Yet another ugly chapter in the music industry's push to commit suicide. The big name record companies and publishing unions have yet to deal with digital media in anything but a reactionary and self-defeating manner. The latest won't earn them anything except ill will. If fair use exists for written publishing standards, it should certainly exist for 30 second clips of music.
Hello Burt
· 2 months ago
I think the RIAA will ultimately bring destruction upon the record industry as we know it, and though I detest the RIAA, I cheer the end result. The record industry has ruined itself, and it needs to be torn apart before it can be rebuilt in a manner that's better for artists and for consumers. The RIAA's greed is bottomless, and don't let them tell you they're working in the best interests of the Artists – in almost all cases, the Artist isn't even consulted, yet the money the RIAA spends to pursue endless lawsuits (including suing grandmothers and college students for downloading music online without paying for it) comes from the Artist's cut. Monies spent by the RIAA are recouped from earnings before earnings are distributed, so they've got a blank check (paid from the Artist's money before the Artist would get it) to sue Artist's fans and lobby for new/higher fees. I say burn the whole thing down. Indie artists are doing it themselves now, and it's actually a GREAT right now time to be an independent music artist in control of your own career. The large labels and the RIAA are the dinosaurs, let's all pray for a comet.
Matthew Lowery
· 2 months ago
Greedy bastards.
Graham
· 2 months ago
The music industry along with the film industry will have to find other ways to generate revenue as the pay for a song track or film to download it and buying a CD/DVD are going to be short lived.
The governmental policies of fining illegal downloaders tens of thousands of dollars will just cause a backlash and free performers will clean up leaving the "stars" out in the cold. In My opinion a "performance" is only valid if it is a live performance, a recording being played is not a live performance and as such should not attract royalties and a download even less.
Performers should only be paid for live performances. This way we avoid all the piracy issues and people will be able to do what they want with the music.
Sonya A. Willis
· 3 weeks ago
Accidentally hit the I like button because I don't. "Performers should only be paid for live performances" is one of the stupidest comments I have ever seen. How about you don't get paid unless the product or service your company makes actually sells and can be attributed to you?
You prove that you know nothing about what it takes to make make music and should really keep quiet and enjoy the creativity of talented people.
enigma_0Z
· 2 months ago
Rediculous.
evanna
· 2 months ago
Exactly what I was gonna say.
evanna
· 2 months ago
Exactly what I was gonna say.
Grammar Police
· 2 months ago
I was going to say "ridiculous," if you can't spell, at least heed the convenient spell check warning.
enigma_0Z
· 2 months ago
Well, I did see the warning, just after I hit submit... I was going to correct myself on my horrible spelling, but I decided to not clutter up the first few comments with superfluous ravings about grammar and spelling. Plus, I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to actually correct me. Thanks for the citation.
Adam Hermann
· 2 months ago
Not necessary.
Ryan Barthel
· 2 months ago
sounds like they are trying to find any little way to make a buck..
MD
· 2 months ago
That's stupid! that's it.
Charlio
· 2 months ago
First I'm against both. BUT as an artist who could see $ from the performance royalty part, I can almost see it, BECAUSE, let me educate you, I recorded (performed) a song that I didn't write and the writer gets paid millions while my musical arrangement and artistic performance of the tracks earns me $0, 0%.
The royalties on the 30 second preview is PURE, UNFILTERED GREED, and stupid business sense.
The Eargasm
· 2 months ago
Hey Charlio,
I totally understand where you are coming from. But the music industry has changed dramatically due to technology and the ability to freely consume music without purchasing. Not to say that will not purchase your music, iTunes has seen billions of downloads. But I can say that people are less inclined to purchase whole albums unless they are fans of the artists.
I run a digital music magazine called http://www.theeargasm.com and we have noticed that todays artist are willing to give their music away for free in order to sell concert tickets and T-Shirts. Artist are even adding donate pages to their websites so that fans can donate money. Combination of recession, technology advances, and people demanding quality has made it even more difficult for talented musicians.
Your point about "performing" the recording makes sense, and I support you as an artist, however, the amount of times you "performed" that recording does not come close to the amount of times royalties would be paid for said performance, unlike an actual live performance which is a one shot pay deal. I don't even know if I worded that to make sense but I hear it haha.
Jim Goodrich
· 2 months ago
A fine, but very important hair to split here. The performance fees talked about here have nothing to do with the artists performing the work, unless they are the composer and/or publisher. ASCAP and BMI only represent Composers and Publishers, so artists who are performers only are still left out as this article reads.
Sounds Exchange is the only Performance Rights Organization (PRO) that represents non-composer/publisher performance artists. I don't see Sound Exchange mentioned here at all.
robblewis
· 2 months ago
Seems the music labels are reaching far and wide to make up the lost revenue.
Robbi
· 2 months ago
Reread, it's not music labels fighting for this.
Charles Roldan
· 2 months ago
Apple could just threaten to remove their music from iTunes...
Tyler
· 2 months ago
They could but they won't, that would be more detrimental than beneficial. Threatening would stir them up, maybe even to a point where they lash out or at least anger them further. Obviously removing music from iTunes would also hurt Apple's revenue and we all know that you don't want to make a threat you don't plan on following through with.
