they invest in, but the dying entertainment industry folks play nasty, and they especially seem to hate it when one of their own becomes forward looking, rather than playing their myopic game. In this case, they haven't sued yet, but it's clear they're going on a fishing expedition to embarrass and annoy Diller, who (of course) came out of Hollywood in the past.

Update: Looks like Diller's already lost this part of the legal fight, which is unfortunate. Intimidating investors from funding innovative companies -- the kind of companies that actually can help move the industry forward -- isn't going to help anyone. Amazing how short-sighted Hollywood can be.

Filed Under: barry diller, intimidation, streaming, television

Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose

from the incredible-mistake dept

Netflix has made its share of mistakes lately in dealing with its customers, but the company's biggest problem may be that Hollywood is so jealous of its success that it's now seeking to kill off the company's service by refusing to license movies and TV shows to Netflix. This isn't a surprise. We've seen similar stories over the past year or so, but the fact is that Hollywood is so short-sighted that it's trying to hold back the tide, and in the process, causing itself more harm. Netflix isn't "the enemy." It's found a way to offer a good service that many people want and use at a price point that makes sense.

Of course, it's that part that makes Hollywood freak out. They fear the "threat" of new business models that undercut their legacy deals, and that means they want Netflix to boost prices, put even more annoying limitations on use and greatly delay and limit selection—because they stupidly think this will drive more people to the more expensive offerings from the studios themselves. The're wrong. All this does is drive more people to piracy, while killing off one of the few services that was allowed (if briefly) to effectively compete with "piracy" by offering a better overall service.

The problem for Hollywood doesn't appear to be piracy. It looks like it's Hollywood's own fear of piracy that is leading it to make really short-sighted decisions.

Filed Under: hollywood, licensing, piracy, streaming
Companies: netflix

Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?

from the dangerous dept

We recently wrote about how different parts of the music industry -- the RIAA, NMPA and DMA -- had come to an agreement on new royalty rates, as well as designating royalties for "new classifications" of services. While the groups celebrated this solution for being "flexible" for new providers, the details suggest a different story. We already expressed concerns about what are apparently licensing requirements for services that shouldn't need any license (i.e., personal music lockers). However, that was just based on the press release. When you look at the full details (pdf and embedded below), it gets even more troubling -- to the point that the whole agreement should probably be rejected.

Here's the big concern. This is a settlement among a few parties, who certainly don't represent the entire industry. Yet, if the Copyright Royalty Board and their (typically out of touch) judges accept the settlement, the details of the settlement become law. And that's problematic, because this thing is pretty crazy with restrictions -- some of which are nearly impossible to understand. If you think the tax code is confusing, you haven't tried to figure out what you have to pay to license certain services. Let's just say you want to set up a locker service that allows users to buy music which automatically goes into the locker. Well, among a ton of other rules, try this sucker on for size:

In the case of a purchased content locker service, the percentage of subpart C service revenue applicable in step 1 of &sec;385.22(b)(l)(i) is 12%. For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph (l)(i) of the definition of subpart C service revenue shall not apply. The minimum for use in step 1 of &sec;385.22(b)(l)(ii) is the appropriate subminimum as described in paragraph (b) of this section for the accounting period, where the all-in percentage applicable to &sec;385.23(b)(l) is 18%), and the sound recording-only percentage applicable to &sec;385.23(b)(2) is 22%, except that for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section the applicable consideration expensed by the service for the relevant rights shall consist only of applicable consideration expensed by the service, if any, that is incremental to the applicable consideration expensed for the rights to make the relevant permanent digital downloads and ringtones.

That's on page 40 of 44 pages. And is just one paragraph. Good luck figuring out the rest of the rules without a cadre of lawyers (oh wait... perhaps that's the idea).

But the bigger issue is that this agreement is a way to actually sneak DRM into copyright law. While existing copyright law has anti-circumvention rules, it makes no statement on how DRM actually impacts royalties or requirements (beyond anti-circumvention). Yet, this "agreement" has multiple sections that define types of DRM and with different rules for those specific cases. That is, the agreement defines the idea of a "limited download."

Limited download means a digital transmission of a sound recording of a musical work to an end user, other than a stream, that results in a specifically identifiable reproduction of that sound recording that is only accessible for listening for—

(1) An amount of time not to exceed 1 month from the time of the transmission (unless the service provider, in lieu of retransmitting the same sound recording as another limited download, separately and upon specific request of the end user made through a live network connection, reauthorizes use for another time period not to exceed 1 month), or in the case of a subscription transmission, a period of time following the end of the applicable subscription no longer than a subscription renewal period or 3 months, whichever is shorter; or

(2) A specified number of times not to exceed 12 (unless the service provider, in lieu of retransmitting the same sound recording as another limited download, separately and upon specific request of the end user made through a live network connection, reauthorizes use of another series of 12 or fewer plays), or in the case of a subscription transmission, 12 times after the end of the applicable subscription.

(3) A limited download is a general digital phonorecord delivery under 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(C) and (D).

