Let's say you like Jay-Z and you're on MySpace.
You're excited about H.O.V.A.'s return and you add his single to your page so that "Show Me What You Got" plays whenever someone visits your profile. You add the video to your page so that you and your friends can watch it easily.
Do these actions make you a fan or a thief?
It depends on who you ask.
According to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by the Universal Music Group - home to U2, Mariah Carey, Jay-Z and hundreds of other artists - you, and millions like you, are thieves, helping MySpace make money through "user-stolen" content instead of "user-generated" content.
The questions Universal is asking are good ones. Is playing people your favorite song or showing them your favorite video a crime? If MySpace benefits from the illegal actions of its members, should they be held accountable?
If Universal's lawsuit against MySpace would lead to getting some concrete answers to these questions from a federal court, the company would be doing a great service. Of course, hardly anyone thinks it will get that far.
After all, Universal only filed the lawsuit after talks between the companies broke down over how much My-Space should pay it as a licensing fee for the videos. Universal had a similar beef with YouTube, calling the site and its users "copyright infringers" that owe them "tens of millions of dollars," but those taunts went away after they signed an agreement for payment.
Funny how that works, right?
See, here's the problem. The major music companies don't want those key questions answered. They would never say it (for legal reasons, as well as tactical business ones), but they want to have it both ways.
Secretly, they almost always love it when people add their artists' music and videos to their MySpace or YouTube profiles because it spreads the word about those artists - and it doesn't cost the companies one cent in promotion. They even contract with these Web sites to help promote new - or in the case of Diddy, not so new - artists. Unfortunately, music companies must vigorously pursue copyright infringement of all sorts, because, under current copyright law, if they don't, they could lose that copyright in court.
If these issues were settled, the music companies couldn't use the threat of lawsuits in their negotiations with MySpace, YouTube or whomever. And since all these technological developments land smack-dab in the middle of legal gray areas, no one is really sure what the courts may decide and no one wants to risk billions of dollars in potential revenue on an issue that is essentially a 50-50 gamble.
The music companies can argue that these Web companies are making significant profits as a result of the copyright infringement of its members. The Web companies can argue that they try to enforce copyrights and shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its members. They can argue it would be like going after the phone companies because phones were used by con men in a scam.
"It's unfortunate they decided to file this unnecessary and meritless litigation," MySpace said in a statement. "We provide users with tools to share their own work - we do not induce, encourage or condone copyright violation in any way."
The music companies may have a better case against individuals who post the songs or the videos, though that's also far from a legal slam dunk. And they don't really want to start filing lawsuits against millions of Justin Timberlake fans who want to bring "SexyBack" to their profiles. Besides, those fans don't have the cash to make it worthwhile anyway. (In its lawsuit, Universal wants MySpace to pay $150,000 for every song or video improperly used on the site.)
At this point, music companies don't like any of the real answers.
So they're just going to keep asking these questions.
Comments (1)
nice :)
;))