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
They seem to be fighting this one out in the courts. BMI and ASCAP insisted that streaming is a form of broadcast, and of course YouTube says it is not.
Here is an article about one of the cases from earlier this year:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml
To answer your question of "Who pays?", the broadcaster always pays. So in this case it would be YouTube.
I completely agree with you! Let them get their stuff but sooner than later they will fall. The markets now are totally fluid and no one can say hey have full control of it...even Microsoft. Let them die in greed.
I assure you that I have more academic education than you. If you want, I can give you my resume and you'll see that I am highly educated. I chose to be a classical musician. I know it is very difficult to earn a lot of money, but I love it. Because of ignorant people like yourself, art is really underrated.
P.S if you say something about my grammar, I just would like to let you know that it is my fourth language)
That doesn't mean that I agree that they start charging for listening to a sample. I would never agree with that. That would be terrible business. So many people would disgusted
Considering how humanity is screwing up we should pay some royalties to her, no?
Or at least the corporations responsible...
On topic... Pretty soon everyone along the production chain is going to want a higher share, so how much will a single album run for the consumer? Hell, music is going to be the currency (ed: wrote gold first but music already is) of the future if this continues.
I wonder if Apple will go to bat and argue Fair Use in front of a court for the 30-second song preview.
They combine the 30-second clips to create a new and innovative product (iTunes Store).
In order to be consider Fair Use the court needs to consider:
The nature of the work is a recording, not a performance. IF anything, my Mac is doing the performing.
The 30-seconds are usually less then 20% of a song. While some might argue that that is a lot, there is much less to take than there is in a book.
And the potential market value... The 30-second clips increase the likelihood of the song being purchased. I'd love to see the labels argue against this.
As I write this listening to music, it really is killing my taste for the art. At what point do we just say screw it?
They combine the 30-second clips to create a new and innovative product (iTunes Store).
In order to be consider Fair Use the court needs to consider:
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The nature of the work is a recording, not a performance. IF anything, my Mac is doing the performing.
The 30-seconds are usually less then 20% of a song. While some might argue that that is a lot, there is much less to take than there is in a book.
And the potential market value... The 30-second clips increase the likelihood of the song being purchased. I'd love to see the labels argue against this.
As I write this listening to music, it really is killing my taste for the art. At what point do we just say screw it?
While sad, that has happened to everybody who has made an investment decision, especially over the past year. Media distribution is moving away from broadcast, and I don't see why writers can't reflect this in the synchronization charge. In the summary, it states that this is often waived in favour of collecting royalties, which is simply a poor investment decision in light of current trends.
I am not clear why this requires a reclassification of a broadcast, simply a shift in strategy by writers.
Obviously you know these laws better than I, but I would be interested to know why I keep coming across references that say compulsory licencing only applies to previously published work. This sounds to me like another alternative that simply requires a shift strategy, placing greater emphasis on bespoke music rather than relying on royalties by re-licencing a single work.
From the end user point of view, I shudder at the thought that anybody is actively pursuing the ability to charge me not only to download but also for every time I play a song or watch a show I have purchased, which is where this is clearly heading.
My own take on this comes from working as a contract programmer. I charged an appropriate rate for my time and level of expertise. Some of the people I worked for have gone nowhere, some have done exceptionally well, but in no way do I feel entitled to any extra revenue due to their success, however lucrative a percentage would have been. My choice.
It has been attempted and always failed. I also remember the head of the Society of Composers and Lyricists telling me something along the lines of it just not being possible to form a composers union, but I don't remember why, unfortunately.
Most work under contracts and when you have a family to feed and little options, you chose whatever you can to bring money in.
Maybe Apple should renegotiate their rates. Without these writers 90% of the top 40 music right now wouldn't exist (not necessarily a bad thing since music I listen to is hardly available on iTunes anyways.)
There is so much misinformation being spread on this forum today.
I'll put it this way:
when a composer writes a music cue for a television show, he will receive performance royalties when the show airs. He will receive mechanical royalties if a soundtrack cd or DVD is sold. Currently, he will receive no money when someone downloads the tv show. This was not due to "bad negotiation" but due to the fact that when the contracts were negotiated, digital downloads of a tv show were not around. When they came about, nobody knew how to classify them, and therefore didn't classify them.
Now the composers would like to get paid for the work they did, when the tv/film studios make money off of their contributions.
