It's a waste of energy to even type this because of the obvious...ness of it all.
But those music industry morons are beyond greedy.
I suspect it's underemployed attorneys--the bane of all evil--who are the real problem here. They probably agreed to take the job on contingency, with the hopes of getting a percentage of any increase in royalties. The music industry groups probably said, "sure, if you wanna do that, then go ahead, see what you can do."
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?
Apple could make this easy, offering the artist the opportunity of playing the 30 second add. They could even label the check box "Deselect to remove sales".
They might as well just lobby congress to extract a fee for every child born on Earth. After all, those children are certainly going to be downloading free music and videos (instead of being gouged by greedy executives).
Their predicament is similar to the effects of high taxation. The higher you go, the more you incentivize cheating. I pay for my music and videos, but the generations to come will require a new, more honest paradigm. They are not going to pay for a crappy album with one good song on it.
I see their efforts as pure, naked greed. May the executives enjoy the backlash for their shortsighted and reckless behavior.
I see those 30 second snippets as free advertising. How many of the songs have I purchased been because of the 30 second snippet? Maybe 1/2 to 3/4.
I swear that greed rules these people.
I would go even further and say that without the snippets I wouldn't be buying anything at all.
As an album purchaser (something the music industry is still trying to promote in their customers), I often hear about it only from a song I hear at someones house or on the TV. Then I go to iTunes and listen to al the samples on the album. If there are more "hits" than "misses" I take a chance and buy the album.
There is no way at all that I would buy an album on iTunes if I can't listen to the snippets first. that's just ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that advertising professionals are recording 30-second samples of songs from iTunes and using them in commercials? That's ridiculous. If you knew anything about the process of buying the rights for music to put into commercials you'd laugh at the suggestion.
The quality of the music I buy on line is lower than that of 20 years ago
....
Someone is making more money somewhere and supposedly it isn't the artist!
QFT!
I still listen to CDs on a quality stereo system.
Mechanical distribution rights are what Apple pays to record labels today I believe (the labels = copyright holders; music artists surrender the copyrights to their recorded performances I believe), and that 30 second preview, well, IMHO that should be included with the mechanical distribution rights fee.
Ah, I thought you just meant for your iPhone, not actually on the iPhone. That would be cool, but I can?t even see Get Info of songs like I can in iTunes or change any names while using the device so I think you are SoL for a long, long time on that front.
Im sure your correct, with the way the record companies are talking I bet they would want a fee for that too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
That's just the attitude you get from being brainwashed by watching MSNBC!
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.
I think the David Israelite mis-stated the facts for sensationalism. It very is possible I am incorrect but I doubt these deals could be made without royalties being paid as they would be for physical CD's and DVD's definitely payout royalties. My wife negotiates licensing on Cd's and Movies for a living and I've never heard anything about Apple not paying royalties. I mean really they sell and stream movies, songs and TV but don't pay royalties? I think SAG, WGA, etc etc would have a fit if royalties weren't being paid and never would have cut a deal with Apple to begin with. His statement sounds more like lawyer fud to me.
Personally I don't think this will go anywhere. I agree with everyone else when they say the clips are clearly advertisements to entice someone to purchase and youtube is a much bigger problem with pertinent violations.
Is this the same music industry that brings their artists to award shows in downtown NYC on white horses? (literally...taylor swift came with white horses)
and theyre complaining about a company that makes little to nothing on a song by song basis selling their product?
performance fee? If you didnt offer 30 second clips, how could apple try to introduce you to new music with the genius feature which tries to actively select music that its users might enjoy based on their previous purchases? Should we be buying on blind faith?
why are they going after the only successful entity to bring the old music industry into the modern internet world?
I knew it would be only a matter of time that these fucking idiots from the music and film industries would want to take another (unjust and undeserved) bite out of Apple.
Without Apple and Jobs these fools would be panhandling on the streets since everyone would be torrenting away music/Tv/ film instead of paying for it.
iTunes is already expensive enough; any more increases in fees and many people would be through with it and go back to getting it for free.
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. ?
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
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 ...
Comments
It's a waste of energy to even type this because of the obvious...ness of it all.
But those music industry morons are beyond greedy.
I suspect it's underemployed attorneys--the bane of all evil--who are the real problem here. They probably agreed to take the job on contingency, with the hopes of getting a percentage of any increase in royalties. The music industry groups probably said, "sure, if you wanna do that, then go ahead, see what you can do."
You go Edit » Trim or click the button in the player that gives you the Trim option. It’s a nice setup.
Isn't that after you select what part to trim? But how do you select what's to be trimmed?
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?
Apple could make this easy, offering the artist the opportunity of playing the 30 second add. They could even label the check box "Deselect to remove sales".
Their predicament is similar to the effects of high taxation. The higher you go, the more you incentivize cheating. I pay for my music and videos, but the generations to come will require a new, more honest paradigm. They are not going to pay for a crappy album with one good song on it.
I see their efforts as pure, naked greed. May the executives enjoy the backlash for their shortsighted and reckless behavior.
I see those 30 second snippets as free advertising. How many of the songs have I purchased been because of the 30 second snippet? Maybe 1/2 to 3/4.
I swear that greed rules these people.
I would go even further and say that without the snippets I wouldn't be buying anything at all.
As an album purchaser (something the music industry is still trying to promote in their customers), I often hear about it only from a song I hear at someones house or on the TV. Then I go to iTunes and listen to al the samples on the album. If there are more "hits" than "misses" I take a chance and buy the album.
There is no way at all that I would buy an album on iTunes if I can't listen to the snippets first. that's just ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that advertising professionals are recording 30-second samples of songs from iTunes and using them in commercials? That's ridiculous. If you knew anything about the process of buying the rights for music to put into commercials you'd laugh at the suggestion.
Everyone knows Charlie Harper rights them.
The quality of the music I buy on line is lower than that of 20 years ago
....
Someone is making more money somewhere and supposedly it isn't the artist!
QFT!
I still listen to CDs on a quality stereo system.
Mechanical distribution rights are what Apple pays to record labels today I believe (the labels = copyright holders; music artists surrender the copyrights to their recorded performances I believe), and that 30 second preview, well, IMHO that should be included with the mechanical distribution rights fee.
Ah, I thought you just meant for your iPhone, not actually on the iPhone. That would be cool, but I can?t even see Get Info of songs like I can in iTunes or change any names while using the device so I think you are SoL for a long, long time on that front.
Im sure your correct, with the way the record companies are talking I bet they would want a fee for that too!
That's just the attitude you get from being brainwashed by watching MSNBC!
Ya... I don't watch MSNBC....to liberal.
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.
I think the David Israelite mis-stated the facts for sensationalism. It very is possible I am incorrect but I doubt these deals could be made without royalties being paid as they would be for physical CD's and DVD's definitely payout royalties. My wife negotiates licensing on Cd's and Movies for a living and I've never heard anything about Apple not paying royalties. I mean really they sell and stream movies, songs and TV but don't pay royalties? I think SAG, WGA, etc etc would have a fit if royalties weren't being paid and never would have cut a deal with Apple to begin with. His statement sounds more like lawyer fud to me.
Personally I don't think this will go anywhere. I agree with everyone else when they say the clips are clearly advertisements to entice someone to purchase and youtube is a much bigger problem with pertinent violations.
... That's ridiculous. If you knew anything about the process of buying the rights for music to put into commercials you'd laugh at the suggestion.
Word!
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.
The Government wrote the laws to give copyrights merit so spare me the Ayn Rand fear.
The Government wrote the laws to give copyrights merit so spare me the Ayn Rand fear.
This isn't about copyrights.
And even if it was, we have seen what a joke those have become.
I.E. Texas Law Suits.
A few year from now the music industry will be asking for royalties if you hum or whistle a popular song to yourself.
Already, if your actors hum or whistle in a movie, or a broadcast of some sort you may need to consult your lawyers first. :-(
and theyre complaining about a company that makes little to nothing on a song by song basis selling their product?
performance fee? If you didnt offer 30 second clips, how could apple try to introduce you to new music with the genius feature which tries to actively select music that its users might enjoy based on their previous purchases? Should we be buying on blind faith?
why are they going after the only successful entity to bring the old music industry into the modern internet world?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...curriculum.ars
Without Apple and Jobs these fools would be panhandling on the streets since everyone would be torrenting away music/Tv/ film instead of paying for it.
iTunes is already expensive enough; any more increases in fees and many people would be through with it and go back to getting it for free.
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
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.
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 ...