Monopolies and Corporate Greed

[Blackmorec]

Dear Audiophiles, 

 

You need to read the following article and understand what this means for Internet Radio

 

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/tunein-starts-restricting-international-stations-in-the-uk-after-major-labels-legal-win/

 

I realise this is only the UK, but I can guarantee that the UK is a test case to see how this flies, and to establish a legal precedence.  Pretty soon this is going to happen in your country, and when it does its going to give anyone who listens to international radio a major pain in the arse. 

 

So what does this ruling mean? Essentially radio stations are only Licenced to transmit music in their own countries, so any transmission  outside of their own contry is a copy right infringement. Wow!  That is a big deal. it means that anyone listening to Internet radio transmitted from anywhere other than their country is breaking copyright laws!    That’s pretty serious! If you are listing to Internet radio coming from outside your country, you’re some sort of criminal who’s breaking the law. 

 

The court case was against internet aggregator Tunein. Essentially as I understand it, the ruling stated that its aggregation app is an infringement of copyright. But all they’re doing is providing URLs available in the public domain, so how that is copyright infringement beats me.  But what the app does do is to help users break copyright law. Hmmmm.  So the problem here isnt that Tunein needs a licence....a licence for what? To distribute consolidated public domain information. Not that I can see. No the problem is with the radio stations. They have a national licence but by virtue of being web-based, their transmissions are de-fact available World-wide, so this is a medium and web issue, not a TuneIn issue. By licensing Web-based radio stations, Sony Warner are in fact licencing Web Based transmission of their material and anything web-based goes worldwide. So where’s the problem? Its with Sony Warner and with Licencing.  Any web-based transmission has to be, by definition Worldwide.  If I pay UK road tax I’m not limited to driving only in the UK and its the same with web-based services. So what is Sony Warner’s response?  They’d like to change the way the web operates but in view of that not being possible, bully the companies who are making URLs for these stations freely available.

 

In ANY successful business their are 2 main components:   Demand and Monetization.....first you I need someone to consume your product, then you need to figure how to make money out of that consumption. In Sony Warner’s case, they’ve figured out step one, but can’t get a handle on step 2....how to make it profitable. So their response? Instead of sitting down and figuring out a financial model that stations, music companies, licensing authorities can live with, they simply taken the blunt instrument approach and are tying very hard to stifle demand. This is a perfect example of corporate greed, the dangers of monopolies but most of all, the UTTER ineptitude of Sony Warner to build a business model that fits current media distribution.  

 

I find it boggling that the UK courts wouldn’t just thrown this out, but that was clearly what Sony Warner were gambling on and won.  With the first notch in their belt, there’s no doubt Sony Warner are going to continue.  I guess their hope is that by shutting down international radio they’ll sell more product.  That’s the only way an expensive court case can be expected to pay off.  Sony Warner own a great deal of the World’s music and now they’ve decided to make it pay. But instead of embracing the web and the richness of international radio with a marketing model for the 21st century, their imagination doesn’t stretch beyond coercion of users by limiting access to some existing 20th century channels. 

 

As much as anything else, this court case is an admission by Sony Warner that they are utterly sh1t at marketing and have little or no imagination of how things could be done in this exciting new century. Shame on them!

 

 

[Dan Gravell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads to me like the UK/International licencing divide is really something that TuneIn has conceded and fallen back to, to avoid having to provide separate music licences.

 

There are ramifications I think, but enforcing these rules is obviously easier with a black-box service like TuneIn. At the end of the day, all of the radio stations can be accessed with a URL, so barring enforcement at the HTTP, or lower, level this would be another case of the UK's infamous Mumsnet-inspired porn blocker - i.e. unenforceable. It should just be a case of developing a desirable user experience.

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

So what does this ruling mean? Essentially radio stations are only Licenced to transmit music in their own countries, so any transmission  outside of their own contry is a copy right infringement. Wow!  That is a big deal. it means that anyone listening to Internet radio transmitted from anywhere other than their country is breaking copyright laws!    That’s pretty serious! If you are listing to Internet radio coming from outside your country, you’re some sort of criminal who’s breaking the law.

 

https://lifehacker.com/why-do-media-companies-block-movies-music-and-tv-base-1509912540

[Blackmorec]

5 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

https://lifehacker.com/why-do-media-companies-block-movies-music-and-tv-base-1509912540

Thanks for that. As I was saying......Worldwide media comms has got ahead of Sony Warner’s licensing model And they’re not coming up with a solution. 

Essentially what they’re saying is; you’re consuming from free and we don’t want that. Fair enough. Its when they go on to say,”so we’re going to try and stop you consuming” that I get annoyed. Half of business is about generating demand and these guys have it.....good for them! So on the back of this demand, figure out how to make money from it and this is where it all falls apart. These few companies between them, own most of the World’s recorded music. They have a DUTY to make sure it remains freely available....that doesn’t mean available for free, just easily available.  Right now they're headed in entirely the opposite direction 

[NOMBEDES]

Jacko and M. Carey had it right. Sony is Satan's Representative on Earth (SROE) it is a well know fact.

