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

[carmenodie]

First of all, radio plays music all day long. The advertisers pay to get their wares talked about and they pay the stations for that.
So, why the hell would I buy a Jonas Brother song(dear god I wouldn't!) if the freaking thing is being played in heavy rotation at the behest of the music industry that is still doing PAYOLA? I love music, and I buy from itunes all the time and a 30 sec clip ain't nothing compared to the all day blitz of radio. Hell, you can record off of radio. And that leads me to my next point.

Second and most important, the music biz should have never utilized the tech guys gadgets knowing full well that a RECORDABLE device associated with the medium at which the music content is stored would be made available to the general public. They screwed themselves.
If the music industry truly want control over their stuff, they should adopt a proprietary medium for their content and a proprietary unit to play it on. Along with proprietary speakers, cable etc. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!
Too little too late. The music biz drank the kool aid and have ventured into the rabbit hole. A long time ago!!!!!!

 

[WhySoSerious]

i guess we'll see a charge to check out items in stores now too. i.e. camera's at a store on display, computers, tv's.

yep...while they're at it....

charge people to test drive cars when they are trying to decide on what to by...

charge people in malls that walk by the food court and get a sample of the food off the toothpicks...

any other ideas people?

 

[steveh]

You all do realize a lot of these writers make next to nothing.

Talk to the record labels that siphon off most of the money before it ever gets to the artists.

 

[peter02l]

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.

30-40%? If you want to stretch the truth, why not all the way to 100%?

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?

The artist will, once his work is judged good enough by the customer to purchase. Or do you expect next that supermarkets pay vegetable growers for the picture of the tomato they put on fliers?

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.

Not exactly how it works in reality. Artists want to sell their songs. Apple provides the technology and service so these artist can do that. Now that's Apple's intellectual property as well as a host of other costs and maintenance to maintain this store. And for that, Apple deserves compensation which according to them is enough to break even.

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.

These artists and writers (I don't know how publishers got into the mix) do not work for or have contracts with Apple. They signed contracts with record companies (or publishers; again I don't know why publishers are asking for more here) If they want to renegotiate contracts, they are barking up the wrong tree.

As for your 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.

I am not.

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.

Not everyone who howls into the microphone or bangs on the drum or pours all the filth in his brain onto the page is entitled compensation. I think it is selfish to want people to buy your song without first hearing a free sample. Why should a customer have to pay for something he doesn't want? I think it is selfish that they don't allow you to return music and get your money back if you end up not liking it.

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.

If it is the music industry that is screwing the artists then this lawsuit should be about that and not the music store. The vast majority of people who sell on itunes are not that good, sorry.

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.

No, it is precisely the artists, the writers, and the publishers here that are greedy. Why don't they renegotiate their contracts with record companies, or tear them up, and sell their stuff through their own online stores, and keep 100%. No, they want people to pay for whatever they do, regardless of quality. I have much more respect for street performers, who actually work every day, and they don't try and shake down every passer by.

 

[sishaw]

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.

Not only are they talented, but being a good musician and songwriter requires a lot of work in the form of practice. We don't see it, but it's there. How many of the people complaining here about songwriters making money have enough music theory and practice under their belts to even think about writing and performing one song, let alone an entire album?

 

[twoodcc]

wow. when are they going to learn? the more they do crap like this, the more people will not want to pay for songs. reading this just makes me mad

 

[AppleNewton]

whats next from them?
everytime i listen to my purchased album and/or song I have to pay again?
I have to pay everytime I want to hear it? ....sounds like something a corrupt and overbearing would love to initiate (what you can/ cant hear)


the deals made between the "behind the scenes" workers need to be taken up witht eh artists, managers, companies that finance this all, instead of increasing prices of purchasing works.
thats their obligation not specifically that of the consumer.

 

[barkomatic]

I can understand a performance fee for a song or TV show being performed (streamed) in its entirety on the internet. However, to force companies to pay a royalty fee for *previews* of those programs seemingly goes against the best interest of those groups pushing for these fees.

Obviously, Apple is not going to charge people upfront to preview a clip but probably raise the cost of a single track to about $2 or more. I preview probably 10 songs for every single purchase and the costs would be steep.

If this legislation passes digital downloads will get so expensive one might as well start buying CD's again and listening to the radio for "previews". Back to the 1980's folks!

I sympathize for the songwriter that gets $1500 for a song performed by Britney Spears that earns millions--but that issue seems to be between the record company and the songwriter -- not between the songwriter and the consumer.

