Canadian Music Collection Society Demanding Payment For 30 Second Song Previews

from the the-very-definition-of-promotion dept

Remember last year, when ASCAP and BMI suddenly started claiming that the 30-second previews in iTunes and other online music stores should count as public performances for which they should be compensated? Yeah, that didn’t get very far, as the courts shut that down quickly. Colin Ross alerts us to the news that up in Canada they’re going through something of a similar debate with the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada demanding royalties for the 30-second previews. Back in 2007, the Copyright Board in Canada told the group to get lost but it’s kept on appealing, and now the Supreme Court is going to hear the case. Hopefully, they took it to shut down this nonsense forever. 30-second previews are the very definition of a promotional good. Demanding payment by claiming they’re a public performance goes beyond greed to an insane level of entitlement.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Canadian Music Collection Society Demanding Payment For 30 Second Song Previews”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
28 Comments
Matthew (profile) says:

Who wins?

Who wins if they get what they are pushing for? Definitely not the consumer and certainly not the artists. I don’t even think the groups themselves will ultimately gain in money, prestige, or power if they get their way. I also don’t think this will have any effect at all on the 30-second song clip pirates.

More proof that either these groups do NOT have the artists’ best interests at heart or they are amazingly out of date, stupid, and incompetent at their advocacy. Either way, if i were a member of one of these groups i’d be pissed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sounds like Apple et al need to start saying fuck you, if you don’t want us promoting your music we won’t help you sell your goods. We will continue to offer it but without previews, album art, or recommendations. The only way customers will find it is by specifically serching for it.

alternately they can pay a performance fee for the 30 second preview and recoup it by charging a promotional fee back to the record label to cover the fee plus administrative costs plus a reasonable profit margin. If the labels are dumb enough to go down this path it could be more lucrative for Apple than actually selling the music.

average_joe says:

Remember last year, when ASCAP and BMI suddenly started claiming that the 30-second previews in iTunes and other online music stores should count as public performances for which they should be compensated? Yeah, that didn’t get very far, as the courts shut that down quickly.

The link you provided for the “courts shut that down quickly” is to a story about a court, singular, saying that a ringtone was not a public performances. Do you actually have a story where a court said a 30-second preview was not a public performance? Thanks.

Hulser (profile) says:

Re:

Sometimes it’s like they care about piracy more than their own industry… and that they want to destroy their own industry, just so they can blame the ‘pirates’.

It’s called, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face.” If I remember correctly, there was a TD piece about a study which found that people weren’t satisified with more if their peers had even more. There’s just this weird thing in the animal part of the human brain that makes you think you’re getting screwed if the other guy has more than you even if you have more than you used to.

I think that the record labels can’t see past this mentality. They are so focused on the “lost” revenue from charging for song previews that they can’t see the long term benefit.

senshikaze (profile) says:

Re:

So instead of discussing the article at hand, you take one sentence out and use that in some kind of effort to discredit the article in whole?

By ignoring the actual problem, you agree with SCAMP that 30 seconds worth of a song is a performance. You must be a joy to have at kids pageants. You just stand at the back door demanding payment for the “artists”, don’t you?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re:

“There’s just this weird thing in the animal part of the human brain that makes you think you’re getting screwed if the other guy has more than you even if you have more than you used to.”

While I’m not one for the mystical aspects of religion, there is a wonderful biblical parable Christ told his deciples about a vineyard owner and three workers that tells this story of our human aspect perfectly….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard

average_joe says:

Re:

Thanks, vivaelamor. I saw that link too. That story doesn’t say anything about a court ruling that 30-second song previews are not public performances either.

Has a U.S. court ever held that a 30-second song preview is not a public performance? Mike’s post indicates that “courts” have indeed held this. Is that true, or is it a mistake? That’s all I want to know.

average_joe says:

Re:

So instead of discussing the article at hand, you take one sentence out and use that in some kind of effort to discredit the article in whole?

By ignoring the actual problem, you agree with SCAMP that 30 seconds worth of a song is a performance. You must be a joy to have at kids pageants. You just stand at the back door demanding payment for the “artists”, don’t you?

I simply asked a question. I’m curious if U.S. “courts” have really held that 30-second song previews are not public performances. Apparently my inquisitive nature offends you. Curious.

Richard (profile) says:

Re:

The parable of the prodigal son has a similar theme.

25 ?Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ?Your brother has come,? he replied, ?and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.?

28 ?The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ?Look! All these years I?ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!?

31 ??My son,? the father said, ?you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.??

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

The link you provided for the “courts shut that down quickly” is to a story about a court, singular, saying that a ringtone was not a public performances. Do you actually have a story where a court said a 30-second preview was not a public performance? Thanks.

Hmm. I had thought that discussion covered both issues, but you may be right that it did not…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...