stories filed under: "previews"
Apple Tells Labels, Unilaterally, That It's Increasing Song Previews To 90 Seconds
from the who's-going-to-sue-first? dept
A couple months ago, rumors made the rounds that Apple was going to double the length of song previews in iTunes from 30 to 60 seconds. An expected announcement did not appear, however, apparently because the music publishers (who in the past have already claimed -- without success -- that Apple should pay performance fees on those 30 second previews) felt Apple first needed to get permission from them, as well as the labels. So it's interesting to see that, at least with the record labels, Apple appears to be taking an aggressive approach, sending out letters simply telling labels that their deals have changed and song previews will now be 90 seconds:
"It's like giving away ice cream samples--someone has to pay the cost," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America. "I think it would be a good thing for consumers to go to 90 seconds. But they're tripling the amount of time, and they want it for free. I think there ought to be compensation. I believe anytime you use music, you ought to reward the people making the music."Does Rick really believe that? If so, the Songwriters should fire him as their leader. What he should be looking for is what will maximize the revenue overall, not what will maximize the revenue per use. If you get paid per use, and it means shorter previews -- but that means many fewer sales and less overall money for the artists, then Carnes with his "anytime you use, you pay" philosophy is doing serious harm to the songwriters. And, of course, the actual evidence goes against Carnes. Studies have shown that such longer previews increases purchasing, but the publishing folks and the songwriters like Carnes are more interested in licensing than in direct sales anyway (even if that's really short-sighted). It's too bad that the Songwriters Guild would be represented by someone without their best interests in mind.
Filed Under: music, previews, publishers, rick carnes, songwriters
Companies: apple
Music Publishers Angry That Apple Didn't First Grovel To Them About 60-Second Song Previews
from the it-helps-you-sell-more dept
It's really incredible to watch music industry folks shoot themselves in the foot over and over again with a simple inability to understand that promotions can lead to more sales, and that you don't need to get paid for every promotional effort. We've seen some in the industry gleefully admit that they'd rather have $1 today than $100 tomorrow. But this sort of thinking seems to pervade so much of the music industry at times that it's really quite stunning.The latest comes from rumors that Apple was going to double song sample lengths in iTunes from 30-seconds to 60-seconds. There's apparently plenty of good reasons for this, as research has shown that 60-second samples lead to more purchases.
And yet, despite the rumors, you'll notice that Steve Jobs did not announce the expected doubling of samples. Why? Apparently Apple had the approval of all four of the major record labels... but he forgot to go groveling and beg for permission from the other side of the coin: the music publishers. Apparently, various music publishers read the rumors of the doubling and were quite upset that Apple hadn't asked for their permission, and even started lawyering up to sue, in case Apple announced such a plan without first getting permission from various music publishers.
And people say we're exaggerating when we show just how ridiculous music licensing is. This isn't about copyright or revenue or anything. This is just childish foot-stomping by a group that demands that everyone ask permission before helping them make more money. Stunning.
Filed Under: copyright, itunes, permission, previews, publishers
Companies: apple, nmpa
Canadian Appeals Court Says Song Previews Can Be Fair Dealing
from the you-need-a-court-to-tell-you-that? dept
While the US entertainment industry continues to insist that Canada's copyright law is way too "friendly" to would-be infringers, one area where it most certainly is not is in the area of fair use. Up in Canada, they don't even have fair use, but the much more limited "fair dealing," which is rigidly defined (unlike fair use) -- with one area being "research." Apparently, the Copyright Board of Canada ruled back in 2007 that the 30-second previews of music found on services like iTunes counted as fair dealing, because it was consumer "research" into whether or not they wanted to purchase the song. In response, the Canadian songwriters group SOCAN disagreed and asked a court to review. According to SOCAN such a broad definition of "research" was not what Canadian copyright law intended. In SOCAN's view, "research" only meant scientific research (so, only folks in science labs and white lab coats could listen to 30 second previews legally).Thankfully, the Canadian appeals court disagreed, saying that consumer research definitely can count as "research" under fair dealing:
The legislator chose not to add restrictive qualifiers to the word "research" in section 29. It could have specified that the research be "scientific", "economic", "cultural", etc. Instead it opted not to qualify it so that the term could be applied to the context in which it was used, and to maintain a proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests.Of course, this is somewhat similar to ASCAP down here in the US recently trying to claim that those same 30-second previews required a performance license -- which, thankfully, was also rejected. Both situations show the ridiculous lengths that some of these organizations will go to, in their attempts to squeeze money out of places that are clearly promotional and where it should be obvious that the uses aren't just "fair use" or "fair dealing," but in the best interests of the songwriters in getting their songs heard and known.
