http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html Doesn't this seem a hair ridiculous? So, TV shows market songs (crappily - I ****ing hate shows that add stupid soundtracks with new pop hits, could there be a more obviously pathetic attempt to market?) and now we have to pay for it? I don't pay to look at billboards! Why is this any different? And song samples? Talk about counterintuitive and shooting one's self in the foot. Again, why do I have to pay for your sales pitch? Stupid, greedy douches.
Given that the people asking for this are the songwriters, composers and publishers, the very people who create these songs yet are increasingly getting less and less money due to the fact that traditional music sales (CDs) are way, way down, I think it's hardly fair to call them greedy. It would be preferable if they would negotiate a higher fee from the music labels, but they (the labels) are not going to negotiate at a time when sales have dropped so much. So while I don't like the increase, I don't mind it if it's going to the songwriters.
OMG another snarky FFB post! This place is always full of surprises. Back to the subject I have no problem with songwriters/composers/etc getting paid for TV shows and Movies. I do have a problem with paying for :30 samples.
1) I'm not sure why their lousy deals with the RIAA are my problem. 2) I still find the idea of paying for what is (was) basically free advertisement for their product ludicrous. Do you pay to test drive a car?
So they want to charge people a performance fee every time someone listens to a piece of a song to see if they like it? And they want to get a bigger piece of online sales (increase the price) so they can charge "performance" fees on digital downloads of songs and MOVIES? Sounds like they need to rework their deals with the labels/distribution up front, and quit whining about this on the back end. Those deals are signed, and the public is losing it's patience for this. A two cent check eh? He must suck. Really? We need to pay more for a movie now that it's being downloaded instead of purchased in the store because the guy who wrote the little known background music during a FIGHT SCENE gave away his 'sync rights' hoping for 'performance fees'? Am I the only one that thinks that is the silliest thing I ever heard? Movie has budget... movie wants music... movie finds dude that can write music.... movie pays dude to write music. EOS. If you think we're upping the cost of a digital movie because of this, or if you think people won't BACKLASH to increased movie/whatever prices because of something like this... you're kidding yourself. Did the fight scene music guy get 'performance' royalties when the movie was sold at Wal Mart? I'm guessing not, and if they did, then they should have taken that into account when they signed these deals to distribute the content online. The cost of these things is already pushing a threshold of value considering people are paying nearly what they would for actual CD/DVDs, and they're doing so without providing physical product beyond bits and bytes. They don't have the legs to pull this off, and if they do, it will be to their own detriment. These ASSCAPs need to check themselves before they wreck themselves.
Exactly and you would also have to pay for humming a song cause according to these lunatics that is also considered a public performance.
As the medium changes, the fee structure must change too. Charging for 30sec samples seems very odd -- but the artist on a tv show or movie shouldn't be paid significantly less if the same size audience sees his works online instead of on cable. I don't know how fees for downloads compare to those for physical cd/dvd sales -- but again -- it's probably time to tweek the royalty model. And I wouldn't expect Apple and the pioneers of the newer distribution channels to be too keen on that. It must really irk them that they have to put up with those petulant "artistes" to supply them with product. Can't they just be happy to have their works seen without cutting into gross margins and quarterly earnings?
lol. I'm sure apple is being greedy here too - but the point is that the artists want to charge you to listen to a sample of a song, the objective of which is too, obstensibly, charge you to buy it. That's insane. Why not just charge me to think about it? Better yet, don't advertise at all - just put out blank (labeless) CDs with the label "music" on it and charge people to look at it, and then charge them again to buy it. Moreover, the artists are the one's who routinely sign these enormously ****ty RIAA contracts where they essentially fork over their rights to their own creations. Yeah, that's unfair and cartel-ish and I'm just as unhappy with RIAA shennanigans as the next guy - but responding by charging your customers for petty bull**** that a) advertises for you and b) is your own fault for contractually agreeing to - is just plain dumb. I don't even buy much music and i find this insulting. Manny fall in a faint.
I'm with you on the charging for samples. Can't figure the logic. Hard to blame the artists for signing the bad contracts though. The industry lawyers are bigger then their lawyers. And Monopoly's a fun game when you're winning. Maybe that's why they'd like Congress to step in. Once congress settles MLB's problems perhaps they can help out the recording industry .
