Music Publishers and Writers Lobbying Congress for Additional Compensation for Digital Distribution

[JesterJJZ]

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.


Who else sees something wrong with this post?

*raises hand*

People should do what they LOVE not whatever will pay the best. Not everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer. I make films and shoot music videos. Sometimes I make a lot, sometimes I make nothing, but I love my work and it's what keeps me pushing myself to be better at what I do in hopes of earning a better living in the future.

[The Phazer]

Sigh, the interenet's belief that stealing someone's work for free is okay is incredibly depressing, as are the circular and badly researched arguements always employed.

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.

What happens if they go get a better job and people start rampantly stealing what they produce there too?

Phazer

[crozlo1980]

I have to say I find this a really interesting article, but it appears that some folks are a bit confused.

You should know that I'm a life long indie musician who's now finally on a major label with two generations of exposure to this business, and I feel inclined to clarify a few things or at least offer my perspective.

First of all, the issue of paying royalties for short samples of music in online stores should be considered very carefully, and is unlikely to ever pass. Many of you are right for believing it could potentially depress sales and limit content to fans by decreasing companies like Apple and Rhapsody's incentive to post albums by indie and lesser known artists who sell fewer records. Conversely, making the fans pay for clips of music in an online store context is equally absurd and would break the business model completely.

The internet has indeed helped break up the conglomerated nature of the American music business. The resulting landscape is far more fractured, but contains increasing numbers of reasonably sized cracks and crevices for talented, if less mainstream artist to find their niches and gain a foothold.

But the internet doesn't pay.

Many of the independent and lesser known artists you may already love have suffered incredibly as a result of the refusal of digital distribution companies like Apple to pay the same royalty rates that record companies have payed to writers, producers and composers for generations. And now with the proliferation of the digitally purchased feature film and television show, music producers, composers, artists and musicians alike are watching their already vastly reduced available income stream shrinking even further. It is not the labels and corporations that would be benefitting from this kind of legislation - it would be the people who are actually making the music you love, and who are often paid the least.

And what's more, it has precedent...

Many of the hero tales of the old record industry were built around the struggles of artists like The Beatles and Buddy Holy, fighting for the rights to their own intellectual property. In the early days of distributed recording, musicians were paid a flat rate to record their music. Even if their recordings ended up on a platinum selling album, they would never see another penny for their brilliant performances. Publishing and record companies would go on to make many times over what the writers and performers were making.

It took Copyright legislation, just like what is being sought today, to change that, and give the right to intellectual property back to every single American musician you've ever dug.

I suppose the moral would be to think twice before you accuse people of money grubbing or alterior motives. In this modern age, everything seems to have become a very complicated situation.

[ob81]

Well, they want the money that they are not getting due to digital downloading. Someone is getting the money, not them. I guess it makes sense really. Hopefully price raises don't come with something like this.

[hhaeschen]

People should do what they LOVE not whatever will pay the best. Not everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer. I make films and shoot music videos. Sometimes I make a lot, sometimes I make nothing, but I love my work and it's what keeps me pushing myself to be better at what I do in hopes of earning a better living in the future.

It's good that you do something you LOVE! But don't hold me responsible if you can't live on that. I'm not going to PAY you more just because you love what you do.*
Unions and similar associations should understand that people CHOSE what they do and if it doesn't pay well they can switch jobs. That's called freedom.

* Please, don't take this personally. I was just making a point.

[iMat77]

Maybe Apple should introduce a flat rate subscription with an "all you can eat plan". So that record companies receive a "monthly check", inferior to the money they currently make on iTunes. So record companies and artist will be trated like little kids who receive their money every week and are forced to spend it wisely.

Rethinking a business model from scratch is never easy, but doing it when major players still make huge amounts of money is proving even tougher.

I buy music because I think it is ethical. It is ethical because the price is in line with the quality I get. If the price increases, then I will get music elsewhere.
Yes, rethinking a model means that maybe some musicians will have to sell a Ferrari or two, maybe even buy a 10 million less expensive house.. Who cares?
If music industry is smart, they will differentiate the revenues (more live perfomances, even though some "pseudo-artists" are scared to death by this idea), merchandising, sponsorig. Yep. Musicians and their industry will actually HAVE TO WORK HARD. Unconcievable...


A DVD with a movie costs 15 USD. A music CD costs about the same price.

Yes, movies sell on theatre before their DVD release, but then again, musicians make concerts. But the amount of people behind a MOVIE is enourmous compared to 4 or 5 people singing and playing and a manager behind them.

So... From my perspective music is overpriced already. But I buy it. Charge me 1 cent more to enrich already rich people and I will not buy it anymore.

Please don't come telling me that "the less famous artists actually need the money" I don't buy this argument. Why?
BECAUSE THEIR ALBUMS WILL BE PRICED LOWER COMPARED TO THE ONES OF ALREADY FAMOUS ARTISTS. So it will only enrich the already rich.
I have nothing against rich and famous artists. As long as they don't come begging for money and show some respect for themselves and their fans. A good, talented and creative artist deserves all the money he or she can possibly make. But not buy blackmailing...

[iMat77]

It's good that you do something you LOVE! But don't hold me responsible if you can't live on that. I'm not going to PAY you more just because you love what you do.*
Unions and similar associations should understand that people CHOSE what they do and if it doesn't pay well they can switch jobs. That's called freedom.

* Please, don't take this personally. I was just making a point.

Your argument is flawed! Without entering too much in detail.

1) NOT EVERYONE CHOOSES THEIR JOB, some can study and others cannot. Simple as that (theoretically they could if they would do this and that...)
2) SOME VERY USEFUL JOBS ARE PAID LESS THAN THEY SHOULD. Not talking about songwriters here, but in general. People make useful jobs and should be able to make a DECENT living out of it.
BUS DRIVERS should at least make a decent living out of it. AND NOT people who are in Wall Street making money out of paper.
3) IT SEEMS YOU FORGOT WE ARE IN A RECESSION. Choices are limited, so not everyone can jump from one job to the next and expect more money.

ECONOMY WORKS WITH OFFER AND DEMAND.
If the offer of jobs exceeds the demand there is pressure on wages.

4) THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY BRILLIANT MINDS DOING WONDERFUL JOBS FOR WHICH THEY STUDIED IN THE BEST UNIVERSITIES....

OF COURSE none of this is an excuse for people to be lazy, not to do their job or striking every other day. The world is not a wonderland, and what is theoretically possible (studying for everyone, getting a better job) is not always doable.
Live with that. You are probably talented, made your sacrificies, but you also have been lucky. Not everyone is lucky. And WE NEED ALSO THE JOBS THEY MAKE. Of course I am not advocating that everyone should earn the same. But listening and dialogue help...

[doctoree]

That's good, Music (in general) is too cheap anyway. With the current pricing I can buy all good music mankind ever came up with for less than 50 Dollars on iTunes.

[dicklacara]

There have been a lot of good posts on this thread.

After reading the article, my initial reaction was: this is just the greedy recording labels trying to line their pockets (by lining the pockets of politicians in Washington, DC).

I've changed my mind. As a few "insiders" have pointed out, this is more about secondary contributors to a song or video receiving just payment for their effort.

Apparently, a workable system has been cobbled together for content that is physically sold (Sheet Music, Music Books, CDs, DVDs, etc.), performed (Jukebox, Concert) or electronically broadcast (TV, Radio).

A while back, I analyzed who got what from each iTunes song sale. I am too lazy to look it up, but it went something like:

$.90 Record Label
$.09 Apple

For its 10% Apple, provided the store, hosting, the network (bandwidth, servers, physical plant) some marketing, transaction processing, credit card processing, distribution (downloads) and support. It was estimated that Apple's profit was a [roughly] break-even $.02 on the dollar-- and that Apple was happy with this, as their real goal (and profit) was selling iPods,

I understood that from its $.90 the Record Label payed all the artists and contributors (composers, lyricists, etc.). The performing Artist's (group) portion was roughly $.10 on the dollar and the other contributors paid lesser amounts.

Apparently, this is not always true because legacy contracts, agreements, laws did not take into consideration digital distribution.

So, I assume, here, when not specifically covered, the Record Labels (publishers, whatever) decide in their own self-interest, take care of the main artist, and keep the money that should go to other contributors.

Hence, the dissatisfaction of the other contributors and the lobbying/legal action.

If this is an approximately correct definition of the current situation, then the issue is not really with Apple, but the Record Labels (whatever).


Well, we are now in the "Electronic Age" with capability for digital markets and massive databases of content, shareholder records, and transactions.

Companies like IBM can pay you a miniscule quarterly dividend for 1 share of stock-- say, a check for $.34.

Why can't a digital system be devised that markets, sells, and distributes content; and at the same time remunerates contributors according to their due?

I, Apple, or someone could certainly write the "programs" to do this.

So, given a blank slate, how should it work?

*

[Macmel]

There's good reason for many of the changes being requested, particularly by performing musicians who are not currently compensated for radio play. That's a separate issue.
But unless something is being omitted from the story (and considering the anti-labor slant of our media, I wouldn't be suprised) it would indeed seem stupid to ask for compensation on a sales tool. Precisely why I think there's something fishy about the story.

Excuse me? There was a time when record companies would brive radio stations to play their music. That's called publicity. Now they're asking for money? So you go to an advertising company and ask for money if they want to show your product? Nonsense, complete nonsense.

[Macmel]

Well, they want the money that they are not getting due to digital downloading. Someone is getting the money, not them. I guess it makes sense really. Hopefully price raises don't come with something like this.