The internet has PROOF, PROOF, I say about Jacko's murder.   Get thyownself informed.

 

 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

The internet has PROOF, PROOF, I say about Jacko's murder.   Get thyownself informed.

WTF?

[NOMBEDES]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

WTF?

Yes, exactly.

[kumakuma]

https://thelifehacker.org/2019/04/14/woman-dead-for-23-hours-in-hell-reports-seeing-michael-jackson-pope-john-paul-ii-and-many-other-celebrities/

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Essentially radio stations are only Licenced to transmit music in their own countries, so any transmission  outside of their own country is a copy right infringement.

 So, what's new about that ? FM Radio stations especially , and A.M. radio stations , as well as TV transmitters have their antennas radiation pattern carefully shaped and located so as to not normally interfere with stations outside of their nominated service area , and that is in their own country. You only need to look at YouTube to find many Videos that are blocked from viewing in countries other than where the copyright applied.

Some people are able to   get around that legal requirement though, by pretending to be in their country.

Years ago in Australia, they even raided HiFi stores who sold  Laser Discs not legally meant for sale here, with a few stores having them locked away in a back room , and not on display .

 

[Blackmorec]

You’re right! We’ve had similar problems in the past...then the solution was emission shaping antennae. Today its tweaking the legal system.  Doesn’t everyone think that by 2020 the music industry should have developed a licensing solution that takes care of these border issues and comes up with a sustainable solution for the artists, the music industry, the Radio Stations and last but not least, for consumers of their products? 

You can only deny the future for so long before you become an out of date failure and based on this ruling, that appears to be the direction in which the industry is travelling. . 

 

 

[GregWormald]

It almost sounds to me that this is a 'back-handed' support for piracy and VPNs. 

 

It at least proves that Sony (and probably others) have no idea how the internet works and how to take advantage of it rather than try to restrict it.

[Blackmorec]

On 10/15/2020 at 2:18 AM, GregWormald said:

It almost sounds to me that this is a 'back-handed' support for piracy and VPNs. 

 

It at least proves that Sony (and probably others) have no idea how the internet works and how to take advantage of it rather than try to restrict it.

Hi GW, 

Stop and think about this for a second or two. After this court ruling, the only way you can obtain these radio stations, the ONLY WAY WE CAN OBTAIN THESE STATIONS involves copyright infringement. What I’m saying is, its HIGH TIME for the licensors of the World’s Music to get their act together and introduce licences that recognise the abilities of the WW Web instead of trying to hobble them via these sneaky, underhand legal maneuverers.  They’ve had years and years to come up with something, yet their strategy for making money is still; capture all the World’s music then hold it to ransom by severely limiting its availability to historically ancient channels where they can derive an income.  Me playing Sony’s music on Swiss Radio costs Sony nothing, but by the same token, they’re making nothing for me using their product.  But banning me from using the product is ridiculous. Why do that, when the only reason the product exists is to use it? What they need to do is to find an equitable way to derive an income from making their product available Worldwide. Anything they make is PURE Profit, so they’re not trying to figure out ways to eke out a margin.  All it takes is to look at the various revenue streams within the entire music industry, figure out how internet radio fits in, then devise a method for the music producers to participate in that WW cash flow. Not rocket science, just good marketing and product definition. These companies own practically all of mankind’s musical output for the past several centuries. THEY HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE.

The problem is; technology is moving on a pace, and the music owners and licensors are simply not getting their arms around the new capabilities. 

 

The capitals aren’t shouting, they are there to indicate significance (IMO). I feel quite strongly about this, in case you hadn’t noticed 😄. In my opinion, its showing up Sony and Warner in a technologically very poor light.... Instead of leading the way, they’re suing people for using all the latest developments in WW communications to distribute music. Message to Sony Warner, wake up, smell the coffee, get up and DO SOMETHING THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM, instead of just trying to tangle it up in legal BS

 

Cheers!

[Blackmorec]

Deleted duplicate 

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

THEY HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE.

Bonjour @Blackmorec,
 

could you show some positive examples of content right holding corporates who are still follwing their moral duty you have attached to them ?

If I look at sports right, books, television, performance art, cinema or music, the rights business continue their historical path of selling tranches per country/language and it looks like the internet/www regulation will follow the path of the money and not the will of the people/user/consumer.

For the last 30 years grey areas in the www did allow many consumers to participate "unpunished" on the content feast freely (I appreciate that part of the history) and the content owner were running behind to close down these "leaks" after they started to understand them. They did not reflect on their established business model. But they defeated to Apple and the low consumer interest in physical media. This was not to the advantage for the majority of artists.
I remember with a wry smile these slogans (starting in the early 80s) I found on some of my records like "Homef***in' is killing prostitution" as an answer on the copyright infringment assault on my tape recorder. However there were alternatives like the German inspired "Homedrinking Is Killing Gastwirt" . North Britain held a stake (sticker) on Billy Bragg's "Workers's Playtime" record saying "Capitalism is killing music – pay no more than £4.99 for this record", afair.
In the meantime right holders have managed to lobby into the European and American jurisdiction to get their objectives manifested in court rulings and the wording of the law. This is corparate law sports in the 21st century. Create, reconquer and sustain your market opportunities.

As much as I sympathize with your high moral grounds, the corporate business world use these standards just for public marketing campaigns and fade them out for business decisions. That may be the underlying truth why we havent seen "sustainable model for creativity in the digital age"

On the other hand, if you're looking for a return on your Sony shares, you might not mind the ones whose interest on culture and creativity are neglected by their business strategies.

Disenchanted, Tom

[Blackmorec]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your thoughtful and nicely written reply. Appreciated.

 

For some human beings, music is lower down but on the same scale as safe food, clean water and energy. It is one of the fundamentals that contributes to a happy life. And like food, water and energy it needs to be paid for, as producing it has a cost that needs covering.

Lets say you owned a reservoir and all the water in it and you found people downstream drinking without paying. You also found that these people had no other source of water. Would you simply cut them off, or would you find a way to let them have the water they need in a sustainable manner good for both you, the water owner and the villagers, who would die of thirst without it? 

Sony Warner own a large portion of the World’s music, so its their prerogative to dictate how its supplied and levied.  That’s basic capitalism. All I’m complaining about is their reluctance and inability to develop distribution models that are in any way lined up with our recently developed ability to communicate Worldwide.  They are going entirely in the opposite direction, forcing the World back into little pockets of National distribution. 

A World resource like music needs Worldwide availability and Sony Warner are doing their best, through their national-only product structures to take us back to the 70s and 80s. I’m in no way suggesting ‘Music for free’. That’s not fair on the artists or producers and is in no way sustainable. What I am suggesting is they wake up and develop organisations and systems that allow WW distribution of their product. They’re supposed to be Multi-national companies, but in reality they’re just Multi-locals....with the same old National programs rolled out in a lot of countries. 

[DuckToller]

44 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your thoughtful and nicely written reply. Appreciated.

 

For some human beings, music is lower down but on the same scale as safe food, clean water and energy. It is one of the fundamentals that contributes to a happy life. And like food, water and energy it needs to be paid for, as producing it has a cost that needs covering.

Lets say you owned a reservoir and all the water in it and you found people downstream drinking without paying. You also found that these people had no other source of water. Would you simply cut them off, or would you find a way to let them have the water they need in a sustainable manner good for both you, the water owner and the villagers, who would die of thirst without it? 

Sony Warner own a large portion of the World’s music, so its their prerogative to dictate how its supplied and levied.  That’s basic capitalism. All I’m complaining about is their reluctance and inability to develop distribution models that are in any way lined up with our recently developed ability to communicate Worldwide.  They are going entirely in the opposite direction, forcing the World back into little pockets of National distribution. 

A World resource like music needs Worldwide availability and Sony Warner are doing their best, through their national-only product structures to take us back to the 70s and 80s. I’m in no way suggesting ‘Music for free’. That’s not fair on the artists or producers and is in no way sustainable. What I am suggesting is they wake up and develop organisations and systems that allow WW distribution of their product. They’re supposed to be Multi-national companies, but in reality they’re just Multi-locals....with the same old National programs rolled out in a lot of countries. 

Thanks for the flowers ;-)
 

I agree, and especially for the artists I am very much interested in having a paid content delivery.
That is why I often chose bandcamp as the first choice, even there is not much hires content.

IMHO, the "free" aspect of content is a consequence of not establishing business models that have fit with the majority of consumers. "People" wouldn't care to download a video or an album, if it would be available for acceptable payments in acceptable quality. The price would surely differ from country to country.

I met once a Rastaman at the Seychelles, who received copies of ripped MP3 music to his mail account (around 2008) from the friends he made comfortable with tea and cookies (to be paid for) at the beach. He would never have achieved his musical horizont if he would have waited for the rights holder to publish these tracks for an acceptable price in his country. Indeed, he was a happy man and he knew a lot about reggae tunes ...

If I look at the corporate rights holder business model I can't see a change coming. It is flawed from the principle, and this asymmetric distribution of financial gain will not support your preferred solution.

Are you in the English lockdown zone ?
Stay safe and sound & have a nice weekend.
Have to check out the Merseyside derby right now ....
Best, Tom

 

[GregWormald]

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

<huge snip>

Cheers!

I can't honestly be bothered to do a lot of thinking about music distribution; if the labels want to make money that's their job, and they, unfortunately, have proven that they obviously aren't capable.

 

A few years ago a couple of albums 'owned' by Warner came to my attention. They were not available in Australia so I decided to download or order physical media. I preferred download because the physical media charges (manufacture, packaging, storage, shipping) are high and the whole process is far from being ecological.

 

The albums could not even be found on the Warner site, anywhere. I did title, artist, genre, etc. searches extensively.

 

I emailed the artists directly. One replied that the only sales were through WB. So I found a (probably illegal) copy and downloaded that. The other artist had been so disgusted with WB that they had maintained the rights to the music in their own country, and pointed me to their website where I was able to pay a small fee and download it directly.

 

I haven't been back to Warner since. This loses them money and keeps my costs down.