It appears Disney and Hulu are inching ever closer to inking a deal that would allow a lot of Disney-affiliated content (my impression is that most of it would be ABC content) to make its debut on the on streaming network. This article gives not only a nice little break down of what the deal might look like, but also a little insight on how Hulu functions (for those of you that are still unfamiliar with it).
While it would certainly be cool to start watching complicated series shows (like "Lost") for free, it seems you may still have to be really diligent in order to catch the content. This makes free streaming a content a bit moot because, if I was diligent about catching shows, I would watch them on TV (or at least DVR them so I could fast forward through the commercials). However, this brooches a much larger debate about the benefits of Hulu v. cable. I have friends that swear by Hulu because it saves them $100 a month in cable expenses. However, I'm very attached to my DVR and I have advertising... so there you go.
Additionally, it doesn't sound like the Disney/Hulu deal would include "Disney" content; at least, not initially. It woul be nice to see Disney release some of the content that they really only show on the Disney channel, including some of the family-friendly series and their animated movies. However, as the article I referenced above makes note of, Disney has content on its own pages (www.disneychannel.com) that requires its own substantive traffic to stay afloat. Hulu does do some movies, but it's not really their bread and butter. Bringing some older Disney films in would certainly help drive traffic, but, given Disney's tight grip on its movies (The Disney Vault is the one of the most clever marketing tools I've ever seen, and, as a Disney fan myself, is the bane of my existence), the part of a deal seems unlikely.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Future of Music.... is Free.
@victorgodot posted a great article on his site giving a short chronicle of an experiment done by guitarist Cory Smith. Apparently when Smith removed his free music from his own site, his iTunes downloads drop; when he put the music back up, the paid downloads went back up. Whaaaaa??
Although a simple experiment that could be a coincidence, advocates of the "music as a promotional tool" movement (which includes Smith) conclude that this demonstrates the fact that people ARE still willing to pay not only for the music itself but also for ancillary products that can't be pirated. In many different ways, this experiment has already been proven time and time again over the last few years - while recording industry execs have been crying over "lost sales," touring musicians are singing all the way to the bank. Music fans today will still pay for certain aspects of the music industry, including recorded music. Many people don't want to deal with the uncertainty of torrent networks, including the older demographic, and other music fans (that understand how the cash flow works in the industry) will still pay for music based on principle. Is this enough to account for the financial loss the recording industry has sustained over the last 10 years or so? Probably not. However, I think Smith is right in saying that folks in the industry simply have to accept that they're going to make less money than they used to. They're fighting a losing fight and only alienating their consumers in the process.
Even if recorded music is treated a promotional tool in the future, it hardly spells the demise of the overall industry. Concert ticket sales are doing wonderfully (not that Ticketmaster is helping that, but that's another story), and artists are becoming innovative with regard to how they're making money, including well-placed sponsorships, endorsements, etc. In the long run, I think this age will be viewed as a health"cleansing" of the industry; filtering out the folks that have lost sight as to why we do this thing - it's about the music before all else. We don't have to live in cardboard boxes to pursue that dream, but we may not do it in McMansions, either.
Although a simple experiment that could be a coincidence, advocates of the "music as a promotional tool" movement (which includes Smith) conclude that this demonstrates the fact that people ARE still willing to pay not only for the music itself but also for ancillary products that can't be pirated. In many different ways, this experiment has already been proven time and time again over the last few years - while recording industry execs have been crying over "lost sales," touring musicians are singing all the way to the bank. Music fans today will still pay for certain aspects of the music industry, including recorded music. Many people don't want to deal with the uncertainty of torrent networks, including the older demographic, and other music fans (that understand how the cash flow works in the industry) will still pay for music based on principle. Is this enough to account for the financial loss the recording industry has sustained over the last 10 years or so? Probably not. However, I think Smith is right in saying that folks in the industry simply have to accept that they're going to make less money than they used to. They're fighting a losing fight and only alienating their consumers in the process.
