Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.
This is a complicated issue and one that I have changed my feelings on over the years. I was a Napster user and was sad when it got shutdown. It was a brand new concept- anything you wanted for free, and it was exhilarating. The quality was terrible, but I didn't care. I still bought CDs of the stuff I really wanted but I finally had a way to just get a song here or there without having to buy a whole album.
Years later I did come to realize that it did have a profound effect on the music industry and that artists were losing out because of it. I don't think music should be free. It was nice to preview things to buy and I am still on of those who buys physical products and I have been turned on to a lot of stuff by Spotify, Napster, Youtube, etc. But just because I and others on this board still go out and buy music, there are countless others who do not and feel that they should get everything for free just because the technology is out there. This is where the problem lies.
I understand these artists want change, but shutting down the pipeline of free music is just not going to happen. The industry is going to have to keep evolving to figure out how to appease their customers while still paying artists their fair share.
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.
I know, but I think that this will further decrease them, not improve sales. The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.
So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.
Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.
So explain to me how that's different?
Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.
If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...
Radio plays music for free? Are you 10 years old or do you simply have zero concept of the way things work in this world? There is absolutely 100% NOTHING that is free. It all gets paid for either directly (That'll be $35 plus shipping for that Pearl Jam poster you just purchased from pearljam.com) or indirectly (Up next we're going to play the latest song from Pearl Jam's newest record....after these words from our sponsors). That's right, I said sponsors. You know all those annoying commercials you have to suffer through while listening to FM radio (for free)? Those companies pay a shitload of money to bombard you, the listener, with PAID advertisements for their products. The radio station in turn pays a portion of those fees to BMI and ASCAP which sees to it that the artist (or royalty owner) gets compensated for the use of their intellectual property. This is all predicated on the radio listener being subjected to a barrage of commercials or paying a subscription to a satellite or streaming service.
You may have loved Napster but the reason that they got the equivalent of a prison shank in a dark alley was because their business concept was based on overt thievery. Piracy. Stealing. One person would buy a CD and upload it. Royalty owner would get paid for one unit. Millions of tempo_n_groove types would "share" direct copies of that copy righted property without a penny of compensation going to the rights holder. That is the literal definition of theft.
I understand the economics of radio but you forgot that I pay ZERO for it.
Also since I'm not 10 I remember music companies going batshit about copying albums on cassette. The Dead Kennedys famously left a side blank on a cassette.
If you make good music then I'll buy it, go to your show and buy some merch.
YouTube is the best thing for the one hit wonders. its great for bands also. A lot of people were trading shows back in the day. How is that any different?
But you do pay for it my friend. You pay for the radio to listen to. And when you shop at a store that advertises on radio ANYWHERE their advertising costs are are part of your purchase cost.
I think if you were a one hit wonder before youtube. You made more money. Especially if you wrote the song. From what I've heard. People who've gone viral don't make that much.
Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.
So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.
Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.
So explain to me how that's different?
Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.
If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...
Radio plays music for free? Are you 10 years old or do you simply have zero concept of the way things work in this world? There is absolutely 100% NOTHING that is free. It all gets paid for either directly (That'll be $35 plus shipping for that Pearl Jam poster you just purchased from pearljam.com) or indirectly (Up next we're going to play the latest song from Pearl Jam's newest record....after these words from our sponsors). That's right, I said sponsors. You know all those annoying commercials you have to suffer through while listening to FM radio (for free)? Those companies pay a shitload of money to bombard you, the listener, with PAID advertisements for their products. The radio station in turn pays a portion of those fees to BMI and ASCAP which sees to it that the artist (or royalty owner) gets compensated for the use of their intellectual property. This is all predicated on the radio listener being subjected to a barrage of commercials or paying a subscription to a satellite or streaming service.
