Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/911736--supreme-court-to-hear-music-makers-lawsuit-over-royalties

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving whether previews of music downloaded from the Internet should be subject to royalties.

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada is suing a number of communications companies, including Bell Canada and Rogers.
Hmmm, our business model is failing. Let's sue companies for advertising our product!
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Wow, how stupid can you be. Music industry just seems to want to shoot itself in the foot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Clips under 25 seconds have traditionally been royalty free. I see this all the time on music sites. I believe it's currently covered by copyright law. If they want it changed, the government should change the law, not the supreme court.

I can see their point to a certain extent. If a company makes a profit from a product based solely on royalty free music clips, maybe they should pay royalties for their use. If they provide the clips as part of another service, such as providing music reviews and/or selling music, it should be royalty free. Fair use of portions of copyrighted material has always been based on the assumption that the copyrighted material was a small part of the work they were included in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Fully agree that royalties should be paid if companies are selling the *clips*. However, this case is about paying royalties on clips used as previews for full songs. It's like Sony going to Future Shop and demanding a fee for all the Sony televisions out on display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
To carry my analogy one step further... If FS started charging for watching the clips, they should pay royalties. If they are simply using them to sell TVs, then no. OTOH, if FS is showing full movies or programming to sell TVs, I think the are required to pay royalties. That's why TV companies and ISPs have demo programming. The same applies to music.

As applied to Bell Canada and Rogers, if they are "selling" the clips as part of their service or using the clips to promote their services, instead of as a means to promote or sell music, maybe they should be paying royalties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
So then, what about movie trailers on YouTube? I sometimes decide on going to see a movie, or buying the Bluray only after seeing the trailer, or discussing it with friends. I don't think that YouTube is paying any royalties for hosting the trailers. Why should the music industry be different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Good point. However, the movie industry produces trailers as promotional pieces and encourages their airing. They even pay to have them aired as advertising. A fair comparison would be viral advertising. That is not the case with music clips where some companies just broadcast 25 second clips of any music without permission. I am not saying that the 25 second fair use condition should be taken away, just that there may need to be some provision to prevent abuse. For example, anyone could distribute a 3 minute song as several 25 second clips and then provide instructions for joining them together into a complete song. Should that be legal? I am not defending the music industry by any means. I think the current music industry companies are a bunch of scumbags. OTOH, my opinion of Rogers and Bell is not any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
This can only hasten the inevitable demise of the old structure.

Eventually this corrupt regime will be a side player, as individuals and groups who *don't* hate their customers will opt out of this kind of nonsense.

Good artists with good product will always achieve good sales, and the less interference in the form of greedy insane management and government layers, the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
>Good artists with good product will always achieve good sales....
Unless everyone steals their product and nobody pays for it....right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
By that logic I suppose it's OK to steal cars as long as some people pay for them and the car companies are still making lots of money......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Cars and music are not comparable. Cars are costly to develop and produce. That requires payment. Music is relatively cheap to produce compared to the price of the end product. Cars also cannot be sold indefinitely with relatively little investment. Just how much does it cost to "manufacture" a song on iTunes? I don't agree with theft but the business model the major labels are trying to propagate and extend with indefinite copyrights and royalties is in itself corrupt. Many artists and major music labels became successful by stealing from other artists. Now they want the public to pay perpetually for music they stole. When people refuse, they get the government to levy regressive taxes and punitive laws to raise revenue by force. If the music industry sells a quality product for a fair price, people will pay. When the music industry rips them off, by stealing from artists, producing a poor quality product or price fixing, all of which they have done on a mass scale, people will catch on and react in turn. Canadian artists are not much better with the extra levies and content laws they are forcing on the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
>Good artists with good product will always achieve good sales....
Unless everyone steals their product and nobody pays for it....right?
Wrong. Successful recording artists and songwriters continue to make millions upon millions.

I'm not sure if you've heard of "iTunes", but in a few short years it's moved Apple from near bankruptcy to the richest company of its kind.... primarily driven and anchored by music sales.

That's more than enough proof that people will buy music if some kind of reasonable structure for doing so exists. Customers don't even seem to mind that it's overpriced, low quality, and requires fiddly proprietary equipment and software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
By that logic I suppose it's OK to steal cars as long as some people pay for them and the car companies are still making lots of money......
No. To stay with your analogy, it's as if car companies decided that anyone who sees their car driving by or hears it's wonderful engine roar should have to pay for that.

