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.
...record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists
The artists, they think that just because they're the ones that work hard to create that music, they're entitled to some part of the profits. Shame on them! They should make their effort in order to to help the poor guys from Sony/BMG/EMI/... so they can make a living. With all these music terrorists around, it's really hard being a major label.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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"
Quoth Yahoo news: 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.
They're trying to deduct their expenses for setting up the royalty payment system, not avoid paying artisis altogether.
Yeah, OK, it's still evil.
-These are not the sig your looking for.
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.
Exactly! You'd just be depriving artists of proper advertising by not playing their music. That's just like theft, you music terrorist.
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
Did he ever admit that his model relied on abnormal data? I've seen nothing that shows that he re-ran any of his financial models. A good researcher admits when a data source is retroactively found to be inaccurate- the librarian is so far not acting as such. He needs to redo his calculations based on multiple data sources.
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.
We listen to online freeform radio from the USA every day. They have realtime updated playlists. Its simple to find information about the music being played, by a simple right click. We can then check out the t-shirts and CDs.
There should be no charge for streaming online from non commercial entities. Period. Anyone can start a station, and see thier trafic explode if they play good sets. This new tax will dampen down or cap the potential size of audiences, which for independent labels will be a very bad thing.
Anyway, how are they goning to police this?
Streaming is no different to file sharing; its just copying a very long number. There cannot be one law for streaming and no law for P2P filesharing; there should be the same unrestrictive constitutional guarantees for both.
Copyright is Haram. This means that you can put a server in a sharia country, securely tunnel into it and then stream from there. Unfortunately the cost of doing this wont be worth the hassle, much less the threat of having charges to a company in Iran showing up on your credit card bill!
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Over at mediAgora the details of just such a promotion and payment system are under discussion.
Well, I am only speaking for myself but...
If the choice comes down to Britney Spears' music or civil liberties, I'll choose civil liberties.
If the choice comes down to Britney Spears or civil liberties? Which civil liberties exactly would I have to give up?
The Future of Music Coalition, The Recording Artists Coalition, AFTRA, NARAS, The American Federation of Musicians, and the International Managers all jumped into the fray on Monday and the text got put back in that pays the artists directly.
The Bill Passed the House on Monday Evening.
Full Text of the Bill as Passed in the House (pdf)