Eminem Wins Appeal Over Universal Music: iTunes Downloads Should Be Accounted Differently Than CD Sales

from the uh-oh-universal dept

Well, well, well. A few years back, we noted that Eminem's publisher was upset about the royalty cut they were getting from sales on iTunes, and they eventually sued both Apple and Universal Music over this (though, I'm still confused why Apple is involved). The issue is a contractual one: as is standard in lots of recording industry deals, musicians make very little money from each album sold. However, when their music is "licensed" for other things -- such as a commercial, movie or video game, they make a much larger percentage. The reasoning, of course, is that there are a lot more "costs" that go into making and selling a CD, which the label is taking on.

But here's where it gets tricky: what is a sale via iTunes? Is that a "sale" like a CD (meaning a small percentage royalty)? Or is it a "license" like for a movie (meaning a much bigger royalty)? Conceptually, you can make a reasonable argument for either side. After all, from the consumers' perspective, it's very much like buying a CD. But... from a technological perspective, it's really a lot more like licensing, since you don't have the same production, physical goods, shipping and distribution costs. A jury originally sided with Universal Music, saying that it's really just like a CD sale, and thus, the lower royalties should apply.

However, the 9th circuit appeals court has just ruled the opposite way, saying that the contract is "unambiguous" that iTunes sales count as a license, for which the higher royalties apply: This could have a major impact on how much Universal has to pay out to musicians for iTunes sales. Of course, Universal Music is downplaying the ruling, saying that it's unique to Eminem's contract, and that the company plans to fight the ruling. However, Universal Music (and others, potentially) may be in bigger trouble than they care to admit over this ruling. There are other, similar cases underway as well. While I'm sure its more recent contracts are quite specific on this point, for large segments of the back catalog, Universal could be looking at actually having to pay out significantly more in royalties. Of course that assumes they have accurate records somewhere -- which certainly is no given.

Filed Under: eminem, licenses, royalties, sales
Companies: universal music

UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal

from the the-system-is-designed-to-trip-you-up dept

We've pointed out many times just how ridiculously complex various licensing collection agencies are in the music space, especially when multiple collection societies cover the same music. The whole system seems designed to make it nearly impossible for anyone to actually play music legally. Take, for example, this situation in the UK, pointed out by reader mike allen, involving a hairdresser who had paid for a license from PRS For Music just to be allowed to turn on a radio in his shop... only to discover that he failed to pay the other UK collection society, PPL (home of the infamous CEO who insists that "for free" is a bogus concept). So even though this guy thought he was legit, he still ended up with a fine for £1,569.

In his defense, he claimed that he'd never even heard of PPL, and since he had a PRS license, he assumed (quite reasonably) that he was in the clear. Now, I'm sure that defenders of the system will quickly step up and say that it was his responsibility to find out what music licensing groups you have to hand over a tithe to each year, but all this guy wants to do is turn on his radio. For most people, it's just common sense that you shouldn't have to pay a fee just to turn on a radio in your barber shop. And then, once you're informed that this totally nonsensical situation is, in fact, true, it seems quite reasonable to then assume that one license will let you turn on the radio. Finding out that you need two (or more) separate licenses just to turn on the radio (even though the radio already pays its fees and the music acts a promotion) just seems ridiculous for everyone who isn't a recording industry exec or a long term copyright lawyer.

Copyright is not supposed to work this way.

Filed Under: collection societies, copyright, fines, licenses, uk
Companies: ppl, prs

Google Stops Hosting AP News

from the isn't-this-a-good-thing-for-newspapers? dept

Peter Friedman points us to the news that Google has apparently quietly stopped hosting AP content on its site. You may recall that a little over two years ago (after much back and forth), Google began hosting AP content. This was licensed content that Google had paid for -- but that deal came about after the AP made some noise suggesting that Google's linking to content (with headlines and snippets) could be infringing. Rather than stand up to that (surprisingly, since it had a strong case), Google just did a licensing deal. What amazed me, at the time (and since), is that this didn't piss off AP members. Before this deal, Google would link directly to AP member websites who posted versions of AP stories, driving more traffic to those newspapers sites. After this deal, however, Google sent most of that traffic directly to its own site, and paid the AP directly for the license. The end result? The "members" of the AP got less traffic and fewer ad impressions. If I were an AP member I would be incredibly pissed off that the AP was directly competing with me and basically getting paid by Google to block traffic to my site.

