RIAA Wants Artist Royalties Lowered

laughingcoyote writes "The RIAA has asked the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower royalties paid to publishers and songwriters. They're specifically after digital recordings, and uses like cell phone ringtones. They say that the rates (which were placed in 1981) don't apply the same way to new technologies." From the article: "According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music."

Comments

RIAA - Recent PR rundown

[curebox]

12/08/06: Warner CEO slaps own child on wrist
11/28/06: Pressure on AllofMp3
11/22/06: Pressure on the RIAA

RIAA does *not* represent artists

[JoostSchuttelaar]

when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists. The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists

[Stormwatch]

The artists also depend on their reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public.

Bullshit. If I buy a pirated CD and it skips, I know it's because the pirate didn't use a good blank, or burned it too fast; if I download an MP3 and it sounds tinny or muffled, I know it's because it was poorly compressed; but if I go to a store, buy a CD, and it doesn't work on some players, can't be ripped, or infects my computer with malware... now THAT is sure to make one stop buying legit CDs completely!

Re:WTF?

[advocate_one]

So, we officially need to find a replacement word for the first A in RIAA, because it doesn't standa for Artists anymore. I suggest something like this:

It never stood for "Artists" in the first place... It for "association"... as in "Record Industry Association of America"

Follow the link and be amazed... the Artists DO NOT feature in the RIAA's thoughts at all, they're only concern is for the publishing rights holders as in the publishers, not the artists.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

Oblig. article links

[Knuckles]

They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.

Just to add to this, here are articles by different artists about being ripped off:

Steve Albini
Courtney Love
Steve Vai

Mechanical Royalties != Artist Royalties

[VoxCombo]

The article headline is wrong. Artist royalties are paid by record labels to recording artists for use of their recordings.

The article is referring to MECHANICAL ROYALTIES which are paid to SONGWRITERS for use of their songs. While the songwriter and artist are often the same, this is not always the case

EXAMPLE: Joe Schmoe writes a song that is recorded by Britney Spears for her new album. Britney Spears gets paid artist royalties by the record label. Joe Schmoe get paid mechanical royalties by the label.

The article is talking about reducing Joe Schmoe's royalties

Re:the record labels can also drop the RIAA

[John Hasler]

> if the RIAA is not going to pay the old kinds of royalties, there is no reason
> the record labels can not walk away. they could form a new organization or
> figure out some other method of making their money. the RIAA and the labels
> have a symbiotic relationship though.

You aren't making any sense. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) pays no royalties. It is the record industry trade group. The labels are the members and it does exactly what they tell it to.

No, no, it's about the Harry Fox Agency

[Animats]

This is part of an ongoing dispute between the Harry Fox Agency, the RIAA, and the ringtone industry over compulsory licenses.

The recording industry in the US has a statutory deal in the Copyright Act which allows them to re-record previously published songs (i.e. issue "cover albums") by paying a fixed royalty determined by Congress and the Librarian of Congress. This is called a "compulsory license". Most music publishers are represented by the Harry Fox Agency, which actually issues the "compulsory license" on request and collects and redistributes the royalties.

Then came ringtones. The Harry Fox Agency, in 2004, took the position that the compulsory license required by law does not cover ringtones. This was a bogus position, and on October 16, 2006, the Registrar of Copyrights ruled that ringtones are subject to the compulsory license. The Harry Fox Agency is taking this badly; "This decision has no effect on HFA's existing policy that DPD licenses ... do not cover ... ringtones or mastertones. The RIAA is sueing them, and HFA is probably going to lose this one.

This is really a very obscure issue even in the music industry. In the end, ringtones might get cheaper, and we may see the end of that silly distinction in the cellphone world between downloaded tracks and ringtones.

Re:Not likley

[enharmonix]

And at $15 CD, much more for DVD, I question how much the artist actually gets.

Read this essay by Steve Albini, a producer with Sub Pop (the guy who produced Nirvana), for a typical breakdown of the numbers. It's depressing...

Performer != Artist

[dema]

In your example Joe Schmoe is an ARTIST while Britney Spears is a PERFORMER. So, yes, the RIAA is trying to screw ARTISTS even more than they do now.