p.3 #1 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Access wrote:
The problem is the disconnect on the value of the license, it's worth more to them than you're willing to pay for it. Intellectual property doesn't have a hard value, it's based wholly on perceptions and things like that. The notion of a 'fair price' doesn't exist.
It's BS from your perspective, but what about theirs? Ultimately it takes two sides to make a deal, and if people can't agree on value, then no deal will be made. It's like the guy who wants you to shoot his wedding for $250 and won't pay more than double that. That's how the record companies see you wanting to license their music. They're used to people willing to pay much more because their productions are much larger. You can't necessarily reason with these guys, 'It's only a small number of views so the price should be lower.' It would be like if the $250. guy told you 'oh it's only a small wedding, shouldn't take very long... probably just a few hours' etc.
One reason a song sells for 99 cents is because of the volume, you have a whole lot of people buying songs for 99 cents online.
I don't support the view, and I understand the sentiment 'this is BS'. It's just how businesses work, sometimes. The only way to know for sure is to wait, maybe in a year there will be a deal or maybe there won't be. If there is no deal, that's probably why. It won't be for lack of trying, for sure....Show more →
Why do you assume I'm not willing to pay the licensing cost (I don't have music on my site btw)? I would be willing - I just dislike that there is no clear process. I tried emailing the band and the label for a song I wanted to license a while back. What did they respond with? Band manager said I need to go through the label. Label totally ignored my email.
So yeah, ive TRIED to do the right thing because i do think its immoral to use without permission (and illegal obviously) - but it really sucks when bureaucracy gets in the way And that is why the music industry is broken.
p.3 #2 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
It would be very nice if popular songs were as easily available for small commercial use as say iTunes is for personal use.
That would be a relatively small stream of revenue for the industry though. Licensing a song to an auto company for an ad once would probably dwarf a years worth of profits though.
p.3 #3 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
So yeah, ive TRIED to do the right thing because i do think its immoral to use without permission (and illegal obviously) - but it really sucks when bureaucracy gets in the way And that is why the music industry is broken.
It's not so much that bureaucracy gets in the way, it's a matter of them not believing the profit is worth the potential problems or expense.
I'm the same way. There is a lot of "picture stuff" I don't bother doing...for instance, if someone insists on getting only an 8x10, I simply won't be doing business with him. Simply not worth it. If someone wanted to publish one of my prints in a distant small-town rag for, say, $10, it's simply not worth my time to pull the image. It might not even be worth my time to reply.
p.3 #4 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
RDKirk wrote:
It's not so much that bureaucracy gets in the way, it's a matter of them not believing the profit is worth the potential problems or expense.
I'm the same way. There is a lot of "picture stuff" I don't bother doing...for instance, if someone insists on getting only an 8x10, I simply won't be doing business with him. Simply not worth it. If someone wanted to publish one of my prints in a distant small-town rag for, say, $10, it's simply not worth my time to pull the image. It might not even be worth my time to reply.
That argument doesn't make sense because they find it worth their time to hunt people down and sue them. So by that token they have a duty to make their music accessible for legal commercial use.
You say it isn't worth their time but they have the resources to automate the entire process... It's absurd that there isn't an easy way to do this and it would certainly open a nice little easy revenue stream.
And I would expect the license to cost at least $60 like triple scoop if not $200+, depending on length of license.
If you tried to get them to talk to you, and they didn't, that's their prerogative. They probably feel your business isn't worth the time and effort. In their mind, you're small fry, and they'd probably lose more money paying a lawyer to draft up a contract (and then there's still risk you'd change your mind and not sign it anyways) than they'd stand to gain in any fees you paid. Or, there's just no one in the corporate structure whose job it is to deal with people like you -- hence it never gets done.
It's the free market and no owner is compelled to license to you. Just like if someone shows up at your front door and says 'I heard you had an empty room... I'd like to rent it' -- you can turn him away just because you feel like it. No one can force you to deal with him.
There are times in life when 'doing the right thing' means just walking away. You might not be able to solve this problem legally, so just move on. Or maybe you can get a large enough number of photographers/videographers together to get them to consider talking to you, and then try to negotiate a deal that makes sense for both sides from there. But otherwise, just leave it at that, and do your best to find an alternative (don't break the law).
p.3 #7 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Hunting for people to sue is just their way of trying to deter illegal use.
