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."

Comments

Well

[sulli]

Artists won't be compensated at all if there aren't any web radio stations left.

Re:Well

[bofkentucky]

Get your overseas mirrors ready, right beside DeCSS

Re:Well

[curunir]

There will still be plenty of web radio stations around. However, they will all be simultaneous broadcasts of over-the-air radio broadcasts. CARP sets royalty fees significantly higher for internet-only broadcasts.

So the basic effect of CARP is that it puts all the internet-only broadcasters out of business, but still allows all those Top-40 stations to continue streaming their generic TRL crapfest to anyone with half a brain. This is just another attempt by the RIAA to turn a market that is new and interesting into a known commodity that they know they can control.

Have artists ever been compensated for their music

[dada21]

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...

Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu

[dattaway]

The money went to artists? I thought it went to lobbying efforts.

Pertinent info can be found...

[GreyDuck]

Visit saveinternetradio.org, a site by the folks behind the Radio And Internet Newsletter, or RAIN. We in the radio broadcast industry are doing everything we can to make it clear that the CARP recommendations, based almost line-by-line on what the RIAA asked for, would effectively eliminate radio broadcasters from the internet streaming arena. Oddly enough, RIAA member companies are in the process of rolling out their own for-pay services... coincidence, right?

Re:Pertinent info can be found...

[Strog]

No conflict of interests there. They have too much power that directly affects their bottom line.

Re:Pertinent info can be found...

[Alsee]

effectively eliminate radio broadcasters

I love how the recording industry tries to deny this with the following quote:

KSDS-FM ... rates would be about $51 annually.

The rates are $184 per year per listener. This means the example they use, KSDS-FM, must average less than zero-point-three listeners.

Jut just as bad, or maybe worse are the paperwork requirements:
1. The name of the service;
2. The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID);
3. The type of program (archived/looped/live);
4. Date of transmission;
5. Time of transmission;
6. Time zone of origination of transmission;
7. Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
8. Duration of transmission (to nearest second);
9. Sound recording title;
10. The ISRC code of the recording;
11. The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track;
12. Featured recording artist;
13. Retail album title;
14. The recording label;
15. The UPC code of the retail album;
16. The catalog number;
17. The copyright owner information;
18. The musical genre of the channel or program (station format);

In addition, webcasters must report information on the audience as well:

1. The name of the service or entity;
2. The channel or program;
3. The date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone);
4. The date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone);
5. The time zone where the signal was received (user);
6. Unique user identifier;
7. The country in which the user received the transmissions.

-

No webmastser?

[Snar Bloot]

Steve Marks writes

Finally, with regard to your observation that the confusion about the artists' share of royalties is the fault of SoundExchange because its Web site is not up to date, you'll be happy to know that's because SoundExchange doesn't have a webmaster -- thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the artists

Does it really seem like that should be considered a good thing? I mean, isn't that a little bit like telling people the airline doesn't have a pilot, thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the airline stockholders?

But don't worry...

Re:No webmastser?

[sconeu]

Seems to me, that if you're going to go to the trouble of seting up a site, you'd better be willing to maintain that site. If it's not being updated frequently, then there's minimal overhead.

Urgh

[Gizzmonic]

reading the first point-counterpoint exchange pretty much reveals (as we all suspected) that this is a heavy-handed attempt to curb music distribution outside of accepted RIAA channels.

Since the FCC allowed Clear Channel to own up to 49% of as many local radio stations as they wanted, I've heard a lot more crap on the radio, both from shitty Creed ripoffs and more screaming car salesman. Stuff like live365.com keeps me going during work hours. If this passes, I'll probably just turn the radio up till I go deaf. It would be better than commercial radio is now.

Re:Urgh

[sulli]

I just never listen to the radio anymore. My iPod has all I need!

Re:Urgh

[Wildcat J]

I have to agree that the Clear Channel takeover of local radio stations has really degraded the quality of said stations. Although, in my area (Tucson, AZ), it seems as though it's all nu-metal more so than cock rock like Creed et. al.

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?

Compensation?

[decipher_saint]

It is very likely that I'm crazy but, aren't they getting increased exposure, FOR FREE, by being netcast?

Re:Compensation?

[quantaman]

But that exposure is for one of two types of artists. First is the kind that is being pushed by the record company and they already get overexposed and more exposure doesn't really help and possibly would do them harm more than anything because the public is just that more likely to get sick of them. The second unexposed artist is not being pushed by a record company and is not necessarily even under contract for a big label, in that case the record company either does not care or does not want those artists to get any exposure. Of course this is a gross generalization but I wouldn't be surprised if these scenerios held true to a certain extent.

long time stations to die

[pjones]

i can only begin to say what all the problems are with the CARP rulings, but one thing is for sure. the combination of complex record keeping, privacy invasive database building at SoundExchange, constrains on content and playlists, and costs will likely place WXYC the first station on the net, WCPE the only 7/24 non-commercial classical music station, and WXDU off the net.

The process was completely undemocratic -- none of these stations was allowed to testify at CARP. WCPE was specifically excluded

see also WXYC's save our streams page and Save Our Streams

Not new

[BrianGa]

These problems with the RIAA and internet radio are nothing new. Slashdot had a story on October 5 about how the recording industry is trying to collect royalties from webcasters who are streaming audio.

Re:Not new

[susano_otter]

These problems are nothing new, of course, but there's been no resolution yet. As a result, any progress towards (a) clarifying the issues or (b) codifying a solution, is definitely new, and newsworthy.

Given the opportunity, would you have opted to ignore the Manhattan Project because the suspected relationship between matter and energy was "nothing new" (what with Einstein's theories and all)?

So,

[tcd004]

At what point do web radio audiences get big enought that the record companies pay-o-la them to play thier music, instead of the other way round...

Check out VISA's cure for Shoplifting!

tcd004

Re:So,

[nhavar]

Same as TV, you need content to sell ads therefore you either A) create content B) buy content C) trade for content. Since it's unlikely that they will create their own content then they either have to purchase it or trade for it. Since they don't really have much to trade then it's purchase only.

The problem I see is that the RIAA is wanting to rake in even more cash to the detriment of their customers and the end consumer. Music should be a subsidized product. The music industry should give deep discounts on product because in the end that product being broadcast is as much an advertisement as it is anything else. Therefore if X is cost of play-time for music and Y is the cost of ad time on the caster then X-Y = $amount caster pays for content.

50% of royalties go to artists?

[Dead Penis Bird]

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.

Re:50% of royalties go to artists?

[the_2nd_coming]

I just don't get this advertizing thing.

the radio station has to pay to play a song. playing a song is advortizing that band. why is the RIAA not paying to promote the band?

same thing goes with designer shirts...never understood that.

Re:50% of royalties go to artists?

[jafac]

Are you kidding me? Music videos used to be promotional materials used for selling records to record store chain owners.

Something sick and evil happened in the early 80's where videos themselves became valued content, and the basis for their own cable channel. The viewers are watching commercials, intersperced with more commercials - 24 hours a day - and the fuckers at MTV couldn't leave that absurd business model alone, and for some reason felt it necessary to toss in some game shows and other crap.

They had people endlessly watching commercials, and they changed it. I'll never understand.

Re:50% of royalties go to artists?

[BrookHarty]

Ya, nothing like sellion a gazillion records and owing the record companies money for advertising.

You know, every time I an article about the RIAA..

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'm reminded of a little ritual I do once every two or three days. As I'm just starting to wake up, still squinting at the light, and go to the sink to wash up and shave, I look myself in the mirror and say, "John. Be glad you're not an artist."

-Paul.

Here's an idea:

[Acideous]

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.

Re:Here's an idea:

[Wildcat J]

Personal Opinion Warning!

On the topic of independent bands, the prototypical fiercely independent band that everyone should be listening to, if they aren't already, is Fugazi. Their music is incredible and they've held to their principles for fifteen years (I saw them here last year, only $5 and they played for over two hours!). Dischord Records, started by singer/guitarist Ian Mackaye is the model for independent labels. Check them out.

Also, a little semi-local plug, if you liked the Refreshments ("Down Together", "Banditos", and the theme song from "King of the Hill"), check out Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers (Roger was the lead singer of the Refreshments).

-J

Re:Here's an idea:

[curunir]

The original Salon piece highlighted the problem with this solution.

The major labels are constantly buying smaller labels. That's the business model for many small labels. So, a web broadcaster can often get consent from a small label to play their content for free over the internet. However, if that smaller label gets bought by a member of the RIAA, the content once again falls under CARP.

So it ends up being a massive headache for a web broadcaster to continually check with label who owns the content that you're broadcasting to see if they've changed their mind. One of the reasons why record companies continually buy up smaller labels is to force more alternative radio stations to pay their ASCAP/BMI fees.

Re:Here's an idea:

[Computer!]

Here! Here! If there are any Slashdotters that like their rock hard and fresh, Fugazi is a must-hear. Every album they make gets better year after year after year. They don't sell T-shirts. At all. They charge $6 for shows, and if the venue won't do a $6 show, they pick another venue. They have sold 100s of 1000s of records, and still drive their own van. Genius! Former members of Minor Threat hate the Industry, and are breaking it from the inside.

Re:Here's an idea:

[Computer!]

In fact, I used to have one.

What you used to have was a bootleg t-shirt. Sorry, but it's true. That's why the "This is not a Fugazi T-Shirt" T-shirt came out, because Fugazi threatened to sue the bootlegger.

Re:Here's an idea:

[Computer!]

In the "Instrument" video (now on DVD too), Ian explains the motivations for the cheap shows, no T-shirts, etc. IIRC, it was something like "If we continue to make art, people are going to want to hear and see us doing it. That is secondary to us making it, so we will make as little money from it as possible in order to have as much control as we can over how that all happens"

what is the point?

[jest3r]

For the past 4+ years people have been ripping, burning, broadcasting, playing, trading, leeching music on their computers.

Artists have never been compensated for any of this.

