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

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/17/music-publishers-and-writers-lobbying-congress-for-additional-compensation-for-digital-distribution/)

CNET reports (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html) that a coalition of music groups including publishers, songwriters, and composers is looking to increase the compensation they receive from digital distribution of their work. 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.At a time when many iTunes shoppers are still fuming over Apple's first-ever increase in song prices, the demands by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI), and other performing-rights groups, would likely lead to more price hikes at iTunes. This would also undoubtedly confirm the perception held by many that those overseeing the music industry are greedy.At the heart of the issue is the "performance fee", a type of licensing fee used to compensate composers and publishers when their work is performed in public. The music groups argue that digital distribution of their work, including 30-second song samples and in TV and movie downloads such as those found on iTunes, constitutes public performance and thus requires performance fees to be paid by the distributors.Apparently, the music industry can't obtain the fees through negotiations. 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.

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."The issue is complicated by the existence of other fees such as upfront "synchronization fees" that cover inclusion of songs in film or TV shows. Those fees are typically supplemented by performance fees when the film or TV shows are aired, although many composers have given away their synchronization fee rights in hopes of obtaining performance fees further down the road, but as the landscape has begun shifting to digital distribution, those composers are finding themselves with shrinking performance fee income."This is really a fight about the future," Israelite said. "As more and more people watch TV or movies over an Internet line as opposed to cable or broadcast signal, then we're going to lose the income of the performance. For people who do production and background music, that's how they make their living."On the topic of 30-second music samples, Jonathan Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association that represents distributors such as Apple, argues that copyright law protects distributors from being charged performance fees for such offerings."They are picking on Apple because they say Apple is making a bundle of money," Potter said. "But these companies should be thrilled that Apple and the other services are selling music and generating millions, maybe tens of millions, in royalties."The music groups have so far had little success in their lobbying efforts with Congress, and courts have consistently sided with digital distributors in their claims that downloaded songs are not considered public performances. Composers and publishers have not, however, given up the fight.

Article Link: Music Publishers and Writers Lobbying Congress for Additional Compensation for Digital Distribution (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/17/music-publishers-and-writers-lobbying-congress-for-additional-compensation-for-digital-distribution/)

[wilycoder]

American greed knows no bounds.

[Rodimus Prime]

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

[hhaeschen]

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

[sbrhwkp3]

Time to start calling my congresspeople and telling them not to pass this legislation.

[wolfshades]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo. And if they want royalties for the playing of their 30 second preview clips, give them that too.

And then we can watch closely as their profits take a downward slide. I wonder: do the indie artists want this too? Unlikely, because they want increased exposure, not less.

[dibec]

Greed at it's finest. Artists never have truly made money from sales, they generally make most of their money from tours. I think this is another ploy for records labels to increase their pockets, not the artists. I think it goes back to Karma, for decades record labels have been gouging the consumer. With the advent of the "net" they started losing money and they never have recouped. Part of any business model is staying current and in trend, simply they dropped the ball.

[WhySoSerious]

confused....why are they pissed about the 30-second samples?

[donny77]

They have a bad analogy.

If over the air broadcasts are a performance. Then so should streaming internet shows/music. However, iTunes is not streaming. It is digital distribution of a CD/DVD and not a performance.

[Rodimus Prime]

To me the RIAA has lost all creditability after they were caught illegally raising prices of CDs then they bitch how they lost money. Yes it happen years ago but it will leave a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of my life which is at least the next 50 years if not more.

They are greedy. Time and time again the RIAA has failed to adjust with the times. They fought digital copies of the song for years even when it shown that it was the next wave they still fought it. They can not adjust to change. the RIAA has single handily killed music by not allowing it to change.

How much has music really change the in the past 10-15 years. Yes we have new artist but at the time time if you listen to stuff made in the 90's and then today low and be hold they have the same styling...... Sad. You can pick out music from the 80's based on style but one can not tell the defence between 90's and the 00's

[Mattie Num Nums]

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

[celtikmind]

Greed at it's finest. Artists never have truly made money from sales, they generally make most of their money from tours. I think this is another ploy for records labels to increase their pockets, not the artists. I think it goes back to Karma, for decades record labels have been gouging the consumer. With the advent of the "net" they started losing money and they never have recouped. Part of any business model is staying current and in trend, simply they dropped the ball.

I think I have to go along this line. This whole music _industry_ is getting beyond ridiculous, in every way.

[Macjames]

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.

[4np]

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...

[anubis]

Their argument makes absolutely no sense. When their song is played on a TV commercial, everyone agrees that it's a public performance and they do get paid royalties. Then, out of no where, they somehow equate their song being played on broadcast television with someone sitting in their private home listening to 30 second song clips on iTunes. Anyone can string two completely unrelated arguments together: "I like to eat food, therefore you should buy me a new car"; doesn't make it a valid argument :P

Let them pass the law and then watch as even more people turn to piracy

[MalibuMatt98]

Maybe they could make money if they stopped lobbying and suing and instead focus on how they can use the opportunity of services like iTunes to distribute their product and make money.

[raremage]

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

+1.

Flies in the face of free market systems, and the concept of fair use once I purchase a product. If I buy a CD, and then use a song as my ring tone, is that a public performance?

[GQB]

American greed knows no bounds.

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.

[wpc33]

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

[jaw04005]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo.

Charging who? The consumers that are trying to avoid piracy by actually buying their music?

Apple just tried this with tiered pricing on the iTunes Store. The concept, as announced, was to price new music at $1.29, older music at $.99 and even older music (6+ years) at $0.69. What did the record labels do? They priced everything that could even remotely be considered a hit at $1.29. And $0.69 songs have become such a rarity that Apple doesn't even bother marketing them anymore.

"I can tell you that we know already that more songs are going to be offered at 69 [cents] than $1.29."

Phil Schiller, Vice President of Worldwide Marketing for Apple, Macworld '09

Tiered pricing really worked out well for the consumer, didn't it? I hope Apple fights this to the end. ASCAP and BMI members should be fighting with the record labels instead of digital distributors for a bigger cut of sales. That's where their real beef is. The problem is they know they can't win with the record labels, so they're taking on everyone else.

[nickelcokes]

The housing crisis was largely precipitated by the government intervening to mandate relaxed lending standards to do a perceived failing of the market. Now, these clowns want government mandates to correct a different perceived failing of the market.

These idiots fail to realize that they aren't worth as much as they think.

[WhySoSerious]

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

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.

[MacBoobsPro]

So they want more money because they think a 30 second snippet (that is helping sell their tracks) is public broadcasting?

Simple thing for Apple to do is stop offering preview tracks. Watch the sales drop for the artists.

[mags631]

If anything, the government should not interfere... let the writers, publishers and artists sue each other, raise prices and see what that ultimately gets them. In fact, I'm ok with letting them sue consumers for illegal copying, because I think in the end it will force consumers to fully reject mass produced/consumed media.

[Erkinshadow]

I was going to say frostwire is easy to use. In past I have downloaded music, but after itunes done away with its drm I have only been buying music there. if the price goes up by a few cents, its not that bad and I will continue to buy music and tv shows from iTunes:)

[TheIguana]

Looks like these 2 groups are "shooting for the moon," hoping that congress will at least land them a couple of their crazy wishes.

[Diode]

Perhaps artist shouldn't sign with such record labels in the first place?

Or were they so greedy to begin with they blindly put themselves in a position to be screwed?

I don't agree with what record companies do, but at the same time they seem to have a plethora of stupid artist who are willing to be screwed only to bitch about it later. The artist have to admit, they wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for the recording studios to begin with.

[johnnyjibbs]

Greed. I mean, come on. Every time a particular song is played on a TV show or in a TV ad, it serves as free advertising for that song and artist. iTunes is also providing the platform for buying these songs, many of which are purchased from having heard the song in a TV show or movie.

I'm sorry, but how many tracks that you used to own on vinyl or tape have to be bought again on CD or digitally? Why should we have to pay the artist the royalty twice? Same with VHS and DVDs. (Yes, we should have to pay for the actual media but why the royalty again if we already own the music/media?). Do they hear us complaining about that?

So it's a bit of give and take. Except they only want the take.

If I was an artist, I would most definitely consider iTunes to be a good thing for my music, not bad. I've bought or discovered countless single tracks on iTunes that I never would have bought otherwise when they were previously only available as part of an album I didn't want.

30 second previews? They're a big factor in my deciding what to buy. When a new album comes out that I would consider buying (or indeed a song), the preview enables me to decide whether I would like to buy it or not. Quite often, I have bought things on a whim straight off the back of liking what I hear on the previews. Charging for those would be insane.

Some people ought to stop whining and accept that further price rises will just fuel use in the illegal song-swapping domain.

[Shuttleworth]

Never mind charging the consumers, I think it's us that should charge them, we should all get paid for having to listen to some of the crap these so called 'artists' churn out.

[jmcguckin]

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.

my thoughts exactly, and I've never bought a single song through iTunes... granted, that's also because I prefer to purchase my albums on CD, but most of the time I don't have the extra money lying around to go spend-crazy on my music, hence why I tend to download most of my music (to tide me over until I can afford to buy the actual CD's). and if Apple is forced to once again hike up the prices of their audio content in the iTunes Store (or even start charging for 30sec previews- which is absolutely ridiculous), that's just another reason for me to avoid it at all costs.

overall, though, this whole "surcharge" thing really is a joke... if the writers' goal was to make themselves come across as nothing more than greedy, self-centered whiners, they definitely achieved that goal with all success in this situation.

[celtikmind]

I don't agree with what record companies do, but at the same time they seem to have a plethora of stupid artist who are willing to be screwed only to bitch about it later. The artist have to admit, they wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for the recording studios to begin with.

True, true. Some artists isn't artist as much as they are a product. A manifested creation of several great talents come together.

Not many artists today can claim even something halfway up the ladder of Stones, Beatles and others. And nobody comes anywhere near the King himself, for sure. :cool:

Today there are music puppets and artists. A very significant difference.

[mickhyperion]

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.

[madog]

American greed knows no bounds.

Greed knows no bounds. Nationality is indifferent to that fact.

I will admit, we are still playing catch up to many things in Europe, especially England, but you can't really blame a country whose sole inception was to be be different and free from persecution (so we could do stupid **** and persecute people ourselves).

Like the youngest sibling in a family. All the older brothers will tell him what to do as they have experienced many things first hand, but the youngest ignores them because he won't learn unless he experiences it himself. Sooooo America is like me, and didn't finish school. :P

[bishboria]

I'm really starting to think that people shut just stop paying for music full stop. Let's see if they prefer the money they get right now as opposed to bleeding companies/radio stations/whomever dry.

30 sec clips, iTunes store, radio, etc, is free advertising for the music, how much would it cost for them to advertise on that scale on their own?

Maybe the radio stations/Tv shows/Online selling sites should start charging the music industry leeches if they want their stuff sold/played. (EDIT: I realise Apple take a certain fee for the things they sell, so maybe they should charge more, but keep the customers cost the same.)

[muskratboy]

really, REALLY tough argument that those 30 second clips = a performance.

i guess you could give them like 1/6 of a royalty rate... pro-rate that bitch! it's only 30 seconds of what, a 3 minute song?

even if their argument makes no sense at all.

i have more of an issue with the ridiculously retarded 30-second clips apple chooses. it's like they go out of their way to pick the WORST, most non-representative 30 seconds of any song. And they don't let the artist choose their OWN 30 second clip. how does that make any sense?

oh right, Apple. the OCD control-freak of major corporations. Thanks, you crazy, mixed-up company!

[schmidm77]

Must be nice to get paid for the rest of your life for only a one-time effort. Copyright for music should be 15 years at the most.

[CVBruce]

Charging who? The consumers that are trying to avoid piracy by actually buying their music?

Apple just tried this with tiered pricing on the iTunes Store. The concept, as announced, was to price new music at $1.29, older music at $.99 and even older music (6+ years) at $0.69. What did the record labels do? They priced everything that could even remotely be considered a hit at $1.29. And $0.69 songs have become such a rarity that Apple doesn't even bother marketing them anymore.

"I can tell you that we know already that more songs are going to be offered at 69 [cents] than $1.29."

Phil Schiller, Vice President of Worldwide Marketing for Apple, Macworld '09

Tiered pricing really worked out well for the consumer, didn't it? I hope Apple fights this to the end. ASCAP and BMI members should be fighting with the record labels instead of digital distributors for a bigger cut of sales. That's where their real beef is. The problem is they know they can't win with the record labels, so they're taking on everyone else.

I hadn't realized this but you are spot on.

I just searched iTMS using the word heart. I figured I'd get lots of hits. I looked at the first 2,000 tracks returned, and only one was $0.69. 1, uno, that's it. It looks like this whole pricing scheme was just a way of raising the price of music and nothing else.

This just underscores that the record labels are dying, they serve no purpose any more.

[theneweyes]

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.

Somebody has to stand up for the artists. Just because an artist chooses that way of life doesn't mean they should settle with the way royalties are being paid out, which is just pitiful right now.

[Mousse]

They have a bad analogy.

If over the air broadcasts are a performance. Then so should streaming internet shows/music. However, iTunes is not streaming. It is digital distribution of a CD/DVD and not a performance.

Very true. I don't want to have to pay every time I watch the DVDs I've already paid for.:mad:

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

That should be a wake up call for them change jobs. If you're making less money writing songs than you'd be flipping burgers... I'm just saying.

[Jimmetry]

They have a point.

When I consider buying a song, I repeatedly play the 30 second preview until I get bored with it. It certainly doesn't advertise the song, encouraging me to buy it or see an actual performance. No, all I need is the iTunes store, enjoying only one song at a time, never leaving my house and clicking the little 'Play' button every 30 seconds. This is the life :)

[jaw04005]

Copyright for music should be 15 years at the most.

I say copyright period should be 15 years at the most. How many times are we going to keep extending Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse (which itself could have been stolen anyway)?

It's entirely ironic. Disney has made billions of dollars on public domain works (like Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Cinderella, etc). Yet they want to protect their intellectual proprietary into perpetuity. And Congress goes right along with it.

[whooleytoo]

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

They write the music, they set the price of what they sell.

It would be silly to suggest that since they get a small percentage of the gross revenue, we should increase the price to the customer so that their tiny share is fair.

The logical way to do it, would be for them to negotiate a more fair share of the existing price! It's their fault if they don't.

[jav6454]

So they want more money because they think a 30 second snippet (that is helping sell their tracks) is public broadcasting?

Simple thing for Apple to do is stop offering preview tracks. Watch the sales drop for the artists.

This.

The fact that they want an increase is ridiculous. Sure, $0.05 is a small increase but those $0.05 make a difference between those artist who do and those who don't.

Just watch sales plummet.

[Solfeggio4]

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.

What a ridiculous, ignorant, and pompous thing to say. The point of the argument is that the people who actually make the song take home less of a cut than anyone else (especially performers). Because record executives would never take a cut in their own pay, the only option is to raise prices to give artists what they think is their "fair share." Sometimes that's not much, and yes, sometimes that's millions of dollars. But if a song is popular enough to generate millions, wouldn't you feel better as a consumer knowing that the people who created it were the ones getting rich instead of some dude who bought the rights? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's something to think about. Do some research before you go posting that you deserve everything for free (including restaurant service). Also, what makes you think writers and waiters don't have educations and don't deserve to make their fair share? I guess in your eyes, a person only deserves to be compensated for a job that is deemed "higher class" by you. I have been a bartender for several years (and an artist my entire life), and I can tell you that my friends in similar situations are the bravest, smartest, kindest people I know. I hope to God you never come into my restaurant.

[smartaleck]

This story sounds on the surface to be absurd and petty, but consider the following: When you sell your music on itunes, Apple takes about 30-40% of every dollar of revenue. Apple is charging you, say, 30 cents for a dollar of music for the service of downloading it.