Is this really what we want in the law? A specific legal definition of DRM that applies to others despite not being a part of the negotiations? The main issue is that this is a standard contract between private parties. That's fine if it only applied to those parties who were subject to the negotiation. But thanks to the CRB process, the end result may be to stuff this private contract between private parties directly into the law, and that will expand copyright in highly questionable ways.

There are lots of other concerns about the document as well. It has lots of "this or that" calculations -- all of which default to the "greater of" option -- meaning that the rates are going to keep going up. Also, the agreement repeatedly defines "minimums" but we'll be waiting a looooooong time for you to come back with where the "maximums" are. The whole thing is crazy confusing, and while it may be perfectly fine if it were just a contract among a few players, the second it becomes part of copyright law, we should be concerned.

Filed Under: copyright royalty board, drm, royalties, streaming
Companies: dma, nmpa, riaa

NCAA Goes Backwards On Streaming The Basketball Tournament

from the same-service,-now-for-a-fee! dept

If anyone has gotten the streaming sports thing right in the past, it's been NCAA Basketball. I've actually pointed to them as an example in the past of how the rest of the sporting world should embrace streaming their games and advertise the hell out of the experience. Rather than locking down access to viewership, like the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL, the NCAA Basektball Tournament got it right, partnering with broadcasters to stream the games to their sites free of charge, with all the advertising one would expect on television. It was a wonderful method for ensuring that one of my monitors at work had their games on. It made it certain that I'd be that weird guy staring at images on his phone while taking the train home from work. It confused my neighbors as to how I could somehow simultaneously grill steaks on my deck while announcers went ballistic over last second hail mary shots as time ran out on the clock. I was engaged (sorry Mom and Dad, I mean engaged to the game).

And now they've taken that all away from me. To be fair, they're still streaming the games. And they promise that the streams will work across multiple platforms (computer, iPad, iPhone, Android devices, etc.). And it only costs $4.99 for the entire tournament.

But that's where the lie in all this is. It's not just $4.99 to watch the tournament on every device other than my television (where it's FREE!). There are serious mental transactions to consider here. Like most red-blooded Americans, I'm in an NCAA office bracket. Something like half the games in the tournament take place during work hours across the country. Most of us don't have televisions at our desks, in our cubicles, wherever. Watching at work is kind of the whole point here, with all the ducking and dodging from our bosses we have to do as a result. Now, we can argue all we want whether watching the tourney at work is productive or a good idea, but from the NCAA's standpoint, they shouldn't care at all. They should want people to watch. Asking them to pay $4.99 to do all of this is a massive fail, particularly since all of those same advertisements that were in place remain.

So...they're charging for something that used to be free...without adding any benefit. I watched the games on their feeds the past couple of years. This year, not so much. The obvious question is does the money they're making from the $4.99/subscriber outweigh the eyeballs that are no longer watching the advertising because of that cost. Maybe those in the comments can change my mind, but I'm fairly certain there's more folks like me out there than people buying the "package".

Filed Under: basketball, march madness, ncaa, streaming
Companies: ncaa

Has The Megaupload Shutdown Been Good For The Entertainment Industry?

from the thoughts? dept

One of our most vocal (yet anonymous) critics posted an off-topic comment on a totally unrelated story mocking us for not having covered the story of how Hollywood has been saved (saved!) thanks to the shutdown of Megaupload. Of course, the reason we hadn't covered the story was because we didn't know about it. He referenced a couple of French news reports, which I hadn't seen until I had some time just now to catch up on some old comments. He could have submitted the stories, but he insisted that it would be a total waste of time because we ignore any story that we disagree with. That's pretty funny, considering many, many of the stories here are ones that challenge our views. And, I'm especially interested in reports of actual data, even if it conflicts with other data we've seen in the past. In fact, I'm especially interested in such stories, because my focus is figuring out what's really happening and understanding what's actually best for culture and society. So data that actually challenges my assumptions is some of the most useful data around.

Unfortunately, the stories don't actually have any data. The first one is totally anecdotal, concerning a guy who now goes to the movie rental store to rent (physical) movies since the shutdown of Megaupload, and the second one is about claims from TV stations that their websites are getting more traffic since the shutdown of Megaupload. Both are anecdotal, not data based, and really just seem to scream out the obvious: man, does the entertainment industry do a horrible job giving consumers what they want. If Megaupload's website was offering a better experience than the TV networks' own offerings... they should be firing their web designers and starting again. As for the guy renting videos... we'll see how long that lasts.

The same commenter then left a comment with some bullet point claims. He doesn't source them, so I have no idea how accurate they are, but they seem to indicate the same point in that second article. In the few weeks after Megaupload got shut down, TV station websites got more traffic. Again, this seems to simply show how bad a job they must have been doing in the past to attract viewers to their own websites. It also means that as soon as something better comes along (and it will), people will split. Ignoring that the market is telling you something is no way to build a long-term business.

Of course, we've also seen significant other data from firms that have access to a much wider view of internet traffic, which suggested that Megaupload traffic pretty quickly shifted to other, similar sites. Of course, some of those sites have since shut down or changed models, but anyone who thinks that more such sites aren't springing up (with some keeping a lower profile) simply hasn't been paying much attention to how the internet works.

Filed Under: anecdotes, data, revenue, shutdown, streaming
Companies: megaupload