Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
ISurfTooMuch writes "With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
When I was young, my Dad told me the RIAA was good because they took care to ensure our music was reproduced with as high fidelity as possible. For example, the RIAA worked with the recording industry to establish techniques and standards for "storing" bass on vinyl by attenuating it, but incorporating offsetting amplification to restore the bass to its correct presence allowing for more music on a single vinyl disk. Thus the RIAA was there to ensure or help ensure the best possible music experience.
Oh how things seemed to have changed. I don't know if my Dad was correct (I didn't do the research), but regardless, the RIAA certainly seems to be the antithesis to the "old" RIAA. Today the RIAA sounds more and more like organized crime, except that to date, for some reason, every thing they do seems to be deemed legal.
So, it seems the RIAA has become evil. It's probably time people tried to fulfill their musical quests elsewhere as much as it may be possible. If you still need and want to listen to Janet Jackson, so be it, but:
Someone on slashdot turned me onto this before, I feel it important others check it out... I've signed up and have been a member of emusic for a while now, and now have over 300 non-drm'ed mp3s and love it. And, I don't have to worry about the RIAA, at least I don't think I do. After reading their staked "claims" in the article, I'm not so sure. Regardless, should it actually be so, check emusic out.
How could they not get slapped in court? What judge could take such a claim seriously?
That's some severe crazy talk. Most evil corporation in America, without a doubt.
does not belong to the RIAA. There are things called contracts which point out who the copyright owner is of a certain intellectual property (music). The RIAA cannot claim that it owns royalties of something it does not own. When we all thought the RIAA could not possibly go any lower...
Part of the whole RIAA con is that they loudly proclaim that they are doing all the crap they do "to defend the little guy, the artist." That's how they moralize what they do. They're just here to help.
So, exactly HOW does this accomplish that? Are they going to cut paychecks to all the indie artists they're leeching off of?
I'm betting not.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Sorry, there's no way this could possibly be true. But, if it is, it's definitely illegal, see "theft".
All you can say is wow. This is the power play that everyone was expecting. For several years, SoundExchange was all about "collecting for the artists", so that they get their "fair share". Now that new regulations have been set, the true colors are coming out. As usual, they are in it for themselves- it just took a few years of trickery and disguise. Most of us could see through it, but heck, they tricked enough people to get the current set of legistlation and royalty rates approved.
The RIAA is alienating listeners, and now alienating artists. These policies will only cause artists and music lovers to seek alternatives- even more so than before. Eventually, SoundExchange will be collecting nothing, because they'll alienate themselves out of business.
It's not about the artists. It's not about the music. It's all about control. That's all it will ever be to the RIAA/SoundExchange.
The worse it gets, the sooner it will end. The RIAA is digging their own grave. Keep it coming.
- John Smilanick (http://www.johnsmilanick.com/
It was a month ago.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
You have to hand it to the RIAA. That is a brilliant business model. By claiming these royalties and "holding on to them" until the artist pays a fee to receive what is rightfully theirs, the RIAA is essentially getting an interest free loan from every artist that gets net radio play. ON TOP OF THAT, the artists have to PAY the RIAA in order to be compensated for the loan (on which the artists collect no interest)! That my friends, is the best money making scheme I have ever seen. Ever. Just beautiful. From a businessman's point of view, it brings a tear to my eye.
Is there anyway that this can even be legal? Don't the non-RIAA artists and labels get to have a say in how their music is distributed, and at what cost?
Skeptical Limericks
Hmm, this sounds just like a letter I got the other day
Hello dear Sir or Madam, This is Mugu Maccaca The III, the son of the late Mugu Maccaca The II, the prime minister of Nigeria. I respectfully request your assistance in transfering a sum of $65,000,000.00 from the bank account of my father who has past away. For your assitance you will get 25% of the total sum. To initiate the transfer we will need your help to pay a $7,345.34 fee to unfreeze my father's money. Please help me as the rebels are coming closer and closer to taking control of my inheritance. Your help will be aboundantly rewarded.
Thank you and God bless.
Mugu Maccaca The III, the son of the late Mugu Maccaca the II
Their leverage is that you're broadcasting some of "their" copyright material so if you don't pay up according to whatever formula they want they can yank your license to broadcast their material. If that's 0% then it doesn't hurt you.
I'm not going to bother RTFA'ing but SURELY this is in some way inaccurate.
Now the only question remaining, Is Tony getting his cut?
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
The RIAA can think whatever they want. It doesn't automatically mean that anyone else recognizes and adheres to the beliefs of the RIAA. They're simply trying to scare the smaller labels (which are competing against them at a much higher level than in the past!) into joining the MAFIAA cartel. Did anyone take SCO seriously? No. So why should anyone take the RIAA seriously? They're full of it.
Oh BTW, I live in Vanuatu and that is where my independent music label is situated. I'll try to remember to send you a postcard Mr. RIAA.
There exists a line. A line between everyday villainy and cartoonish supervillainy. The SoundExchange didn't just cross that line, they picked it up and moved it up with them. This is just in the realm of the unbelievable now.
Demented But Determined.
I cannot sing worth a shit, and I will freely admit that. But I am **SO** tempted to make some recordings of me singing in the shower, and maybe some of my cockatiel doing his calls along with the music, and start up an internet radio station that plays only those tracks. I will then invite SoundExchange to come over and lick the sweat off my balls.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Even if SoundExchange can somehow make its claim to be able to collect royalties for nonmember artists stick (seems pretty dubious), one would think that they'd run into some serious antitrust issues if they then try to use that power to compel nonmember artists to become members. Essentially, they're claiming a monopoly on royalty collections, and then using that monopoly to reinforce their position. You're not supposed to do that...
Can someone direct me to what laws they believe justify this, if they exist?
Because this sounds to me like the RIAA is just begging to lose a massive class action lawsuit.
OK, that's it. The RIAA can be seen as a criminal organization and should be made illegal. They do more harm than the Hells Angels, and the Hells Angels are banned in many countries, so why not the RIAA?
-- Cheers!
As far as I know, this is no different from other performance rights organizations like ASCAP/BMI/etc. right? They collect money for everyone, whether the artist is registered with them or not. The only question is whether we need yet another performance rights organization...
Thus far we only have SoundExchange's word for this. They may be twisting things the way they want them to be. I'd like to see some lawyers (who do not work for the RIAA) views on this.
If it is true, it is actually a positive development. It is so outrageous, and so destroys the RIAA's claim to be helping starving artists, that I suspect it will ultimately weaken the RIAA's grip.
If only there was a law so that people like this would just be shot, or actually, I should charge them. Because I have the right to collect royalties from anyone who comes up with bogus crap. To get their share they'll need to pay 200% of my share.
The article is overly inflammatory, adding emphasis to quotations (which the author/editor doesn't claim) to the word "compulsory" in "compulsory license". Obviously, they didn't do much research into what the compulsory license is in relation to copyright law.
The compulsory license is largely a way of ensuring that, if a content distributor wishes, it can use certain types of copyrighted works in certain ways. An example includes making a cover of a copyrighted song. Usually, royalties are paid to the songwriter in such cases, and you can work out favorable terms to both parties. However, if the parties don't come to agreement, the content distributor can instead agree to the compulsory license and agree to pay said artist based on the published rates. As long as this happens, the original copyright holder cannot sue (because he/she is getting paid as dictated by copyright law).
In short, this means that you can indeed make a license directly between you and the copyright holder itself. However, if you're going to use the compulsory license, there is a procedure that has to be in place aside from mailing an unexpected check to the copyright holder... There's no proof you paid!
So, it's a bit different than the article's author paints it. Of course, most wouldn't agree that the copyright holder should be a member of SoundScan in order to get their royalties, but it's an entirely different issue.
So rather than focusing on these criminals I thought we should have a pro-online music thread in the comments.
What Internet radio stations do you listen to and why?
What online artists doo you purchase songs from online?
What online artists do you enjoy listening to who release their work free?
I like muppets.
Sing a song, record it, send it to a friend who will play it a few hundred times on his home Internet radio station.
Your friend will then pay the RIAA the royalties he rightly owes to you, which they gladly accept.