If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that? Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. This is something that is in the contract one signs with itunes, and that is fine. However, it is also something that is negotiable when one considers the value of an artist's intellectual property to iTunes. If artists or the music "industry" believe that the business model should be different, well they have the right to do that. Apple created this business model so naturally it favors them, but in a free market the labor side (in this case songwriters or the music biz) have ever right to negotiate the terms.

It's a struggle between the power of the person making the song and the person selling the song. In this case Apple has all the power, but this argument is by no means absurd. It's like saying that employees of a company have no right to stand up for their own worth and renegotiate their pay based on their contribution to the company.

Some other thoughts:

I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.

People complain with such scorn and contempt about the greed of artists because they see art as not having monetary value and the artist as selfish and inhuman for wanting to get paid.

But who is the selfish one? Perhaps it is the person who takes what the artist produces and condemns them when they seek compensation.

The music industry is horrible, it screws the artist, that is beyond true. But this is not about that. People tend to rag on the "greed" of artists for trying to make a living. If you look at the VAST majority of people who sell on itunes, they are not getting rich.

As much as people find it reprehensible that artists want their fair shake, if you don't pay them then they stop making music, and our lives are the poorer for it.

Writing, recording, and distributing music costs a lot of time and money. You don't hear songwriters, who are usually the kind of people who don't care about money (versus a giant media conglomorate) bitching about getting rich, you hear them bitching about getting paid for their work.


Artists traditionally are not organized and have no collective bargaining power. They are always getting screwed. If you want to look at the greedy party in this situation I say it is apple. The notion that a company like apple is being "picked on" by songwriters is patently absurd.

[studiomusic]

I'm really starting to think that people shut just stop paying for music full stop. Let's see if they prefer the money they get right now as opposed to bleeding companies/radio stations/whomever dry.

30 sec clips, iTunes store, radio, etc, is free advertising for the music, how much would it cost for them to advertise on that scale on their own?

Maybe the radio stations/Tv shows/Online selling sites should start charging the music industry leeches if they want their stuff sold/played. (EDIT: I realise Apple take a certain fee for the things they sell, so maybe they should charge more, but keep the customers cost the same.)

You get what you pay for... no one wants to pay for good music, so the good music stops.

Why would anyone use a song in an ad? To add value to their pitch? So, they want to add the value without paying the producers of that value...

We should start charging Starbucks to tote their cups around... it's free advertising for them!


Must be nice to get paid for the rest of your life for only a one-time effort. Copyright for music should be 15 years at the most.

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

[Evangelion]

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

Maybe they should renegotiate their contracts with the labels then, as opposed to forcing consumers in to handing them even more money? If they want more money, maybe they should only sign contracts that give them more money?

[Gen]

And this is why I steal my music. :rolleyes:

[benpatient]

if i write a song and it's good enough, i can make a lot of money selling it outright to a label or to another artist. writers don't do this, though. They sell a license and allow whomever to record/release the song, then they sit back and wait for the royalties.

it doesn't have to be that way, and in a lot of non-US places, it isn't.

[bboucher790]

Thirty second previews HELP sell their product. They should embrace the technology and enjoy the benefits of higher sales because of it. The previews are good for both Apple and the record industry. Apple spends a ton of money developing the software that enables these previews, which help provide a seamless buying experience. Why doesn't the RIAA chip in to help pay for development costs for iTunes?

I haven't legally downloaded / bought an album in ages. I will buy concert tickets / merchandise to help the artist. Screw the record industry. I will not give them any $$$.

RIAA trashing is so 2003. Surely there's another iPhone blowing up somewhere in the world to put on the front page :o. Why even bother with these bozos?

[DipDog3]

Worthless.

Why whine to the government to get more money?

[theneweyes]

I think what irritates most artists is that apple's revenue is going through the roof with iTunes while the artist's commission is increasingly going down with development of internet services. And you guys are saying accept this because you went into the music industry? Why? Would you accept your boss docking your pay every year?

[mickhyperion]

Maybe they should renegotiate their contracts with the labels then, as opposed to forcing consumers in to handing them even more money? If they want more money, maybe they should only sign contracts that give them more money?

That's exactly what this news story is about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[igorleandro]

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.

Yep, I totally agree. There is a very delicate balance between acceptable and overpriced, and they had a serious increase of music sales, but yet, they want more. So, lets say they get what they want. I know that I won't pay $3 for a song, or whatever the price they wanna put.

Most of the difference from digital prices to store prices come from the fact that there are no "logistics" involved. No warehouses, no distribution, no transportation, no storage. Is it that hard to notice that?

And it would be the same as in my homeland, where people charge as much as $25 a single CD, and torrent sites there are extremely popular.

I'm not "pro piracy", but when there are no limits, well, then the "alternative way" puts the real threat, and they need to be aware of that. It is not just walking in wonderland asking for more money.

[Aldaris]

This is ricockulous! This is the equivalent of buying a coke at a vending machine, and then having the sugar manufacturer come up and ask for money from the vending machine and the end consumer.

Really the Music and Entertainment industry needs to look at how they are doing business if they want to keep doing business.

During the writers strike in 2007, iTunes favorite Dr. Horrible was made, yeah it's cheesy and short, but still good entertainment. It was made to show it can be done without the red-tape, that people can still tell there stories, and convey their thoughts and ideas.

If the song/lyric writers want more money, they need to negotiate that with who they do business with.

*Plus, Don't they realize, that the iTunes Store, isn't why Apple has an excess of 28B in the bank? And that the iTS really is a break even if anything for Apple?

*Oh and Check out Distorted View! Free and Paying entertainment with no 'performance fee's'.

[Jimmetry]

This story sounds on the surface to be absurd and petty, but consider the following: When you sell your music on itunes, Apple takes about 30-40% of every dollar of revenue. Apple is charging you, say, 30 cents for a dollar of music for the service of downloading it.

If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that? Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. I think that is something that is perfectly logical and negotiable. It's a struggle between the power of the person making the song and the person selling the song. In this case Apple has all the power, but this argument is by no means absurd. It's like saying that employees of a company have no right to stand up for their own worth and renegotiate their pay based on their contribution to the company.

Some other thoughts:

I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.

People complain with such scorn and contempt about the greed of artists because they see art as not having monetary value and the artist as selfish and inhuman for wanting to get paid.

But who is the selfish one? Perhaps it is the person who takes what the artist produces and condemns them when they seek compensation.

The music industry is horrible, it screws the artist, that is beyond true. But this is not about that. People tend to rag on the "greed" of artists for trying to make a living. If you look at the VAST majority of people who sell on itunes, they are not getting rich.

As much as people find it reprehensible that artists want their fair shake, if you don't pay them then they stop making music, and our lives are the poorer for it.

Writing, recording, and distributing music costs a lot of time and money. You don't hear songwriters, who are usually the kind of people who don't care about money (versus a giant media conglomorate) bitching about getting rich, you hear them bitching about getting paid for their work.


Artists traditionally are not organized and have no collective bargaining power. They are always getting screwed. If you want to look at the greedy party in this situation I say it is apple. The notion that a company like apple is being "picked on" by songwriters is patently absurd.

********.

Apple takes 10% of song purchases for maintaining the store, providing previews and art, covering the cost of credit card fees and other things related to store accounts. It's a completely reasonable cut.

For iPhone application downloads (not relevant to this discussion, but the only thing remotely related to your statistic), Apple takes 30%. This is easily justified by the fact that releasing the framework to the public is a massive task. They can also justify it through the approval process, but I'll stay neutral on that since there are a lot of questions about just how necessary approval is (I think it's very necessary but they need to specify clearer rules or categorise bad apps so the developer can have it on the store without it becoming a flood of failure).

Edit:
As for your blurb about the artist deserving the extra money.. of course they deserve it, but we all know where the extra profits will actually end up. The music industry has screwed itself by *allowing* these producers to take such an absurdly high cut for so long...

I wonder how effective a system would be where, when you buy the song, you could nominate to make a donation on top of the song price that is guaranteed to go direct to the artist. I think it could work.

[Spades]

If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that?

If the clips contribute to the business then aren't the artists getting paid because of the increased sales?

Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. This is something that is in the contract one signs with itunes, and that is fine. However, it is also something that is negotiable when one considers the value of an artist's intellectual property to iTunes. If artists or the music "industry" believe that the business model should be different, well they have the right to do that. Apple created this business model so naturally it favors them, but in a free market the labor side (in this case songwriters or the music biz) have ever right to negotiate the terms.

Of course they have the right to negotiate. But when those negotiations don't end in their favor, they shouldn't go running to the government to get what they want.

I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.

A promotional clip by itself doesn't make any money for Apple either. If that clip produces a sale, then Apple does get money. And then so does the artist.

[notjustjay]

A few thoughts.

I have no problem with writers, composers, and performers making more money. If I like an artist, I buy their work so they make more money. But my understanding is that when I pay $15 for a CD, the artist gets a tiny fraction of that. It's the people in the middle that take the huge cuts, and that's where I have a problem.

I have no problem with artists wanting to be compensated for public performances for their work. But playing a 30-second sample from iTunes in the privacy of my home -- how on EARTH does that constitute a public performance?

I also have no problem with artists wanting to be compensated for synchronization rights for their work. PLEASE, music industry, MAKE THIS PROCESS EASIER. Suppose I have a slide show for a charity fundraiser and I want to put a Coldplay song behind it. I'm not a producer, this isn't for a worldwide production, I just want it for a small audience. How do I go about doing this legally? How much is it going to cost me? I've gone down this road once and it is a huge hassle to contact the appropriate lawyers and costs a lot of money. So, most people just go ahead and do it, technically illegally, and then the artists complain that they're not getting compensated.

Imagine if it was as easy as filling out an online form with the name of the song, and the details of its use, and then paying say $20 for the right to play the song for an audience of 100 people, once, during a public presentation. I'd pay it.

[igorleandro]

That's exactly what this news story is about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hum... I understood as "well, if iTunes doesn't pay what you want, distribute your product elsewhere."

So, lets say, I wanna sell your product at 100, but you want 120. Then since you couldn't convince me, you just go to the government and ask it to force me to sell it for 120 so you could have more money? Is that ok?

Hey, look, try to sell on the other store then.

[Rapmastac1]

Maybe these major record labels need to stop being so greedy and give more to the complaining artists. The artist only makes a small percentage of their actual sales as the record company takes all the rest.

I think now is the time to call the record label a middle man. As technology advances you see lots of these "middle men" disappear as the need for them isn't apparent anymore. It's the record labels time now... For the past few years you see more and more artists who don't depend on a daddy company to watch over them. They are fully capable of doing their work on their own, in fact a lot of them started their own record company (Mike Koglin - Noys Music is one).

If they do this, they will certainly see an increase in piracy and a decrease in sales. You can only push the consumers so far until they lash back.

[celtikmind]

Somebody has to stand up for the artists. Just because an artist chooses that way of life doesn't mean they should settle with the way royalties are being paid out, which is just pitiful right now.

Once, an artist would approach a record label for help with distribution and professional technicians. In return for the help they would have a share of the profits.

Today, the distribution can be made with services along style of iTunes and similar. Technology has made it possible for upcoming artists to make their own recording studio.

Where along the chain of evolution does it say that the record label/company is really needed? Shouldn't they have a lesser profit share today when they, in reality, have a lesser importance to the whole music chain?

Their useless existence is evident in the whole music artist production many of them are incorporating today. There aren't enough artists to distribute often enough that they have to create them through various means. Many of them releasing one album, maybe two, only to be replaced and forgotten by another.

The artists should have a larger share of the profits, yes. But not a larger part of our wallets.

Life would be so much easier without any record labels.

[theneweyes]

This is ricockulous! This is the equivalent of buying a coke at a vending machine, and then having the sugar manufacturer come up and ask for money from the vending machine and the end consumer.

Really the Music and Entertainment industry needs to look at how they are doing business if they want to keep doing business.

During the writers strike in 2007, iTunes favorite Dr. Horrible was made, yeah it's cheesy and short, but still good entertainment. It was made to show it can be done without the red-tape, that people can still tell there stories, and convey their thoughts and ideas.

If the song/lyric writers want more money, they need to negotiate that with who they do business with.

*Plus, Don't they realize, that the iTunes Store, isn't why Apple has an excess of 28B in the bank? And that the iTS really is a break even if anything for Apple?

*Oh and Check out Distorted View! Free and Paying entertainment with no 'performance fee's'.


Your argument makes no sense. Dr. Horrible was made despite the writer's strike, and I guess although it's cheesy, nevertheless it's entertaining? The writer's strike wasn't about "red tape". It was about the industry not compensating writers with royalties from online services like TV shows that are shown on iTunes. Apple takes these shows and feeds them to subscribers without paying the proper royalties to the actual writers of the shows. It's about the artists! We're not greedy! We just want to be compensated for the art we create! So we can keep creating art! Less money--less intelligent people that want to make a decent living will go into the entertainment industry. No artist goes into this field expecting to make a killing, but they do hope to make enough to support themselves and their families. Is that too much to ask?

[tunecrew]

I had to register just to post this:

Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.

I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.

[whooleytoo]

Agree with those who suggest the record labels are increasingly redundant.

If writers & artists want a bigger cut, they should consider going to someone like CDBaby, and they'd have up to a 60% cut of the gross revenue. Much of what they would lose in publicity from leaving their big label would be gained in their increased percentage of the take. You have a cheap, global marketing tool (i.e. the internet), use it.

If they want the security of a big label, and the exposure that goes with it; fine, but they have to pay for it. They can't have it both ways.

I'd like a job with lots of free time, a sexy latina girlfriend, a Lamborghini.. and a pony. Maybe I should look to have some legislation passed...

[Jimmetry]

I had to register just to post this:

Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.

I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.

Good point.

However that raises a new question.

If the artist isn't getting a performance fee for song previews then why the hell should the writer?

[schmidm77]

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

Not relevant at all. I can sink billions of dollars into R&D to create something that is patentable and that will get me 20 years from the date I submit the application. And that's assuming it even gets approved. Copyright for even the most trivial thing is automatic in the United States and lasts 50 to 75 years after the dead of the author, which is absurd.

[smartaleck]

if i write a song and it's good enough, i can make a lot of money selling it outright to a label or to another artist. writers don't do this, though. They sell a license and allow whomever to record/release the song, then they sit back and wait for the royalties.

it doesn't have to be that way, and in a lot of non-US places, it isn't.

This is pure ignorance.

[mickhyperion]

It's obvious that about 99% of you commenting here don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basic argument.

[theneweyes]

Not relevant at all. I can sink billions of dollars into R&D to create something that is patentable and that will get me 20 years from the date I submit the application. And that's assuming it even gets approved. Copyright for even the most trivial thing is automatic in the United States and lasts 50 to 75 years after the dead of the author, which is absurd.

You missed the point. They were saying that it's not so easy to just create a song, throw it on iTunes and expect the royalties to support all the time and effort it took to create that song, even though it might only take up 3 minutes of your life.

[whooleytoo]

I had to register just to post this:

Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.

I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.

I think people do understand the problem; but it's just not OUR problem.

If the writers are being screwed, they need to negotiate a better deal. If they've signed contracts with labels or artists for too low a share, it's their own problem.

If they want money for the 30 second previews; fine, let them negotiate with Apple & others, and take the music down if they don't get it. If they've already signed away the negotiating rights for their music, it's their own problem.

[MacTribune]

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. ;)

[smartaleck]

Those greedy damn artists!

I can't wait till we can eliminate the artist from the creative process entirely. What a better world that would be.