I agree with you, but guess what: It's you and me and average consumer who's gonna end up paying the difference. Apple is going to reduce benefits to give it to the musicians? NO. Record companies are gonna make less money? NO. So where is this extra money for musicians going to come from? Exactly: our pockets.
So a typical album (let's say 12 songs) is 12 bucks in iTunes (around 15 bucks is you want DRM removed). Before, a CD was around 18 bucks (am I right?).
So if a I buy a CD, I have to pay for the music plus the designer of the artwork, the impression of the artwork on paper and the CD, the CD case, the CD itself, the packaging, the transportation to the store, electricity of the store and salaries of store people. If I buy it online, I pay for the music and server maintenance (which is ridiculous cheaper taking that it serves millions of people as compared to the regular store). With all that, I save just 3 bucks (I could play my CD in as many players as I wanted to, so no DRM there)?.

So, again, someone is getting very rich with this at the same time that complains for "illegal" downloading

[Target362]

Who else sees something wrong with this post?

*raises hand*

People should do what they LOVE not whatever will pay the best. Not everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer. I make films and shoot music videos. Sometimes I make a lot, sometimes I make nothing, but I love my work and it's what keeps me pushing myself to be better at what I do in hopes of earning a better living in the future.

I work at Target (hence my display name) and I'm very happy with it. not everyone wants to become like steve jobs and work at a multi-billion dollor compney, and "whysoserious" needs to understand that.

Listen, don't bitch to me about "writers make next to nothing". Same as waiters/waitresses....don't bitch to me about "you need to tip this much because they only get paid $2.15 per hour".

last I check most states are well above that. $2.15 was more like 20-25 years ago

It's their OWN CHOICE to do that job and they know damn well how much they are getting paid.

but of course. so why are you complaining about people who chose to have a low paying job?

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.

yeah and to get that "education" you have to have some money so you can go to school.

and define a "higher paying job". As said, not everyone wants to be a doctor or lawyer. YOU need to understand that.

Now, with that said, I think if they begin to get charge-happy with digital content on iTunes and even go as far as charging for 30-second samples, I'll be more than happy to hit the torrent sites. I don't care.

good and I don't care about you breaking the law, nor do I care about you complaining about people's personal life/job life

[Target362]

What I want to know is who are the morons who actually clicked on "positive" for this article?

Perhaps imbeciles is a better description.

some kids tring to be "cool"

"look at me, I'll be cool and promote this" oh look I'm Asian! my BFF jill just farted. heheo ehe

schools: ban their internet privs.

All I can say is be careful guys ... if you hum your favorite song on the street, someone will call that a "public performance" and charge you for it.

"Apple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song."

WTF is up with kids and chuck Norris. You do relize he was kind of popluar way before any of your time?

What a ridiculous, ignorant, and pompous thing to say. I hope to God you never come into my restaurant.

amen brother.

[Augure]

********! I can say I'm pretty close to the music industry (but here in France), and the biggest danger is not even coming from your RIAA: it's coming from our corrupted industrial government and the most dangerous law they have been trying to pass for a year called Hadopi.:mad:

Hadopi is a dangerous law and if it passes here, they're gonna try to make it work everywhere. So what it does: Every Internet connexions are monitored by a governmental agency and If you're caught doing something illegal like downloading a pirated file (or saying what you think wich really bothers our french politics), they have the power to not only emprison you wich, is not likely to happen, but to charge you a lot and moreover, to ban you from having an internet provinder for a year.

This is the name of the copyrights ? You should really **** those who say and pretend this, because as someone close to the music industry and for having investigate like a lot of french people this is ******** from a to z. I have hundreds or argument but just read this Harvard study that not only shows that internet has been positive for the music development but also has brought more money to the overall music market:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html

So you american people don't realize how much rights and power of action your still have, and unlike french ignorants i'm sure you're not likely to let any law such as Hadopi pass, but you have to fight and definetely kill the RIAA, because if you do, they will be no credibility for european attempt to control the internet and **** consumers and citizens anymore !

[Target362]

you do relize that all the people who piss off the tech community are in their 70s, 80s and 90s. once they croke things should be fine.

same with the EU.

[MrCrowbar]

Excuse me? There was a time when record companies would brive radio stations to play their music. That's called publicity. Now they're asking for money? So you go to an advertising company and ask for money if they want to show your product? Nonsense, complete nonsense.

Agreed. It's called product placement. A domain Apple really knows how to work with.

[Target362]

Listen, don't bitch to me about "writers make next to nothing". Same as waiters/waitresses....don't bitch to me about "you need to tip this much because they only get paid $2.15 per hour".

It's their OWN CHOICE to do that job and they know damn well how much they are getting paid.

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.

Now, with that said, I think if they begin to get charge-happy with digital content on iTunes and even go as far as charging for 30-second samples, I'll be more than happy to hit the torrent sites. I don't care.

ok mr Investment Banker...

[sharkinfested]

Singers and songwriters think they should be paid for 30 second clips?!? That’s ridiculous. I’m an artist. I paint portraits for a living. This would be like me asking a potential client to pay a fee to look at my portfolio before they hired me! These clips help SELL the songs! I guess the next thing they’ll want is for us to mail a check to the record label every time we turn on the radio.

[marco114]

Ok let's have a little supply and demand talk.

Here's the problem. A crap load of people make music. The cost to make music is very low. People can self-produce music, they can even get it on iTunes. If you want to be the next Brittney Spears, then you're gonna have to be promoted by clear channel, 24x7 15 times per hour. Guess, what? This costs money.

It's up to you whether or not you work with one of these promoters. Nobody held your hand and told you must sign some contract.

Making a living from music is difficult. Not everyone is gonna succeed. If you need to sell your music for $100 per CD to make a living, then so be it. If you want to be paid for RADIO play, you better negotiate it.. But guess what, the consumer isn't willing to pay for that.

The supply of music is very high and the demand is much lower. But there's many options and if one or two artists go away, it's not gonna kill me. I may not even notice.

In other words, don't make music and plan on making a living. 99% don't.

If you all want to get together and strike against consumers, producers, etc. Fine. Go for it. I'm all behind you. Maybe you can come up with a better distribution system.

[iOrlando]

music labels are totally write. They should charge for the 30 second promos.

Whenever i have a banging party i just sit by the mac and go through the top 100 songs on itunes just playing the previews. People ask me what i am doing. I just say i am dj-ing.

[freediverdude]

Ok, 2 points here that I don't see completely addressed yet:

First off, a digital download of a tv show or movie is akin to purchasing a DVD or VHS tape of that tv show or movie, and should be treated as such royalty wise. VHS has been around since the 80s at least. Do these writers and publishers not yet have agreements about even VHS or DVD mediums as far as royalties? That's all this is, is the same thing as a VHS or DVD, just in another medium called a digital file. This is the way they should be arguing.

Second, I'm not sure I'm understanding the point about the royalties decreasing from broadcast television. I was under the impression that it was paid per each time that the tv episode or movie aired? If less people are watching, that shouldn't affect the amount paid- it's still being aired. Are they paying according to Nielsen ratings or something? I would like to hear more about this point.

[bokdol]

oh look I'm Asian!
.

sorry i am confused by this statement. it sounds like your trying to be sarcastic and funny. but what does being asian have to do with it? could you explain your comment?

[slinky0390]

You all do realize a lot of these writers make next to nothing.

Yes, but that is the profession they are in, much like me in the architecture field, most architects make not nearly as much as construction managers and so on, but i love what i do so it evens out. They could be in a job where they make more money, but i'm sure its not nearly as fun as playing music.

[X38]

So now they want us not not only buy their product, they want us to pay for listening to the advertising that convinces us to buy the product?!

This is the last straw. If they get their way on this, then everyone should just resort to pirating music until the music industry is totally destroyed.

Or just boycott music purchasing altogether. I wonder how long it would take to burn out the cash reserves of the music companies if all their income completely dried up? Say if everyone just held off any music purchases for a year or so?

[WhySoSerious]

Hi Target, I've included my replies below in red; disregard the typos, I was in a rush this morn...:


I work at Target (hence my display name) and I'm very happy with it. not everyone wants to become like steve jobs and work at a multi-billion dollor compney, and "whysoserious" needs to understand that.

why do you work at targe? I'm not knocking it, but I bet you're working there because you're young and in school. which is fine. however, I'm willing to bet 100% of the world population would like to make a goodliving, right? 100% of the population would like to pull in a comfortable paycheck every 2 weeks. however, not everyone can. sometimes they don't get lucky and land that job; sometimes they aren't qualified; sometimes they commited crimes and it prevenst them from getting the job; sometimes they are discriminated against and turned down. regardless….everyone wants to make good money, but not everyone can. just because someone wants good money doesn’t mean they have to be a steve jobs in a multi-billion $ company. some people make a lot of $ just playing the lotto or sports or having a 1-hit-wonder song.

last I check most states are well above that. $2.15 was more like 20-25 years ago

who really cares target boy? it was an example. use whatever "waiter wage" you want….i don't care; just an example.

but of course. so why are you complaining about people who chose to have a low paying job?

if you CHOOSE to do a job KNOWING it pays like crap, then no one wants to hear you bitch about the poor pay. we have no sympathy for you. "boo hooo…I LOVE working for company XYZ that pays me $3 an hour, but I HATE that I don't get paid enough…booo hooo". Well, then, go get a different job if you want more money! Very few people get to make bank working at a job they love. Most people work the best job they can get to pay for bills/food/clothes/shelter. Most of the time there is a trade off. shoot, I'd love to work for netflix so I could be around movies all day, but I bet it pays like crap…..therefore, I work for a huge corporation that I don't have as much fun in, but pays better! it's all about trading off; unless you're one of the few people blessed to get their dream job that pays well too. and I don't think TARGET is your dream job bro. not to knock Target, love the Merona clothing, but people don't grow up saying "my dream job is working the checkout at Target". you'd take a job that paid you double what you're making in a heartbeat if you could.

yeah and to get that "education" you have to have some money so you can go to school.

no you don't. millions get scholarships for their college. I did. Full ride. Some get scholarships from grades or some from sports or some from ethical backgrounds. regarless…you don't have to spend a single penny to go to school.

and define a "higher paying job". As said, not everyone wants to be a doctor or lawyer. YOU need to understand that.

what, are you serious? for real…….why do I need to define a higher paying job. just name ANY job that pays more than what you're making at TARGET and that's a higher paying job. duh. YOU need to think a bit before lashing out.

good and I don't care about you breaking the law, nor do I care about you complaining about people's personal life/job life

if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to my post.

