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
I think it's more of a case that the entertainment industry is changing rapidly and they are desperately trying to maintain the status quo.
So is it your assertion that the studios were "far minded" enough to realize all these future distribution methods and their accompanying revenue streams would come along and were able to take advantage of it when drafting contracts because the artists were not?
If so, then whose fault is that?
If the studios are paying legal experts good money to find loopholes to exploit in existing contracts, why isn't your industry doing the same to force them to close those loopholes and pay you all your share of the revenues gained?
I expect it is because your industry has allowed itself to be put in a position where it's at the mercy of it's employer (the studios and their agents). You signed away many of your rights and the ones you didn't sign away you effectively abrogated because you refused to defend them in the face of your employers. So now because you can't touch them, your industry is trying to extract these missing revenues from the consumer because they're all that is left to shakedown.
Well, if you think shaking down the consumers to get the monies you now can't get from your employers because of your own inability / refusal to do so is fine, I guess I can't argue with you, either.
But why is that the consumer's problem? I happen to agree that the artists are getting "screwed", but as a consumer, I'm the last part of the chain. Why should I be the one held responsible for the decisions made by everyone else higher up in the chain? Why should I be the one required to address the inequities of a situation I had no part in, no influence over, or no knowledge of?
But they should also go in with "eyes wide open" at how that decision will affect their livelihood. If being a musician or a photographer or a videographer will not afford them the lifestyle they desire or pay the bills of the lifestyle they have (even if - especially if - that lifestyle is not one they find acceptable) then they should give up that love or accept that it can't be something they do as their primary love and find a job that does provide an acceptable lifestyle and use it to support their love.
Again, there is no composers union and there likely never will be. All we have are ASCAP and BMI, which are not nearly as powerful as unions. And that is what they are doing right now!! They are approaching congress to try and close these loopholes!! It's not like there's this big "hey folks, come draft your contract" call by the studios and we all line up. You say "your industry" as if all industries are the same and there is a powerful figure head at the top of each of them that can barge in and make demands.
We signed away rights like copyright ownership because there are things like performance rights. As the industry shifts on how people get this content, so should the royalties we get.
What are you talking about? We are asking studios for our fair share, not consumers. If you are watching a show on Hulu for free right now, and later you are still watching it for free, but the artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue generated through ads and the like, just like when a show airs on TV, how is that "shaking down the consumer?" It's completely behind the scenes. And, if a studio demands a rise in price of a TV show from $1.99 because they have to pay me a fraction of a penny, then you need to direct your anger towards them.
The idea though is this. The writers are done getting screwed by brat kids like people here condoning piracy and the music industry.
All of the people here proud of piracy make me sick. We blame Bush for our economic problems, maybe its a problem with our society believing everything should be free.
BMI and ASCAP negotiate their rates with television and radio stations based on the size of the audience. So yes, the performance fees are directly related to how many people are watching.
Yet when BMI and ASCAP have suggested that companies like Hulu or YouTube pay based on how many people have streamed a video, these companies have claimed this was not a fair business model for them.
The other issue is this: is there really a difference between watching a movie on YouTube, downloading it from iTunes, or ordering it on demand from your local cable company? Shouldn't there be a similar model to pay royalties for all of these methods? In the end, the same people are sitting in their living room watching the movie. Why should one be worthy of a performance royalty but not the other?
Private Matter
Sounds like a private matter between the artists and their customers and where they decide to sell their stuff. Since when is it the government's job to regulate music sales, or any sales for that matter? As usual the American people think its the government has the answer for everything. It's no wonder they get so much of our money and allegiance.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford
Sounds like a private matter between the artists and their customers and where they decide to sell their stuff. Since when is it the government's job to regulate music sales, or any sales for that matter? As usual the American people think its the government has the answer for everything. It's no wonder they get so much of our money and allegiance.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford
Absolutely ridiculous. Should I as a game developer charge people to play demos of my products? Or should we pay to watch film trailers?
The stupidity of these guys is mindblowing.
Well, this happens mainly because some MORONS in the US still stupidly believe that IPR means the same as ordinary ownership, thus presuming that they "deserve" compensation for every occasion where their "original" works of art are used. For these imbeciles, fair use rights, the social aspect of intellectual property and the RELATIVE privileges such creations entail have all disappeared in the face of commercial interest.
No wonder the most obtuse piece of legislation in the world, a.k.a. the DMCA, comes from the US of A...go figure.
MacWorld broke down the various issues:
Pay me for those thirty-second samples
I've already noted I feel this is marketing for the purposes of education, not entertainment. Therefore, I do not believe that the artists are owed royalties for them. If they win, all this will likely do is have Apple remove the ability to listen to the snippet and folks will just go to Google to find the song to see if it's what they want - and probably will find the entire song for free. So the artists still won't make any money from the previews (since they will no longer exist to be able to earn money from them) and it will open more people to piracy, which will lose the artists the entire sale.
Pay me for radio streaming
I agree with MacWorld in stating that iTunes is just a broadcast medium, not an actual broadcaster. The broadcasters pay royalties on the songs they play - which now includes the songs they stream over their own websites. Therefore, Apple should not be required to pay royalties, as the artists are already being compensated. If the artists win, Apple will just shut down this feature in iTunes (which may very well not be used, anyway) so there will be no money to be made here, either.
Pay me for film and TV downloads
This is one that I believe the artists should be paid royalties. Yes, you can argue that Apple is just acting as a broadcast medium just like they are for Radio Streaming, but unlike radio, artists are not being paid royalties for video downloads like they are for radio streaming. Yes, watching a movie at home is not a "public performance" like watching it in a theater, but neither is watching a broadcast television show, and authors are paid for that. Therefore, I feel they should be paid for video downloads, even if they are for individual consumption.
And since there is money to be made here (Apple is not about to stop downloads - it would defeat the entire purpose of the iTunes Store), the artists should drop the other two demands and work with Congress to plug this loophole and give them the same benefits they do for theatrical and broadcast television showings.
Pay me for those thirty-second samples
I've already noted I feel this is marketing for the purposes of education, not entertainment. Therefore, I do not believe that the artists are owed royalties for them. If they win, all this will likely do is have Apple remove the ability to listen to the snippet and folks will just go to Google to find the song to see if it's what they want - and probably will find the entire song for free. So the artists still won't make any money from the previews (since they will no longer exist to be able to earn money from them) and it will open more people to piracy, which will lose the artists the entire sale.
Pay me for radio streaming
I agree with MacWorld in stating that iTunes is just a broadcast medium, not an actual broadcaster. The broadcasters pay royalties on the songs they play - which now includes the songs they stream over their own websites. Therefore, Apple should not be required to pay royalties, as the artists are already being compensated. If the artists win, Apple will just shut down this feature in iTunes (which may very well not be used, anyway) so there will be no money to be made here, either.
Pay me for film and TV downloads
This is one that I believe the artists should be paid royalties. Yes, you can argue that Apple is just acting as a broadcast medium just like they are for Radio Streaming, but unlike radio, artists are not being paid royalties for video downloads like they are for radio streaming. Yes, watching a movie at home is not a "public performance" like watching it in a theater, but neither is watching a broadcast television show, and authors are paid for that. Therefore, I feel they should be paid for video downloads, even if they are for individual consumption.
And since there is money to be made here (Apple is not about to stop downloads - it would defeat the entire purpose of the iTunes Store), the artists should drop the other two demands and work with Congress to plug this loophole and give them the same benefits they do for theatrical and broadcast television showings.
nope. Some dumb girl who sings soungs for young girls said that andn not all the little kids are doing that.
Do research ok?
I currently make $8.75 an hour, thats 35 cents above min. wadge. I push carts. That alone is manual labor (even though I have a cart pusher)I might be transfering over to the food court that makes 9 bucks an hour.
Every 2 weeks my average pay check is above $400, giuven I work 20-40 hours every 2 weeks
I, along with most of my co-workers are happy with our jobs and our pay. Thats the real problem with this new generation. they want money money money.
"waiter"? please gwet your head out of your ass. There are more jobs out there thin just working oin a restrunt.