The RIAA shuts down one site .. another pops up. The RIAA wins one lawsuit .. looses another.
The RIAA bans one piece of software .. four more take its place.

Money that is supposed to go to 'the artist' will always be caught in this never ending cycle.

AM and FM anyone?

[guamman]

Personally, I don't understand why record companies want to charge for webcasts or why they think they are entitled to. AM and FM have always been free after price of equipment (a radio). A webcast is simply the progression of this using new technology. From the point of view of the artist, I would want my songs to get as much air (and web) play as possible in an attempt to sell more records, tapes, cds, minidiscs, dvds, etc. All casts, that is streaming music whose content is not decided by the listener directly, should be free. That, is the entire point of advertising. Don't make people pay for the ads, which music on a cast is for the artist's cds anyway.

Re:AM and FM anyone?

[T5]

But you can't count how many people are listening to your radio station. Sure, there are folks like Nielsen sampling usage patterns, but the data are inexact.

Now that the Powers That Wanna Be feel they can extract an exact headcount of listeners on the web, they figure that nailing down an exact per-listener fee model makes sense.

This is just another case where copious amounts of exact data drives people to bad decisionmaking.

Re:AM and FM anyone?

[phil reed]

AM and FM have always been free after price of equipment (a radio).

Not even close. You pay for your "free" radio by being subjected to advertising. Same for TV. The customers of a radio station and a TV station are the advertisers. You are the product that the station delivers to its customers. The music and TV shows are simply part of the overhead needed by the station to create it's product for delivery to its customers.

Re:Compensation

[Mr Teddy Bear]

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.

This is needed exposure

[eweu]

While the informed elite on /. already know this information, further widespread discussion of the lack of compensation to artists by the RIAA and the like can only be a good thing. The soundbites on national and local news only ever discuss "stealing from artists" and "artists not getting paid."

So far the RIAA has been feeding the information to the wide audience. The more the general populace understands that many of their favorite artists don't make a dime from record sales, the more likely the RIAA will be forced to join us back in the real world.

printer friendly version

[Alien54]

The printer friendly version avoids all the ads, etc.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/03/web_r adio_redux/print.html

I like this last bit:

As for SoundExchange's inability to update its Web site due to not having an on-staff webmaster, please take a look at this 10-minute guide to HTML. I'm sure some of the talented folks at SoundExchange could pick up the skills needed to update the text of your Web site within a couple of days, and it would have saved many hours of many people's time (and prevented much confusion) if there hadn't been a number of folks pointing to the SoundExchange site as proof that (for instance) SoundExchange will not be paying the artists directly.

It is always good to encourage techical literacy.

Does Regular Radio Pay?

[stoolpigeon]

Do the FM radio stations that I listen to pay the artists for playing their music?

If they do- I have to admit, I did not know that. If they don't, why are internet radio stations any different?

Personally this matters less and less to me as I become more and more disinterested in what "popular" music is floating around out there.

As is regularly posted in this discussion, there are a lot of bands that just want to be heard and have not sold out. They are usually much more interesting. And lets be honest - it does not take a whole lot of talent to produce most of what you can hear on the radio or buy on a $17.oo CD

.

Re:Does Regular Radio Pay?

[ktakki]

Do the FM radio stations that I listen to pay the artists for playing their music?

Yes and no.

Yes, stations pay something called "performance royalties". These royalties are administered by "performing rights organizations" (BMI, ASCAP, SECAM) and are disbursed via a complex schedule that takes into account the medium of distribution (e.g., radio, TV, jukebox) and the number of times a work is played.

No, these royalties do not go to the artist. They go to the songwriter. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not.

k.

Re:Does Regular Radio Pay?

[PortHaven]

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..

choice quote.

[3-State Bit]

"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.

Re:choice quote.

[handorf]

What? You mean these definitions?

A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.
or
A share in the proceeds paid to an inventor or a proprietor for the right to use his or her invention or services.

Didn't you know? The RIAA invented music! It's only fair that they get half the royalties.

Re:choice quote.

[stubear]

I once heard about this guy in a red suit climbing down chimneys on December 25th. Does this mean Santa Claus is real?

Crazy!

[PoiBoy]

Can someone please explain to me why the RIAA insists on treating webcasters differently than FM broadcasters? Sure, perhaps a small number of people might record the music onto their hard drives as it is played, but generally webcasts don't sound as good as CD's anyway. Moreover, this would be no different than someone recording an FM broadcast onto a cassette tape.

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!

Re:Crazy!

[Auckerman]

"Moreover, this would be no different than someone recording an FM broadcast onto a cassette tape"

This is incorrect. In the old days, if I wanted to record a song of the radio, I had to go buy a 90min tape and sit by the radio, pressing record when something good comes on. Today, I just point Streamripper at a mp3 steam and let it go all night long. It seperates the songs for me and I can trash the unwanted songs. Not only do I have a few hours worth of music (it's how I get my old wave), but it will never degrade like tapes. Sure its not CD quality, but I never owned a stereo system capable of discerning much of a difference between a CD and a 160mp3.

To a certain extent these guys are right, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. They take the copyright from the artist and make the artist pay their way out of their "royalities". Granted I still buy about 1-2CDs per week, thats because most of the music I actually like is done by smaller bands (Fugazi, Pennywise, et al.) who actally earn a living producing music on labels that don't out right rape them (though still take away copyrights). I think in a world where the artist controlled the music I would have no problem paying a few dollars a month for a cache of stream subscriptions (sans advertising), as long as a majority of the money went straight to the artists whose music was actually played. Until then the RIAA can go fuck itself, and I'll keep pointing streamripper at old wave streams until my collection of the one hit wonders is totally complete (damn near already)

Internet Radio Gone? Maybe..

[Psx29]

I don't know about eliminating Internet webcasters, but maybe moving them to other countries? But it would definately be the end of internet radio in the US. And with all these crazy restrictive laws on content the US seems to be proposing lately I wouldn't be suprised if the whole tech industry moved away.

Re:Compensation

[Binky The Oracle]

Don't ever listen to the RIAA saying that they're fighting for artist rights, or ensuring that artists are properly compensated. That's not their job. The RIAA's job is to protect the interests of the recording companies.

If BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, AFTRA, etc. weigh in, then you can listen with a slightly less-jaded ear, but the RIAA saying they're looking out for artists is like Microsoft saying that they're only trying to squash unix for the good of their customers.

Like them or not, the RIAA is a very effective organization for what they do - but I take offense when they purport to represent the interests of recording artists.

Pay per view

[olman]

Media Industry really seems enamored by the pay-per-view ideology. Instead of hearing songs from radio for the cost of being assaulted by ads, we get pay-per-songs in web radio? Wonderful.

The real pay-per-view experience of renting a movie is fundamentally different experience from listening to a CD. How many times have you listened to your favorite CD? How many times have you seen your favorite movie?

If the former does not exceed the latter by an order of magnitude, you're probably one of those Rocky Horror Show freaks..

I have to wonder how much of the new revenue from digital media will end up fueling lobbying to outlaw DRM-free hard disk drives etc.

Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

The money went to artists? I thought it went to lobbying efforts.

Maybe they consider the lobbyists to be the TRUE "artists". After all, they must be doing some pretty creative work on the legislators to get some of the crap introduced and passed that they have...

Does this include?

[SomeOtherGuy]

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....

Not exactly...

[Binky The Oracle]

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.

Re:Not exactly...

[bricriu]

Webcasters already pay ASCAP and BMI fees. These new fees are IN ADDITION to the same ones that AM/FM (or, for that matter, the woner of your bar's jukebox) pay.

Re:Not exactly...

[Binky The Oracle]

Exactly - and that's what's so insane about this whole thing. I'm amazed (but not completely surprised) that the RIAA is getting away with these kinds of assaults.

This has been a problem for a while now, though. Every time a new technology comes along, people think that we need to make new rules for that technology. I'm amazed at the number of companies that have policies specifically for email. While their existing communications policies would probably have covered email just fine, they insist on creating new policies to cover each new technology.

If I'm unproductive from surfing the web or posting on Slashdot, that shouldn't be any different from if I was unproductive because I took a long lunch, read a book, or doodled on my sketchpad, yet we have tons of "acceptable internet use" policies.

So now we have the RIAA leveraging this situation to make more money and squash anyone that doesn't play by their rules. Unfortunately, the majority of the music consumers out there don't care enough about the situation to seek out alternate (independent) artists, don't understand the issues, don't really care about the issues, and provide the inertia and cash for the RIAA to continue doing what it does.

This is a land grab - the RIAA is trying to make sure that it controls internet distribution since it can't (legally) control distribution by radio. That doesn't mean they don't - only that they're not supposed to.

RIAA Cronies and their lawyers

[cOdEgUru]

would even pay their mothers for the ten months they had to carry them around in their wombs.

This sickens me.

Mod me down, but I had to get it out of my system.

Info for those who *aren't* artists...

[teamhasnoi]

Here and here are two links that everyone who is _not_ a musician should read. (If you are a musician, you better already know this!) Take special note of Steve's article, since it gives an excellent example of what awaits the 'lucky' signed band.

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.

To the RIAA, digital == piratable

[yerricde]

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.

Re:Compensation

[TheViffer]

radio is more or less one long commercial for music

The RIAA will soon try to put an end to that. It would be the RIAA's greatest dream come true if you needed to pay for a subscription to listen to music in the car. Satellite radio anyone?

Redundant statement coming up ...

Napster flying high .. record industries greatest year.

Napster grounded, record industry sales drop 9%.

I am eating some starved artists Big Mac right now!

