Another effort to reshape the economics of the recording business by monetizing another form of music promotion: Universal’s Second Chance to Make Video Pay
The Universal Music Group of Vivendi Universal says it will no longer provide music videos free, or at a nominal cost, to Internet and cable television services that are building a potentially giant business by playing videos on demand. Universal does not want to repeat what it considers the music industry’s ill-fated decision in the 1980’s to provide free videos to MTV.
The move may test the record company’s mettle against media giants like Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner.
[…] “Too many businesses have been built on the back of the content we produce,” said Universal’s chairman, Doug Morris. “So in the future, content we produce won’t just be provided for free for promotional purposes. People will have to pay if they’re going to use it.”
[…] Universal’s new move is the second time in 16 months that Mr. Morris has shaken up the sluggish recording industry by upsetting established practices. In 2003, Universal said it would slash its suggested retail prices by almost one-third in a bid to breathe new life into CD sales. The price cut drew catcalls from many small retailers that felt their margins being squeezed, but company executives said the pricing plan had been a success, noting that Universal’s album sales jumped about 7 percent last year, beating the industry’s overall increase of about 1.6 percent.
Mr. Morris’s action also adds a major record corporation to the swelling ranks of television networks and film studios that are squaring off against Comcast and other new purveyors of on-demand services over financial terms.
As for the licensing income the record labels do receive from MTV, it is generally not shared with the labels’ artists. But Universal said it planned to pay a share of the fees it gets from on-demand services to artists and to music publishers.
Also CNet News’ Price tag added to online music videos
The confounding consequences of Can-Spam: Law Barring Junk E-Mail Allows a Flood Instead
Since the Can Spam Act went into effect in January 2004, unsolicited junk e-mail on the Internet has come to total perhaps 80 percent or more of all e-mail sent, according to most measures. That is up from 50 percent to 60 percent of all e-mail before the law went into effect.
To some antispam crusaders, the surge comes as no surprise. They had long argued that the law would make the spam problem worse by effectively giving bulk advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain rules.
“Can Spam legalized spamming itself,” said Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, a London organization that is one of the leading groups intent on eliminating junk e-mail. And in making spam legal, he said, the new rules also invited flouting by those intent on being outlaws.
Not everyone agrees that the Can Spam law is to blame, and lawsuits invoking the new legislation – along with other suits using state laws – have been mounted in the name of combating the problem. Besides Microsoft, other large Internet companies like AOL and Yahoo have used the federal law as the basis for suits.
BBC News’ Junk e-mails on relentless rise
Lawyers ride shotgun for open source
Eben Moglen, a Columbia University law professor who has represented the Free Software Foundation in legal cases, said that he will help run the new Software Freedom Law Center, which is set to be announced on Tuesday.
The center said in a statement that it will employ two full-time intellectual property attorneys, who will help provide consulting services to nonprofit open-source organizations. The staff count is expected to expand to four later in 2005. The help they provide could include training lawyers, supporting litigation, dealing with licensing problems and keeping managing contributions to open-source projects, the center said.
“The Law Center is being established to provide legal services to protect the legitimate rights and interests of free and open-source software projects and developers, who often do not have the means to secure the legal services they need,” Moglen said in a statement.
NYTimes’ coverage: An Effort to Help Free-Software Developers Avoid Suits
Slashdot: New Legal Center for Open Source Projects