I am taking some time off from blogging for the next couple of weeks. Unless something major happens (record labels have bad timing!) there wont be much happening on this site. I will still post a monthly summary on OpenContentAustralia of the articles I have read this month so go there if you're missing me too much. I hope you enjoyed the Year in Review series - it was a mamoth effort on my part with over 1600 articles to condense but it is done for another year. Thank you for taking the time to read this space it has been an excellent year and I have enjoyed hearing from you all. I wish you and your families a wonderful Christmas and a happy New Year - stay safe,
Sal
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Year in Review: Network Neutrality
This year saw further developments in the United States regarding the neutrality of the internet with the FCC finding against the traffic management policies of Comcast, further support for the introduction of legislation requiring ISPs and content owners to respect the principles of an open internet and the introduction of data caps and pricing structures in the United States.
The argument that takes place with respect to the neutrality of the internet is one which sees essentially two differing approaches to the management of internet traffic.
On the one side proponents argue for an open internet through the use of end to end architecture and equality of priority of packets regardless of the type of communications protocol they use.
On the other ISPs and content holders seek to elevate some forms of traffic over others with ISPs charging money to allocate priority. The money is used to ensure that the infrastructure of a network is increased to cope with more and more traffic. Companies such as Microsoft, Google and YouTube are among those who are most likely to need or want priority.[1]
It has been widely recognised that this would have a dramatic impact on the openness of the internet with major content holders being able to secure their communications often at the expense of those that are more poorly funded. Translated to the music industry, a non neutral internet would see independent artists unable to access their audiences or build profiles with major label artists paying to have priority over them.[2]
Comcast
In August 2007 questions were raised as to whether Comcast engaged in protocol management practices - Comcast denied that it was blocking or throttling file sharing protocols.[3]
In February 2008 Comcast acknowledged that it did engage in traffic management practices but stated that these were reasonable and industry based standards that ensured quality services to their clients.[4] Comcast also altered its Terms of Service to correctly represent the company’s position with respect to traffic management.[5]
In March 2008 Comcast announced that it would alter its traffic management policy to phase out discrimination based on file sharing protocols.[6]
On the 1 August 2008 the FCC ordered that Comcast abandon its traffic management practices.[7] The FCC found that Comcast delayed file sharing traffic and ordered Comcast to submit a new traffic management proposal within 30 days.[8] Comcast was not fined.[9] Comcast commenced legal proceedings in the US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit to dispute the finding, challenging the authority of the FCC to make and impose such a ruling but nonetheless agreed to comply with these requirements in the meantime.[10] Traffic that was effected by Comcasts practices included users of the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack and Gnutella networks.[11]
In late September 2008 Comcast announced that it was introducing an alternative traffic management policy.[12] Instead of throttling based on protocol the ISP will now reduce speeds to a good DSL level for high bandwidth users and prioritise low bandwidth users once their network reaches 80% of its capacity.[13]
In separate legal action the New York Attorney General subpoenaed Comcast’s records to investigate their traffic management practices.[14]
Others
There have also been allegations that AT&T engaged in protocol traffic management practices although this was denied by the company.[15]
Similar issues have also arisen in Canada, the UK and Germany.[16]
Technological Responses
In response to Comcast’s traffic management policy there were a number of suggestions as to how technical measures such as protocol header encryption could be employed to bypass the protocol discrimination however as Comcast changed its practices these were not developed or employed on a wide spread scale.[17]
Data Caps
Comcast and Time Warner have both introduced capped broadband accounts in the United States which ensure that high volume users pay more for their internet connections than low volume users.[18] It was announced in November 2008 that AT&T will also introduce these measures.[19]
It has been suggested that Australia does not have similar issues with respect to network neutrality because it already has in place capped broadband accounts which inturn allow ISPs to recoup more money and thus expand their networks as it is needed.[20]
Some ISPs continue to argue that traffic management practices based on protocol are still necessary with time sensitive traffic such as VoIP deserving preferential treatment.[21]
Pending Legislation
There is ongoing debate as to whether legislation is required to ensure network neutrality with many suggesting that competition within the market place should be sufficient to maintain ISP independence and that regulation can often create loop holes and have unintended consequences.[22]
In February 2008 Rep. Edward Markey D-Mass, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act which was cosponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss requiring the FCC to assess whether consumers rights are being affected by the traffic management practices of ISPs.[23]
A Bill titled the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, HR 5994, was introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in mid 2008 which mirrored similar attempts in 2006 to alter the US anti-trust laws to ensure internet neutrality.[24] The Bill amends the Clayton Act of 1914 forbidding ISPs from charging differing rates to differing customers for the same product or service which would harm competition.[25] This Bill supports the notion that network neutrality is in essence a competition issue.[26]
Senator Byron Dorgan stated in November 2008 that further legislation would be introduced as early as January 2009.[27]
[1] CNet News, Net neutrality: An American problem? (28 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10053045-94.html> at 5 October 2008
[2] Future of Music Coallition, FACT SHEET: Network Neutrality (January 2008) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/NNfactsheet.cfm> at 18 February 2008
[3] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[4] ZeroPaid, Comcast to FCC: 'Yes, We Throttle BitTorrent Traffic, but So What?' (15 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9267/Comcast+to+FCC%3A+%27Yes%2C+We+Throttle+BitTorrent+Traffic%2C+but+So+What%3F%27> at 17 February 2008; Digital Music News, In a Jam, Comcast Defends Traffic-Throttling (12 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021208comcast/view> at 15 February 2008; The Register, Comcast cops to BitTorrent busting (13 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/comcast_fcc_network_management_filing/> at 15 February 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Defends Its Traffic Shaping Efforts (13 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml> at 15 February 2008
[5] ArsTechnica, Comcast tweaks Terms of Service in wake of throttling uproar (7 February 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080207-comcast-tweaks-terms-of-service-in-wake-of-throttling-uproar.html> at 8 February 2008
[6] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Reduces Discrimination, Plans To End It Altogether (28 March 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/comcast-reducing-discrimination-planning-end-it-altoghether-isp-testing-remains-es> at 30 March 2008
[7] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[8] CNet News, FCC finalizes Comcast's filtering penalties (20 August 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10021222-38.html> at 22 August 2008; Slyck, FCC to Comcast: You have 30 Days (20 August 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1749_FCC_to_Comcast_You_have_30_Days> at 22 August 2008; EFF Deeplinks, FCC Rules Against Comcast for BitTorrent Blocking (3 August 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking> at 7 August 2008; ZeroPaid, FCC - Comcast Was Wrong to Throttle, but Prioritizing Packets is Fine (4 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9675/FCC+-+Comcast+Was+Wrong+to+Throttle%2C+but+Prioritizing+Packets+is+Fine> at 6 August 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Has Quite A Week: Gets In Trouble For Blocking Content And For NOT Blocking Content (1 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1236201863.shtml> at 6 August 2008; ArsTechnica, Hammer drops at last: FCC opposes Comcast P2P throttling (25 July 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-opposes-comcast-p2p-throttling.html> at 28 July 2008
[9] EFF Deeplink, FCC Chairman Hints at Order Against Comcast (11 July 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/fcc-chariman-hints-order-against-comcast> at 18 July 2008
[10] ZeroPaid, Comcast Appeals FCC Decision Ordering End to End BitTorrent Throttling (6 September 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9737/Comcast+Appeals+FCC+Decision+Ordering+End+to+BitTorrent+Throttling> at 12 September 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Says FCC Has No Authority To Stop Traffic Shaping (20 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml> at 22 March 2008
[11] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[12] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Unveils Its New Traffic Management Architecture (22 September 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/comcast-unveils-its-new-traffic-management-archite> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Says No One Has Complained About Its New Traffic Slowing Efforts (22 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/0252232326.shtml> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, Comcast loses P2P religion, goes agnostic on throttling (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-comcast-loses-p2p-religion-goes-agnostic-on-throttling.html> at 21 September 2008
[13] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Unveils Its New Traffic Management Architecture (22 September 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/comcast-unveils-its-new-traffic-management-archite> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Comcast to Throttle Heavy Internet Users Up to 20 min (23 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9711/Comcast+to+Throttle+Heavy+Internet+Users+Up+to+20+Min> at 25 August 2008; Digital Music News, Selective Slowdowns: Comcast Keeps Pushing Throttling Plans (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108comcast> at 25 August 2008
[14] SiliconValley.com/Associated Press, N.Y. attorney general subpoenas Comcast on traffic throttling (26 February 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_8369162?nclick_check=1> at 29 February 2008; The Register, New York Subpoenas Comcast 'reasonable network management' records (27 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/andrew_cuomo_subpoenas_comcast/> at 28 February 2008
