Now, I'm assuming the m usic industry already collects lots of money from Barnes and Noble for their in-store 30 second sampler machines, and all the other on-line samplers I can listen to like Amazon etc.???
That said, I currently base 100% of my purchases on 1. their popularity on iTunes and 2. the 30 second sample I get. If they take the sample away, it will probably cut my purchases and their profits in half because I rarely get a chance to listen to the radio and when I do, they rarely tell me what the song's called nowadays.
So go ahead music industry, cut your nose off to spite your face, you've done it before!
For each week In the month of November Apple should turn off 30 second clips for each of the major labels.
Week 1 - EMI
Week 2 - Sony
etc etc etc
Let's hear how loud they can squeal!
If they are actually serious about getting compensation for 30 second clips being sampled then Apple would have no choice but to turn it off.. I could sample 20 songs before I pick the one I like if I wanted to. They'd loose out big time.
Quote:
With regards to the 30-second samples shoppers can stream before the buy, industry officials believe they should be paid a "performance" income from Apple, much like when a song is played in a public venue like on the radio or at a sports game. It's the same situation, they say, for movies and TV shows that feature licensed music.
This has to be the biggest joke ever. Apple should actually turn off the sample feature and play an explanation for why they can no longer hear them and if I were in charge inform them to look at the P2P groups if you'd like to hear a sample.
It's not as crazy as the Appleinsider synopsis makes it seem. The goal is to make sure that as distribution moves away from TV to the internet, that artists continue to be fairly compensated.
..SNIP..
- The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction from what's really at stake here.
- It's not about punishing end users
- or trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple).
This article is gas on flame but it's really missing the point and pissing people off for no reason.
You say it's:
- Not about punishing the end users
- Not about trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple).
- The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction
Yet, when it comes down to it... This is exactly what they are doing.
Now you know it doesn't stop here..
When the new Web-LP (and whatever the labels are going to call theirs) gets put into full swing a WHOLE NEW GAGGLE of the artists, photographers, writers, models, random people in the photos, car makers, etc that were used as eye candy for a groups album are ALL going to come with their hands out looking for a penny or more for each photo used or for each time a half naked chick appears on a 80s metal band album. How about Ford motor company you gotta know that they'll be demanding kickbacks from every ZZ Top Album that featured The Eliminator... and since it was specially customized by a hot rod detailer (Billy Gibbons) he's gonna want HIS money FAIR is FAIR right? These people gotta eat too!
Now that I think about this with a clear head... an awful lot of the music you're hearing today wouldn't even be possible without the incredible audio software they use in the studios, shouldn't the company that owns the software get their fair share? How about Levi's its an american institution and their blue jeans are considered a work of Art by many. Now, if car companies get kick backs for appearing on Web-LPs then damn it, so should Levi's! Hey Gibson too! Thats another work of art and without the Gibson Less Paul the music industry would be DEAD. Gibson clearly deserves a least a nickel per song.
I know I'm leaving out a WHOLE cast and crew of other examples but don't worry they will all be come crawling out of the woodwork soon enough!
I hope it gets to the point where a CD will cost (with all the royalties rolled in) somewhere north of $75 bucks... Yea then the industry can collapse into the nothingness.
I think that the artists should be more concerned with youtube (and sites like vixy.net) then with iTunes playing a 30 second sample, and actually selling their work for a fee.
What's more the point is the 30 second Itunes sound clips are an sales enticement akin to flicking through a magazine to see if it worth buying. It is definitely NOT a performance in the normal sense that applies in a commercial transaction. Where do these guys get off
I think that the artists should be more concerned with youtube (and sites like vixy.net) then with iTunes playing a 30 second sample, and actually selling their work for a fee.
i agree with you, i dont know why they always come hard on online music stores
Apple should turn this around and charge the artists a fee for advertising their work for them.
They are looking for performance fees for their adverts and they also want performance fees for downloads of videos etc. on top of their existing license agreements with their publishers.
Do these guys get performance fees for dvd sales? CD sales etc???
Maybe they should be getting better lawyers to negotiate their licenses with the publishers rather than going after the outlets and end users.
Ok, so Apple is forced (I don't think so), into paying .0025¢ each time a snippet is paid ? ok, Apple is going to raise the price for a download to $1.05!
Oh, if they do, then we want .025¢ more per preview / download?
Ok, then we (Apple) will raise the price for listening or downloading to $1.25 per ?
Oh if you do, then we want .25¢ more each time ?
No problem, we'll just raise the rate to download each song to $3.50 ?!
