Should social network sites pay musician

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Grab
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:57 AM

If you post stuff without permission, then sure, that ain't on.

But on Myspace, all you can do is link to songs posted by musicians. The *musicians* choose whether to post those songs online, and whether they're downloadable or whether you can only stream them. If the musicians don't want to make their stuff available, they don't have to. Their choice. And having made it freely available, they're not then in a position to say they don't like the rules.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:40 AM

Another grey area: cover versions. Do you play any covers in your live sets? In terms of the law, you ought to be paying a publishing royalty to the artist in question. Now of course, nobody does this and musicians by and large don't feel they are losing any kind of revenue streams from, say, buskers. Personally I'm glad that an artist's control over their product is not taken so literally that the PRS start policing gigs to recoup publishing fees over covers.

A myspace page has some songs up for people to listen to? Fine, it's not denying an artist a revenue stream and garnering them some exposure. A musician might still be against this on the prinicple that they haven't asked his/her permission. But it's borderline perverse – verging on a desire to actually veto who buys your CD. It rather begs the question, are you sure you wish to make your music public in the first place? Presumably, nobody posting here would have an objection to a listener playing your CD to a friend?

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: KeithofChester
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:00 AM

This article discusses what Billy Bragg said. The writer makes quite a good case for Billy's analysis being somewhat incomplete and to some degree rather fanciful.

Discussion of the Billy Bragg NYT Article

Featuring 4 of your songs on your MySpace page is hardly likely to dent your sales. Well unless your perforrmance is SO bad that it warns potential buyers off your CD. It is much more likely to send people off to buy the full thing, or if you've been crafty and put up tracks from 4 different albums and not just your latest, 4 full CDs.

Likewise the iLike application on Facebook (which is a LOT more felexible) even has bloody great buttons saying "buy" linked to iTunes. I notice there are a few artists that don't seem to be features on iLike, but most are, and should be getting paid either that way or by people buying CDs.

That model breaks down of course if you get a large core of people who just won't buy tracks or CDs and just rely totally on piracy. I don't think we are anywhere near there yet, because lots of people do still prefer to have the CD, the liner notes etc. However, if your potential buyer decides that the only songs you've done they like are "New England", "Englsih, Half English" and "Walk Away Renee" and buy only those, rather than whole CDs, you are going to have a much less comfy lifestyle than you've been used to! I think such "cherry picking" might well be why CD sales are allegedly falling.

Coincidentally, the Bard of Barkings latest opus (Luxury edition) has just landed on my doorstep, so I'm off for a listen.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:05 AM

Another grey area, in terms of legality, money and the musician being able to control their music, would be plain old public broadcast over a PA system: strictly speaking, artists are supposed to be paid a publishing royalty whenever, say, a club plays one of their songs on a compilation they've made to play in between acts at a gig. In practice this never happens. Nobody's that upset about it.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:54 AM

"In point of fact, all radio stations--broadcast, satellite, and internet, pay licensing fees for the music that the use--except for" pirate stations", which have that name because they are illegal"

I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. I'm not sure what you mean by "licensing fees". I was thinking of publishing royalties – musicians receiving a small amount of money every time their music is played. That's what I'm talking about anyway. I know that all radio stations are SUPPOSED to pay publishing royalties for all the music that they use. But I'd be amazed if anything more than a tiny minority of college radio stations, internet radio stations, hospital radio, local community stations etc paid them in practice. All those internet radio stations that don't have advertising – many of which are just run by one or two guys in their college dorms – are you really saying they are scrupulously paying all the musicians royalties? With what money? With what time? One thing I can say is that a lot of musician friends of mine have had airplay on various internet radio stations and college radio stations (I have too once or twice) – they've never received any money from them.
For another thing I know for a fact that one particular legal radio station – one which I happen to think is the best broadcast radio station – most certainly doesn't. They can't afford to. They don't make any kind of a profit. They rely exclusively on volunteers and donations to exist. They have a no-advertising policy, which I think is a good thing. They don't pay royalties.

