[Fmpro] ALL residuals ???

[Chris Alpiar]

Actually Mark I don't think its exactly as you are perceiving it. The court
ruled that technically a download is not a performance, which technically it
is not. 2 machines communicated and until the end user opens the file to
hear it, it isn't a performance. That needed to be clarified for if say, in
peer to peer downloading, one can connect to 10, 15 or more peers to
download different segments of the same file, so if, strictly, a download is
a performance and every download must be paid out as such, a peer to peer
service could pay 15 or more times for the same end performance, or a
middle-tier computer system that is just transferring data for storage even,
must pay as if it's a end user listening.

What needs to happen is a new agreement on how the actual performance is
tracked and paid out on. This is a time to really understand how a download
works, what really is involved in the nitty gritty with TCP/IP protocol and
other ways of downloading, how streaming really works and its differences,
and if indeed the download is not a performance then how do we get paid
based on that *most* of those downloads are people with "intent to
view/listen to the performance" and also that once they have downloaded a
work there *is* no current means of tracking ubiquitously. In that case,
while we can agree that a download is not necessarily a performance, since
there is no other means currently of knowing when that work is performed,
that the download still should be paid out as a performance...

iTunes (before they changed just recently) was the closest thing to a
responsible way to deal with intellectual property and downloads. They let
you buy the download and gave you (encoded in the media) ability to copy
that song/work 5 times before you had to purchase another license. The
licence was associated with your iTunes account and that file specifically.
The failure was that MP3s are still out there and other formats and the
average 12 year old knows more about how to copy and find them then any
lawyer at ascap. 

The only way we are ever going to have 100% complete control over internet
downloads is by the creation of a new format of media file that is encrypted
and encoded with a key that is monitored and policed by a central and global
enforcing agency that is not corporate and is not of one nation. A United
Nations of the internet that handles fairly all matters. Too bad its already
12 years too late, but it is the only real way

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: fmpro-bounces+chris=alpiar.com at nxport.com
[mailto:fmpro-bounces+chris=alpiar.com at nxport.com] On Behalf Of Mark Northam
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:12 PM
To: fmpro at nxport.com
Subject: Re: [Fmpro] ALL residuals ???

These two statements seem to be contradictory - either the labels support,
or don't support paying performing rights on downloads.

In the US, the RIAA - the recording industry lobbying group - made it 100%
clear that they do NOT support performing rights on downloads, and were one
of the strongest legal forces that opposed ASCAP's court case. As we know,
ASCAP lost that case, and the precedent it has now set, unless it's
successfully appealed or overturned, could be disastrous for composers.

Best,

Mark Northam


On 5/15/07 1:47 AM, "Lynne T. Conte" <profwoman4u2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess a recording company will agree and support payment of publishing
> because recording companies think that performing rights would cut down
the
> share in the download pie.  I suppose that a recording company prefers to
> pay the performing right, pay the percentage of mechanical rights and keep
> the rest, and do not want to include performing in which they do not get a
> big piece.



_______________________________________________
The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -
http://www.filmmusicmag.com

To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro