You are dismissive, which shows that your mind is made up. So pardon me if I have to point out your ignorance of the law and of how PROs work.
Take one of those CDs that you bought and read what is written around the edge of its body (the CD itself): what is written there? "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE and broadcasting prohibited." The CD that you buy is for your private enjoyment only. To make commercial use you need a license. Point 1.
Point 2. Nobody forces an eatery to play music: they do it because it is good for their customers and for their business. Eateries, however small, pay for their electricity, salt, pictures on the wall, everything! Why then should music, of all things, be free? ASCAP rates are very reasonable and one can even opt for payment in instalments or seasonal/occasional licenses. How dos the verb "harass" apply here?
And if you agree that big eateries and restaurant chains should pay (which I assume you do), on what justification would small eateries, already offered pro-rated discounts, be entirely left out? In countries outside the US, small eateries (and hairdressers, small shops, etc) pay two Societies: one for the performance of the literary and musical works (to reward lyricists and composers) and one for the sound recording (to reward artists and producers). Do they whine?
Anyone writing music is affiliated to a PRO (else, he/she doesn't understand how authors are remunerated) and gets paid, irrespective of who performs their music.
"Charity" concerts? The PROs give free licenses every year to charity concerts that are of public interest. Do charity concerts organisers get everything - venues, stage equipment, transport, publicity, etc. - for free? Why do you want to force me, as a lyricist or composer, to give in to each and every "charity" concert under the sun? Are YOU giving money to every charity that solicits you?
We are only asking for what we are entitled to, just as you do, I assume.
The issue, John, starts with the offensive title - "Legacy Music Industry Players Cite Need For Greater Collusion". One cannot makes such sweeping statements and hope for an enlightened debate: this is clearly fodder for believers, those who have adopted as a faith that the music industry is bad, or outdated, whatever.
If it really were so "discredited" as someone mentioned above, and only filled with execs whose single purpose in life was to cheat artists, then how come artists still sign with a music publisher or with a record label? Barring two, every single person in my organisation is deep into music, either as musician, gig organiser, critic, vocal trainer... Music is their life. After work we go to gigs. We constantly think of new ways to increase the fan base of our artists, on how to pass on great old songs to the new generation...
If you think that all music services launch only after obtaining proper licenses then, having loaded the music industry with all dishonesty, you presume too much honesty from your pet industry. Just type the keywords 'infringement, millions, copyright' etc. into your search engine and see the results.
The music industry is a very old industry and it has a good memory. When record players came on the scene at the turn of the 20th century, manufacturers didn't want to pay and we had to sue them. Same story with the advent of commercial radio in the early 1920's: they lobbied very hard to change copyright laws to suit their interests, particularly in the 1928 and 1948 sessions to revised the Berne Convention. There were battles with both the film and television industries. The Internet tech companies are just another, bigger challenge to copyrights. Because without copyrights, without the recognition of real, exclusive ownership, you don't get paid at all, let alone "fairly".
Everyone has committed mistakes, not the music industry alone. I agree that the RIAA's actions were stupid, but they were not without basis: the individuals prosecuted had shoplifted, didn't they? Moreover, it was an action limited to the US territory. Elsewhere the recording industry took different approaches. One must also acknowledge that the music publishers handled the issue differently.
The constant barbs, insinuations and insults from new Tech Age converts are not only undeserved and offensive, bring no light to the debate, but are an attack on the artists themselves. If you agree that artists need to be paid fairly, then you cannot indiscriminately tar their legal representatives. The copyrights created by our artists are the only assets of our industry. Our destinies are entwined. Without a strong industry to defend their interests, artists will soon be reduced to passing the hat around.
Excuse this music industry exec to pop into your congregation of unanimous, mostly anonymous, tech devotees during your music-business-bashing ritual. Mostly 'bashing' because the 'music business' that you describe is a caricature of what I know. Did anyone of you ever hold an exec job in our business? Or is a subscriber to a music business journal, aware of the issues in our industries (publishing and recording)? Why not give up the perceptions and study the facts, for a change?
Contrary to what John says (the statistics don't bear him out), if you remove the content generated by copyright-based industries (music, video, TV, film, photos, games, etc.), then smart devices in general and search engines in particular become much less 'smart' or attractive to advertisers... and customers.
