Irritating Tech News
In case you haven't heard about some of the lawsuits/laws going around impacting various Internet technologies, let me point out a few.
1. Verizon sues Vonage
This story actually began back in June 2006. Verizon has claimed that Vonage infringed on Verizon 7 patents in order to offer the service that they provide. For those of you that don't know what Vonage does - their a telephony company based largely on VoIP (Voice over IP) technology. Essentially, your telephone conversations are sent via the Internet, rather than standard phone lines. The great thing about Vonage is that, by using VoIP, they can offer a lot of great services - and at a very low cost to the consumer. For about $25 a month, Vonage allows users to have free long distance anywhere in the US, Canada, and Europe. They can also set up automatic call-forwarding, voice mail services, etc.
Now I really don't know the details of the case. Vonage argues that the testimony presented in the case proves that Vonage used "off the shelf" and "home grown" technologies for its service. The jury, however, decided that Vonage did infringe upon three patents held by Verizon. The result is that Vonage has to pay Verizon a sum of $58 million and must pay a royalty of 5.5% of every sale to Verizon.
However, that's not the real big deal about this. A ruling was put forth stating that Vonage must immediately cease using the technologies identified by those patents. Of course, if they have to stop using those technologies, how can they continue to provide service? I have no idea. Vonage is appealing the ruling (as of April 3) and the result is not yet known.
On April 6th, a judge issued an injunction to bar Vonage from signing up any new customers. Later that same day, a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of that order.
So, what does all that mean? Well, right now, no one knows what's going to happen to Vonage. If Vonage really did rip off Verizon's copyrights, that's one thing. However, this does seem to be a perfect case of an old entrenched company deciding to beat it's competition by simply suing them into the ground, rather than trying to innovate and actually compete with them. I mean, if Verizon has the same technologies that Vonage has, why can't Verizon provide the same level of service that Vonage does?
2. Copyright Royalty Board Squashes Internet Radio?
On March 1st, the Copyright Royalty Board issued a statement regarding royalties that are to be paid by Internet radio stations (and I also believe this impacts podcasters that use copyrighted music in their shows). Prior to this ruling, all radio stations (Internet and regular FM stations) pay a royalty to the songwriters and/or publishers. Of course, it's long been argued that the additional sales of albums from playing songs on the radio is compensation enough for the copyright holders.
Well, the Copyright Royalty Board (helped heavily, no doubt, by the RIAA) has decided that Internet radio stations are to be held to a different standard. So, in addition to the fees Internet radio stations are currently paying, they must also pay "per performance". The cost will increase each year: $0.0008 in 2006, $0.0011 in 2007, to $0.0019 in 2010. Note that I mentioned 2006. The CRB has decided that these higher fees will be put in place retroactively (effective immediately, even though appeals are in process) so stations will have to pay for performances throughout all of last year.
But $0.0008 doesn't seem like very much, right? Well, that's the cost of a single song being played for a single listener. If a station averages just 1000 listeners and plays 16 songs an hour, that's 16,000 performances an hour, equating to $12.80 per hour. No big deal, right? Well, with 24 hours in a day and 31 days in a month, that comes out to about just shy of $10,000 per month in performance fees. In essence, a tiny Internet radio station like this would be on the hook to pay about $100,000 immediately (because it would be from 2006) and then would be responsible for even more in 2007 because the fee goes from $0.0008 per performance to $0.0011 per performance. It may not seem like much, but that's an increase of 37.5%! And the rate will continue to increase until the yeat 2010.
From what I've seen, the fees required by Internet radio stations will be on the order of anywhere from 125% to 200% of most radio stations' profits.
Assuming this goes through, I think you're going to see a massive decrease in the number of Internet radio stations out there. Most simply won't be able to afford to stay in business.
The thing about this that I find so disturbing is that the RIAA is so paranoid that people will stop buying CDs that I think they're going to the extreme that people really *will* stop buying CDs. Listening to Internet radio, which many people do all day while at work, exposes people to a lot of new music. You hear a good song and you think, "Hmm...maybe I'll buy that." Whether you purchase a hard copy of the album or just buy the track through an online service like iTunes, you're still purchasing the music. Take away the exposure to new music and, personally, I think the RIAA will see a decrease in music sales, rather than an increase, which is what they're after, I'm sure.
3. Viacom Attacks YouTube
If you're not familiar with YouTube, think of all those hockey highlights that I post out here that you all ignore. They're all from YouTube. YouTube is a website where users can upload their own video content so that it can be shared among other "netizens" from around the world. Just like with Napster, a few years back, plenty of copyrighted material ends up on YouTube. Anything from commercials to TV shows to clips from movies.
Viacom has decided to sue YouTube for <Dr. Evil Voice>one billion dollars</Dr. Evil Voice>.
Currently, the letter of the law states that, if a copyright holder finds copyrighted material on an Internet providers site, that provider must allow for the copyright holder to request it be removed and, upon doing so, the provider must remove it promptly. YouTube (which was recently puchased by Google) claims that they do exactly that - whenever someone requests that they remove copyrighted material, they do so.
Viacom has now stated that YouTube is not a standard hosting company so they should be held to a different standard. I'm paraphrasing here, but Viacom is essentially saying that YouTube is a media company and making money off copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them. Due to the presence of copyrighted material on YouTube's site, people come to the site. With high traffic, YouTube can sell advertising space, which makes them money - hence Viacom's claim.
Personally, I'm of the viewpoint that the material on YouTube is more suited for promotional value than anything else. Seriously, who wants to watch a full length TV show on a tiny little screen over the web? However, I'll watch a 30 second clip and, if I like it, I might actually go and watch the show. In that respect, YouTube is providing free advertising for companies such as Viacom.
Now, there are two ways I can view this, and I'm seriously not sure which side I think is more true. On one hand, Viacom could really be trying to bury YouTube as they feel that they're losing money due to the website. On the other hand, Viacom may be well aware that YouTube is providing free advertising but believe they might actually get YouTube to pay Viacom for advertising for Viacom. My significant other doesn't believe Viacom is that smart, but I don't really know. I'm of the mind that Viacom tossed out the $1 billion number just to draw attention. They don't really want to put YouTube out of business - they just want to get more money. But that's really just my opinion.
Seriously, though, I've enjoyed this hockey season far more than most seasons past - and not just because the Pens finally had a good season. Even in the self-proclaimed "state of hockey", it's hard to follow hockey. Few people around me care and when I do talk about hockey (usually on this blog), no one wants to listen, much less talk back. I can watch an hour of SportCenter to see 5 minutes of hockey highlights - hopefully, now that the playoffs are started, I'll get 15 minutes. However, I believe the NHL has done a great thing after losing a season due to lockout.
After that happened, a lot of networks didn't want to touch the NHL. ESPN dropped their contract with the NHL and games weren't even going to be televised until The Outdoor Network (now Versus) picked them up. However, the NHL really embraced the community of folks that write about the NHL in blogs and post highlights on YouTube. Heck, I don't know how many serious hockey fans haven't watched The "Boom" video at least a handful of times. The fact that I can find highlights on my own whenever I want and read other peoples' opinions on various blogs means that I'm far more interested in what's going on around the league than I have been in the past. YouTube serves a purpose that fits right in with Viacom.
Personally, I think this is just another case in which we've got lots of lawmakers that don't understand technology and media companies with lots of money and hidden agendas.
1. Verizon sues Vonage
This story actually began back in June 2006. Verizon has claimed that Vonage infringed on Verizon 7 patents in order to offer the service that they provide. For those of you that don't know what Vonage does - their a telephony company based largely on VoIP (Voice over IP) technology. Essentially, your telephone conversations are sent via the Internet, rather than standard phone lines. The great thing about Vonage is that, by using VoIP, they can offer a lot of great services - and at a very low cost to the consumer. For about $25 a month, Vonage allows users to have free long distance anywhere in the US, Canada, and Europe. They can also set up automatic call-forwarding, voice mail services, etc.
Now I really don't know the details of the case. Vonage argues that the testimony presented in the case proves that Vonage used "off the shelf" and "home grown" technologies for its service. The jury, however, decided that Vonage did infringe upon three patents held by Verizon. The result is that Vonage has to pay Verizon a sum of $58 million and must pay a royalty of 5.5% of every sale to Verizon.
However, that's not the real big deal about this. A ruling was put forth stating that Vonage must immediately cease using the technologies identified by those patents. Of course, if they have to stop using those technologies, how can they continue to provide service? I have no idea. Vonage is appealing the ruling (as of April 3) and the result is not yet known.
On April 6th, a judge issued an injunction to bar Vonage from signing up any new customers. Later that same day, a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of that order.
So, what does all that mean? Well, right now, no one knows what's going to happen to Vonage. If Vonage really did rip off Verizon's copyrights, that's one thing. However, this does seem to be a perfect case of an old entrenched company deciding to beat it's competition by simply suing them into the ground, rather than trying to innovate and actually compete with them. I mean, if Verizon has the same technologies that Vonage has, why can't Verizon provide the same level of service that Vonage does?
2. Copyright Royalty Board Squashes Internet Radio?
On March 1st, the Copyright Royalty Board issued a statement regarding royalties that are to be paid by Internet radio stations (and I also believe this impacts podcasters that use copyrighted music in their shows). Prior to this ruling, all radio stations (Internet and regular FM stations) pay a royalty to the songwriters and/or publishers. Of course, it's long been argued that the additional sales of albums from playing songs on the radio is compensation enough for the copyright holders.
Well, the Copyright Royalty Board (helped heavily, no doubt, by the RIAA) has decided that Internet radio stations are to be held to a different standard. So, in addition to the fees Internet radio stations are currently paying, they must also pay "per performance". The cost will increase each year: $0.0008 in 2006, $0.0011 in 2007, to $0.0019 in 2010. Note that I mentioned 2006. The CRB has decided that these higher fees will be put in place retroactively (effective immediately, even though appeals are in process) so stations will have to pay for performances throughout all of last year.
But $0.0008 doesn't seem like very much, right? Well, that's the cost of a single song being played for a single listener. If a station averages just 1000 listeners and plays 16 songs an hour, that's 16,000 performances an hour, equating to $12.80 per hour. No big deal, right? Well, with 24 hours in a day and 31 days in a month, that comes out to about just shy of $10,000 per month in performance fees. In essence, a tiny Internet radio station like this would be on the hook to pay about $100,000 immediately (because it would be from 2006) and then would be responsible for even more in 2007 because the fee goes from $0.0008 per performance to $0.0011 per performance. It may not seem like much, but that's an increase of 37.5%! And the rate will continue to increase until the yeat 2010.
From what I've seen, the fees required by Internet radio stations will be on the order of anywhere from 125% to 200% of most radio stations' profits.
Assuming this goes through, I think you're going to see a massive decrease in the number of Internet radio stations out there. Most simply won't be able to afford to stay in business.
The thing about this that I find so disturbing is that the RIAA is so paranoid that people will stop buying CDs that I think they're going to the extreme that people really *will* stop buying CDs. Listening to Internet radio, which many people do all day while at work, exposes people to a lot of new music. You hear a good song and you think, "Hmm...maybe I'll buy that." Whether you purchase a hard copy of the album or just buy the track through an online service like iTunes, you're still purchasing the music. Take away the exposure to new music and, personally, I think the RIAA will see a decrease in music sales, rather than an increase, which is what they're after, I'm sure.
3. Viacom Attacks YouTube
If you're not familiar with YouTube, think of all those hockey highlights that I post out here that you all ignore. They're all from YouTube. YouTube is a website where users can upload their own video content so that it can be shared among other "netizens" from around the world. Just like with Napster, a few years back, plenty of copyrighted material ends up on YouTube. Anything from commercials to TV shows to clips from movies.
Viacom has decided to sue YouTube for <Dr. Evil Voice>one billion dollars</Dr. Evil Voice>.
Currently, the letter of the law states that, if a copyright holder finds copyrighted material on an Internet providers site, that provider must allow for the copyright holder to request it be removed and, upon doing so, the provider must remove it promptly. YouTube (which was recently puchased by Google) claims that they do exactly that - whenever someone requests that they remove copyrighted material, they do so.
Viacom has now stated that YouTube is not a standard hosting company so they should be held to a different standard. I'm paraphrasing here, but Viacom is essentially saying that YouTube is a media company and making money off copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them. Due to the presence of copyrighted material on YouTube's site, people come to the site. With high traffic, YouTube can sell advertising space, which makes them money - hence Viacom's claim.
Personally, I'm of the viewpoint that the material on YouTube is more suited for promotional value than anything else. Seriously, who wants to watch a full length TV show on a tiny little screen over the web? However, I'll watch a 30 second clip and, if I like it, I might actually go and watch the show. In that respect, YouTube is providing free advertising for companies such as Viacom.
Now, there are two ways I can view this, and I'm seriously not sure which side I think is more true. On one hand, Viacom could really be trying to bury YouTube as they feel that they're losing money due to the website. On the other hand, Viacom may be well aware that YouTube is providing free advertising but believe they might actually get YouTube to pay Viacom for advertising for Viacom. My significant other doesn't believe Viacom is that smart, but I don't really know. I'm of the mind that Viacom tossed out the $1 billion number just to draw attention. They don't really want to put YouTube out of business - they just want to get more money. But that's really just my opinion.
Seriously, though, I've enjoyed this hockey season far more than most seasons past - and not just because the Pens finally had a good season. Even in the self-proclaimed "state of hockey", it's hard to follow hockey. Few people around me care and when I do talk about hockey (usually on this blog), no one wants to listen, much less talk back. I can watch an hour of SportCenter to see 5 minutes of hockey highlights - hopefully, now that the playoffs are started, I'll get 15 minutes. However, I believe the NHL has done a great thing after losing a season due to lockout.
After that happened, a lot of networks didn't want to touch the NHL. ESPN dropped their contract with the NHL and games weren't even going to be televised until The Outdoor Network (now Versus) picked them up. However, the NHL really embraced the community of folks that write about the NHL in blogs and post highlights on YouTube. Heck, I don't know how many serious hockey fans haven't watched The "Boom" video at least a handful of times. The fact that I can find highlights on my own whenever I want and read other peoples' opinions on various blogs means that I'm far more interested in what's going on around the league than I have been in the past. YouTube serves a purpose that fits right in with Viacom.
Personally, I think this is just another case in which we've got lots of lawmakers that don't understand technology and media companies with lots of money and hidden agendas.
