Again, Big Music Wants to Screw the Artists
February 5, 2008 | 11:07 am | by t-blender |Rate It:
hollywoodReporter.com: WASHINGTON — Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.
The case before a panel of copyright judges is different from the usual squabbles over money that pit the major record labels against new-media companies because it also features a family fight between the music publishers and songwriters and the rest of the music industry.
At issue is the so-called “mechanical royalty” — payments made for copies of sound recordings, including those made by digital means, to songwriters and publishers.
In a twist for royalty fights, such new-media players as Yahoo, Apple and Napster and major record labels agree with one another and want the royalty they pay to the publishers and songwriters to be lowered.
Here’s where T-Blender probably lunges at me with a sharpened stick and stabs me in the heart here.
I’ve never, ever understood why artists get paid when their song is played on a radio or other medium. If the music is purchased (or provided by the rights holder - ie: the label), then that should be the end of it. When club owners are subjected to fees because a band plays a cover song, or has a jukebox playing between bands, that’s just bad business in my eyes.
The music business somehow thinks it has a different economy than any other business. Think about this website. It was built, and if it was hired to be built, then that person got paid to build it. Should that person be paid again every time someone looks at it? Should that person be paid a percentage of the money raised by the advertising? I think not.
I’m all for art and always have been, but I’ve never understood why the art is considered to be more than just a product. A song is no different than a piece of aluminum siding on a house…and you don’t pay a viewing royalty every time you pass a house.
Chris: Where’s that stick?
If an artist writes a song, he/she has no obligation to share that work with anyone but himself. If a radio station wants to play that song, why shouldn’t the artist be paid? That radio station will attract more listeners, thus make a profit through advertising and sales. As long as the song continues to bring in listeners [customers], the radio station should continue to pay the artist as the artist’s song is still WORKING for the station…same goes for the record label, or anyone else making money off the artist’s work. Why should they make millions on a product they have only a small investment in? How is that fair to the artist? Keep in mind that songs are nothing more than advertising to record labels and and radio stations - - If you have a commercial that advertises your product and you would like that commercial to be aired on television, you have to pay each time that ad [commercial] plays. The payoff, you make money.
Now, if a band is playing cover songs - - you can assume 1 of 2 things; either the band is not talented/creative enough to write original material OR the band makes more money by using the WORKS of the original artist. The simple answer: Pay the people lining your pockets or write your own songs.
Last, but not least - If the aluminum siding on your house is the single reason for millions of dollars in sales, rest assured you will get a kick-back [royalty] from the aluminum siding company : )
PEACE!
Flawed argument.
1st, once the artist makes the song available to the public and it is purchased, it becomes their property…or it should.
2nd, if the artist or their representative (ie: the record label) provides the CD to the radio station (as is EXACTLY) how it happens, why then should the station pay to play something that was provided to them by the artist.
3rd, when U2 (as an example) sells 2,000,000 copies of their CD, how much of a kick back does the radio station get from them? The answer - none. And lets be honest, airplay makes records sell. The reason that every artist that ever recorded a song wants to be heard on the radio is because it directly relates to how many units they will sell.
Therefore, if the expectation from the artist is to be paid for using their product, then the expectation from the station should be to be paid for allowing the artist to use their medium to promote their product. The artist makes every bit as much money from the station as the station does the artist.
If the radio stations went out and said, “we’re not going to play music from any band unless they sign an agreement to be royalty free”, you would see EVERY band in the world dumping their record company and doing so, because what the radio station provides is far more important and profitable to the artist than the 1 tenth of one penny they get for a spin of their song.
The morale to this story? Whoever built this model of business was a crackhead that didn’t have a clue about how real business works. Artists have a false expectation and an even more false value of their product, by and large.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
It is impossible to predict how well a song will perform (how well a product will sell). This is why there are royalties. As a buyer you would not want to pay $100 for a product that will only generate $1 in retail sales - - It’s a loss for you.
As an artist you would not want to sell your product to a buyer for $1 if the value of the product is $100 - - you are not maximizing profit.
Since there is no way to know how much revenue a song will generate the buyer and seller enter into an agreement that includes royalties.
Your argument leads to an extremely skewed agreement that leaves big business making far too much money off the works of the artist - - which is how it has been for years…everyone makes money except the guys doing the grunt work.
On top of that, you can thank the record companies (greedy bastards) for the inflated prices on CD’s, concert tix, merch, etc. - - and now the industry is collapsing! Personally, I can’t wait until all the corporate powers have folded, then the artists can play for the sake of making music and spend less time worrying about getting ass-raped by their label.
PEACE