So why has Google stopped posting new AP stories? Some think it may be Google calling the AP's bluff. That's because, despite having a deal that gives the AP lots of money for the right to post its content, the AP continues to make ridiculous claims that Google is somehow "stealing" its content. So, some suggest that Google pulled the content to show the AP what life is like without Google. There may be a more reasonable explanation, however. The original AP/Google deal expires towards the end of this month, and the original deal (stupidly, annoyingly, and against basic web accepted best practices) only allowed Google to host content for 30 days. After that, it disappears and people searching for that old content or following old links are simply told its gone (think of how much ad revenue the AP has lost because of that...). With the deal running out, Google knew it would then need to take down all AP content immediately, and it probably did not want to have content posted for less than 30 days -- so when it hit the 30 day mark, it just stopped posting content to avoid having stories that would go up and be taken down too rapidly.

Still, it makes you wonder how AP member papers are faring -- since they may now be getting more traffic from Google, because those AP stories showing up online from AP member papers will now get listed, once again, instead of just being hosted on Google itself.

Filed Under: journalism, licenses, news
Companies: associated press, google

Do Your Rights To Listen To Legally Licensed Music Stop At The Border?

from the rights-holders-fuck-up-everything dept

Two rather successful venture capitalists, Brad Feld and Fred Wilson, have been at the forefront of bucking the ridiculous claim that VCs only invest in companies that have patents, as both have spoken out about how patents tend to stifle innovation, and how their portfolio companies are often held back by patents, rather than helped by them. It looks like both of them are also quite aware of how copyright gets in the way of basic innovation as well. Brad Feld has a post up about how he created a Pandora station based on Fred's blog post detailing his top albums of the decade. Pretty cool, right?

Well, the problem is that Brad sent Fred an invite to this "station," and Fred is traveling for the holidays in Argentina with his family. So, because of ridiculous demands from copyright holders that make it so Pandora is only available in the US, Brad gets informed that Fred cannot access the station that Brad created for Fred solely due to ridiculous copyright holder demands. Yes, even though Fred almost always accesses Pandora from the US, but just happens to be in Argentina this week, Pandora says he can't listen to the station that Brad created for him. Brad makes a good point, that any human can understand why this situation is silly, but computers still can't quite figure it out, noting: "The level of interaction of human and machine is high, although the level of sophistication is pretty low." As for Fred's summation of the situation? "Rights holders fuck everything up." Indeed.

Filed Under: brad feld, fred wilson, licenses, music, rights holders

Can Universities Make Sure That Drugs Based On Their Research Are Licensed Reasonably?

from the probably-not dept

Joseph Franklin has written about how a group of universities have agreed to some basic principles (pdf) about providing drugs to developing nations at reasonable costs (or even free) in the interest of better global healthcare. However, Franklin wonders how well this will work in practice, and why it should only apply to developing nations, and not domestically as well. It's an interesting question, made more complicated by the fact that many drugs have their research started at universities -- frequently backed by government money -- but are later taken over by pharmaceutical companies who have no interest in such principles. I tend to think that such "principles" are nice to speak about, but are rarely effective in actually creating change. I would think that a much stronger argument is showing the economic benefits in keeping people alive. If you could rid some developing nations of certain diseases, you'd be able to open up vast new markets for other industries. Hell, imagine if you could get companies in other industries (food, clothing, transportation, etc.) to pay for drugs for the poor in developing nations, knowing that keeping them healthy will help those nations build their economy so they can start purchasing the same food, clothing and transportation...

Filed Under: developing nations, drugs, licenses, patents, universities

Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations

from the it's-a-bit-different dept

While we've discussed how extreme views in the open source community can, at times, rival the way the entertainment industry acts towards those who violate licenses, reader Nick Coghlan writes in to point to an article that highlights how different they are in many cases, with Bradley Kuhn, the technical director of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), putting forth new guidelines that encourage people not to jump to conclusions when they see potential violations, and to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone they suspect of violating the license. Compare that to the tens of thousands of threat letters sent out by the RIAA, at times with little real evidence.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, gpl, licenses, violations
Companies: riaa, sflc

WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging

from the whatcha-gonna-do-about-it? dept

Remember how the NFL told the press that they weren't allowed to live blog or live Tweet games, as it would be a violation of the league's broadcast rights? I noted that I couldn't see how that was enforceable by the league, other than by kicking reporters out of the stadium. Of course, even that would backfire, because a reporter could just watch the game on TV and live blog. And... in fact... that's exactly what the WSJ just did, apparently thumbing its collective nose at the NFL's restrictions. Ben alerts us to the news that a WSJ reporter, safely on his couch at home, live blogged a recent football game between the NY Jets and the Tennessee Titans. Your move, NFL...