All in all, I would imagine that ASCAP and BMI are barking up the wrong trees and in all likelihood won't gain much except lost time and money. Something I'm all for. Burn that cash ASCAP and BMI!
payphone
· 1 month ago
If by "their music" you mean the songs ASCAP and BMI represent, there's a bit of a problem there-- these two PROs represent just about every song ever written in the US. Aside from small percentage of songs published through the third American PRO (SESAC) and those by international artists, what you're talking about is akin to removing all songs from iTunes.
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here about what ASCAP and BMI are, and what they do. Robbi is correct-- this is not a music label issue. Calling artists, labels, and publishers greedy at this point seems a little ridiculous. Hard to think of an industry that's been stolen from more ubiquitously, and with less remorse.
Might as well debunk the myth that the current model has leveled the playing field for artists big and small. While it's true that your local garage band can distribute their music much like a major label artist (iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.) the revenue gap between small artist and big artist is just as wide-- but what's really upsetting is that the digital music model has virtually eliminated the "middle class" of musicians-- bands that could expect to move 100,000 albums or so (enough to make a living) are now lucky to move 10,000 (enough to cover costs... and thats it). Meanwhile the top 00.01% of artists are the beneficiaries of the lion's share of new revenue streams (ringtones, etc.) and as always, those very same PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) only reward that same top 00.01% with performance royalties from radio and live performance. That's because the PROs don't pay artists based on how many times their songs are played on the radio, it's too much data to track. So they simply pay a sampling of the MOST played songs on a sampling of "A" playlists across the country. That means Kanye gets paid, but your favorite indie band doesn't. Same thing with live concert royalties-- BMI only pays royalties to the top 10 grossing tours of the fiscal year. Everyone else gets nothing, no matter how many shows they played. The royalty system, plus the digital delivery model simply ensures that mid-level acts will remain broke, no matter their popularity. Indie cred and 1,000,000 myspace friends simply do not pay bills.
Apologies for the long-winded missive. I'm one of the lucky ones whose music DOES pay the bills. Thought this page deserved a different point of view.
Brian Middleton
· 2 months ago
It's to bad that music companies don't use the funds for legal fees, etc to come up with a technological solution that works for them and listeners.
dez
· 2 months ago
Whatever happened to giving a reason to buy? I won't buy anything on the store without listening to the 30 second sample first. Obviously if this goes through (which I doubt it will) Apple won't have a choice in their business model except to push the cost to the consumer. I won't pay for samples.
Amanda Palmer is featured in this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/2337095343.shtml She is giving a reason for her fans to buy her music by connecting with them. The act of charging for everything will end up backfiring and causing more lost revenue.
Andrea Bowers Westmoreland
· 2 months ago
Regarding the " 30 Second Song Clip Licensing". I wonder how they will handle sampling songs in the music sections of various stores like Barnes & Noble ? Will the merchant have to pay or will the consumer put coins in a machine? Ridiculous!
pusser
· 2 months ago
The preview allows one to confirm it's the right tune. If they want to charge, then I should be able to return the product for a refund, as with other item I might buy and decide later I don't like.
Mack Ward
· 2 months ago
Honestly what on earth are they thinking wanting royalties from 30-second previews?! That is like Kellog's expecting money when a consumer picks up and examines a cereal box, but doesn't end up buying it! Ok so that might be a stretch but still, RIDICULOUS!!
jeffhammond001
· 2 months ago
I don't have problem with the licensing agencies attempting to maximize profits in the marketplace...that's business. I don't like the idea, though, of rent-seeking from Congress when the marketplace has said no to their attempt.
craigr
· 2 months ago
If the licensing companies win their case, and customers have to pay a performance fee to buy the music, it could put a ding in the case the RIAA makes in it's whole "sue our customer base" strategy. After all, if customers are paying for the right to play the song in public, it might set a precedent that they are paying for the right to share the music they buy. And if they've paid for the right to share, what is the RIAA suing for?
Jason Rukus
· 2 months ago
I think I can't wait for the complete shift to artist controlled music and the abolition of ASCAP and BMI. The idea an artist should get paid for advertising has been flawed from the start. Kraft doesn't get a royalty every time you see a cheese commercial.
Jim Goodrich
· 2 months ago
True, Kraft doesn't get paid every time an ad airs, but the talent does, Every voice over artist or actor that appears in that commercial gets residuals every time that commercial airs. And they have unions like SAG and AFTRA, not Performance Rights Organizations that control those payment arrangements and how they're disbursed.
And one other thing happens every time that commercial airs, Kraft pays for it, otherwise the commercial wouldn't air at all. A better analogy would be Free samples in a store, but then again Kraft still pays for that...and they also budget for it. It's only free to the consumer. Using this analogy, should artists have to pay for every 30 second preview played? I don't think so.
Jason Rukus
· 2 months ago
You went way to deep into that! I was just comparing it in a general sense, superficial comparison.