The music industry may have been slow in adapting to the internet, but you should know that 1) mentalities and business practices don't change overnight and, 2) we must conduct our business on the basis of agreements with writers (publishers) or artists (labels) that were drafted prior to the advent of internet. Some of the clauses that were 'standard' at that time have become an obstacle to licensing today. Who wants to renegotiate those hundreds of thousands of contracts when you know that some lawyer will grab the opportunity to extract his or her pound of flesh? Anyone familiar with the licensing issues will know the constraints under which we are working and how much efforts have gone into resolving these issues.
Remember also that, till date, half of the music industry's income is from physical sales, which require country-wise sub-licensing and brick and mortar offices. Artists too aren't virtual.
When Spotify and Deezer started, we suddenly had to process reports of billions of streams. We were not prepared. Nobody had notified us. Some reports had incomplete data or did not match our systems. Every stream is a micro-payment, using 9 digits after the unit. So we ended up spending more money on processing than what we collected! The advent of streaming services cost music companies tens of millions of dollars in IT upgrade.
We keep reading about the foibles of the music industry. I haven't read anything from your camp about the historic injustices, in the US in particular, meted out to the music industry such as the consent decrees imposed on ASCAP and BMI (any consent decree on broadband prices? On mobile handsets? on iPods?) Why have terrestrial radio stations been exempted from paying any royalties to record labels and artists? Why have hotels and restaurants been exempted for a very long time? Why do cinema theatres not pay royalties on music like they do in many other countries? The list goes on...
Are you sensibilities not hurt when big tech companies set up virtual companies in tax havens and from there compete globally with other industries who need brick and mortar infrastructure and pay local taxes?
The point I want you to take away is that things are not black & white, there are no good guys-bad guys in business. Most tech companies start their business by using content without license. The first to call me will be the artist: "Hey, my songs are available on that service: did you license it? No? And you haven't sued the bastard yet? Then why the fuck have I signed with you?" And they're right! With some companies you negotiate (a long time), with others you just have to litigate. All this costs time and money because you're faced with the best lawyers money can buy.
We fight in some territories and collaborate in others. By partnering with Apple, Google, Nokia, YouTube and others, music companies have been able to generate revenues from territories that never paid us earlier.
I can go on and on. Its just another day at the desk...
In the end, all our business rests on artists: they are the ones we talk to every day. They are entrepreneurs in their own right but don't have stock options or golden parachutes like tech entrepreneurs. So they need to be paid, fairly. And if they don't get paid, it is us they will call up, not the tech companies.
Cheers!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Achille Forler.
Re: Re:
Take one of those CDs that you bought and read what is written around the edge of its body (the CD itself): what is written there? "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE and broadcasting prohibited." The CD that you buy is for your private enjoyment only. To make commercial use you need a license. Point 1.
Point 2. Nobody forces an eatery to play music: they do it because it is good for their customers and for their business. Eateries, however small, pay for their electricity, salt, pictures on the wall, everything! Why then should music, of all things, be free? ASCAP rates are very reasonable and one can even opt for payment in instalments or seasonal/occasional licenses. How dos the verb "harass" apply here?
And if you agree that big eateries and restaurant chains should pay (which I assume you do), on what justification would small eateries, already offered pro-rated discounts, be entirely left out? In countries outside the US, small eateries (and hairdressers, small shops, etc) pay two Societies: one for the performance of the literary and musical works (to reward lyricists and composers) and one for the sound recording (to reward artists and producers). Do they whine?
Anyone writing music is affiliated to a PRO (else, he/she doesn't understand how authors are remunerated) and gets paid, irrespective of who performs their music.
"Charity" concerts? The PROs give free licenses every year to charity concerts that are of public interest. Do charity concerts organisers get everything - venues, stage equipment, transport, publicity, etc. - for free? Why do you want to force me, as a lyricist or composer, to give in to each and every "charity" concert under the sun? Are YOU giving money to every charity that solicits you?
We are only asking for what we are entitled to, just as you do, I assume.
Re: Re: Is technology the new faith?
If it really were so "discredited" as someone mentioned above, and only filled with execs whose single purpose in life was to cheat artists, then how come artists still sign with a music publisher or with a record label? Barring two, every single person in my organisation is deep into music, either as musician, gig organiser, critic, vocal trainer... Music is their life. After work we go to gigs. We constantly think of new ways to increase the fan base of our artists, on how to pass on great old songs to the new generation...
If you think that all music services launch only after obtaining proper licenses then, having loaded the music industry with all dishonesty, you presume too much honesty from your pet industry. Just type the keywords 'infringement, millions, copyright' etc. into your search engine and see the results.
The music industry is a very old industry and it has a good memory. When record players came on the scene at the turn of the 20th century, manufacturers didn't want to pay and we had to sue them. Same story with the advent of commercial radio in the early 1920's: they lobbied very hard to change copyright laws to suit their interests, particularly in the 1928 and 1948 sessions to revised the Berne Convention. There were battles with both the film and television industries. The Internet tech companies are just another, bigger challenge to copyrights. Because without copyrights, without the recognition of real, exclusive ownership, you don't get paid at all, let alone "fairly".
Everyone has committed mistakes, not the music industry alone. I agree that the RIAA's actions were stupid, but they were not without basis: the individuals prosecuted had shoplifted, didn't they? Moreover, it was an action limited to the US territory. Elsewhere the recording industry took different approaches. One must also acknowledge that the music publishers handled the issue differently.
The constant barbs, insinuations and insults from new Tech Age converts are not only undeserved and offensive, bring no light to the debate, but are an attack on the artists themselves. If you agree that artists need to be paid fairly, then you cannot indiscriminately tar their legal representatives. The copyrights created by our artists are the only assets of our industry. Our destinies are entwined. Without a strong industry to defend their interests, artists will soon be reduced to passing the hat around.
Is technology the new faith?
Contrary to what John says (the statistics don't bear him out), if you remove the content generated by copyright-based industries (music, video, TV, film, photos, games, etc.), then smart devices in general and search engines in particular become much less 'smart' or attractive to advertisers... and customers.
The music industry may have been slow in adapting to the internet, but you should know that 1) mentalities and business practices don't change overnight and, 2) we must conduct our business on the basis of agreements with writers (publishers) or artists (labels) that were drafted prior to the advent of internet. Some of the clauses that were 'standard' at that time have become an obstacle to licensing today. Who wants to renegotiate those hundreds of thousands of contracts when you know that some lawyer will grab the opportunity to extract his or her pound of flesh? Anyone familiar with the licensing issues will know the constraints under which we are working and how much efforts have gone into resolving these issues.
Remember also that, till date, half of the music industry's income is from physical sales, which require country-wise sub-licensing and brick and mortar offices. Artists too aren't virtual.
When Spotify and Deezer started, we suddenly had to process reports of billions of streams. We were not prepared. Nobody had notified us. Some reports had incomplete data or did not match our systems. Every stream is a micro-payment, using 9 digits after the unit. So we ended up spending more money on processing than what we collected! The advent of streaming services cost music companies tens of millions of dollars in IT upgrade.
We keep reading about the foibles of the music industry. I haven't read anything from your camp about the historic injustices, in the US in particular, meted out to the music industry such as the consent decrees imposed on ASCAP and BMI (any consent decree on broadband prices? On mobile handsets? on iPods?) Why have terrestrial radio stations been exempted from paying any royalties to record labels and artists? Why have hotels and restaurants been exempted for a very long time? Why do cinema theatres not pay royalties on music like they do in many other countries? The list goes on...
Are you sensibilities not hurt when big tech companies set up virtual companies in tax havens and from there compete globally with other industries who need brick and mortar infrastructure and pay local taxes?
The point I want you to take away is that things are not black & white, there are no good guys-bad guys in business. Most tech companies start their business by using content without license. The first to call me will be the artist: "Hey, my songs are available on that service: did you license it? No? And you haven't sued the bastard yet? Then why the fuck have I signed with you?" And they're right! With some companies you negotiate (a long time), with others you just have to litigate. All this costs time and money because you're faced with the best lawyers money can buy.
We fight in some territories and collaborate in others. By partnering with Apple, Google, Nokia, YouTube and others, music companies have been able to generate revenues from territories that never paid us earlier.
I can go on and on. Its just another day at the desk...
In the end, all our business rests on artists: they are the ones we talk to every day. They are entrepreneurs in their own right but don't have stock options or golden parachutes like tech entrepreneurs. So they need to be paid, fairly. And if they don't get paid, it is us they will call up, not the tech companies.
Cheers!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Achille Forler.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt