Thursday morning humor

Care of Dan Piraro’s Bizzaro comic strip and Blondes Not Bombs.

Thrill-arsis

There’s more to write about Michael Jackson – the will and its deep-in-the-music-industry executors, Internet music sales records set and broken this past week care of Jackson, how monoculture will change after his passing – but I’m done.  I think this story has been blogged to death.  I’ll end with the weirdest two stories on this topic: one, care of BoingBoing, that They Saved MJ’s Brain, and two, care of WFMU, on the worst eBay cash-in imaginable.

Brookline’s Roadhouse: a nuisance?

The law of nuisance, governing a use of one’s land which causes harm to another’s land, was best described by the Supreme Court in the 1920s: “a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.”  This expression – nuisance being “a pig in the parlor” – has somehow stuck and is in every property textbook, but so rarely is the pig in question literal, much less rubbed in spices and slow cooked, served with a side of cornbread and cole slaw.

But so it is in my former town of Brookline, where, as Beeriety reports today, Washington Square’s Roadhouse has been forced to close its meat smoker after neighbors complained that they did not want their home filled with the awful, awful smell of gourmet slow cooked food.  Losing the smoker has caused the Roadhouse to change its menu entirely.  From Wicked Local:

[Roadhouse owner David Ciccolo] said he’s cut all the smoked items from his menu, and planned to debut a new selection of Creole and Mexican-inspired dishes on Wednesday night. The new menu includes shrimp étouffée, jambalaya, gumbo, blackened salmon, gazpacho, and tacos with either catfish, steak or chicken.

“We were forced to make this come together pretty quickly,” Ciccolo said. “Needless to say, we’re all a little bushwhacked.”

I’m sad to see this happen to the Roadhouse.  The place opened right after I left the neighborhood and moved to DC, and I haven’t had a chance to return.  While the new menu sounds great, I can only imagine how good their cooking must have been with the smoker in use.  If they did to BBQ what (Ciccolo-owned) Publick House did to Belgian food and beer, I’m sure we’re all missing out.

I also would add that there’s not a place I’ve lived in the Boston area where my apartment’s odor wouldn’t have been improved by a perpetual, eminating smell of quality BBQ. This includes the two years I spent on Beacon Street near Washington Square.

This is not the first time Ciccolo has had to deal with the town of Brookline.  As Andy Crouch notes in his BeerScribe, the Publick House Provisions store took ages to secure a liquor license so it could sell bottles of the superb craft beers the Publick House has on tap.  He should consider moving to Cambridge: it only took United States Supreme Court intervention to get Grendel’s Den up and running.

So how about that Beatles catalogue?

(All too perfect, and care of Flickr user motionblur)

The factoid is legend, known to anyone who watches VH1 or has a taste for music industry gossip: Michael Jackson in the 1980s bought out a large slice of the Beatles catalogue, beating out Mr. Paul McCartney himself for it.  A lot of us are wondering, now that Jackson’s deceased, What’s going to happen with the Beatles’ songs?  Where are they going to go?  Who has the rights to them?

To answer that question, one must understand the how Jackson obtained the Beatles catalogue in the first place.  And to understand that, a little British television and music history must be explained (and a major hat tip to Wikipedia for helping me thread this all together).  We start with Associated Television, or ATV: a British television company which decided in the 1960s to create a publishing wing to handle the royalties of theme songs of ATV shows and wholly-owned subsidiary Pye Records.  This was the early 1960s, and around the same time the Beatles, just beginning their world success, formed a publishing company called Northern Songs, owned by the group with Brian Epstein and Dick James.  In 1963 virtually all Beatles songs were owned the publishing company, but by 1965 Ringo Starr and George Harrison each had formed their own publishing company to handle their songs, leaving only the catalog of Lennon and McCartney.  Around 1965 the group decided to take Northern Songs public on the London Stock Exchange, with Lennon and McCartney each owning 15%, Epstein with 7.5%, Dick James with 37.5%, and Harrison and Starr with about 1.6%.  The balance (a little under 25%) was traded publicly.  Following the death of Epstein, attempts were made to renegotiate the split between Lennon, McCartney, and James, but to no avail.  James sold his share to ATV Publishing, and ATV was able to take a majority share out of publicly traded stock and own Northern Songs.  Despite a tough fight from the Beatles, they were unable to stop the sale, and lost control of their catalogue.

After a vibrant 1960s, publishing the likes of the Moody Blues, the Kinks, and Donovan, and managing the UK sales for Chess Records, ATV Publishing was expanding heartily, obtaining the impressive catalogue of Leiber and Stoller (highlights include “Jailhouse Rock,” “Kansas City,” “Hound Dog,” “Yakety Yak,” “On Broadway,” “Stand By Me” (shared with Ben E. King), “There Goes My Baby,” and “Charlie Brown”).  However, bad business decisions and generally bad luck sank ATV, and by the mid 1980s they were looking to be bought out.  After an Australian businessman flipped ATV Publishing and sold a great deal of the assets in the process, the ATV catalogue, Beatles songs and all, went for sale, precipitating the sordid storm between Yoko Ono, Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson we’ve all heard before, ending with Jackson owning the ATV catalog for $47 million.  Most critical to this sale was the exclusive right to license Beatles songs, which Jackson did in a myriad of commercials.  (These were covers of songs, typically, as Apple Corps still owned, and still owns today, the sound recordings themselves.  Apple Corps is considerably more stringent about licensing the recordings.)

About a decade later, in 1995, tech megacorporation Sony decided it wanted to get into the music business, and offered Jackson $90 million for a 50% stake in ATV.  Thus was formed Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a catalogue of publisher’s rights second to none, which later bought up publishing houses Acuff-Rose (with Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, and all of the Grand Ole Opry crowd. As Jeff Tweedy put it, “name me a song that everybody knows / and I’ll bet you it belongs to Acuff-Rose.”) and Famous Music (with soundtracks to a vast number of Paramount / Viacom movies).  Today the catalogue has everyone from Bjork to the Beatles, and 50% of it was Michael Jackson’s.

…

And now what?  What’s going to happen to that massive collection of songs?  Shortly after Michael’s death Product Shop NYC and several other blogs reported that Michael had left his share in the Beatles catalogue to Paul McCartney, a decades-overdue olive branch for the once-close friends.  What would be most interesting, should this be true, is whether his interest included the right (or even more exciting: the sole right) to license Beatles songs.  After all, if the songwriter/publishing deal is anything close to a typical contract, royalties should have been split 50/50 over the past decade between the songwriter and the company.  So, Paul and John (and later, Yoko) were still getting their 50% from royalties, but Michael was keeping the other 50%.  This isn’t really about the money; this is more about the control.  To own the catalogue now would mean that Paul has the power to decide where the Beatles are licensed commercially.

Shortly after the buzz was out that Michael’s will left the songs to Paul, an anonymous source inside Sony/ATV told Bloomberg that Sony/ATV will retain the Beatles catalogue.  Strictly speaking, both Bloomberg and Product Shop NYC could be accurate: Michael had, at most, 50% of the corporation, so he could only give his 50% stake to McCartney, meaning that Sony/ATV would still maintain some degree of control.  The specifics of who can do what with what songs will only be made clear with the scrutiny of the contracts, documents, and agreements (most likely with a trip to the courts in the process).  Meanwhile, there are rumors that have been artfully explored by Bill Wyman (the writer, not the Rolling Stones member) that Jackson accepted a 50% buyout on his 50% ownership from Sony.  Should this be true, then Jackson could only devise 25% interest in Sony/ATV to McCartney.  And on top of all of this, there’s the massive levels of debt we’ve all heard about, over which no one seems to have an accurate handle.  Creditors buying up Jackson’s debt are certainly going to try and get a piece of Sony/ATV in collateral, as Wyman details in the article above.  It’s entirely possible that some large investment bank will wind up with Jackson’s interest in the Beatles catalogue, once all of the dust has settled.  And furthermore, we still haven’t seen the will yet.  It’s entirely possible this fact about the will isn’t true, or it’s from a will which has since been superseded, or there are conflicting wills.

Given the man at the center of all of this, I’m willing to bet we’ll see a lot more drama and show before we find out where those Beatles songs are going to land.  As of this moment, we simply cannot say for sure.

Remembering US Patent 5,255,452

“A system for allowing a shoe wearer to lean forwardly beyond his center of gravity by virtue of wearing a specially designed pair of shoes which will engage with a hitch member movably projectable through a stage surface. The shoes have a specially designed heel slot which can be detachably engaged with the hitch member by simply sliding the shoe wearer’s foot forward, thereby engaging the hitch member.”

Better known as the shoes that through this:

let you do this:

so Michael Jackson could do this:

as made famous in this music video (dance starts at 6:40, “the lean” is at 7:15):

And thanks to Google Patents, here’s the original: Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion. Be sure to note who the first named inventor is.

(Thanks to Idolator for the scoop)

RIP Sky Saxon of The Seeds

In this current deluge of famous people dying I’m afraid people are going to miss this one: Sky Saxon, lead singer of seminal garage rock band The Seeds, died yesterday in Austin, Texas.  There’s a fair number of Seeds videos out there, but my favorite is probably this random appearance on The Mothers In Law:

So long, Sky.

John Hodgman on Obama’s nerd cred

This video has been percolating around the net for a few days, but bears reposting due to its namecheck of my almost hometown Fitchburg, its reference to the Spock endorsement story (see my post on that subject here), and for general Hodgman awesomeness. Enjoy!

Citizen Media Law Project and Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press file amicus brief in New Hampshire Supreme Court Case

I don’t typically cross over my work with this blog, but I wanted to share this press release regarding an amicus brief I drafted with the CMLP and RCFP. I’ve added a few links to ease navigation.

Cambridge, MA – June 23, 2009 – The Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP), assisted by Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, urged the New Hampshire Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment rights of a website that covers mortgage industry news.

The CMLP, in conjunction with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) and with the assistance of local counsel Paul Apple of Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon in Portsmouth, NH, submitted an amicus curiae brief (PDF) in the case of The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. The case involves Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., which runs a mortgage industry website that posted a New Hampshire Banking Department document, obtained from an anonymous source.  That document described certain business practices of the Mortgage Specialists, Inc., a lending company under investigation in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.  After the mortgage company discovered the disclosure, it sued the website, demanding that the document be removed and that the anonymous source be identified.  The Rockingham County Superior Court granted these requests (PDF), and the case is presently on appeal.

In their brief, the amici focused on a series of cases in which courts permitted the publication of confidential or controversial documents – from the U.S. Supreme Court in the famed Pentagon Papers case through recent cases involving recorded cell phone conversations and videos of police searches posted online.  Amici also provided extensive caselaw support for the proposition that anonymous news sources should be protected.

The amici urged the New Hampshire Supreme Court to carefully consider the harm the Superior Court’s ruling would have on freedom of the press, noting in their brief that the publication of this document “is not unlawful in New Hampshire, and, even if it were, would nevertheless be fully protected speech under the First Amendment.”  In addition, amici asked the Supreme Court to apply New Hampshire’s qualified reporter’s privilege to protect the identity of its source, noting “[i]t is the function of an organization, not the medium of publication, which defines it as worthy of a journalist’s privilege.”

The CMLP was represented on the brief by the Cyberlaw Clinic.  The CMLP and the Cyberlaw Clinic are both based at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, an organization dedicated to studying the development of cyberspace.  Andy Sellars, a Cyberlaw Clinic summer intern and student at The George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC, drafted the brief alongside CMLP Assistant Director Sam Bayard, Cyberlaw Clinical Fellow Christopher Bavitz, and RCFP Legal Fellow Samantha Fredrickson.

“It was a great privilege to work with the CMLP and RCFP on this important issue,” Sellars said.  “We hope the New Hampshire Supreme Court will carefully weigh the First Amendment rights at stake in this case.”

For more, see the CMLP and RCFP press releases on the subject, as well as Sam Bayard’s blog post from April.