[Boesky]

Feels good to be a pirate.

[CWallace]

Things are changing rapidly in the entertainment industry and they're scrambling to keep up....with a lot of missteps along the way.

I think it's more of a case that the entertainment industry is changing rapidly and they are desperately trying to maintain the status quo.


All of the studios, by putting up downloads and streaming, of which they get revenue for either by payment or advertising are cackling all the way to the bank because all the wording in previous contracts didn't specify a medium that didn't yet exist.

So is it your assertion that the studios were "far minded" enough to realize all these future distribution methods and their accompanying revenue streams would come along and were able to take advantage of it when drafting contracts because the artists were not?

If so, then whose fault is that?

If you think the studios finding a loophole and making more money instead of the helping support the artists of the product they are exploiting (is a good thing), then fine, I guess I can't argue with you.

If the studios are paying legal experts good money to find loopholes to exploit in existing contracts, why isn't your industry doing the same to force them to close those loopholes and pay you all your share of the revenues gained?

I expect it is because your industry has allowed itself to be put in a position where it's at the mercy of it's employer (the studios and their agents). You signed away many of your rights and the ones you didn't sign away you effectively abrogated because you refused to defend them in the face of your employers. So now because you can't touch them, your industry is trying to extract these missing revenues from the consumer because they're all that is left to shakedown.

Well, if you think shaking down the consumers to get the monies you now can't get from your employers because of your own inability / refusal to do so is fine, I guess I can't argue with you, either. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/graphics/smilies/wave.gif


The sad part is the people who put in the least amount of effort (record labels) collect the most, while the people who actually create it get screwed.

But why is that the consumer's problem? I happen to agree that the artists are getting "screwed", but as a consumer, I'm the last part of the chain. Why should I be the one held responsible for the decisions made by everyone else higher up in the chain? Why should I be the one required to address the inequities of a situation I had no part in, no influence over, or no knowledge of?

People should do what they LOVE not whatever will pay the best.

But they should also go in with "eyes wide open" at how that decision will affect their livelihood. If being a musician or a photographer or a videographer will not afford them the lifestyle they desire or pay the bills of the lifestyle they have (even if - especially if - that lifestyle is not one they find acceptable) then they should give up that love or accept that it can't be something they do as their primary love and find a job that does provide an acceptable lifestyle and use it to support their love.

[maclancer]

What everybody need to do is to stop buying music and see what they will do then about it :D

[Chris Tilton]

So is it your assertion that the studios were "far minded" enough to realize all these future distribution methods and their accompanying revenue streams would come along and were able to take advantage of it when drafting contracts because the artists were not?

If the studios are paying legal experts good money to find loopholes to exploit in existing contracts, why isn't your industry doing the same to force them to close those loopholes and pay you all your share of the revenues gained?

Again, there is no composers union and there likely never will be. All we have are ASCAP and BMI, which are not nearly as powerful as unions. And that is what they are doing right now!! They are approaching congress to try and close these loopholes!! It's not like there's this big "hey folks, come draft your contract" call by the studios and we all line up. You say "your industry" as if all industries are the same and there is a powerful figure head at the top of each of them that can barge in and make demands.

I expect it is because your industry has allowed itself to be put in a position where it's at the mercy of it's employer (the studios and their agents). You signed away many of your rights and the ones you didn't sign away you effectively abrogated because you refused to defend them in the face of your employers. So now because you can't touch them, your industry is trying to extract these missing revenues from the consumer because they're all that is left to shakedown.

We signed away rights like copyright ownership because there are things like performance rights. As the industry shifts on how people get this content, so should the royalties we get.

Well, if you think shaking down the consumers to get the monies you now can't get from your employers because of your own inability / refusal to do so is fine, I guess I can't argue with you, either.

What are you talking about? We are asking studios for our fair share, not consumers. If you are watching a show on Hulu for free right now, and later you are still watching it for free, but the artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue generated through ads and the like, just like when a show airs on TV, how is that "shaking down the consumer?" It's completely behind the scenes. And, if a studio demands a rise in price of a TV show from $1.99 because they have to pay me a fraction of a penny, then you need to direct your anger towards them.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Yes, but that is the profession they are in, much like me in the architecture field, most architects make not nearly as much as construction managers and so on, but i love what i do so it evens out. They could be in a job where they make more money, but i'm sure its not nearly as fun as playing music.

The idea though is this. The writers are done getting screwed by brat kids like people here condoning piracy and the music industry.

All of the people here proud of piracy make me sick. We blame Bush for our economic problems, maybe its a problem with our society believing everything should be free.

[Dagless]

Absolutely ridiculous. Should I as a game developer charge people to play demos of my products? Or should we pay to watch film trailers?

The stupidity of these guys is mindblowing. :rolleyes:

[Eric5273]

Second, I'm not sure I'm understanding the point about the royalties decreasing from broadcast television. I was under the impression that it was paid per each time that the tv episode or movie aired? If less people are watching, that shouldn't affect the amount paid- it's still being aired. Are they paying according to Nielsen ratings or something? I would like to hear more about this point.

BMI and ASCAP negotiate their rates with television and radio stations based on the size of the audience. So yes, the performance fees are directly related to how many people are watching.

Yet when BMI and ASCAP have suggested that companies like Hulu or YouTube pay based on how many people have streamed a video, these companies have claimed this was not a fair business model for them.

The other issue is this: is there really a difference between watching a movie on YouTube, downloading it from iTunes, or ordering it on demand from your local cable company? Shouldn't there be a similar model to pay royalties for all of these methods? In the end, the same people are sitting in their living room watching the movie. Why should one be worthy of a performance royalty but not the other?

[skytown205]

This isn't about the recording industry and the labels, this is about the writers and the publishers.

The writers and publishers have a right to make money for their work, including when their work is distributed digitally or by whatever new medium comes along.

When new technologies come along, artists and writers get screwed by the distributors because the "new way" they're selling their product wasn't specifically stated in the original contract (because the medium didn't exist!)

This is like when sitcom stars and writers receive no royalties on the sale of DVD's because DVD's didn't exist when they're contracts were written in the 1970s. Or all the writers and artists who made ZERO on the sale of CD's when that technology first came out. Should they not be entitled to fair royalties when their work continues to be sold?

No distributor or business conglomerate is going to WILLINGLY pay anyone a single penny more than they have to. They would be happy to collect all of the money for future sales and pay zero royalties if they could get away with it. The only way to force them into fair business practices is through legislation.

The greed is not on the part of the artists, writers, and publishers, it's with the fat cat distributors.

EDIT: I'm amazed reading most of the opinions here. You're defending the multi-billion dollar distribution conglomerates and calling the individual, independent writers and artists greedy. Yeah, defend those corporations against the little guys folks. That's exactly what the the conglomerates that own the news services reporting this want you to think. Congratulations.

Well said. I agree a hundred percent.

[muncyweb]

Sounds like a private matter between the artists and their customers and where they decide to sell their stuff. Since when is it the government's job to regulate music sales, or any sales for that matter? As usual the American people think its the government has the answer for everything. It's no wonder they get so much of our money and allegiance.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

[BRLawyer]

Absolutely ridiculous. Should I as a game developer charge people to play demos of my products? Or should we pay to watch film trailers?

The stupidity of these guys is mindblowing. :rolleyes:

Well, this happens mainly because some MORONS in the US still stupidly believe that IPR means the same as ordinary ownership, thus presuming that they "deserve" compensation for every occasion where their "original" works of art are used. For these imbeciles, fair use rights, the social aspect of intellectual property and the RELATIVE privileges such creations entail have all disappeared in the face of commercial interest.

No wonder the most obtuse piece of legislation in the world, a.k.a. the DMCA, comes from the US of A...go figure.

[CWallace]

MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/article/142880/2009/09/musicroyalties.html) broke down the various issues:

Pay me for those thirty-second samples

I've already noted I feel this is marketing for the purposes of education, not entertainment. Therefore, I do not believe that the artists are owed royalties for them. If they win, all this will likely do is have Apple remove the ability to listen to the snippet and folks will just go to Google to find the song to see if it's what they want - and probably will find the entire song for free. So the artists still won't make any money from the previews (since they will no longer exist to be able to earn money from them) and it will open more people to piracy, which will lose the artists the entire sale.

Pay me for radio streaming

I agree with MacWorld in stating that iTunes is just a broadcast medium, not an actual broadcaster. The broadcasters pay royalties on the songs they play - which now includes the songs they stream over their own websites. Therefore, Apple should not be required to pay royalties, as the artists are already being compensated. If the artists win, Apple will just shut down this feature in iTunes (which may very well not be used, anyway) so there will be no money to be made here, either.

Pay me for film and TV downloads

This is one that I believe the artists should be paid royalties. Yes, you can argue that Apple is just acting as a broadcast medium just like they are for Radio Streaming, but unlike radio, artists are not being paid royalties for video downloads like they are for radio streaming. Yes, watching a movie at home is not a "public performance" like watching it in a theater, but neither is watching a broadcast television show, and authors are paid for that. Therefore, I feel they should be paid for video downloads, even if they are for individual consumption.

