Music groups want royalties from iTunes samples, more
updated 08:35 am EDT, Thu September 17, 2009
ASCAP, others want online performance fees
Music royalty groups ASCAP and BMI are pressing online music stores like Apple's iTunes to pay performance fees not only for actual song downloads but also videos and even the 30-second samples used to preview the music in advance. While these stores already pay the distribution fees for the songs themselves, ASCAP, BMI and labels claim that just downloading and playing the content also counts as a live performance and should bring an extra fee.
The reasons vary depending on the format. For music, it's claimed that downloads or streams, including samples, count as a public performances as with the radio or in a venue, where performance royalties are already paid. Movie and TV royalties would be different as soundtrack artist are normally paid for when the videos are aired, which is commonplace for theaters and TV networks but doesn't occur for online formats.
However, critics such as the Digital Music Association, an online media industry defender that counts Apple, RealNetworks and others as members, counter that a legal precedent has already been set that considers downloads private and thus exempt from performance fees. They also accuse ASCAP and related firms of trying to collect double royalties, of violating copyright law in trying to collect from samples, and simply of trying to exploit successful online stores like iTunes.
"These guys are afraid that the business model is shifting away from public performances to a model of private performances," DiMA executive director Jonathan Potter told CNET. "They aren't getting paid for the public performance in a download because there is no public performance in a download."
Internet radio stations, including both generic streams and recommendation-based systems like Last.fm and Pandora, already pay royalties for each song streamed online. Those with the jukebox software playing the content are at least theoretically exempt as they only make the stations accessible.
Wow.
09/17, 08:57am (2 replies) reply
I think Apple should turn off the royalties, and then let these companies watch profits drop even further as people don't buy stuff from the story due to not knowing if it is the track they want, or getting an idea of an artist before purchasing.
Ridiculous and short-sighted... which explains so much about why the recording industry is in the situation it is in recently.
jmelrose
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
what's next
09/17, 09:14am (1 reply) reply
you know when you get that song bug in your head? Yeah they will want a royalty for that.
climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2001
Mo money
09/17, 09:21am reply
They need to start a music stimulus plan where they pay you to listen to the samples.
RKDinOKC
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2007
BWAHAHAHAHA
09/17, 09:23am reply
HAHAHAHAHA good luck with that!
You know, as a person with copyrighted works of art out there, I'm NOT a "f*** the RIAA" type person. At all.
But whoever's advising the publishing/record companies these days is apparently determined to completely redefine the meanings of both "money-grubbing" and "public backlash."
The "f*** the RIAA" fools will never bring down the record-company model, in part because they are doing such a fine job of destroying themselves, quite frankly.
chas_m
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
Completely Reasonable
09/17, 10:32am reply
There's absolutely nothing stupid nor greedy about this. Nothing!
jmonty12
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2003
More greed from the music labels!
09/17, 10:32am (1 reply) reply
This is just as stupid as there request for royalties for every time your phone plays a ringtone, they want money for that too!!!!
This tidal wave of greed started when Bush let these fools go suing everyone including dead people for what they claimed was stolen music. Now they seem to think they are owed the world for every note to ever peep out of a speaker!
b9robot
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 2009
what?
09/17, 10:36am reply
Obviously, paying royalties for the song samples people listen to is ridiculous.
I don't understand what the issue is with videos. Don't the songwriters and publishers get royalties when a video is sold, whether by download or on a DVD? So are they asking for an additional royalty on top of that for a download, because it's a "performance"? That's bizarre.
The next step is mandatory software that monitors your computer, stereo and iPod to keep track of what you play so the publishers can charge you for the performance.
elroth
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2006
NOT GREED FROM LABELS
09/17, 10:40am (1 reply) reply
I have to set the record straight. BMI and ASCAP have to do with paying the artists for their work, not the labels.
with that said, this is completely retarded of them. i will go into BMI and ASCAP here in Nashville this week and 'suggest' to the presidents of each that they drop it.
cueball73
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2009
Yeah I signed with BMI but...
09/17, 11:01am reply
that have no weight even if take to court it wouldn't make a case. I listen to 30 seconds if I buy I buy if I don't I won't. Royalties in this manner is NOT going to work and I'm not looking forward to this.
LEStudios
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2008
Drop previews completely
09/17, 11:23am (1 reply) reply
Apple should drop previews completely for songs covered by ASCAP and BMI. What will happen is the companies not charging royalty fees for previews will get the business. There could be 10 or more different artists singing a particular song, but a potential buyer will purchase the one that "sounds" closest to what they remember, which in this case won't be ASCAP or BMI. Then we'll see their mindset.
jdonahoe
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2006