Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 05 2016, @09:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the didn't-see-THAT-one-coming dept.

NBCNews reports that changes are coming for the music industry, and Big Music is not happy about it.

For years, in cases where ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Inc) did not represent all of the authors of a song, they would issue fractional licenses and presume that the licensee would ensure others were paid. Instead, the Justice Department's new rules would require "full-work" licenses.

We've all heard stories about some song-writers or lyricists being cut out out of the proceeds of music sales because they were not members of these big licensing agencies, never signed a release of rights, or a variety of other issues. Big Music (ASCAP and BMI) more or less ignored these artists, assuming they would get their share via some other means. Of course, in the end, that usually meant somebody pocketed all the money and somebody else didn't get paid. That's not how it is supposed to work.

BMI said in a statement that it would fight the change in court, while ASCAP said it would press for legislative reform. The groups said in a press release that the decision "will cause unnecessary chaos in the marketplace and place unfair financial burdens and creative constraints on songwriters and composers."

This all arose after Big Music claimed that the internet music streaming services were under-paying for song streamed, and cheating artists. They complained to the DOJ and wanted to renegotiate a 1941 era consent decree. It appears the DOJ agrees that some artists were indeed being cheated, but not necessarily by streaming services.

Some artists refuse to let their music be streamed simply because they believe it is being pirated at alarming rates. Other artists are waking up to the music industry's games.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @03:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @03:01PM (#384492)

    This might come as a shock to you, but "music" is a form of art, and "musicians" are a sub-type of artists.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday August 05 2016, @04:03PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 05 2016, @04:03PM (#384511)

    This might come as a shock to you, but "music" is a form of art, and "musicians" are a sub-type of artists.

    By that standard, Patrick Stewart should be routinely called an "artist" rather than an "actor", Amy Schumer should be called an "artist" rather than a "comedian", George R.R. Martin should be an "artist" rather than "author" or "writer", and so forth. Why is it that only musicians are, in the industry, routinely called "artists" instead of "musicians"?

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @04:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @04:46PM (#384529)

      Because there are a number of different disciplines that combine.

      Musicians.

      Composers.

      Song writers.

      Sound designers.

      Recording engineers.

      It's not all just one flea-bitten vagrant on a street corner with a washboard.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @04:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @04:47PM (#384530)

      Why is it that only musicians are, in the industry, routinely called "artists" instead of "musicians"?

      Does anyone really need to explain this to you? Seriously? I would think that it is by now abundantly clear that there are way too many "musicians" being pushed by recording industry execs who have zero musical talent. Since to call them "musicians" is a complete misnomer, they have gone with the more generic title "artist". Of course, this raises the even more painfully obvious point that too many of these "artists" don't have have any artistic talent, musical or otherwise. Calling them mere spectacles might be closer to the mark, but then there would be a little too much truth in the room.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 05 2016, @05:44PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 05 2016, @05:44PM (#384569) Homepage Journal

      Acting IS an art form. No, I'm not an actor, I used to paint and sculpt, I ocasionally play my guitar, and now I write. They're all art forms. Don't you folks have dictionaries??

      art1
      ärt/
      noun
      noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

              1.
              the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
              "the art of the Renaissance"
              synonyms: fine art, artwork
              "he studied art"
                      works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
                      "his collection of modern art"
                      synonyms: fine art, artwork
                      "he studied art"
                      creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
                      "she's good at art"
              2.
              the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
              "the visual arts"

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org