You may have loved Napster but the reason that they got the equivalent of a prison shank in a dark alley was because their business concept was based on overt thievery. Piracy. Stealing. One person would buy a CD and upload it. Royalty owner would get paid for one unit. Millions of tempo_n_groove types would "share" direct copies of that copy righted property without a penny of compensation going to the rights holder. That is the literal definition of theft.
I understand the economics of radio but you forgot that I pay ZERO for it.
Also since I'm not 10 I remember music companies going batshit about copying albums on cassette. The Dead Kennedys famously left a side blank on a cassette.
If you make good music then I'll buy it, go to your show and buy some merch.
YouTube is the best thing for the one hit wonders. its great for bands also. A lot of people were trading shows back in the day. How is that any different?
But you do pay for it my friend. You pay for the radio to listen to. And when you shop at a store that advertises on radio ANYWHERE their advertising costs are are part of your purchase cost.
Again I get it. No such thing as a free lunch. But I turn on the radio and it only costs me the electricity I use. I don't use 99% of the adds posted on the radio, true story, so again I don't pay for radio. The masses might because I don't eat McDonalds (who's Mcnugget prices still seem to magically get lower) or drink Budweiser...
Youtube is GREAT because there are bands that don't post or have a site so I am grateful for seeing them.
It's not like YouTube is the one and only convenient place to hear new music. This would not hurt the music industry at all. You can't lose on something you already get nothing for.
As for the argument about not being able to hear new music without it on YouTube, most artists do have a Youtube channel, website, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. It's how you get noticed these days. Magazines, newspaper and TV aren't going to cut it anymore. All of your albums can be made available, if you choose, to be purchased through iTunes, GooglePlay, Amazon, etc. And get this, you can preview every track!
Copyrighted material should all be removed from YouTube unless it is expressly allowed by the artists/creator, no matter what the content.
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Digital stores like iTunes let you preview sometimes up to 50% of the length of ANY song they carry. That should quite frankly be more than sufficient in determining if you want to purchase said product.
2003 Clarkston MI #2 | 2004 Grand Rapids MI | 2013 London ON | 2014 Detroit MI | 2016 Toronto ON #1
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Digital stores like iTunes let you preview sometimes up to 50% of the length of ANY song they carry. That should quite frankly be more than sufficient in determining if you want to purchase said product.
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Digital stores like iTunes let you preview sometimes up to 50% of the length of ANY song they carry. That should quite frankly be more than sufficient in determining if you want to purchase said product.
+1 Agreed.
Not for me. I need to hear the whole album before spending all that money on the record.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Digital stores like iTunes let you preview sometimes up to 50% of the length of ANY song they carry. That should quite frankly be more than sufficient in determining if you want to purchase said product.
+1 Agreed.
Not for me. I need to hear the whole album before spending all that money on the record.
I'm so glad we live in an age now where everyone feels like they're entitled to everything all the time.
2003 Clarkston MI #2 | 2004 Grand Rapids MI | 2013 London ON | 2014 Detroit MI | 2016 Toronto ON #1
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Digital stores like iTunes let you preview sometimes up to 50% of the length of ANY song they carry. That should quite frankly be more than sufficient in determining if you want to purchase said product.
+1 Agreed.
Not for me. I need to hear the whole album before spending all that money on the record.
I'm so glad we live in an age now where everyone feels like they're entitled to everything all the time.
That is quite the overreaction.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
im more worried about teachers and civil servants making a good living... real working people... i'm not too concerned about rock stars losing out on a few bucks
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
A good number of real PJ fans when they put out a new album.
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
A good number of real PJ fans when they put out a new album.
But you are already a fan of the band and familiar with them when you buy that album
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
A good number of real PJ fans when they put out a new album.
But you are already a fan of the band and familiar with them when you buy that album
Some yes but I am willing to bet that there is a fair amount of people who "sampled first" before buying just to make sure.
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
A good number of real PJ fans when they put out a new album.
But you are already a fan of the band and familiar with them when you buy that album
Some yes but I am willing to bet that there is a fair amount of people who "sampled first" before buying just to make sure.
Don't cute it up though, it's not really "sampling" when someone has no intention of spending the equivalent cost of a fast food combo meal on an album. It's stealing. I guess by this whole logic nobody at all bought albums in the 90's and earlier because they weren't able to sample them beforehand lol.
Post edited by BV84003 on
2003 Clarkston MI #2 | 2004 Grand Rapids MI | 2013 London ON | 2014 Detroit MI | 2016 Toronto ON #1
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
A good number of real PJ fans when they put out a new album.
But you are already a fan of the band and familiar with them when you buy that album
Some yes but I am willing to bet that there is a fair amount of people who "sampled first" before buying just to make sure.
Don't cute it up though, it's not really "sampling" when someone has no intention of spending the equivalent cost of a fast food combo meal on an album. It's stealing. I guess by this whole logic nobody at all bought albums in the 90's and earlier because they weren't able to sample them beforehand lol.
I personally was and always am talking about buying vinyl, not a $9.99 download. Yes, I want to hear the whole album for free before throwing down $30 - $50 on vinyl. I think the same goes for people who are considering attending album tour concerts. For artists who know that vinyl and touring are how they now make money, they should be aware that one free listen to their whole album = a possible vinyl purchase + a possible concert ticket sale. If they don't want it on youtube, they would at least be well served to stream it for free somewhere else, like SoundCloud, and many artists do exactly that. A free listen acts as promotion and advertising, not as a loss.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.
I know, but I think that this will further decrease them, not improve sales. The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.
But people pay more for music on a yearly basis now (through using spoitify etc) than they did in the later nineties when CD sales were at a all time high.
Where does all that money go...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.
I know, but I think that this will further decrease them, not improve sales. The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.
But people pay more for music on a yearly basis now (through using spoitify etc) than they did in the later nineties when CD sales were at a all time high.
Where does all that money go...
Producers and record companies. Research bands and Pandora. There were bands that had their songs played 100,000 times and got like $50...
Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that
Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.
Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.
Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.
I know, but I think that this will further decrease them, not improve sales. The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.
But people pay more for music on a yearly basis now (through using spoitify etc) than they did in the later nineties when CD sales were at a all time high.
Where does all that money go...
Not quite, music revenue high was in 2002 with 25b$ to compare with 15b$ in 2014- that's a 40% drop. Meanwhile world population increased by 15%.. Where is Waldo?
America's Songwriters Deserve Better Than This: Op-Ed
David Israelite, head of the National Music Publishers Association, argues that the Dept. of Justice's recent pre-holiday decision is tone deaf at best, disastrous at worst.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) has dealt a massive blow to America's songwriters. After a two year review of the consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI, career lawyers who were never elected nor confirmed to their positions, led by a lawyer who previously represented Google, determined that songwriters should have even fewer rights, less control over their intellectual property and be treated more unfairly than they already are. The Department ignored the voices of copyright experts, members of Congress and thousands of songwriters and delivered a huge gift to tech companies who already benefit from egregiously low rates.
When the DoJ began its review of the consent decrees, songwriters and publishers hoped for modifications and relief in the face of dramatic market changes to performance rights licensing which made it clear that fair royalty rates were not being paid. At best, we had hoped that the WWII-era decrees would be done away with to permit songwriters the same freedom to license works as other property owners enjoy. At worst, the decrees would be updated to reflect the current digital marketplace and give songwriters and publishers more flexibility to negotiate market-driven rates with global digital services. After all, the consent decrees were put in place before the transistor radio was invented. They were never meant to, nor could they envision, existing in a world of iPhones, streaming and instant access to practically all music.
Unfortunately, the DoJ went the opposite direction and chose the outcome most harmful to songwriters and the creative community.
The Department has determined that no changes will be made to the current decrees. And they have also now interpreted those decrees to demand that all works must be licensed on a 100 percent basis, meaning that the traditional and logical practice of fractional licensing -- or licensing only the share of a song a PRO represents -- by ASCAP and BMI will be done away with.
