The copyright status of MP3 resale back in court via the ReDigi appeal
The debate over whether or not it is possible to move a digital file from one device to another without that transfer constituting a copy - and therefore being controlled by copyright - was back in the American courts yesterday as the long-running dispute between Capitol Records and tech firm ReDigi reached the Second Circuit court of appeal.

As previously reported, ReDigi ran a marketplace where people could resell digital music files they had legitimately acquired to third parties. It was a digital version of the second hand record shop, with ReDigi arguing that the principle in copyright law that says that consumers can resell physical records without the copyright owner's permission - what is called the first sale doctrine in the US - should apply to digital music files too.

The record industry disagreed. The labels pointed out that when you resell a CD no copying is involved. Whereas when an MP3 moves from one device to another, by definition, a copy takes place. And even if you can ensure that the original copy of the file is then deleted from the first device, the 'reproduction control' of the copyright has still been exploited, and that requires a licence from the copyright owner.

When Capitol - then still an EMI subsidiary - sued the tech start-up for copyright infringement in 2012, ReDigi - which always insisted that its technology ensured that there was only ever one version of a resold digital file in existence at any one time - presented various arguments to counter the label's claims. In particular, it got technical about why its file transfer system didn't constitute copying, while also continuing to insist that the aforementioned first sale doctrine should apply to digital.

In 2013, a judge ruled in favour of Capitol - by then a Universal label - stating that: "ReDigi facilitates and profits from the sale of copyrighted commercial recordings, transferred in their entirety, with a likely detrimental impact on the primary market for these goods. It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created".

ReDigi appealed and, despite the company filing for bankruptcy last year, that appeal process continues, hence the hearing in the Second Circuit this week.

According to Law 360, yesterday Robert C Welsh, speaking for ReDigi, re-presented his client's core arguments, while citing a little case law that he reckoned backed up his interpretation of American copyright. He then argued that the lower court never really determined how ReDigi's technology actually worked, and therefore wasn't in a position to rule on whether or not a reproduction took place when files were transferred via the platform.

Welsh: "The real issue in this case is does ReDigi's technology cause a reproduction of Capitol's copyrighted work to be created even for a fraction of an instant of a second. And the answer, based on the uncontroverted evidence presented by ReDigi, is that ReDigi's technology does not - it never does - cause the creation of second instance a second copy of the copyrighted sound recording".

Speaking for Capitol, Richard S Mandel insisted that transferring a digital file from one device to another had to involve some copying. "If you embody a copyrighted work in a new material object", he told the appeal judges, "by definition you have reproduced the copyrighted work and violated the reproduction right".

The judges asked an assortment of technical as well as legal questions during the session, and we now await their ruling on the appeal. Given ReDigi's bankruptcy - not to mention the shift of the digital music market away from downloads over to streaming - it's not clear quite what a ruling in the tech firm's favour would mean in terms of its business model. Though either way the judgement should set an important precedent in US copyright law.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Sony Music signs up with Dubset
Dubset, the company whose technology identifies what songs and tracks appear in DJ mixes, with the aim of then licensing each component of each mix so that they can be legitimately distributed via streaming platforms, has announced a deal with Sony Music.

Dubset last year announced alliances with both Spotify and Apple Music, which are keen to carry copyright cleared mixes and remixes on their respective streaming platforms. It has also been liaising with potential label and publisher partners which see the benefit of their tracks and songs featuring in streamed mixes, where royalties have to be shared between various rights owners, but being in the mix can get music to new audiences.

Sony Music is the first major record company to sign up with Dubset. Through the deal, the major will now have access to the tech firm's MixBANK Rights Management Platform and Cross Clearance Network, via which it can manage any tracks it controls that feature in DJ mixes being distributed by the Dubset company.

"This is a watershed moment for Dubset", reckons the firm's CEO Stephen White, who adds that the Sony alliance "demonstrates how critical the MixBANK tool and programs are proving to be with rights holders".

