Music Publishers want pay for 30 sec previews

[richardmac]

I am NOT kidding. ASCAP and BMI want to start charging iTunes (and other places) royalty fees for having 30 second previews available.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html

 

I don't know where to begin. While I can see their argument from a technical standpoint, this is insane from a common sense argument. Next they'll charge me a fee to hum my favorite song while I'm walking my dog. Technically it's a public performance...

 

Meanwhile, independent artists are allowing their entire CD's to be previewed online for free at places like Bandcamp. NOT just 30 second samples.

 

Say they succeed in this. Will Apple eat the costs? Hell no, they'll raise the prices on their music. Which will cause less people to buy.

 

This is a totally stupid and greedy move. This will only make music customers hate the music industry more and give them one more excuse to illegally download music. GRR!

 

Like John Gruber said, "This is about one step away from demanding money for when you have a song stuck in your head."

[Pomerlaw]

This is unbelievable.

[sventvkg]

This will only encourage more free downloading...There are very few artists that I pay for music from anymore because I have most of the classic stuff I like and don't like much new stuff. I find new singer songwriters i'm into and buy thier stuff..Would NEVER steal it as most of them are Indie anyway. {censored} these publishers. In the Ass! They are done.

 

 

 

I am NOT kidding. ASCAP and BMI want to start charging iTunes (and other places) royalty fees for having 30 second previews available. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html I don't know where to begin. While I can see their argument from a technical standpoint, this is insane from a common sense argument. Next they'll charge me a fee to hum my favorite song while I'm walking my dog. Technically it's a public performance... Meanwhile, independent artists are allowing their entire CD's to be previewed online for free at places like Bandcamp. NOT just 30 second samples. Say they succeed in this. Will Apple eat the costs? Hell no, they'll raise the prices on their music. Which will cause less people to buy. This is a totally stupid and greedy move. This will only make music customers hate the music industry more and give them one more excuse to illegally download music. GRR! Like John Gruber said, "This is about one step away from demanding money for when you have a song stuck in your head."

 

[rlm297]

Leave it to the Music Business of Today to treat 30 second song previews just like the kid in Jr. High who brought in his dad's Playboy to school and charged $1 for "a quick look."

[daddymack]

well, keep in mind that those sites are 'making money' (sell ad space based on how many people see the site)based on hits on their site, which obviously includes the people who come by to download 30 second samples, so ASACP/BMI see a cash cow...and they intend to milk it. It is business...pure and simple.

[theboywho]

but surely its the 30 second sample that will allow people to check if the song they are about to download is the one they one and then pay for it?

as mentioned before this will push people more towards pirating stuff.

[richardmac]

 

but surely its the 30 second sample that will allow people to check if the song they are about to download is the one they one and then pay for it? as mentioned before this will push people more towards pirating stuff.

 

 

Agree. The 30 second sample is the ad for the song. They want to charge money for listening to the ad. Charge away. And don't be surprised when you turn even more customers off with your greed.

[Matximus]

Yeah. It's grotesque on the surface. Smart business for the publishers, though. Probably a negotiating tactic for muscling more form iTunes. The record companies (or was it publishers?) got Apple to bend to tiered pricing. Of course they want more.

[richardmac]

 

Yeah. It's grotesque on the surface. Smart business for the publishers, though. Probably a negotiating tactic for muscling more form iTunes. The record companies (or was it publishers?) got Apple to bend to tiered pricing. Of course they want more.

 

 

I don't believe it's smart business at all. It will make them more money and piss everyone off. Short term financial gain and long term pissing off your user base even more than they're already pissed off. And that's dangerous because people already see nothing wrong with file sharing. If companies like Apple pass the increased cost along to consumers, which they will, prices will go up and sales will go down.

 

The reaction of the vast majority of people to this idea is outrage. If it comes to pass, it's going to throw tons of fuel onto the already raging fire.