Regardless of how one feels about the profession of songwriting and the innate right a creator has to control their creation, any legal body should be deferential to the office created to examine and advise on copyright law. That body, the U.S. Copyright Office, was asked to weigh in on the DoJ's proposed changes, and said that, "an interpretation of the consent decrees that would require these PROs to engage in 100-percent licensing presents a host of legal and policy concerns. Such an approach would seemingly vitiate important principles of copyright law, interfere with creative collaborations among songwriters, negate private contracts, and impermissibly expand the reach of the consent decrees." The defiance displayed by these career antitrust lawyers in ignoring the legal opinion of the Register of Copyright is shocking.
In addition to disregarding the Copyright Office, the manner in which the decision was made and delivered was insulting to those most invested in the futures of songwriters. Members of Congress who had expressed interest in knowing the outcome of the review were apparently caught off guard and not given the chance to appeal to the Department. They were simply alerted that a determination had been made and given no recourse to reason with the DoJ.
Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia's office said that the DoJ "sent an email to Congressional staff assuring that the review was not complete and that parties and stakeholders would have a chance to provide their views before the review was completed. However, reports from the meeting and DoJ's own positioning appear to indicate that DoJ has already determined what direction they will take." Additionally, Congressman Collins stated that the "Department of Justice's position is arrogance at its worst."
This move also threatens transparency because while songwriters may have chosen to join one PRO, now their payments may be coming from another. And if each PRO can license an entire song, even if it only controls a small portion of it, then licensees may have the ability to license where rates are lowest in a royalty race-to-the-bottom.
The DoJ does not have the protection of songwriters in their interest, so we must take this to another forum. Public opinion is powerful and the antitrust attorneys at DoJ must understand that their decisions will have a ripple effect through the fields of creativity for decades. In the coming weeks and months, it will be more important than ever to express the problems associated with the Department's declaration, which was conveniently disclosed just before the holiday weekend.
As we've come to know all too well, Washington bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating music as they are neither capable of understanding or fixing the problems they've created. We are hopeful that through our upcoming conversations, our allies in Congress who support the creative community, and ultimately the voices of those most affected, the creators themselves, we can find a path forward. Until then, there will be no justice for America's songwriters.
David Israelite is the President and CEO of the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA). Founded in 1917, NMPA is the trade association representing all American music publishers and their songwriting partners.
Comments
Years later I did come to realize that it did have a profound effect on the music industry and that artists were losing out because of it. I don't think music should be free. It was nice to preview things to buy and I am still on of those who buys physical products and I have been turned on to a lot of stuff by Spotify, Napster, Youtube, etc. But just because I and others on this board still go out and buy music, there are countless others who do not and feel that they should get everything for free just because the technology is out there. This is where the problem lies.
I understand these artists want change, but shutting down the pipeline of free music is just not going to happen. The industry is going to have to keep evolving to figure out how to appease their customers while still paying artists their fair share.
The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.
Youtube is GREAT because there are bands that don't post or have a site so I am grateful for seeing them.
As for the argument about not being able to hear new music without it on YouTube, most artists do have a Youtube channel, website, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. It's how you get noticed these days. Magazines, newspaper and TV aren't going to cut it anymore. All of your albums can be made available, if you choose, to be purchased through iTunes, GooglePlay, Amazon, etc. And get this, you can preview every track!
Copyrighted material should all be removed from YouTube unless it is expressly allowed by the artists/creator, no matter what the content.
he went from "fudge the police" to, "I'll call the police."
snitch
its short sighted and too late anyway
Reznor and pj should follow their own lead. Take the technology and use it to yours and your fans' greatest benefit.
Where does all that money go...
The game is still rigged...
