Sony And Warner Music Are Out To Destroy the Internet (Radio)

[rdearman]

If you live in the UK you are no doubt aware that Internet Radio stations have been blocked outside the UK. No, this isn't because of Brexit. It is because the greedy £*(& at Sony And Warner Music took TuneIn to court and had them done for copyright infringement. Now I'm all for copyright protection, but radio stations already pay the greedy people at Sony via performance rights organizations (PROs) which are paid performance royalties. So radio stations pay on behalf of their listeners.

The ruling says that because TuneIn are not an indexer (like Google, who has enough money to lawyer up against this kind of stupidity) but provide curative services, then they act like a broadcaster, and so they should pay. Oh, and these services have even removed UK stations from UK users if the stations hasn't filed a confirmation of payments to Sony Warner and the PRO's.

This ruling has produced some oddities, like for example people in the Isle of Manx cannot listen to their radio station on their Sonos speakers or other DAB devices, or computer, because Internet radio companies consider them to be outside the UK, and their ISP considers their IP to be inside the UK. So the guy who literally lives next door to the broadcasting station cannot listen to Manx radio on his Sonos speakers in his house.

But the good news just keeps rolling in! Sony plan to use the UK as precedent for cases in other countries and the EU. This plan would be especially problematic for the EU, because If the ECJ follow the UK courts and find in favour of Sony, then member states will have to geo-block all other member states from each other. Although I believe this is already the case in some places.

Now to be fair, this ruling only applies to apps, or services like Tunein, Radio Garden, etc. Or hardware which uses these types of services, like the Sony CMT-SBT100B (own goal?) So if you create a direct link from your browser, or you know the name the station is on in your smart device, you can still directly access the URLs.

So while they haven't made it illegal to access radio stations outside the UK, they've made it bloody difficult! One good thing however, if you want to use Tunein, or Radio Garden get the ability to listen to other points of view or languages, you can use a VPN via Cuba, Turkey, Vietnam, Egypt, you know all those countries that Amnesty International says restricts freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

You can still go here for a very small list which needs attention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... o_stations

When the AI come to kill us all and take over the world, my hope is that they will start with the lawyers at Sony Warner.

[Sae]

I hadn't considered listening to radio in other countries...but is a good idea. But yeah, I had the greed of businesses like that, it's why YouTube sometimes sucks too, especially for content creators.

But I'll give it a go.

But on the flip side, can I blame it on Brexit anyway?

Not that I want to turn it political, but to be a facetious PITA instead.

[Le Baron]

That's very bad. Radio is my main source of listening and also news, debates, cultural programming etc.

Clearly Sony/Warner are idiots who haven't learned that trying to stop people doing things - like taping music from the radio in the old days - will just backfire on them in the long run. Might have to get out the old Radio Caroline and Veronica ships again.

[Ogrim]

Rdearman's post got me interested enough to search for the judgement and now I've read the whole thing, all 56 pages of it. If you need some bedtime reading that will surely make you fall asleep, you can find it here. However, to save you the pain I thought I'd give a short summary just to add to what the OP says.

Basically, the UK branches of Warner and Sony took TuneIn to Court claiming that TuneIn has infringed their UK copyrights by commiting the restricted act of "communication to the public" or alternatively is liable for the commisison of that restricted act by the operators of foreign radio stations. Basically, the crux of the argument is that TuneIn is a commercial business which targets the UK market specifically, they have over 5 million users in the UK, the advertisement that is played is aimed at a UK audience, over 10% of TuneIn's advertising revenue comes from the UK, and that through its app TuneIn communicates foreign radio stations to a "new public". With that they mean that e.g. a German radio station may be paying a license for reproducing music, but this only applies to Germany and the station is not targeted at at UK audience. However, TuneIn, by linking to this German station, targets it at the UK market, for which the German station does not have a license.

The judgement then refers to different international agreements and treaties regarding copyright and intellectual property rights (the Bern Convention, the Rome Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, various EU Directives and national UK legislation, before discussing at length a large number of case-law, mainly from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The judgement actually makes a point of saying that, although the UK has left the EU, case-law from the time the UK was still a member state has to apply, as the UK has not amended or abolished the national laws which transposed the relevant EU Directives. And in any case the UK is still a party to the other international treaties in this area.

There are many other details in the judgement which I won't go into, suffice to say that the judges came down on the side of Warner and Sony on almost all points. One should not blame the judges, they are there to interpret the law in coherence with existing case-law, but rather the legislators at national and international level who are unable to make legislation which makes sence in the age of the internet. Copyright, IP and licensing rights are very complicated and most legislation is not up to date or responding to what consumers want.

