Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples
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..."
FYI, this has nothing to do with the RIAA. This is ASCAP. The term "RIAA" doesn't even appear in TFA.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
ASCAP is a separate group from the RIAA. They just "represent" the labels like Sony, BMG and so on. ASCAP is just saying they want their pound of flesh, since the RIAA already gets theirs from the licensing fees. It doesn't make the claim any less bullshit, but it sheds light on the train of thought. ASCAP wants to tax everything it can classify as a "performance", the RIAA does the same for everything it can call a "license". Or get Congress to agree is a performance or license, respectively.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.