To desire to get paid for non-beneficial use of short sound snippets is further evidence this is a sick and desperate old industry, trying anything they can to forestall their own death.

A few years ago I said Blockbuster's high late fees and sneaky policies would backfire on them.

I said phone companies would be abandoned in droves by customers sick of arrogant service and criminally high long distance rates.

We ALL said domestic car makers would pay a price for many years of terrible products and terrible service.

The fact is, the music industry is going through the same death throes as these other companies and industries that treated their customers and suppliers like garbage for so many years, and where left to die the instant that other options became available.

History proves that customers will endure a company or industry screwing them... when there's no other choice. But when a viable alternative comes along, consumers will be that much quicker to punish and abandon vendor they feel abused their advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
Cars and music are not comparable. Cars are costly to develop and produce. That requires payment. Music is relatively cheap to produce compared to the price of the end product. Cars also cannot be sold indefinitely with relatively little investment. Just how much does it cost to "manufacture" a song on iTunes? I don't agree with theft but the business model the major labels are trying to propagate and extend with indefinite copyrights and royalties is in itself corrupt. Many artists and major music labels became successful by stealing from other artists. Now they want the public to pay perpetually for music they stole. When people refuse, they get the government to levy regressive taxes and punitive laws to raise revenue by force. If the music industry sells a quality product for a fair price, people will pay. When the music industry rips them off, by stealing from artists, producing a poor quality product or price fixing, all of which they have done on a mass scale, people will catch on and react in turn. Canadian artists are not much better with the extra levies and content laws they are forcing on the public.
Agreed.

I'm still trying to understand why it is that whenever I burn a backup of MY documents and images I created completely on my own, I have to pay an obscenely high mandatory tax to Glass Tiger and Roch Voisine even if I've never been able to endure even one of their songs to fruition.

Years of this sort of extortion means that if I'm ever given the choice to either extend mercy to this organization or put it out of its misery, it won't be a difficult decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
By that logic I suppose it's OK to steal cars as long as some people pay for them and the car companies are still making lots of money......
Not sure how you could make the link from my using DMB as a counter-example for nobody paying for music and me advocating piracy. Though I have little sympathy for established artists and labels what with their greedy and relentless pursuit to extend copyright terms and attempts to grab royalties/license fees from wherever possible. And this is from someone who owns 1,000+ CDs and continues to purchase music and music services.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I wasn't. I was responding to your statement that "Good artists with good product will always achieve good sales, and the less interference in the form of greedy insane management and government layers, the better."

First off, it's not true.

Dave Mathews Band has basically conceded the fight. A large percentage of individuals steals, shares via peer to peer methods, their product. So they give up on the business model of making a living by selling their recorded music and rely on touring to make a living. And these are the successful guys. Ask yourself, would you feel justified sneaking into their concert without paying because of "greedy insane management"? Would you feel it's your right to record the concert and use snippets of it in the running of your own business?
Second, the thread was started based on the Society of Composer and Authors. They represent the Musicians. It's their product and it's not free unless they give it away. It's not for Rogers or Bell to decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I wasn't. I was responding to your statement that "Good artists with good product will always achieve good sales, and the less interference in the form of greedy insane management and government layers, the better."
I didn't say that, Neild did.


Second, the thread was started based on the Society of Composer and Authors. They represent the Musicians. It's their product and it's not free unless they give it away. It's not for Rogers or Bell to decide.
This is incorrect. We have fair use laws here which state that portions of works may be used by third parties regardless of the wishes of the rights holders. In fact, it's not for SOCAN/musicians to decide who utilizes these fair use laws. They can however argue that a 30 second clip of a song represents too much of the work (remember, they are not providing these clips). Which brings me back to my original point that this would show that they're monumentally stupid if they're doing this as these clips are designed to entice customers into buying the musicians' product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Oh, the irony

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/

The four major record labels that comprise the Canadian Recording Industry Association - EMI Music Canada Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. - have agreed to pay $45 million to settle one of the largest copyright class action lawsuits in Canadian history. The settlement comes after years of fruitless efforts to get the industry to pay for works it used without permission.
...
The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top