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
Perhaps artist shouldn't sign with such record labels in the first place?
Or were they so greedy to begin with they blindly put themselves in a position to be screwed?
I don't agree with what record companies do, but at the same time they seem to have a plethora of stupid artist who are willing to be screwed only to bitch about it later. The artist have to admit, they wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for the recording studios to begin with.
Or were they so greedy to begin with they blindly put themselves in a position to be screwed?
I don't agree with what record companies do, but at the same time they seem to have a plethora of stupid artist who are willing to be screwed only to bitch about it later. The artist have to admit, they wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for the recording studios to begin with.
Greed. I mean, come on. Every time a particular song is played on a TV show or in a TV ad, it serves as free advertising for that song and artist. iTunes is also providing the platform for buying these songs, many of which are purchased from having heard the song in a TV show or movie.
I'm sorry, but how many tracks that you used to own on vinyl or tape have to be bought again on CD or digitally? Why should we have to pay the artist the royalty twice? Same with VHS and DVDs. (Yes, we should have to pay for the actual media but why the royalty again if we already own the music/media?). Do they hear us complaining about that?
So it's a bit of give and take. Except they only want the take.
If I was an artist, I would most definitely consider iTunes to be a good thing for my music, not bad. I've bought or discovered countless single tracks on iTunes that I never would have bought otherwise when they were previously only available as part of an album I didn't want.
30 second previews? They're a big factor in my deciding what to buy. When a new album comes out that I would consider buying (or indeed a song), the preview enables me to decide whether I would like to buy it or not. Quite often, I have bought things on a whim straight off the back of liking what I hear on the previews. Charging for those would be insane.
Some people ought to stop whining and accept that further price rises will just fuel use in the illegal song-swapping domain.
I'm sorry, but how many tracks that you used to own on vinyl or tape have to be bought again on CD or digitally? Why should we have to pay the artist the royalty twice? Same with VHS and DVDs. (Yes, we should have to pay for the actual media but why the royalty again if we already own the music/media?). Do they hear us complaining about that?
So it's a bit of give and take. Except they only want the take.
If I was an artist, I would most definitely consider iTunes to be a good thing for my music, not bad. I've bought or discovered countless single tracks on iTunes that I never would have bought otherwise when they were previously only available as part of an album I didn't want.
30 second previews? They're a big factor in my deciding what to buy. When a new album comes out that I would consider buying (or indeed a song), the preview enables me to decide whether I would like to buy it or not. Quite often, I have bought things on a whim straight off the back of liking what I hear on the previews. Charging for those would be insane.
Some people ought to stop whining and accept that further price rises will just fuel use in the illegal song-swapping domain.
Never mind charging the consumers, I think it's us that should charge them, we should all get paid for having to listen to some of the crap these so called 'artists' churn out.
my thoughts exactly, and I've never bought a single song through iTunes... granted, that's also because I prefer to purchase my albums on CD, but most of the time I don't have the extra money lying around to go spend-crazy on my music, hence why I tend to download most of my music (to tide me over until I can afford to buy the actual CD's). and if Apple is forced to once again hike up the prices of their audio content in the iTunes Store (or even start charging for 30sec previews- which is absolutely ridiculous), that's just another reason for me to avoid it at all costs.
overall, though, this whole "surcharge" thing really is a joke... if the writers' goal was to make themselves come across as nothing more than greedy, self-centered whiners, they definitely achieved that goal with all success in this situation.
True, true. Some artists isn't artist as much as they are a product. A manifested creation of several great talents come together.
Not many artists today can claim even something halfway up the ladder of Stones, Beatles and others. And nobody comes anywhere near the King himself, for sure.
Today there are music puppets and artists. A very significant difference.
This isn't about the recording industry and the labels, this is about the writers and the publishers.
The writers and publishers have a right to make money for their work, including when their work is distributed digitally or by whatever new medium comes along.
When new technologies come along, artists and writers get screwed by the distributors because the "new way" they're selling their product wasn't specifically stated in the original contract (because the medium didn't exist!)
This is like when sitcom stars and writers receive no royalties on the sale of DVD's because DVD's didn't exist when they're contracts were written in the 1970s. Or all the writers and artists who made ZERO on the sale of CD's when that technology first came out. Should they not be entitled to fair royalties when their work continues to be sold?
No distributor or business conglomerate is going to WILLINGLY pay anyone a single penny more than they have to. They would be happy to collect all of the money for future sales and pay zero royalties if they could get away with it. The only way to force them into fair business practices is through legislation.
The greed is not on the part of the artists, writers, and publishers, it's with the fat cat distributors.
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.
The writers and publishers have a right to make money for their work, including when their work is distributed digitally or by whatever new medium comes along.
When new technologies come along, artists and writers get screwed by the distributors because the "new way" they're selling their product wasn't specifically stated in the original contract (because the medium didn't exist!)
This is like when sitcom stars and writers receive no royalties on the sale of DVD's because DVD's didn't exist when they're contracts were written in the 1970s. Or all the writers and artists who made ZERO on the sale of CD's when that technology first came out. Should they not be entitled to fair royalties when their work continues to be sold?
No distributor or business conglomerate is going to WILLINGLY pay anyone a single penny more than they have to. They would be happy to collect all of the money for future sales and pay zero royalties if they could get away with it. The only way to force them into fair business practices is through legislation.
The greed is not on the part of the artists, writers, and publishers, it's with the fat cat distributors.
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.
Greed knows no bounds. Nationality is indifferent to that fact.
I will admit, we are still playing catch up to many things in Europe, especially England, but you can't really blame a country whose sole inception was to be be different and free from persecution (so we could do stupid **** and persecute people ourselves).
Like the youngest sibling in a family. All the older brothers will tell him what to do as they have experienced many things first hand, but the youngest ignores them because he won't learn unless he experiences it himself. Sooooo America is like me, and didn't finish school.
I'm really starting to think that people shut just stop paying for music full stop. Let's see if they prefer the money they get right now as opposed to bleeding companies/radio stations/whomever dry.
30 sec clips, iTunes store, radio, etc, is free advertising for the music, how much would it cost for them to advertise on that scale on their own?
Maybe the radio stations/Tv shows/Online selling sites should start charging the music industry leeches if they want their stuff sold/played. (EDIT: I realise Apple take a certain fee for the things they sell, so maybe they should charge more, but keep the customers cost the same.)
30 sec clips, iTunes store, radio, etc, is free advertising for the music, how much would it cost for them to advertise on that scale on their own?
Maybe the radio stations/Tv shows/Online selling sites should start charging the music industry leeches if they want their stuff sold/played. (EDIT: I realise Apple take a certain fee for the things they sell, so maybe they should charge more, but keep the customers cost the same.)
really, REALLY tough argument that those 30 second clips = a performance.
i guess you could give them like 1/6 of a royalty rate... pro-rate that bitch! it's only 30 seconds of what, a 3 minute song?
even if their argument makes no sense at all.
i have more of an issue with the ridiculously retarded 30-second clips apple chooses. it's like they go out of their way to pick the WORST, most non-representative 30 seconds of any song. And they don't let the artist choose their OWN 30 second clip. how does that make any sense?
oh right, Apple. the OCD control-freak of major corporations. Thanks, you crazy, mixed-up company!
i guess you could give them like 1/6 of a royalty rate... pro-rate that bitch! it's only 30 seconds of what, a 3 minute song?
even if their argument makes no sense at all.
i have more of an issue with the ridiculously retarded 30-second clips apple chooses. it's like they go out of their way to pick the WORST, most non-representative 30 seconds of any song. And they don't let the artist choose their OWN 30 second clip. how does that make any sense?
oh right, Apple. the OCD control-freak of major corporations. Thanks, you crazy, mixed-up company!
Thanks!
I hadn't realized this but you are spot on.
I just searched iTMS using the word heart. I figured I'd get lots of hits. I looked at the first 2,000 tracks returned, and only one was $0.69. 1, uno, that's it. It looks like this whole pricing scheme was just a way of raising the price of music and nothing else.
This just underscores that the record labels are dying, they serve no purpose any more.
I hadn't realized this but you are spot on.
I just searched iTMS using the word heart. I figured I'd get lots of hits. I looked at the first 2,000 tracks returned, and only one was $0.69. 1, uno, that's it. It looks like this whole pricing scheme was just a way of raising the price of music and nothing else.
This just underscores that the record labels are dying, they serve no purpose any more.
Somebody has to stand up for the artists. Just because an artist chooses that way of life doesn't mean they should settle with the way royalties are being paid out, which is just pitiful right now.
Very true. I don't want to have to pay every time I watch the DVDs I've already paid for.
That should be a wake up call for them change jobs. If you're making less money writing songs than you'd be flipping burgers... I'm just saying.
They have a point.
When I consider buying a song, I repeatedly play the 30 second preview until I get bored with it. It certainly doesn't advertise the song, encouraging me to buy it or see an actual performance. No, all I need is the iTunes store, enjoying only one song at a time, never leaving my house and clicking the little 'Play' button every 30 seconds. This is the life
When I consider buying a song, I repeatedly play the 30 second preview until I get bored with it. It certainly doesn't advertise the song, encouraging me to buy it or see an actual performance. No, all I need is the iTunes store, enjoying only one song at a time, never leaving my house and clicking the little 'Play' button every 30 seconds. This is the life
I say copyright period should be 15 years at the most. How many times are we going to keep extending Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse (which itself could have been stolen anyway)?
It's entirely ironic. Disney has made billions of dollars on public domain works (like Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Cinderella, etc). Yet they want to protect their intellectual proprietary into perpetuity. And Congress goes right along with it.
They write the music, they set the price of what they sell.
It would be silly to suggest that since they get a small percentage of the gross revenue, we should increase the price to the customer so that their tiny share is fair.
The logical way to do it, would be for them to negotiate a more fair share of the existing price! It's their fault if they don't.
This.
The fact that they want an increase is ridiculous. Sure, $0.05 is a small increase but those $0.05 make a difference between those artist who do and those who don't.
Just watch sales plummet.
What a ridiculous, ignorant, and pompous thing to say. The point of the argument is that the people who actually make the song take home less of a cut than anyone else (especially performers). Because record executives would never take a cut in their own pay, the only option is to raise prices to give artists what they think is their "fair share." Sometimes that's not much, and yes, sometimes that's millions of dollars. But if a song is popular enough to generate millions, wouldn't you feel better as a consumer knowing that the people who created it were the ones getting rich instead of some dude who bought the rights? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's something to think about. Do some research before you go posting that you deserve everything for free (including restaurant service). Also, what makes you think writers and waiters don't have educations and don't deserve to make their fair share? I guess in your eyes, a person only deserves to be compensated for a job that is deemed "higher class" by you. I have been a bartender for several years (and an artist my entire life), and I can tell you that my friends in similar situations are the bravest, smartest, kindest people I know. I hope to God you never come into my restaurant.
This story sounds on the surface to be absurd and petty, but consider the following: When you sell your music on itunes, Apple takes about 30-40% of every dollar of revenue. Apple is charging you, say, 30 cents for a dollar of music for the service of downloading it.
If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that? Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. This is something that is in the contract one signs with itunes, and that is fine. However, it is also something that is negotiable when one considers the value of an artist's intellectual property to iTunes. If artists or the music "industry" believe that the business model should be different, well they have the right to do that. Apple created this business model so naturally it favors them, but in a free market the labor side (in this case songwriters or the music biz) have ever right to negotiate the terms.
It's a struggle between the power of the person making the song and the person selling the song. In this case Apple has all the power, but this argument is by no means absurd. It's like saying that employees of a company have no right to stand up for their own worth and renegotiate their pay based on their contribution to the company.
Some other thoughts:
I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.
People complain with such scorn and contempt about the greed of artists because they see art as not having monetary value and the artist as selfish and inhuman for wanting to get paid.
But who is the selfish one? Perhaps it is the person who takes what the artist produces and condemns them when they seek compensation.
The music industry is horrible, it screws the artist, that is beyond true. But this is not about that. People tend to rag on the "greed" of artists for trying to make a living. If you look at the VAST majority of people who sell on itunes, they are not getting rich.
As much as people find it reprehensible that artists want their fair shake, if you don't pay them then they stop making music, and our lives are the poorer for it.
Writing, recording, and distributing music costs a lot of time and money. You don't hear songwriters, who are usually the kind of people who don't care about money (versus a giant media conglomorate) bitching about getting rich, you hear them bitching about getting paid for their work.
Artists traditionally are not organized and have no collective bargaining power. They are always getting screwed. If you want to look at the greedy party in this situation I say it is apple. The notion that a company like apple is being "picked on" by songwriters is patently absurd.
If it can be proved that the feature of having live streaming of 30 second clips contributes to the business, then why shouldn't the artists get paid some fractional amount for that? Apple is using intellectual property that does not belong to them as part of their profit model. This is something that is in the contract one signs with itunes, and that is fine. However, it is also something that is negotiable when one considers the value of an artist's intellectual property to iTunes. If artists or the music "industry" believe that the business model should be different, well they have the right to do that. Apple created this business model so naturally it favors them, but in a free market the labor side (in this case songwriters or the music biz) have ever right to negotiate the terms.
It's a struggle between the power of the person making the song and the person selling the song. In this case Apple has all the power, but this argument is by no means absurd. It's like saying that employees of a company have no right to stand up for their own worth and renegotiate their pay based on their contribution to the company.
Some other thoughts:
I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.
People complain with such scorn and contempt about the greed of artists because they see art as not having monetary value and the artist as selfish and inhuman for wanting to get paid.
But who is the selfish one? Perhaps it is the person who takes what the artist produces and condemns them when they seek compensation.
The music industry is horrible, it screws the artist, that is beyond true. But this is not about that. People tend to rag on the "greed" of artists for trying to make a living. If you look at the VAST majority of people who sell on itunes, they are not getting rich.
As much as people find it reprehensible that artists want their fair shake, if you don't pay them then they stop making music, and our lives are the poorer for it.
Writing, recording, and distributing music costs a lot of time and money. You don't hear songwriters, who are usually the kind of people who don't care about money (versus a giant media conglomorate) bitching about getting rich, you hear them bitching about getting paid for their work.
Artists traditionally are not organized and have no collective bargaining power. They are always getting screwed. If you want to look at the greedy party in this situation I say it is apple. The notion that a company like apple is being "picked on" by songwriters is patently absurd.
You get what you pay for... no one wants to pay for good music, so the good music stops.
Why would anyone use a song in an ad? To add value to their pitch? So, they want to add the value without paying the producers of that value...
We should start charging Starbucks to tote their cups around... it's free advertising for them!
Do you know what it takes to create something worth copyrighting?
Maybe they should renegotiate their contracts with the labels then, as opposed to forcing consumers in to handing them even more money? If they want more money, maybe they should only sign contracts that give them more money?
if i write a song and it's good enough, i can make a lot of money selling it outright to a label or to another artist. writers don't do this, though. They sell a license and allow whomever to record/release the song, then they sit back and wait for the royalties.
it doesn't have to be that way, and in a lot of non-US places, it isn't.
it doesn't have to be that way, and in a lot of non-US places, it isn't.
Thirty second previews HELP sell their product. They should embrace the technology and enjoy the benefits of higher sales because of it. The previews are good for both Apple and the record industry. Apple spends a ton of money developing the software that enables these previews, which help provide a seamless buying experience. Why doesn't the RIAA chip in to help pay for development costs for iTunes?
I haven't legally downloaded / bought an album in ages. I will buy concert tickets / merchandise to help the artist. Screw the record industry. I will not give them any $$$.
RIAA trashing is so 2003. Surely there's another iPhone blowing up somewhere in the world to put on the front page. Why even bother with these bozos?
I haven't legally downloaded / bought an album in ages. I will buy concert tickets / merchandise to help the artist. Screw the record industry. I will not give them any $$$.
RIAA trashing is so 2003. Surely there's another iPhone blowing up somewhere in the world to put on the front page
. Why even bother with these bozos?