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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
This raises an interesting point for me - does iTunes set separate policy for all regions in which itms operates?
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.
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.)
To that end I think these developments will be closely watched but I don't think there will be much sabre rattling
You put it very well here.
Thank You.
I'm glad someone gets it.
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.
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.
What a bunch of nitwits!
Sometimes you just need to let idiots have there way if only to set them right.
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.
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.
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.
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.