Then sue the RIAA for fraud, misrepresentation, and theft.
-The En
As I understand it (IANAL), the whole purpose behind these royalty bodies and standard licensing fees is that it allows radio stations to play music without figuring out and paying each artist/label individually. Basically, it just allows radio stations to exist without the bureaucratic nightmare that would be arranging licensing for the music it wants to play.
That said, this FAQ may provide the workaround that the summary thinks is missing:
so you can't say "the royalties I'm due from this legislation about internet radio should go to this other company, not SoundExchange". If I'm reading this right (and it is getting late...), you can grant a webcaster a license outside of the system. I highly doubt that the law regarding internet radio/radio in general prohibits the artist from granting royalty-free use of their music.
The relevant portion of the law may also explicitly contain the ability to license your work under other terms. I think (C) part (vii) may be it, but I'm not inclined to dig through the language at the moment. That part reads:
but the context of this clause isn't clear to me.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
i thought that ASCAP, BMI, and the smaller SESAC were the artist royalty companies. They're the ones that venues pay for the sticker they put on the front door (ahem, protection money, ahem).
I also understood that they also collect royalties for airplay -- why doesn't this work for internet streaming? or is this just a case that they (ascap, et al) haven't caught up with the technology, so the RIAA is butting in?
either way, the riaa has certainly earned the status of america's most hated company, and they continue to do so.
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
Isn't this a pretty well known business model?
Sicily is full of them.
It's a protection racket right?
--Q
What No "All your base RIAA belong to us" comments?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Just get the streamers to move their system out of the states. Look, I listen to a few 80's music, such as nigel. Is it important that they have a LIVE streaming radio? Nope. In fact, they could do a show, and then forward the stream to a box outside of America to stream the music. The one key issue on this, is that the stream format may have to be changed. Something that will allow for the ID of the music to eb sent and then incorporated (think html for a music stream instead of images). Not hard to do.
Once the idiot politicians realize that this is backfiring on them, then this will come to a head.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But you can most certainly not compel them to license a damn thing under your conditions. What if this were extended so that other 'industry representing' groups held similar privileges?
Imagine for a moment that a Book Industry Association of America spontaneously acquired control of ALL ebook licensing conditions AND made themselves a middleman AND also by the way would just keep the money unless you knew to requisition it from them. Also, why shouldn't the BSA hold compulsory licenses to all open source software and act collect royalties on behalf of 'the programmers'? And comments! Why should the Writer's Guild hold compulsory licenses to all comments and collect royalties on behalf of starving commentators?
THIS.
IS.
RIAA!
The RIAA can claim all they want. But if they collect one single penny from any work that I own the copyright to without any type of agreement with me, they're the ones guilty of copyright violation under a shitload of statutes and even the DMCA.
Let them collect. They'd be sued out of existence once they've collected money from anyone they don't have a contact with. I can't wait. Go ahead, try it. Please.
Allofmp3.com collects royalties of all the music they sell and offer it to the RIAA. They cry and moan and refuse the money because they don't like their business model. Now suddenly its completely ok to collect royalties for someone else when you don't have the copyright for the work, but only so far as the RIAA is the one doing the collecting.
Now that RIAA is keeping a good record of all the music being played (one would assume) and raking in the bux and having the government enforce *cough* artists rights *cough* I figure the next step is the government will start taxing the RIAA revenues and require some sort of accounting of their collections/distribution to make sure everything is legit.
Sonner or later all these dumb regulations will be needed to be funded by related taxes of some sort.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I am curious as to how the RIAA has not been investigated for Racketeering and outright fraud? Why is nobody in the government investigating the RIAA?
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
I say the RIAA can suck my dick.
I have no affiliation with them...they have done nothing for me.
Everything I have released has either been under a creative commons license, or totally independent...or sold as a work for hire.
The RIAA has not collected a dime on my behalf....and if I find them collecting anything on my internet radio plays I will sue them into oblivion....so help me god.
amen
ps. I'm not really religious...but, ya know....last refuge of a scoundrel and all...
Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.
Actually, isn't the compulsory license the same idea that allowed allofpm3.com to sell music by licensing it from the local russian right music copyright organization? Because I know the RIAA screamed pretty hard about that, to the point of getting the United States to threaten trade sanctions. It'd be interesting if someone could go back to those stories and see if there are any juicy quotes from the RIAA decrying compulsory licensing.
According to the SoundExchange FAQ,
this only applies if you want to rely on SoundExchange to get you a statutory license.
So stations willing to negotiate directly with the artists and get nonstatutory licenses,
wouldn't have to pay SoundExchange royalties. (Although that said, they apparently forbid
SoundExchange members from granting separate licenses, so this would only work with artists
who are willing to boycott SoundExchange...)
(ObDisclaimer: me am not copyright attorney though)
>;k
The anti-trust laws are just acts of Congress. This is a later act of Congress, and implicitly supercedes any contrary provisions of the anti-trust acts.
If you want to get rid of this, you need a Constitutional challenge. Unfortunately, the damned Supreme Court has allowed the Commerce clause to be so horribly over-extended there may not be any room left to assert a right to netcast one's own music.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
that very bad person, the VT bad guy, had just gone off inside the RIAA offices instead, he would be a hero.
Didn't the mob used to collect protection money whether you wanted their protection or not? It's like Bush declaring he's going to protect all the oil revenues so everyone has to pay his government then he'll "fairly" distribute the money.
As I say here this is truly despicable, but not really surprising. I think its about time that the RIAA or the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board got changed so this sort of bullshit doesn't happen anymore. However given that the RIAA isn't a government body, it will have to be the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board who keep enabling them.
The RIAA is trying to push around the only people that can really push back at them... artists!
What I mean is this, if the RIAA continues to piss people off, record companies will not get contracts, the RIAA member companies will then not support the RIAA, the recording industry as we know it crumbles...
How is that possible. Someone some where will start their own record company, providing on the parts that the artists need help with. That somebody can arbitrate royalties with public broadcasters in direct competition with the RIAA. The RIAA is not a government mandated body. They CAN be replaced. It will start with one or two bands, then more, then one or two record companies, then more...
What we need to do is start writing letters and emails to bands themselves. Explain that they will not get more money from you if they continue to work with companies that support or belong to the RIAA. Choke off the money stream and the RIAA dies.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
That my friends, is the best money making scheme I have ever seen. Ever. Just beautiful. From a businessman's point of view, it brings a tear to my eye.
Really? I could do better -- how about killing people and taking their stuff?
The RIAA is a close second, though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I write music. It's not especially amazing stuff, but it's written and some of it is recorded and put out for free. If a net radio station fancies playing a track, then that's fine by me (though I refuse responsibility for their sudden drop in listenership...).
If this completely alien organisation tries making one unit of whatever currency they're charging in, I will go beserk. This is my music, nothing to do with them, and with no contract in place between us I shall offer it as I damned well choose. They have no right to claim ownership of any revenue whatsoever arising from this music.
Cheers,
Ian
Mod parent up. The original article reflects a complete misunderstanding of the compulsory license system. It's compulsory against owners of rights in sound recordings. They have to grant a license whether they want to or not. However, there's nothing prohibiting owners of sound recordings and a distribution service of whatever type from making a deal outside the compulsory license system.
For example, someone could set up a Free Music Foundation to offer free licenses to Internet radio stations, unknown bands could grant distribution rights for their stuff to the Free Music Foundation, and Internet "radio stations" (really streaming download sites) could play exclusively Free Music Foundation material, without any compulsory license or statutory royalties.
Or, at the other extreme, you could have Payola Internet Radio, where bands pay to put their stuff on the stream. Again, no statutory royalties.
This isn't a big issue in the industry. The big issue with compulsory licenses right now is whether they apply to ringtones. The Copyright Board said they do last year, which makes ringtones much cheaper. The Harry Fox Agency is dragging their feet on this, but it's now established that if you download an entire song and use it as a ringtone, that's covered under the compulsory license. Arguments continue about using only part of the song.
