Totally ridiculous. By the same reasoning, iIf I go to Waterstones (The Barnes and Noble of the UK) and leaf through a few paperbacks, does Waterstones have to pay a royalty to the publisher? This is lunacy!
Waterstones have already paid the royalty to the publisher having purchased the stock, as I understand it iTMS only pays the royalty on sale. And I'm pretty sure that if they thought you were planning to read 20% of a book Waterstones would be asking you to either buy it or leave.
Personally I don't have a problem with a copyright owner asking to be paid for the preview, but it's an issue between him and the store; Apple could choose to not offer a preview, or he could not let them sell his music. It's not for governments to get involved in unless you take the view that Apple's iTMS has too much of a monopoly.
The music industry is populated by morons from the looks of it. Before iTunes came along, it was easier to get illegal copies of songs and movies than purchase them. With 8.5 billion units of media sold, the industry should be thanking apple for creating a business model in which they got revenues. And they make a lot more money on downloads than they do on hard copies, which have to be sold in a brick and mortar or by mail, warehoused, size of pressings guessed, you name it. And they're complaining that they don't get enough money ("only" 70%) when apple is picking all the transaction costs, offering gobs of free content, and so on.
NBC stormed out demanding more and came back groveling...I bet NBC isn't part of the whiner group; they remember the egg on their faces, I'd imagine
You're all focusing on the 30-second samples, but the case also encompasses full downloads. The 30 second samples are long enough to be included in, for example, a television advertisement.
This also gets back to the fact that Apple needs the music providers just as much, or more than the music providers need Apple.
So the question needs to be whether they receive any of these fees when a movie or TV show is purchased on DVD at a store? These downloads should be treated the same way with regards to physical media.
As far as the 30sec previews, pretty sure that issue is related more to the fact that people can listen to all songs in an album & weigh whether it is worth buying the whole album. In this regard record companies are a bunch of greedy jerks. If I bought any other product & it turned out to be crap I could return it to the store. Because digital content can't be returned then I, as the consumer, should have every right to be able to preview content before I buy it!
Please everyone, read the cnet article before posting. AppleInsider neglected to specify just which group is going after royalties here. My own knee-jerk reaction was initially to slam the RIAA for going after additional revenue, this time targeting song previews. There I was thinking to myself, first these retards go after and try to shut down (thankfully without success) Internet Radio, what I believe to be their best source of free adversising (I have bought soooo much music because of Live365 and last.fm), and now they're going after another free advertising source?
It's not the RIAA this time, it's the group representing song writers (such as ASCAP). I would argue that they probably should be entitled to a slice of the pie when it comes to the sale of music online. I don't agree they should be granted royalties for music previews (that's just stupid).
As for the sale of video content, aren't royalties currently paid out every time a song used in a TV show, commercial or movie when it's played or sold (which is why episodes of WKRP being sold on iTunes and on DVD do not contain the original episode music)?
I have been on the side of the RIAA when it comes to pirating music (not really the sueing their own customers... but the message) but this is just ridiculous... they really have lost touch with reality. And of course, Apple is at the center of it because iTunes has been so successful.
Am I supposed to pay a performance fee if I play a movie at home for more than just myself... screw that.
The MPAA and the RIAA are their own worst enemies.
I'm wondering what the "music industry" thinks of the performances watched/listened to on airplanes.
The airlines negotiate for performance rights for movies/music that they present to their passengers.
Performance rights have a reasonable place imo and that's one of them.
But if you're not 'performing' a substantial piece of the work, reasonableness has left the equation; regardless of other facts. (E.g. how much iTunes makes, whether they're 'performing' or not, etc)
If authors/publishers want more money for their work, then why don't they negotiate for more money when they authorize their songs for sale in the itunes store?
Great. Now Levi's will want to start charging me for "trying on" a pair of jeans. Listening to the low bit rate 30 sec sample of music is like looking at something before you buy it. This is ridiculous and if they truly want to start charging for this they are further out of touch than I thought. Steve won't even give this one a thought. He will laugh and say......."next stupid idea".
Why are they publishing groups trying to squeeze money out of the consumer and the retailer? The record labels are making the lion's share of revenues and profits from each transaction on iTunes. Get it from them. They have plenty to spare.
Am I supposed to pay a performance fee if I play a movie at home for more than just myself
Honestly, it depends how many people are at your house. There's no codified limit on the subject. If it goes to court, it's up to what a judge feels crosses the threshold from 'private' to 'public' performance.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC have been known to shake down house- and block-parties that 'perform' the work they hold rights to. I don't know of a movie group doing anything on that scale, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Has the music industry not been struggling to find a way of profiting in the digital since the rise of digital downloads (as seen with year-over-year CD sale declines). This concept of making money for a sample is just a new area for the music industry to try and make a profit in a failing industry. Selling your product by giving out free "samples" is a marketing norm - you see folks giving away free samples in the grocery store all the time, I get free samples of laundry detergents and dryers sheets etc. all the time, magazines are all littered with free fragrance samples - the try-before-you-buy concept is not new.
Here's a compromise: Instead of sampling a piece of music, I just buy a song and if I don't like it you pay me back. How about this, I will pay you to listen to a sample of your music, but if I don't like it you have to pay me for wasting my time. Forget about iTunes needing the labels, the labels need us to be interested in making the transaction. Here's another thing that gets me: At the height of the whole DRM thing, shouldn't the DRM really have worked both ways? For example, if I by a license that says only I can play this music since I paid for it (limited to what kind and how many devices I can play it on), then since I now own my copy of the music, and it's digital, then if I already for it, but lost it somehow, shouldn't I be able to get a legal copy of that music back? What it I lost my digital copy, but then ripped a copy from a friends CD, if I was brought to court and could produce a receipt and say "look here, I have a right to copy of this song" won't that hold up? Of course not, that would be a potential profit not realized by the label, even though logically it makes sense. The labels are not 'really' concerned about what's fair, they are concerned about getting as much money from you as they can - if that means you pay twice or three times, too bad for you. My point is simply this, the industry has been changing and the labels have year after year been trying to stop that change - to maintain the status quo. It's icing on the cake how the labels are coming at this by championing the artist.
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.
As for paying for music used included in a downloaded program - you mean there's no negotiated deal that pays an artist for every DVD movie sold? What is the issue here? Sounds kinda simple.
First off, they will have to prove that people are using the 30s samples as a alternative to purchasing the songs or albums. That by playing those 30s samples won't possibly lead to a purchase decision. Which sometimes listening to bad music will deter you from buying the album, but that revolves around a purchase decision.
Secondly, if they want performance royalties for TV/Movie downloads off the iTunes music store, they will need to take that up with the content owners, like Sony, Fox, Universal etc. It isn't fair to petition the government to step into Apple's success.
This is the problem of having a large controlling government who wants to spread the wealth. Songwriters, composers and artists have been on the wrong side of the deal since the beginning when the label executives formed a contract that screws those who perform and create the music. The Label records the music and creates a tangible object for distribution.
Really though, if your gonna whine about 30s samples, throw a hissyfit over the fact that radio is getting away scott free and keeps using the same lying argument. As it turns out Pandora, who was almost shutdown due to an intense royalty fee hike, induces more CD sales than radio. I stopped listening to radio because they don't actually play anything new, they repeat their playlists. Driving from Vegas to Flagstaff (4 hour drive) I heard 3 songs played 3 different times. Radio doesnt deserve to continue in their free escapades while Pandora has to make up industry losses.
You're all focusing on the 30-second samples, but the case also encompasses full downloads. The 30 second samples are long enough to be included in, for example, a television advertisement.
I think the reason most of us are focusing on the 30-second samples is because that's the stupid part of it.
Very few (reasonable) people would argue that they shouldn't be entitled to the same percentage in royalties from a download versus a DVD sale. It's ludicrous that they're not getting that ? but that's their own fault for signing moronic contracts with the networks and the movie studios, not Apple's!
A 30-second sample played for a music store customer should absolutely be free! It's an advertisement for their own music. It benefits them that they're free.
The fact that someone could take that snippet and use it in a commercial is irrelevant, because that use is already illegal.
I agree that if a TV show uses music, and compensates artists upon broadcast, that there should also be compensation when the show makes money in OTHER ways, such as iTunes.
The rest sounds like nonsense. Especially re the 30-second snippets that generate sales!
Comments
Totally ridiculous. By the same reasoning, iIf I go to Waterstones (The Barnes and Noble of the UK) and leaf through a few paperbacks, does Waterstones have to pay a royalty to the publisher? This is lunacy!
Waterstones have already paid the royalty to the publisher having purchased the stock, as I understand it iTMS only pays the royalty on sale. And I'm pretty sure that if they thought you were planning to read 20% of a book Waterstones would be asking you to either buy it or leave.
Personally I don't have a problem with a copyright owner asking to be paid for the preview, but it's an issue between him and the store; Apple could choose to not offer a preview, or he could not let them sell his music. It's not for governments to get involved in unless you take the view that Apple's iTMS has too much of a monopoly.
NBC stormed out demanding more and came back groveling...I bet NBC isn't part of the whiner group; they remember the egg on their faces, I'd imagine
lordy lordy lordy
You're all focusing on the 30-second samples, but the case also encompasses full downloads. The 30 second samples are long enough to be included in, for example, a television advertisement.
This also gets back to the fact that Apple needs the music providers just as much, or more than the music providers need Apple.
So the question needs to be whether they receive any of these fees when a movie or TV show is purchased on DVD at a store? These downloads should be treated the same way with regards to physical media.
As far as the 30sec previews, pretty sure that issue is related more to the fact that people can listen to all songs in an album & weigh whether it is worth buying the whole album. In this regard record companies are a bunch of greedy jerks. If I bought any other product & it turned out to be crap I could return it to the store. Because digital content can't be returned then I, as the consumer, should have every right to be able to preview content before I buy it!
It's not the RIAA this time, it's the group representing song writers (such as ASCAP). I would argue that they probably should be entitled to a slice of the pie when it comes to the sale of music online. I don't agree they should be granted royalties for music previews (that's just stupid).
As for the sale of video content, aren't royalties currently paid out every time a song used in a TV show, commercial or movie when it's played or sold (which is why episodes of WKRP being sold on iTunes and on DVD do not contain the original episode music)?
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.
It's called lobbying, and every group and industry does it. Although legal, it's basically asking the government to be your own protection racket.
Am I supposed to pay a performance fee if I play a movie at home for more than just myself... screw that.
The MPAA and the RIAA are their own worst enemies.
I'm wondering what the "music industry" thinks of the performances watched/listened to on airplanes.
The airlines negotiate for performance rights for movies/music that they present to their passengers.
Performance rights have a reasonable place imo and that's one of them.
But if you're not 'performing' a substantial piece of the work, reasonableness has left the equation; regardless of other facts. (E.g. how much iTunes makes, whether they're 'performing' or not, etc)
A few year from now the music industry will be asking for royalties if you hum or whistle a popular song to yourself.
Or even just posting about it. That'll be 50 cents, please.
Am I supposed to pay a performance fee if I play a movie at home for more than just myself
Honestly, it depends how many people are at your house. There's no codified limit on the subject. If it goes to court, it's up to what a judge feels crosses the threshold from 'private' to 'public' performance.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC have been known to shake down house- and block-parties that 'perform' the work they hold rights to. I don't know of a movie group doing anything on that scale, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Here's a compromise: Instead of sampling a piece of music, I just buy a song and if I don't like it you pay me back. How about this, I will pay you to listen to a sample of your music, but if I don't like it you have to pay me for wasting my time. Forget about iTunes needing the labels, the labels need us to be interested in making the transaction. Here's another thing that gets me: At the height of the whole DRM thing, shouldn't the DRM really have worked both ways? For example, if I by a license that says only I can play this music since I paid for it (limited to what kind and how many devices I can play it on), then since I now own my copy of the music, and it's digital, then if I already for it, but lost it somehow, shouldn't I be able to get a legal copy of that music back? What it I lost my digital copy, but then ripped a copy from a friends CD, if I was brought to court and could produce a receipt and say "look here, I have a right to copy of this song" won't that hold up? Of course not, that would be a potential profit not realized by the label, even though logically it makes sense. The labels are not 'really' concerned about what's fair, they are concerned about getting as much money from you as they can - if that means you pay twice or three times, too bad for you. My point is simply this, the industry has been changing and the labels have year after year been trying to stop that change - to maintain the status quo. It's icing on the cake how the labels are coming at this by championing the artist.
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.
As for paying for music used included in a downloaded program - you mean there's no negotiated deal that pays an artist for every DVD movie sold? What is the issue here? Sounds kinda simple.
My God, what are these people on?
I really hope Congress disregards this. Utter greed.
Congress? Disregard greed?
Or even just posting about it. That'll be 50 cents, please.
Now you owe 50 Cent royalties, too.
edit: Shit, now I do, too.
Secondly, if they want performance royalties for TV/Movie downloads off the iTunes music store, they will need to take that up with the content owners, like Sony, Fox, Universal etc. It isn't fair to petition the government to step into Apple's success.
This is the problem of having a large controlling government who wants to spread the wealth. Songwriters, composers and artists have been on the wrong side of the deal since the beginning when the label executives formed a contract that screws those who perform and create the music. The Label records the music and creates a tangible object for distribution.
Really though, if your gonna whine about 30s samples, throw a hissyfit over the fact that radio is getting away scott free and keeps using the same lying argument. As it turns out Pandora, who was almost shutdown due to an intense royalty fee hike, induces more CD sales than radio. I stopped listening to radio because they don't actually play anything new, they repeat their playlists. Driving from Vegas to Flagstaff (4 hour drive) I heard 3 songs played 3 different times. Radio doesnt deserve to continue in their free escapades while Pandora has to make up industry losses.
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.
those who hate the government are the ones who fucked it up in the first place. they're also the ones who hate the government unless it suits them.
You're all focusing on the 30-second samples, but the case also encompasses full downloads. The 30 second samples are long enough to be included in, for example, a television advertisement.
I think the reason most of us are focusing on the 30-second samples is because that's the stupid part of it.
Very few (reasonable) people would argue that they shouldn't be entitled to the same percentage in royalties from a download versus a DVD sale. It's ludicrous that they're not getting that ? but that's their own fault for signing moronic contracts with the networks and the movie studios, not Apple's!
A 30-second sample played for a music store customer should absolutely be free! It's an advertisement for their own music. It benefits them that they're free.
The fact that someone could take that snippet and use it in a commercial is irrelevant, because that use is already illegal.
The rest sounds like nonsense. Especially re the 30-second snippets that generate sales!