Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

wolfshades said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tunecrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:
 
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
 
mickhyperion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Bailouts - NO MORE!

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.
 
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.
 
theneweyes said:
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?
Click to expand...

-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;)
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
You all do realize a lot of these writers make next to nothing.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
It's interesting that they brought up the thing about television performances...

... 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.
 
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.
 
Listen up bartender...

Solfeggio4 said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
schaff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
studiomusic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
You all do realize a lot of these writers make next to nothing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It's a Loosing Battle

The Wave Of The Future !

pirate-bay-logo.jpg
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back