I am sure my musician friends would hate me for saying this but I would do away with the entire royalty system. Not surprisingly I am also against pensions. People should not continue to get paid for something they did 5 years ago, it's bred laziness.
How about this one, I don't pay my plumber every time I flush my toilet!
Jimmy Blocksom
· 2 months ago
Um, what's the point of a track preview if they're going to charge for it? Proving that a download of an MP3 is a public performance is impossible (and most likely a rare case). This totally reeks of desperation.
Shiloh
· 2 months ago
So when you would listen to music at the "listening stations" in the music stores to sample the cd and see if you want to buy it. Did they have to pay royalties for that? Same difference right. I think this is stupid and reaching.
Jason Feinberg
· 2 months ago
I run a music biz digital marketing company where we spend much of our time trying to get people to hear music of our clients in order to achieve the end result of a music, ticket, merchandise, or other purchase. We constantly find technology enabling us (e.g. tools to get music further and further) yet simultaneously find people in the industry crippling us. This is a perfect example - it's hard enough to get people to pay for something they can easily get for free; if retailers are forced to pay a royalty for sample clips, you can expect many to remove samples - one of the core assets that assist in selling music.
This is cutting off the nose to spite the face, plain and simple. Not to mention that, in my non-legal but somewhat-professional opinion, this is not public performance at all.
When Ben and Jerry's has someone standing outside giving out little spoonfuls of ice cream, the point isn't to eek out a couple cents, it's to make me want it and go in the store to spend 4 bucks.
Ugh.
Jennifer
· 2 months ago
These attempts to collect more profits are so greedy and full of fail they make my head spin.
Scott Bryant
· 2 months ago
I have questions that weren't addressed in the article:
Don't the musicians and their representatives collect royalties or residuals when we purchase and download music, videos, etc. anyway? Isn't that fee already built into the purchase?
For the record, I am in favor of artists being able to profit from their creativity and labor. Pirating disgusts me. I think there SHOULD be licensing fees for the commercial use of music, art, photography, etc.
But this makes no sense to me. The act of downloading is a business exchange that follows the purchase of a product, not a performance. Previews are a form of advertising that already benefits the artist.
I don't get it.
Justin
· 2 months ago
Very well put Scott, I gotta call foul on this move by the recording industry. I myself an artist and I make sure that I cover my bases in this area for my own work. But I'm not going to put my art in a gallery then post-agreement say "you know a lot of people got to look at my art..! I want 10 cents a head for additional viewing fees!". If I want some sort of compensation for the viewing of my art thats in my opinion an assumed part of my initial agreement with the gallery if not already clearly stated in some sort of a contractual agreement.
Bryan Howland
· 2 months ago
Next, publishers will charge Barnes & Nobles customers for "previewing" books in stores.
BTW - nice image choice for the article. Neko Case has an amazing voice.
derek_lee
· 2 months ago
Seems like they're really reaching with a performance fee for 30-second samples. It's bad enough that sometimes the 30-second segments don't give the consumer enough good information to make an informed decision. Maybe they should take a look inward to figure out ways to work more efficiently or leaner. Then there wouldn't have to be so many middle-men, and unnecessary salaries to cover. But with every song these days, comes a huge entourage that are all expensive apparently.
Name
· 2 months ago
This is a ludicrous way to stave off the imminent collapse of the record industry!
Preternatural
· 2 months ago
Do these guys not realize how beneficial these 30 second snippets are in talking me down from a purchase? Apparently they do. Yes, I often end up buying something that I never planned on simply from hearing the preview. Yet there are many more times, the preview says, 'look cat, this song isn't what you thought it was'. I jest a little. Their ever decreasing profit is of great concern to be sure. Needless to say, profit by a thousand cuts is preferable to complete irrelevance or maybe just the result of it. If only they had worked with the early digital music movement and consumers for reasonable solutions, vs. investing in 'remote kill switches' and 'self-destruct upon infringement' code, they might actually have a more trusted voice in this debate.
Sadly, after years of obstructionism, antagonism and crying to congress about consumer un-trustworthiness, they resort to well more of the same really. I continue to believe that the best way for business to improve profit and navigate economic instability begins and ends with innovating new and better products, with an eye towards increased quality. When all that is left is litigation and profit model life support (Congress) there are no more new ideas, which typically signals decline.
GCGrafixx
· 2 months ago
Anyone else see ASCAP & BMI doing their best Ahab/Khan impression here??
"To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"
Indeed, a sad, sad set of circumstances m'friend....
- @GCGrafixx
Marcello
· 2 months ago
ASCAP and BMI are right, especially with regards to TV downloads. If someone is making money off of my music, I should get my fair share. And if they don't want to pay me, then they can remove my music from their TV programs.
teeveejournal
· 2 months ago
I completely agree with this in the case of downloads (not previews). If they are making money off this, the original artist needs to get a cut.
doctorparadox
· 2 months ago
The artists are getting a cut though, because they get a mechanical licensing fee to use the recording in the TV or film in the first place. Sometimes the additional broadcast performance fee when the TV show airs is referred to as "double dipping" because of this. If the TV show is streamed, the artists still gets the double dip performance fee -- but if it's a download they don't.