If, in essence, the legal research such as that referred to in CCH has a more formal and rigorous aspect, the same is not necessarily true for that conducted by consumers of a work subject to copyright, such as a musical work. In that context, it would not be unreasonable to give the word "research" its primary and ordinary meaning. The consumer is searching for an object of copyright that he or she desires and is attempting to locate and wishes to ensure its authenticity and quality before obtaining it. I agree with the Board that "[l]istening to previews assists in this investigation".
Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, previews
Companies: socan
ASCAP, BMI Demanding Payment For 30 Second Previews At Web Stores
from the are-they-insane? dept
It's been really stunning to see just how little dignity groups like ASCAP and BMI have in trying to suck every last penny out of any kind of musical usage, without ever once considering the damage they're actually doing to songwriters. It's as if the folks who run these groups have no concept of the actual impact of their crazy demands. In just the last few months, we've seen them try to squeeze more money out of music video games -- apparently not comprehending how much those games help promote musicians and sell more product. Then there was the fancy trick, where they claimed that websites that embedded music videos from YouTube had to pay even though they were already getting paid by YouTube directly. They just wanted to get paid twice. And remember back in the summer when they claimed that the ringtone playing on your phone required a public performance license on top of the royalties already paid? They have no shame.So, I guess it should come as no surprise at all to find out that their latest target is the 30 second previews that you hear on iTunes or Amazon.com. Yes, they're claiming that those 30 second previews should count as a public performance, and they want to get paid. Now. And they're asking Congress to make it happen -- because, as we've been learning recently, if you're inept at running an actual business, just go to the federal gov't and ask them to bail you out.
Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America -- and who, we've been reliably informed, is a big fan of this site (that's sarcasm) after our previous articles debunking some of his more absurd claims -- explains the situation:
"Yesterday, I received a check for 2 cents. I'm not kidding. People think we're making a fortune off the Web, but it's a tiny amount. We need multiple revenue streams or this isn't going to work."Talk about entitlement culture. Because Rick Carnes is unable to structure a smart business model, and thus makes pennies, everyone else needs to just cough up and pay? Yeah... that's reasonable. How about rather than trying to squeeze every penny out of everyone else (and then funnel it to the top artists instead of the smaller artists, anyway), you spend some time actually understanding basic business models -- such as ones where you convince someone that something's worth paying for, rather than just demanding Congress give you a cut of everything, in a way that harms the very musicians you claim to represent?
And, of course, as the article above notes, it's a flat-out lie that songwriters aren't getting paid for a lot of this stuff:
"These guys are afraid that the business model is shifting away from public performances to a model of private performances," [David] Potter [from the Digital Media Association (DiMA)] said. "This is a turf battle. They are saying, 'The songwriters aren't getting paid.' Baloney. Songwriters are getting paid. They're paid sync rights and (mechanical) rights. They aren't getting paid for the public performance in a download because there is no public performance in a download."This is a pure money grab by people who don't want to come up with a business model demanding free cash from those who did come up with a better business model. They're blaming everyone else for their own unwillingness to adapt.
Filed Under: performance fees, previews, rick carnes, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi
