(Hat Tip – KK) ASCAP, one the performing rights policemen, is suing AT&T for a different kind of cut of ringtone revenues. It seem that every time your cell phone rings and plays part of an ASCAP song, it should be considered a “performance” and ASCAP should get paid. If the suit were to be successful, of course, the money would be coming out of your pocket as AT&T would undoubtedly pass the cost on to the consumer. Here’s an excerpt; the full story is here
If your cellphone has a musical ringtone, step back and appreciate it the next time a friend dials you—according to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, you’re listening to a performance. In the latest sign of just how confusing the music licensing system is, ASCAP is suing AT&T over the carrier’s sale of musical ringtones, looking for a cut of the revenue—even though the carrier is already paying for the download rights to these tunes. In a recent filing unearthed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ASCAP says that download payments aren’t enough because each ring constitutes a performance.
Other recent attacks on the music consumer include RIAA successfully suing a housewife [EDIT: Link now down] for (file) sharing songs. Of course they really have no hope of collecting on the $80,000 per song verdict. I guess they just want to scare housewives who (used to) love music.
On the other (forward thinking) end of the collision spectrum, there is another article out about a study documenting the benefits of file sharing. Significant points include:
1. Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced
2. Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007 (Screen Digest, 2004 and 2008). Countries where film piracy is rampant have typically increased production. This is true in South Korea (80 to 124), India (877 to 1164), and China (140 to 402). During this period, U.S. feature film production has increased from 459 feature films in 2003 to 590 in 2007 (MPAA, 2007).
3. The paper takes on several longstanding myths about the economic effects of file sharing, noting that many downloaded songs do not represent a lost sale, some mashups may increase the market for the original work, and the entertainment industry can still steer consumer attention to particular artists (which results in more sales and downloads).
4. The authors’ point out that file sharing may not result in reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for “complements” increases. They point to rising income from performances or author speaking tours as obvious examples of income that may be enhanced through file sharing. In particular, they focus on a study that concluded that demands for concerts increased due to file sharing and that concert prices have steadily risen during the file sharing era.
5. The authors’ canvass the literature on the effects of file sharing on music sales, confirming that the “results are decidedly mixed.”
For file sharing geeks, the full study can be found here.
The authors were one of the first to challenge the early claims about the effects of file sharing. Years later, many other economists have followed suit (including the study funded by Industry Canada).
