p2pnet - rss feed: $100M ASCAP license fee decision
p2pnet news | Music:- It seems ASCAP will be picking up a little spare change from AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York had ruled “reasonable license fees” must be paid by the unhappy trio, “for their online performance of musical works,” says ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers).
The decision covers license fees dating back to July 1, 2002, and continuing through December 31, 2009, says the organisation, going on:
Based on a formula established by the Court, total payments to be paid by the three for the full period, “could reach $100 million,” it says
“Musical works both support and enhance the business models of many major technology- and Internet-driven organizations - especially those that derive advertising revenue from consumer traffic and engagement,” according to ASCAP CEO John A. LoFrumento.
“This historic decision, for the first time, provides a clear framework for how the online use of musical works should be appropriately valued. This decision also provides clear validation of the flexibility and applicability of the ASCAP blanket license model relative to the use of musical works on the Internet - something the Court itself specifically noted in its written decision.”
.
.Stumble It!
ASCAP - Federal court decides license fees to be paid to ASCAP by AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo!a, April 30, 2008
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.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
utter lunacy, is there no sanity left? u ppl r maniacs!
May 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I dont see the words “copyright infringement” anywhere or “damages”.
Or is copyright infringement only for the RIAA victims such as kids?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
This is referring to a “company making profit from the works of” and not “free distribution of” which is what I think is the fulcrum of the p2p argument today.
Artists deserve a piece of the pie, and I agree, if there is profit being made, they deserve a part of it.
File sharers don’t make money. Often it’s the opposite, it cost money to share, at least ISP fees.
It is very interesting that they used the words “license fees” alot, and not “copyright infringement” and “damages”. I gather from the article, that they had some sort of contract in advance, detailing some sort of license to use copyrighted works and the payment of these fees was in dispute.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
“I gather from the article, that they had some sort of contract in advance, detailing some sort of license to use copyrighted works and the payment of these fees was in dispute.”
The articles has many statements that does not agree with the case being one of simply not paying a debt. If it was a matter of not paying for the license, then it was a simple case of non payment. Nothing historic about that.
BTW, does anyone know how ASCAP will split the money? ASCAP claims they pay composers and authors in accordance to the results of a foolish sampling plan. I suspect none of the money will reach the composers and authors, as the sampling plan cannot take into account this windfall money.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Now that MySpace, Imeem, and Last.fm have made their deals with the record industry, you can expect to see a lot more of this type of vicious litigation. In the back of music executives’ minds, they know that streaming music on the Internet is like playing music on the radio without the payola. Now, they have control of a couple of big name internet sites; they are going to go after anyone else using their music to make a little change like a junk yard dogs.
Forget about starting any new streaming music networks unless you have a couple of million dollars to pay off Sony, Warner, EMI, and Universal. And, even then they may not let you play in the yard. The record industry is all about control. They have to control where and how people listen to music to make sure they are getting their gigantic cut. If they let everyone stream their music, they are losing a big element of control and that is bad for business.