And since there is money to be made here (Apple is not about to stop downloads - it would defeat the entire purpose of the iTunes Store), the artists should drop the other two demands and work with Congress to plug this loophole and give them the same benefits they do for theatrical and broadcast television showings.

[hiimamac]

Agreed. It's called product placement. A domain Apple really knows how to work with.

Actually, the term was called payola and was and still is illegal.

[Target362]

sorry i am confused by this statement. it sounds like your trying to be sarcastic and funny. but what does being asian have to do with it? could you explain your comment?

nope. Some dumb girl who sings soungs for young girls said that andn not all the little kids are doing that.

Do research ok?



why do you work at targe? I'm not knocking it, but I bet you're working there because you're young and in school. which is fine. however, I'm willing to bet 100% of the world population would like to make a goodliving, right? 100% of the population would like to pull in a comfortable paycheck every 2 weeks. however, not everyone can. sometimes they don't get lucky and land that job; sometimes they aren't qualified; sometimes they commited crimes and it prevenst them from getting the job; sometimes they are discriminated against and turned down. regardless….everyone wants to make good money, but not everyone can. just because someone wants good money doesn’t mean they have to be a steve jobs in a multi-billion $ company. some people make a lot of $ just playing the lotto or sports or having a 1-hit-wonder song.

I currently make $8.75 an hour, thats 35 cents above min. wadge. I push carts. That alone is manual labor (even though I have a cart pusher)I might be transfering over to the food court that makes 9 bucks an hour.

Every 2 weeks my average pay check is above $400, giuven I work 20-40 hours every 2 weeks

I, along with most of my co-workers are happy with our jobs and our pay. Thats the real problem with this new generation. they want money money money.



who really cares target boy? it was an example. use whatever "waiter wage" you want….i don't care; just an example.

"waiter"? please gwet your head out of your ass. There are more jobs out there thin just working oin a restrunt.



I don't think TARGET is your dream job bro. not to knock Target, love the Merona clothing, but people don't grow up saying "my dream job is working the checkout at Target". you'd take a job that paid you double what you're making in a heartbeat if you could.

I actually wanted to get in to retail. and given you been at target to buy our merona clothing you should know there is more posisions at target then being a cashier.



no you don't. millions get scholarships for their college. I did. Full ride. Some get scholarships from grades or some from sports or some from ethical backgrounds. regarless…you don't have to spend a single penny to go to school.

not everyone is a freaken sports freak. All sports do is cause problems. players hit eachother/other teams. Fans get all crazzy. its a mess



what, are you serious? for real…….why do I need to define a higher paying job. just name ANY job that pays more than what you're making at TARGET and that's a higher paying job. duh. YOU need to think a bit before lashing out.

Are you?

So now your going on about me working in a large retailer. at least I'm not working at Wal-mart.

I'm happy with my job. Pay is decent, i have great co-workers and bosses and each day is fun and exciting. The guests (AKA customers) are the main thing that makes it fun and exciting

if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied to my post.

I dont care about you breaking the law. I do care about you going on and on about peoples choices in jobs.

[cliffjumper68]

Again, there is no composers union and there likely never will be. All we have are ASCAP and BMI, which are not nearly as powerful as unions. And that is what they are doing right now!! They are approaching congress to try and close these loopholes!! It's not like there's this big "hey folks, come draft your contract" call by the studios and we all line up. You say "your industry" as if all industries are the same and there is a powerful figure head at the top of each of them that can barge in and make demands.



We signed away rights like copyright ownership because there are things like performance rights. As the industry shifts on how people get this content, so should the royalties we get.



What are you talking about? We are asking studios for our fair share, not consumers. If you are watching a show on Hulu for free right now, and later you are still watching it for free, but the artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue generated through ads and the like, just like when a show airs on TV, how is that "shaking down the consumer?" It's completely behind the scenes. And, if a studio demands a rise in price of a TV show from $1.99 because they have to pay me a fraction of a penny, then you need to direct your anger towards them.
why don't you just reach into my pockets and be the leach you are for the rest of my life. You sold the rights, well if those rights are only a rental for what you sold then I believe it is fraud. Either you have the rights or you don't. Stop sucking on the consumers for more money! I bought the song now you want a per play "performance fee" screw you and everyone like you! If i roll down my window while playing your song it is not a public broadcast you morons it is fair use, I hope you get the meds you need and stop trying to gouge me.:apple:

[Wild-Bill]

People shouldn't be pissed at the artists. Be pissed at the industry executives. The RIAA, the MPAA, and the like are all greedy bastards. First of all, they are scared because nowadays there really isn't a whole lot of talent. Alot of what's being heard today (this is not fact, just my opinion) is over-processed, auto-tuned cookie cutter CRAP that isn't worth the CD it's printed on. Add on to that the piracy factor (that will probably never go away). Add further still onto that the archaic business model the recording industry uses and it's no wonder why the suits are in a panic.

First of all, instead of booking months (or more) of studio time for bands to come in and write and record a record, keep them OUT of the studios until they have tracks to lay down. It's a complete waste of money to have bands sit around in a studio trying to come up with new songs. They need to do what they used to do before they got their recording contracts and write the damn songs as they go and only go into a studio when they've got something to lay down.

As for the movie industry..... Maybe some NEW ideas would help instead of re-making every friggin' movie that came out in the 80's. :rolleyes:

The media attention that the RIAA and MPAA have gotten over frivalous lawsuits against soccer moms, the elderly, and dead people has simply brought to light the staggering amount of GREED these companies have.

You want me to pay money to see a preview clip of a movie or song? I don't think so. It's not the general public's responsibility to pay for your short-sightedness in not updating your business models. You want to sign no-talent assclowns to your label and still expect to be able to gas up your Bently's and heat your mansions? I don't think so.

[CWallace]

The RIAA, the MPAA, and the like are all greedy bastards. First of all, they are scared because nowadays there really isn't a whole lot of talent. Alot of what's being heard today (this is not fact, just my opinion) is over-processed, auto-tuned cookie cutter CRAP that isn't worth the CD it's printed on.

It's very expensive to produce and market a band through the studio/label system so by their very nature the labels are going to be very conservative in what they offer. If one band does well, they will push other bands that sound the same. Broadcast television and theatrical film is much the same due to the high up-front costs of a new series or theatrical film.

And even if you make the actual distribution of the music cheaper (via digital downloads instead of pressed CDs), there is still all the cost to identify the talent, develop the talent, produce the talent and then market the talent so that the end-users acquire the talent - be it a digital download or a pressed CD.

So if the labels and the RIAA/MPAA tomorrow signed a deal to distribute every artist via iTunes and other online stores, it's unlikely that the labels and agents will suddenly see their costs drop significantly. At best, they'll see their revenues increase to help offset those costs and that might allow them to be a bit more liberal in what type of music they market.

Even adopting some of the ideas you suggested (such as limited support for bands before they're ready to publish their latest album) would likely only save a small amount of money. That band's work would still need to be marketed, and I expect that is where the real costs come in.

[Bregalad]

Why do songwriters think they deserve to be paid for their own advertising?

Do clothing designers whine about not getting a performance fee every time Vanna White appears on TV?

Hell no, they pay dearly for the right to have her "perform" their designs.

So maybe that's the answer. Pay the songwriters their performance fee, but charge them $1 million up front as a product placement fee.

Nothing anyone in the music industry does is going to hurt Apple all that much. Even if the iTunes store suddenly had no music at all, people would still buy iPods for podcasts, video, apps and, of course, CD rips and torrents.

[crazyburns]

There is so much misinformation being spread on this forum today.

I'll put it this way:

when a composer writes a music cue for a television show, he will receive performance royalties when the show airs. He will receive mechanical royalties if a soundtrack cd or DVD is sold. Currently, he will receive no money when someone downloads the tv show. This was not due to "bad negotiation" but due to the fact that when the contracts were negotiated, digital downloads of a tv show were not around. When they came about, nobody knew how to classify them, and therefore didn't classify them.

Now the composers would like to get paid for the work they did, when the tv/film studios make money off of their contributions.

But this is due to a "bad negotiation". The fact that they didn't negotiate for mediums that didn't exist is their fault. Music has gone from being released on records, 8-Tracks, cassettes, CDs, mini-discs, SACDs, DVD-audio, to MP3s. Movies have gone from theaters, to TV, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and now online streaming/iTunes. Claiming that they didn't know there would be a new distribution method is just ignorant. They have been coming out with new methods of distribution constantly for the past 100 years. They should include a clause for mediums that do not yet exist.

[WhySoSerious]

I currently make $8.75 an hour, thats 35 cents above min. wadge. I push carts. That alone is manual labor (even though I have a cart pusher)I might be transfering over to the food court that makes 9 bucks an hour.

Every 2 weeks my average pay check is above $400, giuven I work 20-40 hours every 2 weeks

I, along with most of my co-workers are happy with our jobs and our pay. Thats the real problem with this new generation. they want money money money.


"waiter"? please gwet your head out of your ass. There are more jobs out there thin just working oin a restrunt.


I actually wanted to get in to retail. and given you been at target to buy our merona clothing you should know there is more posisions at target then being a cashier.


not everyone is a freaken sports freak. All sports do is cause problems. players hit eachother/other teams. Fans get all crazzy. its a mess


So now your going on about me working in a large retailer. at least I'm not working at Wal-mart.

I'm happy with my job. Pay is decent, i have great co-workers and bosses and each day is fun and exciting. The guests (AKA customers) are the main thing that makes it fun and exciting


I dont care about you breaking the law. I do care about you going on and on about peoples choices in jobs.

Hey, it's all cool. I'm glad for you actually. You seem like a responsible kid with a good head on their shoulders. Too many bad apples out there getting into trouble and not being responsible/respectable.

I'm proud for you. Keep up the hard work!! :)

[freediverdude]

BMI and ASCAP negotiate their rates with television and radio stations based on the size of the audience. So yes, the performance fees are directly related to how many people are watching.

Yet when BMI and ASCAP have suggested that companies like Hulu or YouTube pay based on how many people have streamed a video, these companies have claimed this was not a fair business model for them.

The other issue is this: is there really a difference between watching a movie on YouTube, downloading it from iTunes, or ordering it on demand from your local cable company? Shouldn't there be a similar model to pay royalties for all of these methods? In the end, the same people are sitting in their living room watching the movie. Why should one be worthy of a performance royalty but not the other?

Well, the technical difference is that broadcasting over the airwaves or over cable or satellite (not pay per view or on demand, but regular programming) is a public performance, because you're broadcasting it out there for many people to watch at the exact same time. When an individual is downloading it to watch, that's more the same as a dvd copy, not a performance. YouTube and Hulu are different even than downloading- streaming is kind of a grey area that still has to be worked out. That's the technical explanation anyway.

[wunderboy]

Didn't want to read 11 pages to see if this was posted.

Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?

[Target362]

Hey, it's all cool. I'm glad for you actually. You seem like a responsible kid with a good head on their shoulders. Too many bad apples out there getting into trouble and not being responsible/respectable.

I'm proud for you. Keep up the hard work!! :)

I'm 19 actually. Graduated from high school back in 2008 been working since July 2007 (first job was in fact Mcdonalds but left due to poor mangement)

but I agree. I known this guy for over 6 years, and he just grduated highschool back in June 2009 and hes prety much a low life, plus a poser.

[Target362]

Didn't want to read 11 pages to see if this was posted.

Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?

not sure. But I know at some stores that sell CDs (even a few book stores) have a place where you can listen to a CD (scan it, it reads and plays all the tracks) should they charge those people?

30 second clip is nothing. Now if the song was 90 seconds long, then yeah, your basicly listening to half the song, but most songs are 2.5-3 minuntes. most longer, so 30 seconds is nothing.

after all, they want money want? well how will people buy the music if they dont sample to make sure they get what they want?

[peter02l]

I don't think anyone is suing iTunes. Granted, iTunes was made an example of, and they shouldn't be. It's not their responsibility, it's the labels/studios they deal with, and that is what ASCAP, BMI etc are going to congress to address. The press is just using iTunes as "hot topic" to attract attention. The only reason iTunes is really brought up is because it is simply the most popular distribution method of digital distribution. To say it's iTunes that is at fault is disingenuous and sensationalistic.

This is the quote from the article:
"Having been unsuccessful at negotiating increased fees with distributors such as Apple, the groups, which include the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) among others, have begun lobbying the U.S. Congress for to pass legislation to address their claims."

So, that means they tried to get Apple to pay, were unsuccessful, and decided to lobby Congress for legislation to get the distributors (Apple) to pay up.

Again: "They have begun lobbying Congress to pass legislation that require anyone selling a download to pay a performance fee, according to David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers Association."

According to this report, they are not going after studios at all. They want to milk distributors, among them Apple, for performance fees. So it's not the press that are bringing Apple into this. It is, in fact, ASCAP and BMI.

[rjohnstone]

Didn't want to read 11 pages to see if this was posted.

Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?
Most of their money is made from touring and merchandise sales.
And people like Madonna and Beyonce are rare in the music industry.
Most professional musicians will be lucky if they see $100k in their lifetime.

[peter02l]

I own the copyrights to my music, but I do not own the publishing or distribution rights.

My old label could decide today to republish my music and make it a digital content only release and guess what, I wouldn't make jack **** unless it hit a radio station.

Then take it up with your old label. Go ahead an sue them. What people here feel outraged about is that you want to call a download a performance and get Apple, who is just making enough money to brake even (after paying hosting, admin, and transaction costs) to pay up.

That is wrong. Apple will have to pass on the cost that should be borne by your old label (since they don't have to lift a finger or risk any production and inventory cost of a CD) to the consumer. That is us! So we get pissed at you naturally.

[ronwasserman]

Interestingly at the same time Billy Corgan / The Smashing Pumkpins announce to release their 44 track forthcoming album (Teargarden by Kaleidyscope) completely free (http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/pages/news/announcement-from-billy-corgan-about-new-smashing-pumpkins-album) on the internet... Even more free that Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' where you could pay nothing, or pay whatever you liked...

This is because they make fortunes touring and selling merchandise. But only the big boys can do this.

[Uragon]

I usually listen to music in my car with the windows down. I wonder if I should be worried about their ridiculous public broadcast appeal... after all if you're sitting in traffic next to me I am giving you free music (perhaps I should even call this sharing) performance way longer than a 30 second snippet. ;)

you need to close your windows up just before the 30 sec., in this case, it's is still under preview...:confused:;)

[ronwasserman]

There is so much misinformation being spread on this forum today.

I'll put it this way:

when a composer writes a music cue for a television show, he will receive performance royalties when the show airs. He will receive mechanical royalties if a soundtrack cd or DVD is sold. Currently, he will receive no money when someone downloads the tv show. This was not due to "bad negotiation" but due to the fact that when the contracts were negotiated, digital downloads of a tv show were not around. When they came about, nobody knew how to classify them, and therefore didn't classify them.

Now the composers would like to get paid for the work they did, when the tv/film studios make money off of their contributions.

You're a tad off here. 1st off, a majority of the composers have to give up the publishing end so, they lose 50% of the revenue. There are royalties when shows air which are really only substantial on network TV. Cable is absolutely horrible. COMPOSERS RECEIVE NOTHING FOR DVD SALES but do for soundtrack sales. The production companies pocket the money for DVDs, and shows sold digitally.

The people asking for this are not rich, do not expect the consumer to pay more. They are trying to get companies like Apple (and many others) to simply cough up a few pennies. Saying the price will increase to the end user is ********. A company like Apple, who takes 35% per sale, SELLS the charting spots (that's right, it's not based on sales...you buy the position/feature) would lose perhaps 1-2 cents per file.

As for paying for 30 second clips, those are promotional items and will never generate income. I would never ask for that and I have a fairly good amount of material at iTunes and all the other sites.

Believe me, when you hang out with the producers of these shows TV or film and see the amount they make, it only seems fair that the artist, who was incremental in creating that wealth, get a tiny little share.

Imagine if you sold a product for commission, let's say cars. And that is how you feed your family. Then I, the owner of the dealership, take your image, a video of your sales presentation and put it online to sell cars. People start buying and I tell you that you will not get a commission. What would you think? (Please keep in mind that in this example, 80% of your income comes from your commissions.)

Okay. You'll either get it now, or you won't.

Thanks,
Ron

[ronwasserman]

Sorry, forgot to mention one other thing. Absolutely none of the composers I know works for any company that provides their gear. On average I spend about 20-40k a year on upgrades, libraries (sounds), gear and other supplies. I have to have a corporation which in California gets taxed to death and yet I never get to reap any of the benefits I pay. No social security and no unemployment when I have a slow week. I'll never get a pension. All we have is the backend to support us.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[peter02l]

... If you see my trailer and the music adds to the film and you purchase that movie, the studio makes moneys, I and any other musician or songwriter, unless there was a soundtrack, gets nothing and it worsens with the Internet. ....

How can it get worse than getting nothing? Do they send you a bill?

[peter02l]

Singers and songwriters think they should be paid for 30 second clips?!? That’s ridiculous. I’m an artist. I paint portraits for a living. This would be like me asking a potential client to pay a fee to look at my portfolio before they hired me! These clips help SELL the songs! I guess the next thing they’ll want is for us to mail a check to the record label every time we turn on the radio.

I think you should ask for money every time your client shows your work to somebody. Why don't painters and sculptors get the same kind of deal songwriters are demanding. I bet painting a portrait is much more difficult than putting a bunch of cords together for a cheesy 70's B movie of a stupid hillbilly car chase scene.

[peter02l]

What are you talking about? We are asking studios for our fair share, not consumers. If you are watching a show on Hulu for free right now, and later you are still watching it for free, but the artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue generated through ads and the like, just like when a show airs on TV, how is that "shaking down the consumer?" It's completely behind the scenes. And, if a studio demands a rise in price of a TV show from $1.99 because they have to pay me a fraction of a penny, then you need to direct your anger towards them.

Go read the piece again. You are not asking studios for anything. You are trying to shake down the distributors - specifically, Apple. Apple doesn't make enough to pay you guys 9.1 cents or whatever a song or episode, or a 30-second sample. If Congress forces them, then they will pass the cost to the consumer, otherwise they will be running their media distribution business at a loss.

[peter02l]

Well, this happens mainly because some MORONS in the US still stupidly believe that IPR means the same as ordinary ownership, thus presuming that they "deserve" compensation for every occasion where their "original" works of art are used. For these imbeciles, fair use rights, the social aspect of intellectual property and the RELATIVE privileges such creations entail have all disappeared in the face of commercial interest.

No wonder the most obtuse piece of legislation in the world, a.k.a. the DMCA, comes from the US of A...go figure.

Bravo! Well said.

[peter02l]

Target362,

I take umbrage at your contemptuous comment regarding Walmart employees, even if it was uttered in jest.

So now your going on about me working in a large retailer. at least I'm not working at Wal-mart.

I'll have you know that I push carts at Walmart. Although, I make nowhere near $8.75 an hour and consider it bad form to flaunt such extravagant compensation at a public forum, I too have developed a certain fondness for my fellow cart collection personnel and find my vocation rather pleasant.

I have visited a Target store before. I am very cognizant of the haute monde clientele your establishment caters to. And I know you are only 19. Still, it is insulting to denigrate the multitude of pious, patriotic, often out of work patrons who shop at Walmart.

A swift apology is in order.