Even if recorded music is treated a promotional tool in the future, it hardly spells the demise of the overall industry. Concert ticket sales are doing wonderfully (not that Ticketmaster is helping that, but that's another story), and artists are becoming innovative with regard to how they're making money, including well-placed sponsorships, endorsements, etc. In the long run, I think this age will be viewed as a health"cleansing" of the industry; filtering out the folks that have lost sight as to why we do this thing - it's about the music before all else. We don't have to live in cardboard boxes to pursue that dream, but we may not do it in McMansions, either.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Music Licensing and TV-DVD Releases
Ah, yes - I love the Twitter (as the kids call it). It moves with such incredible speed that it's impossible not to get an interesting tid bit every hour or so. Today's interesting bit of info comes courtesy of @erikjheels, a fellow entertainment attorney in the Boston area, who posted a link to this posting on Rick Klau's weblog. As DVDs of television shows become more and more popular, studios are scrabbling to issue every show they've ever aired in an attempt to cash in on this bottomless pit of entertainment income. MTV is no exception, and, as the blog indicates, they are currently trying to release DVD versions of Beavis and Butthead (which I've never understood...) and The State (which I loved as a wee lass).
In what is possibly the biggest irony of all ironies, MTV is being held up and has been forced to edit these programs due to a lack of music licensing rights to distribute the songs in DVD format. Seriously?? MTV?? You are (or were) "music television," were you not? Where were your lawyers when these licenses are were written and why didn't they cover uses "now known or later developed"? I've actually gotten my hands on a synchronization license for MTV's "The Real World," which basically signed over every single right to the song short of an actual assignment, for the duration of the copyright. Why, oh WHY weren't DVD releases included in these licenses? Alright, I gotta reign it in - the fact of the matter is that they weren't, and now MTV is faced with a delimma.
So how to get around this? Well, the logical solution would be to come back to the table and renegotiate these licenses, or, at least, some of the most important ones such as Marvin Gaye's music which was used in some of the most famous sketches on The State. Information on the situation is scant, and it's difficult to discern whether Gaye's estate is holding out (i.e. financially, morally or otherwise) or whether MTV is being too cheap or onerous. Therefore, I don't think that anyone is really at liberty to BLAME the copyright holder. Whatever the situation, I can't imagine why in the WORLD MTV would think it would be a good idea to take the music out of the skits. Just get rid of the skits altogether or work out the license - it's just going to piss consumers off when they by a DVD with useless and/or unfinished content on it. I mean, it's MTV we're taking about here - not some 2-bit TV station. This is going to translate to lost sales that, I would argue, may exceed the cost of the license.
It's unfortunate that licensing issues are holding up the release of some of these shows, but I do wish the public would be a little bit more understanding with regard to copyright. These owners have a right to reap the benefits of their creative endeavors; and sometimes the amount of money that entails differs between the parties, and these things take time to work out. It doesn't make either party the "bad guy" - it's simply the way things are. If anything, this is a good lesson to lawyers, showing that we need to be more anticipatory with regard to the use of content in new formats.
By the way, my twitter tag is @sjamieson. Please feel free to follow! I try to focus on a mix of entertainment and legal issues, and a few tweets here and there about my personal interests (i.e. @zombietweets).
In what is possibly the biggest irony of all ironies, MTV is being held up and has been forced to edit these programs due to a lack of music licensing rights to distribute the songs in DVD format. Seriously?? MTV?? You are (or were) "music television," were you not? Where were your lawyers when these licenses are were written and why didn't they cover uses "now known or later developed"? I've actually gotten my hands on a synchronization license for MTV's "The Real World," which basically signed over every single right to the song short of an actual assignment, for the duration of the copyright. Why, oh WHY weren't DVD releases included in these licenses? Alright, I gotta reign it in - the fact of the matter is that they weren't, and now MTV is faced with a delimma.
So how to get around this? Well, the logical solution would be to come back to the table and renegotiate these licenses, or, at least, some of the most important ones such as Marvin Gaye's music which was used in some of the most famous sketches on The State. Information on the situation is scant, and it's difficult to discern whether Gaye's estate is holding out (i.e. financially, morally or otherwise) or whether MTV is being too cheap or onerous. Therefore, I don't think that anyone is really at liberty to BLAME the copyright holder. Whatever the situation, I can't imagine why in the WORLD MTV would think it would be a good idea to take the music out of the skits. Just get rid of the skits altogether or work out the license - it's just going to piss consumers off when they by a DVD with useless and/or unfinished content on it. I mean, it's MTV we're taking about here - not some 2-bit TV station. This is going to translate to lost sales that, I would argue, may exceed the cost of the license.
It's unfortunate that licensing issues are holding up the release of some of these shows, but I do wish the public would be a little bit more understanding with regard to copyright. These owners have a right to reap the benefits of their creative endeavors; and sometimes the amount of money that entails differs between the parties, and these things take time to work out. It doesn't make either party the "bad guy" - it's simply the way things are. If anything, this is a good lesson to lawyers, showing that we need to be more anticipatory with regard to the use of content in new formats.
By the way, my twitter tag is @sjamieson. Please feel free to follow! I try to focus on a mix of entertainment and legal issues, and a few tweets here and there about my personal interests (i.e. @zombietweets).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The REAL Issue With Music & Political Campaigns
Is it just me, or is the issue of music and political campaigns getting a tiny bit out of hand? Continuing the recent trend, Don Henley (The Eagles) has sued Charles Devore for use of The Eagles' "The Boys of Summer" as part of Devore's campaign on youtube.com The complaint alleges that Devore is using the song without permission, to which Devore has countered with his free speech rights. My personal take on the issue is that if Devore is using the song without a proper license, then yes, he should get one. We would all love to claim that our use of somone else's copyrighted work is our right as Americans - we should be entitled to express ourselves as we see fit. However, copyright law gives certain rights to copyright owners, including the use of their works when synched to audio visual content. Yes, there are certain exceptions to this right, but overall I can't see free speech being the vehicle that so broadly trumps this right - the concept of free speech is simply too amorphous.
That being said, Don Henley technically has the right to keep Devore from using the song, because sychronization rights must be negotiated straight with the copyright owner (I'm operating under the assumption Don Henley actually holds the copyright and hasn't sold it to his publishers). But really, gentlemen, aren't we skirting the real issue here? This isn't about licensing rights - it's about musicians not wanting to be associated with certain persons (be they political candidates or otherwise) that don't hold the same values and views as those musicians. We saw the same thing during the McCain campaign; artists alleging missuse of their copyrighted songs (through lack of licensing). The balance between artist's rights and the right of the public to exploit copyrighted works has always been delicate - that is why certain rights are statutory (meaning the artists has no say in the matter) and others must be sought by artist permission only. (There is also a tangle of contracts involved here with different companies that own a piece of the work, but I'm going to forego those issues for now... another blog, another time..) Should artists have the right to keep certain persons, here, politicians, from using music that have otherwise offered up to the public? They do currently posses this right - but where do we draw the line? Where does the burden become so onerous on the public and their rights that copyright should take a back seat to other forms of expression?
I certainly don't have the answer to these questions, but I find it to be an issue that has far-reaching consequences - how do we adequately balance private and public rights?
That being said, Don Henley technically has the right to keep Devore from using the song, because sychronization rights must be negotiated straight with the copyright owner (I'm operating under the assumption Don Henley actually holds the copyright and hasn't sold it to his publishers). But really, gentlemen, aren't we skirting the real issue here? This isn't about licensing rights - it's about musicians not wanting to be associated with certain persons (be they political candidates or otherwise) that don't hold the same values and views as those musicians. We saw the same thing during the McCain campaign; artists alleging missuse of their copyrighted songs (through lack of licensing). The balance between artist's rights and the right of the public to exploit copyrighted works has always been delicate - that is why certain rights are statutory (meaning the artists has no say in the matter) and others must be sought by artist permission only. (There is also a tangle of contracts involved here with different companies that own a piece of the work, but I'm going to forego those issues for now... another blog, another time..) Should artists have the right to keep certain persons, here, politicians, from using music that have otherwise offered up to the public? They do currently posses this right - but where do we draw the line? Where does the burden become so onerous on the public and their rights that copyright should take a back seat to other forms of expression?
I certainly don't have the answer to these questions, but I find it to be an issue that has far-reaching consequences - how do we adequately balance private and public rights?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Legal Downloading Up 100% in Sweden - IPRED to thank?
According to The Local, an online news site in Sweden, legal downloading in Sweden is up 100% this week within the country. Is IPRED to blame (or thank)? It appears that way now, but my hunch is that the cause is simply because Swedes haven't yet found a loophole which enables them to sidestep the law and get access to decent P2P networks. Either that or consumers suddenly had a moral epiphany and decided to start paying for music (and which seems more likely to you...?).
As a legal professional and someone that specializes in helping artists protect their creative investments, I have mixed feelings about "illegal" downloading (in quotes because I firmly believe it won't be illegal for much longer...). On one hand, the bottom line is that it is illegal and I certainly can't condone it while it is. On the other hand, many times the vehicle for legal chance is a rebellion, and I believe most musicians and music consumers alike are screaming that the method of charging for recorded music is flawed in this new digital realm. Is the answer that consumers will completely stop paying for recorded music? Maybe not. But at the same time, the desire to consume entertainment has never been higher, and executives in the biz should be exploring alternative streams of revenue that people are still willing to pay for, instead of fighting the losing battle against one source.
Thoughts? Is the recording industry doomed to become a promotional tool for other sources of revenue? And with the consumer's desire to continue to USE recorded music, how will the recording industry get paid in order to meet that demand?
As a legal professional and someone that specializes in helping artists protect their creative investments, I have mixed feelings about "illegal" downloading (in quotes because I firmly believe it won't be illegal for much longer...). On one hand, the bottom line is that it is illegal and I certainly can't condone it while it is. On the other hand, many times the vehicle for legal chance is a rebellion, and I believe most musicians and music consumers alike are screaming that the method of charging for recorded music is flawed in this new digital realm. Is the answer that consumers will completely stop paying for recorded music? Maybe not. But at the same time, the desire to consume entertainment has never been higher, and executives in the biz should be exploring alternative streams of revenue that people are still willing to pay for, instead of fighting the losing battle against one source.
Thoughts? Is the recording industry doomed to become a promotional tool for other sources of revenue? And with the consumer's desire to continue to USE recorded music, how will the recording industry get paid in order to meet that demand?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sports, Twitter, and the 1st Amendment
I feel across a cool article on Richard Symmes entertainment blog about the friction between private sports organizations (cough - NBA - cough) and the rights of their players. The NCAA does regulate what its players can do, even in their private lives (to an extend)... is this simply the internet equivalent of this? Or is the NCAA overstepping their boundaries by becoming entangled in social media? (The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss).
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Internet Traffic Down in Sweden; Piracy Law to Blame?
I'm not sure if I shared this information, but I am currently teaching a music business course at Tufts University. It's been challenging to balance it with my full-time "lawyer" job, but my students make it completely worth it. They're insightful and innovative, and many of them go above and beyond the call of duty. For example, one of my best students just sent me this article, citing that internet traffic is down an amazing 33% since the passage Sweden's IPRED law, which permits copyright holders to force ISPs into giving them lists of computers that have shared their material (illegally) online. I found it especially interesting that the comments in the article suggest that the drop in traffic is temporary while people figure how to get around it. Doesn't that just prove that suing users is a lost cause? Or is this an effective way of stopping piracy? (I personally think the former, but I welcome a debate!)
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Alice in Wonderland Gets 3-D IMAX Release
I'm obsessed with Alice in Wonderland, so this is possibly the most exciting bit of entertainment news I've gotten all year. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" will be released simultaneously on both regular and IMAX 3-D screens on March 5, 2010. There's a great article with additional links to more information about the film here. I personally don't think any film lends itself better to 3-D than Alice's whacked-out story!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
