President Trump Signs Music Modernization Act Into Law (billboard.com) 175
President Donald Trump signed the Music Modernization Act (MMA) into law Thursday, officially passing what is arguably the most sweeping reform to copyright law in decades. From a report: The bill revamps Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act and aims to bring copyright law up to speed for the streaming era. These are the act's three main pieces of legislation:
1. The Music Modernization Act, which streamlines the music-licensing process to make it easier for rights holders to get paid when their music is streamed online.
2. The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.
3. The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio (Notably, this is the first time producers have ever been mentioned in copyright law.).
What does all this mean? First, songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972. Second, the MMA will improve how songwriters are paid by streaming services with a single mechanical licensing database overseen by music publishers and songwriters. The cost of creating and maintaining this database will be paid for by digital streaming services. Third, the act will take unclaimed royalties due to music professionals and provide a consistent legal process to receive them. Further reading: Billboard.
1. The Music Modernization Act, which streamlines the music-licensing process to make it easier for rights holders to get paid when their music is streamed online.
2. The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.
3. The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio (Notably, this is the first time producers have ever been mentioned in copyright law.).
What does all this mean? First, songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972. Second, the MMA will improve how songwriters are paid by streaming services with a single mechanical licensing database overseen by music publishers and songwriters. The cost of creating and maintaining this database will be paid for by digital streaming services. Third, the act will take unclaimed royalties due to music professionals and provide a consistent legal process to receive them. Further reading: Billboard.
Does this mean that sometime (Score:3, Interesting)
the original music on WKRP will be restored?
Re:Does this mean that sometime (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything the MMA would make licensing costs go up. Also, on an unrelated note: I like how the post says "rights holders"... that really has very little to do with the artists.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right there, the game for decades has been to swindle actual creators out of the rights to their own creations. Even people who self-produce, self-publish, and self-distribute, unless they're damned careful (and even then) get their own IP ripped out from under them. Don't even bother trying to produce something and place it in the public domain, the same thing will happen, some company will 'claim' it and you'll have no rights whatsoever to your own creation.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have the tools today for artists not to sell their soul to record companies. Anyone can set up their own website, upload their own music to YouTube, sell albums on iTunes and the Amazon and Google equivalents. The MMA doesn't change that. It's just a matter of wannabe rock stars taking the risk of doing it on their own, instead of wanting to be handheld through the music production process by a stu
Re: (Score:2)
If anything the MMA would make licensing costs go up. Also, on an unrelated note: I like how the post says "rights holders"... that really has very little to do with the artists.
Well, according to WikiPedia [wikipedia.org], the "rights holders" or "owners" of streaming musics are those who hold "mechanical license". If you look at the meaning of mechanical license [wikipedia.org], you should find that it is NOT really artists but rather song writers/composers! The artists (performances) seem to be under a different license...
Re: (Score:2)
No. This law has no bearing on that at all. This law doesn't change the fact that the license expired for the music decades ago. CBS was always free to relicense they music, they just chose not to do so. Nothing about this law would unexpire that license.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, CBS should be MTM which was merged with 20th Century Fox.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, CBS should be MTM which was merged with 20th Century Fox.
It's ok, soon, all the media companies will merge (probably into Disney/Fox), and then one company will own all music and TV, making rights sales obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok, soon, all the media companies will merge (probably into Disney/Fox), and then one company will own all music and TV, making rights sales obsolete.
Wasn't there a movie with a somewhat similar premise? All the restaurants merged into Taco Bell or something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
70 years beyond the death of the artist (Score:5, Informative)
Not mentioned in the synopsis is that Copyright and royalties are extended a ridiculous length of time beyond the life of the artist.
Re: (Score:1)
Three generation principle (Score:2)
For the past century, the copyright term is supposed to reflect the lifetime of those heirs who knew the artist personally. The article "The Copyright Term Red Herring" [copyrightalliance.org] attributes the extension to updating the formula based on the fact that people are living longer and reproducing later.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're losers why do you care? Just avoid their music.
Re: (Score:2)
Not mentioned in the synopsis is that Copyright and royalties are extended a ridiculous length of time beyond the life of the artist.
Which was already the case ... wasn't it?
Are they seriously saying that pre 1972 music was royalty free or something, before this bill?
