Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> There is quite an astounding comparison to be made here with Novell-Microsoft
> (or even SCO, albeit more remotely).
>
> Universal Music sues MySpace over music copyrights
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, said on
> | Friday it filed a lawsuit against popular social networking site
> | MySpace for infringing copyrights of thousands of its artists' works.
> `----
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061117/tc_nm/media_universal_myspace_dc
The big problem here is finding out whethe myspace has a policy that
forbids publication of copyrighted materials not owned by the author
(they do), and proving that they do not enforce it. Finally, MySpace
could opt to help UMG go after members who have published copyrighted
music.
The biggest problem with any hosting service, ranging from rackspace to
MySpace, is that the publisher (the person who puts copyrighted content
in the public space) is the criminal. The challenge is that if you
have 5 million "tweens and teens" who have been stealing software for
years, and have been watching their parents steal software for even
longer, should you treat them the same way you should treat drug
dealers? The penalty for copyright violations is 15 years. The
penalty for drug possession of drugs such as pot and powder cocaine is
only 5 years.
Perhaps the courts will sentence these "teen-age pirates" to 10,000
hours of community service, including monitoring by GPS reporting ankle
bracelets and prolonged after-school monitoring. Keep them after
school for 5-6 hours per day, and when they get home, they would be
required to "attend" meetings and chats - and to participate in OSS
projects and/or other community service oriented activities. Maybe
they can even harvest crops in the summer time.
> Allow me to explain why it is so similar to the Novell/SCO strategy.
>
> Firstly, Microsoft uses its dominant position (monopoly) to pressure smaller
> companies.
More importantly, Microsoft uses equity ownership using secondary
holding companies (to avoid insider reporting requirements), to gain
key positions on the board of directors, including the ability to hire
and fire key executives.
This makes it possible for Microsoft to engage in regulated and union
related organizations while avoiding the direct intervention and
"micromanagement" of Microsoft itself due to it's ownership of
regulated companies and it's dominance in regulated industries.
> Microsoft Universal deal sure to be challenged
By who? You don't think the Bush administration will be doing
anything, do you?
Republican AGs will probably look the other way as well.
Since MySpace is a USA owned company, and Universal is also a USA owned
company, the EU can't really do much.
The problem is that the market needs to adjust appropriately to the new
technology. Television stations were horrified when VCRs came out.
They were afraid that they would lose all of their advertizing revenue
because people would be watching VCR recorded programs and depriving
them of revenue.
The irony is that the ratings of many programs actually INCREASED.
Furthermore, many "dead zones" of television suddenly became "VCR
slots". Popular movies and programs could be aired between 2 AM and 5
AM for those who wanted to record them on VCR and watch them during
lull times.
The net result was that more people watched more television, and
families often had 2-3 televisions and the kids who didn't want to
watch football might watch a prime-time television show during those
hours when most networks were airing sports.
When cable companies started airing 15 channels, many predicted the
collapse of network television. The irony is that the ability to
provide interested based programming made it possible to very
efficiently target specific groups more likely to make purchases.
Instead of reducing revenue and profits for the networks, the networks
were able to diversify. NBC for example now has MSNBC (documentaries
and in depth news), CNBC (financial news), and so on. ABC was able to
add family channels. And some old TV people like Michael Nesmith of
the Monkeys created MTV - which is now something like 10 stations.
Discovery, a popular magazine, started a cable channel, and has now
diversified into another 10 channels.
The media industry needs to come to terms with the Internet. The Ipod
was a great and practical approach. Let people download what they
want, for reasonable prices, and then keep track of what they played,
and pay out royalties based on those plays.
If users pay for a "music service" and use a "service approved player",
and the player keeps track of the playlist, regardless of how it's
loaded (rhapsody), and the user pays monthly subscription fees, the
playlist can manage the distribution of the rights. A specific user
might listen to hundreds of songs on a 24/7 basis, and another user
might only listen to one favorite twice a month. The point is that it
all averages out in the long run.
The solution is the same as it was for Napster. MySpace needs to
charge a reasonable fee for their service, and pay-out the royalties
who can distribute them based on the playlists of the players being
used by the people who are playing the music.
The problem is that the "Top 40" artists and publishers want shares
based on percentage of record sales or other easily manipulated
ratings. Conversely, secondary artists want to have royalties based on
actual playlists and player history.
The OSS community has already made some concession to the industry.
There are a few players such as ipodder, which provide playlist
history, and the license forbids disabling of the reporting system.
But the OSS implementation lets you know exactly what is being
reported, and how.
The media industry itself is at war with itself over how royalties
should be managed. Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP have monitored
play-lists for over 100 years, and have collected and distributed
royalties from night clubs, discos, and even elevators, along with
broadcasters and others. But new companies are all trying to compete
for this role as the "Internet Police". The problem that a company
like MySpace has to deal with today is "who should I negotiated with"?
How should the royalties be collected? What needs to be reported?
Should royalties be distributed based on downloads? Should they be
distributed based on player records? Should they be distributed based
on what Billboard Magazine says are the sales records of randomly
selected stores?
Maybe this is the time for MySpace to confront this company and have
them bring in all of the possible royalty collection agents, haul them
all into court, and tell them, "We'll settle, but we are only writing
one check".
|
|