I actually wanted to get in to retail. and given you been at target to buy our merona clothing you should know there is more posisions at target then being a cashier.
not everyone is a freaken sports freak. All sports do is cause problems. players hit eachother/other teams. Fans get all crazzy. its a mess
Are you?
So now your going on about me working in a large retailer. at least I'm not working at Wal-mart.
I'm happy with my job. Pay is decent, i have great co-workers and bosses and each day is fun and exciting. The guests (AKA customers) are the main thing that makes it fun and exciting
I dont care about you breaking the law. I do care about you going on and on about peoples choices in jobs.
why don't you just reach into my pockets and be the leach you are for the rest of my life. You sold the rights, well if those rights are only a rental for what you sold then I believe it is fraud. Either you have the rights or you don't. Stop sucking on the consumers for more money! I bought the song now you want a per play "performance fee" screw you and everyone like you! If i roll down my window while playing your song it is not a public broadcast you morons it is fair use, I hope you get the meds you need and stop trying to gouge me.
People shouldn't be pissed at the artists. Be pissed at the industry executives. The RIAA, the MPAA, and the like are all greedy bastards. First of all, they are scared because nowadays there really isn't a whole lot of talent. Alot of what's being heard today (this is not fact, just my opinion) is over-processed, auto-tuned cookie cutter CRAP that isn't worth the CD it's printed on. Add on to that the piracy factor (that will probably never go away). Add further still onto that the archaic business model the recording industry uses and it's no wonder why the suits are in a panic.
First of all, instead of booking months (or more) of studio time for bands to come in and write and record a record, keep them OUT of the studios until they have tracks to lay down. It's a complete waste of money to have bands sit around in a studio trying to come up with new songs. They need to do what they used to do before they got their recording contracts and write the damn songs as they go and only go into a studio when they've got something to lay down.
As for the movie industry..... Maybe some NEW ideas would help instead of re-making every friggin' movie that came out in the 80's.
The media attention that the RIAA and MPAA have gotten over frivalous lawsuits against soccer moms, the elderly, and dead people has simply brought to light the staggering amount of GREED these companies have.
You want me to pay money to see a preview clip of a movie or song? I don't think so. It's not the general public's responsibility to pay for your short-sightedness in not updating your business models. You want to sign no-talent assclowns to your label and still expect to be able to gas up your Bently's and heat your mansions? I don't think so.
First of all, instead of booking months (or more) of studio time for bands to come in and write and record a record, keep them OUT of the studios until they have tracks to lay down. It's a complete waste of money to have bands sit around in a studio trying to come up with new songs. They need to do what they used to do before they got their recording contracts and write the damn songs as they go and only go into a studio when they've got something to lay down.
As for the movie industry..... Maybe some NEW ideas would help instead of re-making every friggin' movie that came out in the 80's.
The media attention that the RIAA and MPAA have gotten over frivalous lawsuits against soccer moms, the elderly, and dead people has simply brought to light the staggering amount of GREED these companies have.
You want me to pay money to see a preview clip of a movie or song? I don't think so. It's not the general public's responsibility to pay for your short-sightedness in not updating your business models. You want to sign no-talent assclowns to your label and still expect to be able to gas up your Bently's and heat your mansions? I don't think so.
It's very expensive to produce and market a band through the studio/label system so by their very nature the labels are going to be very conservative in what they offer. If one band does well, they will push other bands that sound the same. Broadcast television and theatrical film is much the same due to the high up-front costs of a new series or theatrical film.
And even if you make the actual distribution of the music cheaper (via digital downloads instead of pressed CDs), there is still all the cost to identify the talent, develop the talent, produce the talent and then market the talent so that the end-users acquire the talent - be it a digital download or a pressed CD.
So if the labels and the RIAA/MPAA tomorrow signed a deal to distribute every artist via iTunes and other online stores, it's unlikely that the labels and agents will suddenly see their costs drop significantly. At best, they'll see their revenues increase to help offset those costs and that might allow them to be a bit more liberal in what type of music they market.
Even adopting some of the ideas you suggested (such as limited support for bands before they're ready to publish their latest album) would likely only save a small amount of money. That band's work would still need to be marketed, and I expect that is where the real costs come in.
