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?
Listen, don't bitch to me about "writers make next to nothing". Same as waiters/waitresses....don't bitch to me about "you need to tip this much because they only get paid $2.15 per hour".
It's their OWN CHOICE to do that job and they know damn well how much they are getting paid.
I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.
Now, with that said, I think if they begin to get charge-happy with digital content on iTunes and even go as far as charging for 30-second samples, I'll be more than happy to hit the torrent sites. I don't care.
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. I think that is something that is perfectly logical and negotiable. 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.
I am amazed at the vitriol directed towards songwriters here who want to get paid for other people using their music to make money.
That's exactly what this news story is about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
This is ricockulous! This is the equivalent of buying a coke at a vending machine, and then having the sugar manufacturer come up and ask for money from the vending machine and the end consumer.
Really the Music and Entertainment industry needs to look at how they are doing business if they want to keep doing business.
During the writers strike in 2007, iTunes favorite Dr. Horrible was made, yeah it's cheesy and short, but still good entertainment. It was made to show it can be done without the red-tape, that people can still tell there stories, and convey their thoughts and ideas.
If the song/lyric writers want more money, they need to negotiate that with who they do business with.
*Plus, Don't they realize, that the iTunes Store, isn't why Apple has an excess of 28B in the bank? And that the iTS really is a break even if anything for Apple?
*Oh and Check out Distorted View! Free and Paying entertainment with no 'performance fee's'.
I had to register just to post this:
Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.
I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.
Do you know what it takes to create something worth copyrighting?
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.
Not relevant at all. I can sink billions of dollars into R&D to create something that is patentable and that will get me 20 years from the date I submit the application. And that's assuming it even gets approved. Copyright for even the most trivial thing is automatic in the United States and lasts 50 to 75 years after the dead of the author, which is absurd.
I had to register just to post this:
Maybe ONE person in the comments actually understands the issue here - this is NOT about labels and artists - it is about writers and publishers, who are a different set of players in the music biz, with a different set of rights and a different set of income streams.
I don't necessarily agree with their initiative here, but please take the time to understand the issues here before ranting and raving about the RIAA, major labels, etc.
Detective: This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. [they approach a bush] Look. There's Lars now, sitting by his pool. [he's seen sitting on the edge of a chaise longue, his face in his hands, softly sobbing]
Kyle: What's the matter with him?
Detective: This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it. [a close-up of Lars sobbing] Come. There's more. [leads them away. Next seen is a small airport at night] Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? [a shot of Britney boarding a plane, then stopping to look at it before entering] Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. [Britney gives a heavy sigh and goes inside.] The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?
Kyle: We... didn't realize what we were doing, eh...
Detective: That is the folly of man. Now look in this window. [they are at another mansion, and they look inside a picture window] Here you see the loving family of Master P. [He's shown tossing a basketball to his wife while his kid tries to catch it] Next week is his son's birthday and, all he's ever wanted was an island in French Polynesia. [his mom lowers the ball and gives it to the boy, who smiles, picks it up and drops it. It rolls away and he goes after it]
Kyle: So, he's gonna get it, right?
Detective: I see an island without an owner. If things keep going the way they are, the child will not get his tropical paradise.
Stan: [apologetically] We're sorry! We'll, we'll never download music for free again!
Detective: [somberly, dramatically] Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury.
Apple takes these shows and feeds them to subscribers without paying the proper royalties to the actual writers of the shows.