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

[JesterJJZ]

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

Who else sees something wrong with this post?

*raises hand*

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

 

[The Phazer]

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

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

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

Phazer

 

[crozlo1980]

From someone who actually works in this business...

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

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

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

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

But the internet doesn't pay.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ob81]

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

 

[hhaeschen]

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

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

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

 

[iMat77]

Subscription

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[iMat77]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[doctoree]

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

 

[dicklacara]

What's the solution?

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

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

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

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

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

$.90 Record Label
$.09 Apple

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

*

 

[Macmel]

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

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

 

[Macmel]

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

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

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

 

[Target362]

Who else sees something wrong with this post?

*raises hand*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Target362]

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

Perhaps imbeciles is a better description.

some kids tring to be "cool"

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

schools: ban their internet privs.

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

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

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

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

amen brother.

 

[Augure]

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

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

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

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

 

[Target362]

few years these people will croke

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

same with the EU.

 

[MrCrowbar]

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

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

 

[Target362]

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

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

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

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

ok mr Investment Banker...

 

[sharkinfested]

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

 

[marco114]

Hey Musicians!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[iOrlando]

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

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

 

[freediverdude]

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

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

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

 

[bokdol]

oh look I'm Asian!
.

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

 

[slinky0390]

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

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

 

[X38]

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

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

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

 

[WhySoSerious]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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