 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me be the first who say: "I don't care, No CD = No sale".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2018 - 8:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Might be geared more for song soundtracks seeing as they mention they already “owned” the songs. One can hope anyways.
Yes, I agree but in time they will probably head that direction with film scores too.
No. There would be no benefit to them. Read what the article is saying.
The premise here is very clear, and represents a bit of a loophole in music licensing:
If a movie uses existing songs and a studio makes an album (even a streaming-only album) using those songs, each one has to be licensed and paid for for that use.
However, if instead of making an album, the studio makes a playlist of those songs, culled from albums already on that streaming service, no new deals have to be struck, no new money changes hands.
The functional distinction between an album and a playlist is non-existent. There is no unified cover art, and that's pretty much it.
This is obviously completely irrelevant to any film soundtrack with original content (score or songs). It only works because the songs already exist on the service.
So whatever your objections to streaming are, the idea that this could somehow be applied to film scores is not one of them. That is impossible. It's just not what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is obviously completely irrelevant to any film soundtrack with original content (score or songs). It only works because the songs already exist on the service.
So whatever your objections to streaming are, the idea that this could somehow be applied to film scores is not one of them. That is impossible. It's just not what they're doing.
Schiffy's got it as usual. This is clearly aimed at existing content on the site, so pop songs. Until and unless future deals are struck allowing streaming services to use film scores in the same way.
I'm uncertain about it being a loophole however. This could be considered a questionable practice if streaming services are limited in how they can use an artist's material on playlists, but I don't know that they are. If they are not, they are free to use that artist's content in any playlist they wish and are only obligated to pay the artist what they already are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2018 - 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
This has been the long term goal of big corp for some time now. Make the consumer continually pay for the product or service.
I thought that was the aim of our labels too, selling the same title again and again to the same people. They sell a limited number, then sell a "remastered" version of it five years later, then add "bonus tracks" five years after that, then, in another five years from now, will sell us a better, hi-res version.
I don't see the comparison. You can listen to your CD in perp after a one time fee. Reissues come about for various reasons, lost masters found, better masters found, new deals reached with studios that allow for expansions. You can just stick with a previous issue, no one forces anyone to purchase an "upgrade" to hear what they already own. If the studios switched to streaming only then you have to pay a monthly fee or have no access to the music at all. I'll add its a double whammy, because not only do you have to pay for the streaming service you have to pay for a data plan or internet so you can listen to your music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this would be how they would do Forrest Gump or From the Earth to the Moon now. (Minus the Silvestri track and the Kamen track.)
OTOH they couldn't do Back to the Future or Top Gun like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
