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

You aren't being asked to work for free - you simply have a poor method of being paid that many people do not feel should be supported any more than it is (which is probably too much).

What you haven't explained is what makes song writing so special that it needs a whole set of extra laws to support it. Everybody else in the world manages.

I need a set of shelves to fit in my living room. I pay a carpenter to come in, design and build them. He charges me an hourly rate plus a material costs. He doesn't feel the need to charge me every time I put a DVD or book on the shelf. Why should writing music be any different?

Song writers need to work out the demand for their work, their skill level, the time it takes to produce something and the value to the customer and charge an appropriate rate.

Just. Like. Everybody. Else.
 
Let the labels and the indusry (Aka RIAA, etc) pay the artists these "performace fees", and NOT Joe Q Public. They are the ones with the deep pockets anyway.

This fight should not be between the artists and the public. It needs to be between the artists and their labels.

Go after the greed machine & get what you deserve. Plain and simple.
 
Amazing..

I am amazed at all the replies on this subject. They vary from ANTI-composer (creator) to ANTI-Business. Judging from the Article the composers/songwriters want "performance fees" for 30s clips. They also want these fees for Digital downloads and streaming of digital media.

As a musician and composer, who has a degree from Berklee and who has studied music business.. this topic has an interesting twist with me.

Background: I finished High school and went to college for music synthesis and sound design. I originally wanted to do sound design and composition for movies and video games. I graduated, and because of personal reasons I couldn't "move" to where the jobs were (lets just say this: I wouldn't leave my son over a job). This was before the internet and telecommuting were in vogue. I didn't pursue my "love" and I got a job as a restaurant manager. Now I have a degree in Accounting (another "love"). I make a decent living, doing something I love.. and I still write music while doing it.

NOW. ASCAP and BMI have every right to ask for royalties on streamed or downloaded DVD's or Tv shows. While they may not be public performances they are exactly the same as buying the movie on VHS or DVD. Once you download the movie.. you OWN the movie. Just like a DVD or VHS. Streaming content is synonymous with watching a show on broadcast tv. Just because the broadcast size hasn't been determined doesn't mean the performance is for "private use".

Songwriters and composers are completely within their rights to ask for royalties on these forms of distribution. The fact that the recording industry is "stingy" and won't honor these forms of distribution is sad, although contractually legal.

Asking for royalties on 30s clips is ridiculous. Other people have stated this argument better than I could so I won't do so here.

After taking a few music business classes in college (it wasn't my focus, but required study) you can see how the recording companies can screw these creationists out of money. People are right though.... you do have a choice of which contract you sign, you have a choice of how you decide to distribute your music, and you have a choice of who owns your music. Facebook, Myspace, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. are ALL valid and cheap ways of distributing ones compositions and business presence on the web without using a recording label. You may not get rich... and you MAY get rich.. it depends on the quality of your music ( or any creation for that matter). I don't sell my music, I don't ask for payment, I write music for the my enjoyment and my family's... if other people like it so be it.. I don't charge for it. On the same token.. it's not my livelihood either.

From a consumer standpoint:

Consumers should not be forced to pay for a 30s sample of music. How can you ask a consumer to purchase your music without hearing it first.

D'ld DVD's and Tv shows SHOULD have a performance fee associated to them, but they shouldn't be paid out of consumer pockets or even the distributors (apple, amazon). These fees were/are negotiated with the recording companies and thus need to be sorted out there. If the recording companies raise the "price" of distribution to Apple/amazon etc..(to compensate for this "new" distribution) and the price increases because of this then blame the recording companies.

Apple and other digital distribution sites have no ability to affect the royalty rate of composers and songwriters.. the labels do. Composers shouldn't be targeting them.

Say what you want about the record labels, however, it should be put in perspective that these companies spend millions of dollars marketing performers (and indirectly composers). They get these performers gigs, tours, "face" time with the public, and mass "spam" their image everywhere. NOW with the internet, it is easy (easier/cheaper than before) to do without the labels. Do the labels have their uses?? Sure... although their ability to influence is becoming smaller and smaller.

YES... contracts were signed, sealed and delivered... in blood (lol). Poor business decisions were made. Ethically, these people should be able to negotiate their contracts... ethically..... but that's not going to make the major players any money.

So... a compromise should be made. Consumers should not be screwed into paying more for composers lack of foresight, but they SHOULD get payed for their work and contributions. I am not in a position to determine what comprise that should be... but it has to start with open communication on ASCAP/BMI and the labels part.
 
I am amazed at all the replies on this subject. They vary from ANTI-composer (creator) to ANTI-Business. Judging from the Article the composers/songwriters want "performance fees" for 30s clips. They also want these fees for Digital downloads and streaming of digital media.

As a musician and composer, who has a degree from Berklee and who has studied music business.. this topic has an interesting twist with me.

Background: I finished High school and went to college for music synthesis and sound design. I originally wanted to do sound design and composition for movies and video games. I graduated, and because of personal reasons I couldn't "move" to where the jobs were (lets just say this: I wouldn't leave my son over a job). This was before the internet and telecommuting were in vogue. I didn't pursue my "love" and I got a job as a restaurant manager. Now I have a degree in Accounting (another "love"). I make a decent living, doing something I love.. and I still write music while doing it.

NOW. ASCAP and BMI have every right to ask for royalties on streamed or downloaded DVD's or Tv shows. While they may not be public performances they are exactly the same as buying the movie on VHS or DVD. Once you download the movie.. you OWN the movie. Just like a DVD or VHS. Streaming content is synonymous with watching a show on broadcast tv. Just because the broadcast size hasn't been determined doesn't mean the performance is for "private use".

Songwriters and composers are completely within their rights to ask for royalties on these forms of distribution. The fact that the recording industry is "stingy" and won't honor these forms of distribution is sad, although contractually legal.

Asking for royalties on 30s clips is ridiculous. Other people have stated this argument better than I could so I won't do so here.

After taking a few music business classes in college (it wasn't my focus, but required study) you can see how the recording companies can screw these creationists out of money. People are right though.... you do have a choice of which contract you sign, you have a choice of how you decide to distribute your music, and you have a choice of who owns your music. Facebook, Myspace, iTunes, Amazon, etc.. are ALL valid and cheap ways of distributing ones compositions and business presence on the web without using a recording label. You may not get rich... and you MAY get rich.. it depends on the quality of your music ( or any creation for that matter). I don't sell my music, I don't ask for payment, I write music for the my enjoyment and my family's... if other people like it so be it.. I don't charge for it. On the same token.. it's not my livelihood either.

From a consumer standpoint:

Consumers should not be forced to pay for a 30s sample of music. How can you ask a consumer to purchase your music without hearing it first.

D'ld DVD's and Tv shows SHOULD have a performance fee associated to them, but they shouldn't be paid out of consumer pockets or even the distributors (apple, amazon). These fees were/are negotiated with the recording companies and thus need to be sorted out there. If the recording companies raise the "price" of distribution to Apple/amazon etc..(to compensate for this "new" distribution) and the price increases because of this then blame the recording companies.

Apple and other digital distribution sites have no ability to affect the royalty rate of composers and songwriters.. the labels do. Composers shouldn't be targeting them.

Say what you want about the record labels, however, it should be put in perspective that these companies spend millions of dollars marketing performers (and indirectly composers). They get these performers gigs, tours, "face" time with the public, and mass "spam" their image everywhere. NOW with the internet, it is easy (easier/cheaper than before) to do without the labels. Do the labels have their uses?? Sure... although their ability to influence is becoming smaller and smaller.

YES... contracts were signed, sealed and delivered... in blood (lol). Poor business decisions were made. Ethically, these people should be able to negotiate their contracts... ethically..... but that's not going to make the major players any money.

So... a compromise should be made. Consumers should not be screwed into paying more for composers lack of foresight, but they SHOULD get payed for their work and contributions. I am not in a position to determine what comprise that should be... but it has to start with open communication on ASCAP/BMI and the labels part.

Chirst all Mighty !! You have a LOT To say my friend .

But I think " Wild-Bill " is more correct than any other member of this group.

Lets get real
 
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.

Because it was rude and insulting to Wal-Mart employees? Maybe that's why you should apologize.

And let me just throw in my 2 cents regarding Target: I used to work at Red and Khaki hell. They couldn't pay me enough to come back and work for them.
 
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.

Thanks for the clarification. You are right. I knew that the copyright (publishing) is owned by the movie studio, but I forgot that DVDs didn't count as a way to get mechanical royalties. (although they should!!!!!)

This should be required reading for all on this thread:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=39

it's from a magazine for/by film composers and should help to show our side of the argument.
 
Ignorance

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.

I feel that there is a good degree of ignorance, not only by the above quoted comment, but also by a good many people bemoaning that it's greed. I write from someone that is highly involved within the music industry and therefore can speak with a relative amount of gravitas.

First of all, I feel to clarify how artists, musicians, producers and everyone else get paid, certainly more so now, as the music industry has moved from one of being an industry, to one simply based on business - there is a difference, but not for discussion right now.

Record companies essentially prostitute artists, producers and musicians - they have a monopoly which is steadily slipping from their hands. Yet, still most involved in the industry require the distribution power and the connections that they have. At present it's 60/40 on everything, known as a complete 360. The 60/40 split is made in favour of the record company. The artist now sign to recoupable contracts meaning; that ANY costs in the productions of their record, are then offset against ANY income, on ANY source on ANY future release, tour, appearance, performance (airplay, TV, Radio, cover bands, etc.). Basically, to put this into context - record companies provide a loan to the artist to then produce an album, video and pay everyone in between, which at the end of it all the artist won't own.

An anology will help here; it's much like your boss employing you to make a widget, but you don't get paid till that widget sells, further more, any costs in making, promoting said widget are taken from your split of the profits at 40%. On top of that, you may have to wait over 12 months before you even see any wages, by which time, your boss may want you to put another widget out. If your last widget didn't sell that well, then too bad. The costs of that 1st widget are added to the 2nd widget and so the story goes on.

As to the above guys comment that they should get an education; most artists, musicians and producers especially are highly qualified people. To make a song that you guys hear on the radio is a very skilful and talented process that takes a great deal of money, time and patience. To say that we get what we deserve and we're being greedy is complete ignorance.

Now that you know how we get paid, which on an album sale, equates to around 60p per album and on top of that, we have to pay everyone - NOT the record company. They keep the lions share. It becomes obvious why many are trying to secure what's is their right. Granted, perhaps the 30 second issue on itunes is pushing it a tad too far, but much likes some of the PRS licenses we have in the UK/EU for public broadcast, then perhaps companies like Apple should be prepared to pay a higher public broadcast license that's if they pay one at present.

Further, the issue that artists etc. should get paid for internet streaming of TV shows etc. I feel too that this is right, they should. They get paid when it's broadcast over the airways, radio, TV and cable - with a large proportion of people now watching over the internet, which in itself is just another form of delivery, the content is the same, then I do believe that broadcasters need to consider this and a levy made.

The publishing side of the music industry is still 60/40 sometimes much less and more in favour of the publisher. Some of the majors will publish their own artists, so they will control the mechanical sales (downloads, CDs, LPs, Tour, etc.) and the publishing (airplay, sheet music, any broadcasting etc). Those artists will get even less. When an album is released, the producers will get points on a release, so to will any session musician, even the engineers half the time, all this, as well as the production costs, accounting fees, manager fees, advertising and more come out of the 40% (tops) that the artist gets.

Therefore, I can clearly understand why there is this action. It's not out of greed, it's out of trying to secure an income stream, which for some is their only income stream (those that write specifically for TV). They are not being greedy, just protecting what is rightfully theirs in the first place.

This article in the Guardian will help many realise why those of us in the industry and trying so hard to protect what's ours. It's an interesting article - it explains what the industry really is like.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jan/20/popandrock.musicindustry
 
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.

Well, not exactly. There are two types of royalties that, when created, covered all forms of distribution for then and the foreseeable future. Mechanical royalties covered hard copies of the music that were sold and distributed (Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, mini-discs, SACDs, DVD-Audio, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray), and Performance royalties covered when the music was publicly performed (TV, Movie Theaters, etc.) . The technology did not even exist yet to even anticipate the idea of something non-physical that was not performed publicly.

Even though you listed many different mediums on which music has been released, they have all been exactly the same in the way that they are all physical mediums that you go to the store, buy, and put into a player of some sort. The purpose of using terms like "physical" cover all of those different mediums, and other physical mediums that do not exist yet. You cannot anticipate something that fits into a completely different category.
 
Originally Posted by wunderboy View Post
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?

--

You do realize they don't write any of their music? This is about the writers.
 
greedy bzs

Seriously, where is the personal responsibility in this country or world for that matter. They made a bad deal now they need to deal with the consequences of that. They don't have to sell their music through apple if they don't want to (ie the Beatles)

If anything the previews do nothing but promote their music and propagate sales. I can't believe they have the balls to go crying that they are not getting paid for something that helps to sell their product.
 
Musicians deserve compensation.

Hello MacRumors:

As a music producer, I have work that I slaved over for years, and I receive absolutely ZERO money for it when it's sold on iTunes.

As an ASCAP member, I receive small amounts of money for my work when it's broadcast on television, and those checks contribute to my middle-class income. Thousands of musicians depend on royalties to sustain a living, and internet distribution is no different than radio or TV.

Keep in mind that the compensation is not just for record companies, but for songwriters, bandmembers, singers, etc.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman
 
Hello MacRumors:

As a music producer, I have work that I slaved over for years, and I receive absolutely ZERO money for it when it's sold on iTunes.

As an ASCAP member, I receive small amounts of money for my work when it's broadcast on television, and those checks contribute to my middle-class income. Thousands of musicians depend on royalties to sustain a living, and internet distribution is no different than radio or TV.

Keep in mind that the compensation is not just for record companies, but for songwriters, bandmembers, singers, etc.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman

Then take it up with YOUR organization. I understand your predicament, but for me to pay for 30 second previews which help me decide (or not) to BUY YOUR MUSIC, is pure lunacy. Sorry, that's reality.

w00master
 
Then take it up with YOUR organization. I understand your predicament, but for me to pay for 30 second previews which help me decide (or not) to BUY YOUR MUSIC, is pure lunacy. Sorry, that's reality.

w00master

I have taken it up with my organization, which is ASCAP. I agree, paying royalties for 30-second previews is over-the-top. But I imagine that that is a bargaining chip that the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) are betting on losing.

I have personally written and produced the music to television shows that YOU watch on iTunes. That I get no royalties for it is a travesty, and an insult to intellectual property laws. When you watch the same show on network television, I get a small payment for each broadcast (and I do mean small). But it adds up over time, and provides a freelance professional like myself with the equivalent of a pension.

All we're asking for is that the same system of royalties that has been in place for decades be applied equitably to content that people enjoy on the internet.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.