Slashdot Mirror
The New Webcasting Compromise
arkham6 writes "According to a story on Yahoo, it appears that the RIAA and negotiators for webcasters have reached a tentative deal for reduced rates for 'small' webcasters. However, it appears now that the artists themselves are going to jump into the fray because the record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists."
Artists and music pirates have long heralded the removal of the middleman from the music business. This paradigm shift will in effect allow the record companies to make more money and the artist the same amount. Until the artists have a method of promotion that does not require a record label they will always receive the short end of the stick. Maybe instead of $2million advances, a loan of $200,000 from a bank and some hardwork promoting your band as a day job, and playing at night for the band. Turn the band into your business and it might be successful. A few ands have taken that route and succeeded.
The RIAA agreed to something because they still want "their" money
Although artists rights groups appear to have no problem with a deal that helps small webcasters, a union official expressed concern about language that could allow the record companies to avoid paying artists their share of the royalty directly. The language seems to allow the recording industry to deduct the top expenses that they incur for setting up and maintaining the royalty payment regime.
"Direct payment is crucial, and if the recording industry gets deductibility language, we need direct payment," said one artists rights advocate familiar with the negotiations.
Obviously they have gone back to their old reliable first choice of people to mess with, just to make sure they get their middle man piece of the pie.
I want to make life size voodoo dolls of these folks.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Do all the math you want the REAL stinger is the MINIMUM FEE!
$500 Minimum.
Even if you just play one song a year.
The $500 Minimum is what will kill Most small broadcasters.
They're trying to deduct their expenses for setting up the royalty payment system, not avoid paying artisis altogether.
I'm sure the recording industry uses the same accountants as the MPAA member companies. The same accountants that figured out that Coming to America, Titanic, and hundreds of other movies never made a profit.
Hey, if these guys would get together with Enron's accountants, who declared they always made a profit, perhaps the truth would finally emerge???
The artists will never see a dime of this money.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This makes me more than a little sick. Whenever they appear before Congress or talk to a journalist, the RIAA only talks about "The Artists" {rights, livelihood, right to compensation, insentive, ...} but the second the royalty pickings get a little too slim for the studio's tastes, the artsists are the first ones to take the pay cut.
I have a friend that works for a radio station near where I live. She is a DJ. She has explained to me on several different occasions that the record companies have liasons which pay the station to put certain songs on the air (this was called payola in back when there was no liason). The idea is that the record companies get advertising for their albums, with the assumption that people will buy them.
Why is on-air broacasting payed to play songs when wired broadcasters are forced to pay to play?
It seems to me that the same advertisement idea works for both.
If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother
But maybe we don't need music collection agencies for radio anymore. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that BMI, ASCAP, and the like are among the richest companies in the world. And what do they produce?
We have the technology today to pay the artists directly. And the cost of a system like that would probably be less than the extra charges that the collection companies add on for profit
As I said, it isn't very realistic. It is hard for little changes to come about in the music industry, forget about big ones like this. Just a little wishful thinking I guess...
It's still not clear where the webcasters are supposed to get this magical money from. After all, they can't fund new albums unless they have some sort of revenue stream, right?
So: are they planning to charge for their 'casts? Are they planning to sell ads? Are they hoping for industry payola?
Charging for the 'cast probably won't work. Selling ads might work, if advertisers and websurfers weren't both in "once bitten, twice shy" mode about internet advertising. And if you're doing an end-run around the industry, payola is pretty much a non-option.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.