EMI Exec Thinks You Shouldn't Be Able To Listen To Your Own Music Without Paying Again

from the no-wonder-they're-confused dept

Via Glyn Moody, we get this bizarre story, which demonstrates how some "new media" execs at the major labels don't seem to understand "new media." A few weeks back, Michael Robertson had revealed the ridiculous demands that the major labels were making on anyone who wanted to license content for a cloud music player. Most of the demands made absolutely no sense and represented an ignorance of the technology involved. Remember, these services are about people uploading music they already have so that they can listen to it elsewhere. It's not about sharing music at all. Yet the labels, in their ultimate paranoia, continue to insist it is. Wayne Borean posted a link to Robertson's story on the astroturfing "Balanced Copyright" page, that is a front for the major record labels. Jeff Thistle, who is the "Director of New Media" for EMI Canada responded (also mirrored here), saying that these demands were "all reasonable." When Borean challenged him on this, Thistle replied:

What measures do you propose be put in place to prevent the uploading of major label owned content? I can't speak to the mechanism to determine what an annual fee would be (presumably it would be by percentage of catalogue * number of lockers that the content resides in), but asking that controls be put in place to prevent the service from becoming another illegal sharing vehicle is *very* reasonable.

How does that make any sense at all? Why should anyone, who has a legal and authorized copy of major label content, be prevented from storing it online to listen to it remotely? And most of these digital lockers don't allow downloads and are only for the one user who uploaded their own music. The claim that these will become "another illegal sharing vehicle" is a total red herring. So they make up a red herring and pretend they're doing this to "protect" that which doesn't need protecting... when the reality is that they're just trying to force people to pay over and over and over again for music they already paid for.

Filed Under: jeff thistle, licenses, music, music lockers, streaming
Companies: emi

Studios Apparently Would Prefer Searches Only Turn Up Pirated Copies, Rather Than A Legit Option

from the do-they-not-think? dept

There have been some stories about how YouTube is preparing to work with a bunch of big movie studios to sell access to movies. It's been offering up some movies for a year or so, though it hasn't really caught on. The hope is that with big Hollywood pictures, people might care more. I'm not convinced it will be that big of a deal -- especially for folks who use Netflix -- but it's an easy enough thing to do. Except... apparently two of the major studios, Fox and Paramount, are balking at the deal, because they don't like that people can find unauthorized copies of their movies via Google's search functionality. This makes no sense. Basically they're saying they'd rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list. This is not how you "compete" with unauthorized versions.

Filed Under: movies, piracy, searches, streaming, studios, youtube
Companies: fox, google, news corp., paramount, viacom, youtube

Will Amazon Cave In And Get Licenses For Its Streaming Player?

from the probably dept

When Amazon recently launched its streaming cloud music player, which let people upload their own tracks and then stream them back, one of the big questions was how would the record labels react. That's because Amazon didn't secure licenses for this, and it's somewhat in dispute whether or not it needs to. Of course, many of us think the law is pretty clear that no such licenses are needed at all. The music is already in the possession of the person who is streaming it. There is no additional fee that needs to be paid to listen to music you already have. Adding in a new license is just something the industry is making up because it wants more money. So, now the real question is whether or not the labels will sue... or will Amazon just cave in and pay for some made up licenses it doesn't need.

It's beginning to sound like the latter option is the most likely. Amazon doesn't want to piss off the labels who it already works with for music sales (both downloads and CDs), and so it may find that it's best just to pay up to avoid a lawsuit and other relationship problems. It might also pay up to enable other kinds of features (such as limited music sharing for people who both have the same songs in their collections).

While I can certainly understand the business reasons for avoiding a legal fight, it really would be too bad. It would be nice to see someone with the bank account to take on a serious fight really take this issue through the courts and have it shown that the major labels are simply making up a license right that doesn't exist. Of course, the flip side of that argument is that if Amazon really did win such a fight, how long would it be until the RIAA ramps up its lobbying efforts to get Congress to change copyright law to explicitly add such a bogus "right to listen to your own music if it's stored on a different computer."

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

Amazon Launches Digital Music Locker, Even As Legality Is Still In Question

from the did-they-obtain-licenses? dept

Well, this could get interesting. While there are already a few digital music lockers on the market -- including services like MP3Tunes and MeCanto -- there's been plenty of talk over the past few months about the "big players" entering the market. Most of the focus has been on both Apple (which bought and shut down the music locker service Lala) and Google, but Amazon beat both companies to the starting line and launched its service a few hours ago.

The question that's most interesting to me is whether or not it's paying for licenses, and at this point, it's unclear. We've seen, for example, that the record labels are not happy about these services, with EMI in a legal fight with MP3Tunes. On top of that record labels are demanding additional fees and licenses, even though these lockers only allow people to store and stream music they already have. Whether or not Amazon paid any licenses is unclear. The News.com article linked above says "as of last week the online retailer giant had not obtained all the necessary licenses, but that Amazon might announce the service before all the negotiations were complete."

But here's my question: what necessary licenses? Why should anyone else have to pay a license to let me store and stream my own music? Update: Hypebot has more, saying that Amazon doesn't believe it needs licenses, and some of the labels (but not all) are upset. Specifically, Warner Music is pissed and is contemplating legal action, but other labels aren't quite as upset.

As for Amazon's actual service, I have no idea if it's compelling, but I will say it's rather silly and pointless that they're making me reupload music. I already have an Amazon S3 account which (among other things) I use to backup all of my (yes, legal and authorized) music. What would be great is if I could just point this new Amazon Cloud Player at my existing music that is already stored on Amazon's servers, and then stream it from there. But that does not appear to be an option. Instead, I would need to reload all of it (and since I have a lot more than 5 gigs of music, I'd have to pay multiple times for it. And, with anyone else launching a similar service, I'd probably have to upload it again and again.

Let's be honest here: that's not really a cloud service. A true cloud service would let me store my music wherever I wanted, and then point whatever streaming player I wanted at it... But, of course, I'm sure the record labels would want another bunch of licenses paid up in full before anything like that is ever allowed.

Filed Under: cloud, digital lockers, music, streaming
Companies: amazon, apple, google, mp3tunes

YouTube Notes That Free Music, With Ads, Pays As Well, If Not Better, Than Paid

from the those-digital-dimes-add-up dept

One of the more frustrating things about watching people declare certain things as "fact" in the tech world is the failure to recognize the rate of change and trends as they go. For example, for years, people dismissed the idea that music on YouTube could effectively be monetized if it was available for "free." And yet, now YouTube is noting that free music can actually pay just as well as paid music services, and the trend certainly suggests that the money from the free music on YouTube is growing much faster in its earning potential than any paid service. Of course, how long will it take for the major record labels to recognize this. Warner Music has already declared that it won't do any more free streaming deals. On top of that, the rumors about both Spotify and Google Music in the US have all been about how the labels don't want to allow much free music to be offered. How many times does it need to be explained to record label execs that "free" does not necessarily mean "no money," and when done correctly, it can actually mean "more money."

Filed Under: business models, economics, free, music, streaming, youtube

Hadopi Wants To Kick People Offline For Watching Unauthorized Streams As Well

from the mission-creep dept

Well, well. A top guy at the French "kick you off the internet" Hadopi agency is apparently claiming that the organization's mandate goes beyond just people accused (not convicted) of file sharing, and could be used against people watching unauthorized streaming content as well. There's no indication given as to how Hadopi or anyone else would actually be able to find out who was watching streamed content, short of seizing log files. But, won't it be great when you can lose your internet connection, because your friends pointed you to a video on YouTube that wasn't properly licensed?

Filed Under: france, hadopi, streaming

UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement

from the one-to-watch dept

The company that owns Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) has been complaining and threatening about online streaming video services for a while, but it appears that it's finally started suing, and its first target is Justin.tv. This isn't that surprising, given that it's (loudly) complained about Justin.tv for years, and made clear it was gearing up for lawsuits. I haven't seen the full filing yet, but unless there's something egregious in there, I can't see why Justin.tv isn't protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. UFC (well, really its parent company, Zuffa LLC) is trying to claim "inducement" and seems to be suggesting that Justin.tv doesn't respond helpfully enough to takedowns. However, from what I've heard, Justin.tv is pretty vigilant in responding to takedowns and has put in place safeguards to try to block such things. They might not work perfectly, but the company has definitely done plenty to try to block such streams. Again, perhaps there's something more in the filing, but otherwise, it seems likely that Justin.tv is clearly protected by the DMCA's safe harbors.

Filed Under: copyright, inducement, streaming
Companies: justin.tv, ufc, zuffa

Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?

from the watch-those-numbers... dept

Back in December, we did a little back-of-the-envelope calculating to show how much more expensive it is for Netflix to license movies for streaming, as compared to just buying DVDs and shipping them out. The differences are staggering. And apparently it's only getting more expensive. The Hollywood Reporter has an in-depth article highlighting the love-hate affair that Hollywood has with Netflix, including details on the sorts of prices that the various players are demanding (and often getting) from Netflix. What's not surprising is that they keep asking for more and more (and some are still complaining that Netflix doesn't pay enough). But the numbers being thrown about are simply staggering. And at the rate they're going up, it will make it increasingly difficult for Netflix to actually afford all of those deals. Once again, it seems like a situation where the content providers are overvaluing their content, and undervaluing the services that make that content more valuable. That is, they look at how Netflix is succeeding (especially as they're failing to adapt themselves online), and they start to get jealous, and assume that Netflix really should be paying them more money. Basically, they don't think Netflix deserves to profit at all, since it's really all "their content." What they ignore, of course, is that (despite multiple weak attempts) they were the ones who failed to provide a compelling streaming service themselves. Either way, if Hollywood keeps pushing those numbers up, they may discover that they end up killing the golden goose.

Filed Under: content, licensing, movies, streaming, value
Companies: netflix

Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers

from the target-marketing dept

The online movie streaming business is an interesting one, which Netflix currently dominates, though it's definitely still early. While Netflix's solution is far from perfect, there's just something about the way in which Netflix set up its online offering -- where people pay for access, rather than content that has been quite appealing to many people. However, with so much interest in online movie streaming, it's not surprising to see others entering the market, though it appears that many are taking a cargo cult approach to creating online movie streaming services: they just put together a service that offers movies for streaming, without taking the time to understand why they work or what people actually want from them.

A few months back, we wrote about Best Buy's online movie service, called CinemaNow, which is just the branding slapped on a service from a company called Sonic Solutions (somewhat confusingly, Sonic had owned and used the CinemaNow brand, but then sold it to Best Buy, who used it to offer a service powered by Sonic). Rather than following the Netflix online model of paying for access, the Best Buy/Sonic solution followed the old Blockbuster model: pay $15 to "buy" (really license for the life of your account, or until the service shuts down) or $4 to "rent," which would allow you to watch the movie within 30 days -- but once you started it, you would need to finish it within 24 hours. Those "24 hour" windows have been tried before, and they serve no purpose other than to absolutely annoy and piss people off.

In talking to people who follow these services, we've heard that CinemaNow has had dreadful pick-up rates. People just really aren't that interested, and it's not hard to see that services like Netflix appear to be a hell of a lot more user-friendly. Best Buy recently tried to amp up its marketing of the service, and the best argument it can make against Netflix is: "We tell people to think of it like using Netflix, except you get to keep what you actually buy." Except, of course, that's not really accurate, nor compelling. First of all, you don't really get to "keep" what you "buy." In fact, you don't really get to "buy" anything. You just license it, and you lose it the second your account closes (or, again, the service goes out of business). And, of course, with the way the Netflix system works, you have unlimited access to every movie in its system anyway, so you basically get to "keep" all of the movies, anyway (if you define "keep" the same way Best Buy is defining it).

Anyway, the latest on this front is that Sears & Kmart have jumped into the fray with their own service, which appears to be little more than an identical clone to BestBuy's CinemaNow. The Sears/Kmart solution is called Alphaline Entertainment (huh?) and is also powered by Sonic -- but here the prices are actually higher. The faux-own option now costs $20, rather than $15.

So you have a solution that is not compelling, has serious limitations, significantly underperforms the competition and is more expensive than an identical solution from the same core provider. Are Sears & Kmart really saying that their target market is uninformed suckers?

Filed Under: movies, streaming
Companies: bestbuy, kmart, netflix, sears, sonic solutions

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