Their issue regarding TV, I think I understand, and can get behind. Fees for licensing 30-sec previews....time to dust off my limewire.
Ace Plughead
· 2 months ago
This makes no sense to me. What are the big media conglomerates going to do next? Start charging us to view movie trailers? Or maybe we'll have to start paying royalties for all the TV commercials and internet advertising we consume as well? Or how about a "user fee" for looking at album artwork?
I wish there was a bit more journalistic integrity with posts about this topic. Saying "music industry" is quite general. This is NOT record labels, this is BMI and ASCAP; royalty collecting companies that collect money from things like internet streaming, radio play, in store play; any open-air use of a song.
"The music industry" is a big thing, please be more specific and stop continuing to miss-represent companies. It would like like saying "Social Networks" when really just Facebook was doing something, it isn't fair to an industry as a whole.
doctorparadox
· 2 months ago
I tried to be very clear in the article who is leading this charge: ASCAP and BMI. However, to imply that ASCAP and BMI are not a part of the "music industry" is also not accurate. Nor do I see the labels up in arms opposing what the licensing wing of the music industry is doing.
1369ic
· 2 months ago
Modern mass communication & technology built this beast, and they are killing it. First they enabled performers to reach mass markets, and markets to learn about the performers. Inevitably an industry grew up to exploit the money that was then concentrated from all over toward the best/most popular artists instead of being more diffused as it was in the past (nobody in America making money from performances in, say, Germany, unless they traveled there to perform). In the long historical context of performers, this concentration a fluke enabled by technology. Now mass communication & technology have progressed past the point at which one group can have a monopoly on worthwhile reproduction, and the system is coming back into balance. The era of rock star pay may well dying. And the industry around those rock stars will die with it. In nature the useless bits -- those that produce nothing, but only suck money out of the system --would die first. The legal system will keep that from happening, but eventually they will shrivel.
lioness823
· 2 months ago
I can understand getting paid when a TV show or movie is purchased and downloaded if everyone else is getting a share of the pie. Though downloading movies and TV shows is supposed to be for private use not public performance.
The same holds true for those 30 second clips. They aren't a public performance. They are listened to in the comfort and privacy of one's own home. It's not like someone is sitting in some wi-fi hotspot with their computer/cell phone hooked to some sort of PA system playing the clips.
I'm so disgusted with all the greedy people in the music industry and think they are pretty much on the same level as the greedy pigs on Wall Street who got us into the financial mess in the first place. There's a reason that greed is one of the seven deadly sins and we're currently living through the proof.
Ace Plughead
· 2 months ago
This makes no sense to me. What are the big media conglomerates going to do next? Start charging us to view movie trailers? Or maybe we'll have to start paying royalties for all the TV commercials and internet advertising we consume as well? Or how about a "user fee" for looking at album artwork?
Jenna Vento
· 2 months ago
this is just ridiculous.
Carina
· 2 months ago
Since when does sales constitute performance? I agree that the artist should get theirs, but go after the labels, don't imitate them by charging for everything. No one, including myself, is going to pay for a preview. And how is previewing and downloading different from going into a music store in the days of old and previewing and purchasing? Lame.
Ing
· 2 months ago
Sweet Jesus. (Oh, wait...I bet he owes performance royalties, too.)
A download is a performance? By that reasoning, every store that ever sold a record, tape, or CD owes performance royalties. Crazy.
The music industry needs to DIE so that music itself can actually live and breathe again. Record companies and licensing agencies are keeping most of the money from recorded music anyway. Unless your albums sell tens of millions of copies, you can't actually live on the proceeds. In bottom-line terms, for the vast majority of musicians, recording is actually just a terribly expensive loss leader -- they make their real living by playing live and selling merchandise.
bassclef
· 2 months ago
This is just going to make me pirate more.
Push Start
· 2 months ago
This is absurd on at least three levels.
Jerod
· 2 months ago
listen to more independent music and it won't matter much
Vincent
· 2 months ago
I couldn't care less, I am boycotting all their shit anyway and will only put money on the table for live performances! Somehow this is even positive, because I know more people will join the boycott of the big labels (and movie industry for that matter) and they will die a slow death (so to speak).
michael5
· 2 months ago
I wonder how long they would last if everyone gave up on music?
grungebob
· 2 months ago
I don't think my local music store pays a 'public performance' fee for having a multi CD sampling stand with headsets. This is retarded.
deestewart
· 2 months ago
Wow, this is beyond greedy now.
Tiux
· 2 months ago
Greedyculous ;-)
Fábio Oliveira
· 2 months ago
Never in their lives. Even a ringtone has a preview. What can I do with a preview?
