Copyright Decision on Aereo

Aereo is a recent technology service that offered online access to local TV broadcasts in selected markets in the U.S.  For a fee, they grabbed programs that a subscriber requested, from "free" over-the-air local broadcasters, digitally converted the broadcast into a IP stream that was sent directly to the subscriber's connected device.

And when TV networks and cable systems  heard about it, they sought to pre-emptively ban it.  Cable because it was a much cheaper alternative to a service they sought to provide.  The networks' objection was pithily stated by one network CEO: "If anyone makes money from local broadcasts, we demand a share of it."  A consortium of networks and MSOs filed suit claiming that Aereo violated copyright law and seeking an immediate injunction against deploying the system; however, the judge in that case ruled against an injunction as Aereo offered a reasonable argument that its service was not a violation of copyright - but did not initially rule on the viability of that argument.  Both parties wanted to expedite matters, so they sought to bring the case to the Supreme Court to get a final ruling on the basic copyright issues.

Copyright law is fairly simple, yet complex.  The law gives the owner of the copyright the legal authority to determine the conditions under which the copyrighted material is made available to others.  It also, however, permits a "fair use" exemption under certain general conditions - allowing others to access and use the content under restricted conditions.  The rise of broadcasting created an issue, however - what counts as a "copy"?  This came to a head with the rise of cable systems, and their retransmission of over-the-air broadcast signals from local (and eventually distant) stations.  As a result, Congress amended copyright law to include "public performance" of audiovisual signals, and specifically applied that term to carriage ("retransmission") of over-the-air television broadcasts. 

Around the same time, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on what behaviors were considered "fair use" of audio and video content.  Specifically, they ruled that - for legally acquired content - individuals could record content for their later use (time-shifting), transfer and translate content for use in different locals or on different devices (place-shifting), and make a back-up (archive) copy, but only for their own use.

Aereo's service was designed to fit those "fair use" guidelines and the "free" nature of over-the-air broadcasting (stations are prohibited from charging viewers for access to public broadcasts).  Each Aereo subscriber was assigned their own antenna for receiving the free broadcasts, and unlike cable, content was not retransmitted unless specifically requested by that subscriber, and was made available only to the device the subscriber sent the request from.  Aereo argued that they were not engaging in a public performance, but a private one that essentially amounted to the time-shifting and place-shifting aspects of fair use.

The big media consortium (ABC et al.) argued that the Aereo service was simply a retransmission service, and was engaged in "public performance" because it offered its service to the public at large.  Therefore, Aereo was in violation of U.S. copyright law.

The recent Supreme Court ruling (6-3) was that Aereo's service was "substantially similar" to cable, because it offers a service that allows subscribers to watch TV programs, and that it is a "public performance" because several subscribers may be watching the same program, thus constituting a "public."

It's not terribly surprising, although it is disappointing, that the majority decision is technologically ignorant and focuses on outcomes rather than processes and behaviors.  To the majority, any technology that delivers TV programs to members of the public is essentially no different than a cable system and thus any retransmission right for that content must be granted by the copyright owner (presumably, but not necessarily, for a fee).  In addition, the majority nonsensically assumes that since the copyright act does not explicitly define "public", it is any group of individuals beyond what may be watching on a single device. The majority also finds that it makes no difference who is initiating and controlling the retransmission - an individual subscriber or a cable system; rather, they shift the focus to Aereo because it offers a "service."

There is a weird yet nonsensical example given, where the majority suggests that Aereo's problem is that it doesn't provide a service to the copyright owners, but to the public.  The majority repeatedly focuses on copyright owner's right to set the terms of "performance" or consumption.  This ignores the fact that, under law and the terms of their licenses, local broadcasters must provide their copyrighted content freely and without restriction to the public.  Not only to those watching live at home on a TV set, or through a cable system paying retransmission fees; the viewer, or Aereo subscriber, already has the legal right to view or listen to broadcast content.  The copyright owners have already been paid for that performance by the broadcaster - the majority seems to think that viewers need to pay a second time to engage in time-, place- or device-shifting.

The majority decision argues that this ruling does not prejudge future technologies, saying that it is not their intent.  It's hard, though, to see how this is possible, when the decision sets down three extremely broad definitions - 1) that any system for delivering TV content to consumers is "substantially similar" to cable and thus subject to cable's rules; 2) that any group of individuals is considered to be "the public"; and 3) that the driving purpose is not protection of a copyright owner's rights, but the networks "right" to offer a "public performance" of copyrighted material.  Combine that with the majority decision's total disregard for the specific elements of technology and service offered by Aereo - and thus not providing any hook for a narrow argument - and you set a precedence for overreach.

Further, this case offered the opportunity to re-examine which activities are covered by "fair use."  In light of the wretched quality of the decision, I'm relieved that this Court didn't take up that opportunity.

The dissent shreds the majority decision, arguing that the service provided by Aereo was not even a "performance" as defined by copyright law, much less a "public performance."  Rather than looking at the end stage of the service (providing TV programs to viewers) and making an indefensible leap to equate it with cable, the dissent treats Aereo as an Internet content delivery system.  And supports their argument by actually looking at what the service does, then examining the actual case law relevant to those actions (rather than relying on problematic anecdotes).  The dissent eviscerates the majority's "looks like" argument, noting how it conflicts with other recent decisions (including some authored by the same Justice who wrote the majority decision), and ignores both the question of the type of copyright violation being considered (primary, secondary violation, and whether Aereo is acting as an ISP and thus exempt), as well as the issue of "fair use" and the role of the subscriber (not the system) in selecting content for viewing.

The majority decision has turned a copyright case into a "performance" result, achieved only with mystical inference of Congressional intent, over-broad definitions of "public" & "performance", and a "looks like a duck" equivalence of two video delivery systems that could hardly be more polar opposites in technology and operation.  And by doing so, making the application of copyright to new technologies and content delivery systems even more problematic for the future.

And of course, the TV & cable industry hailed the decision, seeing a potential source of revenues (or a protection of current retransmission rights fees).  However, that's likely to be a short-term and low-value source for broadcasters and networks for two reasons - first, that while they think they're soaking the service operator for these revenues, eventually viewers will figure out that stations and broadcast networks are asking them to pay for "free TV"; second, that it's the content that generates the value for viewers, not their "public performance" of that content.  In fact, to the extent that the broadcast "performance" has any value for the station or network, it comes from the broadcast's ability to reach an audience; as such, any mechanism that will extend or expand their reach should be welcomed, rather than challenged.

Sources -  Supremes Rule Against Aereo, Broadcasting & Cable
ABC et al. v. Aereo, Supreme Court decision No. 13-461

Fair Use Guide for Journalists

Following up on a project of putting out a set of principles/guidelines for fair use in making documentaries, Pat Aufderheide of American University has facilitated a project to come up with a similar set of principles and guidelines for journalists.  The guide was released a couple of months ago, in connection with a TEDxPoynter talk (video available here).

The final published guide and other supporting material is available here.

PDF version of Set of Principles in Fair Use for Journalism

The Coming TV Revolution: Can Over-the-Air Free Broadcasting survive?

A number of trends are coming to a head - and may quickly and radically transform the TV (and other video media) landscape

  Broadcast TV has remained the primary force and driver throughout myriad technological advances - coax birthing cable; VCRs facilitating time-shifting and opening new choices for viewing; satellites transforming signal distribution and leading to an explosion of networks; computer gaming providing an alternative use for TV sets; digital networks & the Web opening the market (especially at broadband speeds); mobile and the "TV Everywhere" potential; social media prompting new levels of engagement; among others.  All these have opened the market to competition, and the explosion of choice has led to shrinking audiences and falling revenues - even with TV ad spot prices increasing.
  Still, the big networks remained the top draws in programming, grabbed the lion's share of national ad revenues, and remained, through its public broadcast outlets, more or less universally accessible.

  That's starting to change.  The audience share for the Big 4 broadcast networks has been falling for almost a half century.  This winter saw one of the Big 4 networks' entire schedule outperformed by Spanish-language broadcaster Univision in the key 18-49 demographic.  In the Winter sweeps, a cable show (A&E's Walking Dead) outperformed every broadcast network regular scripted series program.  If you exclude big sporting events and reality programs, most of the Big 4's current prime time schedule was outperformed by cable TV reality programs (Duck Dynasty, Swamp People) and WWE Pro Wrestling.  That's not a position of strength in the market.

  And then there's the impacts of DVRs and other viewing alternatives. This last ratings year is seeing most scripted programs experiencing significant time-shifting - from 15% to as high as 50% of a shows audience coming from time-shifting - whether through DVR replay, access through Video on Demand offerings, or streamed from network online sites. The shift isn't stopping with broadcasting either; recent studies show that more people are watching Nickelodeon's programming via NetFlix streaming than are watching the network itself.  TV viewing habits seem to be changing.
  Alternative viewing creates problems for an industry dependent on advertising - particularly when a sizable portion of value comes from being able to target times and specific audiences.  One problem is counting those who delay viewing.  That problem's been around since VCRs, although it's really grown significant only recently.  Nielsen's tried to keep pace by developing multiple ratings measures - the original live viewing ratings while introducing new ratings measures that also include delayed viewing within various time-frames.  However, the industry hasn't settled on how to best capture online streamed viewing, so much of that remains unmeasured.  Even with better measures of delayed viewing, much of it occurs through devices that allow users to fast forward through ads or skip them entirely; and VOD and streaming services don't necessarily include the same ads as aired in the original broadcast.  As such, the expanded ratings may capture the additional program viewing, but aren't really helpful in measuring advertising's reach, or adding value to the live ad spots.
  Then there's cord-cutting and the zero-TV homes.  Those terms address different impacts of the rise of online video streaming.  "Cord-cutting" refers to the growing phenomenon of people dropping some or all of their multichannel feeds and relying on a combination of over-the-air broadcasting and online streaming to provide their TV content.  Research suggests around 1 in 10 multichannel subscribers have dropped some or all of their multichannel service (the vast majority dropped pay or more costly advanced tiers while keeping basic service), with another 5-10% considering the move.  While cord-cutting may become a significant problem for those services that are dropped, you would think that it would help broadcasters as the primary source of live TV.  "Zero-TV" homes take things a step further; the term doesn't refer to those without a TV set and who never watch - rather it refers to those who get their TV and video content entirely from non-traditional TV channels.  Primarily from online streaming, online downloads, and recorded home videos (movies and TV programs).  While initially only a small portion of the U.S. TV audience, Nielsen recently announced that it will start including those households in their sampling, and will eventually integrate their viewing into its TV ratings system.  Initial studies suggest as many as 5 million USTV homes fall into the "Zero-TV" category.
  Declining audiences are also evident in drop-offs in advertising revenues.  TV's aggregate share (broadcast and cable) of national ad dollars has fallen below those for online advertising.  Advertising revenues for cable networks surpassed those for broadcast networks a couple of years ago.  At best, TV ad revenues have diminished long term potential.  TV ad revenues, like all advertising media, took a hit in the recent recession, and growth rates have slowed behind other advertising outlets, resulting in a shrinking share of volatile advertising dollars.  TV businesses, like newspapers and cable firms before them, are seeking new revenue streams.
  One potential new revenue source is licensing.  The jump in retransmission fees in the latest round of negotiations, the success of cable and DBS in getting consumers to pay for TV, and the more recent success of online streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, have amply demonstrated the potential value of licensing as a revenue source.  TV and video firms are starting to look in that direction for revenues to replace advertising losses.  In fact, broadcast networks are already scrambling to grab a share of retransmission fees from local broadcasters, creating problems for many local stations.

All of this helps set the stage for the major networks knee-jerk reaction to two innovations fostering the "TV Everywhere" concept: Dish's Hopper with Slingbox, and Aereo.

  Dish's Hopper started as a DVR-type service with two particular twists: it would automatically record every network prime-time program, instead of only those selected by the viewer; and it included technology that allowed viewers to skip all commercials during replay.  To handle the volume of the entire prime-time schedule, much of the program storage would be in Dish's cloud rather than in the subscriber's set-top box.  These factors were enough to get most of the major broadcast firms to challenge Dish in court, trying to prevent its implementation.  Then came another innovation when Dish announced the integration of Slingbox technology, which allows viewers to stream content received at home to Internet-connected devices anywhere.
  With the first announcement of the Hopper service, major networks sought to challenge the legality of the service and technology, largely on copyright and intellectual property grounds, and seeking an injunction that would prevent Dish from implementing and offering the service.  In particular, CBS, and its CEO Les Moonves, not only reacted negatively, but badly.  After the Dish Hopper with Slingbox was voted "Best of Show" at the last CES (Consumer Electronics Show) by C/Net (owned by CBS) editors, Moonves' office ordered them to remove the device from consideration, and to not report any more news or information about the technology or service.  (This was after promising C/Net complete editorial autonomy).  Moonves also threatened to pull CBS off the Dish DBS system if they didn't stop promoting the commercial skip function.  (Revealing also his ignorance of DBS operations and rules: first, Dish doesn't carry the network, they carry local broadcast stations which are CBS affiliates and FCC rules prohibit network interference with local station operations; second, unlike cable, local station carriage rules state that if a satellite service carries any local station, it must carry all local stations in that market.)