F-ck this shit, I'll just download the songs I want illegally, and not pay ANYTHING ? how do you like them apples!
Now you all have to get a real job, because your greed put you out of business! At least we won't have to listen to you piss and moan anymore
Actually, you can be sure that the airlines either pay for showing movies or they have some special arrangement with the studios concerning movies. Movies on planes are a good example of what the "public performance" guideline was really supposed to address. A much grayer area is music in stores. You can be sure that if a store has music playing on a sound system with more than 2 speakers, they are definitely paying the RIAA. I have a friend who owns a wine store and because of this fact he just has two speakers and he only plays NPR radio stations.
Yes, I'm sure the RIAA is getting their cut from legitimate businesses who play movies/music. But are they paying a performance fee to the artist? Which is what the article seems to be saying what artists want from iTunes. I agree that broadcasting a movie or music on an airplane is a performance. I don't agree that downloading and watching or listening is a performance.
You know, if you think about it from Apple's angle, perhaps no longer offering the 30 second samples may decline sales and if Amazon continues to offer them, would it be fair to predict amazon's music sales would suddenly increase? And you know, these companies share the revenue generated from such sales, so perhaps the royalty guys are just trying to make a business model even more lucrative through forced competition to continue offering the previews?
Royalties for your own ads? Those 30 sec. free samples are ADVERTISING for your work, songwriters. You want Apple to pay for the privilege of increasing sales of your work? How stupid are you?
Maybe they're pissed off at those of us who hear a 30 second snippet and decide NOT to buy??
So does this mean they'll have to add coin slots to the listening stations in the record stores?
I think what we need see happen here is a new label model. At this point, I think the likes of iTunes and Amazon should start taking the role of labels and actually signing artist. Work out the distribution between competitors, and this time give more power to the artist. If the label no longer has to print CDs, or jackets, and manage distribution cost of physical media, they shouldn't the artist be benefiting more? Lets not take the eye off the ball when it comes to the bottom line when it comes to the artists - it's the labels that are trying to maintain 'their' profits margins at the expense of the artist.
I think you just figured out why the Beatles aren't on iTunes. At some point in the near future "Apple Records" is going to take on a whole new meaning.
Hearing songs in TV shows and having access to 30-second previews drives sales. For everyone in the music industry they are a necessary cost of doing business.
Does CBS have to pay Chrysler to use Chargers in their crime dramas? No, Chrysler has to pay CBS for the product placement. Otherwise the producer might decide to use Mustangs instead and that would be bad for Chrysler.
The same dynamic exists for songs. Artists should be overjoyed when a musical director chooses their song for a TV show and doesn't charge them a humongous product placement fee.
Asking for more money is only going to reduce availability of their music and lower sales, but if that's what they want we shouldn't stand in their way.
It's not as crazy as the Appleinsider synopsis makes it seem. The goal is to make sure that as distribution moves away from TV to the internet, that artists continue to be fairly compensated.
You can't just say 'too bad you signed a crappy contract' because I can tell you that artists very rarely have the power to control those crappy contracts and are often forced to either sign them or simply not work at all.
This is a poor reason. If the contracts are that one sided then they can be challenged under 'shocks the conscience of the court' and 'signed under duress' aspects of contract law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars
The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction from what's really at stake here. It's not about punishing end users or trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple). This article is gas on flame but it's really missing the point and pissing people off for no reason.
No Reason? Did you actually READ the article you cited?
"These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples."
"ASCAP and BMI have their sights set on collecting fees from three main areas: downloads of music; downloads of films and TV shows, and 30-second song samples."
The article clearly states TWICE that the 30-second song samples are one of the things these greedy people want payment for. Therefore it is NOT a distraction but one of their goals. Ragging them on something this STUPID it well within our rights and if they didn't want to "distract" people they shouldn't have made such a boneheadedly moronic statement in the first place!
I haven't read every post, but when Apple sells a download, performance fees ARE being paid, presumably by the record label. This is about the 30 second clips. In Europe, you do have to pay performance fees on the 30 second clips, but IMHO, you shouldn't have to. They are clearly being used to promote a sale of the download.
As for advertising, if someone uses a recording in a spot, they HAVE to obtain both a sync license (from the label) and a publishing license (from the publisher of the song). I don't know why this is even being discussed as an issue. I think the agencies are purposely trying to confuse the issue.
Note that performance fees are not statutory, but publishing fees are. However, if the label also owns the publishing, there are apparently ways they can get out of paying the statutory publishing fees.
