Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the thicket-of-rights dept.

Music 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..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So essentially they want people to pay (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459915)

for advertising their product for free.... um, pretty much EVERY other industry in the world would like their products advertised for free, and if someone did that for them they certainly wouldn't sue over it.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (4, Insightful)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460063)

Were I Apple, I'd drop people who charged for it.

iTunes has gotten to a saturation point with so many artists that the ones who demand payment would just have to be the ones who afford to lose out on that market. iTunes doesn't *need* them, anymore, and neither does Amazon.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460197)

Yeah, there are a few mainstream artists that aren't sold on iTunes, but they are few. AC/DC and the Beatles aren't sold on iTunes, but lets say that Apple cut off the newest "teen" pop artist, suddenly iTunes just got replaced with whatever digital store sold them (or possibly FrostWire or BitTorrent). There are a few "no name" artists they could ditch, but usually most of the non-famous artists aren't too picky about their music.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460219)

iTunes doesn't *need* them, anymore, and neither does Amazon.

O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?

ASCAP is a membership association of more than 360,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide.

ASCAP is home to the greatest names in American music, past and present - from Duke Ellington to Dave Matthews, from George Gershwin to Stevie Wonder, from Leonard Bernstein to Beyonce, from Marc Anthony to Alan Jackson, from Henry Mancini to Howard Shore - as well as many thousands of writers in the earlier stages of their careers.

ASCAP represents every kind of music. ASCAP's repertory includes pop, rock, alternative, country, R&B, rap, hip-hop, Latin, film and television music, folk, roots and blues, jazz, gospel, Christian, new age, theater and cabaret, dance, electronic, symphonic, concert, as well as many others - the entire musical spectrum.

The majority of mainstream artists (or their publishers) are members of ASCAP, iTunes and Amazon are all about catering to mainstream culture.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460273)

The problem there is that virtually every artist is a member of ASCAP or BMI. You drop those groups and you drop your primary market share, and if you were Apple, would you want to lose your top sellers? I almost guarantee that every artist on the iTunes top Songs all the way to the top 100 are ASCAP or BMI.

The irony is that there is a third group, SESAC, that never gets mentioned or never goes through with this stuff, likely because it's the smallest group, but it's the only one that is For Profit. That's right, both ASCAP and BMI operate on a not-for-profit system, so at least some group works for the content creators, unlike the RIAA which works solely for the companies...

(Don't get me wrong, this is bullshit and I don't think it should be given a second thought, so I hope it won't.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460369)

Sounds like it's time for an anti-trust investigation!

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (3, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460349)

No, simply pass along the charge. "You want to check whether this is the right song before you purchase? Sorry that will be 10c on this song". Let's see how sales go, shall we?

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460073)

These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples.

Greed often destroys a good business idea. They will sell you the rope to hang them with.

It all works in their favour; the less free advertising they get, the less profits they get and the more pirating goes on (because people want to sample music before they buy it), so they can lobby for more royalties and legal penalties against people and companies who can't afford the lawyers to tell them whether a copyright law has been broken. It's all very bourgeoisie.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460103)

Yeah it is pretty stupid to make Apple, Amazon, or other e-tailers pay for the 30 second samples used to promote songs. Oftentimes I have looked at an artist and thought, "I have no idea who this is," but once I heard the 30-second sample I recognized the song and bought the CD. What RIAA is basically doing is trying to block customers from discovering music which will ultimately hurt sales.

As for the music contained in shows and movies, RIAA already collects a piece of every DVD sale or VHS sale or TV rerun. It makes sense they'd want to collect a few pennies off the internet sale too. So I don't have a problem with it.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (-1, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460211)

Or you could have US schools, and with abstinence only education teen pregnancies abound. Telling kids to jerk it seems far more responsible.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460307)

>>>Telling kids to jerk it seems far more responsible.

I value you your opinion, but since is a free country where individuals are liberated, I'm going to completely reject it. I don't see a problem with masturbation, but for some cultures it's a mortal sin that will damn you or your kid to hell for all eternity. They should be free to follow their own morality without interference from the crown. That's what liberty means.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460233)

The article said it was ASCAP and BMI, not RIAA. The text "RIAA" doesn't even appear in the article.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (5, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460241)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460353)

RIAA by any other name stinks the same.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (3, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460249)

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.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460277)

I agree with you re: the 30-second clips. But for other downloads, not so much.