[15] ZeroPaid, AT&T to FCC: 'We Don't Throttle Bit Torrent' (27 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9439/AT%26T+to+FCC%3A+%27We+Don%27t+Throttle+BitTorrent%27> at 29 April 2008
[16] ArsTechnica, P2P throttling leading to net neutrality showdown in Canada (24 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080424-p2p-throttling-leading-to-net-neutrality-showdown-in-canada.html> at 2 May 2008; The Star, CRTC asked to stop Bell's 'throttling' (5 April 2008) <http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/410454> at 8 April 2008; ZeroPaid, How Bell and CBC Ignited Network Neutrality Debate in Canada (31 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9369/How+Bell+and+CBC+Ignited+Network+Neutrality+Debate+in+Canada> at 2 April 2008; TechDirt, It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Bell Canada Tells ISPs To Shut Up And Accept Traffic Shaping (25 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080325/155924648.shtml> at 27 March 2008; The Register, Tiscali hits 'undo' after bandwidth throttling chokes iTunes (21 January 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/tiscali_bandwith_problems_ongoing/> at 30 January 2008; P2PBlog, German cable ISP admits Bittorrent blocking (10 March 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-539.html> at 11 March 2008
[17] ZeroPaid, Comcast Work Around for Azures (20 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9340/Comcast+Work+Around+for+Azureus> at 22 March 2008; The Register, BitTorrent busts Comcast BitTorrent busting (19 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/bittorrent_developers_hit_back_at_comcast/> at 19 February 2008
[18] ZeroPaid, AT&T Begins 20-150GB Data Cap Trials in Reno NV (5 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9831/AT%26T+Begins+20-150GB+Data+Cap+Trials+in+Reno%2C+NV> at 6 November 2008
[19] ZeroPaid, AT&T Begins 20-150GB Data Cap Trials in Reno NV (5 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9831/AT%26T+Begins+20-150GB+Data+Cap+Trials+in+Reno%2C+NV> at 6 November 2008
[20] CNet News, Net neutrality: An American problem? (28 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10053045-94.html> at 5 October 2008
[21] ArsTechnica, Verizon: we need freedom to delay P2P traffic when necessary (21 August 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080821-verizon-we-need-freedom-to-delay-p2p-traffic-when-necessary.html> at 22 August 2008
[22] ArsTechnica, Is government regulation needed to ensure net neutrality? (14 November 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081114-is-government-regulation-needed-to-ensure-net-neutrality.html> at 16 November 2008; TechDirt, The Paper On Network Neutrality That Any Policy Maker Needs To Read (12 November 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0121062806.shtml> at 16 November 2008;
[23] TechDirt, Markey's Non-Regulation Net Neutrality Regulation (13 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/122300247.shtml> at 15 February 2008; msnbc/Associated Press, 'Net neutrality' bill introduced (13 February 2008) <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147101/> at 18 February 2008
[24] ArsTechnica, New bill ties net neutrality to antitrust law (8 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-new-bill-ties-net-neutrality-to-antitrust-law.html> at 10 May 2008; CNet News, Democrats revive another Net neutrality proposal (8 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9939443-7.html> at 10 May 2008
[25] ArsTechnica, New bill ties net neutrality to antitrust law (8 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-new-bill-ties-net-neutrality-to-antitrust-law.html> at 10 May 2008; CNet News, Democrats revive another Net neutrality proposal (8 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9939443-7.html> at 10 May 2008
[26] TechDirt, We Need A Broadband Competition Act, Not A Net Neutrality Act (26 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/135642351.shtml> at 28 February 2008
[27] TechDirt, Net Neutrality Legislation Expected In January (14 November 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081113/1531282827.shtml> at 16 November 2008
The argument that takes place with respect to the neutrality of the internet is one which sees essentially two differing approaches to the management of internet traffic.
On the one side proponents argue for an open internet through the use of end to end architecture and equality of priority of packets regardless of the type of communications protocol they use.
On the other ISPs and content holders seek to elevate some forms of traffic over others with ISPs charging money to allocate priority. The money is used to ensure that the infrastructure of a network is increased to cope with more and more traffic. Companies such as Microsoft, Google and YouTube are among those who are most likely to need or want priority.[1]
It has been widely recognised that this would have a dramatic impact on the openness of the internet with major content holders being able to secure their communications often at the expense of those that are more poorly funded. Translated to the music industry, a non neutral internet would see independent artists unable to access their audiences or build profiles with major label artists paying to have priority over them.[2]
Comcast
In August 2007 questions were raised as to whether Comcast engaged in protocol management practices - Comcast denied that it was blocking or throttling file sharing protocols.[3]
In February 2008 Comcast acknowledged that it did engage in traffic management practices but stated that these were reasonable and industry based standards that ensured quality services to their clients.[4] Comcast also altered its Terms of Service to correctly represent the company’s position with respect to traffic management.[5]
In March 2008 Comcast announced that it would alter its traffic management policy to phase out discrimination based on file sharing protocols.[6]
On the 1 August 2008 the FCC ordered that Comcast abandon its traffic management practices.[7] The FCC found that Comcast delayed file sharing traffic and ordered Comcast to submit a new traffic management proposal within 30 days.[8] Comcast was not fined.[9] Comcast commenced legal proceedings in the US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit to dispute the finding, challenging the authority of the FCC to make and impose such a ruling but nonetheless agreed to comply with these requirements in the meantime.[10] Traffic that was effected by Comcasts practices included users of the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack and Gnutella networks.[11]
In late September 2008 Comcast announced that it was introducing an alternative traffic management policy.[12] Instead of throttling based on protocol the ISP will now reduce speeds to a good DSL level for high bandwidth users and prioritise low bandwidth users once their network reaches 80% of its capacity.[13]
In separate legal action the New York Attorney General subpoenaed Comcast’s records to investigate their traffic management practices.[14]
Others
There have also been allegations that AT&T engaged in protocol traffic management practices although this was denied by the company.[15]
Similar issues have also arisen in Canada, the UK and Germany.[16]
Technological Responses
In response to Comcast’s traffic management policy there were a number of suggestions as to how technical measures such as protocol header encryption could be employed to bypass the protocol discrimination however as Comcast changed its practices these were not developed or employed on a wide spread scale.[17]
Data Caps
Comcast and Time Warner have both introduced capped broadband accounts in the United States which ensure that high volume users pay more for their internet connections than low volume users.[18] It was announced in November 2008 that AT&T will also introduce these measures.[19]
It has been suggested that Australia does not have similar issues with respect to network neutrality because it already has in place capped broadband accounts which inturn allow ISPs to recoup more money and thus expand their networks as it is needed.[20]
Some ISPs continue to argue that traffic management practices based on protocol are still necessary with time sensitive traffic such as VoIP deserving preferential treatment.[21]
Pending Legislation
There is ongoing debate as to whether legislation is required to ensure network neutrality with many suggesting that competition within the market place should be sufficient to maintain ISP independence and that regulation can often create loop holes and have unintended consequences.[22]
In February 2008 Rep. Edward Markey D-Mass, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act which was cosponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss requiring the FCC to assess whether consumers rights are being affected by the traffic management practices of ISPs.[23]
A Bill titled the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, HR 5994, was introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in mid 2008 which mirrored similar attempts in 2006 to alter the US anti-trust laws to ensure internet neutrality.[24] The Bill amends the Clayton Act of 1914 forbidding ISPs from charging differing rates to differing customers for the same product or service which would harm competition.[25] This Bill supports the notion that network neutrality is in essence a competition issue.[26]
Senator Byron Dorgan stated in November 2008 that further legislation would be introduced as early as January 2009.[27]
[1] CNet News, Net neutrality: An American problem? (28 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10053045-94.html> at 5 October 2008
[2] Future of Music Coallition, FACT SHEET: Network Neutrality (January 2008) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/NNfactsheet.cfm> at 18 February 2008
[3] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[4] ZeroPaid, Comcast to FCC: 'Yes, We Throttle BitTorrent Traffic, but So What?' (15 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9267/Comcast+to+FCC%3A+%27Yes%2C+We+Throttle+BitTorrent+Traffic%2C+but+So+What%3F%27> at 17 February 2008; Digital Music News, In a Jam, Comcast Defends Traffic-Throttling (12 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021208comcast/view> at 15 February 2008; The Register, Comcast cops to BitTorrent busting (13 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/comcast_fcc_network_management_filing/> at 15 February 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Defends Its Traffic Shaping Efforts (13 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml> at 15 February 2008
[5] ArsTechnica, Comcast tweaks Terms of Service in wake of throttling uproar (7 February 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080207-comcast-tweaks-terms-of-service-in-wake-of-throttling-uproar.html> at 8 February 2008
[6] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Reduces Discrimination, Plans To End It Altogether (28 March 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/comcast-reducing-discrimination-planning-end-it-altoghether-isp-testing-remains-es> at 30 March 2008
[7] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[8] CNet News, FCC finalizes Comcast's filtering penalties (20 August 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10021222-38.html> at 22 August 2008; Slyck, FCC to Comcast: You have 30 Days (20 August 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1749_FCC_to_Comcast_You_have_30_Days> at 22 August 2008; EFF Deeplinks, FCC Rules Against Comcast for BitTorrent Blocking (3 August 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking> at 7 August 2008; ZeroPaid, FCC - Comcast Was Wrong to Throttle, but Prioritizing Packets is Fine (4 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9675/FCC+-+Comcast+Was+Wrong+to+Throttle%2C+but+Prioritizing+Packets+is+Fine> at 6 August 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Has Quite A Week: Gets In Trouble For Blocking Content And For NOT Blocking Content (1 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1236201863.shtml> at 6 August 2008; ArsTechnica, Hammer drops at last: FCC opposes Comcast P2P throttling (25 July 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-opposes-comcast-p2p-throttling.html> at 28 July 2008
[9] EFF Deeplink, FCC Chairman Hints at Order Against Comcast (11 July 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/fcc-chariman-hints-order-against-comcast> at 18 July 2008
[10] ZeroPaid, Comcast Appeals FCC Decision Ordering End to End BitTorrent Throttling (6 September 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9737/Comcast+Appeals+FCC+Decision+Ordering+End+to+BitTorrent+Throttling> at 12 September 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Says FCC Has No Authority To Stop Traffic Shaping (20 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml> at 22 March 2008
[11] Wired, Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices -- BitTorrent Targeted (19 September 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html> at 21 September 2008
[12] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Unveils Its New Traffic Management Architecture (22 September 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/comcast-unveils-its-new-traffic-management-archite> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Comcast Says No One Has Complained About Its New Traffic Slowing Efforts (22 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/0252232326.shtml> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, Comcast loses P2P religion, goes agnostic on throttling (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-comcast-loses-p2p-religion-goes-agnostic-on-throttling.html> at 21 September 2008
[13] EFF Deeplinks, Comcast Unveils Its New Traffic Management Architecture (22 September 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/comcast-unveils-its-new-traffic-management-archite> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Comcast to Throttle Heavy Internet Users Up to 20 min (23 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9711/Comcast+to+Throttle+Heavy+Internet+Users+Up+to+20+Min> at 25 August 2008; Digital Music News, Selective Slowdowns: Comcast Keeps Pushing Throttling Plans (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108comcast> at 25 August 2008
[14] SiliconValley.com/Associated Press, N.Y. attorney general subpoenas Comcast on traffic throttling (26 February 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_8369162?nclick_check=1> at 29 February 2008; The Register, New York Subpoenas Comcast 'reasonable network management' records (27 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/andrew_cuomo_subpoenas_comcast/> at 28 February 2008
[15] ZeroPaid, AT&T to FCC: 'We Don't Throttle Bit Torrent' (27 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9439/AT%26T+to+FCC%3A+%27We+Don%27t+Throttle+BitTorrent%27> at 29 April 2008
[16] ArsTechnica, P2P throttling leading to net neutrality showdown in Canada (24 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080424-p2p-throttling-leading-to-net-neutrality-showdown-in-canada.html> at 2 May 2008; The Star, CRTC asked to stop Bell's 'throttling' (5 April 2008) <http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/410454> at 8 April 2008; ZeroPaid, How Bell and CBC Ignited Network Neutrality Debate in Canada (31 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9369/How+Bell+and+CBC+Ignited+Network+Neutrality+Debate+in+Canada> at 2 April 2008; TechDirt, It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Bell Canada Tells ISPs To Shut Up And Accept Traffic Shaping (25 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080325/155924648.shtml> at 27 March 2008; The Register, Tiscali hits 'undo' after bandwidth throttling chokes iTunes (21 January 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/tiscali_bandwith_problems_ongoing/> at 30 January 2008; P2PBlog, German cable ISP admits Bittorrent blocking (10 March 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-539.html> at 11 March 2008
[17] ZeroPaid, Comcast Work Around for Azures (20 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9340/Comcast+Work+Around+for+Azureus> at 22 March 2008; The Register, BitTorrent busts Comcast BitTorrent busting (19 February 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/bittorrent_developers_hit_back_at_comcast/> at 19 February 2008
[18] ZeroPaid, AT&T Begins 20-150GB Data Cap Trials in Reno NV (5 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9831/AT%26T+Begins+20-150GB+Data+Cap+Trials+in+Reno%2C+NV> at 6 November 2008
[19] ZeroPaid, AT&T Begins 20-150GB Data Cap Trials in Reno NV (5 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9831/AT%26T+Begins+20-150GB+Data+Cap+Trials+in+Reno%2C+NV> at 6 November 2008
[20] CNet News, Net neutrality: An American problem? (28 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10053045-94.html> at 5 October 2008
[21] ArsTechnica, Verizon: we need freedom to delay P2P traffic when necessary (21 August 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080821-verizon-we-need-freedom-to-delay-p2p-traffic-when-necessary.html> at 22 August 2008
[22] ArsTechnica, Is government regulation needed to ensure net neutrality? (14 November 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081114-is-government-regulation-needed-to-ensure-net-neutrality.html> at 16 November 2008; TechDirt, The Paper On Network Neutrality That Any Policy Maker Needs To Read (12 November 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0121062806.shtml> at 16 November 2008;
[23] TechDirt, Markey's Non-Regulation Net Neutrality Regulation (13 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/122300247.shtml> at 15 February 2008; msnbc/Associated Press, 'Net neutrality' bill introduced (13 February 2008) <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147101/> at 18 February 2008
[24] ArsTechnica, New bill ties net neutrality to antitrust law (8 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-new-bill-ties-net-neutrality-to-antitrust-law.html> at 10 May 2008; CNet News, Democrats revive another Net neutrality proposal (8 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9939443-7.html> at 10 May 2008
[25] ArsTechnica, New bill ties net neutrality to antitrust law (8 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-new-bill-ties-net-neutrality-to-antitrust-law.html> at 10 May 2008; CNet News, Democrats revive another Net neutrality proposal (8 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9939443-7.html> at 10 May 2008
[26] TechDirt, We Need A Broadband Competition Act, Not A Net Neutrality Act (26 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/135642351.shtml> at 28 February 2008
[27] TechDirt, Net Neutrality Legislation Expected In January (14 November 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081113/1531282827.shtml> at 16 November 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
FANTASTIC NEWS... maybe
It is reported that the RIAA are abandoning their mass lawsuit campaign against file sharers in the United States with suggestions that ISPs will be cooperating with them to provide warning notices. Since the litigation campaign commenced over 35,000 people have received letters of demand for payment of damages with the threat of litigation for illegally sharing music. All suits that have been commenced will be continued. It will be interesting to see what 'cooperating with ISPs actually means' - if that means poor quality evidence is used to disconnect accounts it is questionable whether this is a step forward or not.
Further Reading
ABC, US Music Industry Abandons Mass Piracy Lawsuits (20 December 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451897.htm?section=justin> at 20 December 2008
CNet News, RIAA President: No talk of blakclisting file sharers (19 December 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10127313-93.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1> at 20 December 2008
Wall Street Journal, Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits (19 Decemebr 2008) <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html> at 20 December 2008
Digital Music News, Developing - Major Lables Endign Lawsuits Against Individuals (19 December 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/121908riaa/view> at 20 December 2008
Slyck, RIAA Drops Lawsuit Campaign – Mostly (19 December 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1812_RIAA_Drops_Lawsuit_Campaign_Mostly> at 20 December 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA to Quit Suing File-Sharers, Wants ISPs to Disconnect Instead (19 December 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9907/RIAA+to+Quit+Suing+File-Sharers%2C+Wants+ISPs+to+Disconnect+Instead> at 20 December 2008
EFF Deeplinks, RIAA v. The People Turns from Lawsuits to 3 Strikes (19 December 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/riaa-v-people-turns-lawsuits-3-strikes> at 20 December 2008
ArsTechnica, No more lawsuits: ISPs (19 December 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081219-no-more-lawsuits-isps-to-work-with-riaa-cut-off-p2p-users.html> at 20 December 2008
Further Reading
ABC, US Music Industry Abandons Mass Piracy Lawsuits (20 December 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451897.htm?section=justin> at 20 December 2008
CNet News, RIAA President: No talk of blakclisting file sharers (19 December 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10127313-93.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1> at 20 December 2008
Wall Street Journal, Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits (19 Decemebr 2008) <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html> at 20 December 2008
Digital Music News, Developing - Major Lables Endign Lawsuits Against Individuals (19 December 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/121908riaa/view> at 20 December 2008
Slyck, RIAA Drops Lawsuit Campaign – Mostly (19 December 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1812_RIAA_Drops_Lawsuit_Campaign_Mostly> at 20 December 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA to Quit Suing File-Sharers, Wants ISPs to Disconnect Instead (19 December 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9907/RIAA+to+Quit+Suing+File-Sharers%2C+Wants+ISPs+to+Disconnect+Instead> at 20 December 2008
EFF Deeplinks, RIAA v. The People Turns from Lawsuits to 3 Strikes (19 December 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/riaa-v-people-turns-lawsuits-3-strikes> at 20 December 2008
ArsTechnica, No more lawsuits: ISPs (19 December 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081219-no-more-lawsuits-isps-to-work-with-riaa-cut-off-p2p-users.html> at 20 December 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Year in Review: Search Engines
A number of new music related search engines launched in 2008 and changes were made to existing search engines which enhance access to music. A number of lawsuits were also commenced by the content industry alleging that music focused search engines are in breach of copyright law.
Search Engines
FilesTube is a new search engine which crawls the internet for music files that are hosted on third party sites to facilitate direct downloading.[1] The search engine, run by Red Sky LLC, has a database of 40 million media files with 5 million users per month.[2] The operators do not host any of the files and state that they are doing their best to ensure they only serve legal copies by deleting links that relate to illegal content.[3] When a user is unable to find the file they are after they can enter an email address and receive notification once the content has been located.[4]
Searchme is a visual search engine which launched a free music streaming service in October 2008.[5] Users are able to listen to an unlimited number of tracks and the site provides links to buy content from Amazon.[6]
The Yahoo search engine now provides access to songs within the Rhapsody catalogue and allows Rhapsody subscribers unlimited streams of all tracks.[7] Non subscribers are able to stream up to 25 tracks a month.[8]
Google China – Top100.cn was launched in August 2008 to compete with Baidu’s music search service.[9] The service is reported to have the cooperation of several major record labels.[10]
Lawsuits
In Parker v. Yahoo, Inc., 2008 WL 4410095 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2008), a case heard in the US District Court, it was held that cached (archived) copies of copyright material by search engines are not a breach of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.[11] The court held that an implied license exists when material is uploaded to the internet permitting search engines to make copies and allowing users to access the material through search links.[12]
Project Playlist, a search engine which enables users to produce playlists by linking content hosted on multiple third party sites together without hosting any infringing files was sued for facilitating copyright infringement by nine record labels in April 2008 in the US District Court in Manhattan.[13] Files can stream through the service by users and it is this process which some argue sets the service apart from a standard search engine and which may open the door to legal liability.[14] It was reported that at the time the legal action was commenced the site had a user base of 24 million people with 600,000 unique visitors per day, 9.5 million page views per day and grew more than 200% in 2007.[15] The site is ad supported and claims to pay royalties to music publishing collection agencies BMI, ASCAP and SESAC.[16] The operators claim that their service has many legal uses as well as illegal ones.[17]
Seeqpod, a music focused search engine which also gathers links third party websites was sued in 2008 by Warner Music.[18] The site allows users to stream the content and store it for later use however the songs cannot be downloaded.[19] The company claim that they are protected from liability for copyright infringement under the DMCA.[20]
Baidu was reported as having a 70 percent market share in China largely owing its success to its MP3 music search service which is ad supported.[21] Following the loss of a case against the search engine in 2007, in February 2008 the IFPI on behalf of the record labels commenced legal action against the search engine for facilitating copyright infringement seeking damages of $US9 million.[22] Baidu is being sued by Universal Music Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Hong Kong Ltd and Warner Music Hong Kong Ltd in the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court for copyright infringements relating to 127 songs and are seeking the maximum damages of RMB 500,000 ($US71,000) per song – RMB 63,500,000 or $US9 million.[23] In separate legal action against Baidu the Music Copyright Society of China has also filed a suit for deep linking to illegal files seeking $1 million yuan or $US140,000 for breaching copyright on 50 songs.[24] One report suggests that despite claims of not hosting content and only linking to third party sites, that the search engine is actually actively hosting content in a complex network of websites that are inaccessible to other search engines and which are repeatedly relocated when take down notices are received.[25]
[1] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[2] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[3] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[4] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[5] CNet News, Searchme tries music streaming to attract users (20 October 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10070614-2.html> at 22 October 2008
[6] CNet News, Searchme tries music streaming to attract users (20 October 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10070614-2.html> at 22 October 2008
[7] ArsTechnica, Yahoo hopes to boost search fortunes with new music search (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-yahoo-hopes-to-boost-search-fortunes-with-new-music-search.html> at 21 September 2008
[8] ArsTechnica, Yahoo hopes to boost search fortunes with new music search (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-yahoo-hopes-to-boost-search-fortunes-with-new-music-search.html> at 21 September 2008
[9] ZeroPaid, Google Launches Free Music Service in China (10 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9691/Google+Launches+Free+Music+Service+in+China> at 12 August 2008; Digital Music News, Google Launches Ad-Supported Chinese Music Search (6 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/080508google> at 7 August 2008; TechDirt, Google Wants To Launch MP3 Search In China (1 August 2008)<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1714001868.shtml> at 6 August 2008
[10] Digital Music News, Google Launches Ad-Supported Chinese Music Search (6 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/080508google> at 7 August 2008
[11] Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Search Engine "Cache" Function Covered by Implied License--Parker v. Yahoo (16 October 2008)<http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/search_engine_c.htm> at 16 December 2008; TechDirt, Search Engine Cache Isn't Copyright Infringement (24 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081017/0150532568.shtml> at 27 October 2008
[12] Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Search Engine "Cache" Function Covered by Implied License--Parker v. Yahoo (16 October 2008)<http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/search_engine_c.htm> at 16 December 2008; TechDirt, Search Engine Cache Isn't Copyright Infringement (24 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081017/0150532568.shtml> at 27 October 2008
[13] Digital Music News, Project Playlist: Another Lopsided Settlement Ahead? (12 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051108playlist> at 21 May 2008; TechDirt, RIAA Now Decides That Not Enough People Have Heard Of Project Playlist (29 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/194905972.shtml> at 2 May 2008; ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008; New York Times/Reuters, Record Companies Sue Project Playlist on Copyright (28 April 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin> at 30 April 2008; Digital Music News, Project Playlist Hauled Into Court; Majors Allege Massive Infringement (29 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042808playlist> at 30 April 2008
[14] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[15] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008; New York Times/Reuters, Record Companies Sue Project Playlist on Copyright (28 April 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin> at 30 April 2008
[16] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[17] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[18] Digital Music News, Project Playlist Hauled Into Court; Majors Allege Massive Infringement (29 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042808playlist> at 30 April 2008
[19] Digital Music News, The Seeqpod Secret: Simple Searching, Serious Files (23 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012408seeqpod> at 30 January 2008
[20] Digital Music News, Warner Music Lawyers Roll Again, Seeqpod Latest Target (23 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012308wmg> at 30 January 2008; TechDirt, Warner Music Sues Seeqpod: How Dare It Help People Find Stuff Warner Wishes Didn't Exist (25 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080125/01330469.shtml> at 30 January 2008
[21] The Register, China's nonstop music machine (13 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/13/baidu_investigation/> at 21 September 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Back On the Burner: Tough Talk Continues (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408baidu > at 6 June 2008
[22] The Register, China's nonstop music machine (13 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/13/baidu_investigation/> at 21 September 2008; ZeroPaid, Google Launches Free Music Service in China (10 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9691/Google+Launches+Free+Music+Service+in+China> at 12 August 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Back On the Burner: Tough Talk Continues (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408baidu > at 6 June 2008; TechDirt, Record Labels Keep On Trying: Sue Baidu For Copyright Infringement Yet Again (5 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080205/084632179.shtml> at 7 February 2008; ArsTechnica, IFPI sues Baidu, Yahoo China over deep linking MP3s (5 February 2008)<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-ifpi-sues-baidu-yahoo-china-over-deep-linking-mp3s.html>
[23] Digital Music News, Labels Cranking Legal Heat In China... Again (8 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040808china> at 13 April 2008; ZeroPaid, IFPI Suing Major search Engine for $9 Million (8 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9390/IFPI+Suing+Major+Search+Engine+for+%249+Million> at 8 April 2008
[24] ArsTechnica, Labels seek billions in damages over Baidu MP3 deep-linking (7 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080407-labels-seek-billions-in-damages-over-baidu-mp3-deep-linking.html> at 8 April 2008; The Register, Baidu sued by Chinese copyright group (3 March 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/baidu_sued_chinese_copyright_society/> at 5 March 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Faces Chinese Rebellion, More Lawsuits Fly (3 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030208china> at 4 March 2008; Yahoo News UK/Ireland, Chinese music industry groups file suit against Baidu (28 February 2008) <http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080228/tot-uk-baidu-lawsuit-copyright-566e283.html> at 29 February 2008
[25] TechDirt, Baidu Expose Suggests That It's A Lot More Involved In Music Downloads Than It Lets On (15 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080915/0150502269.shtml> at 21 September 2008
Search Engines
FilesTube is a new search engine which crawls the internet for music files that are hosted on third party sites to facilitate direct downloading.[1] The search engine, run by Red Sky LLC, has a database of 40 million media files with 5 million users per month.[2] The operators do not host any of the files and state that they are doing their best to ensure they only serve legal copies by deleting links that relate to illegal content.[3] When a user is unable to find the file they are after they can enter an email address and receive notification once the content has been located.[4]
Searchme is a visual search engine which launched a free music streaming service in October 2008.[5] Users are able to listen to an unlimited number of tracks and the site provides links to buy content from Amazon.[6]
The Yahoo search engine now provides access to songs within the Rhapsody catalogue and allows Rhapsody subscribers unlimited streams of all tracks.[7] Non subscribers are able to stream up to 25 tracks a month.[8]
Google China – Top100.cn was launched in August 2008 to compete with Baidu’s music search service.[9] The service is reported to have the cooperation of several major record labels.[10]
Lawsuits