Re: 70 years beyond the death of the artist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Making a mockery of copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more? There was supposed to be a balance where copyright would be enforced until a work became old enough where upon it would enter the public domain. It now stands that upon your grave, works you enjoyed as a child and possibly paid for many times over throughout your life will still not be free when you die.
Re:Making a mockery of copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Fuck 'em all. How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song? This is pure giveaways to corporate rightsholders. Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people.
But...but...we need to make sure that musicians like The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Elvis Presley, The Mamas and the Papas, Janis Joplin, the Allman Brothers, and Aretha Franklin are incentivized to keep making music!
Re: (Score:3)
>"How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song?"
+100
>"Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people."
Which people would that be?
The last MAJOR extension of copyright was the 1998 act signed by Bill Clinton (D) with an R congress (both houses). And before that was the MUCH more major 1976 act signed by Ford (R) with a D congress (bot
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying you are making a partisan accusation
Quite the opposite. Both parties have their corporate masters and only play off us against one another on the "wedge issues" that don't actually matter that much in the longer arc of history.
The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:
I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party. Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United. Bernie Sanders is economically retarded, but he'd absolutely get my vote because a
Re: (Score:2)
>Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United.
Absolutely agree with that. Although they don't have to be "nutjobs", there are some really bright and sound people that would do well to work outside the two major parties. Plus, new parties could form that really aren't crazy, they just differ from the main R and D stances in important ways.
>"I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the prim
Re: (Score:2)
is almost always a 100% mistake
Using the latest Presidential election as an example, a vote for Hillary or The Donald would get you no closer to reform*. You could stay away from the polls entirely, or you can at least register a protest of sorts. Stein was the only national candidate with an emphatic stance on overturning Citizens United. More people in the primaries voting for Sanders and, uh, Lindsey Graham... ahem, were the only way to get mainstream party reformers on the November ballot.
No candidate - not one - was talking about vo
Re: (Score:2)
>"No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting."
It is unlikely that either major party will support the fair vote because it weakens their own stranglehold on the country. It will have to be pushed through starting on the local levels, where parties don't matter much. This is already happening (although far too slowly). Then up to the State level. That is when things will start to really change. The States are mostly in control of how voting happens, n
Re: (Score:2)
The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue.
I also want a balanced budget amendment, but I think there should be a little more flexibility. I was thinking that the infrastructure borrowing can be a "good" kind of debt, and that the restrictions should be based on something like a 5 year average to allow extra spending during recessions. Exceeding the limits should result in automatic, across-the-board cuts in spending split evenly with increases in revenue. That would discourage either side from using the automatic system as a political tool.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Citizens United is bad then so are International Courts and treaties that degrade constitutional protections.
The closer power is to you - the citizen which is effected the more you have an ability to control it.
States should have more power. The Federal Governm
Re: (Score:2)
For me, the problem of balancing local and state power is a bit removed from whether non-humans should be granted free speech rights. It's a complicated issue with lots of nuance (e.g. freedom of "the press" when the press is a corporation), but I think that it's reasonable for congress to set the rules for corporate speech. After all, corporations only exist at the pleasure of the government via their charter.
Perhaps something can be done through tax law, similar to how churches are treated in a tax-advan
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's really not. It's an expansion of the limited liability corporation - something that was invented for economic reasons well after the country's founding. Yes, the concept existed - but it was used for things like building bridges and such. The jump to corporate personhood is major... the same advantages of scale are now applied to the political sphere. This is not a minor change.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I'd admonish you about dragging Trump into a Slashdot story, but in this case it is both on-topic and well-deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How are those poor record companies supposed to make any money off music by dead people?
"Holograms"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more?
The streaming music service has 30 million tracks + text and graphics. CD quality or close enough. One-click access. Local storage as an option. Access across all devices. If I value my time at minimum wage, why in the name of god would I want to go back to trying to dredge something useful out of the P2P nets?
Entry into the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation and without preservation access is meaningless. The problem isn't the bit rot that may erode your collection of MP3s, it is the decay that
Re: (Score:2)
Why respect copyright, when nothing will ever enter the public domain any more?
The streaming music service has 30 million tracks + text and graphics. CD quality or close enough. One-click access. Local storage as an option. Access across all devices. If I value my time at minimum wage, why in the name of god would I want to go back to trying to dredge something useful out of the P2P nets?
No idea. What's that got to do with something being in the public domain? Are you assuming that Spotify won't carry popular stuff once it's public domain? If they want to leave that money on the table someone else will be willing to do it... and they'll be able to.