[Full of Win]

Reminds me of this South Park episode

Detective: This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. [they approach a bush] Look. There's Lars now, sitting by his pool. [he's seen sitting on the edge of a chaise longue, his face in his hands, softly sobbing]
Kyle: What's the matter with him?
Detective: This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it. [a close-up of Lars sobbing] Come. There's more. [leads them away. Next seen is a small airport at night] Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? [a shot of Britney boarding a plane, then stopping to look at it before entering] Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. [Britney gives a heavy sigh and goes inside.] The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?
Kyle: We... didn't realize what we were doing, eh...
Detective: That is the folly of man. Now look in this window. [they are at another mansion, and they look inside a picture window] Here you see the loving family of Master P. [He's shown tossing a basketball to his wife while his kid tries to catch it] Next week is his son's birthday and, all he's ever wanted was an island in French Polynesia. [his mom lowers the ball and gives it to the boy, who smiles, picks it up and drops it. It rolls away and he goes after it]
Kyle: So, he's gonna get it, right?
Detective: I see an island without an owner. If things keep going the way they are, the child will not get his tropical paradise.
Stan: [apologetically] We're sorry! We'll, we'll never download music for free again!
Detective: [somberly, dramatically] Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury.

[lyzardking]

Apple takes these shows and feeds them to subscribers without paying the proper royalties to the actual writers of the shows.

It wasn't Apple that didn't pay the royalties, it was the "industry" that was trying to pull a "fast one" because the existing contracts (at the time) were written without a digital content/distribution clause.

[RazHyena]

Let them have their way, then. Allow Congress to pass these laws and by all means REMOVE those 30 second samples from iTunes. And don't forget to keep prosecuting 12 year old girls who download those Hannah Montana albums.

That way, when music sales nosedive and record stores go bankrupt, we might have a chance of seeing some civility from the music industry. Cutting their revenue stream is the only way they are going to change these behaviors.

[schmidm77]

You missed the point. They were saying that it's not so easy to just create a song, throw it on iTunes and expect the royalties to support all the time and effort it took to create that song, even though it might only take up 3 minutes of your life.

What does the length of a 3 minute song have anything to do with what I said? Artists want to get paid, in perpetuity, for something that took them a few hours/days/weeks/months to create. And I say some shorter period of exclusivity in distribution, like 15 years, should be adequate enough.

[dicklacara]

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

Kinda' like the government, eh?

Seriously, the record industry is one of the segments as corrupt as government.

[cocky jeremy]

What’s all the arguing about..? *Opens Vuze* :D

[theneweyes]

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?

[cmwade77]

Ok, first off, I think that the Artists do deserve more money, it's the record labels that take too much of it.

To that end, I would suggest to the Artists that they should look at ways of directly distributing their music, through sites such as emusic, Amazon Music, etc. or even talk with Apple and distribute through iTunes.

They should be compensated the same percentage per song no matte what distribution media is used.

However, the initiative being talked about here takes things too far, really, they do get money for everything already, here's how it goes too far:

It would end up making digital media cost even more and it is beginning to cost too much as it is.

It would possibly eliminate "fair use", such as the 30 seconds that Radio, T.V. and movies are allowed to use for free.

In addition the 30 second clips that are being talked about are ring tones, they want top charge you every time that your phone rings with ring tones created from their songs (No, this isn't an exaggeration, don't believe me?click here (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/06/ringing-up-cash-ascap-suing-att-for-ringtone-performance.ars))

Subscription based music would have to disappear as you would have to be charged for each time that the song is played.

[CrackedButter]

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.

Can of worms here and a separate discussion all by itself.

[Rot'nApple]

What a bunch of greedy bastards!

It's digital for Pete's sake. Costs to the music industry are minimal (hosting website, server, transaction software) versus physical property (having to actually house and store copies that require packaging and shipping).

I am just glad to report that I have yet to purchase a single digital download from iTunes or anywhere else. Heck even as a physical cd, my last single cd purchase had to have been around 2002/2003 timeframe! I don't know if it is because of my age or the fact that there is nothing but crap being produced these days. :rolleyes:

[Xenious]

I had a whole rant about how I don't like the royalty system, but I kicked it to the curb. What it comes down to is these groups of people "representing" artists and profit seeking in their name. Very much like a patent holding company that produces no actual product. Everything becomes viewed in terms of "lost sales/profit." No one thinks how can I do better to make more art or even income. They think where can I make more income without actually having to create anything at all. Ideally without having to change my business plan either.

So let's review and amend just what performance rights are, but for heaven's sake do NOT let these guys define it. Let's hear from actual artists and writers as a panel not from an industry police group.

[schaff]

Really, a 30-second clip of a song or a movie is not performance. It is a marketing tool and marketing is an expense, not an income generating activity. If those clips were not there, their sales would not be what they were. The artists and media companies should be absolutely delighted that these clips are made available to a WORLD WIDE audience of prospective customers. There are many CDs and DVDs I personally have purchased that I otherwise would not have if the preview clips were not available.

Now, if that 30-second clip is a ring tone then yes I would view it as a product and the artist and media company should get paid for that.

But for the preview clips, if anybody should be getting paid the artists and media companies should be paying Apple, Best Buy, Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc. and everyone else who is gracious enough to take up storage space by hosting these clips and the network bandwidth required to make them available to the customer who may actually purchase the full song or movie after listening to the (marketing) clip.

No, I don’t work for any of the above retailers or retail for that matter. I like many others get fed up with the artist and media companies always thinking up new ways to try to extract yet even more money out of us than they already do. They provide a product and service and I have no issue with paying for that, be it an ring tone, individual song, a full CD or a DVD. However, I don’t think anybody needs to pay for THEIR marketing. There is not another business on the planet that expects others to pay their marketing expenses.

[gnasher729]

The music groups argue that digital distribution of their work, including 30-second song samples and in TV and movie downloads such as those found on iTunes, constitutes public performance and thus requires performance fees to be paid by the distributors.

I guess Apple should have a form where everyone can pick whether their music should be available for 30 second samples (without payment) or not. And then Apple could gather some statistics whether music with or without samples sells better.

Next thing Coca Cola will charge every film maker you dares showing a Coca Cola can in their movies.

[andiwm2003]

i can see that artists want to be paid for their work. i however hate the fact that they try to force people to pay rather than simply using the free market to sell their stuff.

they should leave the government out of this. nobody would give money to car makers just because their cars don't sell on the open marke....ah.forget it...

but seriously, does that cover the 30 second clips you can hear before you buy a song? or is it for songs used in movies and tv shows?

[studiomusic]

Not relevant at all. I can sink billions of dollars into R&D to create something that is patentable and that will get me 20 years from the date I submit the application. And that's assuming it even gets approved. Copyright for even the most trivial thing is automatic in the United States and lasts 50 to 75 years after the dead of the author, which is absurd.

Being able to copyright and worth copyrighting are two different things.;)

What we're talking about here is paying the people that write the songs. Not the big bad RIAA or the millionaire pop stars.

[tunecrew]

I think people do understand the problem; but it's just not OUR problem.

If the writers are being screwed, they need to negotiate a better deal. If they've signed contracts with labels or artists for too low a share, it's their own problem.

If they want money for the 30 second previews; fine, let them negotiate with Apple & others, and take the music down if they don't get it. If they've already signed away the negotiating rights for their music, it's their own problem.

Once a composition has been publicly released, e.g. embodied in a sound recording, performed, etc., the writers have little to no say in the matter, as the copyright law in the US grants users of the composition a compulsory license at statutory rates for many of the normal uses- like selling a song.

I don't think that a DPD (much less a ringtone!!!) is a public performance either, but writers in many ways are at the mercy of the user of their composition.

[RazHyena]

Worthless.

Why whine to the government to get more money?

Worked for Bank of America. ;)

[lessthandmb]

The amount of misinformation being thrown around here is laughable. The music industry has become everyone's favorite business to take umbrage with lately--it is treated like it's the only industry out to make money. Even other industry based around "art" seem to escape the criticism that the music business receives. Here's a little knowledge:

#1 - these royalties are NOT for record labels to collect. They go to the SONGWRITERS and PUBLISHERS.

#2 - performance royalties are already paid by TV, terrestrial radio, online radio, satellite radio, restaurants, venues, clubs and bars. These ensure that the SONGWRITERS receive compensation for all of the benefits that the aforementioned businesses receive. Most TV shows would not work without music, bars and restaurants would not have the same environment without music, and most radio would not exist without music.

#3 - the songwriters ARE NOT trying to collect on the 30 sec. clips (although thats the part of the story that seems to be highlighted for some reason...) They are in fact trying to collect royalties for the sale of those same TV shows they get paid for when you watch them on TV, but on iTunes and other digital distribution services as well.

Think and do research about the situation before joining in with your torch and pitchfork.


-Jeremy

[likemyorbs]

this is why piracy will never die.

[gnasher729]

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.

You are completely, absolutely wrong. The waiter or waitress does their job, and as compensation they receive a small amount from the bar or restaurant, plus the opportunity to receive tips. That is the same as the car salesman who works on commission, except that the fact that you pay him for selling you a used car is hidden and not in the open. And you pay him more the more he rips you off, while the waiter or waitress gets more money the better their service is. Unless they run into a tight arse who gets spat into their dinner if they ever come back.

[TheAngusBurger]

I don't know if it is because of my age or the fact that there is nothing but crap being produced these days. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. The world's full of incredibly talented musicians, you just have to look beyond what the record companies are shoving in your face.

[jdechko]

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.

An excellent post, to be sure, but if it's about royalties for writing, then the writers, etc, shouldn't be coming after Apple/Amazon/Microsoft. They should be going after the record lables with whom they have contracts.

[shaunymac]

It is not we are ignorant here to the topic on hand but it is the fact that we feel that the music industry is trying to get more money out of us from these 30 sec. clips, on air promos and t.v. shows that these artists are doing instead of solving the real problem at hand. If there truly is a struggle in power in the music business, between the executives all the way down to the writers, let them figure that out and do not include us! Let the public enjoy music for what is worth.

These are the reason which drive people to not purchase albums in stores because the prices become to inflated and now it is even taking it to iTunes. They want to know why iTunes made so much money? It is because it was a cheaper alternative to get music. If they feel that inflating the prices is not going to go unnoticed, they are wrong. Back in the day, the common person figured out how to use napster pretty quickly. They were amazed at the idea of free media. Well, most of those people think that era. is dead now for some reason or another. If prices continue to rise, those people will reflect and start looking for an alternative. Once again, the frenzy will happen.

I am all for supporting artists, I am one myself, but when too many people start putting there hands in the pot it becomes a problem. If there are problems that need to be settled on another level that doesn't involve consumers, settle it. Go on strike! Do what it takes. Don't keep jacking up prices just because you aren't getting what you want.

[sishaw]

If they want money for the 30 second previews; fine, let them negotiate with Apple & others, and take the music down if they don't get it. If they've already signed away the negotiating rights for their music, it's their own problem.

...unless they can change the relevant law. It is their right to lobby Congress to change the law, just as it is your right to lobby Congress for whatever your interests are. It doesn't mean they'll succeed. Hundreds of individuals and groups lobby Congress every day for many, many different things. A relative few bills actually are passed by both houses and signed into law by the President.

Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying that in our legal system there is more than one approach that can be taken.

[tunecrew]

Good point.

However that raises a new question.

If the artist isn't getting a performance fee for song previews then why the hell should the writer?

I'm not saying either should- although almost every DSP contract with a label states that the DSP will obtain all necessary public performance licenses.

And in the US, if it was decided that the preview was a public performance, I suspect it would fall under Sound Exchange's mandate for the sound recording, so the artists would get their performance royalty just as the writers would via their PROs

[schmidm77]

Being able to copyright and worth copyrighting are two different things.;)

Your subjective determination of "worth" is completely different from mine or anybody else's. Want a cookie?

[shaunymac]

An excellent post, to be sure, but if it's about royalties for writing, then the writers, etc, shouldn't be coming after Apple/Amazon/Microsoft. They should be going after the record lables with whom they have contracts.

Ah-men jdechko! Atleast I know both you and I are on the same page. :D

[studiomusic]

What does the length of a 3 minute song have anything to do with what I said? Artists want to get paid, in perpetuity, for something that took them a few hours/days/weeks/months to create. And I say some shorter period of exclusivity in distribution, like 15 years, should be adequate enough.

Except that it usually takes that long to get to the position of actually being able to make money from writing songs.

Why should George Lucas get billions from the few months it took to shoot Star Wars? He should get his monthly salary and that's it. No matter how long it took to come up with it, no matter how much was spent (and risked) to get it made.

Making a track that can be sold usually takes more than one person's time and energy and tons of expensive gear (you have to buy it before you can use it!). It's an investment. And if you can make something people like, you make your money back and maybe a bit more to do the next song.

R&D is not cheap!

[studiomusic]

Want a cookie?

Yes, but I want the best cookie in the world, and I don't want to pay for it. :rolleyes:

[dicklacara]

http://www.tnl.net/blog/2009/09/16/apple-storms-hollywood/

Not an easy read, but worth it... the last 2 paragraphs say all!

[Cboss]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo. And if they want royalties for the playing of their 30 second preview clips, give them that too.

And then we can watch closely as their profits take a downward slide. I wonder: do the indie artists want this too? Unlikely, because they want increased exposure, not less.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Pretty soon they'll be charging me to sing to myself in the car... :rolleyes:

If prices go up too much I may have to acquire my music by more dubious means. Honestly, I don't want to have to do that. I prefer paying the artists for their talents.

[fhall1]

Gizmodo said it best -- "Music industry: Go ****** yourselves"

[whooleytoo]

Once a composition has been publicly released, e.g. embodied in a sound recording, performed, etc., the writers have little to no say in the matter, as the copyright law in the US grants users of the composition a compulsory license at statutory rates for many of the normal uses- like selling a song.

Interesting, thanks.

So, in the US, the writers' cut/percentage is limited by copyright law? In that case, lobbying the government makes a lot more sense.

Do writers have the freedom to charge a large fee for the initial recording/performance; to balance the low statutory rate later on?

[cliffjumper68]

The greed of these people is staggering now they will want to charge a "performance fee" when I play a song downloaded to my ipod with headphones. Insane! This would all be laughable but with our lame congress you never know if they will actually entertain this greed! I hope they all go out of business and the indies get a chance, they are the only place true creativity exists today. :rolleyes:

[womble2k2]

When I press the 30 second sample button in iTunes, it is to preview a song I am thinking about buying.

What would the alternative be. Download a torrent'ed version of the entire song? If I did that, what would then make me want to download another full copy just to pay for it.

There are many songs in my library which I would not have purchased if I couldn't sample the song first.

I think if anything, the labels should pay Apple a small fee every time someone plays a sample. Similar to Google Ads revenue model. The resulting income from this could be used to reduce the purchase price, driving further sales.

There is always the option for Apple to either withdraw the samples altogether, or even stop selling music. Now how would the music industry react to that?

Phil

[Rocketman]

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.


I for one think all layers of artists should participate in recurring fees for their work, whether as a product sale like a CD, DVD, individual download, etc. Public display fees are different for a reason. The fees are collected from consumers and aggregated whether through admission fees to a physical venue, subscription fees for broadcast cable and satellite, or advertising compensated "free" broadcast TV. Note I didn't include pay per view in the second category. It is in the first.

The LICENSE for a personal view is different from a group view. DirecTV for example has different prices for personal installs and installs in bars.

At some point the "publisher of record" gets a block of money for a sale or performance, and divies up the dollars among those folks they are under contract with.

The reason this issue came up is that for years the industry practice for some types of artists was a single stipend paid when the art is published or created. Done. Some artists such as writers have always typically been in the recurring income loop, sometime more so than the performing artist themselves.

The issue is one of changing traditions of contract negotiations at the time of creation of a work. It is precisely because contracts that already exist and that are being honored cause some artists to have sour grapes over their prior decisions, they are desperately groping for "illegal relief".