We might be talking at cross purposes here – I don't know all that much about all the terminology.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: RTim
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM

NO!
Tim R

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM

Well Gene, while I don't argue with your sentiment, there is no real way to block downloading of anything that can be played on the computer. A free software recorder such as Audacity is all that you need. It will copy anything running through your sound card.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Gene Burton
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 05:50 PM

Couple of points: firstly, not all myspace music sites' tracks ARE downloadable. When you put tracks onto your site, there's a box you can check or uncheck according to preference as to whether you make the tracks downloadable. Myspace COULD (if it was really deemed to be that big a deal) simply fix it so people running fan sites couldn't make tracks downloadable, rather than banning fan sites outright as somebody suggested.Secondly, if you're boycotting any artist with a myspace page then you're basically restricting your listening to artists who have the financial means to maintain (including the cost of the web design, maintenance, domain name etc) their own websites, and they're in the minority...fine if you only want to hear acts with record label backing, but just don't kid yourself you're striking a blow against capitalism or the status quo by doing so!Finally, on a personal note, I really don't have much time for the idea that ANY artist has some kind of divine right to earn a big fat living out of their music...I know plenty of very talented people who have day jobs and have received (by way of example) significantly less recognition even than, say, me. And a fair few full-time pros too. And by and large, I find the former group to be much more likable, level-headed and unembittered than the latter...which probably teaches us all something. Bottom line is, if you have a talent, that's a gift. If you can make a little bit of money from it, that's a bonus. If you're making a decent living out of it, that's your singular good fortune. Be damn grateful, and just shut the f*** up and sing!!

Gene.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 05:16 PM

matt millon--you said "Obviously in a perfect world you'd get a royalty from this public broadcasting of your songs, as you would do if they were played on Radio 1 or 2 or 3, or on XFM or whatever. But not all radio stations would be able to stay in business if they all did that (eg hospital radio, some local stations, college radio stations, internet radio stations, Resonance FM). If every radio station had to contact the musicians before playing the song, well, they just wouldn't bother. "

In point of fact, all radio stations--broadcast, satellite, and internet, pay licensing fees for the music that the use--except for" pirate stations", which have that name because they are illegal.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM

Until the artist sells them to the record companies. Then the record companies control them. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice...

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:35 PM

"The artist must be able to control their own works."
Right on Mick! While we often do not agree on the application of copyright I agree with this statement for sure!

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

"The artist must be able to control their own works. No grey area on this one, I am afraid."

But I think there is a grey area in this way: radio play being the one that first springs to mind. If someone's posted up a song (or even 3 or 4 of your songs) for people to listen to (but not download) I think that the closest parallel is radio play.

Obviously in a perfect world you'd get a royalty from this public broadcasting of your songs, as you would do if they were played on Radio 1 or 2 or 3, or on XFM or whatever. But not all radio stations would be able to stay in business if they all did that (eg hospital radio, some local stations, college radio stations, internet radio stations, Resonance FM). If every radio station had to contact the musicians before playing the song, well, they just wouldn't bother. Personally, I'd rather they just went ahead. And most myspace pages are just doing that.

Bottom line is, there's a huge difference between places you can go to just listen to somebody's music; and places you can go and download their whole album for free. There's a big line between the two. For me, anyway.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM

This is the same argument as the ripping argument. You have no right to put up my work unless I say you do. Do you all think we do this for our health? I completely understand the ramifications of publicity, but it is my choice, and it should be at my direction, what publicity I use or choose not to. The artist must be able to control their own works. No grey area on this one, I am afraid.

Mick

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM

Though in response to the original post, no I don't think social networking sites should pay royalties to artists. However, they shouldn't be offering music for download without the artists permission; and they should be monitoring pages regularly to avoid this; and they should respect requests for removal.

On myspace, you do frequently see broken links with the message "Song removed by artist" or suchlike. Plus I have never seen a 'tribute' page where you actually could download the music in question – they basically function like listening booths in record stores.

