Slashdot Mirror


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."

17 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

    It's easy to get confused simply because they lie about it so much. "Won't somebody think of the starving artists!" is their main battle cry, not "Won't somebody think of the fat record company executives". However, it's also easy to avoid confusion by simply reminding yourself that they are lying weasels with the ethical standards of a rat. Never take anything they say at face value and you won't get misled (as often).
  2. There is an easy solution to this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All RIAA members have to do is to lower their share of the revenue. That'll get the price down no problem (as it's the majority part), thus also addressing that piracy problem they're so worried about (nothing to do with promoting mainly crap, nooo). And it would thus result in less damages caused by dead people, grandmothers and children because the per song costs would be lower - hell, it may then not even be worth suing them and being made to look ridiculous in the first place.

    And lower income would stop the RIAA wasting money on expensive buildings and lawsuits, maybe sack a whole batch of those idiots that came up with the idea of suing their own customers (generating a generation growing up with nothing but hate for RIAA), it would no longer be worth bribing laws through Congress - I mean, I can just go on with benefits here.

    In Powerpoint speak (yeeach) this seems to me a win-win approach.

    Alternatively, putting the lot on detail to Iraq for a while could work as well. Let them do some real work. Or send them to Africa to work between people that are really starving so they know what the word actually means.

  3. Eh...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Is it just me or does this sentence make no fucking sense?

  4. This could be a good thing by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the RIAA start driving away the artists then it makes the RIAA even less of a player. Just think one day the artists and the fans might connect directly on the internet with no middle man in between to screw the artists and sue the fans.

    Their greed will be their undoing. I wonder why it hasn't been their undoing in the past though?

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    1. Re:This could be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have often wondered why the recording industry, faced with increasing competition from other distribution technologies, has not concluded that "recording" no longer is a viable business today.
      They should go out of business or enter into new ventures, instead of bitching all the time.

      I bet the association of Watt steam-enging manufacturers also experiences difficult times these days. But they don't try to blame the Otto internal combustion engine people all the time.

    2. Re:This could be a good thing by gwait · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But, except for artists left over from the supergroup era who also managed to start their own labels, the average "successful" musician barely makes a living on those measly 3 cents a CD royalty payment, and that's only when the CD is not on sale.
      http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/

      However, the music industry has lost it's grip on the industry, and it's internet chat that's doing it. I have three teens in the house, computer literate, and not one of them ever really listens to the radio at all. They and all their peers find out about music/bands etc directly from their private online communities. They have a very widespread eclectic taste in music, from the 1960's to current, drawing from mainstream to obscure.
      This is what I beleive has the industry running scared - they can promote the next low talent Britney Spears with as many millions as they want, but the teens are not listening. This is very different from the last 80 years of industry - the loss of a broadcast audience is a loss of control and of money.

      So, I respectfully disagree: the industry have never been good at paying musicians - unless the musicians had enough business sense to sue for control of their own catalog, and now they have lost the broadcast audience.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    3. Re:This could be a good thing by king-manic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It all depends on whose numbers you take. The margins for a label for the artist will appear low because the label claims a lot of expenses that are bullshit. It will pay itself $20,000 for the recording and mark that down as an expense. Pay itself 150,00 for promotion ditto with the fucked up accounting then it will pay the artists ect.. and int he end your left with 2-8 % but it managed to be the lions share of the expenses so in reality it made a lot more money but defered it to another portion of the label. Movies do the same stupid shit with fucked up accounting.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:This could be a good thing by shark72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "It all depends on whose numbers you take. The margins for a label for the artist will appear low because the label claims a lot of expenses that are bullshit. It will pay itself $20,000 for the recording and mark that down as an expense. Pay itself 150,00 for promotion ditto with the fucked up accounting then it will pay the artists ect.. and int he end your left with 2-8 % but it managed to be the lions share of the expenses so in reality it made a lot more money but defered it to another portion of the label. Movies do the same stupid shit with fucked up accounting."

