Eminem takes record label to court over iTunes royalties - Page 2

My argument really wasn't for keeping physical media around (though I still prefer physical media since downloads have yet to match it quality-wise). It was against one source being the only point of sale for music from a particular artist or album. If an album is available on iTunes, Amazon, Zune Marketplace and whatever other digital distribution points, they can all jockey for sales by lowering prices, trying to get exclusive material, etc. If, for example, U2's next album was only going to be on iTunes, Apple has no real incentive to not price the album at something that most would consider egregious.

Like Solip says. And to add...how on earth would I be able to choose for myself? I don't have the time to even begin to listen through 100 horrid intros in order to find one that may show promise. So I would have to look at the 'Most Popular' section, and we'd be back to square 1. And by the way, no music company ever pushed music down my throat. They may have tried and I may have let them try, but if I didn't like it I would vomit. I think we underestimate people. Music doesn't get pushed down people's throats. A lot of people like crap music and that is why the companies push that music. You seem to suggest the companies dictate. If everyone liked [insert obscure band of choice], then that is what they would push. Do you like Celine Dion? Me neither (apologies to all you Celine lovers out there), and I bet no record company could ever 'push it down your throat' no matter how hard they tried.

That is what ratings are for, total downloads, etc. The current set-up of itunes may not be idea for a huge influx of new music. But that is what creativity is for.

Maybe create two sections, pro / amateur?

That way there still would be complete access to all music but a "filter" would still be in place.

But if you think about it a "filter" is really the same as a censor, it is created to filter out offensive material. And what is offensive to one may not be to another. Same with music, what some people listen too I hate and visa versa.

Really the end point is that cd's are almost obsolete in a lot of ways because even at a well stocked best buy most of the music is stuff im not looking for. You have to order it. To me I rather get it when I want it. (positive or negative as it may be)

But I think you would agree that the current form of music distribution is not going to last long.

Your right maybe I went a little to stereotype with that. In my mind I am thinking more about how the same songs are always on the radio and such.

Haha ya some people do have bad taste, but ya its their choice.

Celine Dion....never hahahaha

just 1 of those spare cash billions Apple has in the bank would buy a whole lotta investment in NEW artists, you know, the ones that the record labels are ignoring/havent "discovered" yet.

of course to get to the point where the music artists are comparable to the software developers, the musicians need to arrive at Apple with some product already recorded, sadly I doubt that many musicians will invest in an end product the same way as a software developer HAS to

but for the few that would, Apple would be a good way to go, hell they shift more music product than walmart!

I can see that post right now!

interesting thought.


----



As I pay my TV licence, If I record (digitally) a TV show on the BBC and retain it, as millions have done now for decades, that is LEGAL.

Yet if I miss that show, and don't want the questionable picture quality offered by the FREE iPlayer service (think Hulu without ads) that the BBC offer for 30 days after the show is shown; and instead I go on a torrent site and download a hi quality recording someone else made apparently THAT THEN becomes ILLEGAL.

but in all honesty, at least part of what the Pirate bay mob are saying is : WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?

for myself I can see none, except that someone made an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes legal and illegal.

No... Eminem has money.

Oh come on, ALL laws are arbitrary!

yeah! they rap over some of the new stuff Hendrix has been doing lately, its interesting, but I don't think the worlds ready for it JUST yet, maybe next year??

In the UK, you are allowed to retain a recording *only* long enough to watch it later. You are not legally allowed to record shows in order to create and archive, nor are you allowed to record shows for repeated viewings.

From the UK Intellectual Property Office: "A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time. This time-shifting exception does not cover the making of recordings for placing in a collection for repeated viewing or listening; and use of recordings other than to time-shift a programme for yourself or your family is likely to be illegal."

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...excep-priv.htm

What is illegal is redistributing content without license or consent, which is what people are doing by making their video and music libraries available online. Granted, it is a passive form of distribution, but it is distribution. Sure, you can make a copy or two for yourself, but you can't distribute or broadcast it without paying a licensing or royalty fee. That's why radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play, and why technically any retail establishment that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay royalty fees, even though the vast majority never do.

It's funny how if we were taking about shoplifting apples, people would call it stealing, but since we are talking about an intangible, specifically a piece of music, people seem to be fine with taking without paying.

Well, somehow it's interesting that the Pirate Bay thing (legal or not) and what Eminem does in his lawsuit comes down to one and the same:

The music industry - as we know it today - is a middle man. That middle man didn't exist back in Mozart or Bethoovens ages and maybe the digital age has made their business case hard to sustain. The artist is still there and the audience is still there - but how does the performance reach the audience? How does the artist earn money?

In both cases the middle man is fighting for their existence. In one end their revenue and in the otheri their share.

But do we need them at all? Or rather - will the middle man whoever it is earn their money on selling records or not? Right or wrong - sometimes business models becomes obsolete.

The record companies are the only reason I never dared become a musician...

Aww who am I kiddin, I suck musically.

Nice thought. So would the artists be responsible for writing/recording/producing their own tracks? If that was the case iTunes would be a bit short on material.
.

Title pretty much sums it up, these guys make millions off the people that can least afford it and then want more.

It is unfortunate that we don't have any agressive leadership in Washington right now as the right thing to do is to clean up the whole copy right system. The best thing to do there is to give people 7 years protection and that is it.

Dave

What in the he** are you even talking about? If anything republicans fight for extended copyright protection harder than liberals do. Many liberals would rather have things become communal property a lot faster (which is what happens after copyright protection goes away) while if conservatives think about copyright at all, they generally want a lot of copyright protection, if not unending copyright protection.

But really, for the most part, there are very few politicians that can understand, let alone care about copyright law enough to have any stance whatsoever. It's just not a big issue to anybody these days.

Nobody could be less of a rap or hip hop fan than than me (John Bonham's kick is the lowest thing I'll ever pipe through a car stereo), but only a fool would make the case that Eminem has anything but extreme talent. Not that he needs his ego inflated, but to compare him to Vanilla Ice is ignorant, to say the least.

Interesting debate chaps. re Paxman's 'who would filter out the crap' reasoning. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for a new form of an old media - web radio stations. Aspiring artistes would send their demos to them - 'stations' would identify themselves by genre - and they would pick out the good ones and stream them as a 'radio' show. The service could be paid for by advertisements, subscription or even by setting up their own iTunes-esque direct sales section. A new model for a new media age - what do you think?

Doesn't that sort of thing almost kinda exist? There are sites where people can upload and listen to each other's tracks. There is a busy community of musicians out there. But in terms of getting this music to the masses, I doubt it would work. There are dj's out there that champion new bands' work, and there probably should be more of that. But you'd need a DJ with a very distinct voice that people trust. UK resident will remember John Peel from the BBC as an example. Not an easy thing just to 'set up'. John Peel was always a niche DJ and he was a household name.
Also, who would advertise on a show like that? Your prime audience alternative college students with no disposable income ;-(

I guess there are things a bit like that (not that i would really know, being a bit of an old fart meself!) but as Apple showed with the iPod, sometimes it takes someone to take an existing concept and turn it into something that really takes off because it is done very well. I wouldn't have thought it too hard to set such a thing up, and one of the wonders of the internet is that things can get around very quickly - how many views did that fat bloke dancing in front of his webcam get on YouTube!

John Peel was something of a phenomenon I agree - how many bands did he 'break'? Bless 'im!

Who would advertise to students? Beer companies and loan sharks?

Eminem is still around?

Assuming the physical packaging is a significant portion of the wholesale price. I think it's less than $1 a CD in volume, including case and inserts.


The beef isn't with iTunes but his label.


There are limits though, if you buy a retail CD, you're not allowed to make copies of that CD for sale. The same goes for music files. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to give away copies either.


Sorry, the free market wants its crap. The concept that the labels "filter out the crap" is flatly absurd unless you want to say that either the filter is broken or they add their own flavor of crap to the stream after the filter. Opening it up to anyone doesn't change it much, it will just change who controls the crap, and the labels are mostly adding marketing. With garage bands, it's mostly no talent hacks. With label music, it is mostly no talent hacks + marketing.

Apple's Genius system, along with the ratings and such, is supposed to be a way to narrow down what suits a given person's tastes. That all goes along with Chris Anderson's The Long Tail, which seems to explain how economics can be in a market where physical limitations aren't an issue anymore, and allow people to more easily find products that fits their preferences.


As it is, the labels aren't just the middleman, they basically take 95% or more of the wholesale and the artists are lucky to get the remaining 5%.

There is no reason why the apps store model couldn't apply here too. The free stuff and the paid for stuff are available there so why not 'every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo' in a section all its own on an expanded 'Artists direct store' in iTunes? Many great artists start with a garage band demo remember. Your assumption that record labels act as good filters is a joke. They rejected the Beatles and I was once in Elton John's studio (he was away) when an excellent musician was turned down but then asked if he had anything like 'Radio Killed the Video Star' as it was number one at the time! We the people can judge what we like thank you very much. As to judging the music by the art label ... I am speechless (ROFL actually) but I wonder if you ever heard the saying about 'judging a book by its cover?'

Most big time artist don't make their money by selling their music to the consumers. They make it by selling the rights to their music to a music label. That 5% they get is on top of what the music label paid them in advance for the rights to market their music.

I'm sure Emimen could walk into any music label office and get 1 million dollars plus (he probablly could have commanded a lot more at his height) for just signing his next album deal with that label. Before he even produced a note for that album. And if the album turns out to be a bust, Eminem still get to keep his million dollar plus advance.

Eminem my be right about his case against the music label. But don't feel sorry for the guy. He didn't get rich by only getting 5% of the wholesale because he went through a middleman.

It's like how Bill Clinton sold the book rights (to his memoir) to some publisher for $10 million. I'm sure he will also receive some small amount, maybe less than 5%, for each copy sold. The publisher isn't really the middleman. They paid up front for the rights to market and make money off his book. And this may include any movie, TV or screenplay rights.

Now if you want to talk about how small or independent musicians and consumers are getting screwed by big record labels, that's a different matter. In reality, the music label should be returning what savings they get from selling a digital copy back to the consumers. It's the consumer that are actually getting less (quality wise) than what they would have gotten with an actual CD version. But that's asking a lot, when the consumers never realized any of the savings from when they went from pressing vinyl to CD's.

Then there are artist actually more or less created by record labels. Then this issue also comes in a more difficult situation. Sting, Bruce Springsteen, U2 and others has their own talent while others may not have made it without the record labels abilities to create a success! \

yes murder is SO arbitrary, I forgot about that

yet since the initial spread of VCRs people have created personal libraries.

The BBC knows this and has requested anyone who has personal recordings of lost BBC television, to please step forward and return these lost recordings to the national archive.

in that event, who does it MORALLY belong to? the nation? the entity that made the programming but then saw fit to destroy it? or the individual who managed to capture the broadcast and retain it for personal use?

on a similar note, shows similar to "I love lucy" has had about 50 years to make a profit, do they go on making profit indefinitely? or are the so much a part of the culture that they have cultural significance?

THESE are the questions the pirate bay folks seem to be asking.

I think.. no feel, that as our unique position in time allows us to store these on off recorded events and archive them, for future generation. we need to ask ourselves WHY?

because we can? because we want to leave evidence of our existence?

If we had stored viewable copies of plays and the spoken language of actors from 200 years ago, how would they benefit us? and how would they benefit those long since dead people?

look what happens when a great body of work IS stored, Shakespeare. but what value HAS the work of Shakespeare actually got? and would it have MORE value if we had access to recordings of those original plays being acted.

the plays themselves have a significant role to play in our collective culture, as do current works, school children apparently benefit from access to Shakespeare's work, so is it fair to ask if 2-300 years from now, school children will benefit from access to the archives of "I love Lucy" and if the answer is YES, why can't we ALL benefit from that free access TODAY?

I have no answer at present, but I do still think its important to have the debate

Yet over on the Blu Ray Vs VOD thread, most people seemed to believe that lending a DVD to a friend or neighbour was NOT distribution!

I believe it IS.


my point is that in the UK the BBC transmits over the air, if you have equipment to capture this transmission you can, if you pay the licence fee or not. it seems an arbitrary, but strangely "fair" system, the BBC gets the money and the nation gets "mostly" good quality programming, at best this is ment to inform, educate and entertain, and IMO mostly managed to achieve this, BECAUSE it is not leaning towards a cash pile directed from some corporation that will have certian product/service/political orientated paybacks. Fox news seems to be one "service" in the US that has such a political slant its unbelievable to someone like me, that they are actually allowed to broadcast at all!

Yes artists and technicians need to be paid, but why, for example, do actors and writers collect royalties, while a director or lighting tech does not? if the production was successful, was it not , at least in part, down to how scenes were lit? lighting is a skill, but so is acting. lighting is a craft, but so is acting. yet the split is there.

the writers strike IMO didn't go far enough.

home recording has flourished over the last 20 plus years. see the rise of Rap/house etc. recorded on comparatively basic equipment.

Also see the great number of large studios that have closed, or have had to diversify hugely in order to survive.

If I had access to just even Garage Band 20 years ago....

Yes, there could be a 'free' or 'home recorded' or 'demo' section on iTunes. And yes, all musical artists, great or not started with a demo. But I have heard a lot of demos and most of the time it is hard to tell what will become 'good' and what not. Sure, the Beatles were rejected but by the same token, they were picked up by another label and the rest is history, as they say. When coldplay were at demo level I would defy anybody to have picked them as the success story they have become. An A&R guy heard them, believed in them and look where they are now. So it goes both ways. I never claimed the music labels acted as 'GOOD' filters. I said 'filters' which in my opinion helps the sorting out of what is what. I am not saying there aren't other ways but if you put everything on a web site and let users vote for the best tracks we are really back to square one. I wouldn't be exploring any more than I am now, just following what others do. And by the way, We The People do decide. The reason your producer friend wanted something that sounded like Video Killed the Radio Start (not the other way around) was that that was what the people wanted. If the people had wanted Radiohead, he would have been looking for something that sounded like Creep, or whatever. To blame the bad taste of the masses on the Record Lables is giving them far too much credit. I don't think the 'labels' are faultless across the board but the blanket criticism of all labels as evil is really narrow minded and stupid.
I am not against a forum where people can post their musical endeavors, I personally would like to keep it separate from iTunes, however. And yeah, I have heard the expression you refer to and yeah, I do make judgements based on 'covers'. But there is a huge difference between a book cover and music art work. I bet you anything that if you were presented with a number of CDs having never heard of the bands you'd make a pretty good choice based on the covers alone. (not so with books) But I never said I'd judge the 'music' by the cover. The point is that I haven't yet heard the music but I have to make choices because I just don't have the time to listen to everything.
Wow, did I really have to explain all of this?

So you are really talking about marketing. You are pre selecting on the music that is best show-cased as you have no time to wade through it all. Fair enough point. In which case the whole 'amateur' section in iTunes would be a great advantage for you. Millions of listeners would ultimately rank the music and then you could listen to the top few. Now you have a narrowed down selection based on others actually listening to the music, surely that's a better than going by the art work. Sort of an American Idol section in iTunes ... OMG ... there;'s an idea

Meanwhile I agree that Apple needs to add a section that bypasses recording labels for those who wish to use it. There is no reason why the recording labels should pull their catalog from iTunes in reprisal if Apple does not actively try to solicit artists away from them.

p.s. I admit I've grabbed a book in an airport based on the cover!

So? If the artist has a contract that says he gets $0.10 for every copy sold or licensed, then it's none of his business how much the label makes. If he wants a share of profits, he should sign a contract for share of profits. Of course, then he'll whine that the profits aren't high enough.


Because there is a contract involved. If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be (and probably will be) punished. If they are simply doing what the contract says, then the artist has no right to go back later and whine that he's not making enough.


Technically, the same thing applies when you buy a CD in the store. You are buying the CD, but you are only receiving a copyright license to the music on the CD. There's no real difference other than the fact that the CD license comes with some added hardware.


You make good points, but I haven't actually seen convincing evidence that it's good for the record labels even in TODAY's environment. The more popular music is most commonly pirated and after music is pirated, it is popular. Pretty circular argument. I don't think there's any real evidence to support their claims. Even so, as you point out, it's irrelevant because what they're proposing would end the industry as we know it.


Sorry, but that's an extremely short-sighted view.

Our entire economy is built on the validity of contracts. If the artists can come in and say "we don't like the contract any more, so we're going to sue to change it", contracts become very nebulous.

If the record companies are violating the contract, they should be punished. If, OTOH, the artists simply signed contracts and changed their minds later, that's just too bad. I certainly don't get to welch on my contracts simply because I changed my mind.

Now, the artists are free to take these market changes into account in signing future contracts - and they should. But retroactive changes simply because one side is unhappy is a 'cure' that's worse than the disease.

Whether you said that string of words doesn't matter that much because it sure seemed like you meant it like that. I wonder if it really helps you narrow it down or if you think it does. The mind can play tricks.


But that's the point of recommendation engines, it helps narrow down what you might like to items that most favorably suit your tastes. I really don't know if the cover is any good at narrowing it down except to eliminate genres if something is miscategorized.


You don't have to, but it helps clarify what you meant when you made your earlier statements. That's part of standard conversation. Sometimes someone mistates things, sometimes other people misreads or misunderstands those statements.

Sure, but I think you are being optimistic. I don't think 'millions' of people will bother to listen to amateur demos. You could argue that MOMA or the Tate Modern should have an annex where anybody could exhibit and sell their art but I doubt many people would bother to look. I think you are getting carried away with the 'concept' and not really considering the likely 'reality'. But who knows? I have been wrong before.

My example was really hypothetical, but still, there you go. What about bottles of wine?

How so? Why would that be worse?
Contracts are always being re-negotiated. In this case the argument would be that the circumstances on which the original contract is based have changed so lets re-negotiate. Depending on the length of the contract that may be quite a reasonable position.

My first wife always said look for the plain labels, the fancy ones are usually crap wine

Granted, and in a sense I did make a musical judgement (its a hypothetical situation I hasten to add). We all make judgements all the time. It doesn't matter how its done. Give me a thousand tracks to choose from I may just chuck out the first 900 just because I just don't have the time to listen to that many tracks. Its called 'dealing with information overload'. If I remember right this was about the role music labels play in making certain judgements for me. On the whole that aspect of their existence has served me well.

Recommendation engines are good within sub genres. If I was to listen to what the majority of people listened to generally speaking I'd have to be sectioned. It would drive me nuts.

Well, OK. I'm sorry. I could have refrained from that last comment but I had just written a long reply and then my session timed out so I had to do it again. Goddammit!

By the way - the way I hear 'new' music is by listening to Last.Fm. A more sophisticated method than plain old user recommendation.

I thought it was the other way around But with all the 'designer' labels it has become very hard to judge. Maybe there should be a section in the shop where home brewers could sell or trade or give away their wines and beers. I would definitely try that though I am not sure I would return...

Apples and Oranges. The Tate example is real world that takes time and effort to see. Digital media such as on iTunes and YouTube is part of a totally new world where millions of people world wide can experience, share and collaborate. I am not being optimistic at all really, I truly believe over time such an amateur entry collection in iTunes would be (and I did say ultimately) get continually ranked. Anything really good would get virally marketed and new stars would be discovered. I bet recording companies would keep an eye on the top rankings too.