What does the length of a 3 minute song have anything to do with what I said? Artists want to get paid, in perpetuity, for something that took them a few hours/days/weeks/months to create. And I say some shorter period of exclusivity in distribution, like 15 years, should be adequate enough.
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
What does the length of a 3 minute song have anything to do with what I said? Artists want to get paid, in perpetuity, for something that took them a few hours/days/weeks/months to create. And I say some shorter period of exclusivity in distribution, like 15 years, should be adequate enough.
Kinda' like the government, eh?
Seriously, the record industry is one of the segments as corrupt as government.
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?
Ok, first off, I think that the Artists do deserve more money, it's the record labels that take too much of it.
To that end, I would suggest to the Artists that they should look at ways of directly distributing their music, through sites such as emusic, Amazon Music, etc. or even talk with Apple and distribute through iTunes.
They should be compensated the same percentage per song no matte what distribution media is used.
However, the initiative being talked about here takes things too far, really, they do get money for everything already, here's how it goes too far:
It would end up making digital media cost even more and it is beginning to cost too much as it is.
It would possibly eliminate "fair use", such as the 30 seconds that Radio, T.V. and movies are allowed to use for free.
In addition the 30 second clips that are being talked about are ring tones, they want top charge you every time that your phone rings with ring tones created from their songs (No, this isn't an exaggeration, don't believe me?click here)
Subscription based music would have to disappear as you would have to be charged for each time that the song is played.
To that end, I would suggest to the Artists that they should look at ways of directly distributing their music, through sites such as emusic, Amazon Music, etc. or even talk with Apple and distribute through iTunes.
They should be compensated the same percentage per song no matte what distribution media is used.
However, the initiative being talked about here takes things too far, really, they do get money for everything already, here's how it goes too far:
It would end up making digital media cost even more and it is beginning to cost too much as it is.
It would possibly eliminate "fair use", such as the 30 seconds that Radio, T.V. and movies are allowed to use for free.
In addition the 30 second clips that are being talked about are ring tones, they want top charge you every time that your phone rings with ring tones created from their songs (No, this isn't an exaggeration, don't believe me?click here)
Subscription based music would have to disappear as you would have to be charged for each time that the song is played.
What a bunch of greedy bastards!
It's digital for Pete's sake. Costs to the music industry are minimal (hosting website, server, transaction software) versus physical property (having to actually house and store copies that require packaging and shipping).
I am just glad to report that I have yet to purchase a single digital download from iTunes or anywhere else. Heck even as a physical cd, my last single cd purchase had to have been around 2002/2003 timeframe! I don't know if it is because of my age or the fact that there is nothing but crap being produced these days.
It's digital for Pete's sake. Costs to the music industry are minimal (hosting website, server, transaction software) versus physical property (having to actually house and store copies that require packaging and shipping).
I am just glad to report that I have yet to purchase a single digital download from iTunes or anywhere else. Heck even as a physical cd, my last single cd purchase had to have been around 2002/2003 timeframe! I don't know if it is because of my age or the fact that there is nothing but crap being produced these days.
I had a whole rant about how I don't like the royalty system, but I kicked it to the curb. What it comes down to is these groups of people "representing" artists and profit seeking in their name. Very much like a patent holding company that produces no actual product. Everything becomes viewed in terms of "lost sales/profit." No one thinks how can I do better to make more art or even income. They think where can I make more income without actually having to create anything at all. Ideally without having to change my business plan either.
So let's review and amend just what performance rights are, but for heaven's sake do NOT let these guys define it. Let's hear from actual artists and writers as a panel not from an industry police group.
So let's review and amend just what performance rights are, but for heaven's sake do NOT let these guys define it. Let's hear from actual artists and writers as a panel not from an industry police group.
30 seconds is not performance! It is marketing!!!
Really, a 30-second clip of a song or a movie is not performance. It is a marketing tool and marketing is an expense, not an income generating activity. If those clips were not there, their sales would not be what they were. The artists and media companies should be absolutely delighted that these clips are made available to a WORLD WIDE audience of prospective customers. There are many CDs and DVDs I personally have purchased that I otherwise would not have if the preview clips were not available.
Now, if that 30-second clip is a ring tone then yes I would view it as a product and the artist and media company should get paid for that.
But for the preview clips, if anybody should be getting paid the artists and media companies should be paying Apple, Best Buy, Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc. and everyone else who is gracious enough to take up storage space by hosting these clips and the network bandwidth required to make them available to the customer who may actually purchase the full song or movie after listening to the (marketing) clip.
No, I don’t work for any of the above retailers or retail for that matter. I like many others get fed up with the artist and media companies always thinking up new ways to try to extract yet even more money out of us than they already do. They provide a product and service and I have no issue with paying for that, be it an ring tone, individual song, a full CD or a DVD. However, I don’t think anybody needs to pay for THEIR marketing. There is not another business on the planet that expects others to pay their marketing expenses.
Really, a 30-second clip of a song or a movie is not performance. It is a marketing tool and marketing is an expense, not an income generating activity. If those clips were not there, their sales would not be what they were. The artists and media companies should be absolutely delighted that these clips are made available to a WORLD WIDE audience of prospective customers. There are many CDs and DVDs I personally have purchased that I otherwise would not have if the preview clips were not available.
Now, if that 30-second clip is a ring tone then yes I would view it as a product and the artist and media company should get paid for that.
But for the preview clips, if anybody should be getting paid the artists and media companies should be paying Apple, Best Buy, Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc. and everyone else who is gracious enough to take up storage space by hosting these clips and the network bandwidth required to make them available to the customer who may actually purchase the full song or movie after listening to the (marketing) clip.
No, I don’t work for any of the above retailers or retail for that matter. I like many others get fed up with the artist and media companies always thinking up new ways to try to extract yet even more money out of us than they already do. They provide a product and service and I have no issue with paying for that, be it an ring tone, individual song, a full CD or a DVD. However, I don’t think anybody needs to pay for THEIR marketing. There is not another business on the planet that expects others to pay their marketing expenses.
I guess Apple should have a form where everyone can pick whether their music should be available for 30 second samples (without payment) or not. And then Apple could gather some statistics whether music with or without samples sells better.
Next thing Coca Cola will charge every film maker you dares showing a Coca Cola can in their movies.
i can see that artists want to be paid for their work. i however hate the fact that they try to force people to pay rather than simply using the free market to sell their stuff.
they should leave the government out of this. nobody would give money to car makers just because their cars don't sell on the open marke....ah.forget it...
but seriously, does that cover the 30 second clips you can hear before you buy a song? or is it for songs used in movies and tv shows?
they should leave the government out of this. nobody would give money to car makers just because their cars don't sell on the open marke....ah.forget it...
but seriously, does that cover the 30 second clips you can hear before you buy a song? or is it for songs used in movies and tv shows?
Being able to copyright and worth copyrighting are two different things.
What we're talking about here is paying the people that write the songs. Not the big bad RIAA or the millionaire pop stars.
Once a composition has been publicly released, e.g. embodied in a sound recording, performed, etc., the writers have little to no say in the matter, as the copyright law in the US grants users of the composition a compulsory license at statutory rates for many of the normal uses- like selling a song.
I don't think that a DPD (much less a ringtone!!!) is a public performance either, but writers in many ways are at the mercy of the user of their composition.
The amount of misinformation being thrown around here is laughable. The music industry has become everyone's favorite business to take umbrage with lately--it is treated like it's the only industry out to make money. Even other industry based around "art" seem to escape the criticism that the music business receives. Here's a little knowledge:
#1 - these royalties are NOT for record labels to collect. They go to the SONGWRITERS and PUBLISHERS.
#2 - performance royalties are already paid by TV, terrestrial radio, online radio, satellite radio, restaurants, venues, clubs and bars. These ensure that the SONGWRITERS receive compensation for all of the benefits that the aforementioned businesses receive. Most TV shows would not work without music, bars and restaurants would not have the same environment without music, and most radio would not exist without music.
#3 - the songwriters ARE NOT trying to collect on the 30 sec. clips (although thats the part of the story that seems to be highlighted for some reason...) They are in fact trying to collect royalties for the sale of those same TV shows they get paid for when you watch them on TV, but on iTunes and other digital distribution services as well.
Think and do research about the situation before joining in with your torch and pitchfork.
-Jeremy
#1 - these royalties are NOT for record labels to collect. They go to the SONGWRITERS and PUBLISHERS.
#2 - performance royalties are already paid by TV, terrestrial radio, online radio, satellite radio, restaurants, venues, clubs and bars. These ensure that the SONGWRITERS receive compensation for all of the benefits that the aforementioned businesses receive. Most TV shows would not work without music, bars and restaurants would not have the same environment without music, and most radio would not exist without music.
#3 - the songwriters ARE NOT trying to collect on the 30 sec. clips (although thats the part of the story that seems to be highlighted for some reason...) They are in fact trying to collect royalties for the sale of those same TV shows they get paid for when you watch them on TV, but on iTunes and other digital distribution services as well.
Think and do research about the situation before joining in with your torch and pitchfork.
-Jeremy
You are completely, absolutely wrong. The waiter or waitress does their job, and as compensation they receive a small amount from the bar or restaurant, plus the opportunity to receive tips. That is the same as the car salesman who works on commission, except that the fact that you pay him for selling you a used car is hidden and not in the open. And you pay him more the more he rips you off, while the waiter or waitress gets more money the better their service is. Unless they run into a tight arse who gets spat into their dinner if they ever come back.
I don't know if it is because of my age or the fact that there is nothing but crap being produced these days.
I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. The world's full of incredibly talented musicians, you just have to look beyond what the record companies are shoving in your face.
An excellent post, to be sure, but if it's about royalties for writing, then the writers, etc, shouldn't be coming after Apple/Amazon/Microsoft. They should be going after the record lables with whom they have contracts.
It is not we are ignorant here to the topic on hand but it is the fact that we feel that the music industry is trying to get more money out of us from these 30 sec. clips, on air promos and t.v. shows that these artists are doing instead of solving the real problem at hand. If there truly is a struggle in power in the music business, between the executives all the way down to the writers, let them figure that out and do not include us! Let the public enjoy music for what is worth.
These are the reason which drive people to not purchase albums in stores because the prices become to inflated and now it is even taking it to iTunes. They want to know why iTunes made so much money? It is because it was a cheaper alternative to get music. If they feel that inflating the prices is not going to go unnoticed, they are wrong. Back in the day, the common person figured out how to use napster pretty quickly. They were amazed at the idea of free media. Well, most of those people think that era. is dead now for some reason or another. If prices continue to rise, those people will reflect and start looking for an alternative. Once again, the frenzy will happen.
I am all for supporting artists, I am one myself, but when too many people start putting there hands in the pot it becomes a problem. If there are problems that need to be settled on another level that doesn't involve consumers, settle it. Go on strike! Do what it takes. Don't keep jacking up prices just because you aren't getting what you want.
These are the reason which drive people to not purchase albums in stores because the prices become to inflated and now it is even taking it to iTunes. They want to know why iTunes made so much money? It is because it was a cheaper alternative to get music. If they feel that inflating the prices is not going to go unnoticed, they are wrong. Back in the day, the common person figured out how to use napster pretty quickly. They were amazed at the idea of free media. Well, most of those people think that era. is dead now for some reason or another. If prices continue to rise, those people will reflect and start looking for an alternative. Once again, the frenzy will happen.
I am all for supporting artists, I am one myself, but when too many people start putting there hands in the pot it becomes a problem. If there are problems that need to be settled on another level that doesn't involve consumers, settle it. Go on strike! Do what it takes. Don't keep jacking up prices just because you aren't getting what you want.
...unless they can change the relevant law. It is their right to lobby Congress to change the law, just as it is your right to lobby Congress for whatever your interests are. It doesn't mean they'll succeed. Hundreds of individuals and groups lobby Congress every day for many, many different things. A relative few bills actually are passed by both houses and signed into law by the President.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying that in our legal system there is more than one approach that can be taken.
I'm not saying either should- although almost every DSP contract with a label states that the DSP will obtain all necessary public performance licenses.
And in the US, if it was decided that the preview was a public performance, I suspect it would fall under Sound Exchange's mandate for the sound recording, so the artists would get their performance royalty just as the writers would via their PROs
Being able to copyright and worth copyrighting are two different things.
Your subjective determination of "worth" is completely different from mine or anybody else's. Want a cookie?
Except that it usually takes that long to get to the position of actually being able to make money from writing songs.
Why should George Lucas get billions from the few months it took to shoot Star Wars? He should get his monthly salary and that's it. No matter how long it took to come up with it, no matter how much was spent (and risked) to get it made.
Making a track that can be sold usually takes more than one person's time and energy and tons of expensive gear (you have to buy it before you can use it!). It's an investment. And if you can make something people like, you make your money back and maybe a bit more to do the next song.
R&D is not cheap!