I say no. But I also say change the traditions of contracts up front. I think most of this goes away anyway as "labels" become less important and "indy artist pools" (co-ops) take over. So much of what labels used to do has been flattened by changes in media, internet, and business models.

Rocketman

[axual]

I am sick and tired of whiny babies running to the government for more of my money.

The 30 second clips are not a performance ... they are a short test to see if a potential buyer wants to buy the song.

Otherwise, the consumer is taking the chance and buying stuff they don't want. You know, kind of like the cable companies charging me for 300 channels even though I only want 20 of them.

Like with CDs and LP records of the past, everyone was forced to be ALL songs no matter how bad they were.

Well, times have changed. If the record companies, artists, composers, writers, etc. can't cope with it or negotiate with distributors successfully, then sorry. Figure something out other than asking the Federal Government for what amounts to a bailout.

[freediverdude]

Ok, I am all for the writers and publishers making a living, but the argument about the iTunes shows being a public performance is not valid. If only one person or private household is viewing these files at the same time, it's not public, and the courts have consistently ruled that way about songs. The iTunes TV shows and movies are sales to private individuals of copies of broadcasts that have already aired their public performance on cable or over-the-air or satellite. Not public, sorry, they're going to lose that particular argument.

Also, the 30 second clips are under the fair use policy. Again, not going to be able to charge for those, nor should they want to, as it increases sales.

Now, with that out of the way, are these writers and publishers NOT compensated in any way when a CD, DVD, or digital file is sold? I guess that is the question here. If they ARE covered under one of the other fees, then that is their compensation, and I'm afraid they'll have to live with whatever cut they have negotiated. If they aren't covered, then they do have an argument for starting a new type of fee.

[Aldaris]

Your argument makes no sense. Dr. Horrible was made despite the writer's strike, and I guess although it's cheesy, nevertheless it's entertaining? The writer's strike wasn't about "red tape". It was about the industry not compensating writers with royalties from online services like TV shows that are shown on iTunes. Apple takes these shows and feeds them to subscribers without paying the proper royalties to the actual writers of the shows. It's about the artists! We're not greedy! We just want to be compensated for the art we create! So we can keep creating art! Less money--less intelligent people that want to make a decent living will go into the entertainment industry. No artist goes into this field expecting to make a killing, but they do hope to make enough to support themselves and their families. Is that too much to ask?

-My point was that it 'was made during the strike'. When writers were wanting more compensation from downloads and dvd's (end consumer).

The issue and the point is they need to be going to the studio's and look at their own contract's not complain because they think that they are the ones getting screwed-

Again go back to the coke analogy. Maybe it'll help if I draw you a picture;)

[cliffjumper68]

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

look at who has the rights, not the actual writers just another profit lie for the RIAA bottom feeders. So, all the arguements about poor writters are misplaced since it is almost always sold to the media producers as part of the contract.

I used to buy atleast 1 cd a week but for the last 7 years since the RIAA has gone nazi I have not purchased one. Now, it looks like itunes joins that boycott for me.

So, the huy playing music in the park that no one asked to play should be able to demand a payment too for "performance", insanity!

[jlasoon]

It's obvious that about 99% of you commenting here don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basic argument.

Please, enlighten us peons as to what these basic arguments are. As for my Giganews account -- this why I renew every month.

[richardhunt]

Idiots like these who can't solve their own problem are one of the reasons government keeps getting bigger and intruding more into our lives. If you don't like your contract, get a better lawyer next time to negotiate it better.

[Vulpinemac]

... since the television stations very clearly state that because of copyright laws, they cannot broadcast more than a 30-second clip of any performance, live or otherwise, without having to pay a royalty on that performance. This means that the digital distributors are perfectly within their legal rights to use a 30-second clip of a music or video track as a teaser to encourage the purchase of a song.

Forcing the distributors to pay more would likely either eliminate the 'sample' entirely, severely reducing the sales of singles, or raise prices again, reducing total sales themselves. Either way, the music companies' greed would end up costing them more money than they're making. Maybe it's time to take the middleman (record companies) out of the loop and let the composers and performers sell directly to their public through other distribution channels. Maybe then they would see that bigger piece of the pie they need.

[Number 41]

The failure of songwriters and publishers to properly negotiate agreements is not my fault, nor is it the fault of the United States Government.

As has been pointed out before, this issue has cropped up before -- with video releases, CD releases, DVD releases, etc. By now, you'd think someone involved would know how to properly write a contract and would write one sufficient to "future proof" all parties to new and additional methods of distribution.

Their failure to do so is not my problem, and I'm marginally offended that they would go to Congress to seek a law to redress their lack of foresight.

[WhySoSerious]

Listen up bartender...

What a ridiculous, ignorant, and pompous thing to say. The point of the argument is that the people who actually make the song take home less of a cut than anyone else (especially performers). Because record executives would never take a cut in their own pay, the only option is to raise prices to give artists what they think is their "fair share."

what was ridiculous about my comments? i merely stated that people CHOOSE thier professions and they do so knowing how much they can make. if they are unhappy with the amount of cash they pull in, then get a new job that pays what you want......don't complain about it and try and screw over others. these writers should be negotiating a sale price and royalty price up FRONT with the executives. it's the writers fault for not reading over the contract and disputing it.

Do some research before you go posting that you deserve everything for free (including restaurant service).

where in the hell did i say "i deserver everything for free!"???? QUOTE ME! that's right, i didn't, so stop lying.

Also, what makes you think writers and waiters don't have educations and don't deserve to make their fair share? I guess in your eyes, a person only deserves to be compensated for a job that is deemed "higher class" by you.

agian, QUOTE ME! i never said that they were uneducated, i said if you want a higher paying job, get an educaiton and apply for jobs tha pay more. it's statistically fact that employers look at a prospects credentials and educational background when hiring. let's see someone w/out any kind of degree apply for a job with Apple. good luck. i never said waiters or writers are uneducated....but from what you've "accused" me of, i guess i could say bartenders are uneducated....

I have been a bartender for several years (and an artist my entire life), and I can tell you that my friends in similar situations are the bravest, smartest, kindest people I know.

ok, what's your point? i never disputed that or claimed otherwise in my original post.....

I hope to God you never come into my restaurant.

if your service is anything like your attitude here, i'll be tipping you 3%...if anything at all

[theneweyes]

I think the entire business model has to be redone. Apple gets three times as much revenue from iTunes sales than the actual artists. That's plain wrong. Then you add on the music companies hand in the pie. And as for let the musicians just sell their music directly to the public--well it doesn't work that way. You can't sell a "product" without advertising and exposure. Generally, artists are the types of people who are not very good at standing up for themselves in business matters. I do think we need some kind of law in congress that negotiates how much of a royalty an artist is entitled too. Apple can very well maintain the same song price, since their revenues are through the roof and they are currently the largest music seller in the world. Maintenance fees, running the iTunes store, and other server costs are a drop in the ocean to the profit they have made. The song prices could stay the same. That's Apple's and the music industry's job to figure out the profit. The responsibility or the burden of an increased cost to the consumer should not be blamed on the artist. That's scandalous.

[womble2k2]

Now, if that 30-second clip is a ring tone then yes I would view it as a product and the artist and media company should get paid for that.

I wonder how many songs are sold on the back of people hearing someone elses ringtone? Maybe the music industry should investigate whether ringtones are actually helping their businesses anyway.

I also believe that the music industry already gets royalties for ringtones. Both the ones you create on iTunes and the ones you can purchase. In reality, a ringtone vary rarely plays for 30 seconds unless the phones owner is really slow at answering. I would guess the average is 10 seconds.

The music industry does have a massive income. How much it chooses to pass on to the artists that it relies on is up to them. Squeezing retailers to try and increase their profits is madness. Just how much piracy would exist if the online retailers (Apple iTunes being the biggest) stopped selling?

Final thought (I promise!): I often see albums selling on iTunes and other online stores for more than the price of the CD. Given that the CD sale requires an expensive distribution element encompassing manufacturing costs, shipping, packaging, storage, higher staffing levels, etc. The online route simply involves transcoding of the master to the desire formats (one rack mount PC can convert a 3 minute audio piece into 5 different audio formats and bitrates in approx 1 minute). Once transcoded, it is transferred (generally via a secure FTP system) to the retailer who store it on multiple servers. This is much cheaper, as there is no need to worry about forcasting sales levels. In the CD domain, if you press 1 million CDs, and only sell 100,000, you will make a huge loss as sales won't cover costs.

So if someone can explain why I could be asked £12.99 online for an album, which I can guy in a shop for £9.99, I would be interested to know!!

Phil

[OSUfrk09]

i guess we'll see a charge to check out items in stores now too. i.e. camera's at a store on display, computers, tv's.

[DanPhillips]

This has nothing to do with the RIAA.

I'm not sure what the deal is regarding the 30-second samples. However, the television and movie issue is completely different. I've done music for TV. Often, one gets relatively little money up-front, and the publishing royalties (from fees paid to ASCAP/BMI etc. for broadcast) form the bulk of the composer's income. That's the way the business is structured. There's no "advertising" advantage since the music often only exists in the show.

Either this has to be rectified, or the way that these deals are structured needs to change - otherwise, composers simply won't get paid for their work.

[schmidm77]

Why should George Lucas get billions from the few months it took to shoot Star Wars? He should get his monthly salary and that's it. No matter how long it took to come up with it, no matter how much was spent (and risked) to get it made.

I couldn't care less about the amount of money being made or not made, I'm objecting to the number of years of exclusivity that copyright grants. But keep making silly statements as if that is the position I've taken. :rolleyes:

And if you want to jump on board the "R&D is not cheap" train, then maybe you should proclaim your support for lifetime + 50 patent protection too. No?

[Saladinos]

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

Yes, and I imagine lots of writers are actually angry at the unions, who have evidently not fulfilled their mandate to negotiate them better deals. In turn, the unions blame the distributors (it's an easy thing to do, because after the consumer, the distributor is the money's first port of call). No courts have fallen for that line, so in an effort to keep their jobs, they're trying to get the US Congress to buy it.

[Mr. Gates]

The Wave Of The Future !

http://pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pirate-bay-logo.jpg

[jglavin]

Let's all cut the corporate music industry a little slack, here. They are hard at work producing such timeless classics as "LOL Smiley face" :rolleyes:

"Shorty just text me, say she want to sex me
LOL smiley face, LOL smiley face
Shorty sent a twitpic saying come and get this,
LOL smiley face, LOL smiley face"

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[carmenodie]

First of all, radio plays music all day long. The advertisers pay to get their wares talked about and they pay the stations for that.
So, why the hell would I buy a Jonas Brother song(dear god I wouldn't!) if the freaking thing is being played in heavy rotation at the behest of the music industry that is still doing PAYOLA? I love music, and I buy from itunes all the time and a 30 sec clip ain't nothing compared to the all day blitz of radio. Hell, you can record off of radio. And that leads me to my next point.

Second and most important, the music biz should have never utilized the tech guys gadgets knowing full well that a RECORDABLE device associated with the medium at which the music content is stored would be made available to the general public. They screwed themselves.
If the music industry truly want control over their stuff, they should adopt a proprietary medium for their content and a proprietary unit to play it on. Along with proprietary speakers, cable etc. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!
Too little too late. The music biz drank the kool aid and have ventured into the rabbit hole. A long time ago!!!!!!

[WhySoSerious]

i guess we'll see a charge to check out items in stores now too. i.e. camera's at a store on display, computers, tv's.

yep...while they're at it....

charge people to test drive cars when they are trying to decide on what to by...

charge people in malls that walk by the food court and get a sample of the food off the toothpicks...

any other ideas people?

[steveh]

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

Talk to the record labels that siphon off most of the money before it ever gets to the artists.

[peter02l]

This story sounds on the surface to be absurd and petty, but consider the following: When you sell your music on itunes, Apple takes about 30-40% of every dollar of revenue. Apple is charging you, say, 30 cents for a dollar of music for the service of downloading it.

30-40%? If you want to stretch the truth, why not all the way to 100%?

If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that?

The artist will, once his work is judged good enough by the customer to purchase. Or do you expect next that supermarkets pay vegetable growers for the picture of the tomato they put on fliers?

Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. This is something that is in the contract one signs with itunes, and that is fine. However, it is also something that is negotiable when one considers the value of an artist's intellectual property to iTunes. If artists or the music "industry" believe that the business model should be different, well they have the right to do that. Apple created this business model so naturally it favors them, but in a free market the labor side (in this case songwriters or the music biz) have ever right to negotiate the terms.

Not exactly how it works in reality. Artists want to sell their songs. Apple provides the technology and service so these artist can do that. Now that's Apple's intellectual property as well as a host of other costs and maintenance to maintain this store. And for that, Apple deserves compensation which according to them is enough to break even.

It's a struggle between the power of the person making the song and the person selling the song. In this case Apple has all the power, but this argument is by no means absurd. It's like saying that employees of a company have no right to stand up for their own worth and renegotiate their pay based on their contribution to the company.

These artists and writers (I don't know how publishers got into the mix) do not work for or have contracts with Apple. They signed contracts with record companies (or publishers; again I don't know why publishers are asking for more here) If they want to renegotiate contracts, they are barking up the wrong tree.

As for your thoughts:

I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.

I am not.

People complain with such scorn and contempt about the greed of artists because they see art as not having monetary value and the artist as selfish and inhuman for wanting to get paid.

But who is the selfish one? Perhaps it is the person who takes what the artist produces and condemns them when they seek compensation.

Not everyone who howls into the microphone or bangs on the drum or pours all the filth in his brain onto the page is entitled compensation. I think it is selfish to want people to buy your song without first hearing a free sample. Why should a customer have to pay for something he doesn't want? I think it is selfish that they don't allow you to return music and get your money back if you end up not liking it.

The music industry is horrible, it screws the artist, that is beyond true. But this is not about that. People tend to rag on the "greed" of artists for trying to make a living. If you look at the VAST majority of people who sell on itunes, they are not getting rich.

If it is the music industry that is screwing the artists then this lawsuit should be about that and not the music store. The vast majority of people who sell on itunes are not that good, sorry.

As much as people find it reprehensible that artists want their fair shake, if you don't pay them then they stop making music, and our lives are the poorer for it.

Writing, recording, and distributing music costs a lot of time and money. You don't hear songwriters, who are usually the kind of people who don't care about money (versus a giant media conglomorate) bitching about getting rich, you hear them bitching about getting paid for their work.


Artists traditionally are not organized and have no collective bargaining power. They are always getting screwed. If you want to look at the greedy party in this situation I say it is apple. The notion that a company like apple is being "picked on" by songwriters is patently absurd.

No, it is precisely the artists, the writers, and the publishers here that are greedy. Why don't they renegotiate their contracts with record companies, or tear them up, and sell their stuff through their own online stores, and keep 100%. No, they want people to pay for whatever they do, regardless of quality. I have much more respect for street performers, who actually work every day, and they don't try and shake down every passer by.

[sishaw]

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. The world's full of incredibly talented musicians, you just have to look beyond what the record companies are shoving in your face.

Not only are they talented, but being a good musician and songwriter requires a lot of work in the form of practice. We don't see it, but it's there. How many of the people complaining here about songwriters making money have enough music theory and practice under their belts to even think about writing and performing one song, let alone an entire album?

[twoodcc]

wow. when are they going to learn? the more they do crap like this, the more people will not want to pay for songs. reading this just makes me mad

[AppleNewton]

whats next from them?
everytime i listen to my purchased album and/or song I have to pay again?
I have to pay everytime I want to hear it? ....sounds like something a corrupt and overbearing would love to initiate (what you can/ cant hear)
:rolleyes:

the deals made between the "behind the scenes" workers need to be taken up witht eh artists, managers, companies that finance this all, instead of increasing prices of purchasing works.
thats their obligation not specifically that of the consumer.