Hows this for double talk

[shawnmelliott]

Steve Marks "5) Your statement that all the royalties could end up in RIAA's or the labels' coffers is most misleading of all. As I've already said, 50 percent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to artists (without passing go). The provision you referenced in our agreement with the artists' groups doesn't change that -- that provision was an agreed-upon mechanism to ensure that RIAA's investments in building the infrastructure of SoundExchange won't be lost to reckless decisions by the board. Remember, RIAA (not the artist community) invested millions to establish SoundExchange, and it is now giving 50 percent of the organization over to artists. Isn't it prudent to protect that investment with some kind of safeguard remedy in the event the board, without a super-majority vote, does something to undermine that investment? In any event, no one expects that that provision will ever actually be invoked, and the artist groups agreed to it. "

"..., 50 percent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to artists (without passing go)"

AND

"Isn't it prudent to protect that investment with some kind of safeguard remedy in the event the board,..."

so... which is it? DIRECTLY without passing GO or protection of your investment? Ah... gotta love lawyers

Internet Radio gone? That's a good thing..

[NanoGator]

Seems like a silly statement, doesn't it? I think the key to getting indepdenent artists out there (non-tainted by the RIAA) is dependent on themselves getting heard. If Internet Radio cannot play RIAA created songs, then the only music they can play will be made by the indies out there.

You know what this means?

a.) The RIAA can have all the copy protection they want. Assuming the indie artists don't follow suit (and I doubt they will), then it won't affect us.

b.) No more being bombarded by the RIAA's flavor of the week. BYE BYE BOY BANDS!!

c.) It is a LOT easier to get your indie song played to an audience. I don't think I could create a song that'd make it on anybody but a hobbyist station. But if they have to go with indies anyway, then it seems like anybody could sign up.

Suddenly, programs like Kazaa become a powerful marketing tool.

Re:Compensation

[FatRatBastard]

As much as I'd like to say that that is indeed the causation I'm very skeptical. I'd say that at the same time Napster was flying high the economy was bouncing around quite nicely, and the same time Napster got shut down the economy went tankola. Record sales I would think mirror economic conditions fairly consistently. Now, that's not to say the record industry's take is correct either.

Nice explanation

[n8_f]

jwz has written up a nice article that explains how the current licensing works and how the proposed CARP licensing would work here. There is no way Internet radio will be feasible if this goes in to effect, even without the added fees. Check out the information broadcasters would be required to report to the RIAA: there is no fewer than 18 pieces of information required for each song played! Not to mention the information that must be gathered from each listener. But just in case, the fees can be applied retroactively.

I hope that if this does go into effect, there is a large backlash. Remember that this is an election year. Votes still matter and politicians still care about getting them.

Re:Nice explanation

[Sloppy]

jwz's explanation is very imformative; I highly recommend it to everyone.

But here's where I have a problem:

if you want to let users choose the songs to download, or you want to archive dj sets, or you want to allow the world at large to collaboratively dj by voting on what song to play next, or anything at all interactive that actually takes advantage of the power of the internet: well... you're fucked. When you go into that world, you are out of the ``compulsory license'' territory, and must negotiate with all of the copyright holders individually, which is prohibitively complicated, since there are so many of them.

Why do people feel they somehow have the right to broadcast someone else's stuff without even having to negotiate for it? RIAA (or their heavily-influenced stooges at the copyright office) are doing you a favor by having compulsory licenses at all.

If all the licenses were individually negotiated, yes, it would be a pain in the ass. But it would be fair.

You can download Linux and use it and exercise fair use rights, without ever agreeing to the GPL, just like you can (in the pre-SSSCA and DMCA world) buy a music CD and listen to it all you want. You can agree to the GPL and then you get to distribute copies of the software, just as you can webcast RIAA products under the terms of the compulsory licenses. Or you can work out some other terms with Linus, just as you can negotiate some other terms with RIAA.

What you can't do (without being called naughty) is say "Fuck the GPL" and sell copies of Linux binaries without Linus's permission. Most Slashdotters think that's ok, and it is Linus' right to set the terms. But when it comes to music and RIAA is doing the exact same thing, somehow it's wrong.

Imagine this scenario: Someone wants to distribute binaries for some GPLed program (they don't like the terms of the "compulsory license") but then they whine that it's "prohibitively complicated" to contact the author(s) and negotiate for permission. Most Slashdotters would tell 'em: "Tough shit. Do the legwork or comply with the GPL."

[broken record mode on] What's really sickening about this whole thing, is that the people doing the complaining are RIAA product promoters. These people are part of the problem. If they were part of the solution, they would easily have negotiated licenses from their local underground bands, really cheap or even free.

They should all just go off-shore

[DABANSHEE]

Hopefully other govts won't follow the US precedent.

Anyway how can they enforce this on some 14 year old shoutcasting through his cable connection?

Re:Compensation

[Spankophile]

> As far as I understand it, the radio is more or > less one long commercial for music.

That's a big load of horse-shit...

That's like saying TV is just a big commercial for television shows.

If that were the case, why would you bother watching/listening? Maybe actors should be paying us for watching TV, since we then go out and buy their posters and magazines?

How On Earth is that a Troll?!

[stoolpigeon]

I don't usually do this because I don't see the point.

But someone please tell me how that was a troll.

Because I asked a question?
Because people responded and some discussion ensued?
Maybe it was because I said it doesn't take a lot of talent to create what passes for music lately. That's not a troll, that's a fact.

Anyone read yesterday's post about the pitch correcting Karaoke machine and how many 'artists' use similar equipment to improve how they sound?

Is using a machine to sing, and play your music talent?

That was my honest question that generated some honest responses, that I appreciated. So I get modded down by some idiot.

Very nice.

.

Media cartels

[CaptainPhong]

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.

Re:Media cartels

[SirSlud]

Well, there is a risk. It's twofold:

1) Dillution: the more bad movies that come out, the less movies people will 'risk' seeing. So sure, there is a risk to releasing bad movies, because the more bad movies there are, the more people will likely opt to spend the night bowling instead of braving the latest release.

2) A movie can be so bad, it can lose money. Yes, it happens. (I can't say how often/rarely).

That being said, the risk is nearly irrelevant these days for three reasons I can think of:

1) Many movies are produced in a different way than they used to. When going forward with a movie project, extensive market research is conducted. Many, MANY movies now adays are based off of brands ("Spacejam" was the Jordan brand. Toy Story 2 was the Toy Story brand. Etc, etc.) .. so while the movie may be crap, if the market research is done correctly, they tend to know that there are enough devotees to particular brands and franchises to garauntee a certain amount of revenue regardless of the quality of the film. Think about how many geeks saw Resident Evil .. it's common place to say, "I've gotta see this movie, cause I'm a total Resident Evil fan! I know it'll suck, but I have to!" There is a cultural emphasis placed on being pious to particular brands and franchises built into movies these days, so the risk of losing money on a poorly produced movie is reduced in this day and age because of the garaunteed revenues coming from people who feel they must pay penetance to a brand (or celebrity, or director, or franchise) regardless of how good the movie is.

2) Since the revenues in movies rely heavily on advertising, more so than they used to, X% (where X% is more than ever before from my understanding) of the costs of movies are recouped before they even hit the theatre.

3) Most movies can afford to to TERRIBLY in theatres. Rentals and DVD market sales generally result in breaking even, even on the movies that were in and out of theatres in a matter of days/weeks.

I dont think you can say that there is 'no risk at all', but due to the nature of brands co-opting cultural space these days, and revenues linked to in-movie adverterising, I believe those risks are at an all time low, or do not have the same weight in determining whether or not to go forward with projects as they used to.

As an example of this in action, and in reference to the parent post:

http://www.battlefieldearth.com/news/dvdtops.htm l

Battlefield Earth has made 72 mill against a 55 mill budget, including DVD sales. As a movie that was critiqued as one of the worst movies ever made (and I was outside the theatre on sneak prev. night for this movie when everyone got to see it for free, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON coming out of that movie wanted those 2 hours from their life back. EVERY SINGLE PERSON, out of maybe 250 people.)

Re:Media cartels

[Fizzlewhiff]

The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear.

So are you saying its the RIAA who keeps calling my local radio station requesting Skynyrd all the time? Those bastards!

I'm sorry but I think the market controls more of what we hear than the RIAA does. I might have a pretty strong opinion of what music I think sucks but there are millions of teenagers who disagree with me and keep buying N'Sync. The RIAA isn't forcing them to buy this crap. The industry might have created these guys but its the kids who are keeping them popular.

As for Linkin Park, there's a reason why you hear that one song all the time. Call your radio station and ask them why. Its not a conspiracy.

Constitutional challenge

[dcgaber]

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!!

No, just non-RIAA stations...

[aquarian]

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.

Re:No, just non-RIAA stations...

[Sixty4Bit]

Which is rather humorous in and of itself since the artists STILL won't see a dime for each time one of their songs is played online.

jwz has the best comment on web radio on his site

[Laplace]

http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2002/02.htm l

"Someone on IRC said, 'how do they expect the little guys to survive?' I replied, 'No Mister Bond, I expect you to die.'"

Re:You know, every time I an article about the RIA

[Art Tatum]

How long does it take each morning to realize that your name is Paul and not John?

David Lawrence's numbers

[madmancarman]

David Lawrence from Online Tonight was on The Screen Savers Friday talking about the math of web royalties because of the CARP recommendation. Besides having to pay approximately $21/hr for 1000 listeners getting 10 songs per hour, a webcaster would have to put up around 14 ads per song at the current online advertising rates just to break even.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

Where's Hootie now?

[PopeFelix]

Well, since you asked...

He's holding some kind of celebrity golf tournament out on Kiawah Island (South Carolina)for charity. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it's sometime soon, I think, because I just heard about it on the radio.

This is what you get for living in Charleston, SC. Too frigging many churches, and Hootie and the Blowfish living in your town.

Playing with the big boys

[electroniceric]

It seems to me that a big part of the problem with the RIAA is that they have positioned themselves in the center of all these deals involving the exchange of rights, and to even figure out to whom you owe what, you involve yourself in their huge mess. In fact, that seems to be their business - broker contracts between as many parties as possible.

Since the kind of people who want to do small scale broadcasting will never have the business infrastructure to fight them directly, they might get more results by sic'ing the feds on em. With some decent investigation, and with the kind participation of artists, I'd guess (IANAL or a securities expert) that there's plenty of material for an SEC investigation, and the right public mood for this kind of thing. If the RIAA and media conglomerates are really on the level, this audit should go just fine, with a PR golden egg at the end.

What kind of info-gathering does it take to get an SEC investigation started?

Re:Insert standard RIAA denunciation here

[Computer!]

"Discussion" my ass. The RIAA has figured out what every other big bizness slimeball has known for years: just legislate your business model down the throats of Americans. What's to discuss?

Excuse me?

[Our Man In Redmond]

A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book.

You're kidding, right? People do indeed publish their own books all the time, either because the intended audience is too small, the subject matter is too controversial, or because they have a burning desire to publish something that the media cartels won't touch for whatever reason.

Thoreau published some of his own works. So did Robert Ringer of "Winning Through Intimidation" fame and Henry Martyn Robert of "Robert's Rules of Order". So did Mark Twain, Zane Grey, Upton Sinclair, Carl Sandburg, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Rice Burroughs, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Gray, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Alexander Pope, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Edward Fitzgerald, Leo Tolstoy, Stephen Crane, Willa Cather, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe, Thomas Hardy, James M. Barrie, Walt Whitman, Vachel Lindsay, Francois Mauriac, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Richard Bolles, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Rudyard Kipling, A.E. Houseman, Marcel Proust, and Rod McKuen, among other names you would and wouldn't have heard of.

It is indeed possible to break through the cartel wall and be recognized if you have an audience waiting, although it isn't easy. For every name above there are 500 people who printed a thousand copies of "Aunt Wilma McGillicuddy, A Nebraska Life" and sold four. The Internet is probably the best facilitator for self-publishing and letting talent be discovered there's ever been, which is why it's so important the media moguls not be allowed to cut off its air supply.

Re:IANAL but my girlfriend is

[Computer!]

And, yes, she is a fox.

If she's a lawyer, more like a snake. No offense.

Distribution is NOT compensation

[gelfling]

Changing the distribution model WILL NOT change the way artists are NOT compensated today. They could charge a 100 bucks a CD - would artists be rich. No Way. The record industry sucks 98 cents out of every revenue dollar from the payment stream.

Believe this - record companies making promises about taking care of artists is pure bullshit. It is a puff of smoke blowing up your ass like puppies and apple pie and Jesus and smiling dirty blonde children. You don't hate children and puppies and Jesus, do you? How can you hate this or think we'll not compensate artists??? Are you a communist ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Re:Compensation

[FatRatBastard]

So that means that the shutdown of Napster is responsible for the current economic situation.

Nope. I was saying that it was coincidence, and that the economy going tankola is probably a better explanation for record sales going into the toilet.

Congress is interested, contact them, here is how

[dcgaber]

This was on Declan's list a few weeks ago but a House Subcommittee is seeking interested parties views on digital media and DMCA issues. This is the text of their letter. If you chose not to respond to their request and live in the US, then chose not to complain that Congress is not listening or only listening to $$, deadline for comment is April 8, so that gives you all close to a week:

March 11, 2002

To all parties interested in the application of copyright law to the digital environment:

The growth of the Internet has raised complex and controversial issues over the application of copyright law to the digital environment. Examination of these issues is increasingly important in light of growing digital music piracy, expanding public demand for online music services and the willingness and ability of many entities to meet that demand.

The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property has held a series of oversight hearings on digital music issues, culminating in a December 2001 hearing on the
recommendations made by the U.S. Copyright Office in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 104 Report. Legislation (H.R. 2724) addressing online music issues has also been introduced in the House of Representatives.

Given the topical nature of this subject matter, we are initiating a process to review relevant digital music issues and related proposals to amend the Copyright Act that have been brought or will be brought to our attention.

All interested parties are encouraged to submit written views on the merits of relevant digital music issues and related proposed amendments to the Copyright Act. The Subcommittee deadline for receipt of comments is 5:00 p.m. on April 8, 2002. The merits of the proposals will be evaluated in light of the views received and input from other Members of the Subcommittee, with the goal of discerning whether consensus exists on meaningful solutions to address identifiable harms. Subsequently, at a date and time to be determined, we will schedule a general meeting with all interested parties to share our findings.

We thank you in advance for your participation in this process. We believe it will produce valuable discourse on these very important issues and hope it will result in meaningful solutions to some of the problems and controversies surrounding the application of copyright law to the digital environment.

Sincerely,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR
JOHN CONYERS, JR.
HOWARD COBLE
HOWARD L. BERMAN
CHRIS CANNON
RICK BOUCHER

Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu

[Anml4ixoye]

>If people really started buying a lot of music directly from the artists, you would see the RIAA come up with a law against it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I bet those CD's you bought were from relatively smaller bands, not larger ones. Most of the larger ones record labels would have a FIT if the band skipped around them to sell CD's. I know that was the case when we were with a label (albeit a much smaller one than Sony or similar). They were present at the shows selling our albums.

"When the mode of the music changes ...

[wytcld]

... the walls of the city shake"

- Ed Sanders quoting Plato.

Fortunately there hasn't been any major influx of subversive music into the larger culture since that grungy NW stuff came out of KCMU, Seattle and KAOS, Olympia, back when rents were still cheap enough in the NW that musicians still woodsheded there.

It's taken two score years to heal the damage done to Western Civilization by Elvis. Thank Jesus our corporations are ahead of the creative urges today, and may the government preserve them there.
____

Depending on your moral code...

[Dirtside]

One way to circumvent the RIAA is to go to Kazaa or Morpheus or wherever and download music from your favorite artist... and then mail the artist an anonymous money order for $1.00 for each song you download. Download an entire 12-track album, send 'em $12. You'll be saving money over buying albums in stores, and the artist will see a lot more green.

Heck, $0.50 per song would still be ten times what the artists get now.

Re:Compensation

[Happy Monkey]

That's like saying TV is just a big commercial for television shows.

Heh, more and more, that's the case. Any show with a bit of an audience is in the process of being made available on DVD. Movies presented on TV that are cut for time and/or content can also serve double duty as ads for the VHS or DVD.

The reason is historical

[uqbar]

First understand that there are two kinds of copyright in music. One is the (c) copyright to a published song like say "Happy Birthday." The other is the (p) copyright to a recording of a song - think of Jimi Hendrick's performance of the "Star Spangled Banner" as recorded at Woodstock.

When someone plays a recording of Happy Birthday on the air, the (c) copyright holder gets money, but the record company that paid to make the recording does not. On the other hand, when Jimi's "Star Spangled Banner" gets played on the air, no one gets a royalty since the song is public domain (and a copyrighted recorded master doesn't get compensation for play on radio).

In the view of the record industry (meaning the owners of huge back catalogs of recorded music) the fact that only the (c) copyright holder (i.e. the composer/songwriter/publisher ) gets paid money is a huge missed opportunity - it's something they missed back when radio was new & when no politician wanted to peeve the radio station owners. This has been a thorn in the record industry's side ever since.

In my view, a lot of what is happening is an attempt to change copyright law using the progress of technology as an excuse. If you can say it's not radio, then you can ask for more money - which is what they've wanted all along. And if radio as we know it goes away, they can then collect a new revenue stream beyond sales (which they see rapidly slipping away.)

The long range result - people get their music for free, advertisers pick up the tab, and music gets worse as commercial potential of a record is determined by how willing advertisers are to stomach it - this is largely why commercial radio is so middle of the road awful.

Re:Compensation

[Bluesee]

Don't laugh, but I actually believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. The economy was flying high because the internet was transforming business and personal transactions as it rapidly brought on the Informational Revolution. Congress at the time was determined to protect the freedom of the internet in its nascent state; recall how they almost unanimously voted to keep it tax-free for the first several years.

Well, one of the massive advantages of the internet, peer-to-peer informational trading, finally saw daylight with the advent of Napster; at this point in time ordinary people enjoyed power unprecedented in recent history, as interest in the internet soared. This power included the power to transform businesses overnight: some went up, some went down.

Reading these tea leaves, the RIAA determined to maintain its revenue stream free from the threat that the internet posed. They successfully sued Napster and got Congress to impose all sorts of restrictions on the free exchange of information. In addition, the FBI used the internet in an Unconstitutional but highly effective means, snooping over the web.

The combination of all these attacks on the free exchange of information (there are more, and I could go on, but will keep this short) nipped the New Economy in the bud; failed dot-coms with no business plan notwithstanding, the internet then became what it is today: interactive TV in which if something doesn't make money for somebody it's not useful. And so the promise that was the internet was to a large degree usurped by big business once they figured out what the internet was and how they could control it. When MS won it's battle in court, IMO that was the death's knell for the New Economy, because it proved that large consolidated and concentrated business enterprises will generally prevail over small, distributed operations.

Once that happened, the dot-coms fell like dominoes, taking the Clinton-era prosperity with them. No more New Economy, just the same old song and dance...

That's my theory of Economics, and I'm sticking with it!

Re:Congress is interested, contact them, here is h

[clone304]

Uhh, that's interesting. Do you have any actual information on how and where to submit comments? Is there an online form or should comments be submitted via snail mail? Do you have an address for either?

Re:there are problems...

[Dirtside]

Well... I was under the impression that production crew are typically people who work at the recording studio, and are salaried. They get paid a fixed amount pretty much no matter how much money the band is or is not getting. I could be wrong; I'm not privy to the inner workings of the recording industry, but this is correct as far as I know.

Absent superior methods of fair distribution, I would either mail the money to one of the band members and hope s/he distributed it fairly, or address the check to the band and mail it to the band, rather than to one of the group members.

As far as anonymity and proof of purchase... yeah, those would be nice as well, although I don't know if we will need to worry about such things until the RIAA actually CAN storm your house and search for "illegal" recordings. With any luck, if that starts happening, the public backlash will vaporize the RIAA into its constituent molecules.