[Target362]

Target362,

I take umbrage at your contemptuous comment regarding Walmart employees, even if it was uttered in jest.



I'll have you know that I push carts at Walmart. Although, I make nowhere near $8.75 an hour and consider it bad form to flaunt such extravagant compensation at a public forum, I too have developed a certain fondness for my fellow cart collection personnel and find my vocation rather pleasant.

I have visited a Target store before. I am very cognizant of the haute monde clientele your establishment caters to. And I know you are only 19. Still, it is insulting to denigrate the multitude of pious, patriotic, often out of work patrons who shop at Walmart.

A swift apology is in order.

keep in mind, that comment is personal and not because I work at Target.

not sure why I should aplogize.

anyway Walmart, Target and pushing carts is not the point of this topic. The topic is about the old farts who want to control our way of life.

[crozlo1980]

You are brilliant, and right on point. The legislation issue is being lobbied to protect said "minor contributors" (who often thought up the damn song in the first place) from WHOMEVER tries to screw them out of their due with regard to digital distribution.

Refer to my earlier thread, but I would be happy to do my best to connect you with the music people on this end - excited and passionate young music professionals who were raised to respect, support and cultivate their artist's work.

I'm a musician who's as passionate about hardware and software as Apple, but I'll have to leave it up to some other folks in this thread to handle the computing side of your very noble and bold question.

But, I can tell you this with certainty... If you can manage to get involved now, you might change the course of digital rights management and thereby the precedent for American Copyright Law.

GOOD LUCK!


There have been a lot of good posts on this thread.

After reading the article, my initial reaction was: this is just the greedy recording labels trying to line their pockets (by lining the pockets of politicians in Washington, DC).

I've changed my mind. As a few "insiders" have pointed out, this is more about secondary contributors to a song or video receiving just payment for their effort.

Apparently, a workable system has been cobbled together for content that is physically sold (Sheet Music, Music Books, CDs, DVDs, etc.), performed (Jukebox, Concert) or electronically broadcast (TV, Radio).

A while back, I analyzed who got what from each iTunes song sale. I am too lazy to look it up, but it went something like:

$.90 Record Label
$.09 Apple

For its 10% Apple, provided the store, hosting, the network (bandwidth, servers, physical plant) some marketing, transaction processing, credit card processing, distribution (downloads) and support. It was estimated that Apple's profit was a [roughly] break-even $.02 on the dollar-- and that Apple was happy with this, as their real goal (and profit) was selling iPods,

I understood that from its $.90 the Record Label payed all the artists and contributors (composers, lyricists, etc.). The performing Artist's (group) portion was roughly $.10 on the dollar and the other contributors paid lesser amounts.

Apparently, this is not always true because legacy contracts, agreements, laws did not take into consideration digital distribution.

So, I assume, here, when not specifically covered, the Record Labels (publishers, whatever) decide in their own self-interest, take care of the main artist, and keep the money that should go to other contributors.

Hence, the dissatisfaction of the other contributors and the lobbying/legal action.

If this is an approximately correct definition of the current situation, then the issue is not really with Apple, but the Record Labels (whatever).


Well, we are now in the "Electronic Age" with capability for digital markets and massive databases of content, shareholder records, and transactions.

Companies like IBM can pay you a miniscule quarterly dividend for 1 share of stock-- say, a check for $.34.

Why can't a digital system be devised that markets, sells, and distributes content; and at the same time remunerates contributors according to their due?

I, Apple, or someone could certainly write the "programs" to do this.

So, given a blank slate, how should it work?

*

[dicklacara]

The people asking for this are not rich, do not expect the consumer to pay more. They are trying to get companies like Apple (and many others) to simply cough up a few pennies. Saying the price will increase to the end user is ********. A company like Apple, who takes 35% per sale, SELLS the charting spots (that's right, it's not based on sales...you buy the position/feature) would lose perhaps 1-2 cents per file.



Can you cite a reference for "Apple, who takes 35% per sale"? *

I looked at this a while back, and for an iTunes song at $.99, roughly:

$.90 Record Label
$.09 Apple

With its $.09 Apple provided: servers, network, bandwidth, software (server and client), administration, transaction processing, database, credit card processing, credit card fees, reimbursement, support. Apple said its goal was to break even on the songs as it made its profits on the hardware: iPods, iPhones, Macs.

The Record Label paid the performing artist about $.10, and other contributors, much less, according to their agreements.

If this is true, than the, composers & lyricists are aiming at the wrong target, and any fees received from Apple would, likely, be passed on to the consumer.

Further, Apple's costs would rise, as they would have to setup a system to account for and pay these micro payments to all the contributors.

If you are going to play the "poor peon vs vile corporation" card, make sure you are aiming at the right target!

* For iPhone/iPod applications sold through the iTunes app store, Apple receives 30% and the programer receives 70%. Both receive nothing for free apps. Apple's expenses for applications are considerably higher as they must test, validate and approve each application.

*

[Krevnik]

Do you know what it takes to create something worth copyrighting?

I think you are confusing copyright with patents. You aren't actually required to register your copyright for it to be valid. You can protect yourself with some fairly cheap means of verifying the "date of creation", that doesn't require registering the copyright. Registering it does make court proceedings down the road even easier though.

That said, the whole purpose of copyright was originally to give the creator a time-limited, exclusive monopoly on their work in order to profit on it, but keep it time limited for two reasons:

1) They are encouraged to continue creating new works, rather than leaning back on old ones.

2) All works will eventually enter the public domain so they can enrich the society.

By constantly expanding the length of time on a copyright, it prevents both of these core processes from functioning. Practically nothing has entered public domain without the author explicitly saying so in over 70 years in the US. The only thing keeping #1 functioning in this environment is the craving of the customers who want to keep getting new content, and so creative companies/individuals are compelled to do so in order to keep getting money from consumers.

Patents still have a similar policy... patents are time-limited such that after so many years, anyone can use the tech described in the patent and extend it. The idea is that without the ability to force this stuff into the public domain, things start to stagnate as certain groups and individuals start to hold all the cards, and are able to use it to wield a legal bat against everyone else.

[tvguy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

The worse thing is the money will only go to the top few people. When I work on a television show the cameraman, audio, teleprompter, etc. don't get any royalities when the show airs over and over again... I would make 10 times the money each year if the rest of the crew got a cut ot the pie

[fleshman03]

Well, this happens mainly because some MORONS in the US still stupidly believe that IPR means the same as ordinary ownership, thus presuming that they "deserve" compensation for every occasion where their "original" works of art are used. For these imbeciles, fair use rights, the social aspect of intellectual property and the RELATIVE privileges such creations entail have all disappeared in the face of commercial interest.

No wonder the most obtuse piece of legislation in the world, a.k.a. the DMCA, comes from the US of A...go figure.

As a librarian who specializes in IP, I cannot agree with you more. My fellow countrymen need to understand that IP rights need to protect the artist's vision and the companies pockets.

Also -
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg

[hissyfit]

so when the rest if the world goes to work they are paid for their labor, correct? unless of course they are slaves. why shouldn't i be paid for the work that i do? none of you would have any music if people like me didn't write and perform it. it is not a GREED issue! it is serious and very real issue for people who make their living writing songs to be able to support themselves and their families. we aren't rollin' in it, we barely get by. you want to hear it? then why wouldn't you pay for it like you paid for the shirt you are wearing. people don't realize that they are stealing when they copy music, hence, the © symbol confirming that a product is in fact legally owned by the writers and publishers.

also, to suggest that writers and artists don't appreciate listeners just because we need to be reimbursed for our work, is a lame argument. people (listeners) want music. they should and can have it, but why is $1.15 too much for the purchase of a song? that is crazy. hard copy records typically sell for $15 to $18 without the option of hearing it first and then being able to choose which songs you do or do not want. i think that .5 or .10 or .15 cents more to hear it first is a bargain!

[hissyfit]

So if I have this straight they want money for the 30 sec clips people listen to to decide if they want to buy it. That is stupid because with out those clips I would not buy a song. This clips have pushed me over the edge before on a song or I used it to make sure it was the song I was thinking of.

As for the TV and movies, it is because every time we the person watch it they can not collect money. Do they some how thing that a digital copy of a movie/TV is different than a DVD. In my eyes it is one and the same and they do not change for DVDs

let ME get this right, so, when the rest if the world goes to work they are paid for their labor, correct? unless of course they are slaves. why shouldn't i be paid for the work that i do? none of you would have any music if people like me didn't write and perform it. it is not a GREED issue! it is serious and very real issue for people who make their living writing songs to be able to support themselves and their families. we aren't rollin' in it, we barely get by. you want to hear it? then why wouldn't you pay for it like you paid for the shirt you are wearing. people don't realize that they are stealing when they copy music, hence, the © symbol confirming that a product is in fact legally owned by the writers and publishers.

also, to suggest that writers and artists don't appreciate listeners just because we need to be reimbursed for our work, is a lame argument. people (listeners) want music. they should and can have it, but why is $1.15 too much for the purchase of a song? that is crazy. hard copy records typically sell for $15 to $18 without the option of hearing it first and then being able to choose which songs you do or do not want. i think that .5 or .10 or .15 cents more to hear it first is a bargain!

[hissyfit]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Greed truly knows no bounds, I fully understand and appreciate the need to compensate an artist or writer but of late they seem to be trying to squeeze money from everything no matter how insignificant. My patience for there petty squabling is beginning to wear thin, in the uk I know a true story of a car mechanic who was visited by a suit demanding him to pay performance fees for listening to the radio at work because passers by could hear it and that consituted as a performance.

than stop listening to music and you won't have to pay for the writer and the artist services. pardon me for asking but, do you work for free??????

[hissyfit]

Then take it up with your old label. Go ahead an sue them. What people here feel outraged about is that you want to call a download a performance and get Apple, who is just making enough money to brake even (after paying hosting, admin, and transaction costs) to pay up.

That is wrong. Apple will have to pass on the cost that should be borne by your old label (since they don't have to lift a finger or risk any production and inventory cost of a CD) to the consumer. That is us! So we get pissed at you naturally.

do you really think that the writer get's what is theirs? w/ out a union like BMI and ASCAP they would have even less than nothing???? stop listening to music if you don't want the writer or artist to get what is theirs and what they own. listen to talk radio. see how that works for ya!

[WATCHDOG]

Back in olden times - people had no recourse to recorded music other than those tunes published produced & distributed by a handful of monopolizers.

Them days are to today as the horse is to spaceship; aka, they're long gone.

Times are always a-changing - and those ex-music-monopolizers won't stop a-whining. Alas for their never-ending lawsuits!

Their little game is over: passay! oy vay!

I say to them, "You made your money now deal with the changing times and please step aside as everyone else involved in the fast lane of technological progress (invariably) -> has had to do."

:cool:

[marksman]

Most signed artists actually receive less in royalties for painless digital distribution, than they do for LP's and CD's.

Whose fault is that?

[marksman]

EDIT: I'm amazed reading most of the opinions here. You're defending the multi-billion dollar distribution conglomerates and calling the individual, independent writers and artists greedy. Yeah, defend those corporations against the little guys folks. That's exactly what the the conglomerates that own the news services reporting this want you to think. Congratulations.

That is not what people are doing at all.

These dolts made bad deals and instead of renegotiating them with the fat cats, they are trying to get laws passed that would directly come towards people who buy music.

Nobody forced them to sign any of their agreements. They did so willfully and knowingly. Now they want to cry foul. I have no sympathy for them. I am certainly not going to support their inability to negotiate by creating new laws.

[marksman]

You guys are so ignorant on here it breaks my heart. I cant believe this article has a 10-1 ratio of negative votes. You're taking the side of billion dollar companies, like apple, while spitting in the face of the artists. Did you know the average salary of a writer is $5,000? How's that for being greedy? How much do you just spend on the latest products from apple a year?

Maybe that is what a writer is worth. Clearly they suck at business so maybe they only deserve 5000.

People who keep saying others are missing the point, or the writers are getting screwed are wrong.

The writers are adults. They signed adult contracts. Now they don't want to live up to those contracts.
I don't like the big record companies either, but I also didn't sign a contract with them.

Nobody has any sympathy for them because their problem was entirely self-inflicted.

[rjohnstone]

That is not what people are doing at all.

These dolts made bad deals and instead of renegotiating them with the fat cats, they are trying to get laws passed that would directly come towards people who buy music.

Nobody forced them to sign any of their agreements. They did so willfully and knowingly. Now they want to cry foul. I have no sympathy for them. I am certainly not going to support their inability to negotiate by creating new laws.
You truly have no clue how the music business works do you?
You cannot renegotiate a recording contract after the fact.
Many of those contracts were signed long before digital distribution was a pimple on the industries ass.
The labels and distributors know this and are taking advantage of the situation. This is why ASCAP and BMI are crying foul.

[AlmostThere]

than stop listening to music and you won't have to pay for the writer and the artist services. pardon me for asking but, do you work for free??????

You aren't being asked to work for free - you simply have a poor method of being paid that many people do not feel should be supported any more than it is (which is probably too much).

What you haven't explained is what makes song writing so special that it needs a whole set of extra laws to support it. Everybody else in the world manages.

I need a set of shelves to fit in my living room. I pay a carpenter to come in, design and build them. He charges me an hourly rate plus a material costs. He doesn't feel the need to charge me every time I put a DVD or book on the shelf. Why should writing music be any different?

Song writers need to work out the demand for their work, their skill level, the time it takes to produce something and the value to the customer and charge an appropriate rate.

Just. Like. Everybody. Else.

[Wild-Bill]

Let the labels and the indusry (Aka RIAA, etc) pay the artists these "performace fees", and NOT Joe Q Public. They are the ones with the deep pockets anyway.

This fight should not be between the artists and the public. It needs to be between the artists and their labels.

Go after the greed machine & get what you deserve. Plain and simple.

[Surklyn]

I am amazed at all the replies on this subject. They vary from ANTI-composer (creator) to ANTI-Business. Judging from the Article the composers/songwriters want "performance fees" for 30s clips. They also want these fees for Digital downloads and streaming of digital media.

As a musician and composer, who has a degree from Berklee and who has studied music business.. this topic has an interesting twist with me.

Background: I finished High school and went to college for music synthesis and sound design. I originally wanted to do sound design and composition for movies and video games. I graduated, and because of personal reasons I couldn't "move" to where the jobs were (lets just say this: I wouldn't leave my son over a job). This was before the internet and telecommuting were in vogue. I didn't pursue my "love" and I got a job as a restaurant manager. Now I have a degree in Accounting (another "love"). I make a decent living, doing something I love.. and I still write music while doing it.

NOW. ASCAP and BMI have every right to ask for royalties on streamed or downloaded DVD's or Tv shows. While they may not be public performances they are exactly the same as buying the movie on VHS or DVD. Once you download the movie.. you OWN the movie. Just like a DVD or VHS. Streaming content is synonymous with watching a show on broadcast tv. Just because the broadcast size hasn't been determined doesn't mean the performance is for "private use".

Songwriters and composers are completely within their rights to ask for royalties on these forms of distribution. The fact that the recording industry is "stingy" and won't honor these forms of distribution is sad, although contractually legal.

Asking for royalties on 30s clips is ridiculous. Other people have stated this argument better than I could so I won't do so here.

After taking a few music business classes in college (it wasn't my focus, but required study) you can see how the recording companies can screw these creationists out of money. People are right though.... you do have a choice of which contract you sign, you have a choice of how you decide to distribute your music, and you have a choice of who owns your music. Facebook, Myspace, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. are ALL valid and cheap ways of distributing ones compositions and business presence on the web without using a recording label. You may not get rich... and you MAY get rich.. it depends on the quality of your music ( or any creation for that matter). I don't sell my music, I don't ask for payment, I write music for the my enjoyment and my family's... if other people like it so be it.. I don't charge for it. On the same token.. it's not my livelihood either.

From a consumer standpoint:

Consumers should not be forced to pay for a 30s sample of music. How can you ask a consumer to purchase your music without hearing it first.

D'ld DVD's and Tv shows SHOULD have a performance fee associated to them, but they shouldn't be paid out of consumer pockets or even the distributors (apple, amazon). These fees were/are negotiated with the recording companies and thus need to be sorted out there. If the recording companies raise the "price" of distribution to Apple/amazon etc..(to compensate for this "new" distribution) and the price increases because of this then blame the recording companies.

Apple and other digital distribution sites have no ability to affect the royalty rate of composers and songwriters.. the labels do. Composers shouldn't be targeting them.

Say what you want about the record labels, however, it should be put in perspective that these companies spend millions of dollars marketing performers (and indirectly composers). They get these performers gigs, tours, "face" time with the public, and mass "spam" their image everywhere. NOW with the internet, it is easy (easier/cheaper than before) to do without the labels. Do the labels have their uses?? Sure... although their ability to influence is becoming smaller and smaller.

YES... contracts were signed, sealed and delivered... in blood (lol). Poor business decisions were made. Ethically, these people should be able to negotiate their contracts... ethically..... but that's not going to make the major players any money.

So... a compromise should be made. Consumers should not be screwed into paying more for composers lack of foresight, but they SHOULD get payed for their work and contributions. I am not in a position to determine what comprise that should be... but it has to start with open communication on ASCAP/BMI and the labels part.

[Mr. Gates]

I am amazed at all the replies on this subject. They vary from ANTI-composer (creator) to ANTI-Business. Judging from the Article the composers/songwriters want "performance fees" for 30s clips. They also want these fees for Digital downloads and streaming of digital media.

As a musician and composer, who has a degree from Berklee and who has studied music business.. this topic has an interesting twist with me.

Background: I finished High school and went to college for music synthesis and sound design. I originally wanted to do sound design and composition for movies and video games. I graduated, and because of personal reasons I couldn't "move" to where the jobs were (lets just say this: I wouldn't leave my son over a job). This was before the internet and telecommuting were in vogue. I didn't pursue my "love" and I got a job as a restaurant manager. Now I have a degree in Accounting (another "love"). I make a decent living, doing something I love.. and I still write music while doing it.

NOW. ASCAP and BMI have every right to ask for royalties on streamed or downloaded DVD's or Tv shows. While they may not be public performances they are exactly the same as buying the movie on VHS or DVD. Once you download the movie.. you OWN the movie. Just like a DVD or VHS. Streaming content is synonymous with watching a show on broadcast tv. Just because the broadcast size hasn't been determined doesn't mean the performance is for "private use".

Songwriters and composers are completely within their rights to ask for royalties on these forms of distribution. The fact that the recording industry is "stingy" and won't honor these forms of distribution is sad, although contractually legal.

Asking for royalties on 30s clips is ridiculous. Other people have stated this argument better than I could so I won't do so here.

After taking a few music business classes in college (it wasn't my focus, but required study) you can see how the recording companies can screw these creationists out of money. People are right though.... you do have a choice of which contract you sign, you have a choice of how you decide to distribute your music, and you have a choice of who owns your music. Facebook, Myspace, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. are ALL valid and cheap ways of distributing ones compositions and business presence on the web without using a recording label. You may not get rich... and you MAY get rich.. it depends on the quality of your music ( or any creation for that matter). I don't sell my music, I don't ask for payment, I write music for the my enjoyment and my family's... if other people like it so be it.. I don't charge for it. On the same token.. it's not my livelihood either.

