Slashdot Mirror
Universal's MP3.com Clone Loses in Court
erc writes: "According to this article, Universal Music Group's Farmclub.com online music service streamed songs without obtaining licenses from music publishers. According to the Court, Universal must obtain separate licenses for songs it wants to distribute over the net. Turn about, fair play!" Well, the courts are fairly consistent - if you don't have licenses from everyone and their brother, you can't play music online.
Oh yes you can, you're just not allowed to do so ;-)
This sig is stolen from someone who had a much better idea than I had.
You should be able to play it on any medium. DERR!
SIG: HUP
This might be bad in a sense that with the current rules it seems no one can create a viable streaming business. Perhaps this is another sign that current music (maybe other art) copy control will not work forever even in a business sense and that the laws will have to be altered. It seems inevitable.
What I'm wondering is, if I release my music under the Open Audio license, is some moronic recording association gonna try to get fees off of it in some way? Hell, I'm almost willing to bet they're still collecting off of music that's in the public domain. Bloodsuckers...
If this company is illegally streaming copyrighted music, I wonder how many others are.
:)
At least the courts sent a message saying the almighty big corporations can't violate the law. It's kind of funny that they're tripping on their own shoe laces. (See: the lawsuit this company launched against mp3.com)
It's going to be quite interesting to see the repercussions as Universal tries to appeal this ruling... in effect, they're saying, "We can e-broadcast copyrighted works without paying a license, but we'll put any citizen who does it, behind bars, forever!"
And I wonder how much all these licenses will cost Universal Music Group. Maybe it will be so prohibitively high that they'll start wanting to nix the law in Congress
Note to Universal: "Be careful what you wish for." - Wishmaster
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
yah. i prolly shoulda saved it for a reply to some other troll.
:D
i figured top level had slightly better chance of getting some laughs. but it'll get modded as off-topic. oh well. at least weenies not browsing at +4 will get to see it
this is very U.S. (what else its slashdot they cry)
......
what would be news is if someone in a country where CD copying goes on under the noses of the authoritys
like china or
realistically the U.S. seems to be how long you can drag it out in court
IBM got done for same thing as MS differance IBM lasted for 17 years in court but MS got there in a year and still is not out of it
"we are born in open feilds and die in a dark forest"
regards
john jones
So its wrong, bad, anti-freedom etc to stop MP3.com streaming these tracks.. but when it happens to Universal its a Good Thing. Its one up on them. FFS. At least be slightly consistant, please.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Uh, would this be the same Universal Music Group that a few articles ago was selling protected CD's, presumabley to keep unauthorized distribution down?
Drink blood - 50 trillion mosquitoes can't be wrong.
Wasnt Universal one of the major forces behind the my.mp3.com lawsuit a while back?
...um...like...a sig...
Licensing the material is necessary. People claim that they'd buy more music if they can get it free first, but there is no proof. The music industry is big business and they're in it for money. They do not care who you are, they do not care if you're honest. They don't even care if you like the music. (They know it's all crap but people gobble it up anyway.) All they care about is getting your money. And the musicians to preform for money ought to be paid. Afterall, that's their livelihood.
That said, I think this whole napster and online music "controversy" has blown way out of proportion, almost to the point of absurdity. Let's face it, almost everything they play on the radio sucks. There may be a catchy tune every now and then, but its all so... formulated. The lyrics are almost universally un-inspired, banal. Most of the rhyming songs sound like something a 5th grader would produce. Let's see, is this really worth a few million dollars: "Oh baby baby I love you... baby my baby!"
If you want music, if you're entertained by this, then pay for it and shut up. However, if you recognize what a scam the music industry is by selling worthless CDs with worthless music on them, then don't even fight about it. Vote with your wallet and just stop buying and stop listening to the crappy music that they're selling. Why waste harddrive space with such stupid songs anyway? Even if "fair use" entitles you to have them on your machine, just play your CD on a CD player. It's not that big of a deal.
If you don't like their policy, and you like the music, then you need to make a decision. Are you just a whiner or are you going to do something about it? Either listen to the music and play by their rules (that means PAY $$$) or else stop listening entirely, with your conviction based on principle. Yes, even if you like the music this applies. If you feel like you're "sacrificing", then you should be paying for the music. This is America (for many of us at least) and that's now capitalism works. You pay for goods and services, and shouldn't expect any free lunches. You know they're screwing you, and there's only one way to screw them back. Don't fight about fair use, just stop giving any money to them in the first place, but simultaneously stop listening to their pitiful music. Then go convince everyone you know to do the same.
I'm sure it's mostly to do with the fact that if I download music, they don't get the opportunity to ram BS advertising down my throat like they can with radio.
Maybe all these wankers should get out of the courtroom for a while, and move into the meeting room and get some damn details hammered out.
Then maybe the music listening public will finally get what it wanted to begin with.
MUSIC
Throughout all these talks and other stories, we're seeing a bigger problem in the music industry that relates to copyrights and royalities; namely, that for any one song, there are 3 people and/or groups that can claim some form of ownership on it, legally or ethically. These are the performers themselves, the distributors that typically own the copyrights on the performce over the performers, and the publishers and songwriters that typically own the copyrights on the lyrics and sheet music but not the performance itself.
Too many cooks can easily spoil the broth.
This is why I think indy artists are gaining more and more attention. First, they typically are their own performers and publishers, which means they at least own the copyright on the lyrics and music. Secondly, most indy labels have much more lax contracts in that the label itself doesn't own the copyright on the performed work, and it is still held by the indy group. These situations allow the indy group to have full control on how to distribute and publish their work. And most good indy groups appear to understand that if they write good songs and yet release some of their works on the net, they will still take in a modest profit from touring and CD sales with the increase in their fan base. Only with that amount of control can situations like that happen.
If there is any other group beyond the performaces that are trying to get their hands in the honeypot as well, then all bets are off for strong control of distribution of their works.
This situation also calls for the development of music 'publishers' that are basically people that can help to press and burn CDs, and get them into distribution channel, but otherwise do nothing else with copyright, much like how people can get custom T-shirts made in large quantities; the t-shirt shop owns none of the copyrights on any logos or sayings, only does the job they are paid for. A shop that could offer a band to print, for example, a buck a copy for each CD, with $.10 being a profit for the shop, the rest into materials, operation, and distribution, could easily win out in such a situation. I'd also expect the shop to collect royalities, but again, most of these would go back to the band, the shop maybe taking only 10% of that as well.
Hopefully, more bands in the future will see that going indy, or at least staying away from RIAA, will earn them not only more respect from their fans, but possibly more money than they would have seen from signing with RIAA.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Music has copyright on it. Get used to it. How would you feel if you produced a hit one day, it's played everywhere, but instead of a lot of money, you only receive a few pats on the back?
Radio stations have to pay to be able to air music. So do supermarkets, discotheques, or anyone that plays copyrighted music for large audiences. So, why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?
This "music should be for free" attitude has to change. Pirating music you didn't pay for is simply theft, just as software piracy is. There's no other way I can see it, really. Just because it's easy to pirate someone's music, doesn't make it legal.
My karma ran over your dogma
Can anyone imagine the trouble and strife Universal would have had to withstand if it had been discovered that they were violating the GPL as well?
All the arguments that have been said for/against IP have been summed up by a .sig (ironic, no?) that IP is to property as pyrite (fool's gold) is to gold. Or something to that (a)effect.
... at least with leasing a physical object/property ... there is some intrinsic value in the, for instance, car, when you need/want a new one... some *incentive* to keep/sell/trade the darn thing.
...NOT THE C-WORD... commodity.
I've been wondering how streaming over the net is different from radio boradcasts...apparently it is not save for over the air vs wires.
Heck even with the quote "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes."
Does anyone else find it strange that a Major Record label is trying to be the next Napster?
C'mon, instead of embrace, extend and extinguish it is Litigate, Subjegate, and Imitate/Steal.
All this Subscription as a Services seems like a really "Bad Idea(TM)" but no one seems to *GET IT*.
I'll spell it out (heck, I think I got this right at least in my own head):
Like a magazine subscription you actually *get* something for your money, something of value, something *tangible* at the very least.
With software, nope...unless the rules change drastically and someone gets a clue to align common sense with the law (long shot, I know).
Try explaining to "J6pk" that he does not *own* anything on his computer except maybe his data...hell, maybe not even that. You are in effect "leasing" the software...but here's where the 'red hot poker' comes in
Software? Nope. Except in the "warez" world where most of these ppl don't give a damn what the $ value is, as long as they can trade for something they do want/need...almost as if software is a
Heh, I'll be damned...that is what this is all about...*Computers are already a commodity!!* does it not stand to reason that *computer Software/OS's are on that 'slippery slope?'*
Cripes, sometimes I surprise even myself.
Moose
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Not that I've got any remorse for a record company feeling the sting of licensing agreements, but publishers tried to drop the hammer on OLGA (the On-Line Guitar (tab) Archives), too.
Friends of mine submitted music to FarmClub.com, and, never having actually been to the site, I was under the impression that it was all unsigned bands trying to make their music more visible. I wonder if they can look forward to a piece of the pie.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
- It establishes a level playing field. Big studios like Universal have to go through the same legal hoops as everyone else. From the article: "'This decision means record companies aren't in total control of how music will be exploited on the Net,' said Whitney Broussard, a music lawyer at Selverne Mandelbaum & Mintz. 'They are going to be on the same footing as other Webcasters, and they will have to negotiate publishing rights as well.'
- Universal is being hung up, as it were, by its own petard. The same legal hurdles that hurt MP3.com and Napster apply to Universal. From the article: "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes." Also from the article: "Universal spokesman Bob Bernstein said the company 'disagrees with the court's opinion, and we intend to appeal.'"
This isn't about taking a shot at a big company. It's about the rules being the same for everyone, and big studios not getting any extra help from the courts. SoSo, what does this mean, you ask? If Universal wins, the rules are rolled back and sites like MP3.com can go back to business without interference from the big boys. If they lose, they are forced into, gasp, fair market practices.
Consistently stupid,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
I wonder if Universal set up this company just so that it COULD be sued... by doing so that would have helped set a precedent in the courts against this kind of thing. IANAL, but I wonder if this sort of thing happens with cartels such as the RIAA... one of the cartel members sets up a small subsidiary and then another member of the cartel sues that subsidiary over some kind of infringement. The owner of the subsidiary puts up a fight.... but not much of a fight. A legal precedent is then set and all members of the cartel benefit... Maybe I'm just being paranoid....
The problem lies in the fine line between distribution and broadcast. When you distribute an MP3 online, you run the risk of violating the distributor's copyright to the actual CD medium. So, if that MP3 happens to be of a song by Metallica, and you don't have permission from the recording company, or its agent, you've violated copyright law for duplicating the CD (or a portion of it).
On the other hand, when you stream an MP3 online, you're broadcasting it. Broadcast isn't distribution, it's public performance. Public performance rights belong to the songwriters. If you broadcast that Metallica MP3 without permission from artist, or from one of the appropriate songwriter's associations, you've violated copyright law.
Thankfully, getting permission from the songwriter's associations--that's ASCAP, BMI and SESAC--is a piece of cake. The licensing rate depends on a number of factors -- available here, here and here -- but for the most part, for small internet broadcasters the fees are minimal. ASCAP charges about $250 a year to start... BMI is more expensive, SESAC is considerably less (something like $50 or $75 annually.)
The United States has additional rules for online broadcasters that don't apply to airwave broadcasters. For instance, you can't provide music on-demand... you can't announce your playlist in advance... and you can't play too many songs from the same artist/album in a row. Nor can your playlist repeat predictably or too frequently.
Other countries have less restrictive rules.
Where things get messy is where you start to provide audio on-demand, or whenever audio is made available for download. In those cases, distribution rights apply as well as (or instead of) public performance rights...
BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
So by this ruling if I made a cover song and distributed CDs paying the mechanical licensing fees, I wouldn't be permitted to distribute that cover song over the internet without a negotiated license. That's bullshit.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
But if you really want to make your band's lawyer shit a brick, show them the 60 page contract you have to sign if you are asked to perform on the TV show they have. I know of at least one act who refused an appearance on the show after seeing the contract. Naturally, there were lots of people who'd sign anything to get on TV, to replace them...
If you're really a friend of your friends on Farmclub, either persuade them to get off it immediately and consult a lawyer about their position, or at least convince them to run the agreements by their lawyer- ESPECIALLY if they 'get' to be on the TV program, the bait for most of the acts on Farmclub. You could call that show the parade of the damned- a revue of artists and bands who are already so contractually fucked that they will never have a career in the music business, even before they've sold a record.
Does it occur to you that more than two people might exist on Slashdot? And that their opinions may differ?
1. Make the Content Easier and Cheaper to Buy Than to Steal
2. Use Digital Content to Promote the Traditional Product
3. Give Away (Some) Digital Content and Focus on Auxiliary Markets..
"Do something man. Right now."
Nobody's holding a gun to their head, saying that they can't create an alternate distribution scheme.
Nobody's holding a firearm to their head, but the labels are saying "All the major labels have essentially the same oppressive contract. All the major labels own the companies that give FM radio its playlists. If you don't sign our contract, you won't get any FM airplay, hardly anybody will know about you, hardly anybody will buy your CDs, and hardly anybody will go to your concerts." Now doesn't that have the same effect as holding a gun to an artist's head?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Am I missing something? Never in my life would I visit a site called FarmClub. Even if someone told me it was a music site, it would never occur to me that it had any music worth listening to.
Okay, maybe those songs where cats and dogs meow and bark Christmas carols.