[barkomatic]

I can understand a performance fee for a song or TV show being performed (streamed) in its entirety on the internet. However, to force companies to pay a royalty fee for *previews* of those programs seemingly goes against the best interest of those groups pushing for these fees.

Obviously, Apple is not going to charge people upfront to preview a clip but probably raise the cost of a single track to about $2 or more. I preview probably 10 songs for every single purchase and the costs would be steep.

If this legislation passes digital downloads will get so expensive one might as well start buying CD's again and listening to the radio for "previews". Back to the 1980's folks!

I sympathize for the songwriter that gets $1500 for a song performed by Britney Spears that earns millions--but that issue seems to be between the record company and the songwriter -- not between the songwriter and the consumer.

[peter02l]

I think what irritates most artists is that apple's revenue is going through the roof with iTunes while the artist's commission is increasingly going down with development of internet services. And you guys are saying accept this because you went into the music industry? Why? Would you accept your boss docking your pay every year?

If I had the same kind of arrangement with my boss as the artist do regarding their work. I show up to work for a week and the boss pays me for it for 90 years!

[swingerofbirch]

Shouldn't their beef be more with the labels and how much of the profit the label shares with them? There is probably a law of diminishing returns with regard to the price of music. I would guess that as the price goes up people will buy less and steal more.

Maybe the artists should join together and form some sort of co-op as a label to distribute their music to iTunes rather than go through the big four. Can independent artists bypass them already to get onto iTunes?

[Rot'nApple]

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."

Is that why my cable bill keeps going up?!

What about my "waste of my time" and "waste of a perfectly good time slot on a cable channel" performance fee???

I pay good money for my cable and most of the shows on all the channels are utter crap. Even some of the shows I like and I watch frequently, occasionally leave behind their share of a big pile of hot steaming dog ***** that I'm paying for!

Where is my compensation for a "poor performance fee"?! :cool:

[peter02l]

Hum... I understood as "well, if iTunes doesn't pay what you want, distribute your product elsewhere."

So, lets say, I wanna sell your product at 100, but you want 120. Then since you couldn't convince me, you just go to the government and ask it to force me to sell it for 120 so you could have more money? Is that ok?

Hey, look, try to sell on the other store then.

Notice how none of them complains that Amazon sells their stuff cheaper than iTunes store!

[Jimmetry]

I think what irritates most artists is that apple's revenue is going through the roof with iTunes while the artist's commission is increasingly going down with development of internet services. And you guys are saying accept this because you went into the music industry? Why? Would you accept your boss docking your pay every year?

Apple doesn't make any money from users previewing songs. They make money from the sale. When Apple makes 10%, the artist and affiliates make 90%. Charge Apple for previews and it costs everyone:
- Apple, of course, which will make them more inclined to ditch the feature
- The user who, if the feature was removed or limited, would regret their purchases more often. When that happens, people change their buying habits, and buy less.
- If users buy less, the artist makes less money anyway.

Lose/lose/lose situation. They're a bunch of idiots. Song previews are advertising. Most companies pay to have their products advertised, and the recording industry wants to be paid? Screw them then. I'll preview my song via torrent and, oh wait, I might as well keep it.

Just keep shooting yourselves in the foot. Soon enough, a semi-automated service will come about where the artist defines the rights and consumer purchases are direct, and nobody will care about these whiney bitches anymore :)

Disclaimer: Yes, I know this is about writers, but they fit within the "artist and affiliates group". If one party suddenly gets granted rights to a performance fee, they all do, so stop complaining about people misunderstanding when really those complainers simply aren't accepting what that legislation would actually mean.

[peter02l]

I had to register just to post this:

Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.

I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.

Yes. and it should be an issue that writers and publishers need to take up with labels and artists. Writers and publishers cannot sign their rights away to labels and artists and then come ask for money from music stores. Are they asking Barns and Noble for displaying their stuff - both samples of recordings and and whole books on the shelves? Theoretically - as well as practically - a customer can go to a bookstore and read a whole book without paying the writer. And these guys are bitching about charging for a 30 second sample that may not even lead to a sale?

[dicklacara]

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. ;)

Jeez! What about my BoomBox? It's an iPod HiFi!

I was going to take it to the kids soccer tournament to play the Star Spangled Banner and some game highlights from my iPhone. The highlights have added music tracks from songs I paid for.

Does this mean that I have to find Francis Scott Key's relatives and those of every lyricist, songwriter, backup singer, musician in the bands so I can pay them $.05 each?

Do I have to collect $.05 for each of them for everyone who hears the music?

Doesn't sanity play any part of Fair Use?

My head is about to explode!


*

[csnwbd2251]

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


So...maybe they should start charging performance fees for TV commercials :p .
Now that I know there are such fees, I will probably cancel my DirecTV subscription once it is up. Much more fun watching my daughter perform at school :)

[Bartman01]

Sounds like the issue here is with the contracts in the industry and not with Apple (or any other distributor). If I read it right, artists decided NOT to collect synchronization fees in 'HOPES' that they would make this up in performance fees down the road when the show was aired. The fee structure seems to be based around broadcast television when the consumption of the media is moving away from that paradigm for a growing number of people.

Same old song and dance, instead of trying to restructure the business to fit the new model they are trying to beat the old structure in to the new model. When the square peg doesn't really fit the new round hole, they try to legislate/litigate the solution instead of actually making a round peg.

[SeattleMoose]

How dare composers, songwriters, publishers, or musicians want any money for what they do.

I mean we all work for free...Right? So why shouldn't they!!!!

I say, let them stand on street corners playing for pennies like in the good old days!!!

btw...but please keep making music using great players, expensive equipment, air-conditioned studios, mastering and artwork costs....all on YOUR dime!!!

I mean after all, you OWE us free music!!!!:p

[aristokrat]

To all those people who are parroting the "this is about the writers trying to make a living" line, would you have agreed to work the job you do for 50% less? I'm assuming the answer is no, and so I ask why not? Because you have a basic understanding of how negotiation and contracts work? Then why the hell do you feel bad for the writers who did not hold out for more? If it's because they are replaceable, then they're not worth as much as they think they are (an unfortunately common trend among artists, especially bad ones).

I can kind of understand the guys who got screwed by cassettes, because that was the first big change in music sale format, so they couldn't have known to future-proof their contracts. But after that there was no excuse for agreeing to a contract that wasn't future-proof unless you were an idiot. So apparently CDs came along, and people got screwed again, and now the same thing happens with digital downloads. If the writers (and other types who have also complained about the same thing) haven't been able to learn the lesson by now, let them be forever doomed by their ignorance.

[Glideslope]

To Hell with the Greedy Music Industry!!! Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!:apple:

[mags631]

How dare composers, songwriters, publishers, or musicians want any money for what they do.

I mean we all work for free...Right? So why shouldn't they!!!!

I say, let them stand on street corners playing for pennies like in the good old days!!!

btw...but please keep making music using great players, expensive equipment, air-conditioned studios, mastering and artwork costs....all on YOUR dime!!!

I mean after all, you OWE us free music!!!!:p

Oh no, the end is nigh -- music might just become an art again as opposed to an overly commercial business that feeds on teenagers, endorsements and media frenzy. I have no problem with letting artists, producers, writers and distributors charging whatever they want for their music. I say let them do what they want and get what they deserve.

[MacFly123]

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

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

Time to start calling my congresspeople and telling them not to pass this legislation.

AMEN! The 30 second clip thing is beyond ridiculous. Are they going to charge Walmart when people use those little headphone stations to listen to CDs?

I am a film-maker and a musician, so I could very easily want more money for my content. Yet, I think they are being pathetic. They need to learn how to harness these new future digital models and embrace them, instead of resisting and trying to nickel and dime everything! INNOVATE! :rolleyes:

[Nausicaa]

Ridiculous.

iTunes (and Amazon when it's cheaper ;)) is almost single handedly responsible for ending my own penchant for music piracy, as well as many people I know. And I'm sure these legal digital distribution channels will curb future piracy by making it so easy.

I used to pirate because it was hard to find and sample 'good music' before the internet. Sure, you could go to a store and sample a few CDs, but you were still limited by whatever was in stock. Now we have instant access to almost every album ever recorded, all with pretty high quality audio samples to help find what you want. Buy, and you can have the album in minutes.

It seems that at one time, a handful of power players in this industry made money hand over fist as publishers, now they're pissed that their industry is becoming more decentralized and more difficult to control. They can no longer print their own money with other people's talent. **** 'em.

I know many musicians and recording artists and none of them would side with the labels in these power struggles. Today is a great time to be in music as the barriers to entry have never been smaller. No one should feel bad that a select few no longer have free reign to eat most of the pie. The simple fact is the digital world gives people the ability to draw from a much larger pool of music to find what they like. There are still 'popular artists' that dominate the charts, but they command fewer and fewer sales as more and more people jump ship with a world of options at their fingertips.

[Mattie Num Nums]

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.

Im glad someone here see's the truth. Just like the Writers Strike in the TV industry. People don't realize the people writing hit shows on TV make less than 60k a year.

[JGowan]

What will happen is there will be determination of time considered a public performance (ie. 30 seconds) and will drop to 25 second previews. If they have to, Apple will drop previews altogether and only the artist will suffer. People want to cherry-pick their music. You take away their right to do it, they'll stop buying. Personally, I generally roll with a "very good" used CD from Amazon.

[Nausicaa]

Oh no, the end is nigh -- music might just become an art again as opposed to an overly commercial business that feeds on teenagers, endorsements and media frenzy. I have no problem with letting artists, producers, writers and distributors charging whatever they want for their music. I say let them do what they want and get what they deserve.

It's already happening. Just look at the huge popularity of 'indie' artists among the under-30 set. Overly commercialized music is almost exclusively the realm of tweens and old people. Again, only a select few are rocking the boat as this industry undergoes huge changes - the ones that got rich off the old model. This is an amazingly liberating time for the vast majority of musicians, studios, and labels. Many are finally able to turn their art into a career for the first time.

The few who got rich off recording in the past may not be making as much money, but now so many more artists are getting a piece of the pie. It's the Simon Cowells of the world that are making a stink.

[mags631]

Im glad someone here see's the truth. Just like the Writers Strike in the TV industry. People don't realize the people writing hit shows on TV make less than 60k a year.

Actually, that does surprise me, but I wouldn't call that inappropriate.

[Eric5273]

I think you guys are all missing a major part of this issue, which is probably due to the fact that most people do not understand the inner workings of the music industry and how royalties are collected and distributed.

More than half of the music produced never gets sold on iTunes or on Amazon, or in any format. The reason is that it is produced specifically for use as background or theme music for television programs, commercials, and films. This type of music is typically known as "production music", "stock music" or "library music".

Over the years, the typical business model for this type of music is that songwriters will sign over their music to a music publisher that specializes in production music, and the publisher then does their best to place the music on television. The songwriter earns money not from the publisher, but from the performance royalties they receive from BMI or ASCAP, the two performing rights societies.

The problem is that these royalties continue to decrease every year due to fewer people watching television and more people downloading the programs or streaming them on the internet.

Please understand that the songwriters do not receive a single penny when the program or movie that contains their music is sold on iTunes.

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

And just to give a little background of how I know all of this, I own one of the 20 or so production music publishers in the United States.

[dicklacara]

I'm not saying either should- although almost every DSP contract with a label states that the DSP will obtain all necessary public performance licenses.

And in the US, if it was decided that the preview was a public performance, I suspect it would fall under Sound Exchange's mandate for the sound recording, so the artists would get their performance royalty just as the writers would via their PROs

OK! I have a friend who is a singer, songwriter, lyricist. She is about to publish her debut album-- all original songs.

Now, for the interesting part: she has made lots of "Covers" and posted them to YouTube and other sites including her own at:

http://www.youtube.com/sheenamelwani
http://www.sheenamelwani.com

This is the way "Covers" was explained to me by recording industry insiders:

A "Cover" is when an artist creates her own version of another artist's song (usually a published song).

Technically, the artist creating the "Cover" must obtain all the "permissions" (and negotiate/pay the appropriate fees/royalties) for the song in question.

However, obtaining "permissions" would increase lead time and have a stifling effect on creation of the "Cover".

So, the "industry" looks the other way, and does not enforce whatever laws and remuneration apply to various creators of the original.

I suspect that the "owners" of the original feel that the "cover" is a compliment and contributes to the sales of the original.


Now some questions:

1) By selectively ignoring the fact that "Covers" violate their rights, are the owners giving up those same rights?

2) Is the content of the specific "Covers", now, in the public domain?

3) Can these "owners" selectively go after some (like iTunes) while permitting others?

4) Is any, or all, of the original content, now, in the public domain because of the above inconsistancies?

Does any of this matter?

*

[paul4339]

If the clips contribute to the business then aren't the artists getting paid because of the increased sales?



Of course they have the right to negotiate. But when those negotiations don't end in their favor, they shouldn't go running to the government to get what they want.



A promotional clip by itself doesn't make any money for Apple either. If that clip produces a sale, then Apple does get money. And then so does the artist.

Agreed.
If a 30 sec sample (promoting a product) is the same as a the background music for a 30 second commercial (promoting a product), then shouldn't the promoter be getting a fee? That is shouldn't Apple be charging an *additional* fee to allow to the record industry for giving out 30 sec samples (promoting) , as well as a fee if the product sells?

Just a thought.

[w00master]

I think you guys are all missing a major part of this issue, which is probably due to the fact that most people do not understand the inner workings of the music industry and how royalties are collected and distributed.

More than half of the music produced never gets sold on iTunes or on Amazon, or in any format. The reason is that it is produced specifically for use as background or theme music for television programs, commercials, and films. This type of music is typically known as "production music", "stock music" or "library music".

Over the years, the typical business model for this type of music is that songwriters will sign over their music to a music publisher that specializes in production music, and the publisher then does their best to place the music on television. The songwriter earns money not from the publisher, but from the performance royalties they receive from BMI or ASCAP, the two performing rights societies.

The problem is that these royalties continue to decrease every year due to fewer people watching television and more people downloading the programs or streaming them on the internet.

Please understand that the songwriters do not receive a single penny when the program or movie that contains their music is sold on iTunes.

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

And just to give a little background of how I know all of this, I own one of the 20 or so production music publishers in the United States.

I feel bad for these artists, but honestly... how is this truly Apple's issue? This, imho, should come out of the cut that the Music Industry gets already. It should be an INTERNAL battle and not something that Apple (or the US Gov't) should be involved with.

w00master

[JimmyLecroy21]

Support the artist not the labels. Bittorent + See the artist live = Helps artist not greedy ****ing label:D

[HLdan]

I don't give a rats behind about the artist, the writers or the record labels. What gets thrown in my face every time I turn on MTV is the Cribs show which gives a great idea where all my money I spent on iTunes goes. Cribs shows off the artists and the people behind it all enjoying their mulit-million dollar homes and ocean-like swimming pools and such. I work hard for my money, do they care about what it takes for me to earn it so I can spend it on their music? NO.

This whole thing complaining about wanting extra compensation for the 30 second previews just makes me ill. :mad:. I used to work as a commission-only sales person at an electronics store and did I get paid for customers coming in and stroking me for free information, only to leave and go buy it somewhere else? NO. Every customer deserves a free demo on something before they buy. Would it be nice if I had been compensated for giving my customers a demo of the product I want to sell to them? YES, but I didn't and I really shouldn't and neither should these stupid money hungry artists. :mad:

[farmboy]

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.
B

Sorry GQ, but what moron musician would not insist on compensation for broadcast radio play? Even a newbie friend-of-a-friend representative/agent would be sure to insert a radio clause.

[farmboy]

Not only are they talented, but being a good musician and songwriter requires a lot of work in the form of practice. We don't see it, but it's there. How many of the people complaining here about songwriters making money have enough music theory and practice under their belts to even think about writing and performing one song, let alone an entire album?

Um, so what? If music is your life's work...it's supposed to be work, just like everyone else has to do for 40+ hours a week.

And probably most writer-performers don't know squat about music theory.

[wolfshades]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo. And if they want royalties for the playing of their 30 second preview clips, give them that too.

Charging who? The consumers that are trying to avoid piracy by actually buying their music?

Yes! Did you not read the rest of my comment? If they charge us for giving them the courtesy of listening to extracts of their songs (the better to help us decide whether to buy or not) - we'll stop listening to them. We'll stop buying them. In effect, by wanting to charge us to sample, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Basic economics.

It's like telling a customer they're not allowed to take a whiff of the cologne or perfume before buying, unless they pay for the privilege. Doesn't make sense.

So...let the market do what it wants, and the wise consumers will do what they want. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose thing this time around.

Oh and guess what? Piracy will suddenly become popular again.

These idiots are so very very stupid.

[Eric5273]

OK! I have a friend who is a singer, songwriter, lyricist. She is about to publish her debut album-- all original songs.

Now, for the interesting part: she has made lots of "Covers" and posted them to YouTube and other sites including her own at:

http://www.youtube.com/sheenamelwani
http://www.sheenamelwani.com

This is the way "Covers" was explained to me by recording industry insiders:

A "Cover" is when an artist creates her own version of another artist's song (usually a published song).

Technically, the artist creating the "Cover" must obtain all the "permissions" (and negotiate/pay the appropriate fees/royalties) for the song in question.

However, obtaining "permissions" would increase lead time and have a stifling effect on creation of the "Cover".

So, the "industry" looks the other way, and does not enforce whatever laws and remuneration apply to various creators of the original.

I suspect that the "owners" of the original feel that the "cover" is a compliment and contributes to the sales of the original.


Now some questions:

1) By selectively ignoring the fact that "Covers" violate their rights, are the owners giving up those same rights?

2) Is the content of the specific "Covers", now, in the public domain?

3) Can these "owners" selectively go after some (like iTunes) while permitting others?

4) Is any, or all, of the original content, now, in the public domain because of the above inconsistancies?

Does any of this matter?

*

Very little of what you said here is correct.

1) It is not a violation of copyright law to do your own recording of someone else's song. The Copyright Tribunal has set the mechanical royalty rate at 9.1 cents per copy. This means that if you do your own recording of someone else's song, you must pay them 9.1 cents per copy for each copy that you distribute, regardless of the method of distribution (CD, cassette, download, etc.) There is no negotiation of any kind. The rate is set by a government agency. And you do not need their permission. If you write a song, anyone can record it if they want, provided that they pay you the appropriate royalties.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html

Please understand that there are 2 seperate and unrelated parts to music copyrights. There is the composition, which is the written music or lyrics to a song, and then there is the physical recording.

In most cases, the owner of the composition is an entirely different party than the owner of the recording. Current law states that the owner of the composition gets a performance royalty when their music is broadcast or "performed". The owner of the recording gets nothing. This is why there was that battle a few months ago over the "performance fee". Owners of recordings were demanding a royalty when their recording is performed. Currently they get nothing.

So if your friend records a well known song, and that song is then aired on the radio, your friend gets no earnings of any kind even if it becomes the most played song on the radio. Same if it is played on television. Your friend only gets paid if she sells copies of her recording.

[pubwvj]

They're clueless. No taste, no buy. No sample, no sale.

[Eric5273]

I don't give a rats behind about the artist, the writers or the record labels. What gets thrown in my face every time I turn on MTV is the Cribs show which gives a great idea where all my money I spent on iTunes goes. Cribs shows off the artists and the people behind it all enjoying their mulit-million dollar homes and ocean-like swimming pools and such. I work hard for my money, do they care about what it takes for me to earn it so I can spend it on their music? NO.

Might as well say you don't care about business owners because you have seen how Bill Gates lives.

You are seeing how the top 0.01% of artists and writers. Most songwriters and artists struggle to make a living. Most of them will never have a hit song, and are lucky to be able to pay the bills. They earn a living from the royalties they receive, and currently those royalties are slowly disappearing.

[Gasu E.]

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.


To paraphrase you, why do you have a problem if they CHOOSE to charge you more money for something they make that you use? You can CHOOSE not to buy it if you think it's over-priced!

[libertyforall]

More government is NEVER the solution, for it is the problem!

See:
http://campaignforliberty.com

[Eric5273]

To paraphrase you, why do you have a problem if they CHOOSE to charge you more money for something they make that you use? You can CHOOSE not to buy it if you think it's over-priced!

There is absolutely no choice. The rates for these things are set by the government. Songwriters have no choice in the matter. That is why they continue to lobby Congress to raise the rate.

If songwriters set their own rates, then that would be fine. But they cannot. They are being forced to accept a government set rate.

[megfilmworks]

American greed knows no bounds.

And the greediest are the people who steal music...

[Spades]

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

Unless the consumer doesn't pay the higher price. Who knows what happens then, but I fail to see why I should care if a particular business model is failing.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

He didn't save for retirement like everybody else has to? Tough luck. Get a job.

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

If they can sustain their business then they are certainly entitled to make a living from it, but why should the public and the government be obligated to support them?

[dba7dba]

i hate it when some industry can't get what they want and they pay congress to do get it done for them.

[megfilmworks]

To me the RIAA has lost all creditability

This thread is about ASCAP, BMI, songwriters and publishers.

If you want to bag on the RIAA,
start a post that has something to do with them!

The music business is very complicated. Unless someone has years of experience in this biz, then they should not comment.
Knowledge before opinion!!

This thread reminds me of the town hall bozos, very little knowledge, plenty of bluster...

[DesignerOnMac]

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

I guess some people would call this 'making next to nothing':

Writers on a prime-time TV series like "Desperate Housewives" earn a minimum of 30,823 USD for writing a story and teleplay per one episode.

If the network requires a rewrite, the applicable minimum is $8,634 per episode. The writer earns a minimum of $4,324 for polishing a script.

The writers are paid a minimum of $2,890 to $3,688 per week on week-to-week term employment basis. If they work in additional capacities they could earn a minimum of up to $6,879 per week (based on the number of weeks they are employed).

The writers also earn additional 'program fees'. A maximum fee of $3,312 per episode is however split among the writers.

Writers may also earn additional fees in case they are asked to come up with story outlines (in case the network wishes to preview an upcoming storyline).

If they are asked to come up with a 'bible' (an outline of up to 6 storylines for an upcoming season) the writers earn a minimum of $44,353 per bible plus an additional $4,435 per storyline if the bible contains more than 6 storylines.

Each prime-time rerun earns the writer credited for writing the story, the teleplay or both a minimum residual payment of $8,431 to $21,078 per episode.

[rish]

NO!

Not in the slightest does one feel pity. If artists are that concerned about the loss of income get out of the current music industry Eco system and take up distributing the music without the labels. Problem solved.

This industry is rotten, absolutely rotten to the core. I really want to see the impending demise of the labels to gather pace.

Put the prices up pass a law do what you like. I'll boycott your music. I'll find other means of finding it without the exorbitant cost.

[megfilmworks]

i hate it when some industry can't get what they want and they pay congress to do get it done for them.

So do I, but this thread has nothing to do with that statement.

Statutory rates have been renegotiated constantly for decades.
We don't pay congress to legislate... :confused:

[Eric5273]

He didn't save for retirement like everybody else has to? Tough luck. Get a job.

Many people get pensions when they work on a job a long time. Songwriters have pensions in that they collect royalties. Taking away their royalties is like taking away someone's pension after they spent 30 years on the job.


If they can sustain their business then they are certainly entitled to make a living from it, but why should the public and the government be obligated to support them?

The government has told songwriters that they cannot charge what they want for use of their music. The government has instead set the rates for what they think use of someone's music is worth. Songwriters are forced to accept that rate.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html

This is how it has been for more than 50 years, and this is how it is in every industrialized country in the world. As cost of living goes up and there is inflation, then the government set rates should also go up as well. The problem is that every time the songwriters ask for an appropriate increase, the public is shown images of Brittney Spears and Michael Jackson making hundreds of millions of dollars and is made to think that all of their money is going to rich multimillionaire artists. Please understand that this is a PR campaign by the large corporations to deny the small songwriters their fair share.

Tell me any other industry where you are not allowed to charge what you want for your product.

[MacModMachine]

birds make music all the time....


how long before we have to pay royalties on that?

soon enough the birds will be making more then me....

*sighs*

[seedster2]

This thread is about ASCAP, BMI, songwriters and publishers.

If you want to bag on the RIAA,
start a post that has something to do with them!

The music business is very complicated. Unless someone has years of experience in this biz, then they should not comment.
Knowledge before opinion!!

This thread reminds me of the town hall bozos, very little knowledge, plenty of bluster...

Agreed. Songwriters are publishers are getting screwed royally nowadays.

Gotta love the folks who on one hand complain the art these people produce isn't good and in their next breath advocate its piracy. If it isn't good, why feel the need to steal it?

If the music and film industry dies, so does iTunes...I'm sure Apple's business model will flourish under those circumstances

[megfilmworks]

If you haven't at least read a noob book like this,

http://www.amazon.com/This-Business-Music-Definitive-Industry/dp/0823077578

And can't answer the simple questions that would arise.
Like:
What is a sync?
What is a performance?
What is a mechanical?
And about 20 other simpleton questions.....

Then ****! :eek:

[Mattie Num Nums]

Actually, that does surprise me, but I wouldn't call that inappropriate.

Most of these writers live in Southern California where 60k is next to nothing.

[seashellz]

The big record companies-much like Microsoft, are fast becoming irrelevant in the 21st Century....
their outmoded sales models and ideas will bring them to their knees;
an open secret: groups no longer need the marketing or distribution arms of the big companies, for the most part;

While in a local record shop the other day- i remarked upon how can all these small unknown groups on small unknown labels afford such creatively designed *DELUXE* packaging-as I am seeing? AND STILL MAKE A LIVING

The clerk responded with the sales breakdown facts, roughly:
BIG COMPANY: 20% to group, 35% distributors/warehouse, 45% record company;
INDIE METHOD: 40% to group 40% to pressing/distributors (20% to indie label-often the bands own creation)(also many times an APPLE computer using SHAKE etc, becomes the almost for free "home studio" of choice; BAT FOR LASHES is an example of making this work-they go to the studio only for some final tweaking/mastering-savings THOUSANDS of £'s........)
the internet- and an APPLE computer (fact: MOST musicians will use a MAC to create their music-not sure why)makes the big company obsolete as far as recording & advertising expense goes
The indie company and distributor also often co-op publicity together, further increasing efficiency
UToob and myspace really work wonders-and fan reposting of videos/songs really penetrate deep into the "market"--randomly, 150 video posts of LIKE A VIRGIN each reaches a different subset of people-by chance; .001% here, .003% there increased exposure means SOME will torrent-but MANY will BUY
The mistake the record companies are making is they want ALL of the pie that goes to the download/never buy subset-good ******** luck, me hearties!
The indies however, look at this as more exposure-and each 1% climb in sales really adds to the coffers-they have no huge infrastructure to keep up
It is well known that iTunes breaks even or makes coffee change
So here they are PUSHING music for the big jerks-and the big jerks want to bite the hand(s) that feeds them
Its iTunes that should be asking for a fee AND percent of sales for doing their job sucessfully;

I would squarely put APPLE in the "indie" model, quickly rising
I would put Microsoft and the big record companies in the fast dying dinosaur sales model: clueless greed

The dolts are killing themselves
******** idiots

[Mattie Num Nums]

Support the artist not the labels. Bittorent + See the artist live = Helps artist not greedy ****ing label:D

You do realize that for most bands, touring is used to pay the recording costs and other associated costs. Its amazing how people have a real lack of any basic knowledge of the music industry.

[Spades]

Many people get pensions when they work on a job a long time. Songwriters have pensions in that they collect royalties. Taking away their royalties is like taking away someone's pension after they spent 30 years on the job.

But wouldn't they only be getting royalties if their work was used? What happens if nobody is using their work by the time they retire? What kind of retirement planning is that. Besides, pensions are becoming rare. I'll never see a dime from a pension. I'll manage anyways.

The government has told songwriters that they cannot charge what they want for use of their music. The government has instead set the rates for what they think use of someone's music is worth. Songwriters are forced to accept that rate.

What happens if a use is not listed in those rules? If there's no applicable law, then wouldn't they get to negotiate the rate themselves? If the law doesn't provide a rate for the particular use, how exactly does anybody have a right to use it without the writer's permission?

Edit: I suppose the problem is that the particular use here, selling the TV show, doesn't provide royalties as good as public performance royalties? If so, go ahead and fix the system. But wouldn't it make more sense to change the royalties paid on a digital download instead of trying to get digital downloads reclassified as a public performance, which they are not?

[LEStudios]

+1.

Flies in the face of free market systems, and the concept of fair use once I purchase a product. If I buy a CD, and then use a song as my ring tone, is that a public performance?

Yeah let these people have their way you have to pay a performance fee for the ringtone when somebody calls you and the phone rings! :eek:

I hope Obama calls them a jackass too! :D

[mutantteenager]

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.

People who write songs and music have a right to earn a fair amount from what is effectively their own creation. Even before itunes the music industry was taking a disproportionate cut of the proceeds of music sales.

'Hitting the torrent sites' says a lot about the value you place on music. You're happy to be entertained by it, but you don't feel it's worth paying for. Perhaps you wouldn't feel the same if your employer took the same view of your work? Replacing you with a cheaper machine perhaps?

[EagerDragon]

I do not agree with them.

Apple can not negotiate with every single artist. That is why they negotiate with the Major 4.

If the Major 4 do not have the rights to the songs, then a deal should not be struck. But it sounds to me like they do have the rights and that the artists are negotiating with the lables and now have a problem with the negotiated arrangement.

They should start their own label then negotiate with Apple.

Everyone wants to nickel and dime everyone it seems.

If performers and artists are not getting payed what is own to them, why they don't take the labels to court?

New USE ..... If the rights are not spelled out and the material is being used in a particular way that is not covered, then either the artist reserves those rights or they wait out their contract and negotiate with the labels taking into consideration those new uses/rights. Labels/ Labels/ Labels. Those are the guys everyone has to deal with, maybe artists, performers and writers should do the same and live within the clauses of their contract. They should take it to court and not Congress, this is a civil issue.

Too much.

[EagerDragon]

People who write songs and music have a right to earn a fair amount from what is effectively their own creation. Even before itunes the music industry was taking a disproportionate cut of the proceeds of music sales.

'Hitting the torrent sites' says a lot about the value you place on music. You're happy to be entertained by it, but you don't feel it's worth paying for. Perhaps you wouldn't feel the same if your employer took the same view of your work? Replacing you with a cheaper machine perhaps?

They should get their fair share from the labels that represent them. If they are not happy with their contract, then they should negotiate a new contract or move elsewhere where they can get a fair shake.

[RazHyena]

You do realize that for most bands, touring is used to pay the recording costs and other associated costs. Its amazing how people have a real lack of any basic knowledge of the music industry.

LOL. Touring is where the bands MAKE most of their revenue, not album sales. :rolleyes:

[fastbite]

They will never learn...

[dicklacara]

Very little of what you said here is correct.

1) It is not a violation of copyright law to do your own recording of someone else's song. The Copyright Tribunal has set the mechanical royalty rate at 9.1 cents per copy. This means that if you do your own recording of someone else's song, you must pay them 9.1 cents per copy for each copy that you distribute, regardless of the method of distribution (CD, cassette, download, etc.) There is no negotiation of any kind. The rate is set by a government agency. And you do not need their permission. If you write a song, anyone can record it if they want, provided that they pay you the appropriate royalties.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html



Thanks for the explanation and reference.

You can download or stream a YouTube cover-- does this constitute publishing or distribution?

If you post a "Cover" to YouTube and it has thousands of plays, are royalties due?

Who pays them?

*

[fastbite]

And in my opinion they can go and buy donuts... (it sort of makes sense for me anyway)

[CWallace]

Maybe the artists and writers should stand up for themselves instead of demanding the consumer or the government do it for them?

Do they not have unions or other bargaining groups with some clout - something like SAG? And if they don't, maybe they should organize one?



The purpose of that 30-second preview is not entertainment, but education.

I expect that the majority of folks using that 30 second feature are doing so to ensure that this is indeed the song they were interested in buying. The next likely reason is because they heard a song they liked from the artist and wish to see if they have anything similar.

The publishers and writers are effectively and essentially arguing that consumers are generating playlists of scores of 30-second snippets to listen to for entertainment purposes - since one attends a performance for entertainment - and that is ludicrous.

[MrCrowbar]

Music Business is tough. I'm producing some music and releasing it under my label right now. Usually you'd pay money to advertise your stuff, which is what people are doing if they incorporate a snippet of your song in a TV show or someone hears it as a ringtone.

The problem is that the major labels want to milk every penny out of the music the release which disgruntles their customers. If a song is played on the radio, that's different because the radio station gets better ratings if they play the good song so they have more ad/subscriber revenue.

It's all really complicated. Music shouldn't be 100% business, it should be about musicians who love to make music and fans who love to listen to music. Just make lots of youTube videos and you'll get tons of fans who will buy anything new from you in a heartbeat. Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/pomplamoosemusic

Most major label stuff right now can be compared with the brown kind of fecal matter. Some stuff is great, but hard to get. That's where iTunes (and Amazon MP3) shines, you can find very obscure stuff on there. I actually buy lots of underground music, it also helps the artist to afford making more good music. It's a bit like being a shareholder.

[kamiboy]

Cant they just buy less rims for their cars?

[Chris Tilton]

So, while most on here are crying fowl and greed, etc, as someone who writes music for TV, and has albums on iTunes, I thought I'd lend my perspective.

While the whole 30 second clip thing sounds absurd (I don't think anyone should be compensated for samples), perhaps they are just trying to get congress to see digital distribution in a different light. Anyways, I write background music. I don't do tours, most people will watch a show, and if the music is doing its job, often not even notice that it was there, or who composed it, or even care. The fact of the matter is though, that performance royalties are a large part in how I make a living. It's giving a very small amount back to those who were actually creatively involved in the creation of what is being shown.

When someone buys a TV show, or a soundtrack album on iTunes, who gets that money? Certainly not me. It goes to Apple and the big studios or labels. Granted, it is possible to negotiate that a composer would get something from soundtrack sales, but for something like a TV show, in which there are so many parties involved, it is near impossible unless you are John Williams or something. I would think fighting to get a fair amount of royalties for the little guy (*waves*) is a fair thing to ask for. Small non-profit companies like ASCAP who collect royalties for composers certainly don't have the resources to fairly negotiate with giant greedy studios, so I think taking the issue to congress is somewhat fair, especially since congress is passing laws in relation to digital media itself.

[Chris Tilton]

Maybe the artists and writers should stand up for themselves instead of demanding the consumer or the government do it for them?

Do they not have unions or other bargaining groups with some clout - something like SAG? And if they don't, maybe they should organize one?


No, there is no composers union, and I think composers such as myself are the only major part of film making, tv making etc. that doesn't have a union. Basically, all we have are small royalty collection organizations like ASCAP and BMI. Us composers have to fend for ourselves against the giant studio machine. Even Music Editors and the actual Musicians who play the music we write have a unions! It's crazy.

[ThirteenXIII]

as for the back end of the spectrum....producers/writers etc are the last to know first to go...so theyve become completely controlled and disposable by any sort of company that hires them.

as far as i know there are way too many cooks in this kitchen that controls the distribution of writing efforts, producing, publication, artists and money in general.

i mean unless the writer/publication specifically licenses the works with profit % + earning anytime its out there than okay, they need to tweak that.
but i think it starts primarily with a compensation package for getting the job done and then thats that.
surely this isnt an apples to apples comparison but an architect designs a building and there is a fee for everyime sometime enters or uses part of the building itself...that would seem completely ludicrous.


i think fair is fair but getting a penny out of every little thing is just a waste of time and money

i may know next to nothing about it all and honestly i dont really want to or care much; as now that industry is just full of clutter and garbage.
but i guess just using some common sense and principles can point out some of the mishaps in the practices and business workings of that industry.

[donny77]

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

Didn't read all the replies so pardon me if this is a repeated argument...

Why is this my problem? I am not their customer. They sold their stuff to the recording artist. If they didn't make enough they should charge the artist more. I am buying the artists' rendition of their lyrics at the price set by the recording artist.

[Spades]

No, there is no composers union, and I think composers such as myself are the only major part of film making, tv making etc. that doesn't have a union. Basically, all we have are small royalty collection organizations like ASCAP and BMI. Us composers have to fend for ourselves against the giant studio machine. Even Music Editors and the actual Musicians who play the music we write have a unions! It's crazy.

So why not have a union? If there's a group organized and large enough to lobby congress, wouldn't that group be organized and large enough to negotiate with companies?

[Eric5273]

But wouldn't they only be getting royalties if their work was used? What happens if nobody is using their work by the time they retire? What kind of retirement planning is that. Besides, pensions are becoming rare. I'll never see a dime from a pension. I'll manage anyways.

Royalties are earnings you get for music placements from the past. I'll give an example quite common for my company:

Let's suppose I place a song on a network program like Saturday Night Live. When the program is broadcast, the songwriter receives a performance royalty from BMI or ASCAP (whichever performing rights society he/she is a member of). BMI and ASCAP are both private non-profit societies who collect performance royalties from the broadcasters and pay them to the songwriters and publishers. Songwriters cannot set their own performance royalty rates. They must accept what BMI or ASCAP pay them.

As programs are broadcast over and over, first when they are new, and then in syndication, every time that program is broadcast, the songwriter receives royalties.

A songwriter who specializes in music for television or films (actually much more common than songwriters who write in the pop field) will have built up a nice resume of programs and movies in which his/her music has been used by the time they are ready to retire. They continue to receive royalties every time their music is aired.

Without the long term royalties, there simply isn't enough money being paid to make a living. Most of them still have a day job when they start out, and it takes many years before they can move to doing music full time. But they do this because of the long term benefits. It's like building a business. Over time your royalty checks become higher and higher as you write more music and have more of your music placed.

The problem is that they don't receive any royalties when the program or movie is downloaded from the internet. And as fewer people watch shows live and now watch them online or download them, the songwriters will receive less and less royalties. There needs to be an adjustment to the system to allow for them to get a percentage of the profit made from downloads. Otherwise there is no incentive for any songwriter to write for television of film.




What happens if a use is not listed in those rules? If there's no applicable law, then wouldn't they get to negotiate the rate themselves? If the law doesn't provide a rate for the particular use, how exactly does anybody have a right to use it without the writer's permission?

Good point. Unfortunately for them, companies like iTunes simply assume there are no royalties to be paid because there is no law stating that there are. If the status quo continues and there is no legislation passed by congress, you can bet there will be some major lawsuits and then it will be decided by the courts.

I'll give you an example of this with regard to the record companies. The link I posted above was a link to the statutory mechanical royalty rate. That is simply the royalty a record company (or anyone else that sells a recording) must pay to a songwriter for each copy of each song that is sold. The current rate is 9.1 cents. So to clarify, if a record company sells an album with 10 songs on it, they must pay 91 cents in royalties to the various songwriters or songwriters. When record companies began selling online downloads, since the price they charged was less than what they charged for a compact disc, they took it upon themselves to stop paying 9.1 cents and lower the rate. It took a number of lawsuits before the Copyright Tribunal finally stepped in and decided to set a special rate for online downloads.

I know that nobody likes government involvement in these matters, but the alternative is chaos. It would be far too messy to have to negotiate every time music is used or a CD is sold. Music publishers, record companies, and television/film production companies would have to have huge amounts of staff and lawyers to handle each and every small thing that they do. It is simply not a system that can work. There must be a set of standard rates for these things, which there are. And like anything else, there are some parties who will always think the rate is too low while others will always say it is too high. And both sides will lobby congress for what they want.

I can tell you that in general, the royalty rates for music use in the United States are much lower than those in Europe and other industrialized countries.


Edit: I suppose the problem is that the particular use here, selling the TV show, doesn't provide royalties as good as public performance royalties? If so, go ahead and fix the system. But wouldn't it make more sense to change the royalties paid on a digital download instead of trying to get digital downloads reclassified as a public performance, which they are not?

Good point. The problem is that songwriters who write for television have traditionally been required to sign away all of their rights except for performance rights. So anything not classified as peformance royalties would go to the publisher, not them.

The problem is that we are talking about a major change in a system that has been around for about 50 years. It would be like if we decided to stop paying social security to older people even though they paid into the fund their entire lives. These songwriters signed over the works to publishers under a system that paid them royalties on the back end, and now that back end is disappearing.

[torbjoern]

Someone should bring this Israelite into the desert (no pun intended).

[olternaut]

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

Perhaps imbeciles is a better description.

[Eric5273]

Thanks for the explanation and reference.

You can download or stream a YouTube cover-- does this constitute publishing or distribution?

If you post a "Cover" to YouTube and it has thousands of plays, are royalties due?

Who pays them?

*

They seem to be fighting this one out in the courts. BMI and ASCAP insisted that streaming is a form of broadcast, and of course YouTube says it is not.

Here is an article about one of the cases from earlier this year:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml


To answer your question of "Who pays?", the broadcaster always pays. So in this case it would be YouTube.

[arjaosx]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo. And if they want royalties for the playing of their 30 second preview clips, give them that too.

And then we can watch closely as their profits take a downward slide. I wonder: do the indie artists want this too? Unlikely, because they want increased exposure, not less.

I completely agree with you! Let them get their stuff but sooner than later they will fall. The markets now are totally fluid and no one can say hey have full control of it...even Microsoft. Let them die in greed.

[organerito]

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 assure you that I have more academic education than you. If you want, I can give you my resume and you'll see that I am highly educated. I chose to be a classical musician. I know it is very difficult to earn a lot of money, but I love it. Because of ignorant people like yourself, art is really underrated.
P.S if you say something about my grammar, I just would like to let you know that it is my fourth language)


That doesn't mean that I agree that they start charging for listening to a sample. I would never agree with that. That would be terrible business. So many people would disgusted

[celtikmind]

birds make music all the time....


how long before we have to pay royalties on that?

soon enough the birds will be making more then me....

*sighs*

Considering how humanity is screwing up we should pay some royalties to her, no?

Or at least the corporations responsible...

On topic... Pretty soon everyone along the production chain is going to want a higher share, so how much will a single album run for the consumer? Hell, music is going to be the currency (ed: wrote gold first but music already is) of the future if this continues.

[fleshman03]

I wonder if Apple will go to bat and argue Fair Use in front of a court for the 30-second song preview.

They combine the 30-second clips to create a new and innovative product (iTunes Store).

In order to be consider Fair Use the court needs to consider:

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


The nature of the work is a recording, not a performance. IF anything, my Mac is doing the performing.

The 30-seconds are usually less then 20% of a song. While some might argue that that is a lot, there is much less to take than there is in a book.

And the potential market value... The 30-second clips increase the likelihood of the song being purchased. I'd love to see the labels argue against this.

As I write this listening to music, it really is killing my taste for the art. At what point do we just say screw it?

[AlmostThere]

Many people get pensions when they work on a job a long time. Songwriters have pensions in that they collect royalties. Taking away their royalties is like taking away someone's pension after they spent 30 years on the job.


While sad, that has happened to everybody who has made an investment decision, especially over the past year. Media distribution is moving away from broadcast, and I don't see why writers can't reflect this in the synchronization charge. In the summary, it states that this is often waived in favour of collecting royalties, which is simply a poor investment decision in light of current trends.

I am not clear why this requires a reclassification of a broadcast, simply a shift in strategy by writers.


The government has told songwriters that they cannot charge what they want for use of their music. The government has instead set the rates for what they think use of someone's music is worth. Songwriters are forced to accept that rate.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html

This is how it has been for more than 50 years, and this is how it is in every industrialized country in the world. As cost of living goes up and there is inflation, then the government set rates should also go up as well.


Obviously you know these laws better than I, but I would be interested to know why I keep coming across references that say compulsory licencing only applies to previously published work. This sounds to me like another alternative that simply requires a shift strategy, placing greater emphasis on bespoke music rather than relying on royalties by re-licencing a single work.

From the end user point of view, I shudder at the thought that anybody is actively pursuing the ability to charge me not only to download but also for every time I play a song or watch a show I have purchased, which is where this is clearly heading.

My own take on this comes from working as a contract programmer. I charged an appropriate rate for my time and level of expertise. Some of the people I worked for have gone nowhere, some have done exceptionally well, but in no way do I feel entitled to any extra revenue due to their success, however lucrative a percentage would have been. My choice.

[Chris Tilton]

So why not have a union? If there's a group organized and large enough to lobby congress, wouldn't that group be organized and large enough to negotiate with companies?

It has been attempted and always failed. I also remember the head of the Society of Composers and Lyricists telling me something along the lines of it just not being possible to form a composers union, but I don't remember why, unfortunately.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Didn't read all the replies so pardon me if this is a repeated argument...

Why is this my problem? I am not their customer. They sold their stuff to the recording artist. If they didn't make enough they should charge the artist more. I am buying the artists' rendition of their lyrics at the price set by the recording artist.

Most work under contracts and when you have a family to feed and little options, you chose whatever you can to bring money in.

Maybe Apple should renegotiate their rates. Without these writers 90% of the top 40 music right now wouldn't exist (not necessarily a bad thing since music I listen to is hardly available on iTunes anyways.)

[BRLawyer]

American greed knows no bounds.

The guy's name is "David Israelite"; is he really American?

[pkoch1]

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.

[donny77]

Royalties are earnings you get for music Good point. Unfortunately for them, companies like iTunes simply assume there are no royalties to be paid because there is no law stating that there are. If the status quo continues and there is no legislation passed by congress, you can bet there will be some major lawsuits and then it will be decided by the courts.

I'll give you an example of this with regard to the record companies. The link I posted above was a link to the statutory mechanical royalty rate. That is simply the royalty a record company (or anyone else that sells a recording) must pay to a songwriter for each copy of each song that is sold. The current rate is 9.1 cents. So to clarify, if a record company sells an album with 10 songs on it, they must pay 91 cents in royalties to the various songwriters or songwriters. When record companies began selling online downloads, since the price they charged was less than what they charged for a compact disc, they took it upon themselves to stop paying 9.1 cents and lower the rate. It took a number of lawsuits before the Copyright Tribunal finally stepped in and decided to set a special rate for online downloads.

I'm sorry but What's wrong with this? Their assumption is wrong, assuming you retain copyright over your work, they have no right to use it. So sue. You don't need a new law.

[GoKyu]

I don't remember these specific words used in this thread (although the sentiment has been there throughout), but...

Those 30 second samples are a COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

If you don't give the consumer a way to sample the goods, then why should they buy them?

Apple/PC Computers - available in store to try out
Ice cream shops - free sample tasting
New/Used car lots - Free test drive (and here again, customer uses gas, but doesn't pay for it - that's the dealership's cost of trying to sell you the car.)