Eric
· 2 months ago
Get the money anywhere you can, right? But with CD popularity declining, and on-line purchases being key, you got to get creative. all i can say is that this is a bit extreme considering those new Royalties were never imposed from sampling music in stores.
vanessa
· 2 months ago
No way does a download constitute a performance, it's absolutely ridiculous that they're trying to get away with that. And also, with charging for 30 second sound clips, I wish they would realize the more they pull strings at legal downloading, the more people will illegally download. When Apple gets charged for every 30 second sound clip played, they'll raise the prices of downloads to make up the cost. When people revert to illegal downloading and sharing of music to avoid these costs, Apple, BMI, ASCAP, the labels, the artists, and the industry as a whole will take a hit. Either that or people will go back to buying CDs, which I can't be mad about, as unlikely a possibility as it is. We finally reached a common ground between artist, label and consumer - why are they now swooping in and making demands?
brandon hixon
· 2 months ago
once again, another music industry FAIL!
Scott
· 2 months ago
Just another example of how out of touch the old music companies are - They're stuck in the 80's when it all started going wrong for them (I know because I was signed to EMI) and ever since then they just cannot seem to get their heads around the long tail.
A lot more people would buy music (and a lot more of it) it tracks were sold for 50p or less. And at 25p no-one would even be interested in piracy.
It's a new world and new solutions are required.
CaptainJamos
· 2 months ago
then i guess all those stores that have headphones to sample cds before buying will have coin dispensers. dumb.
GCGrafixx
· 2 months ago
So....a 30 second preview on I-tunes...is that the same thing as when you "BOOP!" the UPC code of a CD @ Walmart with their cheesy vinyl headphones on?? Do THEY pay a "per BOOP!" fee??
And when FYE has some Hanna Montana CD blaring when you walk in their store...where's that cha-ching go? Any thoughts??
GCGrafixx
· 2 months ago
Man, the more I think about this...GRRRRR!
"Performance fee"....hmmmm If I were to purchase a CD at a local store for $13, and that same CD had 13 tracks on it, how much of that $13 is performance fees for each track? If there were no performance fees, would I technically be able to get this same CD for a buck or so?
My scalp is red from all this head scratching this article has created...
@GCGrafixx
mime
· 2 months ago
so should i go back to gnutella & co.?
Brad F.
· 2 months ago
Hell no, on both counts. Are they retarded?
At no point during the download is there a performance. The damn song doesn't even play during the download.
As for the 30 second clip they want to tax... they must be retarded. If people can't preview a song they're less likely to buy it. It will just drive more people to use P2P to "test it out" and then ... maybe not pay for it since they already have it anyway.
Holy crap. How old are the people in charge of these two organizations? 100?
Twilightred
· 2 months ago
Ugh. Royalties on the short clips that let you decide whether you want to buy their product or not? That's just disgusting. I had thought the music industry had begun to learn some kind of lesson about interacting with consumers during the digital age and allowed us a small, though often insufficient, clip to test whether we want the full product. I guess I was wrong.
Jim Steele
· 2 months ago
...and Nordstrom should start charging a fee to try on shoes.
Mirek Polyniak
· 2 months ago
Greed isn't OK - shortly they will ask us to pay for listening to oth ppl ringtones, watching screen in shop window when passing by and then these greedy bastards are surprised that piracy is flourishing...
robin
· 2 months ago
What a bunch of crap... Don't they realize they are killing the music industry with this ridiculous fees? This will only drive more people into pirating. Man, times have changed. I do agree that artists should get paid for their work, but how many Ferrari's do those guys need? If you don't innovate, your business dies... This has always been the case and will always be. Quit whining and start innovating. Times have changed, this is not the 80's!
Craig
· 2 months ago
I am just waiting for them to shut Grooveshark down. I use it for hours everyday. Best place for free music, although you can't download anything.
Steven Finch
· 2 months ago
This just shows that the major labels and organisations still dont have any idea what they are doing.
Gins
· 2 months ago
The major labels have fought the digital revolution tooth & nail. The infamous Wired interview Doug Morris (head of Universal) a couple of years ago summed it up when he declared that they didn't have anyone internally who understood the internet, especially Napster, when it first broke. Hard to find an internet expert in NYC, Doug... Anyway-rather than embracing digital technology, the labels have desperately tried to shoehorn their existing business model into this newfangled interweb, with dismal results. Suing customers, charging exorbitant licensing fees on streaming, raising prices on iTunes, seeking legislative assistance to repeal radio's performance tax (radio is another industry committing suicide btw)...it's all a giant fail on the labels' part. Making it more onerous on your potential consumers to sample music prior to purchase is just one more example of desperate greed replacing common sense. Perhaps the label heads should create a partnership with Procter & Gamble so that they may research more futile ways to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube...
Peter
· 2 months ago
And while the music industry is at it, they should charge record stores for letting customers listen albums they were interested in buying. I guess this is what happens when an industry is run by attorneys. Sheesh, what a bunch of morons.
What we really need is a way for artists to connect directly to listeners and bypass these parasites.
Daniel Hahn
· 2 months ago
Un-frickin-believable. If they do this, the trend downward in piracy will go back up. It's not like the music industry is hurting for money!
universalindierecords
· 2 months ago
"— since when did it become smart business to spend time and money actively preventing your potential customers from finding out if they want to give you money"
That said it all right there.
Musician
· 2 months ago
Consider this. Radio, TV, Malls, Elevators, Bars, Restaurants all have to pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI (non-profit organizations that represent songwriters and music publishers, by the way). To suggest that websites that earn revenue from advertising shouldn't have to pay royalties for music is inconsistent.
MySpace, and other websites that have "free" music, sell advertising on their pages. So, MySpace is making money, bands and musicians aren't.
Apple is making money by selling computers/iPods/iPhones. Their primary way of selling these products is iTunes.
Apple keeps 30% of everything sold on iTunes (it's a dictatorship, not a democracy for free music). Apple dictates the price of the songs. Apple requires that artists make single songs available instead of entire albums. Apple is a mega-corporation. Why shouldn't Apple have to pay royalties on song samples?
Vincent
· 2 months ago
That's only possible because the music industry doesn't allow others to sell real mp3's on a big scale. If they would do that for a better price and with HQ mp3's, Apple will loose that dictatorship within a year! The music industry makes Apple this strong!
Shaun Michael MacDonald
· 2 months ago
Tis the nature of the taxman to tax everything, but the industry is dumbstruck in a mode of saying they want to win back the youth and play nice in the morning, while coming out with this bully shit in the afternoon.
The indignation of this article suits the story. Let the lawyers wear it, find a scapegoat, and retreat. When will the business leaders get in front of this war with their own consumers and technology inventors?
Our team at www.mashuparts.com believe that Fair Use must be protected, and the only model that will work is one where they is a lot more legal "free" music, clips and discovery opportunities, and that the "free" is always coupled with upsell offers for premium content.
Shaun
Dimple Thakkar
· 2 months ago
I work in the industry. It is full of panic, desperation, and instability. This may hurt them more than help them.
As a professional musician this is not necessarily a GREEDy move as you so put it. ASCAP and BMI are actually responsible for making sure that the artists get paid when their life's work is publicly performed. Digital music download hubs such as iTunes are often used for public performance. I've used iTunes many a time to show my friends a song I was talking about. 30 second clips ARE technically public performances and artists should get paid for it. Apple makes billions of dollars and I think can afford to pay ASCAP and BMI a few cents every time a song is played. Artists don't make ANY money on digital downloads through iTunes because of how much they take out. Digital distribution is a big joke for musicians and I hope to see it get better in the future where artists get at least SOME compensation when their work is heard on the Web. I think this could possible be a really good thing for musicians if it's done right.
Vincent
· 2 months ago
Perhaps it's not GREED, it's desperation. Of course you are right by saying Apple has got a cut too big for their share in the process, but that does not mean ASCAP and BMI are right in this matter. Apple isn't stating that they are protectors of the rights of musicians, ASCAP and BMI are stating that. They should pay you as a musician for the downloads on iTunes. If this goes through, I don't think you will see more than a dime of the money they will collect. You say 30 second clips ARE technically public performances, but that isn't necessarily true, because when played, most people won't be in a public place, therefore it isn't a public performance (not talking of the fact there is no performance at all of course!). New business models are rising while the old fall down. This one will fall down, sooner or later! It all starts with loosing 'goodwill' and that's just what they accomplish by actions like these. Stop seeing live performances as promotion for your albums and start seeing it the other way around, albums and mp3's are for promoting your live performances (the actual labor!). That is one of the models from the past that will come back in the future! Don't be afraid of that change, but go with it!
Spoonerism
· 2 months ago
Pathetic is all I can say. As a musician, and avid listener of music I can say that this is desperate greed at its worst.
Spoonerism
· 2 months ago
Amber, I can see your logic. But really? For a thirty second clip? by charging royalties for every thirty second preview, ASCAP and BMI will make billions, and Apple will be forced to ratchet up Itunes prices even more. The average listener, as I know from talking to most of my friends and people here in Missoula, basically won't pay more than a dollar for a download already. So you're looking at a trade off. Yes you may make less money from an individual song, but the free preview attracts more listeners in the end (provided the music's good o'course). Seeing that this is the day and age of the single, you're going to want to sell volume and keep prices low to ensure that. Walmart tactics, yes they're scuzzy, but they work.
Nico Thom
· 2 months ago
remember the times when you bought music in a record store? you would be able to listen into the albums with headphones - not limited to 30 sec per track. a service leading to purchase of music. now would anybody charge the record store for the minutes of music played? stupid approach, biting the hand that feeds you...
Sei deMarks
· 1 month ago
In their efforts to squeeze every penny from the digital music landscape, the PRO's are beginning to sound suspiciously like the double-think government officials in Orwell's 1984. Royalties for a 30 second preview - Huh? Performance fees for a digital download - Huh? Next they'll want performance and digital download fees when we sing the songs in our heads.
sevenwhitehorses
· 1 month ago
wow, the whole reason i buy music on line is i can see if it is something i will enjoy. it even generates, about 50% of the time, me buying the 'cd' at the store for a gift. if they manage to prevent this or charge for it i'll just go back to listening to my old collection.
Kid Cork
· 1 month ago
While I agree that the internet has polarized much of the music industry, I would disagree that it has completely eliminated the "middle class" of musicians. There are still plenty of local only names that aren't ridiculously popular and wealthy, but not an average bar band. Living in Colorado, I get to see a lot of them, like the Boulder Acoustic Society, Opie Gone Bad, ect.
I do agree that we need to distinguish between publishing companies like ASCAP/BMI and labels though, Their workings are very different, if not always there motives. Solid points though friends!
All Comments
The governmental policies of fining illegal downloaders tens of thousands of dollars will just cause a backlash and free performers will clean up leaving the "stars" out in the cold. In My opinion a "performance" is only valid if it is a live performance, a recording being played is not a live performance and as such should not attract royalties and a download even less.
Performers should only be paid for live performances. This way we avoid all the piracy issues and people will be able to do what they want with the music.
You prove that you know nothing about what it takes to make make music and should really keep quiet and enjoy the creativity of talented people.
correct myself on my horrible spelling, but I decided to not clutter
up the first few comments with superfluous ravings about grammar and
spelling. Plus, I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to
actually correct me. Thanks for the citation.
The royalties on the 30 second preview is PURE, UNFILTERED GREED, and stupid business sense.
I totally understand where you are coming from. But the music industry has changed dramatically due to technology and the ability to freely consume music without purchasing. Not to say that will not purchase your music, iTunes has seen billions of downloads. But I can say that people are less inclined to purchase whole albums unless they are fans of the artists.
I run a digital music magazine called http://www.theeargasm.com and we have noticed that todays artist are willing to give their music away for free in order to sell concert tickets and T-Shirts. Artist are even adding donate pages to their websites so that fans can donate money. Combination of recession, technology advances, and people demanding quality has made it even more difficult for talented musicians.
Feel free to check out my site - www.theeargasm.com
Sounds Exchange is the only Performance Rights Organization (PRO) that represents non-composer/publisher performance artists. I don't see Sound Exchange mentioned here at all.
All in all, I would imagine that ASCAP and BMI are barking up the wrong trees and in all likelihood won't gain much except lost time and money. Something I'm all for. Burn that cash ASCAP and BMI!
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here about what ASCAP and BMI are, and what they do. Robbi is correct-- this is not a music label issue. Calling artists, labels, and publishers greedy at this point seems a little ridiculous. Hard to think of an industry that's been stolen from more ubiquitously, and with less remorse.
Might as well debunk the myth that the current model has leveled the playing field for artists big and small. While it's true that your local garage band can distribute their music much like a major label artist (iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.) the revenue gap between small artist and big artist is just as wide-- but what's really upsetting is that the digital music model has virtually eliminated the "middle class" of musicians-- bands that could expect to move 100,000 albums or so (enough to make a living) are now lucky to move 10,000 (enough to cover costs... and thats it). Meanwhile the top 00.01% of artists are the beneficiaries of the lion's share of new revenue streams (ringtones, etc.) and as always, those very same PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) only reward that same top 00.01% with performance royalties from radio and live performance. That's because the PROs don't pay artists based on how many times their songs are played on the radio, it's too much data to track. So they simply pay a sampling of the MOST played songs on a sampling of "A" playlists across the country. That means Kanye gets paid, but your favorite indie band doesn't. Same thing with live concert royalties-- BMI only pays royalties to the top 10 grossing tours of the fiscal year. Everyone else gets nothing, no matter how many shows they played. The royalty system, plus the digital delivery model simply ensures that mid-level acts will remain broke, no matter their popularity. Indie cred and 1,000,000 myspace friends simply do not pay bills.
Apologies for the long-winded missive. I'm one of the lucky ones whose music DOES pay the bills. Thought this page deserved a different point of view.
Amanda Palmer is featured in this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/2337095343.shtml
She is giving a reason for her fans to buy her music by connecting with them. The act of charging for everything will end up backfiring and causing more lost revenue.
And one other thing happens every time that commercial airs, Kraft pays for it, otherwise the commercial wouldn't air at all. A better analogy would be Free samples in a store, but then again Kraft still pays for that...and they also budget for it. It's only free to the consumer. Using this analogy, should artists have to pay for every 30 second preview played? I don't think so.
I am sure my musician friends would hate me for saying this but I would do away with the entire royalty system. Not surprisingly I am also against pensions. People should not continue to get paid for something they did 5 years ago, it's bred laziness.
How about this one, I don't pay my plumber every time I flush my toilet!
This is cutting off the nose to spite the face, plain and simple. Not to mention that, in my non-legal but somewhat-professional opinion, this is not public performance at all.
When Ben and Jerry's has someone standing outside giving out little spoonfuls of ice cream, the point isn't to eek out a couple cents, it's to make me want it and go in the store to spend 4 bucks.
Ugh.
Don't the musicians and their representatives collect royalties or residuals when we purchase and download music, videos, etc. anyway? Isn't that fee already built into the purchase?
For the record, I am in favor of artists being able to profit from their creativity and labor. Pirating disgusts me. I think there SHOULD be licensing fees for the commercial use of music, art, photography, etc.
But this makes no sense to me. The act of downloading is a business exchange that follows the purchase of a product, not a performance. Previews are a form of advertising that already benefits the artist.
I don't get it.