Remember it's their property and their right to decide how to license it, who to license it to, and so on.
As long as the law gives them the option to sue, then they can take that course of action.
It's just like if I were to steal some of your pictures and pass them off as my own, you could decide to just ignore it, or you could politely ask me to stop, or you could take me to court and sue for $150,000. per alleged infringement, plus 3x income I generated for doing so. It would be your choice. Just because you decided to sue me wouldn't mean it was your duty to license your photos to anyone who wanted them.
p.3 #8 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
That argument doesn't make sense because they find it worth their time to hunt people down and sue them. So by that token they have a duty to make their music accessible for legal commercial use.
Nobody has any such "duty." How do you philosophise that they have an obligation to sell to you at terms you accept? Are you really arguing that because they choose from time to time to sue people who steal from them, that creates an obligation to sell cheap to people who would otherwise steal from them?
So the cake maker has an obligation to sell cheap bread he presses charges against someone who steals his cakes?
p.3 #9 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
When photographers don't value their own pictures, how can they value other's work? They can't. This is the problem created with easy breezy digital and the "everyone's a professional" mentality that is hitting our industry and the minds of consumers so hard. I personally know one of the videographers that was sued. I'm not going to name names or say details but he was hit massively hard. Insurance will take care of it, then his insurance will probably dump him. I was on another forum recently and people were screaming and hollering that if they buy a DVD, they should be able to give it to whomever they want. It's a big ole' speed bump in the mentality of people right now.
p.3 #10 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Look all I'm saying is that they are missing out on a huge super easy revenue stream. If it is worthwhile for them to sell 99cent songs surely it is worthwhile to have something for all the photographers, videographers and other small businesses that would like to legitimately send business their way.
I'm not saying it is okay to steal because of their failure to serve the market just that it is disappointing where they choose to sown time and money with arms crossed, fingers in ears, refusing to keep up with the times.
Maybe Apple will step in and further revolutionize that at some point. Like the plus versions but... More plussy.
p.3 #13 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
mzsupa5 wrote:
So how about finding a way to integrate a slideshow with a legal music streaming service like Spotify?
You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, revocable license to make personal non-commercial use of the Spotify Software Application (including a right to download said application) and the Spotify Service and to receive by stream (and, where you have purchased the Premium Service or the Mobile Service, by conditional download) the media content made available through the Spotify Service in the United States.
p.3 #14 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
There are a lot of outlets for up and coming musicians that are actually quite talented. Contacting the musician directly is a possibility but takes a bit of work obviously. I've come up with some gems for my slideshows.
p.3 #15 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
RDKirk wrote: You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, revocable license to make personal non-commercial use of the Spotify Software Application (including a right to download said application) and the Spotify Service and to receive by stream (and, where you have purchased the Premium Service or the Mobile Service, by conditional download) the media content made available through the Spotify Service in the United States.
Presumably that doesn't preclude a client who has a Spotify subscription playing it in the backgound whilst watching a slideshow? It would be good if a music streamer developed a way of integrating with a slide show automatically as a feature.
p.3 #16 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Presumably that doesn't preclude a client who has a Spotify subscription playing it in the backgound whilst watching a slideshow? It would be good if a music streamer developed a way of integrating with a slide show automatically as a feature.
It precludes playing it in any commercial setting where the intention is to have money changing hands between a retailer and a client.
Pandora uses the same language, and they do intend to preclude playing it as, for instance, background music in a store. Pandora has a special license using their own required hardware for commercial uses such as that.
p.3 #17 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
mzsupa5 wrote:
Presumably that doesn't preclude a client who has a Spotify subscription playing it in the backgound whilst watching a slideshow? It would be good if a music streamer developed a way of integrating with a slide show automatically as a feature.
Like Rifftrax? They have a player that will help you sync their audio track over a movie plyed on your computer.
p.3 #18 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
You could pay a local artist to record a cover of the song you want. You get the song, the artists gets some food money, and the couple gets a truly one of a kind keepsake.
p.3 #19 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
You can't do this either, McGratten. There are different types of rights with songs and this falls under one. I'm not a music copyright lawyer so I can't give you the fancy name for this ;-).
