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.

Comments

Re:/. hypocracy

[at_18]

I don't know if it's a good thing that a mp3 streaming service is slapped down. But it's a Good Thing (tm) that Universal was stopped replicating mp3.com, after that the same company claimed high damages from it. Consider this sequence of events:

• MP3.com starts streaming, high complaints from label records (including Universal)
  
• label records (including Universal) sue the shit off MP3.com
  
• Universal starts Farmclub.com, Also Know As MP3.com 2
  
• Now what we do with Farmclub?
  

I believe that the court decision is right. You cannot start a service after you sued an identical service out of business (the court reasoning is different, btw...)

Music publishers are one big racket.

[dave-fu]

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.

Interesting Tactics??

[numbsafari]

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....

Re:openAudio

[eXtro]

Orchestras have to pay cash to play the arrangements. Even your little tiny community orchestra can be forced to pay licensing fees. A good friend of mine plays in an ensemble and they were forced to either stop playing certain works or pay a rather exorbidant fee. They decided to play other works, they don't profit off their music and so couldn't afford the fees.

Another friend who was a dance instructor also faced the same problem, she was hit with a nasty letter from a set of lawyers demanding she pay some huge licensing fee. It would've wiped out her meager profits so she's no longer a dance instructor.

I'm not saying that this is really fair play (the licensing fee should be based on the audience size and profit potential etc), but all of those classical CDs would have payed a licensing fee.

Re:It's only but fair

[aozilla]

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?

Radio stations have to pay, but they don't have to get a license. There is a statutory license provided to them. Why should websites all of a sudden form an exception?