      Good points (record labels are masters of funny accounting to avoid paying their artists) but keep in mind that the 2% net margin number I mentioned is what they reported to the street. There's absolutely no benefit to under-reporting your profitability when you're a publicly traded company. Your company's valuation is fundamental to your business.

      I don't think you were going this far, but if part of accepting the "record companies make insane profits" theory requires belief that they under-report to their shareholders, then it's time for a bit of Occam's Razor or, as John Galt put it, time to check your assumptions.

      By the way, I mentioned that Warner Records posted a 2% net margin last year. By comparison:

      • Apple computer: reported 10% net margin last year
      • Logitech: also 10% net margin
      • Novell: 1% net margin

      So, I guess one way to spin it is that Warner is hugely profitable because their net profit margin percentage last year was twice that of Novell. But Logitech and Apple left both in the dust.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  5. Re:one would hope... by joshetc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would think it would be the exact opposite. In the last 25 years the cost of audio production equipment, cd presses (well equivelant to mainstream of yester-year) and printing presses (for inserts) have advanced dramatically and gone wait down in price. I think its about time artists begin recording their own music or grouping together for recordings then paying the labels a small cut for mass reproduction of their music...

  6. Re:What are these people SMOKING?????? by Legion303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be great if a judge looked at this case, weighed the evidence, then said "ACTUALLY, RIAA, I'm assigning all royalties to the people who create the music, with the exception of a small stipend to pay you for lawyers' fees, since that's your sole function these days. Now shut the fuck up and get out of my courtroom before I have you all shot."

    Well, I can dream.

  7. For fucks sake, no. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just, no. Greedy fuckers. If anything the royalty rates need raising to apply to new technologies, considering how much revenue the industry and artists are losing from people downloading instead of buying.

    Absolutely fucking disgusting.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  8. Re:Why artists? by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not all musicians are artists.
    "Artist" is "industryspeak" to designate a content creator. It's different than the popular meaning of the word. Whether the output has any artistic value or not is irrelevant. It's faster than saying for example "the guy who moves his lips on the video while the ugly fattie we can't show sings on the sound track".
    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  9. oh, yeah, well as an artist by Neuropol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want the RIAA disbanded and sued for every bit of money they've stole from the public and artists, and be forced to give it back!

    I seriously wish more artists would boycott this stuff.

  10. Re:the record labels can also drop the RIAA by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a guy who works with one of those long-tail bands, I can tell you that it's a lot more fun to be in the short head. People click on the face on the front page about a zillion times more often than they type your name in a search.

    If the only way to get your face there is to sell your soul to the RIAA, then I'll stick with the one-zillionth fraction. But there are times I'm not so sure.

  11. "Music is art" by UnixSphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure it is, the way they pump out artists with modifications to their vocals and all the industry music magic they use. That's not art, that's a product being produced just the same way a Ford Mustang is produced on an assembly line.

  12. Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists by MurphyZero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I need mod points because you hit it right on the nail. If you deal with illegal activities, you expect the chance to be burned. But when you deal with supposedly legal activities, you expect to get value in return and not be burned. We have federal organizations to deal with Taco Bell, but if there is no recourse to shady dealings from the legal source, then the RIAA should expect nothing less than severe backlash, whether it be pirated CDs, internet sharing, or what I suspect most people have done: stop buying new albums. I haven't done any downloading in years, mainly because I got the songs I wanted and there's nothing good coming out via the labels.

    --
    Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  13. Except you have to get them to your website. by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    New artists benefit from the exposure of having their CDs appear in wal-mart, their songs get released and downloaded through ITunes, they get played on the radio. We need clearinghouses for music. There's no reason to accept the RIAA's constituents as that clearing-house, but certainly altering the system so that the mega-bands have an even greater systemic advantadge dosen't strike me as "fair" or "productive."
    -GiH