Entry into the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation and without preservation access is meaningless. The problem isn't the bit rot that may erode your collection of MP3s, it is the decay that destroys primary sources. Conservation at that level is damned expensive but the geek never talks about that very much because he might be asked to help pay for it.
Not being in the public domain doesn't guarantee preservation either, so I'm not sure what your point is. (Though now that you mention it, that seems like a reasonable responsibility to put on a rightsholder - a duty to preserve the work so that i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a software engineer who has created software that controls enormous amounts of infrastructure you rely on every day. I got paid once to do it. It paid my bills for about a year. I feel that's fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully the company makes money else there would be no company and no jobs.
What you're arguing for is piece meal payment for work rendered. Do you really want that? You work. You get paid. Say you get paid $10,000 for work you did for a month. You say that's bad.
Now you want to get paid when the company makes a profit on your code. When is that? S
This doesn't modernize shit about copyright (Score:5, Informative)
It seems the entire premise of this legislation is to enrich record companies more.
Re: (Score:1)
No, this is the best modernization of music law ever passed in the history of the nation!
What's wrong with you, Trump-hater?
True, but what are we going to do about it (Score:2)
99.9% of musicians retain their copyright (Score:2)
99.9% of musicians DO retain their full rights, and don't sign over anything to record companies.
Of course, record companies aren't going to spend millions of dollars promoting an album they don't own / can't sell exclusively. Heck they won't even spend a million producing an album that they don't have exclusive rights to.
Therefore, 99.9% of artists can be found on Myspace and YouTube, not in the Columbia rack at Best Buy.
Million is more than hundred (Score:2)
About 1,500 artists currently have active contracts with record labels in the US.
About 15 million artists are listed on Myspace.
You seem to be thinking that only artists advertised by a major label are worth listening too. Most artists featured in marketing campaigns by major labels are signed to the labels that market them, yes. The question is, are you looking for marketing, or for music? The labels provide most of the marketing, and 0.0001% of the music.
Disney called... (Score:2)
Face it, this was inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
Never is the truth of the fact there are not really different political parties more evident than in a bill like this.
The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?
This kind of unstoppable ratcheting down of government power is what really turns people off from getting involved in politics, because it doesn't matter who you support there will be no real difference in results of things that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But this at least confirms that the right are no different.
I think there was plenty of prior confirmation of that fact but I totally agree, this just re-enforces that point to the nth degree. Anyone with a real libertarian bent is ill-served by having any strong support for either major party.
If you want to reign in the copyright extensions, you're going to have to find a different route
Here's where I disagree - distressingly, I do not think there is such a route (the "inevitable" part of my original subj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, you'll have to actually think about what party you should vote for, instead of continuing to support Republicrats.
Republicrats win every single election, every year, by a landslide. Even the accursed presidential race of 2016 was something like 95 to 5. But what people don't realize, is that the only way that party always wins every election is because almost everyone
Re:Face it, this was inevitable (Score:5, Funny)
The headline here said "President Trump Signs" but who among you would claim it would be any different had Hillary been elected?
Hillary, no. Obama, yes.
If Obama were still in office, his signature on this law would slope differently because he is left-handed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is something definitely to be pointed to when people say we need more bipartisanship.
Not a single Republican or Democrat in the House or Senate voted against it
Re: (Score:2)
you seem to be taking this one issue on which they agree and extrapolating that the two parties are the same in all regards. I find this rather disingenuous unless copyright is all you care about in life.
Not inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
We can stop this any time we want, and the answer is simple: If you take corporate money then you don't get elected. Period.
Just how willing are you? (Score:2)
So to completely separate corporations and politics r
True, Support Liz Warren's bill (Score:2)
Again though, you have to put the kinds of folks in power who will support it. Right now that appears to be the Justice Democrats. If it's not, we need to vote them out. But they at least a) refuse corporate PAC money, b) support laws like Liz Warren's that make it illegal to lobby after serving in Congress and c) have a populist, pro-consumer, pro-worker platform.
On
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile back in the real world, Hillary lost the election 2 years ago, but people are still going on and on about her whenever Trump does anything.
"But, Hillary...."
I'm reasonably certain she would have signed it too, but she didn't because she's not President.
You know who did sign it?
Donald Trump.
A lot of people say they voted for Trump because they believed he would be different.
Well, he is different.
Trump loves the spotlight so much he would have signed ANYTHING just to be seen with...