[Synonym Music]

 

I don't believe it's smart business at all. It will make them more money and piss everyone off. Short term financial gain and long term pissing off your user base even more than they're already pissed off. And that's dangerous because people already see nothing wrong with file sharing. If companies like Apple pass the increased cost along to consumers, which they will, prices will go up and sales will go down. The reaction of the vast majority of people to this idea is outrage. If it comes to pass, it's going to throw tons of fuel onto the already raging fire.

 

I'll be in a chopper raining down kerosene. We need to turn up the heat, but in a sensible way - not burning the artists by pirating (and I know most people here don't, but the rest of the world isn't as enlightened.)

[richardmac]

 

I'll be in a chopper raining down kerosene. We need to turn up the heat, but in a sensible way - not burning the artists by pirating (and I know most people here don't, but the rest of the world isn't as enlightened.)

 

 

You're right. Um, but I'm not sure about the "most people here don't." I guess it's true, because 51 percent could be "most."

 

I like buying CD's for ten bucks because I think it's a good value and I think I'm not being taken advantage of.

 

What we need is for music companies to charge a fair price. The best way to deal with this whole entire thing is for the music business and artists and consumers to all be on the same page as to what is fair. Ten bucks for a CD seems to have settled in as the fair price. A buck per song seems to be a fair price. With that stable, maybe the business can start working on getting better music out there, but spending a little less money in the recording studio. And here come these assclowns, wanting to inevitably jack the price up instead of trying to work with reality. It's a short sighted greedy business move that will backfire on them. If prices go up, less people will buy, period. Duh. They already jacked up the price on some songs to more than a buck. Idiots. Apple handed them the perfect working online model and immediately became the number one online store in the world. And they've got to mess with it. It's been the only thing that has worked well in the modern music world. Apple has to be shaking their heads. It's like dealing with a 5 year old who wants give more bowls of ice cream. Hopefully Apple can say no.

[Matximus]

 

I don't believe it's smart business at all. It will make them more money and piss everyone off. Short term financial gain and long term pissing off your user base even more than they're already pissed off. And that's dangerous because people already see nothing wrong with file sharing. If companies like Apple pass the increased cost along to consumers, which they will, prices will go up and sales will go down. The reaction of the vast majority of people to this idea is outrage. If it comes to pass, it's going to throw tons of fuel onto the already raging fire.

 

 

You missed the point of what I was trying to say. That's probably my fault. It's a smart negotiating tactic, thus good business. Of course Apple knows such a move would outrage its customers. Thus, it'd be more likely to make concessions to the music industry to get them to stop pushing for charging for music samples. That's what I meant.

[richardmac]

 

You missed the point of what I was trying to say. That's probably my fault. It's a smart negotiating tactic, thus good business. Of course Apple knows such a move would outrage its customers. Thus, it'd be more likely to make concessions to the music industry to get them to stop pushing for charging for music samples. That's what I meant.

 

 

I see what you mean. Whether it's smart, we won't know until it works for them or doesn't work. So far it's done nothng but piss a whole lot of people off. These guys are most likely all going to be about of a job sometime in the next 10 years. They're going to do whatever they can.

[asblue]

I give up.

 

I'm going out to buy a mega external hard drive. Like a couple TB's or so. Now THAT is something I see value in. Then i'm going to pirate EVERYTHING "protected" by ASCAP and BMI onto my new hard drive. THEN I'm going to unplug it and go down to their office building a hurl the thing through the front window. I'm not even going to listen to it. I'll be like "look you dip{censored}s, if I want it for free, I'll have it for free!!"

 

assholes. 30 second preview?! Can you imagine paying Coca-Cola or McDonalds every time you saw a 30 second TV commercial?

 

The top of the music industry is so utterly stupid. It's just like the Auto Industry. Too stupid to adapt and adjust WITH the market.

 

Do you think the government will provide a "bailout" for the big music giants when their pants are down around their ankles in a few years like GM?

[RickGoetz]

Believe it or not they were originally lobbying that the actual download of a song from a Digital service provider (Itunes or similar) constituted a public performance and were going to charge for that... I believe they gave up on that though...