Adds White: "Hundreds of millions of music fans are streaming DJ and remix content, and labels, publishers, and performance societies need robust solutions for managing the use of their catalogues within this massive category of under-monetised music. We are honoured that Sony Music has selected Dubset to help identify and unlock the value in these uses of their catalogue".

But what does Sony Music Entertainment SVP Digital Partner Development Andre Stapleton think about the deal? That's what you want to know isn't it? Well, people, we are here to tell you just that. "There is a large global audience for DJ sets and remixes", notes he, "and we think this agreement will benefit premium music subscribers by bringing more of that content into the product mix for electronic and dance fans".

He adds: "We have worked closely with Dubset on a deal that not only protects our artists, but also provides us with the tools to harness new revenues for them, while amplifying the popularity of the original master recordings at the same time".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Dot Blockchain allies with Intel's Hyperledger Sawtooth framework
The Dot Blockchain project - which seeks to address the music industry's multifarious music data issues via a new blockchain-distributed rights registry - has announced that it has selected the Linux Foundation's Hyperledger Sawtooth as its blockchain - or 'distributed ledger' if you prefer - of choice.

The music data initiative says it has selected the Hyperledger Sawtooth framework to distribute its registry because of a specific mechanism it offers called Proof Of Elapsed Time, which will "enhance the security and privacy of the content rights registry".

Says Dot Blockchain boss Benji Rogers: "Hyperledger Sawtooth will enable us to scale rapidly and customise transaction processors specifically for ingesting rights data. We look forward to delivering a strong and lasting solution, anchored on a sophisticated and secure blockchain foundation, for the music and media industries with Intel".

Ah yes, Intel. Sawtooth was contributed to the wider Hyperledger open-source blockchain project by Intel, and the VP of that firm's Software & Services Group, Rick Echevarria, welcomed Dot Blockchain's announcement.

He said: "Hyperledger Sawtooth, utilising Intel security technologies, is able to provide enhanced privacy and security for blockchain transactions. dotBC's blockchain initiative is an example of how blockchains can provide and meet the transparency and visibility requirements of the music and media industry".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

The AEG/MSG venue bookings war maybe over
The pointless but slightly amusing venue bookings spat between the major players in live music Stateside - which spilled over into London town - could be over, and not just because one of the participants went and had a cry in front of the UK competition regulator.

As previously reported, it recently emerged that live giant AEG was linking bookings at its Staples Center venue in LA to the O2 Arena in London, so that you were more likely to get access to the latter if you played the former. Which means that artists wanting to take to the O2 Arena stage in the UK would be advised to choose the Staples Center over rival LA venue The Forum, which is operated by MSG Entertainment.

But AEG insisted that it had only instigated that policy because MSG Entertainment had been allegedly telling agents that if artists wanted to play its prestigious Madison Square Garden venue in New York, they'd better pick The Forum when playing in LA.

Live Nation - which runs venues, but also promotes shows in both AEG and MSG buildings - then got involved in the spat by criticising AEG's policy of linking Staples Center and O2 Arena bookings.

AEG promptly hit back by asking why Live Nation hadn't been so vocal about MSG Entertainment's initial linking of Madison Square Garden and The Forum, before noting that both those venues had alliances with Live Nation's Ticketmaster. AEG then had a rant about empire-building Live Nation having no grounds for accusing anyone else in live music of anti-competitive behaviour.

So that was all fun. However, according to Billboard, the spat could now be put on hold. First Irving Azoff, who is in business with MSG, insisted that there is no "mandated booking link" between the firm's New York and LA venues. To which AEG said that - providing it saw MSG actually make good on that commitment - it would be willing to stop linking bookings at its London and LA arenas.

AEG told Billboard: "We have always been staunch advocates of artists having the freedom to play the venues they want to play. That choice was taken away when MSG, supported by others, implemented their restrictive practices ... but we have been very clear all along - if [MSG end those practices], AEG will consider reverting to its previous long-standing position that its buildings are open to all artists".

To which Azoff responded that MSG "are THRILLED that AEG has listened to the artists and is going to adopt the same booking policy as MSG. For the record, and at the risk of being redundant: MSG and The Forum are open buildings. We said it and we mean it. Just ask the artists like Katy Perry who played MSG and Staples. So, that settles the matter: AEG and MSG have open buildings".

And hurrah for that. Meanwhile, it turns out Live Nation formally complained about AEG's Staples/O2 linking thing to the UK's Competition & Markets Authority.

AEG confirmed that it had been approached by the competition regulator, stating that: "[The CMA] has requested that AEG provide information regarding our booking practices, which AEG will of course provide. We believe our responses will clarify some questions recently brought before them and will be sufficient to allow all parties to move on".

If AEG does now change its bookings policy on the back of Azoff's firm commitment to Billboard about MSG's policies, then maybe the CMA can put investigating Live Nation's complaint on hold. Giving it more time to investigate the Association Of Independent Festival's previously reported CMA complaint about Live Nation. Fun fun.

--------------------------------------------------

DHP Family to open new venue in Birmingham
Live music firm DHP Family has announced plans to launch a new music venue in Birmingham within a building it has just acquired on the city's John Bright Street. Specifics about the new music space are still being confirmed, but it will incorporate a bar and café in addition to its live music and club night programme.

DHP Family boss George Akins said yesterday: "Birmingham is the UK's second city, and has a rich musical heritage - but the city centre has lacked a characterful and creative venue for a long time. We believe with the revitalisation of the area around New Street Station that the time is right to create a place that the music fans of Birmingham will welcome."

Noting its existing venue operations elsewhere in the UK, in Nottingham, London and Bristol, DHP's Director Of Promotions, Anton Lockwood, said: "We plan to use the skills and knowledge we've gained from award winning venues like Rock City, Oslo, Thekla and Rescue Rooms to deliver something exciting that echoes the DHP values and standards, but is also a unique experience to Birmingham".

He added: "As part of this we will increase our focus on Birmingham as promoters, and will be investing in people and marketing in this key strategic region for us".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

A2IM adds to stack of responses to Lyor Cohen's 'YouTube is great' blog
Have you written your response to Lyor Cohen's blog post yet? Well, have you? You did know that was your homework for last weekend, right? It's official, everyone in the music industry is obliged to respond to Cohen's blog post. You know, the blog post that explained why YouTube is brilliant. And why YouTube is the music industry's best bud. And why the music industry should shut the fuck up about safe harbours.

As previously reported, record industry veteran and now YouTube music chief Cohen defended his current employer's music operations last week. The blog post came as record companies and music publishers continue to publicly and loudly criticise YouTube which, they argue, exploits the copyright safe harbour to force music rights owners into unfairly preferential deals. The music community, of course, wants copyright law rewritten so that YouTube is no longer protected by the safe harbour.

The bosses of the Recording Industry Association Of America and UK label trade group BPI have both already responded to Cohen, disputing his figures, listing the music community's various YouTube moans, and insisting that safe harbour reform - dubbed a "distraction" by Cohen - is, in fact, very important indeed.

Now Richard James Burgess of the American Association Of Independent Music has also responded. Nodding toward the RIAA and BPI responses, he basically shouts, "yeah, everything they said".

Addressing Cohen directly, the A2IM boss writes: "Many of us hope that you will be able to change the culture at YouTube to become more artist friendly and transparent. We understand that it takes time to shift corporate culture, especially one as established as Google's. [But] unfortunately, there are some entrenched alternative facts that are repeatedly regurgitated by YouTube and need to be corrected".

Those alternative facts, says Burgess, include YouTube comparing itself to Spotify's free streams. But Spotify only streams music provided by the labels - Burgess writes - and pays royalties on every single play. YouTube allows anyone to upload tracks - labels must login and remove them if they don't want them to be there - plus the Google platform usually only pays rights owners when advertising rolls alongside their content.