If you distribute a show via broadcast, cable, satellite, or DVD, you pay royalties. Why should video downloads be excepted?

I think there needs to be an even playing field regardless of distribution method. (Just like terrestrial radio should be assessed the same royalty rates as streaming radio).

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460283)

But the ASCAP isn't interested in the actual song "product" just the performance of it. Regardless, it still doesn't make sense to call it a performance.

Re:So essentially they want people to pay (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460305)

pretty much EVERY other industry in the world would like their products advertised for free, and if someone did that for them they certainly wouldn't sue over it.
Well, they would if you didn't license it. For example, you may notice that a Coca-Cola sweatshirt costs more than a blank sweatshirt, even though you are advertising their product for them for free. In fact, the reason that the Coca-cola sweatshirt costs more is because the manufacturer has to pay licensing fees to be allowed to print Coca-Cola on the shirt. If they did not pay the licensing fee, they would indeed get sued.

Somebody please (5, Interesting)

slazzy (864185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459919)

Dig a grave for this dead industry.

Re:Somebody please (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459947)

No need to. They're digging it on their own.

Re:Somebody please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460001)

We don't have to aparently their dead set on digging it themselves.

How about every music store that lets you listen to the entire album if you want?

Their is NO WAY in hell I'd ever pay for an unknown artist without hearing samples and I'm sure I'm not alone, so they're just screwing themselves.

Re:Somebody please (5, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460107)

Well, duh: They don't want you paying for an unknown artist. They want you paying for their over-hyped sensation-of-the-week.

Because being able to create and throw away those sensations-of-the-week is what keeps the record companies in business: It's their advertising, their handling, and their contacts that make that possible. If you start buying artists you've never heard of because you like their music their entire business model goes out the window.

Re:Somebody please (2, Interesting)

registrar (1220876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460319)

That won't work for them. If the unknown performers give Apple permission to play 30 sec clips for free, that will be a major advantage to the unknown performers. It's not smart to put barriers in the way of people who want to investigate your product, especially if the competition can easily remove them for their product.

I'm not sure what's worse: Job's Mob or the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459923)

No comment otherwise; they know who I am, and I'm next !!

Outrage (5, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459935)

Man, this makes SOOOOOOOO angry. Someone should write a song about this.

Re:Outrage (5, Funny)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460149)

Man, this makes SOOOOOOOO angry.

Saxons Of Otherwise Ordinary Occupations Originate Over On Ontario is angry about this? I hear it's rare to make them mad...

Re:Outrage (1)

Pandare (975485) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460259)

Splitters!

Re:Outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460151)

A song so bad only Pink could perform it.

Congress Laws - new Business model? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459941)

I'm sure if I presented a thesis saying that my new form of business model required passing laws in Congress requiring people to give me money at the mere mention of my product, I'd be laughed out of school.

And yet, this seems to be turning into a reality?

Maybe what we need isn't just a government that has its hands off of business, we need businesses to keep their hands off the government too.

Re:Congress Laws - new Business model? (2)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460293)

Mmmmm, corporatism... [wikipedia.org] only a few steps from the holy grail that is Fascism.

Re:Congress Laws - new Business model? (2, Funny)

camg188 (932324) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460311)

from the article:

Israelite acknowledges that the legislative efforts to this point have produced little.

So for right now, it's far from reality.

They're really trying (3, Insightful)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459953)

They really want to shoot themselves in the foot, don't they?

Re:They're really trying (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459985)

I think it's kinda like getting a "high" by suffocating yourself. Except, in this case, the old ways of doing it, like draconian DRM and rootkits, just don't do it for them any more. They have to get their high off of something new now. Trying to extract money from people who are actually helping them is a great idea if you look at it this way.

Re:They're really trying (5, Insightful)

Cheesetrap (1597399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460015)

They really want to shoot themselves in the foot, don't they?

They don't have feet, they're an entity... what they need is to be sucker-punched in their Accounting department and then kicked repeatedly in the Legal until they promise to stop being a dick.