  Aereo's technology allows users to access local broadcast signals through the Internet.  It's primarily a place-shifting technology (like Slingbox), rather than a time-shifting technology (DVR, Hopper).  As such, it's impact is to expand the potential audience for local broadcasters, so it's less clear why broadcast networks and station groups would be in opposition to a technology that would only expand their reach and their audiences for advertisers.  Still, a number have joined forces to file a lawsuit aimed at prohibiting the service, again mostly on copyright grounds. (I've speculated it's just because they want to grab a share of Aereo's subscription fees).  A number of the broadcast networks, Fox publicly, have threatened to pull their programming from over-the-air distribution if Aereo and similar "TV Everywhere" technologies are allowed to continue.

  The central question in the two lawsuits is whether the services fall under the guidelines established in the 1984 Betamax case.  In that landmark case, the Court ruled that technologies that technically could be used for copyright violations were legal if they also had substantial non-infringing uses (primarily under "fair use" exemptions).  Among the specific qualifying "fair" uses were time-shifting and/or place-shifting legally acquired content for private use - key features of the challenged services.  Initial rulings in the two cases with respect to seeking preliminary injunctions to ban the services while the case was in progress went against the network/broadcaster groups.  Both judges found that the services had viable "fair use" arguments that would need to be addressed more fully in court, and thus denied the petition for a preliminary injunction.  A Fox spokesman went a bit overboard reacting to one of the rulings:

"the court has ruled that it is OK to steal copyrighted material and retransmit it without compensation."

  This has resulted in an interesting dynamic - Hopper's commercial skipping currently only applies to the the broadcast networks' prime time recordings, and Aereo only redistributes over-the-air broadcast signals.  In other words, those technologies pose issues only for broadcasters. Thus, the renewed interest in "going cable."  It's not a totally new idea for the networks - as early as the 1990s networks looked at cable network licensing fees and thought about grabbing a share of that revenue stream.
  However, it would only work if they abandoned over-the-air broadcasting fully, which would have serious impacts on their own advertising revenues (resulting from the reduced reach and audiences) and the profits from their owned-and-operated local stations (which typically cover losses from network operations). Multichannel coverage has expanded to around 90%, which can qualify as "national" coverage, but there's also the question of whether multichannel operators, and viewers, would be interested in paying for programming that has been proudly touted as free throughout its history (particularly at the price the broadcast networks think they're worth (which is in the range of $10-25 dollars per subscriber per month). 
  Frankly, if they can't draw significant audiences for "free" content, it's not clear why viewers would be willing to pay heavily for it.  Even if the broadcast networks settle for an additional $50 per month per subscriber (for the Big 4 broadcast networks), that would be a huge jump in cost for multichannel subscribers.  It seems likely that a lot more people will drop those channels or services (if possible) with such a price hike.  Multichannel distributors are already moving sports channels into separate tiers (with much smaller reach) in response to concerns over $5-10 monthly subscription increases driven by skyrocketing sports licensing fees.  These jumps are also fueling talk about implementing "a la carte" pricing models (where subscribers pay only for pre-selected channels).  Big price increases would clearly drive demand down (shrinking potential audience), and economic research on "a la carte" also suggests "a la carte" pricing results in huge declines in demand, and thus audiences. And further significant drops in audience would clearly result in sizable drops in advertising value and revenues.

  The move would also significantly impact local broadcasting, removing a large amount of a station's most popular programming, which would also have to be replaced.  Studies suggest that losing a network affiliation can cost a broadcast station as much as 75% of its value, and could result in half to two-thirds of local TV broadcasters running significant losses and most likely ceasing operations.  Including those owned and operated by the networks parent companies.  Are those companies willing to write off some of their most profitable assets in the hope that they can pull big bucks as a cable network? 
  Then consider the PR nightmare of viewers facing price jumps of $50 or higher a month, just to access what they've always been told is "free TV".  And then consider how Congress and the FCC would react to something that would significantly damage (and possibly kill off) free over-the-air broadcasting). 
  The reaction really seems overblown, particularly when considering that the actual economic impact of these new technologies and services is likely to be minimal.  Sure, commercial-skipping may reduces the value of ad spots, but those aren't being counted now anyway.  In addition, keeping programming accessible longer, and available over more devices in more places actually increases the potential for viewing. The net impact of these technologies on the financial bottom line is likely to be minimal.

Source -  Tech upstarts threaten TV broadcast model,  IT Business Net

Edits - had to clean up some language and missing phrases. Added a la carte issue

Is TV Everywhere Legal? For now, maybe...

The last year has seen several new start-up services that seek to provide users access to programs they legally receive at home when they aren't in front of the TV.  And that's part of the goal of TV Everywhere - being able to access and view programming regardless of time, location, or type of screen.

  Aereo is a new start-up that offers subscribers access to their local TV stations through the internet, particularly via mobile devices.  It works by providing subscribers with a small antenna/tuner connected to their home Internet connection portal; allowing subscribers to take their free broadcast TV signals beyond the home.  As soon as the Areo started its service, they were sued by a consortium of networks and broadcasters for copyright infringement.  Part of the suit asked the courts to ban the service while their suit was in litigation - i.e., they wanted to kill the service while the challenge dragged out in court for years.
  An appeals court has now affirmed the trial court ruling against an injunction, allowing Aereo to continue operating through the litigation process.  Normally, such an injunction banning some behavior or service is awarded only if the party asking for the injunction is considered likely to win the case on its own merits.  As such, it's not a clear indication that Areo's service is legal, although judges indicated that Areo had a viable legal precedent for their system falling under "fair use" guidelines (as place-shifting of an otherwise legal signal).  That was enough to suggest that the challenge wasn't a cut-and-dried winner.

While I'm not a lawyer, the economist in me does wonder why broadcasters would object to a service that would make their signals more widely available and more valuable to viewers.  Perhaps it's not TV Everywhere access they object to, but not being offered a cut of Aereo's subscription revenues.

Source -  Appeals court denies broadcaster request to shut Aereo,  Consumer Electronics Net

What counts as Fair Use?

Keeping up with Copyright and Fair Use exemptions is critical for media generally, and digital media in particular.  In a post on the OnlineVideoInsider blog, Ashkan Karbasfrooshan takes a look at some recent Fair Use cases in the U.S. courts.
  Fair use exemptions are not explicitly provided in U.S. copyright law - rather, the law sets up a set of criteria that are to be used in determining whether a specific use is likely to significantly impact the value of copyrighted material.  Specifically, courts are asked to consider:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

 The post goes through the specific cases (and I recommend reading them through).  I'll end my own "Fair Use" exemption by providing his conclusions:

• Dealing for commercial purposes may be fair.
• Commercial use does not nullify fair use.
• The availability of a license is irrelevant in considering alternatives to the deal.
• It is not advisable to circumvent the underlying work, it is much better to transform, summarize and/or add to the underlying work.
• A plaintiff must bring evidence of any detrimental impact upon the market for its work if it wishes to have it considered. After all, to quote a CBS executive: “3 minutes of a Beyonce song might potentially hurt an entire album of Beyonce, but two minutes of ‘CSI' might be the greatest thing that could ever to the 44 minutes of ‘CSI’ that we put out weeknight on [CBS] or our affiliate partners.” 

Source -   Fair-Use Cases That Have Shaped Copyright Law,  OnlineVideoInsider

update - added header

Broadcasters Sue Dish over ad-skipping

One of the most basic business strategies in hyper-competitive markets is to provide some extra bit of added-value to the common base product.  US DBS provider Dish is trying that, with an upgrade to their DVR service that lets viewers skip the ads in recorded TV programs.
  For the last few weeks, Dish has offered a service that provides subscribers access to the last eight days of prime-time broadcast network programming.  Included in the service is "Autohop" technology, which identifies and skips inserted commercials.  Dish hoped to make the service somewhat network/advertiser-friendly, by turning on the Autohop feature at least a day after the initial program airing, allowing the program to be included in ratings measurements.
  That may not be enough, however.  As Nielsen seeks to include delayed or shifted program viewing, the networks fear that Dish's ad-stripping may hurt ad revenues.
  The actual legal strategy, though, is based on evolving standards of "fair use" and copyright.  Courts have repeatedly sustained the fair use rights of individuals to time and place shift legally acquired content. The networks, though, are arguing that the recording is not done by the individual, but by Dish; also, it is an action that is commercially beneficial to Dish.  As such, they contend that Dish's actions are not covered by traditional fair use standards.  It's an argument that has some merit, as well as a precedent - an early competitor to Tivo as a stand-alone DVR offered a similar service, only to lose that copyright challenge.
 
Source - Broadcasters sue Dish over ad-skipping DVR service,  Broadcast Newsroom

Going Dutch in Copyright

While the US and the EU continue to push for ever-more restrictive copyright and Intellectual Property rights law and policy, the Dutch are borrowing an idea from the US Fair Use provisions and Japan's Doujinshi movement to liberalize their own copyright laws to explicitly allow the creative re-use of copyrighted materials in remixes and mashups.  The current IP focus aims to protect existing content, in large part by restricting new derivative works.

  The proposed Dutch laws would explicitly protect fair use of copyrighted material in the creation of new artistic works. "We all love YouTube," says Bernt Hugenholtz of the Dutch state committee on copyright law. "Many of the videos we find there are creative remixes of material protected under copyright. They're mostly for laughs or political commentary, or they're simply absurd... We all agree that it's good for creativity, good for laughs, and no one gets hurt. Copyright holders are not harmed, so it makes a lot of sense to allow this. But in Europe, where we do not have open norms like the fair use doctrine in the United States, we can't do these things without infringing the law."

The Dutch proposal faces stiff challenges from copyright industries who feel they benefit significantly from restricting how the existing content they own can be used, and maximizing the revenues that existing content can create.  One could also argue that they have a vested interest in reducing the competition for old content from new creative remixes and mashups.  Marietje Schaake, of the European Parliament, was quoted by Radio Netherlands as stating the underlying conundrum for regulators:

"We must ensure that there is competition and a free market but we have to protect creativity as well. Right now the entertainment industry, for one, benefits from these outdated laws. These big parties will do all they can to prevent reform or redesign at all."

It'll be interesting to see how this proceeds.

Sources -  Dutch Pave the Way for Looser Copyright Laws, Technology Review
Loosen up Copyright law, says Dutch government,  Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Amazon's Cloud vs. the RIAA

Last week's "Next Big Thing" was Amazon's Cloud, and it's offer to freely host not only 5 GB of anything, but also all of the music you buy from Amazon (which doesn't count towards the 5 GB).  The idea is that you can access the "Cloud" from anywhere, on anything (that provides basic Internet access).  Sounds great, and something that can help foster the transition from a focus on owning physical copies of content, to a concern with being able to access your legally-acquired content when and where you prefer.  It also reflects an alternative approach to copyright for music that's been floating around - again from an emphasis on rights being only associated with owning a physical copy, to owning rights to access and use content (with or without DRM).
If you're familiar with US Copyright law, and Court decisions on "fair use," there's nothing wrong with Amazon's offer (which is similar to the permanent hosting Amazon provides for books you buy from its Kindle bookstore).  You've paid your licensing fee when you buy the music, and you're exercising your "fair use" rights to time-shift, place-shift, and device-shift your use of the content you own.
The recording industry, instead of embracing a technology that would encourage sales (Amazon's making its music sales more valuable by providing an added-value service), is reacting predictably - threatening to sue Amazon, and presumably its customers as well (after all, if Amazon is making music available in a way they don't have a specific license for, then you're also violating your license by making an "illegal" copy when streaming from the Cloud to your device).  The record industry claims to be concerned with the potential of these "cloud lockers" for online piracy (i.e., you "sharing" your content with others), and arguing that you only have those rights to content that they're willing to give you.  But it's more likely they think that a "cloud license" could generate millions, if not billions, of dollars well into the future that might help to prop up an old-line music industry that's seeing revenues decline from recent poor sales..
I guess that what happens when you don't do a good job creating content that people want to buy at prices they're willing to pay - you try to create new "rights" you can force others to pay so you can keep your industry afloat and unchanged.

Source: "Music Industry Will Force Licenses on Amazon Cloud Player - Or Else," Wired