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

[peter02l]

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.

Then take it up with your old label. Go ahead an sue them. What people here feel outraged about is that you want to call a download a performance and get Apple, who is just making enough money to brake even (after paying hosting, admin, and transaction costs) to pay up.

That is wrong. Apple will have to pass on the cost that should be borne by your old label (since they don't have to lift a finger or risk any production and inventory cost of a CD) to the consumer. That is us! So we get pissed at you naturally.

 

[ronwasserman]

Interestingly at the same time Billy Corgan / The Smashing Pumkpins announce to release their 44 track forthcoming album (Teargarden by Kaleidyscope) completely free on the internet... Even more free that Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' where you could pay nothing, or pay whatever you liked...

This is because they make fortunes touring and selling merchandise. But only the big boys can do this.

 

[Uragon]

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.

you need to close your windows up just before the 30 sec., in this case, it's is still under preview...

 

[ronwasserman]

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.

You're a tad off here. 1st off, a majority of the composers have to give up the publishing end so, they lose 50% of the revenue. There are royalties when shows air which are really only substantial on network TV. Cable is absolutely horrible. COMPOSERS RECEIVE NOTHING FOR DVD SALES but do for soundtrack sales. The production companies pocket the money for DVDs, and shows sold digitally.

The people asking for this are not rich, do not expect the consumer to pay more. They are trying to get companies like Apple (and many others) to simply cough up a few pennies. Saying the price will increase to the end user is ********. A company like Apple, who takes 35% per sale, SELLS the charting spots (that's right, it's not based on sales...you buy the position/feature) would lose perhaps 1-2 cents per file.

As for paying for 30 second clips, those are promotional items and will never generate income. I would never ask for that and I have a fairly good amount of material at iTunes and all the other sites.

Believe me, when you hang out with the producers of these shows TV or film and see the amount they make, it only seems fair that the artist, who was incremental in creating that wealth, get a tiny little share.

Imagine if you sold a product for commission, let's say cars. And that is how you feed your family. Then I, the owner of the dealership, take your image, a video of your sales presentation and put it online to sell cars. People start buying and I tell you that you will not get a commission. What would you think? (Please keep in mind that in this example, 80% of your income comes from your commissions.)

Okay. You'll either get it now, or you won't.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[ronwasserman]

Sorry, forgot to mention one other thing. Absolutely none of the composers I know works for any company that provides their gear. On average I spend about 20-40k a year on upgrades, libraries (sounds), gear and other supplies. I have to have a corporation which in California gets taxed to death and yet I never get to reap any of the benefits I pay. No social security and no unemployment when I have a slow week. I'll never get a pension. All we have is the backend to support us.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[peter02l]

... 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. ....

How can it get worse than getting nothing? Do they send you a bill?

 

[peter02l]

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.

I think you should ask for money every time your client shows your work to somebody. Why don't painters and sculptors get the same kind of deal songwriters are demanding. I bet painting a portrait is much more difficult than putting a bunch of cords together for a cheesy 70's B movie of a stupid hillbilly car chase scene.

 

[peter02l]

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.

Go read the piece again. You are not asking studios for anything. You are trying to shake down the distributors - specifically, Apple. Apple doesn't make enough to pay you guys 9.1 cents or whatever a song or episode, or a 30-second sample. If Congress forces them, then they will pass the cost to the consumer, otherwise they will be running their media distribution business at a loss.

 

[peter02l]

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.

Bravo! Well said.

 

[peter02l]

Target362,

I take umbrage at your contemptuous comment regarding Walmart employees, even if it was uttered in jest.

So now your going on about me working in a large retailer. at least I'm not working at Wal-mart.

I'll have you know that I push carts at Walmart. Although, I make nowhere near $8.75 an hour and consider it bad form to flaunt such extravagant compensation at a public forum, I too have developed a certain fondness for my fellow cart collection personnel and find my vocation rather pleasant.

I have visited a Target store before. I am very cognizant of the haute monde clientele your establishment caters to. And I know you are only 19. Still, it is insulting to denigrate the multitude of pious, patriotic, often out of work patrons who shop at Walmart.

A swift apology is in order.

 

[Target362]

Target362,

I take umbrage at your contemptuous comment regarding Walmart employees, even if it was uttered in jest.



I'll have you know that I push carts at Walmart. Although, I make nowhere near $8.75 an hour and consider it bad form to flaunt such extravagant compensation at a public forum, I too have developed a certain fondness for my fellow cart collection personnel and find my vocation rather pleasant.

I have visited a Target store before. I am very cognizant of the haute monde clientele your establishment caters to. And I know you are only 19. Still, it is insulting to denigrate the multitude of pious, patriotic, often out of work patrons who shop at Walmart.

A swift apology is in order.

keep in mind, that comment is personal and not because I work at Target.

not sure why I should aplogize.

anyway Walmart, Target and pushing carts is not the point of this topic. The topic is about the old farts who want to control our way of life.

 

[crozlo1980]

Way to look forward!

You are brilliant, and right on point. The legislation issue is being lobbied to protect said "minor contributors" (who often thought up the damn song in the first place) from WHOMEVER tries to screw them out of their due with regard to digital distribution.

Refer to my earlier thread, but I would be happy to do my best to connect you with the music people on this end - excited and passionate young music professionals who were raised to respect, support and cultivate their artist's work.

I'm a musician who's as passionate about hardware and software as Apple, but I'll have to leave it up to some other folks in this thread to handle the computing side of your very noble and bold question.

But, I can tell you this with certainty... If you can manage to get involved now, you might change the course of digital rights management and thereby the precedent for American Copyright Law.

GOOD LUCK!

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?

*

 

[dicklacara]

The people asking for this are not rich, do not expect the consumer to pay more. They are trying to get companies like Apple (and many others) to simply cough up a few pennies. Saying the price will increase to the end user is ********. A company like Apple, who takes 35% per sale, SELLS the charting spots (that's right, it's not based on sales...you buy the position/feature) would lose perhaps 1-2 cents per file.

Can you cite a reference for "Apple, who takes 35% per sale"? *

I looked at this a while back, and for an iTunes song at $.99, roughly:

$.90 Record Label
$.09 Apple

With its $.09 Apple provided: servers, network, bandwidth, software (server and client), administration, transaction processing, database, credit card processing, credit card fees, reimbursement, support. Apple said its goal was to break even on the songs as it made its profits on the hardware: iPods, iPhones, Macs.

The Record Label paid the performing artist about $.10, and other contributors, much less, according to their agreements.

If this is true, than the, composers & lyricists are aiming at the wrong target, and any fees received from Apple would, likely, be passed on to the consumer.

Further, Apple's costs would rise, as they would have to setup a system to account for and pay these micro payments to all the contributors.

If you are going to play the "poor peon vs vile corporation" card, make sure you are aiming at the right target!

* For iPhone/iPod applications sold through the iTunes app store, Apple receives 30% and the programer receives 70%. Both receive nothing for free apps. Apple's expenses for applications are considerably higher as they must test, validate and approve each application.

*

 

[Krevnik]

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

I think you are confusing copyright with patents. You aren't actually required to register your copyright for it to be valid. You can protect yourself with some fairly cheap means of verifying the "date of creation", that doesn't require registering the copyright. Registering it does make court proceedings down the road even easier though.

That said, the whole purpose of copyright was originally to give the creator a time-limited, exclusive monopoly on their work in order to profit on it, but keep it time limited for two reasons:

1) They are encouraged to continue creating new works, rather than leaning back on old ones.

2) All works will eventually enter the public domain so they can enrich the society.

By constantly expanding the length of time on a copyright, it prevents both of these core processes from functioning. Practically nothing has entered public domain without the author explicitly saying so in over 70 years in the US. The only thing keeping #1 functioning in this environment is the craving of the customers who want to keep getting new content, and so creative companies/individuals are compelled to do so in order to keep getting money from consumers.

Patents still have a similar policy... patents are time-limited such that after so many years, anyone can use the tech described in the patent and extend it. The idea is that without the ability to force this stuff into the public domain, things start to stagnate as certain groups and individuals start to hold all the cards, and are able to use it to wield a legal bat against everyone else.

 

[tvguy]

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)

The worse thing is the money will only go to the top few people. When I work on a television show the cameraman, audio, teleprompter, etc. don't get any royalities when the show airs over and over again... I would make 10 times the money each year if the rest of the crew got a cut ot the pie

 

[fleshman03]

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.

As a librarian who specializes in IP, I cannot agree with you more. My fellow countrymen need to understand that IP rights need to protect the artist's vision and the companies pockets.

Also -

 

[hissyfit]

I Am A Pro-songwriter! Why Shouldn't I Make A Living?

so when the rest if the world goes to work they are paid for their labor, correct? unless of course they are slaves. why shouldn't i be paid for the work that i do? none of you would have any music if people like me didn't write and perform it. it is not a GREED issue! it is serious and very real issue for people who make their living writing songs to be able to support themselves and their families. we aren't rollin' in it, we barely get by. you want to hear it? then why wouldn't you pay for it like you paid for the shirt you are wearing. people don't realize that they are stealing when they copy music, hence, the © symbol confirming that a product is in fact legally owned by the writers and publishers.

also, to suggest that writers and artists don't appreciate listeners just because we need to be reimbursed for our work, is a lame argument. people (listeners) want music. they should and can have it, but why is $1.15 too much for the purchase of a song? that is crazy. hard copy records typically sell for $15 to $18 without the option of hearing it first and then being able to choose which songs you do or do not want. i think that .5 or .10 or .15 cents more to hear it first is a bargain!

 

[hissyfit]

yes!

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

let ME get this right, so, when the rest if the world goes to work they are paid for their labor, correct? unless of course they are slaves. why shouldn't i be paid for the work that i do? none of you would have any music if people like me didn't write and perform it. it is not a GREED issue! it is serious and very real issue for people who make their living writing songs to be able to support themselves and their families. we aren't rollin' in it, we barely get by. you want to hear it? then why wouldn't you pay for it like you paid for the shirt you are wearing. people don't realize that they are stealing when they copy music, hence, the © symbol confirming that a product is in fact legally owned by the writers and publishers.

also, to suggest that writers and artists don't appreciate listeners just because we need to be reimbursed for our work, is a lame argument. people (listeners) want music. they should and can have it, but why is $1.15 too much for the purchase of a song? that is crazy. hard copy records typically sell for $15 to $18 without the option of hearing it first and then being able to choose which songs you do or do not want. i think that .5 or .10 or .15 cents more to hear it first is a bargain!

 

[hissyfit]

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.

than stop listening to music and you won't have to pay for the writer and the artist services. pardon me for asking but, do you work for free??????

 

[hissyfit]

really????

Then take it up with your old label. Go ahead an sue them. What people here feel outraged about is that you want to call a download a performance and get Apple, who is just making enough money to brake even (after paying hosting, admin, and transaction costs) to pay up.

That is wrong. Apple will have to pass on the cost that should be borne by your old label (since they don't have to lift a finger or risk any production and inventory cost of a CD) to the consumer. That is us! So we get pissed at you naturally.

do you really think that the writer get's what is theirs? w/ out a union like BMI and ASCAP they would have even less than nothing???? stop listening to music if you don't want the writer or artist to get what is theirs and what they own. listen to talk radio. see how that works for ya!

 

[WATCHDOG]

Back in olden times - people had no recourse to recorded music other than those tunes published produced & distributed by a handful of monopolizers.

Them days are to today as the horse is to spaceship; aka, they're long gone.

Times are always a-changing - and those ex-music-monopolizers won't stop a-whining. Alas for their never-ending lawsuits!

Their little game is over: passay! oy vay!

I say to them, "You made your money now deal with the changing times and please step aside as everyone else involved in the fast lane of technological progress (invariably) -> has had to do."

 

[marksman]

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

Whose fault is that?

 

[marksman]

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.

That is not what people are doing at all.

These dolts made bad deals and instead of renegotiating them with the fat cats, they are trying to get laws passed that would directly come towards people who buy music.

Nobody forced them to sign any of their agreements. They did so willfully and knowingly. Now they want to cry foul. I have no sympathy for them. I am certainly not going to support their inability to negotiate by creating new laws.

 

[marksman]

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?

Maybe that is what a writer is worth. Clearly they suck at business so maybe they only deserve 5000.

People who keep saying others are missing the point, or the writers are getting screwed are wrong.

The writers are adults. They signed adult contracts. Now they don't want to live up to those contracts.
I don't like the big record companies either, but I also didn't sign a contract with them.

Nobody has any sympathy for them because their problem was entirely self-inflicted.

 

[rjohnstone]

That is not what people are doing at all.

These dolts made bad deals and instead of renegotiating them with the fat cats, they are trying to get laws passed that would directly come towards people who buy music.

Nobody forced them to sign any of their agreements. They did so willfully and knowingly. Now they want to cry foul. I have no sympathy for them. I am certainly not going to support their inability to negotiate by creating new laws.

You truly have no clue how the music business works do you?
You cannot renegotiate a recording contract after the fact.
Many of those contracts were signed long before digital distribution was a pimple on the industries ass.
The labels and distributors know this and are taking advantage of the situation. This is why ASCAP and BMI are crying foul.