ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples 463
CNet reports on a new money battle brewing between those who generate music and those who profit from selling it on the Net. "Songwriters, composers, and music publishers are making preparations to one day collect performance fees from Apple and other e-tailers for not just traditional music downloads but for downloads of films and TV shows as well. Those downloads contain music after all. These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples. ... Apparently, the music industry can't obtain the fees through negotiations. They have begun lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would require anyone who sells a download to pay a performance fee..."
Re:So essentially they want people to pay (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, this has nothing to do with the RIAA. This is ASCAP. The term "RIAA" doesn't even appear in TFA.
Re:So essentially they want people to pay (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Outrage (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So essentially they want people to pay (Score:4, Informative)
It does change that fact. You are aware that the distribution volume impacts the royalties paid, right? The 'pound of flesh' is not exactly a pound just because song are listed in the credits... that pound is a variable amount depending on sales volume of tickets.
And you are also aware that as distribution on the "magic internet" increases, traditional distribution will decline? And thus the content distributors will pay less in royalties?
And perhaps you're also unaware that the movie theaters (the 3rd-party distributor) pay the ASCAP royalty fees indirectly as part of their payment to the movie studio, which is volume-based?
Seriously, you need to brush up on your knowledge of how the industry works, and drop the condescension ("magic internet"? gimme a break) when making claims that simply don't stand up to how things actually work.
ASCAP & BMI represent artists, not labels (Score:4, Informative)
As a performing artist, I know all too well how ASCAP and BMI work. They are actually artist organizations (they don't represent the labels) that pay the artist directly for "performances" of their music. Any public performance of an ASCAP or BMI artist's music is supposed to be supplemented by payment, usually in the form of a contract between the venue and ASCAP/BMI. The money the venue pays to the organization goes into a pot - and then this money is distributed to the artists. Nice idea, in theory. The problem begins when one looks at how these organizations pay the artists. It is almost entirely based upon radio airplay, so the system doesn't work particularly well except for the big players in the game.
ASCAP is well-known in cities for cracking-down on places like coffee houses that have live music - they send in what are essentially thugs to scare the venue into paying what works out to be "protection money" to keep ASCAP from suing them in the event someone plays an ASCAP-artist song during an open mic or live music event. Rather than trying to come off on a more positive marketing angle of trying to help out the music business and the artist, which ASCAP could easily create a pretty compelling argument for, they instead use strongarm legal language and intimidation. I know many coffee houses who simply won't allow live music due to a scary visit from ASCAP or BMI thugs.
Much like the RIAA, these "artist" companies, due to their plainly nasty way of dealing with their clients and the public, are simply in the business of making money off other people's work. This is why I am not a member of any of these organizations and work hard to support venues who don't cave-in to the pressures these organizations place on them. Original live music, owned by the performer - that cannot be touched by these cads.
The other Apple (Score:3, Informative)
What's going to happen at the end of the day is that Apple and other online music services are going to make their own damned labels
If Apple Inc. did that, the other Apple might complain [wikipedia.org].
You know what (Score:2, Informative)
Fuck these people. Damn dirty, no-good rotten, greedy, lifeless, soulless, talentless hack job bastards.
Even the Wallstreet/Banker CEO pricks must stand in awe and wonder on how this bunch of pricks can make an extra dollar.
Re:So essentially they want people to pay (Score:2, Informative)
You can't sync your iPhone from Songbird, you still need iTunes.
The lock-in is the iTunes software won't sync to competitors' hardware devices.
Re:So essentially they want people to pay (Score:3, Informative)
Sorta. If you want to play music licensed through ASCAP or BMI then you purchase a license. It's not mandatory. If you have, say, a bar or club and you don't thik you'll get any financial gain out of playing music at your establishment, then you can skip the license.
This is almost, but not quite, true. Its the "not quite" that is bothersome, since ASCAP will try to leverage money out of you WHETHER OR WEATHER NOT you actually plan on playing ASCAP music, on the off chance that you might accidentally do so. If I own a bar or coffee shop that has live music, ASCAP still wants money on the off chance that someone MAY play a cover of a song covered by them, even if no one ever does. I've talked to several smaller touring artists who are not ASCAP members who complain non-stop about ASCAP.
IF, ASCAP actually only charged per-play I would have no problem with them, but they try to leverage fees... JUST IN CASE. This is extortion.
They also try to block small, nonprofit, venues (like weddings and larger parties) from playing music that may or may not be licensed to them. There is a line here, if I choose to play music at my (nonprofit) wedding with a 10s of guests, then they really have no moral (if not legal) right to try to grab money from me. And most of the money they grab goes to the BIG people, and probably not the people I will play at my wedding/bar/coffee house, thus the artists I may possible theoretically infringe upon see minimal benefit.
This iTunes thing is another reason to question their legitimacy. They are making money from those 30sec samples, but appearently would rather secure a short-term revenue stream over actually making money for their members.
You're correct that fees are distributed roughly in proportion to popularity. The song and lyric writing biz is a bit unfair this way; popularity often doesn't scale to talent. They used to measure only by radio airplay sampling, but in recent years they've made it more equitable, by getting playlists from satellite and Internet radio stations, for instance -- which play a lot more eclectic and lesser-known music.
Nor does it scale to who I actually play. It is rather odd that if I, as an owner of an establishment, never play Birtney Spears, she still gets money from me just by essence of her being more popular.