Game Music Composer Goes On DMCA Blitz Against Innocent YouTubers Over Contract Dispute With Game Publisher

from the hostage-negotiations dept

Stories about both the abuse of the DMCA process and the peril YouTubers regularly find themselves subject to by way of intellectual property laws are both legion, but to see the truely egregious nature of the abuse of this sort of thing, it takes a story about them intersecting. We appear to have such a story on our hands in the form of a music composer hired to work on a video game that then began sending DMCA notices to YouTubers over a contractual dispute with the game publisher. This story weaves a strange path, so let's dig in.

Alex Mauer is a digital composer. She was hired to do contract work by Imagos Softworks, the developers of Starr Mazer: DSP. That game had been available for early access on Steam, but is still down at the time of this writing. The reason for that is that Mauer sent Steam a DMCA notice for the game, claiming that it used her music without proper payment. Mauer and Imagos are in the middle of a fairly heated contract dispute, one which Imagos has been taking public with explanations of what happened and why the claim is not true.

When you have dug into enough of these sorts of things, you begin to have a good sense for what's going on based on everyone's responses. Imagos' response is solely from its perspective, so it is not to be taken as the final word on the matter, but claims this detailed tend to be more common from those on the right side of things. Despite having been paid roughly $35,000 for her work on the game as a contract for hire, Mauer is currently claiming that Imagos owes her another $10,000. Even if that were true, the rights for the music in the contract were transferred to Imagos, making the DMCA claim against the game inappropriate. Through it all, Imagos claims to have attempted to resolve this with Mauer on several occasions only to be refused, while also going so far as to strip her music from the game and replacing it with temporary placeholder music.

But Mauer is apparently still unsatisfied. As I mentioned above, you can often get a sense of which side of an issue is on the firmest ground by how they behave. Well, Mauer's behavior in the past week has amounted to levying DMCA claims against every YouTuber showing off Starr Mazer: DSP footage that included her music. Even with the obvious Fair Use defense these YouTubers would have, that isn't even the most infuriating aspect of the tactic. No, that title belongs to Mauer suggesting to the YouTubers that she was launching the DMCA claims to raise awareness of the contract dispute and would rescind them if the YouTubers would give some hell to Imagos instead.

According to Ms. Mauer, Imagos Softworks owes her US$ 10,000 “for unpaid music work” (on Starr Mazer: DSP) and she is trying to use the DMCA strikes as a way to generate awareness about her situation. Sadly, this isn’t the intended purpose of the copyright strikes system, and innocent content creators are being punished when their only involvement in the matter has been that they published videos covering the independent roguelike shooter.

Well-known YouTuber SidAlpha even reached out to Mauer on behalf of his smaller peers to try to figure out what the hell was going on and received the following reply.

The fact that TemmieNeko is directing her complaints to me instead of the developer is a problem. This seems to be the general response of those who were hit with DMCA strikes. I did suggest to some who complained to me that I would reverse their DMCA strikes if they were willing to redirect their complaints to the developer/complaints about the developer. No one was willing to do so, and I no longer want to offer anyone the possibility of having their DMCA strikes reversed. Thank you.

It's worth repeating that none of this serves the purpose of the DMCA. In fact, there is a ton of potential harm to the YouTubers in question, who, in receiving these abusive DMCA notices, are at risk of having their channels pulled by YouTube. They can file a counter-claim, and should be successful with them, but there is still a risk. There is also risk for Mauer herself, as the DMCA process does have a perjury provision for fraudulent claims.

SidAlpha also explained that once the affected YouTubers process a successful counterclaim, they would be able to file a civic lawsuit against Mauer. This is because filing a fraudulent DMCA claim is considered perjury and she would be tried in the state the Youtubers live in. In addition, because the videos are transformative, they are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine which renders the DMCA strike spurious. Also, she doesn’t own the music in the first place because it was made as part of a for-hire contract with Imagos. Imagos owns all content related to Starr Mazer and Starr Mazer: DSP.

Mauer has since gone on to send out DMCA notices for a couple other games in which her music is featured, including one put out by Adult Swim. As part of this, Mauer has gone so far as to send a DMCA notice to Turner Broadcasting. Meanwhile, she put the music she created for Imagos under her contract on her own website, selling it as part of an album for $1,000.

This is as clear an abuse of the DMCA process as I've seen to date and there is no excuse for imperiling innocent YouTubers over a contract dispute with a game publisher. If ever there were a case begging for punishment over abuse of the DMCA system, this is certainly it.

Filed Under: alex mauer, censorship, copyright, disputes, dmca, music
Companies: imagos softworks, youtube

Video Game Voice Actor Strike Devolves Into Petty Trademark Dispute

from the bigger-fish-to-fry dept

For those who don't follow the video game industry closely, you may not be aware that there is currently a worker's strike by voiceover actors belonging to SAG-AFTRA against some of the larger game publishers out there. The union and ten or so publishers have been attempting to negotiate a new labor agreement for something like two years, with the sticking point being additional compensation based on game sales. While this concept may sound foreign to those of us that grew up with the gaming industry in its infancy, the explosion in the market and its evolution as an artform certainly warrants the same consideration talents get from other entertainment industries, such as television and film. After all, why shouldn't game voiceover actors be just as frustrated with Hollywood-style accounting as their on-screen counterparts?

And, yet, because this is a labor dispute, of course there had to be a petty wrong-turn along the way, which brings us to how SAG-AFTRA is now firing off demands that a PR firm hired by the game studios stop trying to influence the public because of a lame trademark claim. The key issue appears to be that this PR firm is using domain names and social media handles that include the SAG-AFTRA union name.

The order, addressed to San Francisco-based Singer Associates Inc., accuses the firm of “unauthorized registration and deceptive use” of SAG-AFTRA’s trademark through its use of the domain name sagaftravideogames.com and Twitter user handle of @SAGAFTRAVGames.

SAG-AFTRA cited the potential for confusion from the game companies’ use of SAG-AFTRA trademarks and “the absurdity of attempting such disingenuous tactics.”

Note that the union doesn't simply claim that the use of its name in website domains and social media handles is infringing, because it knows better. It claims instead what would be required for this to be a valid trademark claim: public confusion as to the source of the website and social media accounts. The problem is that even the briefest visit to sagaftravideogames.com makes the claim absurd. The entire site is a critique on the tactics undertaken by the union, as well as the strike itself. The "about" section lists the game publishers that are represented by the website. It's essentially a "SAG-AFTRA sucks" site, something that has long been adjudicated to be a valid use of another's trademark. The Twitter account of @sagaftravgames is more of the same. There is simply no confusion to be had here.

Which isn't to say that these particular tactics are a good look for the game publishers behind it. They aren't. Those companies come off looking underhanded and smarmy, which is something that the union should be hammering them for. But this isn't trademark infringement, and ginning up fears over customer confusion that are so absurd makes the union look petty at best.

Filed Under: disputes, strike, trademark, video games, voiceover
Companies: sag-aftra, singer associates

Australian Case Shows Why Corporate Sovereignty Isn't Needed In TPP -- Or In Any Trade Agreement

from the running-out-of-arguments dept

One of central claims made by supporters of corporate sovereignty chapters in trade deals is that companies "need" this ability to sue the government in special tribunals. The argument is that if the extra-judicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) framework is not available to a company, it will be defenseless when confronted with a bullying government. A new case in Australia shows why that's not true. A column in The Sydney Morning Herald provides the background, which concerns a US company called Nucoal:

In 2013, the NSW [New South Wales] Independent Commission against Corruption found that there had been corrupt conduct relating to the granting of mining licences to Nucoal and other mining companies and the NSW government cancelled the licences.

Naturally, Nucoal unleashed its lawyers:

[Nucoal] demanded compensation of more than $900 million in Australia's High Court, claiming the decision to cancel its licence without compensation was unconstitutional and had reduced the value of the company. The High Court found in April 2015 that under Australian law Nucoal was not entitled to compensation.

Now Nucoal had a problem. Normally, a company in this situation would invoke the corporate sovereignty chapter in a relevant trade deal, and move the case to secret ISDS tribunals, which were likely to be more favorable to its cause than the independent national courts. But with unusual foresight, Australia refused to accept ISDS in the 2004 AUSFTA trade agreement between the US and Australia -- which makes its decision to acquiesce to ISDS in TPP doubly foolish. Despite what fans of corporate sovereignty claim, Nucoal still has another option at this point:

Nucoal is pressuring the US government to put a case to the Australian government that the denial of compensation has violated the general investment terms of the [AUSFTA] agreement. This could result in a formal complaint from the US government demanding trade sanctions against the Australian government.

Last week The Australian reported that the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce in Australia has announced that the US government will raise the issue in a closed-door review of the AUSFTA to be held in May.

That is, unable to avail itself of the investor-state dispute mechanism, Nucoal now wants to take advantage of the state-state dispute settlement process (pdf) whereby the US government formally complains to the other government concerned. Now, whether the US government should really be taking up a case involving corruption is another question. The key point is that it is not absolutely necessary to include corporate sovereignty provisions in a trade deal to protect companies, because there is always the state-to-state mechanism that can be invoked if necessary.

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

Filed Under: australia, corporate sovereignty, courts, disputes, isds, tpp, trade
Companies: nucoal

Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers

from the a-dose-of-reality dept

We wrote about the latest Netflix/Verizon dispute over who's to blame for poor quality movie streaming. Netflix has chosen to pin the blame on the ISPs when there's network congestion, while Verizon angrily hit back at this "PR stunt," claiming that it was actually Netflix's fault for not doing a better job routing its traffic. Except... that's not true. As we've been pointing out for the better part of a decade, this is all about the broadband companies trying to double charge. Tim Lee, over at Vox, summarizes the point nicely:

Verizon's customers have paid Verizon for the service of delivering content to them. But rather than simply performing the service Verizon's customers have paid it to perform, Verizon sees an opportunity to get paid twice: in addition to charging its own customers for connectivity, Verizon hopes to also charge Netflix to deliver its content to those customers.

Verizon is effectively using its own customers' poor experience as leverage. Verizon has been threatening Netflix that if they don't pay up, Netflix customers (who are also Verizon customers) will get frustrated and cancel their Netflix service. Of course, that threat is a lot more powerful because most customers don't have many alternatives to Verizon service.

And yes, I know that some big broadband defenders will immediately trot out the usual defense: that Verizon sold its network in a way that it never actually expected subscribers to use -- but it's difficult to see how that's everyone else's fault. If anything, it raises some questions about whether or not the FTC might want to step in and look at whether or not Verizon, AT&T and Comcast totally misrepresented what they were selling consumers.

As for the bullshit claim that Netflix is to blame because it sends Verizon more traffic and thus the "traffic ratios are unbalanced," well, Lee points out that this is actually Verizon's fault as well.

But this argument doesn't make sense. Verizon customers aren't just paying Verizon to send traffic to Netflix, they're also paying Verizon to deliver Netflix (and other) traffic to them. And there's no reason to think that carrying traffic from Netflix to Verizon customers is more expensive than carrying traffic in the other direction.

Indeed, there's a simple reason that Verizon's network receives more traffic than it transmits: that's how Verizon set it up. All of Verizon's standard FiOS packages provide dramatically more bandwidth for downloading than uploading. The entry-level service, for example, is 15 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream. The fastest package is even more lopsided: 500 Mbps downstream and 100 Mbps upstream. If Verizon builds a network that's optimized for downloading, it can't complain that its customers use it to download stuff.

And, of course, Verizon can squawk all it wants about this, but it's not going to change the fact that it's the problem here. Yes, Netflix delivers a lot of data. But if Verizon can't handle it, it shouldn't have sold it to consumers.

Filed Under: broadband, disputes, double charging, interconnection, net neutrality, peering, streaming
Companies: netflix, verizon

Accepting Amazon's DRM Makes It Impossible To Challenge Its Monopoly

from the from-one-monopoly-to-another dept

Amazon was the target of some well-deserved criticism this past week for making the anti-customer move of suspending sales of books published by Hachette, reportedly as a hardball tactic in its ongoing negotiations over ebook revenue splits. In an excellent article, Mathew Ingram connects this with other recent bad behavior by Internet giants leveraging their monopolies. Others have made the connection between this move and a similar one in 2010, when Amazon pulled Macmillan books off its digital shelves.

That dispute took place a little over four years ago, and ended with Amazon giving in and issuing a statement that people found a bit strange. Here's a quote:

We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.

"Monopoly" was a funny choice of words there. The author John Scalzi, whose piece decrying Amazon’s actions at the time is still very much worth reading, memorably took issue:

And not only a forum comment, but a mystifyingly silly one: the bit in the comment about Amazon having no choice but to back down in the fight because “Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles” was roundly mocked by authors, some of whom immediately started agitating against Amazon’s “monopoly” of the Kindle, or noted how terrible it was that Nabisco had a “monopoly” on Oreos.

Monopoly, of course, is economically the correct term. Publishers of books that are restricted by copyright have a set of exclusive rights granted to them by law. Their monopoly looks distinct from Amazon's near-monopoly bookseller position, though, because it's one agreed to in public policy. In a sense it is also more absolute, and less vulnerable to challenge, because it's a legal monopoly, and not just a market monopoly.

To the extent Amazon has a monopoly on selling paper books, then, it could be challenged not just by legal action (such as antitrust investigation) but by other businesses competing. There would be some extreme logistical difficulties, and disparities created by economies of scale that might be impossible to overcome, but in principle other businesses are able to compete for Amazon's market position on physical books.

Copyright behaves differently: when it comes to Macmillan or Hachette's books, nobody may undercut prices by making production more efficient, or design prettier covers, or edit the text into a more compelling presentation. Where that's a good thing, it's because we've reached it by public policy. We've granted copyright holders an inviolable (if limited) legal monopoly because we as a society like the results.¹

A very real danger, though, is if Amazon can take the challengeable market monopoly it has put together, and ratchet it into an unchallengeable legal monopoly. That is exactly what DRM does.

By putting DRM on its digital products—ebooks and audio books—Amazon gets the legal backing of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention restrictions on its products. This isn't for the advancement of public policy goals, either; Amazon gets to create the private law it wants to be enforced. Thanks to DRM, Kindle users are no longer free to take their business elsewhere—if you want a Kindle book, you must purchase it from Amazon.

Fortunately Kindle software can, for now, read other non-restricted formats. But the functionality is limited, and not guaranteed to stick around. And it's a one-way street: other software and hardware may not read ebooks in the Kindle format. Customers who amass a Kindle library will find no compatible non-Amazon reader. The fact that individual users can usually circumvent the DRM, too, doesn't help businesses trying to compete in that space.

Amazon has a lot of fans, and they tend to ascribe its rise as a bookseller for its aggressively pro-customer stance. If it drops that stance, even major fans would probably agree that it no longer deserves the throne. Unfortunately, DRM takes the conditional monopoly that customers like (you get to be the largest bookseller so long as you're good to your customers) and replaces it with an unconditional one (you once achieved monopoly and that is now permanent).

Last week's sketchy move against Hachette looks like a willingness to throw its customers under a bus in the name of better business deals. If publishers continue to insist on DRM, and if customers continue to allow it, we lose our ability to object.

1. Of course, that is only as true as copyright policy reflects the will of the public, which it doesn’t, but it’s something to aspire to.

Republished from parker higgins dot net

Filed Under: books, disputes, drm, monopoly
Companies: amazon, hachette

Weather Channel To DirecTV: Meet Our Cost Demands Or EVERYONE WILL DIE!

from the storming-out-of-your-contract dept

In previous stories where a television channel goes to war with DirecTV and its peers, the mantra by the channel requesting a higher contract is typically the same: our entertainment provides value beyond what we're paid. That was the case when Viacom held its fans hostage in one such dispute, for instance, or when the far-more-sane AMC had a similar dispute. The point is that it always seems to come down to nothing more than money, where the dispute is over how much monetary value a channel has to a broadcaster. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not so, when it comes to the Weather Channel's dispute with DirecTV. Sure, they similarly want more money, but their response campaign to DirecTV bristling at the request while offering a different, televised weather channel is, shall we say, slightly more melodramatic and massively more aggressive.

Usually when cable channels and distributors go to war over money, the two sides warn customers that a blackout will be inconvenient. This time, the Weather Channel is saying it'll be downright dangerous. The channel has tried to rally the public's support by reminding people that it is an emergency lifeline during severe weather.

"The Weather Channel isn't just another TV network. It's a must-have resource that keeps families safe," proclaimed a headline on Weather.com.

Hmm, so the idea is that if DirecTV doesn't meet the Weather Channel's price demands, the weather monster is going to kill everyone? That'd be one hell of a provocative argument to make if it wasn't made, you know, at the damned website from which everyone can also get that life-saving information. The argument not only pretends that DirecTV isn't offering a different weather channel that would serve a similar function, or that there are various web-based methods for getting weather reports and alerts via computer and/or smartphone and mobile device, but it also ignores the Weather Channel's own services.

This irony doesn't appear to be lost on DirecTV.

DirecTV executives say that, contrary to the Weather Channel's positioning, there are many other sources for urgent weather news these days, including WeatherNation.

"When information is readily available everywhere, it's no longer necessary for people to have to pay a premium," York said in a telephone interview. He also asserted that the Weather Channel devotes up to 40 percent of its programming schedule to "reality TV shows."

I don't know what the actual outcome of this dispute will be, but it would appear the emotional argument that everyone is going to die without the Weather Channel on DirecTV is one that should and will fall flat on its face. Good try, though, guys.

Filed Under: contracts, disputes, tv, weather
Companies: directv, the weather channel

TuneCore Fires Last Remaining Founder, Gets Into Ridiculously Petty Fight With Jeff Price

from the destroying-its-credibility dept

Last summer, we wrote about some of the bizarre happenings at TuneCore, a very cool and useful service that has helped more musicians actually make money than probably any other service out there, ever. It basically became the de facto standard for musicians who wanted to get their music into the various top digital music stores. TuneCore was founded by Jeff Price -- who is known for being opinionated and not afraid to share his opinion. This rubs some people the wrong way, but even when I've disagreed with Jeff, I've always found him to be completely genuine in his singular belief that the most important thing to him was to help artists as much as possible. Many people who have dealt with TuneCore over the years quickly realized that Jeff was the driving vision and heart behind the company. However, last summer, he was pushed out under questionable circumstances with no explanation from the company or its board (who has maintained a pretty uniform wall of silence).

Over the last few days, it seems that more has developed, which raises some serious questions about the priorities of TuneCore management and its board. What has become clear (and confirmed from multiple sources) is that TuneCore's lawyer from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, contacted Price to say that it was "investigating" whether or not he had "faked" a $500 invoice from a trip. Apparently, the invoice came from a bed and breakfast that Price stayed at because it was cheaper than a hotel, and where he paid cash, because the operator of the BnB offered a discount that way. TuneCore's lawyer is arguing that no legitimate lodging would send a Microsoft Word document as an invoice -- and thus, he must be faking it. One wonders just how much TuneCore is spending on its lawyers to "investigate" a single invoice for a $500 reimbursement.

The situation led TuneCore co-founder Peter Wells to send every shareholder at the company an email arguing that this was a ridiculous move, a waste of time and money and clearly just an attempt to embarrass or intimidate Jeff. It also raises serious questions about TuneCore's priorities at the moment. Is it about serving artists, or about attacking their founder and fired CEO Jeff Price? The full letter Peter sent is included at the bottom of this post, but this key line is the important one: "We at TuneCore ask artists to trust us with their music, their money and their relationships with iTunes and Amazon and more. How can we ask them to trust us if we act like this towards our own?"

As I was trying to learn more about the details behind all of this, the other shoe dropped. The third co-founder of the company, and the only remaining co-founder still employed by TuneCore was fired earlier today, with some believing it was some sort of retaliation for Peter's email to the shareholders, and as the company continues to try to maintain a wall of silence.

Jeff Price, too, is upset about this whole situation. He told me that his main concern is that this whole thing is a distraction for the company, and that he feels he has "an obligation to the artists to have TuneCore reach its potential." He also noted that the fact that the company is focusing on this is "heartbreaking" before going on to note:

The idiocy here is beyond me. It just makes me so sad. I get called out for being on a company business trip where I saved the company money. It's just so strange. I don't get it. Why is the company spending its money this way? What's the end game? How does this benefit the company? If they're capable of doing this to me, what are they doing for artists?

As for the supposed "faked" invoice, I've got an email from the woman who runs the bed and breakfast, explaining that she rents out her place via AirBnB, and that for "return guests" that they liked, they would often just deal in cash with invoices (which they report as income) and charge a slightly lower rate (I assume to save on the AirBnB fees). She confirms Jeff stayed and that while a Word doc is not very "formal" -- it is legitimate. Thus, it appears that this was, indeed, a case of Jeff saving TuneCore money.

Others -- including shareholders and customers of TuneCore -- are speaking out, and many are quite concerned about the direction of the company. Gian Caterine, who for years was TuneCore's CFO was incredulous about the accusations against Jeff and quite worried about the future of the company itself. Regarding the idea that Jeff might fudge a $500 bed and breakfast invoice, Gian found that to be "ridiculous."

Jeff is the "king of coach." He's such a frugal guy. Of all the criticisms you could have about Jeff, stealing $500 is not on that list. It's ridiculous.

But his much larger concern was what all of this meant for the company.

It looks like the company has lost its path. There's no one left at TuneCore that has any meaningful background in music. Jeff was always the spokesperson for musicians' values. There's no evidence that the company has any vision, and I can only see this leading to a loss of credibility among artists.... There's a big, big issue with vision and leadership now. They have not articulated a vision and there's no one with the necessary experience left to help.... I don't know if it's ignorance or arrogance, but the damage is pretty severe.

Rather than pointing fingers at Jeff, they need to get on with it. The whole situation leads me to believe that there's something really wrong that has nothing to do with Jeff.

Another shareholder, Joel Morowitz, who helped co-found Jeff's previous company, the indie label SpinArt, was similarly angry about the attack on Jeff and what it meant for TuneCore.

Personally, and as a shareholder, I am absolutely disgusted by these allegations against Jeff. It reeks of desperation and diversion. I have known Jeff for over 30 years, and while no person is perfect, I can personally attest to his high ethical standards, especially with regard to his tenure at Tunecore. More than anyone, you know how much time and effort he put into it. And now, after building Tunecore into the undisputed leader in the field, and quite literally, changing the model of the music industry, they now shout "lack of confidence" and "mismanagement"!? It just doesn't wash...and they know it. They have never been forthcoming about Jeff's termination.

He further pointed out that having a law firm investigate a $500 reimbursement is nothing more than "wasting valuable time and resources," questioning just how much the law firm was charging for such an investigation: "the sum of the bill is most likely far greater than the amount being disputed." Again, he is at a loss as to why there's this focus on attacking Jeff:

I am so saddened that this situation has devolved into a stalemate. Instead of focusing on the continued growth and diversification of Tunecore, they have chosen to turn this into a battle against Jeff. It is abundantly clear that whatever the real reasons are for Jeff's termination, Tunecore has been on the decline since his departure. Jeff was certainly not without controversy in the public eye, but no visionary CEO ever is. He was the clearly best person for the job. What do we have now?....a company with no vision, no direction, low morale, and most importantly, no effective leadership.

I've also been speaking to a few TuneCore's customers, who have expressed similar concerns. Andy Richards, who notes that he was TuneCore's 23rd customer way back in the beginning after randomly finding them online, notes that Jeff always struck him as "an extremely driven and passionate entrepreneur, but above all, a music fan who truly respected the artists with whom he worked." Furthermore, he notes that he's still on TuneCore, and hasn't seen any direct changes yet, but he's "definitely keeping an eye on things and will jump ship if I don't like what I see."

Disputes between startup management and investors is nothing new. We see it in the startup world all the time. Sometimes it does just make sense to bring in new management, but for companies built around driven and visionary CEOs, such changes can be quite problematic, especially when they leave a complete void where the vision used to be. The fact that TuneCore now seems focused on simplistic and petty disputes about a $500 reimbursement -- even to the point of accusing Jeff of having faked the invoice seems to raise serious questions about just what the company is focused on these days.

Over the past few days, I've reached out to every single board member at TuneCore, along with key remaining members of the management team. I've heard nothing from the board. However, just as I was about to go to press with this story, I heard from a PR person (he apparently leads the "crisis communications" team at his PR firm) who told me that he didn't think this was a matter that the press should be concerned with as it's a "private" issue. He then issued a further statement:

Tunecore focuses on its core business of helping artists reach their fans and consumers. It is expanding into Japan, Canada and on campuses, and has several exciting initiatives on the horizon which will increase its value to its artists/customers. The matter of the dispute is one more appropriately handled behind closed doors with the parties’ attorneys, and if necessary, in a courtroom. It is not for public consumption, nor does it have any bearing on its work toward its core mission.

The company offered no comment at all on Gary Burke being fired, saying there was nothing to say on the matter.

Again, disputes between management and investors are a common plotline in the startup world. But this one seems particularly messy, and unfortunate, given the large role that Price and his cofounders played in turning TuneCore into such a large player in the space.

Filed Under: boards, disputes, gary burke, gian caterine, jeff price, joel morowitz, peter wells
Companies: tunecore

YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts

from the read-before-you-sign dept

As YouTube becomes more and more popular as a primary entertainment resource, it is going to have many of the same growing pains as traditional entertainment venues. If it can ever get past its "internet problems", it can move on to having actual entertainment issues. This means far more fun problems, like agents screwing young stars out of money, networks building contract language to screw young stars out of their artistic freedom, and lawyers threatening to enforce exclusive contracts to screw young stars out of their lives. Are you noticing a theme here? It's going to become increasingly important that formerly amateur YouTube stars read the contracts they sign with a growing number of upstart "YouTube Networks" very carefully, or else they are going to face situations such as we're seeing with Machinima stars, who are shutting down production because they're locked into lifetime and beyond contracts with the multi-channel network.

Vacas, known online as Braindeadly, has big brown eyes, a fauxhawk, a stubbly goatee and a British accent, discernible as he tells his 40,000 YouTube subscribers goodbye.

"I woke up today hoping to make a video, but I went into a call with Machinima this evening and they said that my contract is completely enforceable. I can't get out of it," Vacas tells the camera. "They said I am with them for the rest of my life — that I am with them forever. If I'm locked down to Machinima for the rest of my life and I've got no freedom, then I don't want to make videos anymore," he says quietly.

The screen fades to black.

Ominous, but not entirely unexpected. Those who make their bones on YouTube and any other new platform that might arise aren't going to have traditional avenues for making sure they know what they're signing. In the case of Vacas, he admits to this explicitly, later stating that he signed his Machinima contract quickly, not realizing they would own the rights to anything he produced on YouTube "in perpetuity, throughout the universe, in all forms of media now known or hereafter devised." Even death would not release Vacas of his contractual obligations. It sucks, but he signed it.

The point is that in these early days of YouTube channel capitalization, artists need to be very wary of sharks swimming in those waters. As the article points out, this isn't really new, it's just a different venue.

A recent string of high-profile disputes is prompting comparisons between YouTube networks and the exploitative Hollywood studios of the 1930s and '40s: Both convinced young and naive talent with little leverage to sign contracts that leave them at a disadvantage. For networks, that means contracts that bind creators to them indefinitely, demand rights to their content in perpetuity and take large ownership stakes in any resulting businesses.