Back when Napster was going hot & heavy, they were lobbying Congress to pass a Compulsory license law. What this meant was, if passed, Napster could use any song for a set fee without having to negotiate terms with the RIAA or the artists. They did not get that. Now Russia does have a compulsory license law, and that is how allofmp3.com claims to be able to put music from any artists up, pay its license fee, and be legal (now the RIAA would say that compulsory license was for radio, not downloads...).
Anyway, you can bet damn good money that the RIAA lobbied against Napster and fought the compulsory license issue tooth and nail, but now they are saying they have one. I would have to see the actual law to comment on it, but if so, you can bet the two-faced RIAA hypocrites are loving that they were able to buy enough votes to get themselves the legal right to swipe music.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Wouldn't this constitute as a monopoly on internet radio, charging royalties an any random song played?
What can we do to stop this, what can we sign, who can we complain to?
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
This is from the FAQ:
What licenses does SoundExchange administer?
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) granted a performance right in sound recordings for certain digital and satellite transmissions. In exchange for this new right, SRCOs are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music, provided the user complies with those conditions set forth in the copyright law. SoundExchange was established to administer the collection and distribution of royalties from such compulsory licenses taken by noninteractive streaming services that use satellite, cable or Internet methods of distribution.
For those of you who are caught up in the language, let me make it crystal clear for you: There is a license which artists must grant under law, a compulsory license, which allows certain digital performances. If you record a song, anyone may use it under the terms of that license.
As with the GPL, anyone may accept. Anyone may decline. If you decline, you have no rights to perform the song under the license. You may still acquire an alternate license directly from the copyright owner and do anything the owner authorizes, including perform the song in a manner similar to what is allowed by the compulsory license.
You owe fees to SoundExchange only if you accept the compulsory license and perform the song under those terms and conditions.
Now, SoundExchange doesn't want you to know this. They have very carefully crafted the language in their documentation to lead you to the impression that paying them is the only option. Nevertheless, if you read carefully you'll find that's not what they actually said. And if you read the relevant sections of the DPRA and DMCA, you'll find that's not what the law says either.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I make my own music occasionally and have even gave out an album to friends and I was
even asked if I could have my music broadcast on one of their radio shows. Fine by me,
more exposure can only do good. I am NOT signed with any sort of record label and I plan
to keep it that way forEVER.
The RIAA has ABSOLUTELY NO authority to tell ME what I can do with MY music.
I want to see this little deceleration by them struck down, as soon as possible.
That very statement attempts to strip people of their copyright. never pass in court, not in a million years. unless you have signed a contract with party A, they cannot claim any entitlment to your work. in fact i'm pretty sure you could sue the pants off them if they collected moneys for playing your work without your consent. it's called piracy, remmeber?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Look. We should all laugh at this. Such an incredibly provocative position just spells it out as plain as day: this is about the RIAA defending the city at all costs and making the enemy fight em house to house to win.
But the shells keep falling and there is nowhere left for them to retreat. What - they are going to win this fight somehow and hold on? The cartel wins the day and it all goes back the way it was? Is there anybody --anybody at all-- who believes that this is the way the story will end?
It's like the fall of Berlin. The outcome for these bastards is inevitable - and they know it too.
We'll be dancing on their graves in less than a decade.
.Robert
Just think what would happen if the legal teams for SCO and the RIAA joined forces.
The compulsary license applies to "noninteractive streaming services." Presumably this means that something like Pandora is safe? Could other radio stations add something to their players, the ability to pause the stream and restart at the same location perhaps, in order to sidestep the license by characterizing themselves as interactive services?
the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
... now would be the perfect time to point out that the RIAA did this before. Remember the blank media tax? It's not just all your music is belong to us, so much as all your potentially musical media, your distribution channels, your computers (remember the CBTPA?), your internets, basically your cultures are belong to us.
Man, that geeky reference just took a massive beating.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
How the hell is this BS legal.
I thought there were laws against extortion in the US. The fact that I could start a band and share my music with people is a part of the American dream. Now along comes a group that says they have the exclusive right to make money off of my music if someone wants to offer it up for others is pure BS. They don't own any rights to anyone's music.
It's the exact same as the Mob wanting protection money from store keepers. They have no involvement in the business beyond profitting from someone's hard work.
Maybe there needs to be a new licensing scheme for independant labels that allow anyone to get in on a class action law suit (even against the Copyright Office) in the event that someone tries to profit off of someone elses effort without having participated in any of the risks of the original venture. Whether legally appointed or not.
Because its absurd. I can compose a .wav file right now in any piece of music software and upload it to a server.
I can define EXACTLY which license from GPL to Copyleft that I want to apply to *my* intellectual property.
If someone else tries to override that license with their own -- well that's just plain funny. It can't be done.
No. It's mine. And if I want it to be free, as in beer, and part of the public domain then that's my choice too.
SoundExchange is making hilariously grandiose claims. Let them try. Its so distantly removed from any bearing
in enforceable legal reality that its funny. Laugh at them.
They didn't just rewrite the legal system. Or reinvent the notion of IP ownership.
With ownership comes control. If the RIAA is suggesting that ownership and control are 2 different things, and you
have the former but not the latter.. then that's really cute guys. But no.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I've been hoping the RIAA would do something big enough that would force people to start boycotting them/sending shit tons of angry letters to their government representatives. This hasn't happened because 99% of the population doesn't know what the RIAA is, much less what it's doing.
People WILL notice when all of the good music disappears from Internet radio though. Seriously, what artist is going to allow their music to be played when they know that someone else will be taking their profit? None of them.
Thus:
1. The good music goes away
2. People complain
3. ???
4. No more profit
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
1. Put microphone in toilet
2. Fart as loud as you can
3. Set up an internet radio station
4. Put on your recording you just did
5. Let RIAA Sue you
6. Become Famous
7. $$Profit!
8. Sue RIAA for frivilous lawsuit
9. $$Profit!
10. Go on lecture circuit
11. $$Profit!
Cleara
(I meant to add this to the above)
This also flies directly in the face of the 1st Ammendment.
If I can't broadcast my own words without paying a royalty, I am having my speech limited.
So no. You (RIAA) can't charge me a royalty on my stuff if I want it to be free.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
As much as I support evolution, we simply do not need another flamewar. Both sides have suffered too many casualties.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Does anybody feel like this is the begining of the fall of the RIAA? They seem to be getting more and more desperate to justify their actions, which are progressivly getting crazier and crazier. Pretty soon they'll be linking internet radio to terrorism, and claiming the internet news media (ie slashdot) is conspiring against them. It's not like I have any pity for them. It's faily obvious they shot themselves in the foot at this point. They didn't see P2P as pandora's box and figured if they shut down Napster it would all go away. Of course something easier to use came along (Kazaa), and when they finally crippled kazaa to the point of it being useless bittorrent became popular. Now instead of a service where downloading an album is quite the tast we now have a service where downloading an entire discography is as easy as getting a single song. I also doubt the RIAAs claim that piracy has crippled the music industry. It seems that with the internet and P2P "sharing" more people are starting to listen to more diverse music including independant lables, and artists. Ask any small/inderpendant lable if they've been suffering any over the last 5 years and most will tell you that their doing better than ever. It seems that the music industry as a whole isn't doing bad at all, but much of the focus has shifted away from a few popular artists and moved towards a wide variety of independant artists which music industry fat cats hate due to the fact they need to keep more artists on their lable instead of feeding off of 3 or 4 popular bands.
want to become THE Indie radio - just set it up so that Indie bands can sign up and grant you one-click licenses - sign up each and every garage band, even ifthey make it big you have that contract sitting in your closet (and I guess can;t sign with soundexchange)
You can negotiate your own (noncompulsory) license with radio stations, you just can't have a collective other than soundexchange collect for you. This, however, isn't a big issue if you're using a royalty-free license (such as CC). They do, however, claim that you have to register your agreement with them. (( Does this mean that we should build a database of internet radio stations so that I can send them a list of 10,000 different sites that are allowed to broadcast my music for free ... for each sound recording that I have released? ))
From the Soundexchange website
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I thought the whole idea of compulsory licensing was to provide a default licensing condition, in absence of an agreement. And, I don't really see where Soundexchange has removed that concept; only landgrabbing where that concept applies. So, I'd like to see where Soundexchange is extorting money from sites that have agreements in-place, vs. extorting money from sites without agreements in place.
