Shelly Palmer: ‘Suing YouTube is Not the Answer’
Interesting article by Shelly Palmer, President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, and publisher of Media 3.0, gives you a great primer on the complex world of music rights, and perhaps an insight into why ‘big music’ is being left in the dust:
Lawsuit: Music Publishers v. YouTube Doesn`t Solve the Problem
By Shelly Palmer | August 11, 2007
The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) has joined an existing lawsuit accusing YouTube of copyright infringement. Since their purchase of YouTube, it has been open season on Google. Rights-holders know that Google is truly made-of-money and aggrieved content owners now have a target with very deep pockets to sue.
Lawsuits will not solve the problem, which is: there is no easy way to identify who owns which rights in and to most pieces of music and there is no easy way to get a quote and pay them.
If you don`t believe me, pick up the phone and call a recorded music company, publisher, performing rights society or someone else you think might administrate the rights you seek and tell the person who answers the phone you want to purchase public performance rights for a particular song. Good luck. Maybe, if you retain a special music clearance firm or seasoned entertainment attorney, you can complete the process of obtaining the rights to use a particular song in sync with a video you want to put online. But, even if you are successful, the process can take days or weeks and cost thousands in attorney`s fees (over and above the negotiated cost of the rights you seek).
While we are on the topic, what rights should you be seeking in the first place? Let`s review: …….
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
Click the mic on the right to hear David Bannister’s p2pnetcast of this story >>>>
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
B, bu, but YouTube/Google has a really LOT of m, mon, MONEY!!! How could suing them NOT be the answer???
August 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
In the same way that sueing Napster out of business was a poorly thought out answer. It’s the short-sighted one looking at quick short-term gain with no glance at long-term viability.
It’s precisely what has put the media in the place it is now. Everyone of them is trying everything they can do to establish a market in the e-world. iTunes trumpets of X sold since enception of on line business is but a pale 1/2 truth compared to what is passed about by people every month.
Napster already had members on line. They had already established themselves to millions of people. The infrastructure was there to make a start. In sueing the file trading company out of business, they got nothing for their time and efforts. Being awarded big eye-popping sums in court doesn’t mean the winner gets it. Especially if the one they sued doesn’t have millions.
Today everyone wants to equate intellectual property to be the same as tangibale property for value. But the ip property doesn’t come with fences around it identifying whose the owner. The movie houses pretty much id theirs but once it is put on p2p almost none of them retain those identifications. Music has always preferred not to say who own what. So there is no ready way for most to say I know who to pay money to or that this particular peice is owned as opposed to it being a free to use work. Nor who to pay it to.
It appears they do this on purpose.