In the U.S., radio has paid publishers (via ASCAP and BMI) for using songs, but not the labels for any kind of "sync" or public performance license. There is a push now for radio to pay for the use of the recording. I happen to agree with that, but if they do have to pay the sync license, I don't think they should have to pay the publishing license. I think the label should pay the publisher out of the fees they would receive for the sync or the public performance.
Comments
That said, I currently base 100% of my purchases on 1. their popularity on iTunes and 2. the 30 second sample I get. If they take the sample away, it will probably cut my purchases and their profits in half because I rarely get a chance to listen to the radio and when I do, they rarely tell me what the song's called nowadays.
So go ahead music industry, cut your nose off to spite your face, you've done it before!
For each week In the month of November Apple should turn off 30 second clips for each of the major labels.
Week 1 - EMI
Week 2 - Sony
etc etc etc
Let's hear how loud they can squeal!
If they are actually serious about getting compensation for 30 second clips being sampled then Apple would have no choice but to turn it off.. I could sample 20 songs before I pick the one I like if I wanted to. They'd loose out big time.
With regards to the 30-second samples shoppers can stream before the buy, industry officials believe they should be paid a "performance" income from Apple, much like when a song is played in a public venue like on the radio or at a sports game. It's the same situation, they say, for movies and TV shows that feature licensed music.
This has to be the biggest joke ever. Apple should actually turn off the sample feature and play an explanation for why they can no longer hear them and if I were in charge inform them to look at the P2P groups if you'd like to hear a sample.
Dave
The actual article is here http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-103...html?tag=mncol
It's not as crazy as the Appleinsider synopsis makes it seem. The goal is to make sure that as distribution moves away from TV to the internet, that artists continue to be fairly compensated.
..SNIP..
- The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction from what's really at stake here.
- It's not about punishing end users
- or trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple).
This article is gas on flame but it's really missing the point and pissing people off for no reason.
You say it's:
- Not about punishing the end users
- Not about trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple).
- The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction
Yet, when it comes down to it... This is exactly what they are doing.
Now you know it doesn't stop here..
When the new Web-LP (and whatever the labels are going to call theirs) gets put into full swing a WHOLE NEW GAGGLE of the artists, photographers, writers, models, random people in the photos, car makers, etc that were used as eye candy for a groups album are ALL going to come with their hands out looking for a penny or more for each photo used or for each time a half naked chick appears on a 80s metal band album. How about Ford motor company you gotta know that they'll be demanding kickbacks from every ZZ Top Album that featured The Eliminator... and since it was specially customized by a hot rod detailer (Billy Gibbons) he's gonna want HIS money FAIR is FAIR right? These people gotta eat too!
Now that I think about this with a clear head... an awful lot of the music you're hearing today wouldn't even be possible without the incredible audio software they use in the studios, shouldn't the company that owns the software get their fair share? How about Levi's its an american institution and their blue jeans are considered a work of Art by many. Now, if car companies get kick backs for appearing on Web-LPs then damn it, so should Levi's! Hey Gibson too! Thats another work of art and without the Gibson Less Paul the music industry would be DEAD. Gibson clearly deserves a least a nickel per song.
I know I'm leaving out a WHOLE cast and crew of other examples but don't worry they will all be come crawling out of the woodwork soon enough!
I hope it gets to the point where a CD will cost (with all the royalties rolled in) somewhere north of $75 bucks... Yea then the industry can collapse into the nothingness.
Dave
I think that the artists should be more concerned with youtube (and sites like vixy.net) then with iTunes playing a 30 second sample, and actually selling their work for a fee.
What's more the point is the 30 second Itunes sound clips are an sales enticement akin to flicking through a magazine to see if it worth buying. It is definitely NOT a performance in the normal sense that applies in a commercial transaction. Where do these guys get off
I think that the artists should be more concerned with youtube (and sites like vixy.net) then with iTunes playing a 30 second sample, and actually selling their work for a fee.
i agree with you, i dont know why they always come hard on online music stores
They are looking for performance fees for their adverts and they also want performance fees for downloads of videos etc. on top of their existing license agreements with their publishers.
Do these guys get performance fees for dvd sales? CD sales etc???
Maybe they should be getting better lawyers to negotiate their licenses with the publishers rather than going after the outlets and end users.
Oh, if they do, then we want .025¢ more per preview / download?
Ok, then we (Apple) will raise the price for listening or downloading to $1.25 per ?
Oh if you do, then we want .25¢ more each time ?
No problem, we'll just raise the rate to download each song to $3.50 ?!
F-ck this shit, I'll just download the songs I want illegally, and not pay ANYTHING ? how do you like them apples!
Now you all have to get a real job, because your greed put you out of business! At least we won't have to listen to you piss and moan anymore
Skip
Actually, you can be sure that the airlines either pay for showing movies or they have some special arrangement with the studios concerning movies. Movies on planes are a good example of what the "public performance" guideline was really supposed to address. A much grayer area is music in stores. You can be sure that if a store has music playing on a sound system with more than 2 speakers, they are definitely paying the RIAA. I have a friend who owns a wine store and because of this fact he just has two speakers and he only plays NPR radio stations.
Yes, I'm sure the RIAA is getting their cut from legitimate businesses who play movies/music. But are they paying a performance fee to the artist? Which is what the article seems to be saying what artists want from iTunes. I agree that broadcasting a movie or music on an airplane is a performance. I don't agree that downloading and watching or listening is a performance.
Royalties for your own ads? Those 30 sec. free samples are ADVERTISING for your work, songwriters. You want Apple to pay for the privilege of increasing sales of your work? How stupid are you?
Maybe they're pissed off at those of us who hear a 30 second snippet and decide NOT to buy??
So does this mean they'll have to add coin slots to the listening stations in the record stores?
I think what we need see happen here is a new label model. At this point, I think the likes of iTunes and Amazon should start taking the role of labels and actually signing artist. Work out the distribution between competitors, and this time give more power to the artist. If the label no longer has to print CDs, or jackets, and manage distribution cost of physical media, they shouldn't the artist be benefiting more? Lets not take the eye off the ball when it comes to the bottom line when it comes to the artists - it's the labels that are trying to maintain 'their' profits margins at the expense of the artist.
I think you just figured out why the Beatles aren't on iTunes. At some point in the near future "Apple Records" is going to take on a whole new meaning.
Hearing songs in TV shows and having access to 30-second previews drives sales. For everyone in the music industry they are a necessary cost of doing business.
Does CBS have to pay Chrysler to use Chargers in their crime dramas? No, Chrysler has to pay CBS for the product placement. Otherwise the producer might decide to use Mustangs instead and that would be bad for Chrysler.
The same dynamic exists for songs. Artists should be overjoyed when a musical director chooses their song for a TV show and doesn't charge them a humongous product placement fee.
Asking for more money is only going to reduce availability of their music and lower sales, but if that's what they want we shouldn't stand in their way.
It's amazing that the music industry still survives today with it's dinosaur business model.
...
Thanks for that explanation. I looked up Wikipedia's entry also, it's just all so confusing!
The actual article is here http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-103...html?tag=mncol
It's not as crazy as the Appleinsider synopsis makes it seem. The goal is to make sure that as distribution moves away from TV to the internet, that artists continue to be fairly compensated.
You can't just say 'too bad you signed a crappy contract' because I can tell you that artists very rarely have the power to control those crappy contracts and are often forced to either sign them or simply not work at all.
This is a poor reason. If the contracts are that one sided then they can be challenged under 'shocks the conscience of the court' and 'signed under duress' aspects of contract law.
The 30 second download thing is just a crazy distraction from what's really at stake here. It's not about punishing end users or trying bite the hand that feeds (Apple). This article is gas on flame but it's really missing the point and pissing people off for no reason.
No Reason? Did you actually READ the article you cited?
"These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples."
"ASCAP and BMI have their sights set on collecting fees from three main areas: downloads of music; downloads of films and TV shows, and 30-second song samples."
The article clearly states TWICE that the 30-second song samples are one of the things these greedy people want payment for. Therefore it is NOT a distraction but one of their goals. Ragging them on something this STUPID it well within our rights and if they didn't want to "distract" people they shouldn't have made such a boneheadedly moronic statement in the first place!
As for advertising, if someone uses a recording in a spot, they HAVE to obtain both a sync license (from the label) and a publishing license (from the publisher of the song). I don't know why this is even being discussed as an issue. I think the agencies are purposely trying to confuse the issue.
Note that performance fees are not statutory, but publishing fees are. However, if the label also owns the publishing, there are apparently ways they can get out of paying the statutory publishing fees.
In the U.S., radio has paid publishers (via ASCAP and BMI) for using songs, but not the labels for any kind of "sync" or public performance license. There is a push now for radio to pay for the use of the recording. I happen to agree with that, but if they do have to pay the sync license, I don't think they should have to pay the publishing license. I think the label should pay the publisher out of the fees they would receive for the sync or the public performance.