Kid Rock, The Doo
Re: (Score:2)
True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently. One reason copyright is never an issue in elections is that both parties hold exactly the same position on it.
Re: (Score:1)
True, Republicans can be blamed for this. But had Democrats been in charge, nothing would have played out differently.
DMCA - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.
NAFTA - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.
The anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.
The gutting of Glass-Steagall that eventually led to the financial problems of 2008-2009 - created by Republicans, signed into law by Bill Clinton, Democrat.
That is my whole point (Score:2)
Fact: Hollowood (that was a typo but it amused me so I left it) generally hates Republicans.
So all of your facts are true, and my fact is true - would anything would be any different if Democrats were in charge of anything you mentioned? No.
If anything they would be even MORE favorable to the recording industry. As it was Republicans gave them everything they wanted in terms of horrific copyright extension.
I think you are confused that I am some kind of Hillary supporter; I am a for-real independent who i
Re: Face it, this was inevitable (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
no one in congress opposed this bill from either party
But if you vote Democrat then the world will become a better place to live.
BOINK!
The cognitive dissonance of some people just blow my mind. (Yes, there are people who are saying brain-dead shit like that)
Re: (Score:2)
The party of the current president, senate majority, or house majority made no difference. Every level of government failed on this one.
Why buy one party when you can have two for twice the price?
Re: (Score:2)
Fact, Democrats controlled the presidency when DMCA passed.
Fact: Democrats voted for this bill.
The post you replied to wasn't blaming Hilary. The post was stating for matters like this, regardless of who is in power, the outcome is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
And Republicans controlled congress.
In fact, Bill Clinton may have been President, but at the same time, democrats lost Congress for the first time. (They've never regained it since). And since all bills pass through both the legislative and executive branches, well, both sides are at fault. Even if Clinton didn't sign the DMCA, congress could still enact it anyways
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like you missed the point I was making. And all the democrats in office at the time voted for the DMCA so there is no reason to think the outcome would have been different with a Democrat run Congress.
for matters like this, regardless of who is in power, the outcome is the same.
CLASSICS (Score:3)
The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.
Hopefully they put as much thought into the legislation as they put into devising a clever acronym.
Why is this even legislation? (Score:2)
It is dumb that this is even legislation. I can see legislation for things like "You can't use people's work without their permission", but it's weird that we have legislation determining things like how you communicate and track things. If the industry can't work that out amongst themselves, then the industry shouldn't be able to operate.
The Doobie Brothers were there? (Score:2)
Those guys really take copyrights seriously.
Anyone remember when the Doobies were on What's Happening and Rerun was caught taping their concert?
Patrick Simmons: I thought you guys were our friends
Michael McDonald: How could you guys do this to us?
.... ... ...
Dwayne: Are we gonna go to jail?
John Hartman: Man, how do I know? What would you do if you were in our shoes?
Rerun: Well, I'd just send us home and laugh it off.
Bobby La Kind: It's not funny!
Yeah, it's serious business.
---
And since I've already wandered a bit off topic, this is my favorite concert-taping story:
back in 81, robert fripp was doing his first frippertronic
tour and was playing at the u. of pennsylvania in philly...we knew we had to
tape it, but knowing how quirky fripp is on this issue and the small size of
the venue, we had to resort to unconventional means...so we went to a medical
supply house, rented a wheelchair, taped the mics to the arm rests, and had my
buddy sitting in the thing with a blanket covering the deck...fripp, who was
tuning up and checking his decks, graciously requested that our suddenly
wheelchair bound buddy be placed right in front of him...at the end of a nice
60 minute set, and after fripp takes his bows, my buddy, who was being fed
margaritas via a straw the whole time, starts screaming: "fripp healed me...i
feel my legs...hallelujah...fripp is god", jumps outta the chair and runs
outta the place...pandemonium ensues of course, and fripp is flabergasted...the
story does not end though...next day, fripp is doing promo signing at a record
store, and i walk in with a j-card and ask him to sign it for the guy he had
healed yesterday, becuz the tape of the gig would be incomplete without it...
needless to say, fripp went ballistic, spewing obscenities left and right...
i had a good laugh...
https://groups.google.com/foru... [google.com]
money forever (Score:2)
When a worker does some work, they get paid once.
When a record company does some work they get paid forever.
While we're at it... (Score:2)
It sure would be nice if licensing were more streamlined.