In Parker v. Yahoo, Inc., 2008 WL 4410095 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2008), a case heard in the US District Court, it was held that cached (archived) copies of copyright material by search engines are not a breach of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.[11] The court held that an implied license exists when material is uploaded to the internet permitting search engines to make copies and allowing users to access the material through search links.[12]
Project Playlist, a search engine which enables users to produce playlists by linking content hosted on multiple third party sites together without hosting any infringing files was sued for facilitating copyright infringement by nine record labels in April 2008 in the US District Court in Manhattan.[13] Files can stream through the service by users and it is this process which some argue sets the service apart from a standard search engine and which may open the door to legal liability.[14] It was reported that at the time the legal action was commenced the site had a user base of 24 million people with 600,000 unique visitors per day, 9.5 million page views per day and grew more than 200% in 2007.[15] The site is ad supported and claims to pay royalties to music publishing collection agencies BMI, ASCAP and SESAC.[16] The operators claim that their service has many legal uses as well as illegal ones.[17]
Seeqpod, a music focused search engine which also gathers links third party websites was sued in 2008 by Warner Music.[18] The site allows users to stream the content and store it for later use however the songs cannot be downloaded.[19] The company claim that they are protected from liability for copyright infringement under the DMCA.[20]
Baidu was reported as having a 70 percent market share in China largely owing its success to its MP3 music search service which is ad supported.[21] Following the loss of a case against the search engine in 2007, in February 2008 the IFPI on behalf of the record labels commenced legal action against the search engine for facilitating copyright infringement seeking damages of $US9 million.[22] Baidu is being sued by Universal Music Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Hong Kong Ltd and Warner Music Hong Kong Ltd in the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court for copyright infringements relating to 127 songs and are seeking the maximum damages of RMB 500,000 ($US71,000) per song – RMB 63,500,000 or $US9 million.[23] In separate legal action against Baidu the Music Copyright Society of China has also filed a suit for deep linking to illegal files seeking $1 million yuan or $US140,000 for breaching copyright on 50 songs.[24] One report suggests that despite claims of not hosting content and only linking to third party sites, that the search engine is actually actively hosting content in a complex network of websites that are inaccessible to other search engines and which are repeatedly relocated when take down notices are received.[25]
[1] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[2] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[3] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[4] ZeroPaid, ZeroPaid Interviews FilesTube - a Web Search Tool for Files (21 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9812/ZeroPaid+Interviews+FilesTube+-+a+Web+Search+Tool+for+Files> at 22 October 2008
[5] CNet News, Searchme tries music streaming to attract users (20 October 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10070614-2.html> at 22 October 2008
[6] CNet News, Searchme tries music streaming to attract users (20 October 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10070614-2.html> at 22 October 2008
[7] ArsTechnica, Yahoo hopes to boost search fortunes with new music search (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-yahoo-hopes-to-boost-search-fortunes-with-new-music-search.html> at 21 September 2008
[8] ArsTechnica, Yahoo hopes to boost search fortunes with new music search (19 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080919-yahoo-hopes-to-boost-search-fortunes-with-new-music-search.html> at 21 September 2008
[9] ZeroPaid, Google Launches Free Music Service in China (10 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9691/Google+Launches+Free+Music+Service+in+China> at 12 August 2008; Digital Music News, Google Launches Ad-Supported Chinese Music Search (6 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/080508google> at 7 August 2008; TechDirt, Google Wants To Launch MP3 Search In China (1 August 2008)<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1714001868.shtml> at 6 August 2008
[10] Digital Music News, Google Launches Ad-Supported Chinese Music Search (6 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/080508google> at 7 August 2008
[11] Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Search Engine "Cache" Function Covered by Implied License--Parker v. Yahoo (16 October 2008)<http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/search_engine_c.htm> at 16 December 2008; TechDirt, Search Engine Cache Isn't Copyright Infringement (24 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081017/0150532568.shtml> at 27 October 2008
[12] Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Search Engine "Cache" Function Covered by Implied License--Parker v. Yahoo (16 October 2008)<http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/search_engine_c.htm> at 16 December 2008; TechDirt, Search Engine Cache Isn't Copyright Infringement (24 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081017/0150532568.shtml> at 27 October 2008
[13] Digital Music News, Project Playlist: Another Lopsided Settlement Ahead? (12 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051108playlist> at 21 May 2008; TechDirt, RIAA Now Decides That Not Enough People Have Heard Of Project Playlist (29 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/194905972.shtml> at 2 May 2008; ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008; New York Times/Reuters, Record Companies Sue Project Playlist on Copyright (28 April 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin> at 30 April 2008; Digital Music News, Project Playlist Hauled Into Court; Majors Allege Massive Infringement (29 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042808playlist> at 30 April 2008
[14] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[15] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008; New York Times/Reuters, Record Companies Sue Project Playlist on Copyright (28 April 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin> at 30 April 2008
[16] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[17] ArsTechnica, Project Playlist search engine in RIAA's legal crosshairs (29 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080429-riaa-files-suit-against-project-playlist.html> at 30 April 2008
[18] Digital Music News, Project Playlist Hauled Into Court; Majors Allege Massive Infringement (29 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042808playlist> at 30 April 2008
[19] Digital Music News, The Seeqpod Secret: Simple Searching, Serious Files (23 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012408seeqpod> at 30 January 2008
[20] Digital Music News, Warner Music Lawyers Roll Again, Seeqpod Latest Target (23 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012308wmg> at 30 January 2008; TechDirt, Warner Music Sues Seeqpod: How Dare It Help People Find Stuff Warner Wishes Didn't Exist (25 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080125/01330469.shtml> at 30 January 2008
[21] The Register, China's nonstop music machine (13 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/13/baidu_investigation/> at 21 September 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Back On the Burner: Tough Talk Continues (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408baidu > at 6 June 2008
[22] The Register, China's nonstop music machine (13 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/13/baidu_investigation/> at 21 September 2008; ZeroPaid, Google Launches Free Music Service in China (10 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9691/Google+Launches+Free+Music+Service+in+China> at 12 August 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Back On the Burner: Tough Talk Continues (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408baidu > at 6 June 2008; TechDirt, Record Labels Keep On Trying: Sue Baidu For Copyright Infringement Yet Again (5 February 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080205/084632179.shtml> at 7 February 2008; ArsTechnica, IFPI sues Baidu, Yahoo China over deep linking MP3s (5 February 2008)<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-ifpi-sues-baidu-yahoo-china-over-deep-linking-mp3s.html>
[23] Digital Music News, Labels Cranking Legal Heat In China... Again (8 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040808china> at 13 April 2008; ZeroPaid, IFPI Suing Major search Engine for $9 Million (8 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9390/IFPI+Suing+Major+Search+Engine+for+%249+Million> at 8 April 2008
[24] ArsTechnica, Labels seek billions in damages over Baidu MP3 deep-linking (7 April 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080407-labels-seek-billions-in-damages-over-baidu-mp3-deep-linking.html> at 8 April 2008; The Register, Baidu sued by Chinese copyright group (3 March 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/baidu_sued_chinese_copyright_society/> at 5 March 2008; Digital Music News, Baidu Faces Chinese Rebellion, More Lawsuits Fly (3 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030208china> at 4 March 2008; Yahoo News UK/Ireland, Chinese music industry groups file suit against Baidu (28 February 2008) <http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080228/tot-uk-baidu-lawsuit-copyright-566e283.html> at 29 February 2008
[25] TechDirt, Baidu Expose Suggests That It's A Lot More Involved In Music Downloads Than It Lets On (15 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080915/0150502269.shtml> at 21 September 2008
Year in Review: Recording Contracts
Two thousand and eight saw the further emergence of recording contracts, commonly referred to as 360 deals, which enable labels to derive income from all aspects of an artists career rather than just recording sales.[1] These contracts cover recordings, merchandising, content licensing, sponsorship, touring, DVD, and literary rights.[2]
Under the new emerging standard terms artists are give $3-4 per album for recording sales rather than $1-1.50 which was the typical royalty rate.[3] Of course in an environment where sales are diminishing these new arrangements more generally benefit the label rather than the artist. That said however, some have commented that by consolidating their arrangements artists are saving money by attracting fewer overheads.[4]
It appears that artists are less inclined towards signing major record contracts and this trend includes fewer artists willing to upstream from an independent label to a major label which is commonly achieved through a joint venture arrangement.[5]
There were also further examples of traditional recording contracts being unfair to artists. The band 30 Seconds to Mars were sued by EMI for $30 million for failing to deliver their next album on time.[6] The band claimed that as the contract was for a period of nine years and statutory limitations on contracts in California hold that any contract longer than seven years is void, that they should be released from the contract.[7] The band also noted that they had sold more than 2 million records in the time they had been signed to EMI and not only had they never received any royalties, EMI claims that they are still owed $1.4 million by the band.[8]
In another example, the artist Lyle Lovett was reported to have received no royalties from the sale of 4.6 million albums.[9]
[1] Digital Music News, Live Nation Mega-Deals Keep Getting Bigger... (21 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102008equity> at 22 October 2008; Digital Music News, And Another One: Live Nation Ropes Nickelback Mega-Deal (7 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories_old/070708nickelback> at 9 July 2008; Digital Music News, More Rattling on Shakira, Live Nation Mega-Deal... (3 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/070108shakira> at 4 July 2008; Digital Music News, Stumbling Towards 360: An Industry Licks Its Early Wounds (25 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/062508three> at 27 June 2008
[2] Digital Music News, Why 360 Degrees Still Spells 360 Questions... (20 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081908three> at 22 August 2008
[3] Digital Music News, In 360-Degrees We Trust: Evolving Deal Points Emerge (10 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040908three> at 13 April 2008
[4] Digital Music News, 360 + Change: Labels Pushing Harder on Broader Deals (10 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021008change> at 19 February 2008
[5] Digital Music News, Upstreaming Disrupted:Why Major Label Survival Depends on Transformed Deals (18 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031708upstream> at 19 March 2008
[6] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[7] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[8] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[9] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008; TechDirt, Lyle Lovett: Albums Sold? 4.6 Million. Money Made From Album Sales? $0 (11 July 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371651.shtml> at 15 July 2008
Under the new emerging standard terms artists are give $3-4 per album for recording sales rather than $1-1.50 which was the typical royalty rate.[3] Of course in an environment where sales are diminishing these new arrangements more generally benefit the label rather than the artist. That said however, some have commented that by consolidating their arrangements artists are saving money by attracting fewer overheads.[4]
It appears that artists are less inclined towards signing major record contracts and this trend includes fewer artists willing to upstream from an independent label to a major label which is commonly achieved through a joint venture arrangement.[5]
There were also further examples of traditional recording contracts being unfair to artists. The band 30 Seconds to Mars were sued by EMI for $30 million for failing to deliver their next album on time.[6] The band claimed that as the contract was for a period of nine years and statutory limitations on contracts in California hold that any contract longer than seven years is void, that they should be released from the contract.[7] The band also noted that they had sold more than 2 million records in the time they had been signed to EMI and not only had they never received any royalties, EMI claims that they are still owed $1.4 million by the band.[8]
In another example, the artist Lyle Lovett was reported to have received no royalties from the sale of 4.6 million albums.[9]
[1] Digital Music News, Live Nation Mega-Deals Keep Getting Bigger... (21 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102008equity> at 22 October 2008; Digital Music News, And Another One: Live Nation Ropes Nickelback Mega-Deal (7 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories_old/070708nickelback> at 9 July 2008; Digital Music News, More Rattling on Shakira, Live Nation Mega-Deal... (3 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/070108shakira> at 4 July 2008; Digital Music News, Stumbling Towards 360: An Industry Licks Its Early Wounds (25 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/062508three> at 27 June 2008
[2] Digital Music News, Why 360 Degrees Still Spells 360 Questions... (20 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081908three> at 22 August 2008
[3] Digital Music News, In 360-Degrees We Trust: Evolving Deal Points Emerge (10 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040908three> at 13 April 2008
[4] Digital Music News, 360 + Change: Labels Pushing Harder on Broader Deals (10 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021008change> at 19 February 2008
[5] Digital Music News, Upstreaming Disrupted:Why Major Label Survival Depends on Transformed Deals (18 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031708upstream> at 19 March 2008
[6] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[7] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[8] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008
[9] TechDirt, EMI/Virgin Records Sues Platinum Selling Band For $30 Million... Despite Not Paying Them A Dime In Royalties (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0204472040.shtml> at 25 August 2008; TechDirt, Lyle Lovett: Albums Sold? 4.6 Million. Money Made From Album Sales? $0 (11 July 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371651.shtml> at 15 July 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Year in Review: Publishing & Royalties
Two thousand and eight saw the resolution of a seven year dispute over the payment of mechanical royalties for limited download and streaming services in the United States. The Copyright Royalty Board also determined the royalties payable for permanent downloads, there was further reflection and negotiation on the royalties payable by webcasters, and a court decision in relation to the royalties to be paid to ASCAP by AOL, Yahoo and Real Networks. BMI reported record earnings for performance royalties and Universal consolidated its position as the largest music publishing company. There was also ongoing contention regarding the introduction of a Pan European licensing structure.
There are a number of different royalty structures in place with respect to music, these include:
1. Performance royalties of sound recordings
2. Reproduction and distribution of the sound recording
3. Performance of the underlying musical composition
4. Reproduction and distribution of the underlying musical composition.[1]
Mechanical royalties – limited downloads and streaming services
On 23 September 2008, agreement was reached after seven years of negotiation with respect to the royalties to be paid for limited downloads and streaming music services.[2] The voluntary agreement which is yet to be approved by the Copyright Royalty Board sees services such as Napster, Rhapsody, MySpace, iLike and Imeem pay 10.5% of total revenue minus any amounts for performance royalties to publishers for the reproduction and distribution of a musical composition.[3] With respect to physical recordings the rate is already set at 9.1c per song unless independent negations are undertaken – the calculation that is required considers the number of songs per CD x number of CDs manufactured x 9.1c.[4] The RIAA were lobbying with the DIMA to have the royalty rate reduced.[5]
The agreement does not relate to non interactive streams (Pandora, webcasting) nor does it relate to permanent downloads such as those from iTunes and Amazon.[6]
Royalties for permanent downloads
The Copyright Royalty Board determined that the mechanical rate of royalties to be paid to publishers by permanent download services such as iTunes and Amazon is to remain at 9.1 cents per song under 5 minutes in length for the next five years.[7] This follows lobbying efforts from iTunes to prevent an increase in the rate to 15 cents per song which the National Music Publishers Association were seeking.[8] iTunes had claimed that if there had been an increase their service would not have been able to operate at a profit and would therefore be closed.[9]
Webcasting royalties
In 2007 the Copyright Royalty Board set royalty payment rates for webcasters that many deemed to be too high and claimed would force them out of business - the rate was significantly higher than for terrestrial and satellite radio.[10] The rate was set at $0.0019 per stream, per listener which for Pandora equates to around 60% of its revenue stream.[11] The United States House of Representatives passed the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 (H.R. 7084) on 27 September 2008 which enables webcasters and the content industry through their representative, SoundExchange, to enter into separate negotiations to establish a workable alternative.[12]
ASCAP, AOL, Yahoo and Real Networks
A court decision of the United States District Court in 2008 held that AOL, Yahoo and Real Networks must pay royalties to ASCAP for the use of music in its repertoire.[13] The complicated calculation set at 2.5% of revenue mins traffic acquisition costs and other expenses and which may result in back payments of $100 million has been criticised for being based on total revenue rather than revenue just derived from the use of music.[14]
Europe
Despite a determination by the European Commission that having 24 independent collection societies in the various countries across Europe had led to anti competitive behaviour and a decision to allow pan European licensing of musical works in 2008, to date there has been little practical change to the operation of the royalty collection societies.[15]
In September the Dutch collection agency BUMA attempted to license works across Europe only to have legal action brought against it by GEMA – the German collection agency which presently administers the rights for more than 60,000 composers, lyricists and music publishers.[16] The Mannheim Regional Court issued an injunction preventing the licensing of the music on the basis that the collection society could not grant licenses to works in the catalogue of other collection agencies without their permission.[17]
It was also reported that the UKs performing rights society won a case on 19 July 2008 against BUMA for licensing works outside of their catalogue and jurisdiction.[18]
Meanwhile GEMA has partnered with the British PRS to form Celas, a pan European licensing body.[19]
BMI
In August 2008 it was reported that BMI had reached a record profit level of $900 million in the past financial year and added 30,000 new composers and song writers to its repertoire of 6.5 million works .[20] Songwriters and composers received $786 million with digital revenues accounting for 15%, terrestrial radio and broadcast television accounted for 38% of revenue, satellite and cable formats 23% and restaurants and bars contributed 11%.[21]
Harry Fox
The Harry Fox agency reported royalty payouts of $393.5 million in 2007 from 1.51 million licenses, a 4% increase on 2006.[22]
Unpaid Royalties
In June 2008 it was reported that the band Poison commenced litigation against EMI for unpaid royalties.[23]
In February 2008 it was reported that more than a dozen artists were suing Universal Music for failing to pay royalties of $US6 million since 1998.[24] Artists include the estates of Count Basie and Benny Goodman, Les Brown, Richard Hayman, Dick Hyman, Woody Herman, Kitty Kallen, Frankie Lane, Tony Martin, John Mills, Jerry Murad, Patti Page, Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Sarah Vaughn.[25]
In a separate development the Allman Brothers commenced litigation against Universal for failing to pay royalties.[26] The group are seeking $10-13million in unpaid royalties from CD sales and a 50% pay out from digital sales.[27]
In April 2008 a new program called ‘Project Unfound Artist’ was launched by P2pNet and Nashville attorney Fred Williams in an attempt to locate artists that are owed money by SoundExchange.[28] If artists are not registered and the money is not collected within a 3 year period it is deemed to be attributable to SoundExchanges operating expenses and general revenue.[29] Despite 2,387 artists and 871 labels registering since 15 September 2006 the unregistered artist lists contains over 7,700 names.[30]
Universal Publishing
Universal Publishing became the largest publisher in the world following its acquisition of BMG music publishing in February 2008.[31]
[1] Digital Music News, Lost In Licensing? Royalty 101 Now In Session... (24 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092308licensing101> at 26 September 2008
[2] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008; TechDirt, One Of Many Online Music Royalty Rates Settled (For Now) (23 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/1832232352.shtml> at 26 September 2008; Digital Music News, Developing: Digital Royalty Rate Thawing Emerges (20 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061908rates> at 26 June 2008
[3] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008; CNet News, Music groups reach accord on royalties (23 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10049452-93.html> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, New royalty agreement leaves Internet radio out in the cold (23 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-new-royalty-agreement-leaves-internet-radio-out-in-the-cold.html> at 24 September 2008
[4] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008
[5] Digital Music News, Mechanical Licensing Battle Royale Gets Started (6 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/020508mechanical> at 19 February 2008
[6] Digital Music News, Lost In Licensing? Royalty 101 Now In Session... (24 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092308licensing101> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, New royalty agreement leaves Internet radio out in the cold (23 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-new-royalty-agreement-leaves-internet-radio-out-in-the-cold.html> at 24 September 2008
[7] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Copyright Royalty Board Keeps Download Rates The Same; iTunes 'Saved' (3 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081002/1807062438.shtml> at 5 October 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, Copyright board leaves music royalty rate unchanged; Apple had threatened to shut iTunes (2 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_10620493> at 5 October 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, Federal copyright board to set digital music royalties (1 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_10611112?nclick_check=1> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, Mechanicals Staying Steady on Paid Downloads... (3 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/100208rates> at 5 October 2008
[8] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008
[9] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008; The Register, Apple screws songwriters (again) (1 October 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/apple_itunes_threat/> at 5 October 2008
[10] Future of Music Coallition, (Web)Casting Call (30 September 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html> at 27 October 2008; Digital Music News, Westergren, Pandora Await Upcoming Webcaster Royalty Rates (6 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/100308westergren> at 10 October 2008; Digital Music News, SoundExchange, Large Broadcasters Still at Loggerheads (14 May 2008)<http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051508loggerheads> at 21 May 2008
[11] Digital Music News, The Dirty Game Behind Webcaster Royalty Rates... (21 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102008politics> at 22 October 2008
[12] Future of Music Coallition, (Web)Casting Call (30 September 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html> at 27 October 2008; CNet News, Net radio bill passes House (27 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10052966-93.html> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, House Extends SoundExchange, Internet Broadcaster Talks (29 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092608hr> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, Deal Ahead? Senate Okays Extended Webcaster Talks (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008senate> at 5 October 2008; The Register, US politicians back Act to save internet radio (29 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/29/internet_radio_act/> at 5 October 2008
[13] TechDirt, Do Songwriters Deserve A Cut Of Yahoo Search Revenue? (13 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/0252111088.shtml> at 21 May 2008; Digital Music News, Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL Bite Back Against ASCAP Rates (5 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050508yahoo> at 6 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; TechDirt, District Court Tells Yahoo, AOL To Pay Millions To Songwriters (1 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080501/020611996.shtml> at 2 May 2008; CNet News, Court: Online services must pay up for song use (1 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9933398-7.html> at 2 May 2008; Digital Music News, Court Determines ASCAP Rates for Yahoo, AOL, RealNetworks (30 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/043008ascap> at 2 May 2008
[14] TechDirt, Do Songwriters Deserve A Cut Of Yahoo Search Revenue? (13 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/0252111088.shtml> at 21 May 2008; Digital Music News, Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL Bite Back Against ASCAP Rates (5 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050508yahoo> at 6 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; TechDirt, District Court Tells Yahoo, AOL To Pay Millions To Songwriters (1 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080501/020611996.shtml> at 2 May 2008; CNet News, Court: Online services must pay up for song use (1 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9933398-7.html> at 2 May 2008; Digital Music News, Court Determines ASCAP Rates for Yahoo, AOL, RealNetworks (30 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/043008ascap> at 2 May 2008
[15] The Register, Judge bans European-wide online music rights (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/judge_forbids_illegal_rights_license/> at 28 August 2008; Guardian, EU to introduce new music rights system despite lobby (15 July 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/15/digitalmusic.digitalmedia> at 18 July 2008; Digital Music News, Commission: Let the Pan-European Licensing Begin... (16 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071608eu> at 18 July 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, EU musicians oppose Europe-wide online royalties; outcome could affect iTunes (3 July 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_9776215?nclick_check=1> 9 July 2008
[16] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[17] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[18] The Register, Judge bans European-wide online music rights (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/judge_forbids_illegal_rights_license/> at 28 August 2008
[19] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[20] Digital Music News, The BMI Scorecard: Digital Keeps Growing Up... (26 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082508bmi2> at 28 August 2008
[21] Digital Music News, Nice Performance: BMI Breaks Revenue, Payout Records (25 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082408bmi> at 28 August 2008
[22] Digital Music News, Harry Fox Still Writing Good Checks; $394 Million In '08 (18 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031708hfa> at 23 March 2008
[23] Digital Music News, Latest Lawsuit Gets Poisonous; EMI On Defensive (19 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/062208poison> at 26 June 2008
[24] ZeroPaid, Universal Music Sued for Cheating Music Artists Out of Royalties (19 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9277/Universal+Music+Sued+for+Cheating+Music+Artists+Out+of+Royalties> at 21 February 2008
[25] ZeroPaid, Universal Music Sued for Cheating Music Artists Out of Royalties (19 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9277/Universal+Music+Sued+for+Cheating+Music+Artists+Out+of+Royalties> at 21 February 2008
[26] TechDirt, Allman Brothers Sue Yet Another Record Label Over iTunes Royalties (12 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080812/0150041954.shtml> at 20 August 2008; Digital Music News, The Litigious Allman Brothers: Is It Too Late? (13 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081208allman> at 20 August 2008;
[27] Digital Music News, Allman Brothers Strike Again, New Lawsuit Emerges (12 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081108allman> at 20 August 2008; ZeroPaid, Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff (13 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/Band+Sues+Record+Label+for+Digital+Music+Distribution+Ripoff> at 20 August 2008
[28] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[29] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[30] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[31] Digital Music News, Universal Music Satisfies Regulators, Sheds Publishing Assets (25 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/022408universal> at 28 February 2008; Digital Music News, Post-Acquisition, Universal Easily Beats EMI Publishing Share (30 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/013008umg> at 4 February 2008
There are a number of different royalty structures in place with respect to music, these include:
1. Performance royalties of sound recordings
2. Reproduction and distribution of the sound recording
3. Performance of the underlying musical composition
4. Reproduction and distribution of the underlying musical composition.[1]
Mechanical royalties – limited downloads and streaming services
On 23 September 2008, agreement was reached after seven years of negotiation with respect to the royalties to be paid for limited downloads and streaming music services.[2] The voluntary agreement which is yet to be approved by the Copyright Royalty Board sees services such as Napster, Rhapsody, MySpace, iLike and Imeem pay 10.5% of total revenue minus any amounts for performance royalties to publishers for the reproduction and distribution of a musical composition.[3] With respect to physical recordings the rate is already set at 9.1c per song unless independent negations are undertaken – the calculation that is required considers the number of songs per CD x number of CDs manufactured x 9.1c.[4] The RIAA were lobbying with the DIMA to have the royalty rate reduced.[5]
The agreement does not relate to non interactive streams (Pandora, webcasting) nor does it relate to permanent downloads such as those from iTunes and Amazon.[6]
Royalties for permanent downloads
The Copyright Royalty Board determined that the mechanical rate of royalties to be paid to publishers by permanent download services such as iTunes and Amazon is to remain at 9.1 cents per song under 5 minutes in length for the next five years.[7] This follows lobbying efforts from iTunes to prevent an increase in the rate to 15 cents per song which the National Music Publishers Association were seeking.[8] iTunes had claimed that if there had been an increase their service would not have been able to operate at a profit and would therefore be closed.[9]
Webcasting royalties
In 2007 the Copyright Royalty Board set royalty payment rates for webcasters that many deemed to be too high and claimed would force them out of business - the rate was significantly higher than for terrestrial and satellite radio.[10] The rate was set at $0.0019 per stream, per listener which for Pandora equates to around 60% of its revenue stream.[11] The United States House of Representatives passed the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 (H.R. 7084) on 27 September 2008 which enables webcasters and the content industry through their representative, SoundExchange, to enter into separate negotiations to establish a workable alternative.[12]
ASCAP, AOL, Yahoo and Real Networks
A court decision of the United States District Court in 2008 held that AOL, Yahoo and Real Networks must pay royalties to ASCAP for the use of music in its repertoire.[13] The complicated calculation set at 2.5% of revenue mins traffic acquisition costs and other expenses and which may result in back payments of $100 million has been criticised for being based on total revenue rather than revenue just derived from the use of music.[14]
Europe
Despite a determination by the European Commission that having 24 independent collection societies in the various countries across Europe had led to anti competitive behaviour and a decision to allow pan European licensing of musical works in 2008, to date there has been little practical change to the operation of the royalty collection societies.[15]
In September the Dutch collection agency BUMA attempted to license works across Europe only to have legal action brought against it by GEMA – the German collection agency which presently administers the rights for more than 60,000 composers, lyricists and music publishers.[16] The Mannheim Regional Court issued an injunction preventing the licensing of the music on the basis that the collection society could not grant licenses to works in the catalogue of other collection agencies without their permission.[17]
It was also reported that the UKs performing rights society won a case on 19 July 2008 against BUMA for licensing works outside of their catalogue and jurisdiction.[18]
Meanwhile GEMA has partnered with the British PRS to form Celas, a pan European licensing body.[19]
BMI
In August 2008 it was reported that BMI had reached a record profit level of $900 million in the past financial year and added 30,000 new composers and song writers to its repertoire of 6.5 million works .[20] Songwriters and composers received $786 million with digital revenues accounting for 15%, terrestrial radio and broadcast television accounted for 38% of revenue, satellite and cable formats 23% and restaurants and bars contributed 11%.[21]
Harry Fox
The Harry Fox agency reported royalty payouts of $393.5 million in 2007 from 1.51 million licenses, a 4% increase on 2006.[22]
Unpaid Royalties
In June 2008 it was reported that the band Poison commenced litigation against EMI for unpaid royalties.[23]
In February 2008 it was reported that more than a dozen artists were suing Universal Music for failing to pay royalties of $US6 million since 1998.[24] Artists include the estates of Count Basie and Benny Goodman, Les Brown, Richard Hayman, Dick Hyman, Woody Herman, Kitty Kallen, Frankie Lane, Tony Martin, John Mills, Jerry Murad, Patti Page, Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Sarah Vaughn.[25]
In a separate development the Allman Brothers commenced litigation against Universal for failing to pay royalties.[26] The group are seeking $10-13million in unpaid royalties from CD sales and a 50% pay out from digital sales.[27]
In April 2008 a new program called ‘Project Unfound Artist’ was launched by P2pNet and Nashville attorney Fred Williams in an attempt to locate artists that are owed money by SoundExchange.[28] If artists are not registered and the money is not collected within a 3 year period it is deemed to be attributable to SoundExchanges operating expenses and general revenue.[29] Despite 2,387 artists and 871 labels registering since 15 September 2006 the unregistered artist lists contains over 7,700 names.[30]
Universal Publishing
Universal Publishing became the largest publisher in the world following its acquisition of BMG music publishing in February 2008.[31]
[1] Digital Music News, Lost In Licensing? Royalty 101 Now In Session... (24 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092308licensing101> at 26 September 2008
[2] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008; TechDirt, One Of Many Online Music Royalty Rates Settled (For Now) (23 September 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/1832232352.shtml> at 26 September 2008; Digital Music News, Developing: Digital Royalty Rate Thawing Emerges (20 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061908rates> at 26 June 2008
[3] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008; CNet News, Music groups reach accord on royalties (23 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10049452-93.html> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, New royalty agreement leaves Internet radio out in the cold (23 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-new-royalty-agreement-leaves-internet-radio-out-in-the-cold.html> at 24 September 2008
[4] Future of Music Coallition, Agreement Royale (1 October 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html> at 27 October 2008
[5] Digital Music News, Mechanical Licensing Battle Royale Gets Started (6 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/020508mechanical> at 19 February 2008
[6] Digital Music News, Lost In Licensing? Royalty 101 Now In Session... (24 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092308licensing101> at 26 September 2008; ArsTechnica, New royalty agreement leaves Internet radio out in the cold (23 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-new-royalty-agreement-leaves-internet-radio-out-in-the-cold.html> at 24 September 2008
[7] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008; TechDirt, Copyright Royalty Board Keeps Download Rates The Same; iTunes 'Saved' (3 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081002/1807062438.shtml> at 5 October 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, Copyright board leaves music royalty rate unchanged; Apple had threatened to shut iTunes (2 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_10620493> at 5 October 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, Federal copyright board to set digital music royalties (1 October 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_10611112?nclick_check=1> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, Mechanicals Staying Steady on Paid Downloads... (3 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/100208rates> at 5 October 2008
[8] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008
[9] Digital Music News, Oh the Drama: Royalty Decisions Await; iTunes Ultimatum Surfaces (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008royalty> at 5 October 2008; The Register, Apple screws songwriters (again) (1 October 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/apple_itunes_threat/> at 5 October 2008
[10] Future of Music Coallition, (Web)Casting Call (30 September 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html> at 27 October 2008; Digital Music News, Westergren, Pandora Await Upcoming Webcaster Royalty Rates (6 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/100308westergren> at 10 October 2008; Digital Music News, SoundExchange, Large Broadcasters Still at Loggerheads (14 May 2008)<http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051508loggerheads> at 21 May 2008
[11] Digital Music News, The Dirty Game Behind Webcaster Royalty Rates... (21 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102008politics> at 22 October 2008
[12] Future of Music Coallition, (Web)Casting Call (30 September 2008) <http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html> at 27 October 2008; CNet News, Net radio bill passes House (27 September 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10052966-93.html> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, House Extends SoundExchange, Internet Broadcaster Talks (29 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/092608hr> at 5 October 2008; Digital Music News, Deal Ahead? Senate Okays Extended Webcaster Talks (1 October 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/093008senate> at 5 October 2008; The Register, US politicians back Act to save internet radio (29 September 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/29/internet_radio_act/> at 5 October 2008
[13] TechDirt, Do Songwriters Deserve A Cut Of Yahoo Search Revenue? (13 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/0252111088.shtml> at 21 May 2008; Digital Music News, Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL Bite Back Against ASCAP Rates (5 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050508yahoo> at 6 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; TechDirt, District Court Tells Yahoo, AOL To Pay Millions To Songwriters (1 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080501/020611996.shtml> at 2 May 2008; CNet News, Court: Online services must pay up for song use (1 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9933398-7.html> at 2 May 2008; Digital Music News, Court Determines ASCAP Rates for Yahoo, AOL, RealNetworks (30 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/043008ascap> at 2 May 2008
[14] TechDirt, Do Songwriters Deserve A Cut Of Yahoo Search Revenue? (13 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/0252111088.shtml> at 21 May 2008; Digital Music News, Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL Bite Back Against ASCAP Rates (5 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050508yahoo> at 6 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; The Register, Songwriters score victory over AOL, Yahoo! and Real Pay up (1 May 2008)<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/ascap_aol_real_yahoo/> at 2 May 2008; TechDirt, District Court Tells Yahoo, AOL To Pay Millions To Songwriters (1 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080501/020611996.shtml> at 2 May 2008; CNet News, Court: Online services must pay up for song use (1 May 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9933398-7.html> at 2 May 2008; Digital Music News, Court Determines ASCAP Rates for Yahoo, AOL, RealNetworks (30 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/043008ascap> at 2 May 2008
[15] The Register, Judge bans European-wide online music rights (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/judge_forbids_illegal_rights_license/> at 28 August 2008; Guardian, EU to introduce new music rights system despite lobby (15 July 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/15/digitalmusic.digitalmedia> at 18 July 2008; Digital Music News, Commission: Let the Pan-European Licensing Begin... (16 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071608eu> at 18 July 2008; SiliconValley/Associated Press, EU musicians oppose Europe-wide online royalties; outcome could affect iTunes (3 July 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_9776215?nclick_check=1> 9 July 2008
[16] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[17] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[18] The Register, Judge bans European-wide online music rights (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/judge_forbids_illegal_rights_license/> at 28 August 2008
[19] Digital Music News, Pan-European Panned Once Again; Buma/Stemra Blocked (16 September 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091508buma> at 21 September 2008
[20] Digital Music News, The BMI Scorecard: Digital Keeps Growing Up... (26 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082508bmi2> at 28 August 2008
[21] Digital Music News, Nice Performance: BMI Breaks Revenue, Payout Records (25 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082408bmi> at 28 August 2008
[22] Digital Music News, Harry Fox Still Writing Good Checks; $394 Million In '08 (18 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031708hfa> at 23 March 2008
[23] Digital Music News, Latest Lawsuit Gets Poisonous; EMI On Defensive (19 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/062208poison> at 26 June 2008
[24] ZeroPaid, Universal Music Sued for Cheating Music Artists Out of Royalties (19 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9277/Universal+Music+Sued+for+Cheating+Music+Artists+Out+of+Royalties> at 21 February 2008
[25] ZeroPaid, Universal Music Sued for Cheating Music Artists Out of Royalties (19 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9277/Universal+Music+Sued+for+Cheating+Music+Artists+Out+of+Royalties> at 21 February 2008
[26] TechDirt, Allman Brothers Sue Yet Another Record Label Over iTunes Royalties (12 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080812/0150041954.shtml> at 20 August 2008; Digital Music News, The Litigious Allman Brothers: Is It Too Late? (13 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081208allman> at 20 August 2008;
[27] Digital Music News, Allman Brothers Strike Again, New Lawsuit Emerges (12 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081108allman> at 20 August 2008; ZeroPaid, Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff (13 August 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9696/Band+Sues+Record+Label+for+Digital+Music+Distribution+Ripoff> at 20 August 2008
[28] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[29] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[30] Wired, 'Project Unfound Artist' Seeks to Make SoundExchange Pay (29 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/project-unfound.html> at 30 April 2008
[31] Digital Music News, Universal Music Satisfies Regulators, Sheds Publishing Assets (25 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/022408universal> at 28 February 2008; Digital Music News, Post-Acquisition, Universal Easily Beats EMI Publishing Share (30 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/013008umg> at 4 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
