Slashdot Mirror

The artists write the songs

Record labels actually discourage recording songs that you've written in favor of recording songs that someone else has written. See controlled composition clauses. I guess it has something to do with the fact that it's harder to withhold songwriting royalties until the album recoups than it is to withhold recording royalties.

"Um...isn't that what the RIAA is technically supposed to be? Not that it actually represents the artists' interests."

No; not hardly. They represent the recording industry. From their "about" page (emphasis mine):

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

Musicians have their own alliances. Somebody's already pointed out the AFM; There are also the ASCAP and BMI; both are performance rights societies run by and for musicians.

Slashdotters often consider ASCAP and BMI to be just as evil as the RIAA, but I should point out that ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA are often at odds with each other, because they represent groups of people who are on the opposite ends of the business deals.

" I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to listen to music."

Just because you didn't hear about ASCAP prior to the internet, it doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

"Do independent and alternative labels get any of the copyright taxes in countries like Germany and Canada, or does it all go to the RIAA equivalents?"

Not sure what you mean by "RIAA equivalents." In Canada it goes to SOCAN, which is the equivalent of ASCAP and BMI -- that is, composers, lyricists and the like. The record labels largely aren't part of the story. So, when reading about tariffs and levies (whether they're in the US, Canada, or Germany), when you see "greedy record label" substitute that with "greedy composers and lyricists."

The money's distributed according to popularity as measured by airplay, I believe. This is a gross generalization, but popular artists tend to be on major labels, and less popular artists tend to be on indie labels (again -- gross generalization!) so the people who write Celine Dion's music for her will get more of the Canadian levy than the people who write the music for your favorite little-known indie bands.

Anyway, the little labels see little or none of the Canadian levy, but then again, neither do the big ones.

"Traditionally, radio is lesser quality than what the RIAA offers for sale, and previous comments have mentioned that the audio sounds compressed, so the possibility of the RIAA persuing any increased fees for XM or Sirius is slim, in my opinion."

Very slim, because the fees that radio stations pay go to artists, not the RIAA or even record companies.

The fees are paid through licenses from BMI and ASCAP, non-profit societies run by and for artists. And you can be sure that these licenses were negotiated with BMI and ASCAP long before the first satellites were launched.

"But this is because the RIAA is too busy chasing after the digital pirates, and don't have time for the "small time" operations of bootleggers, like Napster/KaZaa/etc. is the first time piracy has ever occured."

They bust CD pirates, counterfeiters and bootleggers quite a bit:

• http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/111703.asp
• http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/121603.asp
• http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/111303_2.asp

...it's just not discussed on /. much.

"Listening to the radio spew out song after song at no cost to me other than the time spent dealing with (listening to or avoiding) commercials, I hear no legal notices explaining that the songs were used with permission from the relevant parties. Stations have to pause periodically for identification. Perhaps it would clarify to the general public that the music is used with permission if they would pause from time to time in a similar manner to explain whose permission allowed them to play such music and to remind the public that the music is a tightly controlled resource."

Great post overall, but one clarification: radio stations generally need not get permission to play music (the instances where they must get permission is beyond the scope here). However, they do pay for the priveledge of playing the music. The money goes to ASCAP and BMI, two non-profit performance rights societies that distribute the money back to the composers. The record company does not get this money.

Also, your post may infer that the RIAA is the permission-giver for all music. For instances such as using a piece of music in a film, permission of the copyright holders must be obtained. The copyright holders can range from the record company to an engineer or two to the composer to the lyricist to the performer, but it's never the RIAA. The RIAA is a trade group that represents many but not all record companies. To that point, if I release a song on my own, or with the help of a record company that's not affiliated with the RIAA, I still get all the rights you've described above. Copyright law protects everybody.

If you want to use the majority of the music published through traditional channels... you need to talk to ASCAP and/or BMI. AFAIK, talking to them does not help secure rights to use a song in something like a movie, but for most part, you're on the right track if you talk to these guys.

Radio stations pay ASCAP/BMI fees in order to play music on their radio stations. They're responsible for dividing up money to member artists.

The funny thing is that I've *never* seen or read an article where either organization has taken a stand for or against DRM... it's always the RIAA.

ascap (american society of composers and authors) does some of the tracking for authors.