The kicker is that it appears that the restrictions involved with membership (w/ Soundexchange) are the price for collecting those funds. I think that's where the racket truly lies, as the various sites have already paid up, and paid Soundexchange. Doing so effectively robs the other (non-RIAA) music sources and providers of funds.
And, like a bunch of beaten wives, the public goes and buys the new albums anyway.
1. I sign contracts with some musicians and enter into an agreement to collect fees for broadcasts of their recordings on their behalf.
2. I allow my clients to define their own fee structure which they may set as they wish.
3. The RIAA atempts to collect their compulsory license fees.
4. My clients and I sue the RIAA for interfering in our business relationship.
5. Profit.
Have gnu, will travel.
suppose I want to sell my song at $100 per play (maybe its 12 hours long, or maybe Chevy wants to use it for an online ad on their 'internet radio') - can someone go around me and just pay some generic 0.99c fee to soundexchange - how can soundexchange possibly know how much each and every indie wants to charge for their songs?
Any of this matters. Don't buy their music - doesn't matter. Are you also:
- Not going to any movies, or purchase DVD's that have copyrighted tracks in them?
- Not going to the supermarket or Best Buy because they have ASCAP/BMI/Harry Fox licenses?
- Not going out to a bar that has a public performance license that directly benefits the music fat cats?
Etc, etc, etc...
Do not be fooled - boycotting will not work. These bastards are worked into our culture, our very way of life - like a termite burrows into soft wood. Nothing short of Congressional action will solve this problem. Feel hopeless yet? Don't feel bad, I do also.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It's two way extortion!! Double dip racketeering! That's like a made guy telling the don "If you want your cut, you gotta pay my membership fees".
I will offer my music over internet radio for free. There's not a damned thing they can do about it.
I own the copyrights to my music. If I want to sell my music, there's not a damned thing they can do about it.
If I want to broadcast my music over the actual air waves for free, there's not a damned thing they can do about it.
SoundExchange, if you attempt to collect royalties from me or any other station who plays my music, I will sue you so fast, your collective heads will explode.
this has RICO written all over it.
those gentlemen from Jersey offer a similar deal.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The fact that your taste is dictated by big entertainment doesn't mean that other music doesn't have value. For example, Blues, Rock'n'Roll, Hip Hop, Ska all existed independently of commercial distribution- they were discovered, not created, by the big labels. The publishing landscape has changed in the last ten years---now a savvy musician CAN cut out the middleman, and I know several who have.
When I was a kid, you could disparage self-publishing as 'vanity publishing'. I don't think that's the case anymore. If you really care about music, you'll take a risk and listen without considering who funded the marketing effort.
Does the apply only to American web radio stations, or is this global? If it only applies to the USA, then how many foreign radio stations are going to pop up in the next little while... Besides, in reality, how long is it going to be for internet radio stations to find a way around this..
I've also had artists send me promo tracks, full albums, and other stuff -- mostly indie artists looking for some exposure. If they're good (and they usually are) I put them in rotation, so dozens of people get to hear someone they've never heard. I don't solicit; they send me this stuff because they want me to play it. As one recent artist, James Stark, told me, after he sent me some tracks for consideration and I enjoyed them enough to put them in rotation:
Just a guy trying to get his music noticed. And he's not alone -- this happens quite a bit, and I broadcast a niche genre. I bet broadcasters in more "mainstream" genres get even more artists than I do.
The artists love it -- they get free exposure to an audience primed to the genre, and whatever album sales, merchandise, mp3 downloads, and the rest that comes with it. The listeners love it. No one is losing and everyone is gaining -- except the labels and the RIAA who, in this day and age, are totally unnecessary anyway.
Some of the artists that send me stuff are easily good enough to get signed, and I know some have been approached, but they steadfastly refuse. They'd rather remain independant of money-grubbing middlemen and idiotic contracts, and get their music to the fans with channels of distribution their target audience is likely to use.
I started this venture after years and years of listening to net radio on live365 and other assorted places. And I bought music after listening. I know the system works.
Frankly, there ain't no Benjamens in the net radio trade. We broadcasters do this for the love of the music and because it's fun. Don't penalize us for bringing the art to the people. Don't penalize us, the artists, or the audience.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
...check out the Podsafe Music Network. According to their FAQ, the artists certify their music is legally being licensed for podcasts. The artists have options to flag their work as being available for podcasts, broadcasts, derivative works, etc. Isn't that the equivalent of getting a new contract "directly from the artist" which allows stations to get away from compulsory licensing? If so, it seems like the system to avoid SoundExchange has already been built, and simply needs to be used more by artists & streaming stations.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
If i don't want to join the RIAA, it means i don't want to pay them anything.
If i give the songs to an internet radio station for free, it means i want them to have it. FOR FREE.
Now, lets discuss what 'free' means. Free means you don't pay anything. Free means that no fees are paid. Free means that the person can do whatever he wants with it, and not need to pay anyone anything.
The RIAA wanting to collect royalties for stuff that doesn't have their label on it, that doesn't have a liscence with it, is like someone collecting money for a patent that they don't hold.
Sounds like RIAA confession of some of thier crimes: robbery, theft, extortion, fraud, racketeering, and copyright violations. Don't forget their other crimes: Sherman Anti-Trust violations, and obstruction of justice. These together are more than enough to add RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, charges on top of the others. This should be enough to bankrupt and end the RIAA and prevent a rebirth of this evil.
Alas, the superhero, AKA villian, of the corrupt corporations, neocons and Bushies. Bush and his userped anti-Justice Department will never bring charges.
However, these crimes will continue beyond Jan 20, 2009, so hopefully the next president will intervene eventually, unless he too is a fraudulent president.
Suppose I could sing worth a damn and decided one day that I wanted my very own streaming internet station, featuring my songs. Just mine, with me singing and perhaps performing some instrument.
No RIAA involvement, nor SESAC or JASRAC or ASCAP or BMI.
Suppose somebody actually wanted to listen to this stream from hell -heck, say that person was me wanting to hear my own voice. (insanity, but go with it)
According to SoundXchange, I'd have to send them money, then join their group (pay more money) to ask them to send me my money back.
What the hell?
They don't own any right to my singing nor any right to represent me or collect fees or royalties.
Sig for hire.
The RIAA was lawyers back then as well. The reason that the phono preamp filter/eq has the name 'RIAA curve' is because they PATENTED it and used it to control who had access to recording technology able to cut vinyl using their patent. There were several successful recording studios in Texas and Louisiana who recorded some well known Jazz artists due to the 'Hollywood effect'. Ie, they were far enough away from the upper East Coast that they were able to avoid the long arm of the RIAA and so artists would go there to get recorded when they couldn't in NYC or surrounding areas.
Sounds like an apt forerunner of the RIAA we know today...
Since when is not being able to sing worth a shit a problem for record labels? I have to listen to 'artists' like that on the radio at work every day, so you might even score a real number one hit. The worse your singing is, the greater your chances are.
Oh, and don't forget to throw in a lot of OOOOOOOHOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAHHHH's, that seems to help too.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Its not surprise that until recently the wikipedia article for "Riaa" redirected to "political corruption" instead of to the "Recording Industry Association of America" article.
ugh...
RIAA has got them beat in some places when it comes to extortion.
As the RIAA's new internet racketeering gang took over, the song Fuck the MP^h^hRIAA inexplicably cornered 100% of the streaming audio market in a single day. We will keep you up to date on this unprecedented development as more becomes available.
First visitor: Morning squire/ (Looks around.) Very flammable looking Internet Radio Station, this.
Second and third visitors (Cracking knuckles): Yeah!
First visitor: Could go off any minute, know what I mean?
So why don't we just stop calling it music? Most of it isn't music anyway!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
How is this a solution for me?
Wikileaks, no DNS
If the Soundexchange is violating the copyright of all independent artists, those artists must sue the RIAA or lose the ability to enforce their copyright.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I just logged in, came to slashdot to read a little and chill out, looked a few topics, scrolled a bit down, and stunned for a few seconds - "RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio".
Instantly i have understand that as something like :
"RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artists, their mamas, lower Iowa and upper Wisconsin" or something.
or
"RIAA Claims birthright to the United States throne" or something.
These people came to the point of claiming stuff now ?
Read radical news here
...I'd join up with others and start a class action lawsuit against the RIAA/SoundExchange for taking money for my music which they have no ownership or claim to, and from what others have said, for preventing their clients (whom appear to be obliged to be their clients), from licencing my music directly.
I hereby claim the right as my own to dismantle the RIAA,Free music for all leaving artists to gather monies from performance.I also claim the right without limits to use the RIAA and all its organization for personal gratification including but not limited to themselves,their spouses,any offspring for 3 generations and family pets.I also hold the rights to any business process or wages earned or held by the above.I may also at will sell or give these rights to any toothless homeless parasite ridden wino for any reason at all.All this being retroactive to the stone age.
There now my claim holds as much legal power as theirs and its been posted where the public can access it at any time.Anyone interested in sexually abusing these people up to and including RIAA staff and artists that support them can drop me a line and a paypal contribution for a night of sticky fun in a cheap motel with a tub of axle grease and a baseball.
BTW,the musics free go get it.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I believe I also read somewhere that there is going to be a compulsory license for written works as well as musical ones. WordExchange will be authorized by the copyright office to collect royalties on any text that appears on the internet (e.g. blogs and stuff).
(k, this is obv a joke but if you believed it even for a fraction of a second what does that tell you about America?)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
And please do. I haven't looked at it in legalistic detail, but if the gist of it is:
I write a couple hundred songs.
I run a web radio site and broadcast these.
The U.S. Copyright Office authorizes SoundExchange to collect royalties on my "use" of these songs.
I therefore owe SoundExchange royalties for the "compulsory license" to broadcast.
What has occurred somewhere (IMO at the Copyright office) is called "slander of copyright title". As the holder of copyright in these works, *I am the one who authorizes their licensing, and if another party does so they are breaking the law.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I just signed myself a contract. Everyone who posts on Slashdot owes me royalties. I am going to cancel my phone, but if you want to come collect your share, feel free to call me.
I get the feeling everyone employed by the RIAA used to be one of thoose kids who held up the walls & did other oh-so-important tasks when they were kids ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Their claim is nothing short of outright theft. They might as well declare themselves to be the agents for your gas and electric service and insist you write the checks to them. I'll bet that would last about two seconds before they got sued and criminally charged in every state.
If I create some sort of internet radio content, and I want to make private arrangements with one or several netcasters to stream that content (perhaps for free), that's none of the RIAA's business. If I want to be paid, who is RIAA to interfere with my right to enter into agreement with a 3rd party of my choice to collect fees for me?
How is RIAA collecting (extorting) money for playing MY content any different than me downloading a bunch of their songs, pressing CDs and selling them on the street corner? Naturally, if they want to join my club, I'll forward their share to them after I deduct reasonable expenses ( new Ferrari, yacht, etc), handling fees (30%), slotting fees (30%), modest salary for myself (1,000,000/year), and of course, a promotion fee (30%). By clicking "I agree" on absolutely any eula ever, the RIAA has already agreed that any civil or criminal issues surrounding this agreement will be handled by arbitration (naturally, I'll be the arbitrator).
Remember, when a corporation speaks of the importance of obeying the law, about 90% of the time there is an implied "when it's in our favor only". Like any thief, the RIAA wants immediate legal action when someone steals from them while believing at the same time that when they steal it's a natural right.
While I'm at it, I think I'll represent that guy who patented the wheel too. Those CDs and records look awefully wheel like. $1 each (retroactively) should about cover it. The wheel patent guy can call me for his 10% cut.
They can say whatever they want (although even that sounds fraudulent), but how in the world are they going to enforce it? If I have a friend that makes music (and is not signed with the RIAA), and I play his music all day long (with his permission) on my internet radio station... the RIAA is gonna tell me to pay royalties? That's called extortion, since they have no right to represent my friend.
The only thing I can think of is that this is mere intimidation, and the RIAA wins if anyone actually bends to the pressure of lawsuits.
But really, is that ALL there is to it??? Have they REALLY gone that low? Is it even possible to go that low? I should record some really really crappy music myself and air it on the internet, just to see what they'll do.
"Based on this post, it should be noted that if you play any music from a SoundExchange member, you are required to pay royalties on a play of a non-member's music, and that non-member cannot claim those royalties without giving up the right to work outside of SoundExchange."
And this is a problem why?
Right but I was insinuating that someone intentionally put up a shoutcast stream that's supposed to suck.
That's the joke. Intentionally bad music is funny. Period. Look at Panic! at the Disco.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
It's a problem for me as a listener (and therefore not a RIAA copyright holder) if I get to hear less music. For there to be a fee that is payable for non-RIAA music will mean that stations producing free music will simply not legally exist, simply because free is cheaper than for a fee.
Producers who are non-RIAA copyright holders need to make the effort to waive the fee, but not all of them will do so, especially if their main market isn't the American one. Their lack of putting in the effort affects me, another, albeit non-producing non-RIAA copyright holder because if I am in the States, I will be less likely to be able to hear their music.
Changing the default isn't a victimless act; many people take the status quo as "how things are done", and to specify otherwise requires an act of will, when they might have other things on their mind, or even simply believe that whatever the status quo is is reasonable because it is the status quo.
Wikileaks, no DNS
one of these days, the RIAA are going to piss off the wrong person, and someone is going to end up hurt or dead. It is just disgusting that a group is able to legally steal from people who refuse to have affiliation with it.
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
Dear RIAA,
Please go the fuck away. Now. We're sick of your shit.
That is all.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
What I'd like to know is what happens to the money that ISN'T claimed by the non RIAA artists. I'll take odds that it becomes RIAA property after a certain time.....
They have moved into the realm of organized crime, becoming a protection racket. As such, RICO statutes should apply against them. IANAL
And take our cut. Isn't that the definition of a protection racket?
So the problem of prosecuting them is purely political? Or not?
I have graduated law school and have a fairly good understanding of technology and I cannot see how this could be enforced. If you post a song that you have created for anyone to listen to, the RIAA/SoundExchange has done absolutely nothing to further this transaction or add any value of any kind to the recording. What would be the basis for their royalty claim? Unlike copyright, which can attach at creation with no further effort by the creator, "protection" by RIAA/SoundExchange does not just simply attach to an artist's recording by virtue of the fact that it was posted online. Why not claim ownership of the internet while you're at it? Why stop at sound files? Contrary to its own beliefs, RIAA/SoundExchange is a trade group, not a governmental entity, so they could not enforce a royalty payment like a government would impose a tax. This would be tantamount to RIAA/SoundExchange claiming a right to payment for all .mp3 files posted on the internet. Even considering the sometimes monopolistic practices of the entertainment industry, this would really be a stretch.
Mark
Thats the mafia for you.
Reading this gave me a migrain. I think I'll go back to reading quantum physics. It makes sense.
-GiH
How about this for an evil business plan of the day. (This one isn't so evil, unless you are RIAA.)
Create a company to license music for internet radio, where the royalty rates are reasonable (equal to radio rates). The license is offered as an alternative to the compulsory license (see Spazmania's comment above). It requires that any broadcaster who intends to take advantage of this alternate license to sign up, and provide monthly reporting and payment. Failure to sign up or provide reporting and payment signifies non-acceptance of the alternate license, and the agreement reverts to the compulsory license.
The business is very light-weight, where artists and broadcasters interact online only. Payment is received from broadcasters and distributed to artists online (PayPal or EFT). There is no legal department per se; there is an online form to report abuse which is reviewed, and if the issues can't be resolved it is forwarded to RIAA's attack dogs.
This removes the independent artist from the income stream yet maintains the enforcement arm of the RIAA. This leaves the burdon of enforcement where congress placed it - in the hands of SoundExchange and the RIAA, but independent artists only pay into the system when there is a problem.
Its a win-win for the broadcasters and the artists. The broadcasters get a relatively cheap license, and the artists see money that would otherwise go into a black hole. Even more important, the artist maintains the stick of the RIAA lawyers while wielding a tastier carrot.
For this service the company takes a modest percentage of the collected royalties.
The RIAA has gotten too greedy and has created this economic opportunity themselves. Please, someone run with it. My fee is a mere 2%.
snort, ha oh these guys are giggle just out there. What next, if I sing at my brothers wedding, an original song mind you, are they gonna sue my sister for D/Ling it?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I'm in a garage band. No one listens to our music really. But we have 2 albums out. Could I, like, get some internet radio station to play one of our songs then sue the RIAA for taking our royalties? lol
Time for a class action suit by the artists that arent signed up. The RIAA is trying to take ownership illegally of their works.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I have sent a note to SoundExchange to confirm this. Their FAQ and other online documentation need -- in my opinion -- to make it more clear that they're only talking about "All Rights Reserved" type music.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Clearly, they are claiming a right to levy royalty payments, a levy being an exaction, a demand which an individual has no direct right to refuse. The only difference is that under the RIAA, the individual has no indirect say in what is exacted for him through democratic means.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
what crack out of whose pipe are these guys smokin? cause i want some. seriously.
No, the original article is pointing out that artists who want to distribute their music on terms other than the compulsory license model are finding that they can't. Instead, this entity is collecting royalties on their behalf regardless of whether or not they want those royalties collected.
Now, there are two problems with this model:
Even with the compulsory licensing model, the fact that SoundExchange effectively prevents artists from collecting royalties for their own work is unfair. Sure, an artist could negotiate independently, but:
I understand the compulsory licensing model, but what isn't mentioned is why SoundExchange can collect royalties for artists which aren't even members, and for songs which might legally be in the public domain. As others have mentioned, venue owners have to pay SoundExchange regardless of whether or not copyrighted songs are actually played in the venue.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The RIAA has simply turned into another basic union. Every union in the US was good at some point but they have all far surpassed that honorable period. This is just another bureaucratic organization more concerned with its own bottom-line than culture or the general public.
Look at the carpenter's unions. Do you think the US is a better place because each hour they cost the employer about $80? These are mostly uneducated, only moderately skilled workers, commanding huge wage and benefit packages. This ultimately leads to ridiculous housing costs that get passed down to the consumer.
The baseball players union is in the same boat. They are the main reason why the average family can barely afford a trip to the ballpark. ARod was originally slated to be traded to the Red Sox in a deal where he would accept a small paycut. The players union vetoed it, as they didn't want a man with a $250m deal taking any sort of a pay cut.
Want to know why a movie costs $100m to make these days? Hollywood unions (editors/actors/etc). Want to know why cable is so expensive? Unions. Are the owners passing the costs down to the consumer? Yes, of course. Owners take the risk, for that risk they want 10% profit. So any increased costs are getting passed down. This is why manufacturing is getting done overseas. American workers have gotten so expensive that it is cheaper to build something and ship it thousands of miles on huge ships, and then drive it around the country, than to make it in this country.
The worst part is that I'm 99% Democrat/Liberal. Unfortunately as an owner of a unionized company I see how unions have made markets unprofitable and not worth the risk. The average consumer will be hard pressed to push the RIAA to cut the pork. The only ones that can change things are the unionized workers themselves. Get Bono and Madonna to gather their friends and fight the RIAA, then maybe we'll see some change.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
see 7Digital
The RIAA is on it's way out. You see, the RIAA has been making bullshit claims for the past couple of years; however, since I was a child, I have cornered the market on bullshit. So now every time the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, produces bullshit, I am entitled to royalties. I already got a check for Windows 98/95/ME...I'm going to be a millionaire!!!!
Not only yes but hell YES!!! the RIAA is pulling a scam
FalconShould there be a Law?
I hate having to be the one to defend SoundExchange, but SoundExchange is authorized by US Copyright law to collect royalties under section 114 of the copyright act. They're not just asserting this claim out of nowhere. They are also no longer a division of the RIAA and half their board of directors are independent label and artist reps. SoundExchange is only 50% a tool of the RIAA.
The solution to this is simple: amend copyright law to extend the broadcast exemption to internet radio. This can be done by amending 114(j)(3) of the Copyright Act to change the definition of "broadcast transmission" to include internet radio broadcasts, aka eligible nonsubscription transmission, as defined in Sec. 114(j)(6).
Over-the-air broadcasters are exempt from paying royalties on the sound recording copyright. These royalties were legislated by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (aka the DPRA). The reason was that it was then thought "digital" broadcasts were "perfect copies" of an original work and should therefore be treated different from over-the-air radio broadcasts; hence the law was changed so that only over-the-air broadcasters were exempted from royalties on the performance of sound recordings. When the original copyright laws were written, Congress realized it was creating a legal monopoly to the copyright holder. So in order to balance out that government-given monopoly it also added provisions for fair use, such as copying for personal use, exemptions for libraries, and exemptions for radio broadcasters.
The DPRA is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption -- that "digital transmission" allows unlimited perfect digital copies of the original work. But internet radio stations do not distribute perfect digital copies of the original copyrighted performance; instead, they use MP3 and WMA. Such broadcasts are drastically "compressed" and (I'm sure you know) nowhere near a perfect digital copy. They also segue songs together, and make announcements over the beginnings and ends of songs. It's just like over-the-air radio, and in many cases, the audio quality of the internet broadcast is inferior to an analog FM broadcast!
Let's say I have a couple album's worth of music that I've created over the years. Say, 30 songs or so. Now what if I want to stream that from my website? Does this mean the RIAA owns my work?
I don't get it.
There is simply too much glass..
Many states alow the usage of lethal force to defend one's property. Wouldn't a song I wrote automatically be my property, and therefore I'd be allowed to use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing and making money off of my property?
NOTE: Having reviewed Tennessee Law (The state I reside in,) there is no clear definition of property, so one could assume it's all-encompassing. Would using the second amendment to enforce the fourth amendment be legal?
Not trying to troll, but it's coming down to the point where I'm looking for any legal way to wipe this scum off the face of the planet to protect my property.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Magnatune.com
You may also want to checkout Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's it! I have had it with these motherf@#king leeches on this motherf@#king internet radios!
Yeah, free Ipod! He is innocent!
I'm not a legal expert, but that sounds patently unlawful to me. I suppose the RIAA can shelter itself in the precedences of labor unions. The problem is that the people who would defend music against the RIAA are not organized enough (or rich enough) to mount a successful legal battle. However, my question is, why hasn't the government stepped in here? I'm not one for federal control of our lives, but if they claim to have the authority to bust up monopolies, then why hasn't the RIAA been investigated? They obviously have the music industry in a stranglehold.
A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge.
There is a small coffee shop in my town that used to have live music Friday and Saturday nights. NONE of the artists that played there were RIAA-affiliated. (All were very small local bands, none of which had record deals, all were self-produced.)
SoundExchange shut down the live music. Somehow, that neither I, nor the owner of the coffee shop were able to determine, SoundExchange actually does control the playback of all music in the U.S.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I'm certain that such a scheme could be legalized by the US Government (i.e. designate a single authority to handle some particular issue..)
While it may be legal, ie congress passed a law the president signed, no where in the USA Constitution does it give the government this power. And seeing has how the Constitution places limits on what the government can do this law is then unconstitutional.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The lincense is compulsory for the copyright holders
I say this is BS! No where does the USA Constitution give the government the power to dictate that I use any compulsory licensing for any song I write.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It sounds an awful like what libraries do when it comes to making copies. I should also point out everyone is going RIAA1, RIAA!. They should actually look at who's on the board. There's quite a few independents in there.
cut out the middle men 30 odd years ago already. Even King Elvis bypassed the middlemen initially and that was before most sloshdatters were born.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I think this /. article is a bit of an exaggeration to push a particle viewpoint.
I have no doubt that this company IS not collecting royalties for all unsigned artist. The statement that they are is so exaggerated and inflamatory that its definitely part of someone's agenda to demonize the RIAA and SoundExchange.
Having said that, I'm not fan of the RIAA, and I'm certain there are cases where SoundExchange is trying to collect royalties without differentiating. But if the internet radio station just pays the portion that are signed artists, and does so accurately, there is nothing Sound Exchange can do. What one must do is request a list of signed artists represented by sound exchange and refuse to pay royalties for those not on the list. If you do this, you are legal and you need not worry. If SoundExchange will not provide this information to you, get that denial in writing and you're covered for any litigation.
But this article is definitely an exaggeration of an industries attempt to adjust to a new medium, but with some problems facing them. No one is collecting royalties on behalf of my band, nor is it legal for them to do so. Document what you do, keep clear records and you'll have no problems if they try to claim they can't account for you...make sure you account for what you play...don't expect others to do it for you.
You seem to be under the impression that the RIAA has any shame whatsoever. These people are reptiles! I mean, they insist on deposing 10 year-old girls face-to-face. They file tons of "John Doe" suits and go after people who don't even own computers. And you think they will shy away from this just because it is your music?
If I had the money I'd start a web radio station playing my own music just to get the RIAA to start a lawsuit against me. When they did I'd turn around and file a lawsuit against and sue for every dime they have while saying they're organized crime and use the RICO Act.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How on earth is this right?
There is a license which artists must grant under law, a compulsory license, ... As with the GPL, anyone may accept. Anyone may decline. If you decline, you have no rights to perform the song ...
...
This makes no sense to me at all. First you say that I must grant this compulsory license. Then you turn around and say I may decline the license. I can't find a way to read this that isn't self-contradictory. Do I have to grant the license, or can I decline (to grant) it?
And if I decide to decline it, what's the mechanism? Presumably I must do something that will notify all possible broadcasters and other "performers" (DJs?) that my recording can't be "performed". But I don't know any practical way to do such a thing. There's not even any way that I know to discover even a small percent of the people who might want to use my recording.
It's all totally unclear and contradictory
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
An interview with the founder of Pandora.com indicated that
So I'm guessing the copyright owner or even a consortium of owners can cut individual deals with individual internet stations thus cockblocking SoundExchange, but on internet stations they don't cut deals with, SoundExchange will be there.
It's true. The laws do give the RIAA to collect on ALL songs. Which is why the organization is complete crap and people have been complaining about this for a long time. It's only now with the popularity of internet radio finally taking off that enough people know about our issues with the RIAA. And they aren't the worst crooks out there. There are 3 other major roylties organizations that stick it to you worse then the RIAA. That's just broadcast roylties. The other 3 collect on the actual song that's being performed. Music law is a huge complicated mess with as many loopholes and crooks sticking their hands in the mess as there are songs being made. I'm all about the artist getting some green but 9 times out of 10 they are not. Most artists (unless they're independant) make squat on a CD but it's a great promotional item for them so kids go to their shows and buy tshirts which they do make pretty good bread from. Now when you go down to your local guitar center and buy sheet music that's another even more complicated story. If they retained their rights then they'll make money eventually on that if the sheet music sells a lot but make little to nothing if it doesn't sell much. The thing to remember is every aspect of getting paid is completely seperate and has it's own BS. Fun Fact: roylties on Cd's, tapes, Vinyl, 8track ect are still docked 10-15% off the top for "shrinkage" or an old industry standard from the time when vinyl was made of vinyl and it was expected that about 15% would break on the way to the store. Many have faught to change it, including setting up new record companies that didn't do things that way only to have all efforts fail. In short, support local and independant music (and not the labels that say they're independant with a Time Warner affiliation listed right under their name... ie Warner independant pictures). Read "All You Need to Know About the Music Business: Revised and Updated for the 21st Century" by Donald S. Passman. It really is everything you need to know.
So basically what they're saying is if I make a song and tell anyone anywhere that they can play my song on the radio any time they want for free, the RIAA can still charge them to playing my song, that has nothing to do with the RIAA? This is absolute crap, and I'm absolutely amazed that the RIAA is still in existence with tactics like these.
:(){
.. on a non-RIAA label I have to say that this pisses me off more than illegal downloading. Which pisses me off a lot already.
I rely heavily on streaming stations, social networking sites, and other internet tools to promote my work to my little niche demographic. This corporate bullying effectively removes yet more of the "little guy"'s ability to put out and promote non-major-label content.
Bad enough that little pissants steal our work, now big pissants want a piece. >=[
~!J!
"to come over and lick the sweat off my balls." Please don't offer that up. The RIAA may decide they own the copyright on ball licking and sue everyone who has either licked or been licked if they don't pay a 3500.00 settlement fee.
"Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
Democrats and Repubicans supported this from the get-go. There were no NAY votes in the house on the bill that created this panel of 3 judges. More reasons this issue will be made to "go away"...2008 DNC will have a RIAA member on the board....David Geffen just gave Bracak Obama several million $$ for his run...and he is a powerful senator. Orin Hatch was behind this bill from the beginnings...a long time supporter of all things RIAA and a powerful republican. Expect nothing to change with the RIAA paying masses of money out to powerful republicans and democrats. The only possibility is an appeal through the judiciary and the possibility of finding a judge powerful enough to stop this corruption. As long as political donations are considered free speech, there is no way America will turn back the tide of corruption.
The truth is, the guys who translated that incredible game were seeing the RIAA in the future... they just got the "base" thing wrong. Ha!
Note that the article, and some of the implications SoundExchange tries to slide through, are somewhat misleading. SoundExchange is merely the Copyright Office's ordained agency for collecting mechanical-license royalties. Yes, if you want to make use of mechanical licenses through that particular distribution channel, you do indeed have to go through SoundExchange. The RIAA had a big hand in the selection, but it's the Copyright Office that actually has the final say there. And remember that this was set up back when 99% of all music in fact went through the labels. But SoundExchange is not allowed to collect all royalties. If an artist or a label has a direct, non-mechanical license agreement in place with a distributor or venue, SoundExchange may not collect royalties from that distributor/venue. Their purvue is mechanical-license royalties only. The artist or the distributor/venue has to inform SoundExchange of the agreement, but once that's done the distributor can tell SE to go pound sand as far as royalties for that artist go. Caveat: both the artist and the distributor/venue should keep legally-admissable evidence of their informing SE, and have a copy on hand to give to any SE guys who show up (make them sign for it, too), so you've a paper trail if SE decides to push.
Now, this does provide an interesting DDoS against SoundExchange. I guarantee you they are not set up to handle thousands of distributors and venues each with independent, not-neccesarily-identical agreements with many artists. They're set up to handle 99% mechanical licenses, with the few exceptions being almost entirely distributors or venues whose agreements cover entire labels. If every artist and venue and on-line distributor with a direct agreement actually filed the paperwork they're by law allowed and required to file with SoundExchange, I suspect SE would collapse under the deluge. And if they just threw the paperwork out, a consistent policy by those distributors of counter-suing if SoundExchange took any action (and possibly by artists of suing for interference if SoundExchange shut down a distributor of their work) would likely ruin SE as soon as the judgements started coming in.
"How are artists going to be recruited into the movement and be kept focused on the big picture long enough to pull this off? It's obvious that everything must be executed perfectly or else it will just fizzle after getting a fast start."
Slashdot apparently has a few ideas to encourage them.
Amazing how this tiny industry seems to win big in legislatures consistently.
Why? How far up the RIAA sock puppet is the Mafia's hand? Like waste disposal, construction, and similar, the mob owns the industry. I'm guessing. Try telling the Mafia's goons they aren't going to get their cut. No reporter or Congresscritter wants to discuss the Moonies, Scientology's, or the Mob's influence in legislation. Everyone knows, but no one wants get their head literally or figuratively cut off.
Simple solution: run your internet radio station out of a Canadian ISP or some country other than the USA. This ridiculous legislative policy only kills American-sourced internet radio.
I have a tendency to place trust in artists turned producers, like David Byrne, or Prince. I place trust in those who have had to deal with the music industry, and have done their own thing and survived.