This judgement of course only applies to the UK, so TuneIn can still operate as before in other jurisdictions, at least until the day Warner and Sony or someone else challenge them in a national Court system. If they do so in an EU country, we can expect another case before the CJEU. That will be a long process, so for those of us who don't live in the UK, we can still enjoy easy access to radio stations from all the world via TuneIn or similar apps. I don't use TuneIn, but an app provided by a French company, RadioLine, and I pay a modest sum for a Premium membership to avoid advertisments. For that I can access thousand of radio stations around the world.

I am also in favour of copyright and in paying the artists and creators for their work, but I do think it is a petty move from Warner and Sony, and I really don't see how blocking people in the UK from listening to a German or French radio station will make any difference to their revenue.

[jeffers]

One should not blame the judges, they are there to interpret the law in coherence with existing case-law, but rather the legislators at national and international level who are unable to make legislation which makes sence in the age of the internet. Copyright, IP and licensing rights are very complicated and most legislation is not up to date or responding to what consumers want.

The internet has been around for decades, and legislators can't keep up. I suppose we should not be surprised that legislators aren't doing anything in relation to AI. I heard a security expert on the news who said that talking to politicians about tech is like trying to teach particle physics to a turnip.

[rdearman]

You'd have better luck with the turnip.

EDIT: Recently I had an exchange with my MP and I showed him a report from the government's own office of statistics which said since they'd introduced a tax reform called IR35, the government had lost £27 billion in revenue every year for the last 20 years. He responded by telling me that it was OK, because now the tax system is "more fair" and HMRC had managed to get £1.5 billion. When I pointed out that 27-1.5 was still a loss of £25.5 billion, this rocket scientist told me that HMRC needs a fair tax system, and quote, "it isn't about revenue". So my final email to him was simply "HMRC is supposed to be concerned about revenue, the clue is in the name: His Majesties REVENUE and customs". So I would be way more confident that a turnip could be taught particle physics than a legislator taught even basic mathematics.

[Monty]

The internet has been around for decades, and legislators can't keep up. I suppose we should not be surprised that legislators aren't doing anything in relation to AI. I heard a security expert on the news who said that talking to politicians about tech is like trying to teach particle physics to a turnip.

Agreed.

I have watched hundreds of new releases in the last 10 years - I haven't paid for even one.

I have watched hundreds of hours of football... not paid a penny.

Don't intend to either.

[Cainntear]

One should not blame the judges, they are there to interpret the law in coherence with existing case-law, but rather the legislators at national and international level who are unable to make legislation which makes sence in the age of the internet. Copyright, IP and licensing rights are very complicated and most legislation is not up to date or responding to what consumers want.

The internet has been around for decades, and legislators can't keep up.

Can't they? Seems like internet companies have mostly just attempted to bulldoze through existing laws by shouting "disruptive innovation". They've occassionally proved successful, but quite often not. If the TuneIn case is an example of the law not keeping up with technology, well then what about the fact that photocopiers were invented in 1938 and the law still expects people to buy their books from printers?

[Le Baron]

and quote, "it isn't about revenue". So my final email to him was simply "HMRC is supposed to be concerned about revenue, the clue is in the name: His Majesties REVENUE and customs". So I would be way more confident that a turnip could be taught particle physics than a legislator taught even basic mathematics.

Well I don't know if he actually knows why, but in one sense he is correct. It isn't about 'revenue', or at least revenue in the sense people generally imagine as 'spending money'. I don't know who your MP is, but if he is from the 'nasty party' 'fairness' in the tax system for him means leaving more spent currency in circulation and preferably for corporations and rich people. It affects government spending for them because they instantly see spending without a 'drain' (taxation) as hyperinflation. Like when it gets cold in the bath and you run more hot water in, but first you let some of the tepid water out or it will overflow.

Revenue is is a murky word. As a francophone you'll know it means 'return', but also means 'come down to..amount to' ce qui revient à dire, and even in the direct sense of 'cost': ça revient cher/moins cher. It's very intertwined. Revenue as taxation definitely means 'something coming back', to where it started. An initial credit/debt (the original spending/issue) being cancelled. In some circumstances the government not getting £25b could represent £25b of public financial wealth; instead it usually represents £25b of financial wealth shared between a handful people and often unspent income, blocking that drain which creates their (self imposed) limited fiscal space for public spending.