 

[peter02l]

I think what irritates most artists is that apple's revenue is going through the roof with iTunes while the artist's commission is increasingly going down with development of internet services. And you guys are saying accept this because you went into the music industry? Why? Would you accept your boss docking your pay every year?

If I had the same kind of arrangement with my boss as the artist do regarding their work. I show up to work for a week and the boss pays me for it for 90 years!

 

[swingerofbirch]

Shouldn't their beef be more with the labels and how much of the profit the label shares with them? There is probably a law of diminishing returns with regard to the price of music. I would guess that as the price goes up people will buy less and steal more.

Maybe the artists should join together and form some sort of co-op as a label to distribute their music to iTunes rather than go through the big four. Can independent artists bypass them already to get onto iTunes?

 

[Rot'nApple]

"If you watch a TV show on broadcast, cable or satellite TV there is a performance fee collected," Israelite said. "But if that same TV show is downloaded over iTunes, there's not. We're arguing that the law needs to be clarified that regardless of the method by which a consumer watches the show there is a performance right."

Is that why my cable bill keeps going up?!

What about my "waste of my time" and "waste of a perfectly good time slot on a cable channel" performance fee???

I pay good money for my cable and most of the shows on all the channels are utter crap. Even some of the shows I like and I watch frequently, occasionally leave behind their share of a big pile of hot steaming dog sh*t that I'm paying for!

Where is my compensation for a "poor performance fee"?!

 

[peter02l]

Hum... I understood as "well, if iTunes doesn't pay what you want, distribute your product elsewhere."

So, lets say, I wanna sell your product at 100, but you want 120. Then since you couldn't convince me, you just go to the government and ask it to force me to sell it for 120 so you could have more money? Is that ok?

Hey, look, try to sell on the other store then.

Notice how none of them complains that Amazon sells their stuff cheaper than iTunes store!

 

[Jimmetry]

I think what irritates most artists is that apple's revenue is going through the roof with iTunes while the artist's commission is increasingly going down with development of internet services. And you guys are saying accept this because you went into the music industry? Why? Would you accept your boss docking your pay every year?

Apple doesn't make any money from users previewing songs. They make money from the sale. When Apple makes 10%, the artist and affiliates make 90%. Charge Apple for previews and it costs everyone:
- Apple, of course, which will make them more inclined to ditch the feature
- The user who, if the feature was removed or limited, would regret their purchases more often. When that happens, people change their buying habits, and buy less.
- If users buy less, the artist makes less money anyway.

Lose/lose/lose situation. They're a bunch of idiots. Song previews are advertising. Most companies pay to have their products advertised, and the recording industry wants to be paid? Screw them then. I'll preview my song via torrent and, oh wait, I might as well keep it.

Just keep shooting yourselves in the foot. Soon enough, a semi-automated service will come about where the artist defines the rights and consumer purchases are direct, and nobody will care about these whiney bitches anymore

Disclaimer: Yes, I know this is about writers, but they fit within the "artist and affiliates group". If one party suddenly gets granted rights to a performance fee, they all do, so stop complaining about people misunderstanding when really those complainers simply aren't accepting what that legislation would actually mean.

 

[peter02l]

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.

Yes. and it should be an issue that writers and publishers need to take up with labels and artists. Writers and publishers cannot sign their rights away to labels and artists and then come ask for money from music stores. Are they asking Barns and Noble for displaying their stuff - both samples of recordings and and whole books on the shelves? Theoretically - as well as practically - a customer can go to a bookstore and read a whole book without paying the writer. And these guys are bitching about charging for a 30 second sample that may not even lead to a sale?

 

[dicklacara]

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.

Jeez! What about my BoomBox? It's an iPod HiFi!

I was going to take it to the kids soccer tournament to play the Star Spangled Banner and some game highlights from my iPhone. The highlights have added music tracks from songs I paid for.

Does this mean that I have to find Francis Scott Key's relatives and those of every lyricist, songwriter, backup singer, musician in the bands so I can pay them $.05 each?

Do I have to collect $.05 for each of them for everyone who hears the music?

Doesn't sanity play any part of Fair Use?

My head is about to explode!


*

 

[csnwbd2251]

Performance Fees = world greed

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

So...maybe they should start charging performance fees for TV commercials .
Now that I know there are such fees, I will probably cancel my DirecTV subscription once it is up. Much more fun watching my daughter perform at school

 

[Bartman01]

Sounds like the issue here is with the contracts in the industry and not with Apple (or any other distributor). If I read it right, artists decided NOT to collect synchronization fees in 'HOPES' that they would make this up in performance fees down the road when the show was aired. The fee structure seems to be based around broadcast television when the consumption of the media is moving away from that paradigm for a growing number of people.

Same old song and dance, instead of trying to restructure the business to fit the new model they are trying to beat the old structure in to the new model. When the square peg doesn't really fit the new round hole, they try to legislate/litigate the solution instead of actually making a round peg.

 

[SeattleMoose]

All Music Jobs Should Be Done For Free

How dare composers, songwriters, publishers, or musicians want any money for what they do.

I mean we all work for free...Right? So why shouldn't they!!!!

I say, let them stand on street corners playing for pennies like in the good old days!!!

btw...but please keep making music using great players, expensive equipment, air-conditioned studios, mastering and artwork costs....all on YOUR dime!!!

I mean after all, you OWE us free music!!!!

 

[aristokrat]

Missing the point

To all those people who are parroting the "this is about the writers trying to make a living" line, would you have agreed to work the job you do for 50% less? I'm assuming the answer is no, and so I ask why not? Because you have a basic understanding of how negotiation and contracts work? Then why the hell do you feel bad for the writers who did not hold out for more? If it's because they are replaceable, then they're not worth as much as they think they are (an unfortunately common trend among artists, especially bad ones).

I can kind of understand the guys who got screwed by cassettes, because that was the first big change in music sale format, so they couldn't have known to future-proof their contracts. But after that there was no excuse for agreeing to a contract that wasn't future-proof unless you were an idiot. So apparently CDs came along, and people got screwed again, and now the same thing happens with digital downloads. If the writers (and other types who have also complained about the same thing) haven't been able to learn the lesson by now, let them be forever doomed by their ignorance.

 

[Glideslope]

Evil

To Hell with the Greedy Music Industry!!! Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mags631]

How dare composers, songwriters, publishers, or musicians want any money for what they do.

I mean we all work for free...Right? So why shouldn't they!!!!

I say, let them stand on street corners playing for pennies like in the good old days!!!

btw...but please keep making music using great players, expensive equipment, air-conditioned studios, mastering and artwork costs....all on YOUR dime!!!

I mean after all, you OWE us free music!!!!

Oh no, the end is nigh -- music might just become an art again as opposed to an overly commercial business that feeds on teenagers, endorsements and media frenzy. I have no problem with letting artists, producers, writers and distributors charging whatever they want for their music. I say let them do what they want and get what they deserve.

 

[MacFly123]

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

I dislike people, who - if they fail to reach their goal by negotiations - try to force it on everybody by law.

Time to start calling my congresspeople and telling them not to pass this legislation.

AMEN! The 30 second clip thing is beyond ridiculous. Are they going to charge Walmart when people use those little headphone stations to listen to CDs?

I am a film-maker and a musician, so I could very easily want more money for my content. Yet, I think they are being pathetic. They need to learn how to harness these new future digital models and embrace them, instead of resisting and trying to nickel and dime everything! INNOVATE!

 

[Nausicaa]

Ridiculous.

iTunes (and Amazon when it's cheaper ) is almost single handedly responsible for ending my own penchant for music piracy, as well as many people I know. And I'm sure these legal digital distribution channels will curb future piracy by making it so easy.

I used to pirate because it was hard to find and sample 'good music' before the internet. Sure, you could go to a store and sample a few CDs, but you were still limited by whatever was in stock. Now we have instant access to almost every album ever recorded, all with pretty high quality audio samples to help find what you want. Buy, and you can have the album in minutes.

It seems that at one time, a handful of power players in this industry made money hand over fist as publishers, now they're pissed that their industry is becoming more decentralized and more difficult to control. They can no longer print their own money with other people's talent. **** 'em.

I know many musicians and recording artists and none of them would side with the labels in these power struggles. Today is a great time to be in music as the barriers to entry have never been smaller. No one should feel bad that a select few no longer have free reign to eat most of the pie. The simple fact is the digital world gives people the ability to draw from a much larger pool of music to find what they like. There are still 'popular artists' that dominate the charts, but they command fewer and fewer sales as more and more people jump ship with a world of options at their fingertips.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

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.

Im glad someone here see's the truth. Just like the Writers Strike in the TV industry. People don't realize the people writing hit shows on TV make less than 60k a year.

 

[JGowan]

What will happen is there will be determination of time considered a public performance (ie. 30 seconds) and will drop to 25 second previews. If they have to, Apple will drop previews altogether and only the artist will suffer. People want to cherry-pick their music. You take away their right to do it, they'll stop buying. Personally, I generally roll with a "very good" used CD from Amazon.