Judge Stein Promises Quick Ruling in 'Imagine' Case

From the tipster wire:

"A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song "Imagine'' taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution after a lawyer for the film's distributors warned the litigation could wreck the movie's political message."

[Article.]

Would an injunction "muzzle" the film producer's free speech? They argue that the film is asking if John Lennon was right, and concludes he was wrong. "Why would you ask somebody for permission to criticize their work?'' their attorney asked. "It's not likely it's going to be granted.''

Lennon's attorney responded: "fair use is not about destroying the other person's market. It's about carving very, very limited exceptions to a copyright proprietor's monopoly.''

So, readers - is it FAIR USE?

Notably, Judge Stein only required plaintiffs post a $20,000 bond to cover any losses suffered by the film's producers as a result of an injunction. What standard to judges apply to determine potential damages resulting from a wrongful preliminary injunction in setting the bond?

Napster - DRM Free

Napster, who has a sale catalogue of 6 million songs, today stripped DRM from all paid downloads on its digital music service in favor of unprotected MP3s.

The company has support from all 4 major labels. (Given Napster's legal history with the labels, it's kind of ironic, right?)

Notably, customers cannot (yet) replace their previously purchased DRM-laden files with the new unprotected versions. Does the media-upgrade strategy correlate to other historical "upgrades": LP to tape, tape to CD, CD to...errr...minidisc? Will consumers purchase DRM-free copies of songs they previously downloaded with DRM?

[Billboard article.]

Library of Congress - National Recording Registry

The 2007 recordings are here.

Information about the National Recording Preservation Board is here.

OTCS once did a science report on the Voyager Spacecraft mission. And now, the "Sounds of Earth" gold record sent with the Voyager has made the registry! Though it is still uncertain whether aliens have record players...

Oversaturation of Festival Headliners

A while back, OTCS proposed a novel idea for the future: festival exclusivity.

Perhaps the future isn't so far off. As Rolling Stone notes:

Promoters postponed New Jersey’s Vineland Festival before even putting it on sale, and Coachella in late April was attended by 160,000 fans, according to reports, compared to 180,000 last year. Many of this summer’s major festivals have the same headliners — such as Jack Johnson at Coachella, Bonnaroo, All Points West and Outside Lands — and they may be losing their distinctiveness. “There’s always a saturation point for everything,” says Chuck Morris, the AEG Live promoter who is producing the July 19th-20th Mile High Music Festival in Denver, with Petty and DMB.

If and when you see such a clause, shoot us an e-mail.

Streaming Rate - ASCAP

ASCAP license fee dispute over streaming digital services, rate holding here. USA v. ASCAP, No. 41-1395 (WCC) (S.D.N.Y., White Plains, opinion and order 4/30/08):

"[T]he fee for a blanket license for unlimited performance of all music in the ASCAP repetory for all open periods to December 31, 2009 shall be determined by multiplying the total revenue of the licensed business unit ... less customary deductions for advertising sales commissions and traffic acquisition costs, by a music-use-adjustment fraction whose numerator is the total number of hours music is streamed to users by the licensee ... and whose denominator is the total number of hours of use of the licensee's website ... and applying to the resulting music-use-adjusted revenue a fee rate of 2.5%."

[See conclusion].

State of the Industry

Here is the Nielsen (as in, the SoundScan people) report on the State of the Music Industry (2007-2008).

Copyright Czar?

[CNET]
"By a 410-10 vote, the House approved the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property, or Pro-IP, Act, which is backed by the entertainment industry and other major copyright holders...The bill would rewrite U.S. law to allow federal officials to seize property--including computers or other equipment used to commit intellectual-property crimes or obtained as a result of those proceeds--from people convicted of making unauthorized copies of music, movies, or live performances. In civil cases, federal agents would have to establish that there was a "substantial connection" between the property and the offense."

Do you support this?