Why do songwriters think they deserve to be paid for their own advertising?
Do clothing designers whine about not getting a performance fee every time Vanna White appears on TV?
Hell no, they pay dearly for the right to have her "perform" their designs.
So maybe that's the answer. Pay the songwriters their performance fee, but charge them $1 million up front as a product placement fee.
Nothing anyone in the music industry does is going to hurt Apple all that much. Even if the iTunes store suddenly had no music at all, people would still buy iPods for podcasts, video, apps and, of course, CD rips and torrents.
Do clothing designers whine about not getting a performance fee every time Vanna White appears on TV?
Hell no, they pay dearly for the right to have her "perform" their designs.
So maybe that's the answer. Pay the songwriters their performance fee, but charge them $1 million up front as a product placement fee.
Nothing anyone in the music industry does is going to hurt Apple all that much. Even if the iTunes store suddenly had no music at all, people would still buy iPods for podcasts, video, apps and, of course, CD rips and torrents.
But this is due to a "bad negotiation". The fact that they didn't negotiate for mediums that didn't exist is their fault. Music has gone from being released on records, 8-Tracks, cassettes, CDs, mini-discs, SACDs, DVD-audio, to MP3s. Movies have gone from theaters, to TV, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and now online streaming/iTunes. Claiming that they didn't know there would be a new distribution method is just ignorant. They have been coming out with new methods of distribution constantly for the past 100 years. They should include a clause for mediums that do not yet exist.
Hey, it's all cool. I'm glad for you actually. You seem like a responsible kid with a good head on their shoulders. Too many bad apples out there getting into trouble and not being responsible/respectable.
I'm proud for you. Keep up the hard work!!
Well, the technical difference is that broadcasting over the airwaves or over cable or satellite (not pay per view or on demand, but regular programming) is a public performance, because you're broadcasting it out there for many people to watch at the exact same time. When an individual is downloading it to watch, that's more the same as a dvd copy, not a performance. YouTube and Hulu are different even than downloading- streaming is kind of a grey area that still has to be worked out. That's the technical explanation anyway.
Didn't want to read 11 pages to see if this was posted.
Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?
Not that either of these performers are part of this...but Beyonce made 87 million last year and Madonna, I think, over 100 Mil. Do they really need the income from a 30 second clip? These are just two examples of how poor our music industry is that they need more?
Hey, it's all cool. I'm glad for you actually. You seem like a responsible kid with a good head on their shoulders. Too many bad apples out there getting into trouble and not being responsible/respectable.
I'm proud for you. Keep up the hard work!!
I'm 19 actually. Graduated from high school back in 2008 been working since July 2007 (first job was in fact Mcdonalds but left due to poor mangement)
but I agree. I known this guy for over 6 years, and he just grduated highschool back in June 2009 and hes prety much a low life, plus a poser.
not sure. But I know at some stores that sell CDs (even a few book stores) have a place where you can listen to a CD (scan it, it reads and plays all the tracks) should they charge those people?
30 second clip is nothing. Now if the song was 90 seconds long, then yeah, your basicly listening to half the song, but most songs are 2.5-3 minuntes. most longer, so 30 seconds is nothing.
after all, they want money want? well how will people buy the music if they dont sample to make sure they get what they want?
This is the quote from the article:
"Having been unsuccessful at negotiating increased fees with distributors such as Apple, the groups, which include the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) among others, have begun lobbying the U.S. Congress for to pass legislation to address their claims."
So, that means they tried to get Apple to pay, were unsuccessful, and decided to lobby Congress for legislation to get the distributors (Apple) to pay up.
Again: "They have begun lobbying Congress to pass legislation that require anyone selling a download to pay a performance fee, according to David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers Association."
According to this report, they are not going after studios at all. They want to milk distributors, among them Apple, for performance fees. So it's not the press that are bringing Apple into this. It is, in fact, ASCAP and BMI.
Most of their money is made from touring and merchandise sales.
And people like Madonna and Beyonce are rare in the music industry.
Most professional musicians will be lucky if they see $100k in their lifetime.