RIAA Offers More Details Regarding Online Royalties

DorianGre writes "The following story in The Standard as well as this follow-on at Gigalaw announce RIAA's intention of controlling the royalties of all downloadeble music on the Internet. These are the same people suing Napster and MP3.com. Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this."

Comments

RIAA Pimp Agency

[PureFiction]

It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists.

There is no packaging costs, no distribution costs, and the sites offering the music will be the ones doing all the work supplying and maintaining the digital databases, yet the RIAA stll wants its 50% cut of the revenue.

I suppose this is better than the estimated 15% artists currently get from CD sales, but still seems quite rediculous.

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency

[jdunlevy]

> > It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists. < <

It'd also be interesting to see who "the artists" are in RIAA-speak.

Under the RIAA-pushed laws that require payment of royalties on the purchase of DAT machines and DAT audio media, consumers have to pay the RIAA-approved "artists" even if the DAT machine and media are being used only for the creation of new works. If I'm an artist, using a DAT machine in my home studio to create new works to which I hold copyright, I still have to give money to the RIAA.

Based on past performances, I've concluded that one of the RIAA's main goals is to keep new artists from taking advantage of new technologies to compete against the established recording industry. Or more accurately, the RIAA wants to ensure that, as new artists increasingly take advantage of technologies that allow them more easily to work outside the established recording industry, the RIAA is somehow still able to get a cut of this activity, from which they would otherwise be excluded.

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency

[nyet]

Its funny. I just got done watching the Hughes brothers excellent "American Pimp" and you have summed it up exactly.

The theme of the movie is "why does a ho need a pimp?"

One of the first things you learn is that ho's NEVER get a percentage. Not 10%, not 5%, not even 1%. Every single pimp says the same thing. 0%. Then they go on to talk at length about why a ho needs a pimp - after a ton of hand waving, you realize it is all about MIND share. Its about convincing the HOs they need a pimp, not convincing the johns that hos need a pimp.

Of course, the most striking similarity between Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti, and pimps is in the "get me my motherfucking money" segment. In it, a pimp explains that a ho doesn't EARN him his money. The ho goes and GETS his motherfucking money from the John. It is already assumed the John HAS his motherfucking money, and it is up to the ho to get it for the pimp.

In any case, if you want to learn why the RIAA and MPAA make so much damn money, and work so hard to "get their motherfucking money" from you, go rent American Pimp. 5 stars.

Time shifting

[Sloppy]

The analogy with video recorders is also tenuous. Although video recording can produce exact replicas, its use can be detected. Video recording is protected by fair-use principles and is allowed within limits. The Supreme Court restricted these limits to what it termed "time shifting," allowing the viewer to watch a broadcast show at a more convenient time. But the use of MP3 permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole songs repeatedly and the compilation of a whole medley of songs for redistribution and public performance. When analogies fail, the law has to come up with fresh answers.

Interesting. The above differs from reality. The use of video recorders also permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole video tapes repeatedly, and the compilation of a whole medley of vids (which could be illegally redistributed or publicly performed). Thus, there's no real difference between the capabilities of MP3s and video recordings.

The implication is that the legalization of video recorders was intended to allow time shifting only. This means you're not supposed to, for example, tape every episode of Babylon 5 and keep your tapes long-term, watching them over and over. That's news to me.

---

cutting out the middlepimp

[fhwang]

The internet buzzword that applies here is "disintermediation" -- that is, the way that new networks cut out the middleman and their part of the cut. It's been happening across many sectors of business due to the internet; I remember hearing, for example, of moderate cuts in the salesforces of midline department store chains because a lot of people were using ecommerce sites instead.

The only significant difference in this case is that, unlike department stores, the RIAA has some legal leverage to use to protect its own middleman status. Even so, I wonder how long they'll be able to last.

A big way to kick some RIAA ass...

[vorpal22]

I'm not sure if this has ever been posted before, but if we all really want to kick some RIAA ass while making sure that our favorite artists don't lose out on the process, perhaps this is what we should do:

1) Download all the mp3s you can.
2) For each mp3 that you download, send $0.50 or $1.00 to the artist (via mail) for the mp3.

This, of course, would be exceedingly inconvenient to the artist, but hell, it would prove a point and show those bastards at the RIAA that we will not stand for the high CD prices, very little of which goes to the artist. Quite frankly I want to reward talent, not administrative beaurocracy.

v

The U.S. Constitution

[onion2k]

Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this.

Oh yeah, we can't possibily live on a planet that isn't entirely governed by the U.S. constitution. After all, less than 10% of the population live in America, so why shouldn't we all be governed by their laws?

Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.

Re:I hate to be bitter but....

[Jedi Alec]

Do we really think the RIAA represents what most artists think?

Of course it doesn't. the RIAA represents what the money thinks. And as we all know, money talks as well. In this case, quite a lot.

Re:Copyright protection?

[Enry]

>these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind)

Err....a few things here.

First, there's nothing preventing you from buying shares of sony, time warner, etc. They're listed on the US stock exchanges, and also on the exchanges where the company is based (Tokyo, Toronto, etc.).

Second, anyone with a retirement account (401(k), IRA, and so on) may own shares in these companies already.

To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.

So now what?

If you're a direct shareholder, contact investor relations. Find some financial why maintaining their relationship with the RIAA will hurt the company and its share price.

If you're indirect (401(k)) contact the investor relations of the mutual fund company that you're going through. Do the same thing.

With stock prices being real crappy these days, some solid reasons why a particular company's plan to extort money from consumers will backfire could be of help.

Re:Copyright protection?

[Grendel Drago]

True, but you can't believe that such power can be handed over to entities that have proven themselves so rapacious in the past (RIAA, MPAA) with no consequences for the average *non*-criminal.

p2p tools are *not* instruments of theft, it's just terribly popular to use them as such. They're like crowbars... powerful, with a legitimate purpose, but subject to the goodness or evilness of their operator.

Remember, if draconian access controls are allowed, and *enforced*, it certainly won't stop with the college kids with forty gig of DMB. Witness DeCSS: "But only *pirates* use it!" "Oh, okay, let's make reverse engineering a crime." Do you really believe that taking power out of the hands of the hacker/common man/scr1pt k1dd13 and giving it to these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind) will solve anything?

Perhaps 'copyright protection' is the wrong phrase. But believe me, it's not about the pirates; they don't cost the companies an appreciable sum, they never have.

About the 'right' to the Nappy... I won't argue there. I still can't believe what I hear when my roommates complain that the school blocked Napster.

Why do ASCAP and BMI remain silent?

[drteknikal]

My understanding is that ASCAP and BMI retain the performance rights administration, and that what the RIAA is attempting is a unilateral power grab to take more power back from the artists and give it to the record companies. ASCAP and BMI seem to have remained curiously silent on these issues.

Excuse me? Everything??

[eAndroid]

I'm an artist on mp3.com and luckily enough I've made more than a few dollars there. I don't know how the RIAA can expect to be involved with MY music whatsoever. Not only am I not a member of any music organisation/union so I can't in any way be a RIAA member, but I am not even an American!

I think royalties for signed artists is fine - they know what they are getting into when they sign - but us *truely* independant artists don't owe the RIAA anything!

Re:Endangered Industry - goodbye RIAA

[mgoyer]

Actually the paylars.com people haven't sent Metallica any of the money (read the fine print on the site carefully, first they have to recuperate their costs).

Another option would be Fairtunes which lets you send money directly to the artist, which bypasses the blood sucking RIAA. And unlike Paylars we've actually mailed thousands of dollars worth of cheques to artists who have in turn cashed them. (Metallica cashed their cheque this Tuesday).

Matt.

Re:As they should.

[NulDevice]

RIAA themselves have doen more harm to the starving musician than just about anyone. They are NOT a performers rights group like BMI or ASCAP. They do not pay artist royalties. Rather, they are a lobbying group formed of executives of the big 4 record labels. According to their own press, they are "trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Our mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality." One of their major lobbying subgroups is the one that tries to require blank CD and Tape manufacturers to pay recording royalties, since those blank media *could* be causing lost revenue. Their job, basically, is to ensure that major record labels make money. They claim to be fighing "illegal downloads", and to an extent I believe that illegal distribution of music is wrong (I say "to an extent" because without Napster most of my last album wouldn't have been heard outside my hometown). But pretty much in the end, their policies ensure that I wouldn't be able to distribute my music legally without the support of a major label, which makes the whole internet-indie-artist revolution pretty moot. Of course, they're on a pretty sysiphean quest - anyone can encode and distribute music and no amount of legal wrangling is going to put that genie back in the bottle...

----

Re:Need to speak with someone w/RIAA

[rabidcow]

gosh... i'm sorry.
nsync is one of the things i think the riaa should have to pay *us* for.

Need to speak with someone w/RIAA

[packphour]

I would like for someone from the RIAA to contact me regarding my account balance. See, a few days ago I pulled up at a stop light with my windows down and the girl next to me had "Bye Bye Bye" (by N'Sync) blaring. The song got stuck in my head and I've been singing it to myself ever since.

I guess I've now played the song in my head atleast 40 times by now and wanted to know how much I owe you.

Sincerely,