Greed or Fairness?: Collecting Royalties on 30-second Clips

Hello readers! After a restful vacation in Florida, I am back and ready to take my rightful place on the self-proclaimed soap box that is my blog. Today's topic covers a post on Mashable written by Barb Dybwad entitled "Greed: Music Industry Wants Royalties on 30-Second Previews and TV Downloads." I would invite you to read her article for her take on the situation, but one of the questions presented it whether an MP3 is a "performance" of a song for licensing purposes. Now, I can't help but read in between the lines at the more equitable question presented as well: is it "fair" for PROs (Performance Rights Organizations) to ask for licensing monies for "preview" clips?

First and foremost, I'll get my opinion about performances out of the way, which will probably piss some folks off. I do believe that 30-second clips are streaming, as as any MP3s. From a legal point of view, there is no difference between me clicking "play" on iTunes (or Napster, to which I'm a long-time subscriber) or turning on the radio. If anything, it's MORE of a performance because I'm dictating what gets performed. I may be sitting alone in my office, but iTunes and other download/streaming services offer those songs to the public. Each time one is played, it's a performance.

That being said, I don't think royalties for MP3 (or clips) should be handled the same way that traditional performance royalties are handled (namely, broadcast and live venue performances). The cost is simply too prohibitive for companies to pay each time one of their users downloads or streams a song. Sure, maybe iTunes can pay, but isn't free market about allowing other companies a chance too? Smaller digital distributors simply cannot afford these fees, and it effectively keeps them out of the market. That shouldn't be the case. Copyright reform in this area is certainly making progress, but I don't know that we're 100% there yet.

Related to this, I believe there's a public policy balance between copyright rights/law and the public enjoyment of music. You don't have to pay to test drive a car, but you certainly can't drive it home without paying for it. You don't have to pay to try on clothes, but you certainly can't walk out of the store with them on. Similarly, isn't there a crossroads where the right to get compensated has to bend to the right of the public to "try before you buy"? I believe that point is here @ the 30-second clip mark. I sincerely believe that most performing artists feel this way; they WANT people to hear their music! Should they get paid for that music? Of course. But licensing companies, especially PROs that supposedly have the interests of artists in mind, should recognize when the need to get compensated is overshadowing the greater good (and potentially bigger profits for artists in the long run).