or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Music industry wants performance compensation from iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Music industry wants performance compensation from iTunes - Page 3

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

But no one is doing that 30-second sample as an alternative to buying the song. There's no song that you intend to buy, which you're content to just preview over and over. ?

Unless your name is Michael Scott
post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

This isn't about copyrights.

Copyright law IMHO is involved because music labels have many rights defined of what can be done to their work (eg, duplication, broadcasting, performance, composition rights); previewing was probably not given full treatment in the contracts signed by Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

i listened to a song the other day at my friend's house. do they want a performance fee for that? i was on the john at the time, but still ...

That's actually fine.
post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Copyright law IMHO is involved because music labels have many rights defined of what can be done to their work (eg, duplication, broadcasting, performance, composition rights); previewing was probably not given full treatment in the contracts signed by Apple.

Apple is either using the 30-sec clips under fair use or under contract with the labels, in either case I am sure it was reviewed by both parties.

Performance rights for iTunes TV shows should be covered under the royalties for the sale of recordings not broadcast (treated the same as DVDs, but older contracts may not have in included these money streams). In the case of something like Hulu or other streaming sites, it is unclear, the shows are not being sold but are not really being broadcast in the traditional sense. This is much like streaming radio and will probably require clarification from congress to determine what royalties are required if any.
post #84 of 119
Apple should counter sue. The 30-second previews of tracks that iTunes provides is more like a commercial for the track than a performance of it. So if the music execs want to use the TV analogy, they should actually be paying Apple for the advertisement time! Chew on that for a while.

And not only are home downloads not "performances", but there's no way they can assume a download is always played. Just because I download something doesn't mean it ever gets played or "performed" anywhere. Unlike a broadcast which is actually aired.
No wonder the music industry is crap when it's being held hostage by this kind of lunacy.
post #85 of 119
I would be surprised if Apple did not negotiate the right to distribute snippets like the 30 second grabs. It would seem to me that on this side of the world it would be a copyright infringement if they had not done so.

This raises an interesting point for me - does iTunes set separate policy for all regions in which itms operates?
post #86 of 119
If you can't find a way to make money, bribe the government with money, drugs, and hookers to get what you want.
post #87 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

This really troubles me and it speaks to what has happened to real capitalism.

If you don't like something, get the Government to put there nose in it.

You put it very well here.
post #88 of 119
I just think Apple needs to make its own music label and really bypass the bullshit these music companies have created, and compensate the artists on an unprecedented level. Do something creative and put these music companies in their place.
post #89 of 119
Isn't this the same kind of deal the writers strike was about (and the actors almost did the same) - the fact that they are not being recompensed for digital media because their contracts didn't include them when written years ago.
The music writers are not getting a slice from a download of a TV show, which they would from the broadcast of the show on TV. The TV studio has replaced lost advertising fees (due to lower viewership) with the download fee, but the writer doesn't.
I don't know the ins and outs of it but apart from the "30 second preview" red herring, it sounds like their claim has some merit.
They wouldn't be getting their money from Apple (who barely makes anything on the content) but from the copyright holder, (studio etc.)
post #90 of 119
Apples ecosystem relies on the partipation of 3rd parties against whom they can exact little more than contractual compliance. Without the cooperation of the music labels iTunes would not be the glue between content and hardware it presently is. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement but I would suspect apple needs them more. The music industry is quite adept at losing money so I wouldn't put it past them to withdraw someday.

To that end I think these developments will be closely watched but I don't think there will be much sabre rattling
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

You put it very well here.

Thank You.

I'm glad someone gets it.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #92 of 119
Remember that episode of "The Office" where Michael kept listening to the 30-second preview clip instead of buying the song? So... that's how the music industry sees the rest of us? As morons? Hey music execs - start looking into creative ways to expand and promote your product, and stop looking into other peoples pockets for loose change.
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I just think Apple needs to make its own music label and really bypass the bullshit these music companies have created, and compensate the artists on an unprecedented level. Do something creative and put these music companies in their place.


I have talked about this before; I would like to see something along the lines of the App Store, but for music. Where artists can put there music up for sale.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #94 of 119
Whoa

Who here really believes that the "music consortium" is being led by artists??

This is just another attempt by the labels and larger music companies to milk more revenue from consumers to support their failed business model.

It would be nice to see an actual contract between itunes and the labels and contrast that with one between itunes and artists directly. I betcha that the direct artists are eating just fine, while the label intermediary contract has the executives dining out just fine. In a way it is much like the health care debate... the administrative layer eats up the profits and the end user suffers.
post #95 of 119
Is it any wonder the music industry is in grim shape? Instead of realizing how central these on-line previews are to selling music, they view them as a lost opportunity for profits. These greedy SOBs appear to know nothing about either marketing or sales in the new digital age.

What a bunch of nitwits!
post #96 of 119
Apple just needs to say: "Those of you who don't want to make the 30 second snippets available, we'll grant your wish and pull the snippets (not the listings) from iTunes." Then everyone will find out, based on how well the music sells after that, if those snippets are advertising or 'performance'.

Sometimes you just need to let idiots have there way if only to set them right.
post #97 of 119
I think the problem is that the record companies pay so little in royalties to the artists and writers. Many times the artists make nothing at all on million-selling CDs, after the record companies take off so-called expenses, promotional fees, etc. (they make their money from live concerts). After an artist makes it big, then they have some leeway and can get a better contract.

The artists and songwriters can't get a fair shake from the record companies, so they have to come up with gimmick ideas like this one. The record companies are evil.
post #98 of 119
They are not stupid (necessarily), they are GREEDY
post #99 of 119
It's not just Apple/iTunes that ASCAP is going after for additional revenue streams. NAB has been battling them on the radio-side as well. So far, no traction has been gained in Congress for a new "tax". As someone else indicated, it is an attempt to rectify prior poorly-negotiated agreements.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Apple just needs to say: "Those of you who don't want to make the 30 second snippets available, we'll grant your wish and pull the snippets (not the listings) from iTunes." Then everyone will find out, based on how well the music sells after that, if those snippets are advertising or 'performance'.

Sometimes you just need to let idiots have there way if only to set them right.

Just had that conversation with a record producer friend. LOL Great idea.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

I'm wondering what the "music industry" thinks of the performances watched/listened to on airplanes. Are there performance fees tacked onto your $2 purchase of airplane headphones? Or what about those CD stores that let you walk up, put on a pair of headphones and listen to CDs to your heart's content.

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.
post #102 of 119
It's amazing that the music industry still survives today with it's dinosaur business model.

As I see it, there are three main entities that makes money off an album (CD or digital). The songwriter, artist and the copyright holder. And all of these could be one entity. Two different entities. Or three different entities.

The songwriter that wrote the song may not be the artist that performs it on the album. The artist is responsible for seeing that the songwriter get paid since he's using the song. In the mean time the songwriter can sell the license to let other artist use that song. Or the songwriter can sell the licensing rights to a music label and split any fees collected from licensing the publishing rights to the song. Unless there was some exclusive agreement where the original artsit buys all the rights to it.

Unless the artist is also the songwriter, he does not own the rights to the song he performs on his album. He only owns the rights to his performance of that song. It's the songwriter that still owns the rights to the lyrics and music to that song. The songwriter also owns the "public performance rights".

The artist performing that song may no longer be the copyright holder. The artist usually gives up the copyright to a record label for some advance fee and/or royalty on sales. Which is why it sometimes seems like that the artist is getting screwed on the royalty he gets per album sold. Most likely that artist was paid an advance for the rights to that album. Most of the time when a record label buys the rights to an album, they also buy the publishing rights from the songwriter for the songs on that album. So the record label not only makes money selling the album. But also from selling the publishing rights to the songs on the album. And they most likely will not sell a license to an artist on a competing label for any of the songs they hold the publishing rights to.

The publishing rights to a large portion of the Beatles library was what Micheal Jackson bought as part of the $50 million he paid to EMI (?). Micheal Jackson do not own the songs performed by the Beatles themselves. He gets nothing from the sale of any Beatles albums. He only owns the right to make money licensing the lyrics and music of those Beatles songs to other performers. But only for the purpose of making an album. I do not think he owns the "public performance rights". Those still belongs to the Beatles, Apple and/or EMI.

But the songwriters also get paid for the "public performance" of their songs. Whether it's on TV, radio, stage, street artist or concert. And over the internet and ringtones if they have their way. And it doesn't matter who the performer or artist are. The only thing that matters is the lyrics and music written by the songwriter. Sell a Dionne Warwick album and Dionne Warwick and/or her label makes money. But the songwriter gets nothing. Play a Dionne Warwick song on the radio or TV and the songwriter (most likely Burt Bacharach and Hal David) will get paid for a "public perfromance". Even if Dionne Warwick and her label gets nothing.

Unless the songwriter is the artist, he/she does not get any money from the sale of an album (CD or digital). The songwriter was already paid by the artist or label for using the song on their album. The sale of an album is not a "public performance". This is why the songwriters (not necessarily the music labels) are going after the 30 second clip and ringtones. It's a form of advertising for something that they are no longer getting any money for.

If the songwriters wins on this, Apple will be responsible for paying the "public performance" license. Just like how radio stations has to pay it now.
post #103 of 119
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!
post #104 of 119
Apple should do this:

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.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars View Post

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
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

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
post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

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
post #108 of 119
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.
post #109 of 119
iTunes is a store not a stage. And anyway it's a matter for negotiation between them and Apple, it's nothing to do with the government.
post #110 of 119
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

Skip
post #111 of 119
Why not charge us for that song in our head!
post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

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.
post #113 of 119
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?
post #114 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

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?
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaioslider View Post

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.
post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

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!
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars View Post

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!
post #118 of 119
Im writing original song lyrics with letters of the alphabet used by paid artists...... crap, I owe a lot of money.
post #119 of 119
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Music industry wants performance compensation from iTunes