Joining the RIAA and BPI in questioning Cohen's claims that YouTube pays $3 per 1000 streams in the US, Burgess says that - while it is possible "some carefully selected YouTube streams" have paid out that amount - "no information we have seen indicates a rate even close to that". And, anyway, information from A2IM's members suggests that two out of three music video streams on YouTube worldwide are entirely unmonetised.

Dealing with YouTube's claims that its Content ID system means labels can easily manage their recordings on the video platform, Burgess writes: "Content ID may be technologically capable of tracking unauthorised usage but, if so, it is not being applied adequately. We have brought this to YouTube's attention repeatedly and the response is always a robotic, 'Content ID is 99.5% effective'". The indie labels, it seems, do not concur.

Elsewhere Burgess deals with Cohen's optimism about YouTube's shift to subscriptions via its Red service, questioning how compelling that paid-for option really is when so much free content is so readily available on the video site.

And, as for the promo benefit for artists on being on the YouTubes, Burgess says: "The attraction of fame is exactly how many artists get enticed into unsustainable situations. For some, fame may be a stepping stone to fortune. Nevertheless, artists, whose music is used, deserve to make a living commensurate with the level of usage. They should not need to become household names to do so"

Concluding, Burgess writes: "In closing, and reflecting on your closing comments about 'bringing artists and fans together to make magic happen', this is undeniably something you have done many times. What we also need to ensure is that - along with the magic - artists, songwriters, and the businesses that support them can get their fair share of monies generated by their creativity. And it is ultimately our responsibility to do everything we can to generate the most money possible for those creators".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

LCD Soundsystem do the VR thing for new video
LCD Soundsystem have gone all interactive with the video for new single 'Tonite' by employing some new fangled web-based virtual reality gubbins so that viewers with the right VR kit can integrate themselves into the experience. The VR venture is called 'Dance Tonite'.

"The uncanniness of the 'Dance Tonite' experience is super entertaining and weird, and I really enjoy it", says the Soundsystem's James Murphy. "I didn't expect to enjoy it [but] I like the simplicity of it". High praise indeed.

Says project creator Jonathan Puckey: "We wanted to see if we could treat a VR device as a tool for self-expression and 'Dance Tonite' fits perfectly within a series of participative interactive music videos which we've directed over the years. Taking a piece of music like LCD Soundsystem's 'Tonite' as a starting point can act as the perfect scaffold to create something within".

Go see here: tonite.dance

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

"The producers told me to go on about Blazin Squad" says Love Island's Marcel Somerville
Now, a Blazin Squad reunion maybe in the pipeline on the back of Squad member Marcel Somerville, aka Rocky B, appearing on the weirdly successful ITV reality show franchise 'Love Island'. But Somerville would like you all to know that he didn't keep going on about his former musical combo on the show just to get enough free promo to justify the reunion.

In fact, he says, it was the pesky producers of 'Love Island' who kept insisting he talk about his time as a Blazin Squadder. "I'm going to be honest", he tells OK! Magazine in a new interview, "every time I said it, it was because the producers asked me to say it".

He adds: "They'd be like, 'have a conversation with Olivia and could you just let her know you used to be in Blazin' Squad?' They got me on the show for that reason, so I had to go along with it. I don't mind because it's a bit of fun and it got a lot of love".

And a nice reunion of his former crew, of course. Though, Somerville then adds, he didn't go on about the Squad quite as much as people think he did while he was residing on the island of love. "I only said it five times", he insists.

Unfortunately I can't verify that statement because I never watched the programme. If I'm being honest, I don't really know what 'Love Island' is. Some sort of telly programme? What's a telly programme? What's a telly? Is that kind of like YouTube in a big box? And now I come to think about it, who the fuck are the Blazin Squad?

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN