stories filed under: "streaming"
Apple Approves Spotify App... Spotify Should Thank Google
from the good-timing dept
Just before the whole mess -- including an FCC inquiry -- of why Apple rejected Google voice on the iPhone, we were among those who wondered if Apple would approve Spotify, the well-hyped (perhaps over-hyped) music app that in many ways competes directly with iTunes. Well, it looks like Apple has approved the software, though Spotify is still only available in certain European countries (though there are promises of a North American launch later this year). You really have to wonder, though, how much of the approval was due to the mess and attention that Apple received following the rejection of Google Voice. It seems likely that the company is now (finally) a bit more sensitive to this issue, and may have decided that it didn't need another PR headache... or to give any more fodder to the FCC. Spotify probably owes Google a nice bouquet of flowers.Filed Under: app store, arbitrary, iphone, itunes, music, spotify, streaming
Companies: apple, google, spotify
Another Misguided Lawsuit: Ustream Sued Over Users' Actions
from the trademark-safe-harbors dept
It's no surprise these days to see that service providers are getting sued for the actions of their users, but it is always fun to see how the lawyers for the plaintiffs try to get around the obvious problems of DMCA or CDA safe harbors. The latest case involves boxing promoter One Ring suing Ustream, one of a number of live video streaming companies out there. Like the misguidedIn this case, though, there's a little tidbit, brushed over by the original article, but which suggests how One Ring hopes to get around the DMCA safe harbors on copyright infringement. It's not just suing Ustream over copyright, but it's also claiming that since its logo was seen via the broadcast, Ustream is also guilty of trademark infringement. That's because there's an annoying loophole in that trademark is not technically covered by either the DMCA's safe harbors or the CDA's safe harbors. The DMCA only covers copyright, and the CDA specifically exempts "intellectual property," thus leaving trademark in nowhere's land between the two. Not surprisingly, this has become a popular loophole for lawyers to try to exploit (in fact, we were recently threatened on this very point).
That said, it still seems like Ustream should have a strong case. Even if trademark is not explicitly covered by a safe harbor, simple common sense should make it clear that the company should in no way be liable for the actions of its users. On top of that, claiming that its trademark infringement to show the One Ring logo is also quite questionable and hardly seems likely to stand up under scrutiny. Still, it's an annoying lawsuit that Ustream has to deal with, for no particular reason.
Filed Under: copyright, liability, safe harbors, streaming, trademark, video
Companies: one ring, ustream
Will Apple Allow Spotify On The iPhone?
from the one-to-watch dept
Having used Spotify a bit, I can definitely see how some people think it could potentially replace iTunes completely. It basically acts like an iTunes that has access to millions of songs at no additional cost (and, yes, it's all licensed and legal). The songs are streamed, but you almost never notice it. It really does feel just like iTunes, while also having "Pandora-like" features for creating specialized stations or sharing others' playlists. Unfortunately, it's only available in the UK for now, though the rumor is it will be available in the US before the end of the year. However, where things could get really impressive is with Spotify's mobile app. For a few months, there's been a YouTube video of Spotify Mobile on Android:That said, the initial reviews of the iPhone app seem quite strong. Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired loves the syncing feature, and warns that "you'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead iPhone before I'll delete it from my phone." Meanwhile Music Ally points out that Spotify has uploaded a video of the iPhone app as well:
Filed Under: app store, arbitrary, iphone, itunes, music, spotify, streaming
Companies: apple, spotify
Is Streaming Really Replacing Downloading?
from the perhaps-in-some-cases... dept
Lots of attention is being paid today to an article in the Guardian about a new study claiming that illegal file sharing has collapsed in the UK and is being replaced by streaming music found on YouTube and through services like Spotify. The premise of the article is that now that kids have alternatives, they're willing to dump unauthorized file sharing and get by with streaming. While I don't doubt that it may be true in some cases, I'd take these findings with a pretty large grain of salt for a variety of reasons:- It's not based on actual usage data, but on survey data.
- As more and more attention is being paid to people getting sued and fined for online file sharing activities, people are certainly going to be less willing to admit on a survey that they participate.
- This is especially true in the UK, where there's been a tremendous amount of attention on the recent Digital Britain report, which claims, as a goal, to reduce illegal online file sharing activities.
However, even if we take what the article says as proof, it seems quite likely that the industry will muck this up too. Already, we've seen that Spotify is running into licensing problems, and the company is nowhere near being able to turn a profit. And, of course, the industry is pushing for increasingly unsustainable webcasting rates. That's why YouTube and PRS still haven't come to an agreement over all that streaming music in the UK, and even as PRS has tried to lower its rates to make a deal, some of the record labels are actually demanding the rates be pushed back up.
This is how the legacy industry kills anything even remotely positive. The second that the industry sees anything that's working, it suddenly smothers it by demanding to get a bigger and bigger cut. We've seen it for years. As soon as iTunes started to be successful, the labels pushed to get a bigger and bigger cut from any sale (and to push the prices of each song higher). More recently, with the massive success of video games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band helping to promote music (and making musicians a ton of money), the labels have been demanding a bigger cut as well.
Rather than understanding how to create and foster a healthy music ecosystem, it seems that some of the major label bosses have learned how to do one thing only: squeeze each tiny baby lemon as hard as possible until it's dry, never giving it a chance to actually grow. And then they wonder how come each new revenue stream doesn't make as much money as their old way of doing business.
Filed Under: downloading, recording industry, streaming
Companies: google, spotify
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
Finally, A MLB Team Gets A Deal For In-Market Online Streaming
from the water-stone-etc. dept
Major League Baseball has long contended that fans should watch games in the manner in which it chooses, rather than how the fans themselves want to. This is the thinking behind its local blackout policies, first intended to "protect" ticket sales by not allowing the TV broadcast of games that weren't sold out, and lately, intended to "protect" local TV broadcasts by making it impossible for fans to watch their local team online. It takes the blackouts so seriously that it's even patented a way to black out local users from online streams, an absurd show of pride in something that basically just frustrates fans and customers. But there may be some cracks appearing in the local online blackouts, as the New York Yankees, Cablevision and MLB have reached a deal for in-market streaming of games. At first glance, the negotiations sound pretty convoluted, especially considering the Yankees own a stake in YES, the local TV rightsholder. But not surprisingly, the result -- that people in the Yankees' local market can only buy the online subscription if they're Cablevision subscribers that get the YES network in their cable package -- seems like it's par for the course for MLB, which has a penchant for trying to lock down everything baseball-related online.The amount of baseball that's broadcast on TV has boomed over the past couple of decades, having escaped the thinking that making the game harder for fans to follow on TV was somehow actually good for it. Now, the same thing is playing out online, where MLB seems hellbent on frustrating fans who want to see all of their teams' games online. What makes online different than TV, in that putting up these walls in front of the game's most dedicated fans is somehow a good thing?
Filed Under: baseball, markets, streaming
Companies: cablevision, mlb.com, yankees
YouTube Ordered To Pay $1.6 Million To ASCAP
from the making-sausages dept
You may remember last year around this time, a district court set a totally arbitrary royalty fee that AOL, Yahoo and RealNetworks had to pay ASCAP for music streamed over their services. Reading through the details of the decision was immensely troubling, because it seemed to calculate the amounts on a somewhat meaningless formula based on taking a percentage of revenue from the companies that had absolutely nothing to do with music itself. Basically, it looked at almost any revenue that somehow sorta kinda touched on music (including search) and included that as part of the calculation process. Recently, ASCAP and Google went through a similar case in front of the same district court to determine just how much Google has to pay ASCAP for all the music streamed on YouTube. To be honest, I'm still not sure why it makes sense that Google has to pay anything for this, but that's one of the oddities of modern copyright law.While the decision hasn't received much press attention, last week, the court ordered Google to pay $1.6 million to ASCAP (thanks to Eric Goldman for sending me the decision). The court seemed to take a "split the difference" approach, as ASCAP had asked for $12 million for all music streamed between 2005 and the end of 2008 (and another $7 million for 2009). YouTube, in response, had suggested $79,500 for 2005 through the end of 2008 and then $20,000 per quarter ongoing. The court rejected both proposals, and dinged both companies for weakly supporting their positions, or being somewhat misleading in their assertions. Google, for instance, tried to focus on the number of "music videos" as compared to the total number of videos on YouTube, though the court noted that the music videos seem to get a lot more views than many of those other videos, and it doesn't take into account the time spent viewing each video. ASCAP basically said: "just take that formula you used last year for AOL, Yahoo and Real and apply it to Google revenue."
The court, instead, went into a lengthy justification of trying to come up with a "fair" proposal, involving an awful lot of redacted information on YouTube's revenue (though... if you work through all the numbers you might be able to piece back together some revenue info) and eventually came up with $1.4 million for 2005 through 2008, and then $70,000 per month afterwards, which, when added to the additional fees this year, brought it up to $1.61 million to date (and counting). Of course, this is all supposed to be a temporary sort of thing until the two sides can work out an agreement on their own -- but given the vast differences in proposals (as the court noted, ASCAP was asking for a rate 150 times as large as YouTube's proposal), it doesn't seem like the two sides are close.
Either way, reading this ruling as well as last year's ruling shows what a total mess this process is. Basically, ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash. I know that ASCAP supporters will claim that the money is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah. But the whole system of such collective licenses is a mess that it makes it close to impossible to do anything with music without getting yourself into a huge licensing hole. For more than a century now, Congress and the courts seem to look at every innovation and simply slap another license fee on it, and leave it to the courts to sort out any mess. All of these license fees add up to a massive tax on innovation that divert money from good business models and into the hands of collections societies, who siphon off a piece and often don't do a very good job distributing that cash. It's a massively inefficient model that's simply not needed.
Filed Under: copyright, court, rates, songwriters, streaming
Companies: ascap, google, youtube
Blockbuster Takes Its PPV Streaming Movies To TiVo
from the lessons-learned dept
Blockbuster announced back in November that it would begin offering pay-per-view movie downloads, but its plan had a couple of major pitfalls: it required consumers to buy a proprietary box to be able to buy the downloads, and it didn't offer a very wide selection. It's cracked one of those, sort of, by making its OnDemand service available to TiVo users, who will now be able to access it alongside rival services from Netflix and CinemaNow. It's heartening to see that Blockbuster has realized the standalone box strategy isn't viable, even if others haven't figured it out. The lesson is pretty clear: if you're going to come out with a streaming service, you're going to fail if you force users to buy a proprietary box, and your only chance to succeed is by making it available on as many platforms as possible. That's not a guarantee, mind you, as there are still plenty of ways to screw things up, or to have things screwed up for you by movie studios.Filed Under: movies, streaming
Companies: blockbuster, tivo
Oh Gosh: How Dare People Want To Listen To Music
from the how-dare-they dept
It looks like we've found the new evil bogeyman for the recording industry: people daring to listen to music for free online. We mentioned it earlier this month, when there was a report about how all the various online streaming services were taking away from sales. Apparently, the record labels are passing around statistics claiming that such streaming services hurt music, claiming (incorrectly) that "there's nothing left to promote."This morning, at the Leadership Music Digital Summit, Russ Crupnick, a music industry analyst at the NPD Group, gave a "state of the industry" talk, where he pointed out (good) that p2p file sharing isn't as big a problem as the industry makes it out to be, but then dove into the "problem" that more and more consumers of music are "only listening to music," using these various online sites and services, rather than buying the music. It seems to be quite a strange world where the idea that lots of people are paying attention to your product and it's seen as a "problem." He even noted that folks who do buy (such as concert tickets) tend to spend a lot more on music-related goods (beyond just concert tickets) but seems to brush over that.
While it's good to see that folks are starting to get beyond just blaming P2P (though, Crupnick did repeatedly refer to it incorrectly as "stealing" music), this industry has a serious problem: it looks at every single opportunity as a "problem" or a "threat" and never as an opportunity. I would argue that's a much bigger problem than fans daring to listen to and share music.
Filed Under: business models, listening, music, streaming