Source : http://www.statista.com/statistics/272305/global-revenue-of-the-music-industry/
America's Songwriters Deserve Better Than This: Op-Ed
David Israelite, head of the National Music Publishers Association, argues that the Dept. of Justice's recent pre-holiday decision is tone deaf at best, disastrous at worst.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) has dealt a massive blow to America's songwriters. After a two year review of the consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI, career lawyers who were never elected nor confirmed to their positions, led by a lawyer who previously represented Google, determined that songwriters should have even fewer rights, less control over their intellectual property and be treated more unfairly than they already are. The Department ignored the voices of copyright experts, members of Congress and thousands of songwriters and delivered a huge gift to tech companies who already benefit from egregiously low rates.
When the DoJ began its review of the consent decrees, songwriters and publishers hoped for modifications and relief in the face of dramatic market changes to performance rights licensing which made it clear that fair royalty rates were not being paid. At best, we had hoped that the WWII-era decrees would be done away with to permit songwriters the same freedom to license works as other property owners enjoy. At worst, the decrees would be updated to reflect the current digital marketplace and give songwriters and publishers more flexibility to negotiate market-driven rates with global digital services. After all, the consent decrees were put in place before the transistor radio was invented. They were never meant to, nor could they envision, existing in a world of iPhones, streaming and instant access to practically all music.
Unfortunately, the DoJ went the opposite direction and chose the outcome most harmful to songwriters and the creative community.
The Department has determined that no changes will be made to the current decrees. And they have also now interpreted those decrees to demand that all works must be licensed on a 100 percent basis, meaning that the traditional and logical practice of fractional licensing -- or licensing only the share of a song a PRO represents -- by ASCAP and BMI will be done away with.
Regardless of how one feels about the profession of songwriting and the innate right a creator has to control their creation, any legal body should be deferential to the office created to examine and advise on copyright law. That body, the U.S. Copyright Office, was asked to weigh in on the DoJ's proposed changes, and said that, "an interpretation of the consent decrees that would require these PROs to engage in 100-percent licensing presents a host of legal and policy concerns. Such an approach would seemingly vitiate important principles of copyright law, interfere with creative collaborations among songwriters, negate private contracts, and impermissibly expand the reach of the consent decrees." The defiance displayed by these career antitrust lawyers in ignoring the legal opinion of the Register of Copyright is shocking.
In addition to disregarding the Copyright Office, the manner in which the decision was made and delivered was insulting to those most invested in the futures of songwriters. Members of Congress who had expressed interest in knowing the outcome of the review were apparently caught off guard and not given the chance to appeal to the Department. They were simply alerted that a determination had been made and given no recourse to reason with the DoJ.
Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia's office said that the DoJ "sent an email to Congressional staff assuring that the review was not complete and that parties and stakeholders would have a chance to provide their views before the review was completed. However, reports from the meeting and DoJ's own positioning appear to indicate that DoJ has already determined what direction they will take." Additionally, Congressman Collins stated that the "Department of Justice's position is arrogance at its worst."
This move also threatens transparency because while songwriters may have chosen to join one PRO, now their payments may be coming from another. And if each PRO can license an entire song, even if it only controls a small portion of it, then licensees may have the ability to license where rates are lowest in a royalty race-to-the-bottom.
The DoJ does not have the protection of songwriters in their interest, so we must take this to another forum. Public opinion is powerful and the antitrust attorneys at DoJ must understand that their decisions will have a ripple effect through the fields of creativity for decades. In the coming weeks and months, it will be more important than ever to express the problems associated with the Department's declaration, which was conveniently disclosed just before the holiday weekend.
As we've come to know all too well, Washington bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating music as they are neither capable of understanding or fixing the problems they've created. We are hopeful that through our upcoming conversations, our allies in Congress who support the creative community, and ultimately the voices of those most affected, the creators themselves, we can find a path forward. Until then, there will be no justice for America's songwriters.
David Israelite is the President and CEO of the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA). Founded in 1917, NMPA is the trade association representing all American music publishers and their songwriting partners.