When Tidal launched it was supposed to be the next big thing in music streaming. Unfortunately, it has had some pitfalls and interesting diversions along the way–the latest is news of a lawsuit that Jay Z is filing against Tidal’s previous owners, claiming that they misled his team about the streaming company when he purchased it.

According to a Nordic business news outlet, Jay Z’s team recently wrote to some of the executives of WiMP; Tidal is a spinoff of that Scandinavian streaming service. The letters accused the shareholders of exaggerating how many subscribers Tidal had when Jay Z purchased it. While WiMP put the number at 530,000, the letters allege that that number was inflated.  While it’s unclear how WiMP may have inflated those numbers, it could have been because it counted people who were subscribers as a result of “bonus subscription deals” worked out with cable and phone companies.

Jay Z bought Tidal (and its parent company Aspiro) for approximately $57 million last year, and is filing suit seeking $15 million now as a result of the supposedly misrepresented numbers.

The Verge reports Tidal’s motivation for filing the lawsuit:

The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared. It became clear after taking control of TIDAL and conducting our own audit that the total number of subscribers was actually well below the 540,000 reported to us by the prior owners. As a result, we have now served legal notice to parties involved in the sale.

However, it’s not all bad news for the streaming service–Tidal also shared some good news about its growth this week as well:

We are excited that one year after TIDAL launched, we have surpassed 3 million subscribers globally. The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared.

Additionally, Tidal may be getting into the video streaming business. The company has already picked up a scripted series from YouTube, and reportedly wants to stream outside films as well as exclusives that it would produce. The new video features could be up and ready to go as early as June.

Tidal has had some bumps along the way since it launched last year. But it’s certainly disrupted the music industry, and may now be disrupting video streaming services. While Jay Z may be looking to the past for some retribution, it’s what is potentially ahead for Tidal that promises to be, at the very least, interesting.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jay Z is Suing Former Tidal Owners appeared first on Law Street.

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, known best for hosting the Grammys, is getting political this year, and not in a “Formation” kind of way. The Academy has created a Political Action Committee intended to support and protect recording artists by attempting to influence Congress on important bills.

Currently, the Academy’s PAC, called ‘the Grammy Fund for Music Creators’ is taking aim at getting the Fair Play Fair Pay Act passed. Like most bills, the name sounds appealing, but the drafting and passing of this bill has become quite contentious. The core of the bill would require radio stations to pay additional fees in order to play songs, and other parts of the bill would concern payments from online streaming.

When you buy a song on iTunes, or stream a song on Spotify, the money spent is split between Apple or Spotify, and then then between the artists, producers, and songwriters, according to their agreement. When music is used in another work of art, such as in a film or TV show, or sampled in another song, royalties are similarly distributed. There’s one major exception to this trend: when music is played on the radio, the stations pay royalties to the songwriters, and no one else.

The reasoning behind this is that airtime on radio stations is considered “promotional,” and is argued to drive sales of music and build popularity of artists. Even in our streaming-saturated music scene, most Americans still go the the radio for new music. Of course, the recording artists see it differently. They claim that with record sales dropping year after year, radio is an increasingly weak promotional force, and shouldn’t be exempted any more than Rdio, Spotify, Pandora, or Apple Music. Some criticize this new bill as a ‘cash grab,’ calling to mind Taylor Swift’s ongoing boycott of Spotify.

Proponents of local radio worry that these potential regulations would be stifling to small radio stations. The Free Radio Alliance explains why on its webpage:

The multinational record labels want a bigger slice of the pie and they want Washington to give it to them. The record labels have made several attempts to impose a performance tax, or fee, on free and local radio stations through Congressional legislation in the past and now they are back at it. A performance fee would require radio stations to pay the record labels yet another fee to air music free, over-the-air to listeners. Congress has continually rejected the notion that imposing a new fee is appropriate, based on the tremendous promotion value radio stations provide to labels and performers.

The Academy claims that the proceeds will benefit the artists, adding a specific claim in the statement by one of the Grammy Fund’s officers, Harvey Mason Jr.:

We represent everybody, not just superstar artists. So we are careful in how we disseminate our message, and when we go to D.C. or have events, it is with a variety of people from the bottom to the top.

While the effort to give money to the artists and creators is noble, it may be difficult to achieve this goal, given that it would need to overcome the precedent of radio stations being able to inexpensively play music. It’s worth learning more about the process to evaluate whether you support the bill. I’d recommend checking out Rolling Stone’s in-depth analysis of how royalties are divided in various music listening formats. And if you tune in to this year’s Grammy Awards, you’ll likely notice a more nostalgic tone, with David Bowie and Lemmy tributes planned. But you should know that behind the scenes, the Academy is taking a political stand with far-reaching implications.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 2/17/2016 for clarity. 

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Grammys Get Political Behind The Scenes appeared first on Law Street.

This 2016, Spotify should make a New Year’s resolution to not get slammed with any more lawsuits. The digital streaming network finished off 2015 with 75 millions users worldwide, over 25 million who pay for premium services, and a $150 million dollar lawsuit. David Lowery of the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven recently issued a class action lawsuit against Spotify for failure to properly pay royalties to its artists.

NPR posted the court filing from Lowery, which states,

Spotify’s egregious and willful violations of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ rights are highlighted in Spotify’s recent admissions regarding its failure to: (1) obtain licenses for the musical works it distributes and reproduces (thereby infringing multiple copyrighted works); and (2) compensate copyright owners for its use of their Works.