As ugly as some of these contracts are, as are the intentions of those that wrote them, this should end up working itself out as YouTube matures as a primary entertainment platform. After all, Machinima can have all the dastardly contractual language it likes, but if the artists like Vacas refuse to produce in protest, what good does that do them? Eventually, a middle ground should and will be found. In the past, if you didn't like the contract offered to you by a major gatekeeper, you were pretty much out of luck. Today, however, not only are there more providers, but it's not difficult to "go it alone" if you choose such a path.

Filed Under: business models, contracts, disputes, machinima, youtube

France Telecom Accused Of Holding YouTube Videos Hostage Unless It Gets More Money

from the more-peering-disputes dept

An interesting post from broadband news reporter Dave Burstein argues that anti-trust regulators in France may have basically enabled France Telecom to hold YouTube videos hostage unless Google backbone partner, Cogent, pays more money:

Millions of French netizens discover their YouTube streams sputter and die or never begin in the first place. Other video services, including TF1, are also struggling. The effect varies, sometimes randomly and sometimes by time of day. Respected consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir found between 20% and 50% of users surveyed online had problems.

Again, the existing connection remains and much of the traffic gets through. But Net traffic always grows and without regularly adding additional capacity many - not all - streams are blocked. French networks, with France Telecom in the lead, are refusing to accept growing traffic from Cogent, a major backbone carrier that services Google. They demand payment to accept all the streams their customers request. The independent French competition authority (Autorite de la concurrence) on September 20 approved the charging plan, leaving no doubt this is neutrality dispute.

The details suggest that this isn't so much a "neutrality" issue as a peering dispute. In fact, it actually sounds somewhat similar to the Level 3 / Comcast dispute from a few years back. In that case, Level 3 was providing service to Netflix, and Comcast worried about the big influx of traffic. Comcast (like France Telecom) demanded that Level 3 pay up for delivering it extra traffic. The bit that's interesting here is that French regulators got involved and said that this was legal in this case, though they're worried about the lack of transparency.

Of course all this does is show, yet again, how the internet's interconnectivity through peering arrangements is increasingly under pressure as certain broadband players become more powerful. And, unfortunately, the public (and their YouTube videos) may be at risk.

Filed Under: content, disputes, france, net neutrality, payment, peering, youtube
Companies: cogent, france telecom, free, google, youtube

Success! Sita Sings the Blues Once Again Viewable on German Youtube

from the better-than-lawyers dept

After one or two (or more?) years of being blocked on German Youtube, the full-length noncommercial Sita Sings the Blues movie is once again viewable in Deutschland:

I assume this is because last week I posted this video, complaining about why my 100% legal and painstakingly and expensively licensed movie was blocked in Germany:

Apparently many Germans are none too pleased with GEMA themselves, as indicated by interesting comments here. Some industry shills weighed in as well, but it looks like popular sentiment is against them. The story was shared widely, including in Der Spiegel and the New York Times online editions.

It's not clear how an American YouTube user is supposed to contest takedowns in Germany. When I was in Berlin recently, it was suggested I find a German lawyer to take some sort of action. At the very least, I would need someone in Germany to contest the takedown on my behalf. I imagine that would have been a slow and possibly expensive process. Then I thought of making this video. Although it took some work (writing a statement -- yes I know it's an imperfect statement, I did the best I could with the knowledge I had -- shooting the video, recording the audio via a separate mic, transferring files, editing, compressing, etc.), it was less work than managing an international legal process. And it got results fast! Better still, it contributed to ongoing debates about GEMA and Intellectual Pooperty in general.

My thanks to everyone who helped spread the word about this, and especially people in Germany who checked the Sita Sings the Blues URL and confirmed when the movie was blocked, and when it was unblocked.

Filed Under: disputes, germany, nina paley, performance rights, sita sings the blues
Companies: gema, google, youtube