Sony Music Does Deal With Amie Street... But Using iTunes Pricing?

from the how-does-that-make-sense? dept

Well, this is odd. Amie Street is the well known indie music site that lets people purchase music with a dynamic pricing system -- the music is cheap at first, but as more people buy, the price goes up. It has some neat features to it. So it seemed like a big deal to hear that Sony Music had done a deal with the company to offer its music on the site... except that it's not using the dynamic pricing. Instead, it's pricing the music at $0.69, $0.99 or $1.29, based on popularity. In other words: the exact same pricing as iTunes. So what, exactly, is the benefit of offering the exact same pricing on Amie Street? About the only good thing you can say for this deal is at least it didn't muck up the pricing of everything else, like what happened when Sony Music did its deal with eMusic. Though... it is worth noting that Amie Street did recently put some additional restrictions on redownloading songs. Perhaps the company tried to separate out the announcements so that no one connected the two things...? If that's the case, why bother signing with Sony Music in the first place. Amie Street offers no benefit to people who want Sony Music. All it seems to do is go against the very point of Amie Street.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Singer Claims Sony Music 'Pirated' His Songs; Has Police Raid Their Offices

from the all-for-the-artists... dept

One thing that's consistent throughout all of the stories we see concerning the recording industry trying to support its position in lawsuits, and in front of politicians, the press and the public, is that it's doing all of this to help the "artists" it represents. Of course, that's laughable, given just how many stories we've seen of artists screwed over by the major labels. The record labels have never represented the artists' best interests. For yet another example, we head south of the border, where Alejandro Fernandez is claiming that Sony Music "pirated" his music. He used to have a contract with Sony, but when he completed that contract, he moved over to Universal Music. Yet, Sony still prepared to put out a CD of "unreleased material" by Fernandez. Fernandez claims that the works are unauthorized, and even had the police in Mexico raid Sony Music's offices and confiscate the CDs.

All in all, this comes down to a basic contract dispute. Sony Music claims that it has the right to do whatever it wants with any music recorded under the contract. Fernandez claims the rights were limited to seven albums -- which were all done -- and do not extend to material that went unreleased. This sounds similar to the dispute last month, where Morrissey told fans not to buy a new box set that EMI was putting out. Either way, it's yet another example that labels' interests and artists' interests are not aligned.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should Wedding Party In Viral YouTube Video Get A Cut Of Music Sale Profits?

from the questions,-questions... dept

Yesterday, we had the story of the incredibly popular viral wedding video, talking about how the music in that video, despite being over a year old and being sung by someone with massive reputation problems (Chris Brown, who assaulted his then girlfriend), was suddenly back in both the iTunes and Amazon top 5 downloads, almost entirely because of the video. Soon after the post went up, we saw that Google had just put up its own post highlighting it as a case study of a copyright holder monetizing an opportunity. Basically, Google allowed Sony Music to:

claim and monetize the song, as well as to start running Click-to-Buy links over the video, giving viewers the opportunity to purchase the music track on Amazon and iTunes. As a result, the rights holders were able to capitalize on the massive wave of popularity generated by "JK Wedding Entrance Dance" -- in the last week, searches for "Chris Brown Forever" on YouTube have skyrocketed, making it one of the most popular queries on the site.

But... as some in our comments began to wonder, shouldn't the folks in the video (or, perhaps the person who shot it) get some of that monetizing as well? After all, if we base our thinking on traditional RIAA-style thinking, the whole reason why there are suddenly so many new sales and renewed interest in Brown and this song is entirely due to this wedding party and whoever shot the video. Now, they might not want or care about the money, but just the fact that Google is hyping up the monetizing of the video... doesn't something seem wrong that the actual copyright holder of the video in question isn't getting any of that money? At the very least, shouldn't there be some sort of "referral bonus" or some such?

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Oh Look, Viral Video On YouTube Boosting Sales... And Reputation For Chris Brown

from the take-it-down! dept

By now, you've probably seen the video of the wedding party entrance for the wedding of Jill Peterson and Kevin Heinz (if not, go check it out). It's been seen by many millions of people, and the number just keeps on growing. The wedding party entrance is choreographed as the entire wedding party dances enthusiastically to Chris Brown's song Forever. The video, of course is almost certainly copyright infringement. Even if we assume that the church in St. Paul where this took place paid its public performance license, that would only cover the venue, not the eventual rebroadcast on YouTube. Now there are some who will insist that every streamed version of this song should require that a fee be paid. But, of course, if that were the case, this video almost certainly would not have been put on YouTube and would not have been seen by so many millions of people.

And what would have happened then?

Well, JohnForDummies notes that the success of this video is having a major impact for Chris Brown (who's reputation is, reasonably, in tatters for assaulting his then girlfriend, the singer Rihanna). Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend, but the video is having an impact. The song Forever has jumped into the iTunes top 10, despite having been released over a year ago. Also, the video itself has greatly outpaced an attempt by Brown to create a viral video "apologizing" for his actions.

It's not clear how the record label (in this case, a subsidiary of Sony Music) feels about this (see update below) -- though, I will note that embedding has been disabled on the video (Update: Embedding enabled again, so I'm adding the video below) and there is a link to buy the song on the YouTube page. At the very least, this suggests that Sony (which has a good relationship with YouTube, unlike some others...) worked out a deal to take advantage of the publicity around the video. Though, the disabling of embedding seems rather pointless. Embedding the video would likely guarantee far more views, and with it, more purchases.

Update: Thanks to a bunch of folks sending in the news that Google is now promoting this as a case study of a rights holder taking control over content.

Update: Embedding has been re-enabled, so here you go:

Also... there's already been an amazing spoof video of the couple's "divorce" proceedings: I don't think Sony's "taken control" of this one yet...

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal, YouTube Collaboration All Depends On Execution... And Community

from the give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

A bunch of different sources are reporting on a "near deal" between Universal Music and YouTube to create a special stand-alone music video site, sort of like a "Hulu for music." As has been widely reported, all of the major record labels have been in talks to try to come up with new deals with YouTube -- with most of the earlier focus concerning how to deal with user-uploaded clips that contained music. Famously, Warner Music pulled out of discussions, when it was angry about the terms of the deal. Sony Music, however, recently renewed their deal. The Universal Music deal would be something much larger -- focusing more on content put on an entirely new site by the label itself. The other major labels have been offered the option of joining in as well.

Of course, no deal is definite, and with all of these things, the devil is in the details. The News.com report notes that the "benefits" that each party brings to the table is that Universal would bring the music, while YouTube/Google would bring the technology. If that's really all there is to it, then it's missing the point of YouTube. The value has never been in the technology itself -- which isn't even as good as some others', and not all that hard to replicate. The value in YouTube has always been the community. Many people now go to YouTube first to find any kind of video they're looking for -- and there's a large and growing community of folks who use YouTube to communicate with others. Creating an entire site to get rid of the riffraff just for the sake of selling higher CPM ads may sound good at first, but if it does so in a way that diminishes the value of the community, it may limit the usefulness or success of the site. In fact, at just about the same time that news of this possible deal was leaking, news was breaking that PluggedIn, a site that tried to be a "Hulu for music" and apparently had wonderful technology, was shutting down.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Record Labels Kill Off 'Legal P2P' Before It Even Gets A Chance

from the another-shot-in-the-foot dept

One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.

That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..