This lawsuit is just one battle in an ongoing debate between music publishers and streaming services., and the digital age may be transforming our music consumption too quickly for the law to keep up. There are usually two different types of copyright owners for every song streamed. The owner of the song is one, so usually the artist or the record company, and the other is the person who wrote the song or has rights as the publisher of the song. Undeniably, streaming services lack transparency as royalties get passed along to several middleman, then hopefully find their way into the hands of these different owners. Streaming services continue to strive for transparency however, citing most of their issues as the difficulties of obtaining rights.

David Lowery. Image courtesy of [Zopheus via Wikimedia]

Spotify openly admits to potential challenges in its royalty payment system. The company sets aside royalty funds for when a user streams a song and Spotify cannot immediately identify the rights holder. The suit argues that the retroactive compensation from the fund clearly shows Spotify’s negligence in obtaining proper license agreement and authorization prior to streaming songs. However, Spotify does make the claim that in the United States, “the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholder is often missing, wrong, or incomplete” for songwriters.

In the U.S, the legal framework for songwriters has been around since 1941. Songwriters license their work to Performance Rights Organizations (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC), who collect and negotiate songwriting royalties under a consent decree in a special rate court. Spotify seemingly does not have to negotiate with songwriters because the government sets the rates, but the framework is still admittedly complicated.

Lowery isn’t the first to have an issue with Spotify–in previous years, artists like Taylor Swift have taken the measure to remove their work from Spotify in protest of royalties. On Spoitfy’s Artists website, the streaming service explains its artist payout formula, which includes Spotify’s monthly revenue, artist and total Spotify streams, publishing owners, and royalty rate. The artists still have other deals they’ve agreed to with the record label, so they’re ok taking down their music from Spotify.

The payment of royalties admittedly is complicated. Maybe it is time for the court to modify the legal framework behind licensing music. The David Lowery case will undoubtedly reveal more about the future of music streaming as the ownership of music continues to change.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spotify Faces a Class Action Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

In our society, millennials constantly want to stay updated on important events occurring in the world. With today’s technology, most news events can be checked through our cellphones, whether we use news and social media apps or online sites. But one of the hottest social media apps is now getting into the game–Instagram is now trying to get involved in real time news.

This makes a lot of sense, as the American Press Institute did a study that shows 56 percent of Americans actually use their phones to access the news. Studies have also shown that people from the ages of 13-18 are on their phone for an average of four hours every weekday. People are constantly on their devices checking their Twitter, Facebook, and other apps for the newest trends or stories.

Instagram is now trying to be used for more than just posting casual pictures and videos by creating a new feature that will show real-time news to its users. Instagram CEO and Cofounder Kevin Systrom said in an interview:

People are hungry for what’s happening right now in the world. All of us in social media and regular media, we’re all competing for the same thing, which is this gap between something happening in the world and you knowing about it.

The popular app seems to be following the trend of social media companies like Twitter and trying to become a main source for news. Both tweeters and instagrammers log life experiences as they happen. To date, Twitter has been a better outlet for news because it has a more detailed search engine and features that better highlight relevant information. But Instagram has some advantages. Twitter’s growth has only jumped 18 percent to 302 million users in the past year, as opposed to Instagram’s 50 percent growth from 200 million to 300 million in only nine months.

Many see this update as Instagram trying to compete with Twitter’s new product-in-the-making–“Project Lightning”–which organizes tweets, photos and videos based on live events. Twitter also bought live stream startup Periscope earlier this year. But unlike Twitter, Instagram has no intention to stream events. Instead it is going to continue with photos and videos and utilize those types of media to cover the news. Systrom believes that users, especially journalists, will thoroughly enjoy the new features. He stated, “So if you’re a journalist and you want to see live photos happening at any location in our system, you can simply type in the location and up comes the page.” People seem to be agreeing with him so far.

Loving this new update, thanks #Instagram! #SocialMediaTools #SMM http://t.co/mLWggRUjT6

— #SocialMediaQueen™ (@stephanievoong) June 23, 2015

I love the new @instagram update. Y’all made the Explore page even better than it already was.

— Samuel Satterfield (@samuel_satt) June 23, 2015

Instagram is ranked as the second most used social media platform among young people. With the new update, users are now able to watch events unfold in real-time as images are uploaded to the app. By improving its “Explore” tab, people can see images taken at a specific place or under the most popular hashtags. The app also introduced a new search function that lets users search for images by people, hashtag and place. The updated Explore page will only be available for U.S. users as of now, but company team members said they are working to bring it to the rest of the world after they fine-tune the experience in the U.S.

With its constant growth rate and new features, I would not be surprised if Instagram surpasses Twitter’s dominance in real time news. This is a smart move for a company on a rise–expect to see it attract even more users and revenue.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Things Are Getting Real (Time) For Instagram Users appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift recently wrote a controversial open letter to Apple Music about its new music streaming feature. Apple Music was offering a free three month trial as one of the new streaming site’s hottest features, but during that period artists and record companies would not be paid. That policy sparked Swift’s wrath, and opened up a conversation about the ethics of streaming sites.

Swift said on her personal Tumblr account:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service.

I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

Apple acquired Beats Electronics last year for $3 billion, and on June 8 it announced details about its new streaming music service and radio station at the Worldwide Developers Conference. 

One day after Swift’s letter, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, tweeted a response that Apple will change its royalty policy. 

#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

Swift responded in  kind to the policy change:

I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 22, 2015

While Swift and Apple Music got rid of their “Bad Blood” pretty quickly, this isn’t the first time that she has challenged streaming services. Back in November 2014, Swift famously pulled her music from Spotify and kept “1989” off of steaming services.