Granted, a musician could object to their music being broadcast without their consent for principles other than copyright-infringemment. But myspace, being corporate and very advertising-sensitive, seem to me to be better than most about removing things. (Certainly better than some self-described well-meaning blog sites run by supposed fans!)

I would say that, as Faustian pacts go, social networking sites do more good for musicians than harm.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: matt milton
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 09:29 AM

Leadfingers said:
"There have been threads on this very topic ! People finding an entire CD posted by a 'fan' as a free download , regardless of the wishes of the artist ! Though the sites DO remove them if any one objects!"

Increasingly they don't remove them even in the face of multiple objections. The worst offender is the music blog Time Has Told Me. It, bizarrely, posts up musicians' objections fir everyone to read, without doing the musicians the courtesy of removing the albums. Reading the comments on that particular blog is a thoroughly depressing and alienating experience. (Listeners basically insulting the artists whose music they're enjoying, for free, for daring to suggest they're being done anything less than a big favour!)

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 06:17 AM

Rabbi, in fact it is a tacit thing. Myspace does not do takedown unless someone objects and I suspect that even then they are selective about who they pay attention to. Trust me on this - I have forced them to takedown.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 05:50 AM

"Those are done purely out of someone's love of a particular artist, and it's hard to fault anyone for putting a song on so they can share it with their friends."

Is it? Misplaced "love" is often a violation of copyright. I believe anyone using an artist's music should ALWAYS obtain permission. Just because a fan thinks they are sharing the love doesn't mean that the artist would see it the same way.

The same rule should apply to text on websites: just because you read something you like or agree with (or wish you'd written), doesn't mean you have the right to copy and paste at will - especally if you don't even credit the original source.

The whole concept of intellectual property seems to have been wilfully abandoned on the internet.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:02 PM

All music posted on myspace MUST be with the performers permission.
Myspace will not allow it unless it is a song that you wrote or have written permission from the performer.

Performers do give venues such as house concerts permission to post their songs if they are trying to publicize a particular gig that they are doing at that venue.

When I send out my e-mail invitations to our house concerts I always attach an MP3 to my message WITH THE PERFOMER'S PERMISSION so that those unfamiliar with his or her music will see what they are signing up for. Since I have been doing this the number of attendees has risen sharply, which is all to the benefit of the artist.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:21 PM

FORCE artists to work for Rupert Murdoch? Fuck that.

I try to avoid patronizing any artists who have Murdochspace pages.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:07 PM

There have been threads on this very topic ! People finding an entire CD posted by a 'fan' as a free download , regardless of the wishes of the artist ! Though the sites DO remove them if any one objects !

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM

If you really loved a particular artist, you wouldn't post their work without permission.

Subject: RE: Should social network sites pay musician
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM

That's a tricky one, because there are some excellent unofficial fan pages on myspace which include music. Those are done purely out of someone's love of a particular artist, and it's hard to fault anyone for putting a song on so they can share it with their friends. On the other hand, he might have a point, and I think myspace could take care of this by accepting only official myspace pages from artists, no tribute pages, which would allow an artist to keep tabs on the music. It would also force those artists that don't have myspace to bite the bullet and sign up. It's funny though, this is the first time I have heard this mentioned, maybe some bands are already accustomed to giving people free downloads on their own websites, so they figure what's a few more. Another thing about myspace I have noticed with all the musicians is they don't only include songs from their newest album, they include older material as well, possibly to deter someone from downloading half of their album for free. I don't really download, so for me its not an issue, I listen to the tracks on say Oysterband's myspace for enjoyment only, and then put them on my page in the hopes that someone will like it and buy the album, or legally download it.

Subject: Should social network sites pay musician
From: Connacht Rambler
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 04:52 PM

I see Billy Bragg has called for network sites like Bebo and Myspace to pay royalties to musicians. I'm also thinking about the number of Irish musicians - The Dubliners, for example - whose music has been put on social network sites regardless of all the copyright etc involved. I'm sure other people have more examples.