The only place I can think of where it's not feasible to give free samples is at a restaurant, where everything is custom-cooked per customer. Even there though, if you try the first few bites and there's something wrong with it, you can usually exchange for something else.

[rjohnstone]

American greed knows no bounds.
You do realize that the members of ASCAP and BMI come from all over the world? :rolleyes:

And as an active member of BMI (CAE/IPI #: 185239157), I hope we win.

[Eric5273]

You do realize that the members of ASCAP and BMI come from all over the world? :rolleyes:

And as an active member of BMI (CAE/IPI #: 185239157), I hope we win.

Last I checked, there would be no reason for a foreignor to join BMI or ASCAP. Each country has their own PRO. Obviously you can join one from another country, but I don't see why any composer would, since you can only belong to one PRO. Might as well join the one in your own country.

Actually, the US is the only country to have more than one PRO, but that is a subject for another debate.

[Mr. Gates]

I'm a Baker. Where are MY royalties for those who smell my bread as they walk by my shop ? .......( hmm..." a smelling booth ....":rolleyes:

[cjewby]

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.

EXACTLY RIGHT! What people seem to not realize is that for the most part this isn't the big record companies or the Jay-Z's of the world fighting to get their fair share of the digital distribution pie - it's ASCAP!! Which is basically a union of sorts - more and organization - of People who write and make music. Many of these people sit in the basement studio and write the music that hollywood/TV/or a popular singer takes and records for their shows or albums. Most of them make very little money from their music and I think it's ridiculous to call them GREEDY.

Although I don't agree with the 30 second preview argument, I do agree that they should be getting money for their work and right now they're not. They're just trying to find some way to get some footing on the digital rights to their music.

[Cliff3]

Next thing you know they'll want me to pay a royalty for humming their tunes in the shower. These folks are utterly tone deaf when it comes to consumer sentiment. F 'em.

[peters438]

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?

It's not ignorance. It's reality and practicality. No one held a gun to the writer's head in high school and told him he had to become a writer. There are plenty of jobs whose annual salary exceeds $5,000 per year (in fact, I think I made more than that at Burger King when I was in high school).

If writing songs doesn't pay, find a better job that does. That's what the rest of us have to do. If you want to make more money at what you do as an artist, charge more for your art. If no one will pay... find a different profession.

What anyone spends on Apple products has nothing to do with the argument.

What is relevant to the argument is the ridiculous notion that after a contract is signed (an agreement to which the writer agreed), and after challenging it in court, that they would lobby the government to fix a contract they should never have agreed to if they felt they were not going to be compensated well.

The idea that the current digital distribution method was not thought of when some of these contracts were signed is just too bad. Even in the 70's there were new distribution methods on the horizon. Agreeing to shortsighted wording is just dumb. Band together, hire a lawyer and write language that covers distribution methods current or yet to be invented.

[cenetti]

They will never stop... it'll get more and more expensive... No art, no cd, no cases but they keep on pushing the prices higher....

I love my Zune pass and new (HD) .... 5 bucks a month - eat all you can...
Hope they don't ever change that.....

[themoonisdown09]

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

Perhaps imbeciles is a better description.

I want to know who actually pays attention to the ratings.

[RogueFive]

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."

[Mr. Gates]

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."

Who is "Chuck Norris " ?

No, But seriously .

What are you babbling on about?

I get everything up till' "Chuck Norris "

.99 cents ? ...................Whaaaaaa ?

[Chimpy]

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

[dicklacara]

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.

Do the producers or publishers of the show get paid when the show is streamed or downloaded?

If so, shouldn't they be the ones who pay the composer, consistent with how they would have been paid if a cd were sold...

*

[madmax_2069]

confused....why are they pissed about the 30-second samples?

Good question, its called greed. They want to make more money for a 30 second clip that would get them free advertising and a possible sale

[Mr. Gates]

Good question, its called greed. They want to make more money, the artist dont see the extra income. they want you and everyone else to pay for anything music related you hear.

Answer me this

Why is it they are trying to put a stop to radio stations (free air waves) from playing music, why is it they are trying to put a stop to playing a radio in a public place that is playing music from a radio station. Why is it that they are trying to put a stop to someone playing a 30 second clip in their broadcast/video/podcast/talk show/ect when its considered fair use.

Its all Because the corprait world is greedy (they want to make more all the time) and care less how it effects the economy. just look at any corporate business and you can see what they do to make a extra dollar.

Why do you think the economy is in such a downward spiral, its because of this Greed, laying people off makes them more money cause they have to spend less on payroll ( how is everyone suppose to buy things and make the economy stronger if they don't have a job).

The economy is in such bad shape cause of The dumb asses in the corporate world.

Rant over

No no NO ! ...Your Rant has just begun!

I think A lot of people feel this way.

There was even a reference to MTV's "Cribs" earlier

Greed is something we all feel from those on top.

Hell,
I am on the second teir and I can tell you without a doubt, this is a power play in this world and it has nothing to do with money .

Everything to do with status

[macfan881]

when iTunes opend up this was the only way i purchased music but if they get this through and it effects Sales again im going back to lime wire.

[doctor-don]

So are we to expect some sort of surveillance to determine how many times we watch each performance so that we can be charged a fee for this performance?

[satelshawn]

I wasn't aware that downloading a TV show that I purchased was any different than going out and buying it on DVD, other than it is more environmentally friendly. There is no way they deserve a performance fee for that! That is just down right greedy.

I do agree that most of the artists are fairly hard done by the record companies, but attack them, not the people that sell your music and don't punish those of us who buy it. I could just as happily jump on Bit Torrent and download any of those songs for free, but I do the right thing and support the industry buy buying them legally.

[legacyb4]

Next thing you know, the music industry will want to charge consumers for humming along to a tune on the radio!

[Chris Tilton]

I wasn't aware that downloading a TV show that I purchased was any different than going out and buying it on DVD, other than it is more environmentally friendly. There is no way they deserve a performance fee for that! That is just down right greedy.

I do agree that most of the artists are fairly hard done by the record companies, but attack them, not the people that sell your music and don't punish those of us who buy it. I could just as happily jump on Bit Torrent and download any of those songs for free, but I do the right thing and support the industry buy buying them legally.

How is this attacking the people? They ARE attacking the greedy record companies and studios. If there is a rise in price it'll be because the studios are so greedy, that they don't even want to give away a couple of extra cents per download, as is fair in other mediums. If ASCAP and the like win this fight and prices go up, it's because of the studios and labels!

[Chris Tilton]

Perhaps MacForums should have chosen a few more important quotes from the article.

"We make 9.1 cents off a song sale and that means a whole lot of pennies have to add up before it becomes a bunch of money," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters' Guild of America. "Yesterday, I received a check for 2 cents. I'm not kidding. People think we're making a fortune off the Web, but it's a tiny amount. We need multiple revenue streams or this isn't going to work."

An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

"Also, if you download a film or TV show," Renzer continued, "there's no performance (payment) and typically there's no mechanical (payment) either."

Israelite makes no apologies. He says that synchronization and performance fees cover very different rights. To illustrate the point, he says not all composers receive money from TV and films. Say, for example, a TV show licenses a popular tune from singer Aimee Mann or the rock band The Fray. Those acts would likely be paid both sync and performance fees. But the person who writes the little-known background music heard during a fight scene may not see any sync money. That's because traditionally, composers of this kind of production music gave away sync rights in the hope they would make money from performance fees.

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. "Ha, if we air on TV, there's all this money that we owe people, but if we stream online and STILL generate revenue, now we don't have to pay anyone. We can keep even MORE money!!" Is this what all you whiners and complainers are supporting? 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, then fine, I guess I can't argue with you.


This was quoted in the article, but I feel must be reminded and/or clarified again.

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."

[vansouza]

This is the living end of greed. Its like union bosses living it high on the hog and their rank and file suffering to pay monthly bills. Pigs, they are pigs. :eek:

[alphaod]

So instead of 30 second samples we should all just download the full song off Bittorrent to sample it? How are we suppose to know what songs to buy if we don't know what we're buying. I think they're bite the hand that feeds them here.

[dicklacara]

This was quoted in the article, but I feel must be reminded and/or clarified again.

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."

The collection of the performance fee is clearly between the composer and the publisher. Apple and iTunes is only the conduit. They should no more be sued than your Internet IP, power company, or Belden who makes the HDMI cable!

If somebody sells me something, and owes you a royalty or fee for the sale, sue them, not me!

*

[Chris Tilton]

The collection of the performance fee is clearly between the composer and the publisher. Apple and iTunes is only the conduit. They should no more be sued than your Internet IP, power company, or Belden who makes the HDMI cable!

If somebody sells me something, and owes you a royalty or fee for the sale, sue them, not me!

*

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.

[iMaggot]

Are they dumb or what ?
Don't they get it ?, the more they charge the more people pirate.

[rjohnstone]

The sheer ignorance of what it takes to get the music to your precious iPod is incredible.

The music you all love to listen too didn't get created out of thin air.
Someone worked their ass off to create it.

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.

I've read posts here saying things like "If they can't make a living off of it, why do it?"
I'll tell you why. We love what we do. We would just like OUR FAIR SHARE of the revenue.
My contract, like many others, was written before the public internet existed. BBS were all the rage, but not much thought was given to them.

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.

I signed what was a good contract at the time, but the current laws have still not caught up with technology.
Even today, the standard recording contract makes little if any reference to digital downloads.
Try and change it to include digital content and the label will move on to the next sucker, er artist.
Bring in a good lawyer (if you can afford it) and they will send in four.
You either give in and sign in the hopes of your music taking off or you go back to playing bars.

I gave up playing professionally nearly two decades ago because of the crap back then. It's still hasn't changed.
The labels get rich and the artist gets screwed.

I hope for nothing but success to my fellow musicians.

[JAT]

the wording in previous contracts didn't specify a medium that didn't yet exist. "Ha, if we air on TV, there's all this money that we owe people, but if we stream online and STILL generate revenue, now we don't have to pay anyone. We can keep even MORE money!!" Is this what all you whiners and complainers are supporting? 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, then fine, I guess I can't argue with you.


This was quoted in the article, but I feel must be reminded and/or clarified again.

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."
What are you saying here? 2 bolded quotes above.....The iTunes store (buying a song for $.99) is comparable to CD sales, not TV airings. Now, going to NBC.com to watch last week's episode of Heroes via streaming could theoretically be a "performance", but guess what? That's "free" to the consumer, and costs money to NBC for storage and bandwidth. Where's the percentage for you come from? iTunes rentals are something else, not sure how to classify them.

What royalties/fees are paid if I go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD? Anything?

[Chris Tilton]

What are you saying here? 2 bolded quotes above.....The iTunes store (buying a song for $.99) is comparable to CD sales, not TV airings. Now, going to NBC.com to watch last week's episode of Heroes via streaming could theoretically be a "performance", but guess what? That's "free" to the consumer, and costs money to NBC for storage and bandwidth. Where's the percentage for you come from? iTunes rentals are something else, not sure how to classify them.

What royalties/fees are paid if I go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD? Anything?

Well, pricing models would have to be made on percentage. If you go to Hulu, or NBC.com there's an advertising model (hey it's free on TV to). With downloads there's a small fee generated. How much a studio gets via advertising vs paid downloads I have no idea, but there is money being made in the same way that is made when airing on TV, and artists that are compensated for airing on TV should be compensated for downloads and/or streaming that are revenue generated. Yeah it's not a "performance," but neither is airing a TV show that has gone through pre, and post production. The term "performanc"e simply comes from the old days when all television and stage productions were actually live. The definition has simply changed with the technology, and this new way of watching TV is no different.

[rjohnstone]

What royalties/fees are paid if I go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD? Anything?
It's part of the rental fee.
Just like when you play a song on a legal jukebox (yes, there are illegal jukeboxes) in a bar/restaurant, the ASCAP/BMI fees are included in the cost to play the song.
Radio/TV stations pay the ASCAP/BMI fee from advertising revenues.
Digital downloads currently do not include the ASCAP/BMI fee in the costs.

ASCAP/BMI fees are typically paid directly to the artist, not the label.

[McBeats]

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

well said.

publishers get the most money out of the whole situation and theyre still asking for more.

[madmax_2069]

No no NO ! ...Your Rant has just begun!

I think A lot of people feel this way.

There was even a reference to MTV's "Cribs" earlier

Greed is something we all feel from those on top.

Hell,
I am on the second teir and I can tell you without a doubt, this is a power play in this world and it has nothing to do with money .

Everything to do with status

Money has everything to do with status and power, with no money you have no status and have no power.

[Chris Tilton]

well said.

publishers get the most money out of the whole situation and theyre still asking for more.

You are confusing the term "publisher" with "record label" and "studio." The publishers that ASCAP and BMI represent are simply the holders of the publishing rights of the sheet music to the music that is created, which is often just the composers themselves. The publishing end of music, especially these days, is extremely small, and almost non-existent.

[macintoshtoffy]

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

So you mean that they can't own a mansion the size of a small nation? oh my heart bleeds for them - oh the burden they need to carry! the cross they have to bear for the sake of entertaining us the unwashed masses!

Please, how about this, get rid of the talentless hacks; if you as an artist can't write your own music and lyrics then you shouldn't get a contract - end of story. There will be a lot less artists and what will remain will be quality rather than the shear quantity of crap that exists today.

[hiimamac]

American greed knows no bounds.

I think it's about time bexample, I've composed trailer music and got my fee, a friend of mine composed everybody loves Raymond. He gets a check every qtr since it's syndicated and still airs. 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. I'm not saying go after apple but like a bar or nightclub or places you eat that plays music, look above the wall near the fdoor, there HAS to be an ASCAP or bmi license. For the net, there needs to be some sort of compensation. Someday there will be but please less DRM. I can't stand it myself and fwiw, I also produce loop libraries and see my stuff posted on usenet all the time, yeah, it takes away from any money I might get, but I look at it as a compliment.

Peace

[mrklaw]

I thought radio stations had a minimum play time before a song is considered 'played' and therefore has to be paid for?

eg less than 30 seconds can be freely played, but more than that and the radio station has to write down that they've played it, and pay the associated broadcast fee.

In that case, the publishers have already effectively stated that <30 seconds does not constitute 'broadcast' in the financial compensation sense, so Apple and other mp3 stores have nothing to worry about.

Movie/TV purchases in the itunes store should already be covered by synchronisation rights between the original program maker and the publishers. No requirement for Apple to pay publishers anything there.

[hiimamac]

Actually. Gaming, music and entrtainment go up in a recession as people stay home and watch tv, play games, compute. In the long run it's more about a composer that gets paid when his show airs in ABC but when it's online, they have no way to track that. Example ABC's Lost. It's syndicated on other channels but one can also watch seasons 1-4 online. No way to compensate. Again. I'm not for going after apple and certainly do not want digitial rights management slowing the system down. They just need a way to get the streaming online somehow seen as what's played.


Peace fam.

No no NO ! ...Your Rant has just begun!

I think A lot of people feel this way.

There was even a reference to MTV's "Cribs" earlier

Greed is something we all feel from those on top.

Hell,
I am on the second teir and I can tell you without a doubt, this is a power play in this world and it has nothing to do with money .

Everything to do with status

[hiimamac]

I wasn't aware that downloading a TV show that I purchased was any different than going out and buying it on DVD, other than it is more environmentally friendly. There is no way they deserve a performance fee for that! That is just down right greedy.

I do agree that most of the artists are fairly hard done by the record companies, but attack them, not the people that sell your music and don't punish those of us who buy it. I could just as happily jump on Bit Torrent and download any of those songs for free, but I do the right thing and support the industry buy buying them legally.
Agreed. The most an artist will see if they are a top tier artist is 12.5 to 15 cents Max on the dollar. And that's for album sales. The real money is in airplay. Soundscan.