Re:They're really trying (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460069)

Accounting is wrong as is Legal. These people do what the upper exec want them to do.

The Upper execs should be fired.

Re:They're really trying (4, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460117)

Out of cannons, preferably.

Re:They're really trying (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460301)

Into the sun!

Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constitution (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459961)

Amendment XXVIII - Strike the following: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Times not to exceed 14 years to Authors, or 25 years for Inventors, the limited Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The actual time limits can be debated, but they need to be set in the constitution, not left to a congress that can be bribed with corporate donations.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460009)

P.S.

I should probably explain: I think "Right" needs to be changed to "Privilege" for the simple reason that rights are timeless. They are an innate quality of being human and never expire. Therefore a limited-term copyright is not a right, but merely a privilege extended by the ruling government.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460035)

+1 Insightful & way overdue.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (3, Insightful)

mishehu (712452) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460041)

Yes, but the problem is this... who is it that can add an amendment to the constitution? Damn, it's the same congress that can be bribed with corporate donations...

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460161)

(1) You don't need Congress to amend the Constitution. The States can propose amendments. (2) It's not that hard to get a majority to recommend an amendment. You just need to get in power 51 senators and 51% of the House to pass the bill. Easy.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460183)

Oops. That's 67 Senators and 66.7% of the House. Still not that hard.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460191)

You do need a 2/3rds majority vote of BOTH halves of congress...

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460343)

Or just enough guns and people to put a different congress in play.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460363)

Fact is, it's almost impossible to get an amendment. If you study your history class, you'll notice that big problems could go on for decades before an amendment was passed. It's both a bug and a feature.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

robkill (259732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460051)

Good luck. The first hurdle in creating an amendment to the Constitution is that it has to be passed by a 2/3 majority of Congress. If the **AA's can get over %50 to pass the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, then they can easily get over %33 to stall an amendment.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460053)

The actual time limits can be debated, but they need to be set in the constitution, not left to a congress that can be bribed with corporate donations.

And what body would you propose should do the setting in the constitution?

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460099)

Cat burglars. National archives.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460185)

I think former California assemblyman Mike Duvall [wikipedia.org] would nominate his lobbyist friend. Apparently she's got quite a body and wears panties the size of an eye patch! [usatoday.com]

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460093)

I agree its an issue, but something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country. Its not THAT critical.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460209)

>>>something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country

What?!?!? Copyrights already ARE part of the Constitution dimwit. Where the hell do you think the phrase "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" came from???

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460111)

UM, do you really want congress to set it in stone? because is could end up being 1000 years.

And congress is lied to bu corporation, and that ahs a much bigger influence the donations.
They get in front of congress and tell them theya re loosing sales, when they aren't, talk about the cost of downloading with 'adjusted' figures, and then lie about their legal tactics.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460261)

>>>UM, do you really want congress to set it in stone? because it could end up being 1000 years.

I doubt that. There'd be a general outcry by people like us, and the amendment would never get past the state legislatures. I trust that Congress would not be so stupid as to pick any number higher than the original author's lifespan (i.e. 100), for fear of pissing-off the voters and losing the next election.

Re:Enough is enough - Time to amend the Constituti (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460347)

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Times not to exceed 14 years to Authors, or 25 years for Inventors, the limited Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I'd argue that patent protection should have a more limited period than copyright. If you invent the next super computer system, that is something we want in the public domain so we can all benefit from it after a period of time.

On the other hand, if someone writes a murder mystery, who the heck cares? Someone else can write another murder mystery. No one has ever died because they didn't get to watch "Miami Vice", as opposed to not being able to get a anti-retroviral drug.

Dig upan Old Meme (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459965)

The clue-by-four meme died sometime in the late '90s. Methinks it's time to dust it off and start applying it to some heads.

Re:Dig upan Old Meme (2, Funny)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460049)

I quite like referring to it as arranging a meeting with "the board of education"

ooo (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459981)

if it were not for the possibility that they'll just buy a few more congress critters and subsidize themselves I'd say we let the industry go ahead and commit ritual suicide and finally be done with the RIAA and friends once and for all.

Paying Twice (5, Insightful)

Luke Wilson (1626541) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459983)

The makers of the film or TV show had to pay for the song in the first place. The label was already paid for the use and can't extract money again from the redistributor.

SWEET! (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459989)

If this goes through, I will finally get to fulfill my lifelong dream of charging companies to interview me.

Killing A Revenue Stream (4, Interesting)

Petersko (564140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459999)

Were it not for the fact that it would cause iTunes to implode (fiscally speaking), I would suggest that Apple simply remove the 30 second streamsand sell everything based on title alone, or make them available "for a fee" that nobody would EVER pay. Let's see how well that works.

Of course, the other explanation for their request is that the music they're selling mostly sucks bad enough that exposing 30 seconds of it will kill the sale.

Note to copyright whores (2)

ifwm (687373) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460007)

It's not working. What don't you get?

Your customers resent being treated like shit, and this little stunt won't do anything to change that.

It's a new entertainment world, and you're dying, but don't even know it.

ASCAP needs a slap upside the head. (4, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460019)

It would be interesting if Apple did a test where they removed samples from say from the top 1000 songs, then provided 30 second samples for say 50 and calculated how much the 30 second sample actually generated in sales revenue.

The samples on iTunes allow people to figure out if they want to legally buy a song that actually generates revenue for the artists. If I can't sample what I'm deciding to buy, chances are I'd most likely go straight to limewire and get it that way, because these songs are non refundable.

All ASCAP seem to be doing here is encouraging more piracy, most people are generally happy to pay for media if its easy to obtain and its not a difficult process that you have to jump through endless micro payments, confusing license agreements and rights managment that is unreliable. iTunes is making it easy for artists to make revenue off the internet but that is just not enough it seems for those greedy bastards.

Re:ASCAP needs a slap upside the head. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460333)

+1, Needs To Be Said

News? (1)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460021)

They're stupid, they want to die. If this goes through, and you know it will, the entire population should give the major labels the finger and refuse to use anything that gives them money, and refuse to pay for anything they sell. If they make it so that we pay them no matter what we do, we should just cut them the fuck off. I'm sick of them, and I haven't given them a penny in 6 months. God willing, I won't give them a penny for the rest of my life. If it makes me miss out on some music, I'll deal. I have a nice enough library of music, so I'll hold out for their violent death when I can get the songs from the artists, without middlemen riding their backs and raping them.

So sick of them.

Re:News? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460121)

6 months?

Welcome new guy.

Re:News? (1)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460167)

Couldn't help it; I had a ton of itunes gift cards to funnel through. It says something when it takes me two years to go through about $50 worth of itunes gift cards, though.

Re:News? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460251)

I'm about to buy my first album in about five years when Them Crooked Vultures release their album. Other than that, I've so totally lost interest in the pure crapola that the record industry pumps out that I couldn't spend the money in ten years.

Re:News? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460163)

Welcome to the club.

Hi, I'm Jaysyn & I've been RIAA free for 9 years now.

Re:News? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460203)

I think you're confused about all of the music industry groups that try to get paid for music. ASCAP is pretty much the biggest organization for songwriters. Yes songwriters for the big labels, but also those for smaller labels as well.

Its not very exclusive. You can join for a one time fee of $25. http://www.ascap.com/about/howjoin.asp [ascap.com] Then you can hate yourself for the rest of your life ;)

So.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460031)

So lets see here, if I'm not going to listen to the song for free via YouTube, the radio, downloading it off TPB, or now a 30 second sample, how am I to judge the song? Really, the songs I buy off iTunes are in general the ones I've listened to via other means.

Audit the current system first? (5, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460033)

FTA:

"We make 9.1 cents off a song sale and that means a whole lot of pennies have to add up before it becomes a bunch of money," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters' Guild of America. "Yesterday, I received a check for 2 cents. I'm not kidding.

Who in the hell has Rick's other 7.1 cents?

Re:Audit the current system first? (5, Funny)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460239)

Who in the hell has Rick's other 7.1 cents?

Man, Rick got rolled.

Isn't this an issue for the movie and TV companies (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460037)

Someone licensed these clips to Apple. Isn't it those people to whom the songwriters and others should be asking for their cut? Or did the songwriters and others already sell those rights and are now attempting to double dip? Oh, wait:

"In the U.S. while we do get paid a mechanical (licensing fee) from ITunes, we are not getting any performance income from Apple yet,"

Make that triple-dip.

Re:Isn't this an issue for the movie and TV compan (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460207)

What amazes me is how many "groups" representing recording artists there are. It's ludicrous. First you've got to please RIAA, which claims it's doing it to protect the artists, then you've got the publishing companies that will nail your ass if you print any of the lyrics, then you've got ASCAP, which also represents the artists. No wonder the industry is sinking.

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, woo over artists, maybe even start doing their own A&R, and either start selling their own stuff at a discount or start hiking the prices for all RIAA/ASCAP/who-the-fuck-ever, and when someone comes at them with a complaint about anti-competitive behavior, they can always point at demands like this "Hey, these guys effectively demanded we raise prices".

ASCAP (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460055)

Are the artists really for this? or is someone as ASCAP just being a douche?

Free preview (5, Funny)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460071)

I'll give them a free 30 second preview of the body part they can kiss. (Limited time only, restrictions apply, one per customer.)

Reminds me of an ipod game (1)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460085)

There's an ipod game, I think it's called Song Summoner or something. Basically, you take a song from your ipod and make a monster out of it, then you battle evil with it. The evil is a bunch of robots that want to destroy all music and enslave humans.

Short story even shorter: It's a beautiful metaphor for the major labels. They want to destroy music by filling the market with generic crap, and they want to enslave us by forcing us to pay them for it.

*yawn* (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460087)

Idiots. This sort of nonsense is working out so well for RIAA i guess they want in on the ( sinking ) boat too. Next they will want a part of our tax dollars since most of us have ears and might listen to a non-licensed performance.

counterproductive: inures people to "infringement" (3, Insightful)

panthroman (1415081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460091)

These slippery slopes to vices happen all the time. I know lots of folks who would never/rarely drive drunk, but drive stoned all the time. Folks are so inured to breaking the marijuana laws (understandably) that they think nothing of driving stoned, but breaking alcohol laws still has some legitimacy behind it.

Ridiculous laws lead to disdain and apathy toward the legal system. You're just inuring consumers to the idea of "infringement" by making such ludicrous demands.

Re:counterproductive: inures people to "infringeme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460263)

I wouldn't really use the stoned ver. drunk driving analogy.

The affects of Marijuana on some people is extremely different from alcohol.

I have many times gone to very important meetings extremely stoned and nobody has ever known.
Hell i just did a stent of Jury duty in federal court, showed up after a good wake and bake, not one person noticed.

I'm not saying its smart ever to drive under the influence but I wouldn't account for someone's passive dismissal of a law simply because it's illegalness is considered illigetment. It's actually one of the beauties of Marijuana itself, its effects reach a max where you no longer can get any higher and then can be minimized real quick like, like eating something or someone running up to you screaming about a critical harddrive failure on a main database in the middle of the day! Try that with alcohol.

ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For Song Samples (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460123)

Everyone else says ASCAP should finally admit that an extra "S" that belongs in their acronym.

ASSCAP: American Society of Superfluous and Confused Arrogant Peons.

Paid Advertisements... The other way? (1)

DesertJazz (656328) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460127)

Okay, this is ridiculous. Apple is giving them free advertising. Providing the pipeline and distribution network for the advertising... And selling their product for them at a profit for the company. Now they want Apple to pay for them to be able to advertise the recording studio's product that they're trying to sell...

What part of this makes sense to anyone except greedy lawyers and CEO's? The sheer amount of gall is amazing. Do they really expect Apple to bend over and say 'thank you sir may I have another?' I'm pretty sure they now how to tell them where to stick it.

Well ok then (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460139)

I just farted to the tune of "enter sandman" and people overheard. When should I expect Lars Ulrich or the RIAA to come collect their royalties? I think I have some more in the tank for repeat performances on their heads. It was Taco Bell night, afterall.

I'm so fucking tired ... (2, Interesting)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460153)

...of the music industry bullshit. It's really frustrating that companies that depend on obsolescence to earn money can put up a nasty fight just because they have the means ($) for it.

Tired of the re-definition of performance. (5, Insightful)

Bunny Guy (1345017) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460171)

It's not a performance if I
    Play your CD
    Hear your Song on the Radio
    Look at your album jacket ...

It's a performance if:
    You come to my house and play,
    Hold a concert
    Play on a street corner or a subway

Everyone in the chain of production needs to quit pretending that somehow, each time that CD is played, they have put in a personal appearance. // rant off

Performance as defined above is the method the bulk of working musicians actually make money. The RIAA just doesn't want to admit it.

Amend the Constitution (2, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460175)

What would be nice, is if somebody in the US could propose amending the Constitution to prevent private business from making profits by gaming Congress and regulators, and force them to make money by innovating and working hard instead.

Make laws to make regulatory capture by private business (especially those with failing business models) difficult or impossible, and make any law produced from private business' attempts to scam favourable laws, unconstitutional.

IANAL, but if such a thing could be done, then it would set a nice precedent to stop IP cartels and extortion outfits (RIAA, et al) from running amok elsewhere in the world too.

Greedy fuckers (1)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460193)

That's all I have to say on the topic.

ASCAP are money grubbing pigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460205)

This is ASCAP we're talking about.... they've been shaking down restaurants with Jukeboxes and clubs who have live bands for years. Even if said bands are all-original indie acts, they threaten the owners with compliance issues.

I use to run a club.

And before that, I did investigative work for ASCAP, until I just felt too dirty to continue.

What the fuck (5, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460217)

Apparently, the music industry can't obtain the fees through negotiations

Here's how I see this conversation going.

ASCAP> Give us lots of money!
Apple> You're already getting lots of money.
ASCAP> We want *more* money!
Apple> No.
ASCAP> We *demand* more money!
Apple> No.
ASCAP> If you don't give us more money, we'll take our music off your service!
Apple> No you won't, and we both know it.
ASCAP> WAAAAH GIVE US MORE MONEY

C'mon. If they wanted the extra fees so bad, they'd take their music off. Obviously they don't - they just want the government to step in when their own demands for money fell flat.

Why don't they make their own music distributor? Oh, that's right, because that takes work, and they don't want to do work. They just want free money.

I feel so sorry for them.

Why Apple? (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460235)

As evil as record labels are, they are certainly the responsible party for fulfilling their contracts with artists. Go to court and demand that they pay the same kind of penalties that they demand from file sharers. Let them go out of business or price iTunes downloads out of most teenager's budgets and independent musicians may have a chance.

Re:Why Apple? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460295)

That would be nice but only if indies bands didn't jump into the RIAA as soon as a check is waved in front of them. Then it all "Downloaders are stealing" and "I only get 10 cents person over and over again" whaaa.

Ge real, Indie bands are hypocritical turds.

BTW: Hypocritical Turds is the name of my indie band.

Re:Why Apple? (1)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460371)

Yeah, but the problem is that most independent artists generally belong to ASCAP. The real problem is a 30 second clip is not a performance.

Radio Stations (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460247)

From the article:

"(On iTunes) you can stream radio, and you can preview (tracks), things that we should be getting paid performance income for."

Yes, asking for money for 30 second clips is ridiculous, but asking for royalties on Internet radio stations that Apple isn't even hosting is just nuts. Apple should just remove the radio feature from iTunes altogether - that's part of the problem solved.

Re:Radio Stations (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460313)

Ideal Apple. Amazon, and eMusic would send their people to congress and bitch slap these aholes. They should also do a media campaign, get the public to see how abscene and abusive this is.

It's for the techno artists.... (2, Funny)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460265)

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/411/ [xkcd.com]

Watch their sales plummet (1)

bazaarsoft (911025) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460321)

As Apple drops previews for tracks that charge. They won against NBC by pulling their entire video collection - what makes the music industry think they won't pull previews? It's only gonna hurt their sales. These guys are apparently living in some other reality.

Fine with me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460325)

If I can't hear a preview, I guess I just won't buy the song!

Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29460335)

I'm deaf anyway.

iTunes Idea (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460341)

Currently iTunes doesn't differentiate between independent and RIAA affiliated artists maybe they should and explain the difference.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?