I’m all for making money and handling it in whatever way you want, but to me, Swift seems a little selfish. She’s one of the most prominent artists to remove her music from Spotify, and certainly one of the richest. Her letter went so far as to say,

This is not about me. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

But Swift may be in the wrong with that argument. When the issue between Swift and Spotify arose, Spotify stated that the purpose of its streaming site was to prevent music lovers from downloading music illegally. Although artists aren’t being paid as much as they would if they were selling a song or album, they certainly receive more money through sites like Spotify than if their songs were pirated.

So, it’s easy to question whether Swift’s intent is truly so generous. Furthermore, it’s easy to imagine that she removed the music for her personal gain because she wasn’t making as much money–just because Apple played along and fixed the problem for everyone doesn’t absolve her. If she gets into any other arguments with streaming sites down the road, hopefully she uses her prominent status to benefit all artists involved, not just for her own personal gain.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift: Continued “Bad Blood” With Streaming Sites appeared first on Law Street.

Today music streaming sites like Spotify seem ubiquitous, but the truth is that they’re fairly recent innovations. As much as consumers appreciate streaming sites, they’re not always as beloved by artists and their collaborators. Read on to learn about music streaming sites, their history, and the legal foundation behind the popular products.

Where did streaming sites come from?

Since the mid-1990s and the era of Napster, the relationship between music and the internet has been rocky. Before most homes in America had a Wi-Fi connection, the only way to get a copy of a song or album was to go to a store and purchase a CD or cassette tape, or go through the painstaking process of recording the song off of the radio. As soon as more and more homes started getting access to the internet fans realized that sharing music with others could be an easy and cheap way to listen. File sharing networks were a dime a dozen, and anytime you wanted a song or an album, you could download the songs and burn them onto a recordable CD.

This obviously meant that many musicians, songwriters, and rightsholders lost money at an alarming rate, and record companies saw a decline in sales, profits, and even advertising. The response was abrupt: lawsuits against file sharers, program developers, and those who downloaded the songs. Lawsuits ranged anywhere from a few dollars and cents to millions of dollars. Of course, that led to bad PR from the general public and made people share music even more while being even sneakier about it. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped filing lawsuits and instead turned to internet service providers to monitor illegal usage.

All seemed to be going better, for at least a short time; however, streaming music came to the forefront of the industry and everyone started to get their music for free from websites like Pandora, then Gooveshark, Rdio, YouTube, and Spotify.

Streaming music sites are paid services–or sometimes free, as long as you’re okay with waiting through ads–that enable you to stream music. With Spotify, for example, you start the program, suggest your favorite artist or song, and then you listen to artists and songs that are similar. On some services, you can mix genres, so you can listen to the Broadcast Cast, Nicki Minaj, and Mozart combination radio station, if you really want. Every time someone listens to a song or an album, the artist gets paid by Spotify.

Musicians used to make money in a fairly simple model based off of album sales through record stores and online. It was convoluted at times, due to percentages and contracts, but at its core it was like any other retail endeavor–producers were paid for their product. Today, however, artists make money on everything from iTunes downloads to on-demand streaming to YouTube videos. Unfortunately, many of these methods generate little-to-no money for the actual artists.

Now these services have a responsibility to the artists and those working on the songs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has just granted Spotify a license to stream more than 8.5 million musical works. Cloud-based music services, which Amazon, Google, and Apple have recently introduced, allow users to store music online and play back the music on any device.

In addition, there are fights among the bigger names in music. Entertainment giants like Disney have fought to extend copyright protection on some of their most popular and lucrative pieces of intellectual property, and musicians and songwriters would certainly love to have a longer period to milk royalties out of their creations before the tunes hit the public domain. With Disney leading the way, we might just see some big reforms on the horizon.

So, how do artists make money off streaming?

There are a few different ways musicians make money. If listeners don’t pay for their subscriptions, they get money from the ads that play every few songs. That revenue goes to the streaming site, which then pays the artists their share. Some users get annoyed with the ads, so then they purchase a premium subscription. According to Spotify, this means that the average user now spends $9.99 a month instead of the $5 a month they would spend without it. This chart from Spotify shows the relationship between money earned and music sales in the digital and physical formats. Spotify says that it “pay(s) out nearly 70 percent of (its) total revenue to rights holders.“

Artists no longer make money from the sale of albums or singles, but rather the play of songs. Many people think that this is making artists “up their game” and make albums with better songs, while many artists view it as not being paid for their art. Here is the official description of how they figure out what “per stream” means, right from Spotify’s website:

An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:

• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music

• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate

• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries

• An artist’s royalty rate

Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.

So while artists do get compensated when a streaming site uses their work, it’s not as dependable or as lucrative as brick-and-mortar album sales used to be.

Current Debates

When Spotify streams music, it of course takes a cut so that it can stay in business and pay employees. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast. It still doesn’t stop illegal download of music, nor does it stop people from piling on the same account, much like people do with Netflix. There has also been some backlash from the musicians themselves. The most notable is Taylor Swift, who refuses to let her album 1989 be played on the service, but also includes Garth Brooks, The Black Keys, AC/DC, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Bette Midler, in particular, is against the services, with Billboard claiming she gets “microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.”

Courtesy of Bette Midler/Twitter.

Pandora responded to the Billboard story, saying:

We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists. But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing.

Of course, Bette Midler probably has enough money to last her, as do many of the other artists mentioned above, but what about artists who do not have as much commercial success? They may not be able to get by on such low payments.

Taylor Swift wrote an Op-Ed on the matter and defended her opinion to Time, saying to those who criticized her choice:

Well, they can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes. I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales.

Some musicians are defending the services, however. Bono recently said:

I see streaming services as quite exciting ways to get to people. In the end, that’s what we want for U2 songs. The real enemy is not between digital downloads or streaming. The real enemy, the real fight is between opacity and transparency. The music business has historically involved itself in quite considerable deceit.