Thoughts on Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset

The retrial of the first (and only) filesharing case to end in a jury verdict (for the record companies, for many thousands of dollars, but under a faulty “making available” theory) started last Monday.  By the end of the day Thursday, we had a stunning, $1.92 million verdict against Jamie Thomas-Rasset, for sharing the following songs on Kazaa:

• Aerosmith – Cryin’
• Bryan Adams – Somebody
• Def Leppard – Pour Some Sugar On Me
• Destiny’s Child – Bills Bills Bills
• Gloria Estefan – Coming Out in the Dark
• Gloria Estefan – Here and We Are
• Gloria Estefan – The Rhythm is Gonna Get You
• Goo Goo Dolls – Iris
• Green Day – Basket Case
• Guns ‘n’ Roses – November Rain
• Guns ‘n’ Roses – Welcome to the Jungle
• Journey – Don’t Stop Believin’
• Journey – Faithfully
• Linkin Park – One Step Closer
• No Doubt – Bathwater
• No Doubt – Different People
• No Doubt – Hella Good
• Reba McEntire – One Honest Run
• Richard Marx – No and For Ever
• Sarah McLaughlan – Building A Mystery
• Sarah McLaughlan – Possession
• Sheryl Crow – Run Baby Run
• Vanessa Williams – Save the Best for Last

That’s $80,000 per song downloaded.  Her No Doubt adventures alone cost her $240,000: more than the original verdict of the first trial.  (Of course, it would be naive to assume that No Doubt will see any of that money.  If these companies approach the litigation campaign like they approach releasing albums, they’ll use the high profits from the top 5% to pay for the 95% that lose money, leaving none for the artist at the end of the day.)

There has been all sorts of ink spilled on this issue, from Ars Technica, Ray Beckerman’s RIAA vs. The People, P2Pnet, Ben Sheffner’s Copyrights & Campaigns, Wired, and even the Electronic Fronteir Foundation (raising some intriguing constitutional questions regarding the verdict).

The quote that sticks out for me from all of this comes from Ben Sheffner’s article he wrote for Billboard, where he wrote:

But a question arose after the verdict about whether the sheer size of the damages could lead to a backlash against an industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching.

Why Billiboard – an organization enjoying a place of high regard amongst all industry professionals due to decades of objective analysis of the music industry – would let such a known hard-line copyright figure pen their lead story on this all-important case escapes me, but even more confusing is how they could let such a gross misstatement of the public reaction onto their pages.  “[A]n industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching”?  Sheffner may be forgetting (and so I’ll remind him) that the RIAA was rated the worst company in the world in 2007 by Consumerist, edging out Halliburton for the dishonor (a website that appeals to a rather wide and large demographic, according to Alexa).  Amongst people aged 15-30 in America, the disdain for this lawsuit tactic is near universal.  In my Music Industry classes at Northeastern I never once met a person who thought this was a good idea.  Even my friends that went on from college to work for the RIAA or its labels agreed that this was a profoundly stupid business decision.  This is not just a handful of nerds, angry that Napster shut down and left to spreading hate speech on slashdot; this is an entire generation.  Sheffner’s comment makes about as much sense as saying “Coca-cola is considered in some quarters as a satisfying refreshment.”

Sheffner is absolutely right that no one expects the RIAA to get $1.92 million out of this, but what remains to be seen is if that’s because Thomas-Rasset goes bankrupt and liquidates her assets to the RIAA or because her attorneys successfully raise a valid appeal.  This case is most certainly not over, and its aftershocks will be felt for some time.  At the end of all of this, let’s not forget that a mother of four’s financial life was ruined on Thursday.  And what did we, or anyone else, get in exchange?

Update: Meanwhile, Pierce Law students have managed to successfuly settle an RIAA case there (against a woman who had no computer), getting the case dismissed with prejudice.

Tim Hwang on Internet Memes

As part of the Ignite show (a bureau within the O’Reilly media franchise), Berkman Center compatriot Tim Hwang did a 5-minute, 20-slide talk on the spread of Internet memes. He’s one of the only academic minds seriously studying the RickRoll, LOLCats, Three Wolf Moon, Keyboard Cat, Xzibit, or any of the other strange Internet phenomena. The structure of the talk prevented deep, quantitative analysis, but Tim still manages to throw in a little bit of data, cut with a whole lot of e-mirth. Check it out:

Be sure to read/see more from Tim in the U.S. Bureau of Fabulous Bitches, Broseph Stalin, or the Tim and Diana Show.