Launchcast Sued

siimat writes: "Move over Aimster, the RIAA also filed a lawsuit against Launch on Thursday. What's interesting about this one is that Launch does have licenses with the major record companies to broadcast their music; the problem is that Launchcast is too customizable. Imagine - playing the music listeners want to hear instead of the tripe the Record Giants have preselected for everyone! :-P"

Comments

How these licenses actually work

[Jamie Zawinski]

I wrote up a document about how the laws apply to webcasting that should shed some light on what's going on here:

• http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html

As I understand it, the basis of RIAA's suit is that even though Launch is paying for "statutory" (or "manditory") licenses, those licenses don't allow them to offer any level of "interactivity". "Interactivity" is legalese for "customization". That is, listeners aren't allowed to request songs, or hit "fast forward" or "rewind".

So what this suit means is that RIAA is now claiming that any kind of rating system constitutes interactivity, and is thus not permitted under statutory/manditory licenses.

The way LaunchCast works, their rating system really amounts to picking a genre of music: it's absolutely not the kind of thing you could use to tell the system to play a song on demand, which is the boogyman that is the basis for the statutory license rules.

So they're saying now that Launch needs "negotiated" licenses to do what they do. But this means that they won't be able to do it at all, because RIAA is under no obligation to give anyone a "negotiated" license at all.

Burn, Hollywood, Burn.

No, they really are that bad

[philg]

(Yes, it's a little tangential. But isn't that what the ends of threads are for?)

I'm sorry, but the freemarket argument does not apply. At least, it didn't apply a few years ago (when I was working in radio, and paid a little attention to it), and I don't see a lot that's changed now.

There was a small crisis in the recording industry a few years back, because they had this problem: they couldn't find an artist that people would buy more than one album from. A good example was Hootie and the Blowfish; the first album was a super-platinum success, but sales for the second album were a pale shadow.

The phenomenon is well-known in marketing; ever since Markie Mapo charmed kids into demanding that their parents pick up a box of Mapo cereal -- and then decided that they hated it, killing the cereal through lack of repeat business.

There's a big difference between music and other consumer products, though. For one thing, the first buys of cereal are analogous to purchases of artists' first albums; labels make gobs of money on any successful album they put out, even if they don't get any "repeat business" on the artist. In this way, they're more like a company whose business plan is to put out fifty cereals a year, heavily hyping them and inspiring first sales, but manufacturing with the expectation that that's all they'll get.

Further, most people need to spend some time listening to an album before they really decide they like an artist -- how many songs you initially liked make you sick now, and how many songs you didn't like have you eventually cozied up to? Until people decide what they really like, they generally propogate the hype, buying the album that gets the most airplay and raving from radio/record stores and feeling pretty much how they're supposed to feel until they can listen to it a few times and form their own opinion. That means first albums have more sales momentum than most consumer products.

Hootie is a prime example, but there are others. Lisa Loeb, for instance, became the first unsigned artist to top the charts with "Stay" (there's no marketing mystery, however -- the song was heavily hyped as part of the (RCA-released) _Reality Bites_ soundtrack, and her album was released on Geffen). She had exactly one other album after being a number-one artist. Her follow-up was disappointing, and she faded.

(Are there exceptions? Sure. The labels won't drop an artist who is successful. But for the labels, an artist who can be marketed into an initial platinum record is successful enough to turn a profit, and a much more regular source of income than cultivating an artist who may have a downturn in popularity. You don't find many major-label artists who get more than one album's chance to turn a slump around before getting cut. And there's also the related phenomenon of an indy artist that signs to a major label, gets pushed into a huge album, doesn't click with the market, and goes back to being an indy. Paula Cole, the 1998 Best New Artist winner -- despite having released her first album four years earler -- is a good example. Economically, it's the same as a real new artist for the labels.)

The point? In your post, you say:

Rail all you want about how The Public (which you, of course, are not a member of, being too "special" for that) are a bunch of sheep who will eat any manufactured tripe thrown at them, but that's simply not true, and it's easy to demonstrate.

But the music industry has made a business model out of assuming precisely that, that the public really are "a bunch of sheep who will eat any manufactured tripe thrown at them," at least long enough for the industry to make their money on it. And when the public figures out what they really think about the artist, there's always another Next Big Thing waiting in the wings. The one-hit wonders you hold up as a refutation of this argument are, in fact, a very lucrative and predictable source of income for labels. And if you look through the Nineties, I think you'll find considerably more of them than you will multi-album artists who got their start in the last 10-12 years. (Remember Merril Bainbridge?) I won't blame the labels for other people's poor taste, but I will accuse them of marketing artists into popularity and record sales as a more reliable method of profit-making than actually backing and signing what they believe to be talented and long-term viable artists.

Re:What Launch(Cast) Does

[MAXOMENOS]

Makes sense from the RIAA point of view. They spend way the fuck too much money Britney Spears and they want to recoup their costs; people buying records put out by some other band that they didn't blow as money on doesn't do it, because those bands will eventually earn more than their advance and actually collect royalties. The exception to this is Classic Rock (in case you were wondering why there are so many Classic Rock stations out there and all the contemporary music coming from the radio sounds like total shit).

What this lawsuit indicates, to me, is that the RIAA, for all their talk about copyright protection, is really just trying to adapt the Internet to their old, tired, payola-centric business models. It isn't going to work. The sooner they figure this out and adapt, the less expensive it will be for everyone involved. The worst thing that could happen from the RIAA point of view would be if a group of independent labels (Alternative Tentacles, Atomic Pop, etc.) with a sufficient pool of talent got together, licensed Launch's technology, and started their own Launchlike site. A company like that would soon become a major player, and the RIAA's constituent companies would be forced to (a) become like the independent, artist-friendly labels or (b) become unable to sign new talent and rely solely on their old recordings. It's a sure bet that they'll all choose (a), but they'll be playing catch-up once they make that decision. You do not want to play catch up in that business.

ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

Re:Indy Music

[Requiem]

I wouldn't say that's always the case. You could certainly say that certain indy artists are better than certain mainstream artists, but really, generalizations like the one you're making are hard to swallow. Sure, I'm not a huge fan of mainstream music, myself (I prefer to listen to classical and electronic), but I do understand that there's a certain minimum talent level you have to have before you can be paraded before your average music listener. I may not like most of what is given to music listeners these days, but that doesn't mean it has no musical merit.

It's way too easy to be aloof and say "I don't like it, therefore it's not good."

Re:Indy Music

[Mullen]

Indy music would be music that comes from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Yah, RIAA "Indie" music is much like the Indianapolis 500.

It goes around in one big circle for a long time and is really boring. It only gets exciting when something crashs with tragic effects and is no longer with us.

--

Re:Makes sense

[Shadowlion]

It's not so much that perspective is needed, really.

Look at it this way. Right or wrong, the music companies have been suing almost everyone, and everything, as of late, including a lot of pet services that people enjoy. There are some things that probably deserved it (Napster), some that didn't (My.MP3.com), and some that are only peripherally relevant in comparison to some of the things the music industry has gone after (Aimster). However, as a result of being litigation-happy, people have come to view the music industry/RIAA as 800 lb. gorillas. Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.

So, when something happens that the music industry can legitimately sue over (licensing violation), a lot of people look at that and say, "The music industry has lied, cheated, stolen, and bribed their way to quashing stuff they didn't like - I hope those bastards deserve what they get!" and cheer for the guy in the wrong - even if they know the guy in the wrong is IN the wrong!.

As for living in a land where legal contracts are routinely flouted, you already do. That's why we have the court system. If you have enough money, you can flout contracts and get away scot-free. Contract law generally only helps the richest party to the contract in quashing violations by the less wealthy party or parties.


--

Re:Another day, another lawsuit

[Another MacHack]

Please at least read this before modding it through the floor.

This anti-RIAA ankle-biting is getting silly. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be frustrated with them; it's not necessary to start making them up. Yes, they're bastards. Yes, their member companies churn out a lot of pop that many people think is crap. Yes, they're lawsuit-happy, and yes, it's cool to hate them, and with some justification.

However, the RIAA does NOT create boy-bands, the record companies do. The RIAA may be the legal arm of the industry, and for many purposes its useful to think of them as literally the same, but they are not themselves the creators of the Backstreet Boys.

More importantly, just because you don't happen to like the Backstreet Boys or Savage Garden, or whatever, doesn't mean that it's all talentless crap. Maybe it's talent that you don't much appreciate (I know I don't), and maybe their "art" if you want to even call it that isn't groundbreaking or anything, but it's not like what they do is trivial. Rail all you want about how The Public (which you, of course, are not a member of, being too "special" for that) are a bunch of sheep who will eat any manufactured tripe thrown at them, but that's simply not true, and it's easy to demonstrate. You've heard of a "one-hit wonder"; some trendy, heavily-marketed zombies pop up out of nowhere, get heavy play, and are never heard from again. Why? Because they weren't popular. Music consumers didn't like it. I guess they do have standards, even if you don't share them. If the industry could just wave its magic wand and turn any old schmuck into a pop star, they would. The unfortunate part of the music oligopy is not what gets produced, but what -doesn't- get produced. There are a lot of financial barriers to entry for musicians these days which technology could help erode; to the extent that the RIAA stands in the way of that is a legitamate reason not to like them.

I'm not particularly fond of this crop of pop and "rap-metal" bands, but for me to say its because they have absolutely no talent or that their songs are just cheeze would just be an attempt to justify the unpopularity (by top 40 standards) of my own standard of music.

Just accept that you have different taste from many other people. It's frustrating that the existing record companies don't cater to that taste sufficiently, but that's just an opportunity for other labels and other musicians. Don't blame the RIAA for "other peoples' poor taste."

Re:Well they did sign an agreement

[slickwillie]

Yeah, they signed agreements with Universal, Sony, et al. Where does the RIAA get off? Should'nt the individual companies sue Launch it they want" Or if the RIAA has a beef it should be them.

This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.

You mean "infringement"? "Infridgement" is what you do with beer.

Re:Another day, another lawsuit

[Saige]

What else do they have to spend it on? It's not like it costs them money to put a few guys who can sing together and plaster them all over the place, like the boy bands, or find some girl who's attractive, give her some cheezy songs, and watch the money roll in.

They don't seem to dig for talent now that they've learned how to "create" it. It's not about music, it's about money.
---

This is pathetic.

[Saige]

I think the RIAA is working really hard on trying to shoot themselves in the foot. By seeming to go after everyone and everything that doesn't play exactly the way RIAA wants them to play, people are going to get really tired of this big bully. It's one thing to go after people copying copyrighted songs, but to say it's a problem to let people have this level of customization? People are going to start seeing through the show they're putting on, all their claims, and see what they're really doing.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes. (Which is what radio has become anymore as the middlemen between the publishers and stations serve as little more than a means for the publishers to decide what songs get played, while the middleman gets rich for doing nothing - but then again, isn't that what the point of a middleman is?) It is totally possible that they could have signed some really stupid deal that they're breaking...

I need to go find out who all the RIAA represents so I can make sure to only purchase music that is independent of them...
---

What Launch(Cast) Does

[citizenc]

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes.

What Launch(Cast) does is this -- you start listening to music, which plays every different kind of genre imaginable. However, as you listen to them, you rate the songs -- yes, I liked Nine Inch Nails, no I didn't like Britney Spears, etc etc etc. Eventually, the system (which is errily accurate) figures out what kinds of music that you like, and stops playing the rest of the crap.

---

Well they did sign an agreement

[Sc00ter]

"The music lobbyist alleges that Launch's licenses with Universal, Sony, BMG and EMI do not allow for the level of interactivity and customization offered by LaunchCast, which allows users to decide how often they want to hear particular songs. After LaunchCast users rate songs, albums and artists, the service "learns" to play the types of music the user wants to hear."

Later on they say they are going to come to some kind of agreement. We don't know what they signed, so we can't really judge here. Lauch could have signed something that said that the user can't select what songs to play. This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.

--

Re:Well they did sign an agreement

[ackthpt]

Sometimes it's not the songs the user wants to hear as much as songs the user does not want to hear. I like "Kryptonite", but have friends who have heard it so much they are sick of it. It would be a swell feature to to destroy a songs appeal because radio discjocks or computers or robots say it must be played every hour of every day.

Bit of a slashback: there was a radio station, near where I once lived, which featured a Phil Collins-free weekend. Absolutely no Phil Collins or Genesis (w/Phil) Fri-Sun. I was sympathetic, he'd had too many hits in a short period and I was sick of his voice (I can still listen to the music, but I'm still so burned out I don't buy any more of it.) Some listener actually called in and complained. Well, all the better for customizable, she could have Phil 24 hours a day and everyone else could just skip it for a few months.

Once again, the RIAA doesn't really have a clue. They're truly the pit-weasels of litigation.

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

Re:Makes sense

[rgmoore]

Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.

Maybe music is a vital part of life (I suspect that it's perfectly possible, if a bit less pleasant to live without it) but the music under the control of the RIAA most certainly is not. Try as they will, they can't stop you from singing, whistling, humming, or playing your own instrument, so music will continue to be available no matter what the RIAA tries to do.

OTOH, contracts are a vital part of our lives, whether you want to belive it or not. They form a vital way of forcing people to keep the promises that they made, and that's a big part of what keeps our society afloat. Without enforcable contracts, business as we know it would come to a crashing halt. All financial instruments currently in use depend on contract law to survive, for instance, so there would be no banking, no stock market, and no currency without it. The whole world would operate on the kind of no-good-faith basis that is so prominent in gangster movies, where the only way of ensuring that people keep their deals is the threat of doing something awful to them if they break their word. Since the legal range of awful things is pretty small, that would make everyone very reluctant to do business.

Re:Makes sense

[Srin Tuar]

but we can't live without music

So, you for example would be able to live without britney and backdoor boys? :P

Just trying to point out that the majority of the most popular "music" is a soulless, brainless cash crop mass manufactured and mass marketted.

The music isnt really the fundamental argument here. Its just the first of the great Personal Freedom Debates to come. The reason is because it can be traded and consumed so easily (thanks to mp3 and sound blaster).

And people can live without music, but they dont like to. (im posting this while listening to stuff i dl'd from mp3.com)

We can do something about this kind of thing.

[schwap]

This is and isnt a big issue. It is a big issue because it has become clear that organizations like the RIAA appear to have WAAAAYYY too much control over what we hear and how we listen to it. It is a big issue because we have handed them control. It is not a big issue, because, we as consumers, do not require music for our immediate survival.

How have we handed them control? We purchase the music from them. We listen to the radio stations they buy. I have a suggestion: Dont buy any more CDs, or tapes, or DVDs for a while. Go out to the park. Go see a local band, LIVE. Drop some money and start your own little recording studio with a Mac and a Tascam or Roland MultiTracker. Nobody has any more control over you than what you give to them. I dont like the RIAA or the MPAA, or Microsoft or oil companies; but there is something I can do about it, and if enough of us do something then, who knows what will happen?

KPIG - Still On the web

[ackthpt]

KPIG got around some hassles with having to pay extortion^H^H^H^H^H^Hroyalties and other fees with some pretty bizarre fake commercials and stuff. Not exactly mainstream music, fun station to listen to. Enjoy, until someone figures out a reason to sue them, too.

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

go figure

[unformed]

not really surprising actually.... The RIAA initially went after Napster because it was an easy (and correct imo) win but more importantly it would provide a legal precedent. Now they're going after companies that do have licenses but who's practices might be a little iffy. If they can win this case, they can go ahead and try to make digital music either illegal or highly protected. They've realized that they're a bit behind on the times regarding creating a new medium, so the only way to get time is file suit...

Different brodcaster licenses...

[Xibby]

There are different licenses. For what they're doing, Launch probally signed the wrong license and got basic webcaster license. So they can loop a playlist that goes for 3 hours (minimum) without repeating, can't take requests, etc. I'm not well informed myself, but the RIAA's Licensing and Royalties page is a good place to start.

So why don't you figure out what kind of license Launch has, compare what the license covers to what their doing, then flame away. Just a thought...

Makes sense

[quantum pixie]

The license Launchcast purchased no doubt specifies the allowed usage. If they are acting outside of the prescribed boundries of the license, then the RIAA is following the only reasonable course of action.

I would venture to say that there are more important matters than free music, and contract law is certainly one of them. Although I will readily admit that I enjoy not paying for music, it is not worth living in a society where legal contracts are routinely flouted. Perhaps a little perspective is needed in this issue.

Re:Makes sense

[dorkstar]

No. I think you have lost your perspective.

Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.

Music influences how we think. It's a metaphor for sex. It's an educator. It's a disseminator of wisdom. To have music commodified into a soulless, brainless cash crop is more than a tragedy. To have a contract of law slightly breached is at most a misdemeanor, in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes the rule of law is wrong, but it cannot be changed. In such cases, it is morally justifiable to break it. Ask the founding fathers of America. Ask Ghandhi. I don't mean to melodramatize the issue, but the larger picture is that the culture of the human race is being co-opted and turned into drivel, not that some obscure legal bullshit was violated.

Now I see

[PhreakinPenguin]

So this is why I pay $14.99 for a cd, to cover the cost of lawyers and propaganda releases from the RIAA

--------------------------------------------------