I'll put it this way:
when a composer writes a music cue for a television show, he will receive performance royalties when the show airs. He will receive mechanical royalties if a soundtrack cd or DVD is sold. Currently, he will receive no money when someone downloads the tv show. This was not due to "bad negotiation" but due to the fact that when the contracts were negotiated, digital downloads of a tv show were not around. When they came about, nobody knew how to classify them, and therefore didn't classify them.
Now the composers would like to get paid for the work they did, when the tv/film studios make money off of their contributions.
I'm sorry but What's wrong with this? Their assumption is wrong, assuming you retain copyright over your work, they have no right to use it. So sue. You don't need a new law.
I don't remember these specific words used in this thread (although the sentiment has been there throughout), but...
Those 30 second samples are a COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
If you don't give the consumer a way to sample the goods, then why should they buy them?
Apple/PC Computers - available in store to try out
Ice cream shops - free sample tasting
New/Used car lots - Free test drive (and here again, customer uses gas, but doesn't pay for it - that's the dealership's cost of trying to sell you the car.)
The only place I can think of where it's not feasible to give free samples is at a restaurant, where everything is custom-cooked per customer. Even there though, if you try the first few bites and there's something wrong with it, you can usually exchange for something else.
Those 30 second samples are a COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
If you don't give the consumer a way to sample the goods, then why should they buy them?
Apple/PC Computers - available in store to try out
Ice cream shops - free sample tasting
New/Used car lots - Free test drive (and here again, customer uses gas, but doesn't pay for it - that's the dealership's cost of trying to sell you the car.)
The only place I can think of where it's not feasible to give free samples is at a restaurant, where everything is custom-cooked per customer. Even there though, if you try the first few bites and there's something wrong with it, you can usually exchange for something else.
You do realize that the members of ASCAP and BMI come from all over the world?
And as an active member of BMI (CAE/IPI #: 185239157), I hope we win.
You do realize that the members of ASCAP and BMI come from all over the world?
And as an active member of BMI (CAE/IPI #: 185239157), I hope we win.
Last I checked, there would be no reason for a foreignor to join BMI or ASCAP. Each country has their own PRO. Obviously you can join one from another country, but I don't see why any composer would, since you can only belong to one PRO. Might as well join the one in your own country.
Actually, the US is the only country to have more than one PRO, but that is a subject for another debate.
I'm a Baker. Where are MY royalties for those who smell my bread as they walk by my shop ? .......( hmm..." a smelling booth ...."
EXACTLY RIGHT! What people seem to not realize is that for the most part this isn't the big record companies or the Jay-Z's of the world fighting to get their fair share of the digital distribution pie - it's ASCAP!! Which is basically a union of sorts - more and organization - of People who write and make music. Many of these people sit in the basement studio and write the music that hollywood/TV/or a popular singer takes and records for their shows or albums. Most of them make very little money from their music and I think it's ridiculous to call them GREEDY.
Although I don't agree with the 30 second preview argument, I do agree that they should be getting money for their work and right now they're not. They're just trying to find some way to get some footing on the digital rights to their music.
Next thing you know they'll want me to pay a royalty for humming their tunes in the shower. These folks are utterly tone deaf when it comes to consumer sentiment. F 'em.
It's not ignorance. It's reality and practicality. No one held a gun to the writer's head in high school and told him he had to become a writer. There are plenty of jobs whose annual salary exceeds $5,000 per year (in fact, I think I made more than that at Burger King when I was in high school).
If writing songs doesn't pay, find a better job that does. That's what the rest of us have to do. If you want to make more money at what you do as an artist, charge more for your art. If no one will pay... find a different profession.
What anyone spends on Apple products has nothing to do with the argument.
What is relevant to the argument is the ridiculous notion that after a contract is signed (an agreement to which the writer agreed), and after challenging it in court, that they would lobby the government to fix a contract they should never have agreed to if they felt they were not going to be compensated well.
The idea that the current digital distribution method was not thought of when some of these contracts were signed is just too bad. Even in the 70's there were new distribution methods on the horizon. Agreeing to shortsighted wording is just dumb. Band together, hire a lawyer and write language that covers distribution methods current or yet to be invented.
Who is "Chuck Norris " ?
No, But seriously .
What are you babbling on about?
I get everything up till' "Chuck Norris "
.99 cents ? ...................Whaaaaaa ?
Do the producers or publishers of the show get paid when the show is streamed or downloaded?
If so, shouldn't they be the ones who pay the composer, consistent with how they would have been paid if a cd were sold...
*