From a consumer standpoint:

Consumers should not be forced to pay for a 30s sample of music. How can you ask a consumer to purchase your music without hearing it first.

D'ld DVD's and Tv shows SHOULD have a performance fee associated to them, but they shouldn't be paid out of consumer pockets or even the distributors (apple, amazon). These fees were/are negotiated with the recording companies and thus need to be sorted out there. If the recording companies raise the "price" of distribution to Apple/amazon etc..(to compensate for this "new" distribution) and the price increases because of this then blame the recording companies.

Apple and other digital distribution sites have no ability to affect the royalty rate of composers and songwriters.. the labels do. Composers shouldn't be targeting them.

Say what you want about the record labels, however, it should be put in perspective that these companies spend millions of dollars marketing performers (and indirectly composers). They get these performers gigs, tours, "face" time with the public, and mass "spam" their image everywhere. NOW with the internet, it is easy (easier/cheaper than before) to do without the labels. Do the labels have their uses?? Sure... although their ability to influence is becoming smaller and smaller.

YES... contracts were signed, sealed and delivered... in blood (lol). Poor business decisions were made. Ethically, these people should be able to negotiate their contracts... ethically..... but that's not going to make the major players any money.

So... a compromise should be made. Consumers should not be screwed into paying more for composers lack of foresight, but they SHOULD get payed for their work and contributions. I am not in a position to determine what comprise that should be... but it has to start with open communication on ASCAP/BMI and the labels part.

Chirst all Mighty !! You have a LOT To say my friend .

But I think " Wild-Bill " is more correct than any other member of this group.

Lets get real

[yg17]

keep in mind, that comment is personal and not because I work at Target.

not sure why I should aplogize.

anyway Walmart, Target and pushing carts is not the point of this topic. The topic is about the old farts who want to control our way of life.

Because it was rude and insulting to Wal-Mart employees? Maybe that's why you should apologize.

And let me just throw in my 2 cents regarding Target: I used to work at Red and Khaki hell. They couldn't pay me enough to come back and work for them.

[pkoch1]

You're a tad off here. 1st off, a majority of the composers have to give up the publishing end so, they lose 50% of the revenue. There are royalties when shows air which are really only substantial on network TV. Cable is absolutely horrible. COMPOSERS RECEIVE NOTHING FOR DVD SALES but do for soundtrack sales. The production companies pocket the money for DVDs, and shows sold digitally.

Thanks for the clarification. You are right. I knew that the copyright (publishing) is owned by the movie studio, but I forgot that DVDs didn't count as a way to get mechanical royalties. (although they should!!!!!)

This should be required reading for all on this thread:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=39

it's from a magazine for/by film composers and should help to show our side of the argument.

[Spectrum48k]

Listen, don't bitch to me about "writers make next to nothing". Same as waiters/waitresses....don't bitch to me about "you need to tip this much because they only get paid $2.15 per hour".

It's their OWN CHOICE to do that job and they know damn well how much they are getting paid.

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.


I feel that there is a good degree of ignorance, not only by the above quoted comment, but also by a good many people bemoaning that it's greed. I write from someone that is highly involved within the music industry and therefore can speak with a relative amount of gravitas.

First of all, I feel to clarify how artists, musicians, producers and everyone else get paid, certainly more so now, as the music industry has moved from one of being an industry, to one simply based on business - there is a difference, but not for discussion right now.

Record companies essentially prostitute artists, producers and musicians - they have a monopoly which is steadily slipping from their hands. Yet, still most involved in the industry require the distribution power and the connections that they have. At present it's 60/40 on everything, known as a complete 360. The 60/40 split is made in favour of the record company. The artist now sign to recoupable contracts meaning; that ANY costs in the productions of their record, are then offset against ANY income, on ANY source on ANY future release, tour, appearance, performance (airplay, TV, Radio, cover bands, etc.). Basically, to put this into context - record companies provide a loan to the artist to then produce an album, video and pay everyone in between, which at the end of it all the artist won't own.

An anology will help here; it's much like your boss employing you to make a widget, but you don't get paid till that widget sells, further more, any costs in making, promoting said widget are taken from your split of the profits at 40%. On top of that, you may have to wait over 12 months before you even see any wages, by which time, your boss may want you to put another widget out. If your last widget didn't sell that well, then too bad. The costs of that 1st widget are added to the 2nd widget and so the story goes on.

As to the above guys comment that they should get an education; most artists, musicians and producers especially are highly qualified people. To make a song that you guys hear on the radio is a very skilful and talented process that takes a great deal of money, time and patience. To say that we get what we deserve and we're being greedy is complete ignorance.

Now that you know how we get paid, which on an album sale, equates to around 60p per album and on top of that, we have to pay everyone - NOT the record company. They keep the lions share. It becomes obvious why many are trying to secure what's is their right. Granted, perhaps the 30 second issue on itunes is pushing it a tad too far, but much likes some of the PRS licenses we have in the UK/EU for public broadcast, then perhaps companies like Apple should be prepared to pay a higher public broadcast license that's if they pay one at present.

Further, the issue that artists etc. should get paid for internet streaming of TV shows etc. I feel too that this is right, they should. They get paid when it's broadcast over the airways, radio, TV and cable - with a large proportion of people now watching over the internet, which in itself is just another form of delivery, the content is the same, then I do believe that broadcasters need to consider this and a levy made.

The publishing side of the music industry is still 60/40 sometimes much less and more in favour of the publisher. Some of the majors will publish their own artists, so they will control the mechanical sales (downloads, CDs, LPs, Tour, etc.) and the publishing (airplay, sheet music, any broadcasting etc). Those artists will get even less. When an album is released, the producers will get points on a release, so to will any session musician, even the engineers half the time, all this, as well as the production costs, accounting fees, manager fees, advertising and more come out of the 40% (tops) that the artist gets.

Therefore, I can clearly understand why there is this action. It's not out of greed, it's out of trying to secure an income stream, which for some is their only income stream (those that write specifically for TV). They are not being greedy, just protecting what is rightfully theirs in the first place.

This article in the Guardian will help many realise why those of us in the industry and trying so hard to protect what's ours. It's an interesting article - it explains what the industry really is like.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jan/20/popandrock.musicindustry

[pkoch1]

But this is due to a "bad negotiation". The fact that they didn't negotiate for mediums that didn't exist is their fault. Music has gone from being released on records, 8-Tracks, cassettes, CDs, mini-discs, SACDs, DVD-audio, to MP3s. Movies have gone from theaters, to TV, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and now online streaming/iTunes. Claiming that they didn't know there would be a new distribution method is just ignorant. They have been coming out with new methods of distribution constantly for the past 100 years. They should include a clause for mediums that do not yet exist.

Well, not exactly. There are two types of royalties that, when created, covered all forms of distribution for then and the foreseeable future. Mechanical royalties covered hard copies of the music that were sold and distributed (Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, mini-discs, SACDs, DVD-Audio, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray), and Performance royalties covered when the music was publicly performed (TV, Movie Theaters, etc.) . The technology did not even exist yet to even anticipate the idea of something non-physical that was not performed publicly.

Even though you listed many different mediums on which music has been released, they have all been exactly the same in the way that they are all physical mediums that you go to the store, buy, and put into a player of some sort. The purpose of using terms like "physical" cover all of those different mediums, and other physical mediums that do not exist yet. You cannot anticipate something that fits into a completely different category.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Originally Posted by wunderboy View Post
Didn't want to read 11 pages to see if this was posted.

Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?

--

You do realize they don't write any of their music? This is about the writers.

[sfh]

Seriously, where is the personal responsibility in this country or world for that matter. They made a bad deal now they need to deal with the consequences of that. They don't have to sell their music through apple if they don't want to (ie the Beatles)

If anything the previews do nothing but promote their music and propagate sales. I can't believe they have the balls to go crying that they are not getting paid for something that helps to sell their product.

[NReichman]

Hello MacRumors:

As a music producer, I have work that I slaved over for years, and I receive absolutely ZERO money for it when it's sold on iTunes.

As an ASCAP member, I receive small amounts of money for my work when it's broadcast on television, and those checks contribute to my middle-class income. Thousands of musicians depend on royalties to sustain a living, and internet distribution is no different than radio or TV.

Keep in mind that the compensation is not just for record companies, but for songwriters, bandmembers, singers, etc.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman

[w00master]

Hello MacRumors:

As a music producer, I have work that I slaved over for years, and I receive absolutely ZERO money for it when it's sold on iTunes.

As an ASCAP member, I receive small amounts of money for my work when it's broadcast on television, and those checks contribute to my middle-class income. Thousands of musicians depend on royalties to sustain a living, and internet distribution is no different than radio or TV.

Keep in mind that the compensation is not just for record companies, but for songwriters, bandmembers, singers, etc.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman

Then take it up with YOUR organization. I understand your predicament, but for me to pay for 30 second previews which help me decide (or not) to BUY YOUR MUSIC, is pure lunacy. Sorry, that's reality.

w00master

[NReichman]

Then take it up with YOUR organization. I understand your predicament, but for me to pay for 30 second previews which help me decide (or not) to BUY YOUR MUSIC, is pure lunacy. Sorry, that's reality.

w00master

I have taken it up with my organization, which is ASCAP. I agree, paying royalties for 30-second previews is over-the-top. But I imagine that that is a bargaining chip that the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) are betting on losing.

I have personally written and produced the music to television shows that YOU watch on iTunes. That I get no royalties for it is a travesty, and an insult to intellectual property laws. When you watch the same show on network television, I get a small payment for each broadcast (and I do mean small). But it adds up over time, and provides a freelance professional like myself with the equivalent of a pension.

All we're asking for is that the same system of royalties that has been in place for decades be applied equitably to content that people enjoy on the internet.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman