[Hooch Tan]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...ng-previews.ars

"Songwriters, composers, and music publishers are lobbying Congress to legislate the payment of performance fees into downloaded music. If music publishers get their way, they'll be able to extract additional licensing fees from music downloads, movies, and TV shows containing their music, and even 30-second previews."

Times are tough.  And when times are tough, people start looking for ways to make as much money as possible.  Songwriters and publishers are targeting adding more fees to digital downloads.  The sticking point is that they believe that downloads should be put under the umbrella of public performances, for which they would get an additional fee to the synchronization and mechanical licensing fees they already receive.  The music industry already provides a minefield full of regulations and fees so it's no wonder that there is a conflict on what fees should be charged for what.  Ars Technica is right, in that the world of music distribution and use has changed considerably and that laws need to be updated to reflect it.  I also have the additional concern about the balance between those involved in music creation and the cost to consumers.  Creators, be it songwriters, publishers, singers, etc, should get paid for their work, but at the same time, costs should not run up so high that consumers start looking for alternative ways to acquire their music.

[Hooch Tan]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...ng-previews.ars

"Songwriters, composers, and music publishers are lobbying Congress to legislate the payment of performance fees into downloaded music. If music publishers get their way, they'll be able to extract additional licensing fees from music downloads, movies, and TV shows containing their music, and even 30-second previews."

Times are tough.  And when times are tough, people start looking for ways to make as much money as possible.  Songwriters and publishers are targeting adding more fees to digital downloads.  The sticking point is that they believe that downloads should be put under the umbrella of public performances, for which they would get an additional fee to the synchronization and mechanical licensing fees they already receive.  The music industry already provides a minefield full of regulations and fees so it's no wonder that there is a conflict on what fees should be charged for what.  Ars Technica is right, in that the world of music distribution and use has changed considerably and that laws need to be updated to reflect it.  I also have the additional concern about the balance between those involved in music creation and the cost to consumers.  Creators, be it songwriters, publishers, singers, etc, should get paid for their work, but at the same time, costs should not run up so high that consumers start looking for alternative ways to acquire their music.

[Macguy59]

Greedy effin bastiages. No need to sugar coat it.

[ptyork]

I love this. Finally there is a reasonable and legal means of acquiring revenue for digital downloads (without which, the music would be downloaded anyway without providing ANY revenue to these folks) and the RIAA is attempting to squash its viability. Charging for 15-30 second previews will do nothing but hurt their revenues since the stores will simply remove the functionality. I know that I have bought most all of my most recent album purchases ONLY because I've listened to these previews and liked what I heard. This will obviously dramatically reduce sales. Adding other make-believe fees to the full downloads will simply drive prices up to a point that will likely result in even more lost revenues. I know I already steer clear of the $1.29 tracks. More fees will likely drive these up to $2 or more. Personally, I just buy the physical media at that point--used. Most will probably just decide to download the tracks illegally. Either way, they're back to square zero in terms of revenue.

My point is that, like the publishing industry, the music industry needs to adjust to a different public perception of the value of media. It is only in the past 20-30 years that these "artists" (and more so their leeching representatives) have become obscenely wealthy. Before that, they were artists like all others--performing for the love of their art and struggling to survive amongst those who actually "produce." This is probably just a natural adjustment. The TV crowd is next (meaning even MORE reality TV--oh God save us), followed soon thereafter by the movie industry. I think that the bandwidth requirement for video is the only thing delaying their "readjustment" currently--a limitation that is soon to disappear.

[doogald]

Originally Posted by ptyork

I love this. Finally there is a reasonable and legal means of acquiring revenue for digital downloads (without which, the music would be downloaded anyway without providing ANY revenue to these folks) and the RIAA is attempting to squash its viability.

To be fair to the RIAA (as if they deserve it), this is music publishers pushing for this - ASCAP, BMI, etc. - not the RIAA. They are different organizations (though perhaps equally clueless on how the public receives their strong-arming for more money.)

[Hooch Tan]

I would say that a large part of this is everyone wanting their piece of the pie. While I am all for compensation, the whole thing is muddled in some being really, really greedy, and licensing becoming a huge mess. I remember this being one of the reasons why WKRP in Cinncinnati was delayed on being released on DVD.

With everyone screaming for more money, it will just mean higher costs for the consumer, and it will continue to drive lots of people to "free" alternatives. iTunes had a great thing using the $0.99 a song method. It is a pity that it is likely not going to come back.