Are you kidding me?

[yendi]

Music CEOs (David Renzer of Universal is cited sounding particularly moronic) want to get license fees for the streaming 30-second iTunes song samples. You know, the ones whose sole reason for existing isn't to entertain, but to sell the bloody songs!

I swear, there are few groups I feel less sympathy for than this one.

(Related aside: I attended a nifty program last week that, among other things, featured Charles Nesson discussing the insanely messed-up state of copyright. You can see the streamed speech here.)

Comments

[amokk]

It's like they came up with a plan to slit their own throats just to squeeze a penny out of the public.

[yendi]

And it won't even work; the "best case" just means that Apple and Amazon won't offer previews, which in turn means that they'll sell fewer songs, which in turn won't lead to sales elsewhere, but will instead just mean fewer sales, period.

[luis-mw.livejournal.com]

So, when there is an advert for their album on the radio, which features a clip of a song, who pays the licence fee for that?

[wishiwasnt.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think Carnes is much worse:

"The songwriter gets a performance fee if the song is streamed without the video," Carnes noted. "But if it is downloaded within an audio-visual work like a movie we don't get a performance fee--same song, no money."

Of course, whether there is video or not is irrelevant, it's that downloading is a copy, not a performace, where streaming is a performance and not a copy, which the judge in the case discussed made perfectly clear.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Cartels generally plant the seeds of their own demise. Frequently, their demise includes black or gray markets for their product springing up to route around the cartel.

But seldom have I seen a cartel which didn't understand the first thing about its own product. This stupidity has reached the profound level.

[amokk]

Exactly. They're killing themselves trying to squeeze out a few extra pennies and in so doing they're losing dollars.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

The artist.

I'm sure the cartel would get that to come right out of the royalties.

There's a reason I'm no longer in that particular industry. =)

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

So, basically it's like: "Look, NBC, if you want to keep running adverts for my product, you're going to have to start paying me!"

[brak55.livejournal.com]

Apple and Amazon should shorten all the clips to 29 seconds and tell them to stick it under fair use.

I just read an article where some in the industry also want to push the metered bandwidth so those that do a lot of downloading have to pay more than those who just check e-mail. Of course, this will also screw up those who listen to Internet radio along with those who legally download a lot of music.

These are the death spasms of a dieing industry, at least as far as it's currently configured.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I'm increasingly convinced that the music industry's primary goal does not involve promoting the sale of music.

My understanding of things

[fings.livejournal.com]

I think Carnes is wrong -- the songwriter doesn't get a performance fee in either case, the *performer* gets a performance fee.

This whole thing is an artifact of our laws and of songs having two (potential) copyrights, one for the song writer (composer copyright), and one for the performer (recording copyright), with our laws assigning payment for "synchronization rights" (using a song with synced up with a video) solely to the composer. When someone streams $ARTIST's song, they pay a performance fee. When someone watches a video, only the composer gets paid.

Right now, when a song is played on the radio, only the composer gets paid; the performer gets nothing. That's one reason why the Beatles wrote their own songs -- to make more money. There's a bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.848:) being fought over which would remove the exemption for radio not paying artists.

Re: My understanding of things

[wishiwasnt.livejournal.com]

the songwriter doesn't get a performance fee in either case, the *performer* gets a performance fee.

Under copyright law, at least (I don't know how the licenses are structured), the songwriter has rights to the public performance of his work. The performer only has rights to her specific performance of that work (i.e., she hold rights to recordings of her singing it). So, if I write a song, and then you sing it, you have to get a license from me to sing it. If someone wants to sell a copy of your rendition of it, they have to pay both of us. However, under 17 USC 114 they only need my license to perform your recording, except when it's a digital audio transmission.

I forget the rationale for that; there is one, but who knows if it makes any sense.