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
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
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
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?
Wtf?
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.
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.
Next thing you know, the music industry will want to charge consumers for humming along to a tune on the radio!
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!
Perhaps MacForums should have chosen a few more important quotes from the article.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
well said.
publishers get the most money out of the whole situation and theyre still asking for more.
Money has everything to do with status and power, with no money you have no status and have no power.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Peace fam.
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.