Music licensing today is what game engine licensing was 20 years ago where the barrier to entry was ridiculous and you were stuck forking over thousands of dollars, minimum, just to open a dialog. Don't even get me started on console development.
Now AAA game engines are available for a song and dance. UE4 is pretty much everywhere.
I was able to become an XNA developer on Xbox 360 in 2007. I had a lot of fun with that.
And, on top of that, Nintendo allo
Pre 1972 recordings (Score:2)
So, the politicians caved into the pressure from the music industry and now pre 1972 recordings have been retroactively given Federal copyright status, taking away a lot of public domain songs. Great, just f***ing great. Fro
Re: (Score:2)
Now I can't wait to see what they ram through Congress before the end of the year to keep Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse out of the Public Domain. (p.s.: sarcasm there) That one is gonna make the Sony Bono Act jealous.
Oops, my mistake! Steamboat Willie won't hit Public Domain until January 1st, 2024. Plenty of time for Di$ney to fix that.
Mea culpa.
Re:Who is still alive to receive those royalties? (Score:5, Funny)
Keith Richards.
Re: (Score:1)
Why alive? Wouldn't estates get the money?
I'm going to put in for Thomas Edison
Re: (Score:2)
Keith Richards.
Keith Richards died 20 years ago... Its just that nobodys told him.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, in the best scenario, a bunch of descendants and family members who want to be paid for stuff they didn't contribute to and shouldn't be receiving money for ... in the worst case, the agents/music companies who appropriated ownership of this stuff and will get paid and pad out corporate profits.
This law would never have happened if it didn't also prop up the corporations which will profit from it, you can be sure of that.
Mostly I question if this will take awa
Re: (Score:2)
You think all artists recording music before 1972 are dead? You're kidding right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on now.... if Elvis doesn't get paid for all those pre-'72 recordings, how will he ever write more songs?
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon now. Elvis was killed in a car crash in the 90s. It was on the front page of the Weekly World News.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon now. Elvis was killed in a car crash in the 90s. It was on the front page of the Weekly World News.
Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping Led Zep will finally have to pay Randy California for Stairway to Heaven.
Then surely Spirit will get back together.
I guess the worst part about that was they waited until he was dead to file a lawsuit. (But it's not about the money, is it?)
Maybe there is hope after all:
Led Zeppelin ordered to go back on trial in 'Stairway to Heaven' copyright lawsuit [nbcnews.com]
And maybe a record company can finally successfully sue John Fogerty for sounding too much like John Fogerty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's l
Re: (Score:2)
This!.. too bad i didnt have mod points..
the reason for copywrite was to encourage artists.. if they are dead, do they still need "protection and encouragement"? this is pretty much the only industry where your kids, and grandkids can sit around and collect your cheques.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a different world now. It is much less likely for that to happen now that everyone and their mother can store a copy
Re: (Score:2)
Like all those lost episodes of Dr. Who from years ago.
That had nothing to do with copyright
The tapes were wiped for reuse, because videotape was expensive.
Re:Keeps getting better (Score:5, Insightful)
better deal for music artists
In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. The current President has done literally little to secure the passage of this outside his signature. In fact, both Bush and Obama have done little for this as well. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.
It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship. But yeah, forget all that, let's wax superiority on how my team is better than yours. *eyeroll*
Re:Keeps getting better (Score:5, Interesting)
TFS (and, undoubtedly, TFA from which it's cribbed) quotes some music industry flack thusly:
better deal for music artists
Prompting slack_justyb to point out:
In all fairness, this bill has been worked on since Bush II days, around 2006-ish. This whole effort has mostly been decided between private parties and a few key congressional representatives.
It's almost like people forget that important law takes years, compromises between a multitude of interested parties, and bipartisanship.
The fact is that this law is a better deal for artists.
It's also a better deal - a much better deal - for record companies, and "rights holders" (which includes both "descendents who had nothing to do with writing or recording the works on which they're going to be paid royalties," and "people who bought the publishing rights to dead artists' back catalogues" and their descendents, etc.). But that's a baby/bathwater thing. Pay the actual artists more than a tiny fraction of a cent for their work, and those other folks will, inevitably, also get paid.
What this legislation does - beside the copyright extensions that got tacked onto it - is to increase royalties for digitally-streamed music significantly. That's a way-overdue acknowledgement that the method by which popular music is ephemerally distributed to consumers has drastically changed since the days when the only choices were AM or FM. Those 20th-century distribution technologies are increasingly obsolete, and I wouldn't bet on them still being around a decade or two from now (because RF bandwidth is increasingly precious).
Under the old legal framework, radio stations paid a per-play royalty on every song they broadcast - to the performing rights organization which represents the songwriter(s) and publisher of those songs. Performers got zilch (unless they were performing live, and the radio station was broadcasting their performance - it's all very messy and complicated [bmi.com]). Each PRO (the two bigs are BMI and ASCAP) calculates its own formula for distributing them, and each PRO takes a rake-off, which, theoretically, pays for its direct expenses to collect, administer, and distribute those royalties.
Now a new administering body will be created to collect and distribute royalties for streaming plays. (Yay?) But - and this really is new and improved - the organization that collects and distributes royalties for which no payee can be located will be controlled by artists, not PROs. That means no more giant, largely-unaccountable slush funds which generally benefit only those PROs. In the new regime, that slush fund will belong to (and, at least theoretically, be accountable to) the artists themselves.
So - just maybe - this will mean a better deal for artists, because (again, in the absence of a functionting administrative body - which has yet to be created), in theory, it will mean the end of the kind of "Hollywood accounting" that for decades has routinely screwed so many working songwriters out of any significant payout for recordings of the music they wrote.
(Full disclosure: I am a songwriter, and a member of ASCAP. I have never seen a dime in royalties for my work, though - and, at this point, I probably never will. Nonetheless, I think this is an improvement over the previous system. I do not, however, approve of the Disney-authored extension of copyright term to the life of the artist plus 90 years. I think it's reasonable that an artist's surviving spouse benefit from his/her work for a relatively-short period after he/she dies, because it is routinely the case that sales of a popular artist's work see a significant - most often short-term - post-mortem boost. If you've ever known or been the spouse of a professional musician, you'll understand the sacrifices that relationship entails, and that loyalty deserves to be rewarded. Without it, there's many a songwriter who would have had to give it up, and get a "real" job, instead ... )
Re: (Score:2)
Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.
Re: (Score:2)
HiThere snorted:
Garbage. Under the old system if I bought a record I could play it over and over until the groves wore out. With the streaming you're supposed to pay each time you listen to it. If this is a better deal for the artists (dubious) it's only because the price has been jacked up for the benefit of all the parasites.
Did you even bother to read my post?
This new authority and royalty structure has nothing to do with music-for-purchase. If you want to buy music for your own collection, you can still do that from a number of sources: CDs, digital download services (as opposed to digital streaming services, which is what TFS and my post address), or, in many cases, direct from the artists themselves. This legislation imposes no barriers whatsoever to your purchase, nor does it have anything to do with purcha
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
HiThere insisted:
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it used to be that when I bought a computer game I didn't need to have a server active to play it. Now, even single user play, when available, requires activation which can be disabled whenever the vendor gets tired of supporting the game. To me this looks like setting up music to work the same way.
Perhaps that's because you don't understand - and apparently don't wish to understand - that this has nothing whatever to do with controlling where you, as a consumer, get your music. And, since you're not a songwriter, you don't grasp the economics of songwriting as a profession - and appear to be resistant to learning anything about the subject.
I say that, because I've already twice explained what this legislation does and does not do from a consumer perspective, and yet you insist on cha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep Trump had nothing to do with the economy recovering. It's just a coincidence that the recovery started the day after he was elected.
Or it could be that the economy often runs on a combination of the reality of the economic engine and the hopes and aspirations of all those involved in the economy, from consumers to business owners to stock owners, and all of those people suddenly became hopeful now that they knew the economy crushing policies of the Democratic party were at an end.
So you're right Trump a
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah blah HILLARY blah blah blah OBAMA blah blah blah DEMOCRATS blah blah blah
You idiots are like a broken record. Eat a bag of dicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, Congress is suppose to be the representatives of consumers while listening to the input from interested third party experts.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, Congress is suppose to be the representatives of consumers while listening to the input from interested third party experts.
s/consumers/CITIZENS/
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with Trump being blamed for this, but that's just because I dislike him. Honestly if you dug I bet you'd find more Democrat influence than Republican, because it's usually the Democrats bowing to the media companies.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Trump isn't going to use music illegally at his rally's or has he built in a way to get around that?
He can legally pardon his event organizers if they get found to be using music illegally.