Slashdot Mirror
Web Radio and the RIAA
Andrew Leonard writes: "Steve Marks, VP of legal affairs of the RIAA, is duking it out with critics in a point-counterpoint debate focusing on the nitty-gritty details of how artists will be compensated by the new rules on Webcasting royalties."
Artists won't be compensated at all if there aren't any web radio stations left.
sulli
RTFJ.
Since when has the RIAA compensated actual artists for their music? This money will just go into the RIAA coffers, some of it being distributed to the top 20 or 50 or whatever sellers of any particular music medium.
The artists I like make all their money selling t-shirts and products on tour...
I just never listen to the radio anymore. My iPod has all I need!
sulli
RTFJ.
It is very likely that I'm crazy but, aren't they getting increased exposure, FOR FREE, by being netcast?
crazy dynamite monkey
The statute requires that 50 percent of the royalties be allocated to artists, and the CARP determined that this 50 percent should be paid directly to the artists...Yes, it is true that the costs of collecting and distributing royalties will be deducted from the royalties, but how else would the money get to the record companies and artists?
Only 50% will go to the artists. But when I put aup a bad account for collection at my job, we pay, in most cases, only 25%, and maybe less than that. Why are the collection "fees" imposed by the RIAA so high?
Sounds like a ripoff to me.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
Does this web radio legislation hold any weight for independents? If not, just boycott major label artists and play things on independent labels. There are thousands of amazing bands out there just waiting for an audience larger than 5000 (such as Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Squarepusher, Cannibal Ox, and Tortoise). Give them a listen and, at the same time, give the RIAA the finger.
For the past 4+ years people have been ripping, burning, broadcasting, playing, trading, leeching music on their computers.
.. another pops up. The RIAA wins one lawsuit .. looses another. .. four more take its place.
Artists have never been compensated for any of this.
The RIAA shuts down one site
The RIAA bans one piece of software
Money that is supposed to go to 'the artist' will always be caught in this never ending cycle.
Somehow I doubt that the RIAA is really looking out for the artist here. I mean... how do they get paid from normal radio stations? As far as I understand it, the radio is more or less one long commercial for music. I know when I really like an artist and respect who they are I will certainly buy their stuff and get everyone I can to do the same. But what is to stop anyone from just recording a song off the radio?
My point is that all this crap is pointless. Singles should be played freely. They are only put out to sell the whole album anyway.
"Marks noted that contrary to Hodge's assertion, 50 percent of royalties generated by webcasting would go directly to recording artists."
I'd look up the word "royalties" right about now. I'd look at that definition long and hard.
It seems to me that webcasters should simply have to pay the licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI, and the other organization I can't think of just as FM broadcasters do. IIRC, these fees are based on listenership, so the fees probably wouldn't be that high for most webcasters.
I just don't see why the RIAA cannot treat them equally!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Me running my 24K, 10 stream hobby station that peaks at about 2 listeners. I would sure hate to have to pay the same as the big boys....Or even have to comply to ANY rules that they have to....Considering it would take 1 lawyer per ear in the audience to even do anything about this....
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
In order for AM and FM stations to broadcast, they have to pay license fees to the major performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). These not-for-profit organizations then distribute royalties to the songwriters (not necessarily the recording artist).
What's interesting here is that the RIAA is using copyright infringement as it's argument to squash these technologies that it can't control, while dressing it up as "fighting for the rights of artists." Laughable.
It's not copyright infringement for a radio station because they have physical media (bought or provided) and pay license fees to broadcast the works via radio - they aren't making a copy of the information. I'm surprised that we aren't hearing more about digital radio facing the same hurdles as web-streaming.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Yes they do...
They pay BMI, ASCAP an SESAC... which are the organizations that collect payments for "performance" of music.
RIAA, was supposed to receive payment for "recording" of music.
Radio stations do not need to pay RIAA. But for some reason webcasts now have too.
All in all in order to play songs on the air and through a webcast you in fact must pay 4 organizations royalty fees for the artists.
Now most of these fees never get to the artist.
Even less will get to the artists you actually play. I do a weekly show focusing on christian alternative music, rap, rock, industrial, dance, techno, etc.
They look and say well, these are the top 500 bands, so they get the majority of all the royalty funds. Now it does not matter that I didn't play a single song by any of those bands. They still get my money, instead of the artists I am trying to support.
It's bumm, it's overpriced, it doesn't go where it should, and you are charged repeatedly.
So I have to pay an annual license to BMI, an annual license to ASCAP, an annual license to SESAC. Now I must pay royalties to RIAA. I still have to buy the CD at a list price of $10-$18. I am told that this is not overpriced. (Even though I can produce a CD with jewel case for under a $1 or $2, ship it for for under $2. So here I can produce at my own inefficient non-mass producing home production center a CD and ship it for under $4. Now they say there is added cost. Promotions take up tons of money?
Well, wait a minute. They're only promoting they're top acts. Go figure...
It's all crap..
Herein lies the double edged sword: The Industry has all the $$$. They'll let you have some for awhile, but they will get it back in fucking spades. If anyone thinks the Industry gives one rat's ass about their artists, take note: Where is Hootie now? (not that I care ;)
Anytime you add a middleman, prepare to be screwed.
But what is to stop anyone from just recording a song off the radio?
To the RIAA, a digital transmission is easier to pirate than an analog transmission, as there is zero loss from one generation to the next. That's why we've seen sh*t such as the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
New here? Everything is a troll.
My alarm is set to the local "modern rock" station, and there was a stretch of several months where every single morning I inevitably heard a Linkin Park song (technically, one of three, but they're all very similar). How's that for variety?
The RIAA is one of many media cartels that control what we see and hear (e.g. "content") while screwing the artists (content-creators).
Musicians and songwriters get a very small portion of the profits from CDs, royalties etc. They go on tour and push t-shirts and other merchandise because those aren't controlled by the RIAA, and they can make some money that way. Likewise, writers get pennies for each of their books that sells. Big-name actors and actresses do very well (as they have leverage), but other people (perhaps even more important to the film process) like writers make squat. Virtually all the major news outlets in the country are controlled by just a handful of companies. The list goes on...
Of course, these cartels aren't all bad. A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book. A new music group wouldn't be able to publish, promote and distribute a CD - they don't have the capital. The record company does take some risk on when signing a new artist, and deserves to be compensated for the service they provide.
However, these companies have unfair leverage because of collusion and lack of traditional competition between cartel members. They take the lion's share of the profits, control and censor what gets distributed to the public and charge as much as they want.
When was the last time you went to the movie's and got to see one cheaper because Tri-star was having a sale to compete with Paramount? This never happens because most movies are produced by one monopolistic entity known as "Hollywood". There is no risk involved for the movie studios because they hardly ever lose money, even on bad movies. As a result, we get crap like Battlefield Earth.
Likewise, the diversity and quality of music has gone way downhill (espescially in recent years). The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear. New acts and new sounds have a very hard time breaking in because the RIAA has a vested interest in keeping up the status quo. I mean, if I hear that damn Linkin' Park song one more time I'm going to spontaneously self-immolate.
They also leverage their monopolistic control over their "intellectual property" to extort profits from everyone they can. It can be argued that radio stations ought to get paid for promoting their products, but instead, they usually end up paying royalties. The arrangement benefits both sides - the profits shouldn't be so one sided.
Both the consumer and the artist would benefit from the breakup of these cartels. Competition would force record companies to compete on prices, and compete for acts (e.g. fair contracts). They would sometimes be willing to take on a risky new act on the chance that it could be big. Different companies would try to establish themselves in various market niches, creating diversity. Record companies would look to take advantage of new technologies to compete against others, rather than try to ban them (as they are competition from outside they cartel). News products, movies, books, etc. would also be cheaper, more interesting and more diverse.
Anyhow, that's my take.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
IANAL (but a first yr student, so sue me) but I wonder if there is a constituional challenge to this. Can this be denied under the 14th amdt, equal protection under the law. Webcasters and traditional radio stations are essentially the same thing (pushing music into a box, one does though radio frequency, the other does through 1s and 0s), both can be copied with roughly the same quality (.ra and the like are not high quality and approach the level of quality as a cassette or radio output, i'll let the audio geeks hash that out), but one group is denied the ability to play for free based on federal regulation.
Is this have basis of being a valid argument, Lawyers speak up!!
It doesn't matter to the RIAA if there are no web radio stations left at the end of this battle. They'll replace them with their own when they're good and ready. That's the whole idea- control.