Fighting for Rights, and a Few More Pennies

In this digitized age of ours, it’s more convenient than ever be a consumer; there are so many ways to access entertainment. Miss the latest episode of your favorite TV show? Aw, did you even forget to TiVo it? No problem! You can stream it for free off the network’s website, or Hulu. Or you can pay a couple bucks to download it from iTunes or Amazon. Acquiring music, too, has never been so easy, and you can even do it legally from your desk (or favorite chair, or bed—wherever you drag your laptop or iPhone or other gadget). You can get a taste of new songs on those sites too, streaming free thirty-second samples before you decide to buy. Enter your credit card information and start jamming.

But who exactly is getting that money you so honestly paid? And who may not getting what they deserve?

CNET reported Thursday that songwriters, composers, and music publishers are pushing to collect more money from iTunes (among others)—for downloads of music, downloads of films and TV shows, and even thirty-second song samples. All of these, the unions argue, count as public performances of artists’ work. If they don’t receive fair compensation for this work, they can’t make a living. Music rights get pretty hairy—there is something called a “mechanical” or licensing fee paid for the permission to use a song in, say, a film or TV episode. However, on top of that, performance fees are collected for playing the songs in public (on TV, at a restaurant or sports stadium, et cetera). What counts as a performance and therefore necessitates a performance fee, however, is being hotly debated.

Opponents argue that artists are getting paid enough. Surely, the biggest stars are living quite comfortably, and all these middlemen are making a fine living too. But what about the little guys? As Ian Paul at PCWorld points out

… lesser known composers will often waive royalty fees for the actual making of the music, in the hopes of earning significant revenue from public broadcasts and screenings.

The problem is, as more people opt for digital downloads, those public performance revenues disappear.

As these articles (and commenters) point out, iTunes and others upping their prices would not a happy consumer make, and charging for the thirty-second samples is unrealistic (ridiculous, even). The rights battles continue to rage in and out of courts and in the US Congress. What the outcome will be is unclear, but what is apparent is this: the industry must adapt to the digital age—everyone from the songwriters and musicians to the unions and the companies—to keep up with consumers and consumption.

Hopefully we can someday work this out so everyone gets a fair cut, and hopefully too many artists won’t fall through the cracks along the way.