Google being pressured to increase role in fight against piracy

As detailed in this article, pressure is on Google to play an increased role in the fight against online piracy. In September, executives from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) asked Google whether it would be able to assist them in tracking down pirated material with greater efficiency. Currently, it is up to copyright owners to find links to pirated material and report them to Google so that they can be taken down. However, a senior manager at Google has replied by saying that his company is willing to assist in tracking down pirated material, but would charge a fee for doing so. A source from the music industry has estimated that charges for such services could add up to several million dollars per year. At present, Google does not charge copyright owners for removing links to pirated material that has been located by the owner.

Read the rest of this entry »

Irish High Court rules in illegal filesharing case

Ireland’s High Court ruled in favor of ISPs in an illegal filesharing case, stating that Irish laws do not support a rule which would force internet service providers to temporarily block illegal filesharers’ internet access. The record companies that brought the suit were hoping to make ISPs enforce a controversial “three strikes rule”, which several European countries have considered adopting. The court’s ruling thwarts the music and film industries’ attempts to protect copyrighted content. Notably, the ruling indicates that Ireland’s laws are not consistent with European copyright law.

Streaming music providers priced out of the market?

A recent piece in the Globe highlighted the challenges inherent in finding a sweet spot for allocating revenue. For streaming music providers like Pandora, it simply doesn’t make business sense to provide their services in Canada; in addition to the fees demanded by SOCAN for compensating songwriters and publishers, Re:Sound, which represents performers and recording companies, is also seeking a significant slice of the pie–45% of gross revenues or higher. Other streaming music providers are undeterred–though, rather than cutting into their margin, they acknowledge that the charges would simply be reflected in the pricing offered to consumers, fewer of whom would presumably sign up for a more expensive service.

Pink Floyd Wins Case And Prevents EMI From Selling Songs Individually

In a court battle with EMI, the progressive-rock band Pink Floyd fought to prevent the record company from selling single downloads on the Internet from the group’s concept albums. The court, this past Thursday, decided in favour of the British band.

At challenge was EMI’s decision to sell certain Pink Floyd songs as individual downloads, removing them from the context of their full-length albums. According to the band’s contract with EMI, the label can’t just sell any individual song it likes; Pink Floyd needs to give its permission before a track can be made available as a single. EMI claimed that this clause only referred to physical records, but the court ruled that the band’s wish to “preserve the artistic integrity of the albums” applies to digital formats as well.

The band, which sought clarification of their more than 10-year-old EMI recording contract, argued the agreement calls for albums to be sold as a whole with tracks in a specific order and not as digital singles, as they are on Apple Inc.’s online iTunes store.

“There is nothing in the terms ‘album’ or ‘record’ to suggest they apply to the physical product only,” Justice Andrew Morritt said in his judgment. The judge said the purpose of the clause in the contract, drawn up more than a decade ago, was to “preserve the artistic integrity of the albums.”

Pink Floyd alleged that EMI had allowed online downloads from the albums and parts of tracks to be used as ringtones for mobile phones. Consequently, the judge ordered EMI to pay Pink Floyd’s costs in the case, estimated at £40,000 ($61,800 Cdn), and refused the company permission to appeal.

The ruling may give the band more leverage in the future in negotiating royalties should it decide it later wants to sell its songs individually.

It should also be noted that the effect of the ruling on the level of royalties the band receives remained unclear, however, as that part of the judgment was held in secret. Lawyers said it was the first time a royalties dispute between artists and their record companies had been held in private, after EMI successfully applied for a news blackout for reasons of “commercial confidentiality.”

The decision might be considered as both a victory and a setback, depending on one’s views about creative autonomy and online content distribution.

The sale and downloading of music on a song-by-song basis might be seen as a threat to the artistic nature and quality of an album, in its entirety, as a creative form. Conversely, it can be argued that most artists do not release albums that are intended to be a start-to-finish experience of the ages. And restricting the purchase of songs to a full-album, selected-by-the-record-company single, or bust as a set of options is overly limiting in a time where the technology and delivery methods have changed significantly allowing a great degree of flexibility in distribution options to artists.

As a consumer, I must admit, it has been a long time since I have listened to an album where I liked every song. In this era of internet distribution, where artists are emerging in droves and becoming well known often before their music is picked up by a record company, music and computer savvy consumers are listening to a lot more music by a greater variety of artists, are more selective about what songs they keep in their music libraries, and are less tolerant of limitations of the ways in which they acquire songs.

The holding of this case may have interesting implications for the negotiation of contracts between artists and record labels in the future.

RealNetworks Raises White-Flag, Surrenders RealDVD Software.

In the fall of 2008, RealNetworks released software called RealDVD which allowed users to save a copy of a DVD movie they own. RealNetworks has faced lawsuits under claims that the software allowed anyone to save a movie they do not legally own.

RealNetworks has decided to resolve the legal challenges brought against it by Hollywood, discontinue the software, and, as part of the settlement, pay $4.5 million in legal fees to the parties that brought the lawsuit against the company including six Hollywood studios, Viacom and the DVD Copy control association. RealNetworks will also reimburse the 2700 customers who purchased the RealDVD software. The settlement ends a legal battle of a year and a half that started just one day after RealNetworks made RealDVD available for sale.

Interestingly, RealNetworks was relatively conscientious of copy protection and with their software preserved those protections when creating a back-up copy – locking them to the hard drive on which they were copied to, making it impossible to copy the movie further or to convert its file format. Software that circumvents all of these protections is readily available to any average computer user. Has Hollywood actually accomplished anything with this challenge? I think not.

Conan O’Brien Takes His Parting Shots, But Not His Comedy Bits

In the recent decision by Conan O’Brien to leave NBC, the network has claimed ownership of his comedy bits and characters over his 17 year career with them.

Conan and NBC have formed a $40 million deal for Conan to leave “The Tonight Show” so Jay Leno may return to it; Conan is not prepared to return back to his old late-night time slot.

Although NBC is claiming rights over Conan’s characters and comedy routines such as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, “The Year 3000″, and Conando, Conan and his writing staff seem unconcerned. However, NBC fears that Conan may take shots at Leno by appearing on other competing talk-shows as a guest.

Men at Work alleged to have plagiarized Girl Guide folk tune

Although it is a song that is guaranteed to get Australian-expats singing along in pubs across the world and has been for some time, Men at Work’s hit from the eighties has recently faced accusation that it might not be completely unique.

The Federal Court of Australia has just announced its ruling in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing v. EMI Songs Australia, holding that the band Men at Work, in their song Down Under, copied a substantial part of the children’s folk tune Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree. The flute riff from Down Under purportedly has similarities to Kookaburra, which was written in 1934 by school teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guide competition and to which Larrikin Music now owns the copyright. The court ruled that Larrikin was entitled to damages—which could total millions of dollars—from band members and their record company EMI.

Legal action was initiated by Larrikin’s managing director, Norman Lurie, in 2007 soon after a television music quiz-show publicly pointed to similarities between the two iconic tunes. After a hearing in the Federal Court last year, Justice Peter Jacobson ruled that Down Under bore an obvious resemblance to Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, a short folk song taught to Australian schoolchildren for more than 70 years.

In Jacobson’s judgement he said that “the 1979 recording and the 1981 recording of Down Under infringe Larrikin’s copyright in Kookaburra because both of those recordings reproduce a substantial part of Kookaburra.” Though it had a markedly different “feel” and musical context in Down Under, he said the riff was an iconic Australian melody and had been “substantially” reproduced by Men at Work. He added that it was a reasonable conclusion that Greg Ham had knowingly plagiarised the tune “for the purpose and with the intention of evoking an Australian flavour in the flute riff”.

Larrikin, Men at Work and EMI will meet on February 25th to discuss the findings and begin discussions about costs. Adam Simpson, Larrikin’s lawyer, said EMI and the band may be required to pay as much as 60 per cent of their earnings/royalties from the last six years, the time limit imposed by Australian law. Whereas John Anderson of EMI said the company would need time to consider what he termed a “complex judgment”, mentioning that significant damages would not necessarily follow the ruling. EMI is also considering appealing the ruling on the international hit record.

It should be noted that the estate of the late Marion Sinclair will get nothing from this court win for Larrikin. Australian music group Larrikin Publishing bought the copyright to the song in 1990 after Sinclair’s death in 1988.

Also, Men At Work’s Down Under was originally demoed in 1978 and registered in 1978 without the Ham flute riff. The hit recording with the flute addition took place in 1981. Ham’s flute riff was part of the arrangement and not part of the songwriting. He is not credited as a songwriter.

Who Dat Say Dey Own “Who Dat”

The cheer of this year’s Superbowl champions, the New Orleans Saints, is a phrase that has been chanted for some years – “Who Dat Say Dey Gonna Beat Dem Saints? Who Dat? Who Dat?”

It is only now the NFL has attempted to assert rights to the phrase through the Florida Department of State. It has issued cease-and-desist orders against New Orleans vendors who sell Saints memorabilia featuring the wording.

The NFL says the shirts infringe on a legal trademark it owns. Separately, two brothers and longtime Saints fans claim they own the phrase, which was around before the team’s inception in 1966.

Fans and merchants are outraged, the NFL’s timing coincides with the Saints first outstanding season in years.

Italy Planning to Apply Broadcasting Regulations to Online Video Sites

The Wall Street Journal reports that Italy is proposing to impose television-broadcasting regulations to websites which host videos, which would require sites to obtain broadcasting licenses and permission to host copyrighted videos. It also could render sites liable for libelous content posted by users.

If the rules are extended, Italy would set a precedent in holding sites like YouTube responsible for user-generated content and a new standard of government regulation of video sites in Europe. Google and Yahoo have both expressed doubts and objections to the draft decree, noting that these regulations could restrict development of technology. This could also promote content-sharing deals between video sites and TV broadcasters to ensure the latter could enforce its copyright more easily against other sites which post copyrighted material without permission.

Story of Big Screen Hit, Avatar, Likened to Soviet Sci-Fi Novels

James Cameron’s 3D blockbuster, Avatar, has been identified by many familiar with popular Soviet science-fiction and fantasy writers Arkady and Boris Strugatsky as being very similar to a series of their novels. A series of 10 best-selling science-fiction novels, The World of Noon (also known by Noon Universe), written by the Strugatsky brothers in the mid-1960′s have been pointed to as having major elements in common with the smash hit movie.

Both tales take place in the 22nd century on a foreign planet named Pandora, home to similarly named humanoids – Nave in the books, Na’vi in Avatar.

Cameron states he wrote an 80-page screenplay for Avatar back in 1994 and shrugs off allegations of plagiarism, which he has also faced before with the Terminator films and Titanic. Boris, who has not seen the movie yet, has not indicated whether he plans to pursue a suit – his brother Arkady passed in 1991.