Filed Under: free speech, licenses, live blogging, reporting, sports
Companies: nfl, wsj

Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Last week we wrote about claims that copyright holders were purposely putting their own content online to see who downloaded it, and then suing them. In that post, we mentioned a post from last year, about one of the companies that's been hired to track down file sharers, DigiProtect, and how its contract seems to suggest this is exactly what the company does. After that came out, there was some talk about how that contract clause really was only used to make sure the company had the right to investigate infringement. However, the company now appears to be quite forward in admitting that it puts files online specifically to catch downloaders:

"We get the legal rights from the companies to distribute these movies to stores, and with these rights we can sue illegal downloaders. Then we take legal action in every country possible, concentrating on the places where such action will be profitable."

Of course, this seems questionable on a variety of levels. First, if it's getting the distribution rights to the content, then the distribution is authorized, and not infringing. Second, DigiProtect makes it quite clear that its focus is on figuring out the most profitable way to do this -- not the best way to cut down on infringement. The company apparently doesn't pay anyone on a fixed salary, but everyone shares in a cut of whatever is "collected." In other words, the program is not at all about stopping unauthorized file sharing, but figuring out the best way to profit from sending threat letters to people. The company even admits that the numbers it demands from people, and the numbers used in lawsuits have nothing to do with actual damages, but are entirely about what they think is mostly likely to get them paid. That sounds an awful lot like the what most people call extortion.

Filed Under: file sharing, licenses, uploads
Companies: digiprotect

Wisconsin Sports League Sends Newspapers Invoices For Live Blogging

from the just-try-to-charge dept

The NY Times checked in with its own version of the story about sports leagues restricting what fans can do in the stands to share their experience -- a story that we've already covered. However, Romenesko points us to a little tidbit down at the bottom of the NYT article, talking about other leagues that have tried to do something similar, mentioning that a sports league in Wisconsin went so far as to send invoices to newspapers it felt were "live blogging" its events. We had written about this dispute a few months ago, but I hadn't heard about the invoices before.

Every newspaper who received an invoice smartly ignored it, but the whole concept is ridiculous. The league is claiming that such a live blogging of what's happening at the sports event counts as a "broadcast" and thus should be required to pay the same fees that, say, local radio stations pay to broadcast the events. But the idea that you can stop people from, or charge people for, telling the world what's happening in a sporting venue is preposterous, not just from a legal or technological standpoint, but because these events depend on news coverage for advertising. Attempting to charge newspapers (or fans) for trying to keep others informed seems incredibly self-defeating.

Filed Under: free speech, licenses, live blogging, reporting, sports

AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell

from the why-not? dept

Last year, you may recall, we pointed out that the Associated Press had a laughable sliding scale price if you wanted to copy and use more than 4 words (the first 4 free!). After that, it cost $12.50 for 5 to 25 words. This, of course, ignores fair use, which (and, yes, it does depend on the circumstances) almost certainly would let most people quote more than 4 words without having to pay. But, of course, it gets worse. Boing Boing points us to a little experiment by James Grimmelmann, testing out the AP's text licensing system, where he discovers that you can put any text you want into the calculator, and the AP will gladly sell you a license. So, just for fun, Grimmelmann paid $12 for a license to a (public domain) quote from Thomas Jefferson, culled not from the AP, but from Jefferson's famous letter to Isaac McPherson, where he warns of the excesses of intellectual monopolies: Grimmelmann also points out the ridiculousness of the terms associated with licensing the content, including that it must be used exactly as written, and requires the exact attribution footer the AP's system generates (which never bothers to check to see if the content is actually from the article in question). Oh yeah, it also doesn't let you quote for "political Content," however that's defined. It makes you wonder if the same folks who build this little anti-fair use licensing system are the same folks who are building their DRM for news.

And, of course, there are similarly ridiculous situations, such as Dave Zatz finding out that it will cost himself $25 to quote himself (thanks johnjac). The AP keeps making a mockery of itself.

Of course, the AP has put out a statement, basically mimicking the one it put out last year, saying that the icopyright stuff is not intended for bloggers. But then who is it intended for? Considering that the AP has threatened bloggers in the past for quoting its words, the whole thing seems bizarre. So you can rely on fair use if you're a blogger, but not... if you're something else? How does that make sense? I've read through our copyright laws more than a few times, and I don't recall the clause that says "fair use applies to bloggers, but not others."

Update: As a few people have pointed out, after all the media attention, the AP "revoked" the license. Note the language. They didn't apologize. They didn't admit error. They didn't admit awful technology and a silly policies. They "revoked" a license they had no right to sell in the first place. At least they gave him his money back.

Filed Under: bloggers, copyright, fair use, licenses, news, public domain
Companies: associated press