BTW - nice image choice for the article. Neko Case has an amazing voice.
Sadly, after years of obstructionism, antagonism and crying to congress about consumer un-trustworthiness, they resort to well more of the same really. I continue to believe that the best way for business to improve profit and navigate economic instability begins and ends with innovating new and better products, with an eye towards increased quality. When all that is left is litigation and profit model life support (Congress) there are no more new ideas, which typically signals decline.
"To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"
Indeed, a sad, sad set of circumstances m'friend....
- @GCGrafixx
Stef
http://www.sarahzero.com
"The music industry" is a big thing, please be more specific and stop continuing to miss-represent companies. It would like like saying "Social Networks" when really just Facebook was doing something, it isn't fair to an industry as a whole.
The same holds true for those 30 second clips. They aren't a public performance. They are listened to in the comfort and privacy of one's own home. It's not like someone is sitting in some wi-fi hotspot with their computer/cell phone hooked to some sort of PA system playing the clips.
I'm so disgusted with all the greedy people in the music industry and think they are pretty much on the same level as the greedy pigs on Wall Street who got us into the financial mess in the first place. There's a reason that greed is one of the seven deadly sins and we're currently living through the proof.
A download is a performance? By that reasoning, every store that ever sold a record, tape, or CD owes performance royalties. Crazy.
The music industry needs to DIE so that music itself can actually live and breathe again. Record companies and licensing agencies are keeping most of the money from recorded music anyway. Unless your albums sell tens of millions of copies, you can't actually live on the proceeds. In bottom-line terms, for the vast majority of musicians, recording is actually just a terribly expensive loss leader -- they make their real living by playing live and selling merchandise.
Somehow this is even positive, because I know more people will join the boycott of the big labels (and movie industry for that matter) and they will die a slow death (so to speak).
A lot more people would buy music (and a lot more of it) it tracks were sold for 50p or less. And at 25p no-one would even be interested in piracy.
It's a new world and new solutions are required.
dumb.
And when FYE has some Hanna Montana CD blaring when you walk in their store...where's that cha-ching go? Any thoughts??
"Performance fee"....hmmmm If I were to purchase a CD at a local store for $13, and that same CD had 13 tracks on it, how much of that $13 is performance fees for each track? If there were no performance fees, would I technically be able to get this same CD for a buck or so?
My scalp is red from all this head scratching this article has created...
@GCGrafixx
At no point during the download is there a performance. The damn song doesn't even play during the download.
As for the 30 second clip they want to tax... they must be retarded. If people can't preview a song they're less likely to buy it. It will just drive more people to use P2P to "test it out" and then ... maybe not pay for it since they already have it anyway.
Holy crap. How old are the people in charge of these two organizations? 100?
and then these greedy bastards are surprised that piracy is flourishing...
Anyway-rather than embracing digital technology, the labels have desperately tried to shoehorn their existing business model into this newfangled interweb, with dismal results. Suing customers, charging exorbitant licensing fees on streaming, raising prices on iTunes, seeking legislative assistance to repeal radio's performance tax (radio is another industry committing suicide btw)...it's all a giant fail on the labels' part. Making it more onerous on your potential consumers to sample music prior to purchase is just one more example of desperate greed replacing common sense. Perhaps the label heads should create a partnership with Procter & Gamble so that they may research more futile ways to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube...
What we really need is a way for artists to connect directly to listeners and bypass these parasites.
That said it all right there.
MySpace, and other websites that have "free" music, sell advertising on their pages. So, MySpace is making money, bands and musicians aren't.
Apple is making money by selling computers/iPods/iPhones. Their primary way of selling these products is iTunes.
Apple keeps 30% of everything sold on iTunes (it's a dictatorship, not a democracy for free music). Apple dictates the price of the songs. Apple requires that artists make single songs available instead of entire albums. Apple is a mega-corporation. Why shouldn't Apple have to pay royalties on song samples?
The indignation of this article suits the story. Let the lawyers wear it, find a scapegoat, and retreat. When will the business leaders get in front of this war with their own consumers and technology inventors?
Our team at www.mashuparts.com believe that Fair Use must be protected, and the only model that will work is one where they is a lot more legal "free" music, clips and discovery opportunities, and that the "free" is always coupled with upsell offers for premium content.
Shaun
- Dimple Thakkar
www.synhergyentertainment.com
You say 30 second clips ARE technically public performances, but that isn't necessarily true, because when played, most people won't be in a public place, therefore it isn't a public performance (not talking of the fact there is no performance at all of course!).
New business models are rising while the old fall down. This one will fall down, sooner or later! It all starts with loosing 'goodwill' and that's just what they accomplish by actions like these. Stop seeing live performances as promotion for your albums and start seeing it the other way around, albums and mp3's are for promoting your live performances (the actual labor!). That is one of the models from the past that will come back in the future! Don't be afraid of that change, but go with it!
Next they'll want performance and digital download fees when we sing the songs in our heads.
I do agree that we need to distinguish between publishing companies like ASCAP/BMI and labels though, Their workings are very different, if not always there motives. Solid points though friends!