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."
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?
I'm only wearing black until they come out with something darker.
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...
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!
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.
"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.
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.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
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.