Essentially, artists want a fair price for their music. But in a world where almost no one pays full “iTunes” prices for their music, is it worth it for those celebrities to take a stand? As long as there are only a few artists standing against streaming services, it will probably be a losing battle.

Trickle Down Effect?

Swift also defends her choice because she sees her music as an “art.” This begs the question, if the stars are complaining about what they get, what does that mean for everyone else? Alex Anders, a music producer and engineer who has worked with many artists, including the cast of Glee (which charts multiple songs on iTunes and Spotify when the show is in season), had this to say:

@NoelDiem It is the songwriters, engineers, producers, and studios, etc that are paying the price with their livelihood. They can’t tour!

— Alex Anders (@alxanders) January 14, 2015

So who is missing out on money when it comes to streaming? Those who fall into the “other” category, and they have to share a small piece of the puzzle. The Songwriter writes the actual melody and lyrics of the song; the Publisher pays for the music to be recorded; and the Engineer sets up and mixes the music.

The move away from a traditional model of selling music means that these people are sometimes cut out of the equation, or don’t receive as much money as they used to. Can this problem be solved with a restructuring of the music business? Maybe. But it will take artists working together with record labels, streaming services, and internet providers to make a real change.

Conclusion

Streaming music is still in its relative infancy, so it has the potential to improve for everyone in the equation. There have already been many changes in just the last few years. Apple is still in its first year of streaming, and more and more artists are paying attention to cash flow. Is it perfect yet? Hardly. Not by a long shot. But it is a much better alternative than the era of pirated music and zero artist compensation.

Sources

 Primary

Spotify: Spotify for Artists 

Pandora: Artist Support

Additional

Billboard: Bette Midler Disparages Pandora, Spotify Over Artist Compensation

Independent: Music Streaming: The End for iPods?

Time: Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models

Reuters: U2’s Bono Defends Under-Fire Music Streaming Services

Independent: Why Musicians Hate Spotify

Wall Street Journal: For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

I am wearing all black as I write this because it might as well be a funeral.

Sadly, Aereo is dead. The startup–which I had once believed to be a potential comeback kid has reached the end of its long and arduous battle; however, in a desperate attempt to retain hope, I am consoled by the revolutionary impact the small company seems to have made on the television industry. Aereo, a service provider that utilized small antennas to transmit broadcast signals to individual subscribers, filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Founder and CEO Chet Kanojia wrote in a letter to consumers:

We have traveled a long and challenging road. We stayed true to our mission and we believe that we have played a significant part in pushing the conversation forward, helping force positive change in the industry for consumers.

Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright.

Shortly after the decision was released, Aereofiled for a cable license necessary for continued operation; however, the “Plan B” approach did not prove to be lucrative as the recent bankruptcy decision is Aereo’s best hope for maximizing its remaining value. With the filing for Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, Aereo can put its legal woes behind it and sell any remaining assets that exist in the company. Lawton Bloom of Argus was appointed to serve as Chief Restructuring Officer.

William Baldiga, Aereo’s lawyer, announced that an auction of assets should occur on February 17, 2015, pending an approval hearing. “The company is now highly focused on devoting all its energy and limited resources to a transaction that will produce the highest and best return for our creditors and shareholders.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane granted various requests submitted by Aereo to allow what is left of the company to remain active during the liquidation period. Aereo has fired 75 of its 88 employees and greatly decreased remaining employee pay. Kanojia’s salary was cut in half.

While Aereo barely gained footing before its huge legal battle, the service forced major broadcasters to play offense instead of defense, recognizing a definitive hole in the cable market. Cord-cutters need programming too and Aereo may be the catalyst for a new business trend. Current broadcsting companies have already begun recognizing the internet television demand. CBS recently announced CBS All Access, a streaming service available by subscription for a $5.99 monthly fee. HBO also recently announced a streaming service independent of a cable subscription.

Although only existing content companies are dominating internet television by way of new services, it’s only a matter of time before new startups, supported by cloud technology, appear. The FCC is bracing itself for such an occurance. Last month, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a new rule that would allow internet television providers to license programming in an identical way to current cable and satellite companies. In an official FCC Blog post, Wheeler wrote:

Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point – that updating the definition of an MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor] will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch.

So, although we are in a state of bereavement, heartbroken to see Aereo go, it will forever be the internet TV martyr that paved the way for the future of subscription streaming services.

Thank you, Aereo, for such innovation. You will be missed.

The post Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there.

Spotify is a music streaming site that was launched in the United Kingdom in 2008, and has been in the United States since 2011. It is able to stream music so effectively because of deals it has worked out with various record labels. Labels and artists are compensated for Spotify’s use, although to be fair probably not as much as they would if they had actually sold the songs or albums; however, as Spotify explains it, there is tangible benefit for the artists. Spotify provides a service that’s convenient, relatively cost-effective, and easy to use. It hopes to divert those who would otherwise pirate or get songs illegally. In Spotify’s eyes, artists are better joining up with them and making a little money than not making anything because of piracy. Spotify explains its success:

Spotify has already made considerable progress towards restoring the value lost to piracy and other less well monetized forms of music consumption. As of March 2013, Spotify had over 24 million global users. 18 million of them were using our free tier, wherein listeners pay for their consumption by viewing and listening to advertisements. At that time, as well, more than 6 million users were paying a $9.99 / £9.99 / €9.99 monthly subscription to use Spotify’s Premium tier.

However, if an artist or its label does not want to have music on Spotify, they can take their music down. T-Swift is by no means the first artist to do so, and others simply never allowed their music on the site in the first place. The Black Keys, Beyonce, and Radiohead are all good examples of other popular artists whose music is not available to stream through Spotify. The argument is that services like this are predatory and take advantage of artists. Swift has long been against services like what Spotify offers. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this summer, she wrote:

Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently. Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is.

To its credit, Spotify has handled this marvelously. It’s capitalized on Swift’s retreat from the site by using it as a social media marketing opportunity. The music streaming site tweeted at the singer with a pretty creative message:

We love @taylorswift13 as much as you do. Here's a message we hope brings her back http://t.co/yRm5bfNV23 #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/1lj2JB1SMI

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

It also got some fun and creative use out of one of T-Swift’s more famous songs, again on Twitter:

We were young when we first saw you but now there’s 40MM who say stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story baby #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/n6tHkG8GCq

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

Spotify’s actions on Twitter really kind of sum up what this debate is all about–the Internet has changed how we do all of this. From how we listen to music, to how we respond to scandals, to how we are able to interact with the public, technology has completely radicalized all of it. T-Swift and other artists’ dedication to their art is admirable, to be sure, but is it really the smartest course of action? Spotify, and all other streaming services, are on to something here. There will always be ways to find this stuff illegally; you’re better off getting people to pay a little for it than nothing at all.

Now, T-Swift is rich enough and has good enough brand recognition that my guess is that this is more of a political statement than a financial decision. It’s a decision that she can afford to make, but I don’t know that it will create any real change in the industry. While it’s a shame that the music industry is no longer what it once was, I highly doubt that it will end up going backward and we’ll all revert to purchasing music. T-Swift may just do better shaking it all off and going back to Spotify.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together? appeared first on Law Street.

Google is smart. When I type something wrong, it tries to show me what I should have typed. It can, to some extent, fill in the gaps in searches. We’ve all made impressively vague google searches, a la “who’s the guy in the thing with the hat?” and Google has been able to tell us. Well now Google has gotten even smarter, and it’s trying to use those smarts to keep us from breaking the law.

Google is now making it harder for people to find illegal streaming, downloading, and torrenting sites. Essentially, if you’re trying to find a free download of a show, you’d probably search “How to Get Away with Murder watch free.” Under Google’s new algorithm, it would guess what you’re looking for and prompt you with legal ways to watch the show, even if they’re not necessarily free. For example, an ad on the side for Hulu, or to be able to purchase an episode of the show from iTunes.

It’s all part of a concerted effort that Google is making to fight piracy, detailed in its recently released report, “How Google Fights Piracy.” Google has taken many other steps as well, including removing terms that can be associated with pirating from its autocorrect and suggestion filters. Google also is working hard to make sure that when removal requests are filed — essentially when someone shows that their copyrighted material is being used illegally — the material is dealt with appropriately. It also make sure that it doesn’t allow companies or sites that infringe on copyright and pirating practices to buy ads. Google is especially vigilant when it comes to YouTube, given the possibility of pirated content being used on that site.

Overall Google’s efforts to stand against piracy are based on a few simple ideals:

• Create More and Better Legitimate Alternatives
• Follow the Money (essentially keep the pirates from profiting, removing the incentive to pirate.)
• Be Efficient, Effective, and Scalable
• Guard Against Abuse
• Provide Transparency

So far, Google’s efforts seem to be working. The algorithm changes have resulted in less visibility for many popular and well known illegal streaming sites. According to SearchMetrics, which publishes SEO visibility rankings, streaming sites have been hard hit. Marcus Tober of SearchMetrics explained who saw the greatest drops:

Amongst the loser sites are sites that had links and/or content to movie, TV and music content. Sites like movie4k.to which lost 98% of SEO Visibility have typical loser keywords like “download free movies”, “watch [movie name] online free”, “online free movies”, “movies download”, “watch [movie name]”, “where can I watch [movie name] online” etc.

So if you set out with the direct intention to watch something illegally, it’s not hard to find if you know what you’re looking for. What Google is really attempting to do is make it harder to watch something illegally for people who don’t really know how to find it in the first place. The company is going to be inundated with legal ways to do what they’re trying to do. They’re also trying to make sure that less illegal content is out there in general, rendering it harder for everyone to pirate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Doesn’t Want You to Stream That TV Show appeared first on Law Street.

A close friend of mine passed away last weekend. My dear friend, Saturday Morning Cartoons, whom I will never forget, was murdered by a group of assassins headed up by cable and streaming video. Perhaps I should have seen it coming. The final life support system of Saturday Morning Cartoons, the CW television station, was finally terminated. The CW decided to invest elsewhere, replacing Saturday Morning Cartoons with a program called “One Magnificent Morning.” Not such a magnificent morning, I think.

So good job, television, you have officially killed childhood. Yes, I concede that kids still have options to get their fix. With Hulu, Netflix, and other methods of streaming shows, it could be argued that they have even MORE options. Some might say that cartoon viewing is only ENHANCED by the ability of children to choose what they want to watch on Sunday morning. I still feel strongly, however, that ending the block of programming we knew and loved known as “Saturday Morning Cartoons” signifies the end of an era.

Before being able to watch whatever we want whenever we want to, there was a little bit more patience and excitement involved. Perhaps this is a stretch, but Saturday Morning Cartoons taught some pertinent life lessons. Because they can decide not just which show they want to watch but which specific episode of that show, kids will no longer learn to expect the unexpected. Life is not always under our control. We cannot determine our lives with the touch of a button on a remote. Saturday morning cartoons kept alive the beautiful air of mystery that is present in real life. What shenanigans are Scooby and the gang going to get into this Saturday? I don’t know. Let’s grab a bowl of Reese’s Puffs and park it in front of the TV to find out. What adventures are Patrick and Spongebob going to have tomorrow morning? Who knows! Let’s enjoy the first part of our weekend by finding out.

No, now things will be quite a bit different. What do we want Tom and Jerry to fight about tomorrow? Let’s browse through the collection of episodes on the Internet and decide. Let’s watch the same episode of Dexter’s Laboratory that we watch EVERY TIME instead of venturing outside of our comfort zones to try something new.

Honestly, kids these days don’t have to learn to deal with anything. As annoying as they were, commercials were a given part of the Saturday morning cartoon-watching ritual. Now, that ritual is a dead and beaten horse. Saturday morning cartoons were not just for the children but for their parents as well. That block of programming specifically set aside for cartoons allowed the perfect time for families to bond. Commercials simply provided a little break for kids and their parents to reflect on the crazy capers that their favorite cartoon characters have gotten into. Now, they can just fast forward and sit in silence the entire episode. How depressing.

So, Saturday Morning Cartoons, you will be gravely missed by me, by children everywhere, by their nostalgic parents, and many others. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I hope you rest in peace. May Scooby, Sonic, Garfield, all the Looney Tunes, and any other cartoon I have failed to mention forever remain in our hearts. Now, please join me in the reception hall for a photo montage of Saturday Morning Cartoon’s long and beautiful life. Refreshments will be served. Thank you.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Saturday Morning Cartoons and Your Childhood appeared first on Law Street.

Introducing first, in one corner, weighing the equivalent of nine justices, hailing from Washington D.C., backed by broadcasters, the well educated, ever respected SUPREEEEME COURT!

In the other corner, less than one pound and the size of a dime, young and feisty, hailing from New York, the crowd favorite, the underdog, the AEREO ANTENNAAAA!

Well, folks… we all know how this fight ended. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, beat Aereo’s butt on the grounds of copyright infringement.

Nobody thought that Aereo, bruised and beaten from being on the ropes, would ever return to the ring. But have we found our comeback kid? It seems Aereo wants to brawl after broadcasters requested that a New York court order Aereo to cease business across the country. In new court papers, Aereo demands another chance. The Internet television provider insists it be given the necessary cable license for operation, legally allowing it to transmit broadcast TV shows.

“It would be illogical and fundamentally unfair to find that Aereo’s ‘Watch Now’ functionality is a ‘cable system’ …for the public performance analysis, but is not entitled to a compulsory license under the same,” Aereo asserts.

Odds are up in the air for this aggressive little company. A competitor of similar build, ivi TV was recently shot down after also requesting the same compulsory license in New York. So, why is the crowd still cheering for Aereo? Its individual attention to its fans! ivi TV’s transmissions were nationwide while Aereo only offered shows to those who subscribed to its service. This slight difference in technique can be just enough to bring victory to Aereo in this rematch with the judicial system.

Aereo enters this match insisting it’s a clean fighter, reminding the courts that it has “failed to show any imminent irreparable harm.” The company asks, “What better proof could there be that claimed harms are not imminent…than what actually happened when the complained-of actions went on for years?” Hope for this underdog comes from statements like that of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who has said that there are no “behind the scenes technological differences” that discern Aereo from actual cable companies.

Meanwhile, more fighters are gearing up to enter the competition. In an attempt to fill the Aereo void, TiVo has come forward with its new ‘OTA’ device, and Roku has plans for smart televisions with Aereo-like technology already integrated into the devices.

Let’s not forget about the common theme in all of this, however: that damn cloud. Problems surrounding Cloud service have not specifically been addressed, even in the Supreme Court opinion of Aereo’s ruling. Not wanting to overreach, the Justices cited that they could not “answer more precisely how the Transmit Clause or other provisions of the Copyright Act will apply to technologies not before us… Questions involving cloud computing (remote storage) DVRs and other novel issues not before the Court… should await a case in which they are squarely presented.”

So, much like a cloud, the fate of this new technology is still up in the air. For now, all we can do is follow the IP scuffles that occur on the ground and in the courtroom.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [Kristin Wall via Flickr]

The post Aereo: The Comeback Kid? appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, the only way you could watch a TV program was to catch it when it was being aired. Then we got DVR, and then there were shows available online on demand; and now we have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and thousands of other (legal and illegal) ways to get our fix. And in so many ways, the Internet has completely revolutionized the way we watch TV. Because for a lot of us, TV isn’t contained to a physical television anymore. In fact, I, for the first time in about 3.5 years actually have a real, concrete television in my apartment. It only has the most basic of cable, but I often forget it’s there, because I’m so used to watching any and all TV programming on my computer.

So here are 4 different ways that the Internet has revolutionized TV…and whether these changes are good or bad.

4. We have an ability to find old shows that are new to us. 

Before this weird meld of Internet and TV, the only way to discover a show that was off the air was to catch reruns. Growing up, I watched plenty of shows this way, but they were often out of order, disjointed, and difficult to follow. The Internet allows us to watch a show from the beginning, even if it hasn’t aired on TV in any capacity in years. For example, my freshman year of college, most of my roommates and I got really into The West Wing. It had originally aired 1999-2006, so given that I was in middle school at the time, it obviously hadn’t caught my attention. And it’s not just my friends–when both House of Cards and Scandal began airing, I heard them compared to the incredibly idealistic liberal love letter that is The West Wing by other college students. Tons of political junkies my age are discovering the show that we were just a few years too young for when it originally aired. A couple days ago, The Wire did a “best fictional president” bracket in honor of the West Wing, and of course, President Jed Bartlett won it. I’m betting the reason that The West Wing remains in our memory and is still so regularly referenced is because the Internet allows new watchers to discover it whenever they want, in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s still streaming on Netflix. 

Good or Bad? Good. Finding a show that speaks to your interests is a great thing. Now my West Wing example is incredibly silly, I know, but I’ve absolutely used common interest in that show as a conversation topic before in my daily life. Most of my friends have seen it, and it’s just another thing that connects us. TV, for better or worse, plays a large part in our lives, and it’s pretty cool that the Internet has opened us up to shows from before our time. This doesn’t extend purely to shows that are before our time, this also allows us to see shows from other countries that usually wouldn’t make it to our TVs, which is also pretty cool!

3. Shows made exclusively for Netflix and other online networks. 

This is also an incredibly recent phenomenon. In the past two years or so, Netflix has released a number of original series. The two most well known are probably House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, but there are a few others, including Hemlock Grove, and Lilyhammer, and there are also exclusive documentaries and stand-up comedy shows. These are high quality shows, and because they aren’t airing on TV, Netflix can afford to be risqué. This year, Netflix made history by being the first non-TV network to win an Emmy. Netflix isn’t the only Internet network to create their own content, though they are probably the most critically acclaimed and well-known. Amazon Prime and Hulu have also started producing their own content.

Good or bad? Good. More quality content is good for the viewers, to be sure, and it opens up opportunities for more experimental shows that networks may not want to chance, given that the content is less severely constrained by broadcasting. Television networks are complaining that it’s cutting into their viewership, but hopefully the competition will force them to up their game. After all, do we really need another “Real Housewives of ______” show?

Sheldon doesn’t think so.

2. The Veronica Mars Kickstarter and Arrested Development Relaunch. 

I will unabashedly admit that Veronica Mars and Arrested Development are arguably two of my favorite shows ever. In some ways, they have a similar story–they were both cult favorites with high critical ratings but pretty low viewership. They both got cancelled after three seasons. And they both got a final hurrah in the last year–Arrested Development through a Netflix original fourth season, and Veronica Mars through a full length movie that was released late last week. I, like so many other fans, anticipated the extensions to both of these shows with bated breath.

The relaunch of these two shows is a testament to the seductive power of creating a product for fans. Netflix took a chance on Arrested Development, to be sure, but it was surely backed up by data. Netflix doesn’t release viewership figures, but they must have seen something in the data about the first 3 seasons previously available on the site to make them think that a 4th season would be profitable. A lot of people didn’t actually end up liking the 4th season much, myself included, but the fact that it was even undertaken in the first place says a lot about the lobbying power of fans.

The Veronica Mars is a more perfect example of my point. The movie was primarily funded by a Kickstarter campaign, run by the stars of the show and creator Rob Thomas. The Kickstarter reached $5.7 million in pledges from fans. The fans of the show literally paid to have this movie made–that’s how passionate the fan base is. Those who contributed certain amounts got perks too–like small extra roles, or online access to the movie. The film has gotten mixed reviews (I, for one, loved it!) but the launch has reprised a lot of discussions about how before-it’s-time the show was, like this one about rape culture  or this one about social class. My point is though, that TV is more influenced by fans than ever before.

Good or bad? Both. I loved that both these shows got their much-needed endings, but there is something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The Veronica Mars movie was, in my opinion, good, the Arrested Development season 4 was bad. You know when a kid wants candy and you give it to them and then they get sick from too much sugar? Catering to fans’ whims has the potential to end up like that, and networks need to watch out for being too responsive to fan requests.  

 1. The phenomenon of “binge watching.”

Binge watching is new, created by the ability to access shows online with the internet. Binge watching is defined as 2-6 episodes of one show in a sitting. The only precursor was perhaps the TV marathon, but I don’t really think that counts because even in a marathon, the TV network still did stop airing the marathon at some point. 

We now have the ability to sit on our asses and watch a show for as long as we please. I am absolutely being a gigantic hypocrite right now, because I have totally binge watched quite a few shows, but I am trying to make some effort to stop. Binge watching is when you let Netflix play until the wee hours of the morning, watching a show until it really barely makes sense anymore. It’s when you get that immediate gratification of watching the next episode instead of actually thinking about what you just watched. Roughly 61% of respondents to a Netflix Survey last year say they regularly binge watch. 

Good or bad? Guys, I’ve got to think this is a bad thing. First, I have binge watched many a show that I can barely remember the next day. It’s impossible to thoroughly pay attention to anything that long, at least with the kind of attention that allows you to appropriately appreciate the show. It takes away the ability to talk about the show with your friends and coworkers the next day the way you can when the show is aired once a week on a network. And finally, as big a fan as I am of TV, that’s just too much. So here’s a suggestion–go ahead and binge-watch, in moderation. But take some time to appreciate what you’re watching. And remember, things are changing about TV and you don’t want it all to pass you by because you can’t stop watching House of Cards.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy: [Flickr/Wesley Fryer]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Meld of Internet and TV…Good or Bad? appeared first on Law Street.

When news of a deal between Netflix and Comcast initially broke, I was stuck clicking the refresh button, waiting impatiently for – ironically enough – my Comcast Internet service to return after a 3-hour hiatus.

While I had the misfortune of having to deal with slow to nonexistent Internet service, that will no longer be the case for Comcast subscribers streaming movies and TV shows from Netflix.

Addressing recent reports of declining streaming quality and performance, Netflix, whose content makes up 32 percent of evening Internet traffic in North America, has agreed to pay Comcast, the nation’s largest Internet provider, for direct access to its systems. Although specific terms of the deal were not disclosed, Netflix is essentially paying the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to ensure faster streaming.

In previous years, Cogent, a multinational third party content distributor, played the role of middle-man between Comcast and Netflix. With this new deal, Cogent has been removed from the equation, effectively simplifying the digital route from Netflix’s servers to our laptop screens and allowing for faster and higher quality streaming of popular shows like House of Cards.

Although Netflix has called the agreement “mutually beneficial,” there has been controversy regarding potential implications of such a deal.

One concern, according to Elise Hu of NPR, is that “paying for access could become a norm that could stifle opportunities for startup Internet services.” While more established companies could probably afford to pay access fees, such an environment could be prohibitive to newer businesses looking to make a name for themselves.

“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee,” Michael Weinberg, vice president of the digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, told USA Today. “The Internet service provider is injecting itself into the relationship between Netflix and its customers,” he added.

While some believe this deal is yet another example of the insatiable greed of corporate giants like Comcast, others suggest intentions are far less sinister.

Mashable writer Lance Ulanoff insists the Comcast-Netflix deal is just business as usual. According to Ulanoff, the deal is far from the first of its kind. “Comcast has an entire business devoted to ‘wholesale dedicated IP transit,’ which means it will sell this kind of access to anyone that wants to purchase it,” he said. “Netflix’s deal with Comcast is simply the first completed one we’ve heard about. Verizon and T-Mobile are also working on similar non-transit or interconnect deals. It’s standard operating procedure, but not one that consumers know much about, which is one of the reasons there’s so much confusion,” he continued.

As Ulanoff points outs, direct access to Comcast’s systems is not exclusively available to Netflix. Any business can purchase it – for the right price, of course. In fact, Ulanoff suggests other companies are likely already following suit and buying direct access to Comcast’s networks. If so, then why haven’t we heard of any more deals? Ulanoff says such deals are seldom publicized; the deal with Netflix seems to be a rare exception. Although faster Comcast service is, in theory, fair game for all, the scales are clearly tipping against less established companies who simply cannot afford the price tag.

The Comcast-Netflix deal comes only a few months after the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Verizon, which owns Comcast, and effectively struck down the FCC’s net-neutrality rules. In essence, net-neutrality regulations “would have required Internet service providers to treat all online traffic equally, rather than giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service.”

With net-neutrality defeated for the time being (the FCC is drafting new proposals), ISPs like Verizon/Comcast, and AT&T could potentially be free to charge higher rates for “preferred treatment.” When all is said and done, those expenses for online companies like Netflix and Google’s Youtube could ultimately come out of our pockets.

Although future implications remain unclear, the absence of net-neutrality and the partnership of content and service providers set a potentially dangerous precedent. Still, as paying Comcast customers, we really don’t have a whole lot to complain about at this point. Sure, this deal could make things more complicated in the long-term. But on the bright side, customers shouldn’t see any price increases for their service, at least for the time being. So kick back, grab an adult beverage, and drown out any worries about the absence of net-neutrality regulations with a five-hour Netflix binge session.

[Mashable] [USA Today] [NPR] [Bloomberg]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [rachellynnae via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Comcast-Netflix Deal: Should We Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

In 2012, a new company called Aereo launched. It offered a revolutionary new way to watch TV. Essentially, Aereo provides subscribers with a small antenna about the size of a dime that receives TV signals. The dime is kept in a remote local area and then streams TV to any device in the house with Internet access such as a computer, tablet or smartphone. In addition, it’s possible to send the content to an actual TV if you have the correct cables or a streaming device such as Apple TV. Aereo also includes a DVR feature. All of this is extremely cheap–it costs about $1 a day, plus some DVR storage charges. Aereo began in New York City, and now includes Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, and Salt Lake City. They have plans to expand to most other major cities in coming years. Aereo mostly streams basic channels and public access–not cable. For some more background on the company from the Intellectual Property side, check this out. 

Aereo is a great solution at a time when more and more people, mainly young people, can access most of their TV needs online. Services like Netflix and Hulu+ are cheaper than a traditional cable plan. Itunes allows you buy a subscription to one show for a season, which is convenient when you only want one show on a given cable network. I don’t have a TV or cable package–people are always shocked when I tell them this, but a combination of Netflix, inviting myself to watch shows at friends’ houses, and other internet sources work just fine for me. Earlier this year, a tech reporter for HuffPost reviewed Aereo and was pretty happy with the convenience for a cheap price.

Almost as soon as Aereo started, it received ire from the largest broadcasting companies. ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are officially involved in lawsuits, while other networks, such as Univision, have voiced their support for their fellow networks. The case has gone through a few series of appeals, and as on Friday, the Supreme Court announced their decision to take the case. On every appeal, the courts have so far sided with Aero.

The legal argument made by the broadcasting companies boils down to the fact that they are not receiving compensation for Aereo’s services, the way they do from a company such as Verizon or a local provider. Aereo also doesn’t have a license to show any of this content. Paul Clement, a lawyer for the network stated the case raised issues in copyright law that, “profoundly affect, and potentially endanger, over-the-air-broadcast television.”

Aereo’s response is that they do not create public performances, which law prevents, but because they just send individual signals, that is not the case. They just access the signals that the TV channels have broadcasted, and that consumers have always had the right to use antennas to access TV. The court has sided with Aereo twice on that argument so far, but the start-up still encouraged the Supreme Court to take the case.

The case does have some interesting potentially implications. For example, if Aereo wins, some broadcasting companies may move towards subscription streaming (FOX has already threatened this), which would be costly and difficult.

The ultimate question at issue here is, as it seems to be so often these days, the intersection between law and technology–technology has clearly outpaced the law. But is that a bad thing? The Supreme Court will shed some light on that topic in coming months.

[ABC News]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Miguel Pires da Rosa via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TV Streaming Makes it to Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.