:-)
So here's Mr. Byrne's word on the royalty change they are suggesting. I think it's highly relevant. It implies, when combined with the presumed ownership of MY MUSIC, Prince's music, God's music, etc, that they are trying to shut down internet radio, plain and simple.
And I just had a thought while rambling: Would the RIAA really steal music from religious sources? It's an interesting implication of what they're doing. Someone should write the Pope. It'll be like an episode of South Park.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Sound Exchange would like everyone to believe that they have a monopoly, but that's not what "compulsory license" means. "Compulsory license" means that every broadcaster has the right broadcast the material and pay the statutory rate through Sound Exchange. It means broadcasters cannot be refused access to any material they want as long as they are willing to pay the statutory rate. Broadcasters are perfectly free to make thier own deal with artists for royalty rates (and there are plenty of artists out there who would be willing to let them play material for free). At least that's essentially what Barney Frank claimed the last time we lobbied him about this and the law hasn't been changed.
The problem is that the Internet broadcasters would have to set up thier own clearance organization for this to be practical and they aren't will to go to the trouble as long as they can convince the Copyright office to give them low rates. In other words, they are just another groups of hucksters looking to get a free lunch from other people's work.
It is possible to set up an alternative clearance operation: Here is how it would work.
1. Artists would put a file on thier web site that listed each work they were willing to license (probably with ISBN number as an index). For each work, they would list a price, a time-to-live for the offer, a payment account (Paypal or whatever), credits, web site URL, MP3 file URL, etc. This will would be in a standard format (XML or whatever) that could be uploaded into a database. The file would have to contain a license grant for the material in some standard format that could be machine checked.
2. Internet broadcasters would create a collaborative database that would consolidate the individual artist information so the stations didn't have to do all the work themselves. It would update entries automatically when the TTL ran out. Each station would contribute URLs to new artists (and presumably artists would also register themselves). If they also had this database application collect and disburse royalties, they would have accurate net airplay data that sould be sold as charts to pay for operation of the database.
The above scheme is infinitely better than the 1960's data processing scheme used by Sound Exchange, BTW. It's possible that even the major labels would use it on a promotional basis.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license
Why stop at digital performances? Radio signals, including digital ones, travel forever. Charge the aliens on Gliese 581. Charge future generations who *may* build a faster than light ship, and *may* get ahead of the signal, and *may* listen to the thing all over again.
Can't have that. It would be stealing.
We got lots of cd's and vinyl in Europe tagged on label: "Copyright Control"
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I find this beyond belief. I'm going to have to seek legal advice but my first instinct about this tells me I can get by it simply by putting on my artists page a blanket license that gives worldwide royalty free use by radio stations (internet or otherwise), bars, clubs, jukeboxes, etc. That way I could tell the RIAA and SoundExchange where to stick it. After talking to my client we decided that we would NOT join ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or ANY other such group. They don't produce anything and in our opinions are nothing more than parasites who leech off the hard work of others.
DRM Money permits consumers to control how the money is spent, ie. planting trees in Brazil GOOD, buying Ferraris and nasty lawyers BAD. Consumers can then set the various usage parameters on the money and then use it to pay for DRM media materials. Recipients will be able to transfer it one time to their bank. Whereafter it may not be transferred to another bank unless additional DRM media materials are rendered to the consumer. Also DRM Money can have a sunset provision, so that the money must be used before a certain date. After the date passes, the DRM Money will cease to have value and may not be used in any further exchanges.
DRM Money protects consumers in the same manner that DRM Media protects artists, distributors, copyright holders and their BASTARD ASSHOLE LAWYERS.
DRM Money can also be used to bribe ^H^H^H^H^H er, I mean, influence ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, uh, I mean, contribute to local, state, and federal electoral campaigns. Again, various parameters embedded in the DRM Money can be set to determine how the money can be spent. Roads and Schools GOOD, Tanks, Nukes, and multi-hundred-million-dollar bridges in nowhere Alaska BAD. And a very special parameter can be set so that the money will vanish, taking along one additional DRM Money of the same (or possibly greater) value if the politician breaks his or her campaign promises.
DRM Money can be used to pay for goods and services at most fine retailers where Child Labor goods are sold. Made in USA GOOD, Made in subhuman slave-labor conditions in Malaysia BAD.
See, in this way, DRM Money can actually go a very long way to setting some things straight. There will of course be some very rich and greedy bastards who will initially be against it. Along with a number of politicians who will be confused over whose pockets they should stick their hands in. But I think after a short orientation and acclimation period, the majority of citizens will see the benefits and DRM Money will become universally accepted.
Its been often said "If you want something done, vote with your wallet", now DRM Money permits the consumer to do exactly that.
riaa has built exactly the same model in the us as the one used by allofmp3.com in russia to pay the artists (at least, to those who care to join and take the money).
needless to say, riaa hates the taste of their own medicine.
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
Since when does the LOC make laws? I would have thought the FCC would have had their hand in this, but I would expect the LOC to be concerned about recording the context of what is happening in the congress and nothing more.
where is the RIAA mentioned? Where is RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange?
l ert/?alertid=9631541
im sorry i don't see it. i don't see where this makes any argument from the musician's point of view such as:
"Are you saying that if I don't pay the RIAA the royalty rate to broadcast MY OWN SONGS that is illegal? So I have to pay a fee to, say, air my views on Bush?
How can this be Constitutional?"
look for yourself at the CapWiz "Contact your Congress" link
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/a
" As a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn that the Copyright Royalty Board has decided to raise music royalty rates by 300 to 1200 percent. For most webcasters the new royalties exceed their revenue and they simply will go bankrupt and stop webcasting.
The silencing of Internet radio would be a blow to listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices only available via Internet radio. This will kill the great diversity of music that I hear over the Internet and all the independent artists who have a difficult time breaking through on other forms of radio.
I respectfully request that Congress look into this matter and take action to prevent it. Please understand that time is of the essence since the new royalty rates are retroactive to January 1, 2006 so they will cause immediate bankruptcies if they become effective for even one day. Please don't let the music die. "
then what's up with that date? 2006? it's already happened.
the only thing i see this saying is that webstreamers are paying 300-1200% too much. i don't see a fucking thing about soundexchange or the riaa.
this is exactly what is wrong with these automated email systems. the language is so diluted that the senator writes diluted crap that doesn't ever address the whole issue, or the core issue (theft of non-label/riaa music) at all. i bet the senators don't even know what the fuck is wrong here.
you can do a lot better than "daily kos's version" of this infuriating topic.
do these people even read the text in these fucking email campaigns? i wouldn't sign that shit.
i'd re-write the whole thing from scratch and look up my own representatives. but then there's a lot of lazy motherfuckers out there lately.
just look at the electronic voting machine situation. and the shitty bills and watered down fucking crap proposed. even the current holt bill 811 is fucked right now. does anyone give a shit about anything anymore, you people are going to be so fucked by this. some of us already are fucked by this. i guess in the big scheme it won't matter, because you won't matter.
i hate to ask, but how can a streaming video or audio be considered a "broadcast?" and if you tell people to "not think for themselves" and go out and tell congress to amend this this way, you would end up with the fcc (bush appointees) controlling webcasters, and i don't see how the fuck that can be a good thing (tm) i ain't saying you ain't got the right idea. but if your gonna amend the fucking thing amend it right.
Gentlemen, start your VideoLAN shoutcasts!
Ok, maybe if enough Indies release self licensed streams it'll plug up the works in figuring out who to levy their extortions on? Or will the tubes get plugged, even though its radio? (Radio uses tubes now? I thought it went transistorized or something.)
And speaking of broadband, it's typically not over the public airwaves - shouldn't the network providers something to say about who's sticking their hand where it doesn't belong?
SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license.
Incorrect on two counts. SoundExchange is NOT the RIAA. SoundExchange is governed by a board that consists of the RIAA, major labels, large independent labels, and some non-RIAA organization reps.
They do not consider "any" performance of a song as falling under their license, only those performances that fall under the statutory license. You are able to negotiate your own license if you wish. You can even negotiate your own license if you are a SoundExchange member.
If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio.
Only if the song is performed under the compulsory license. Under any other license, then no, SoundExchange will not collect the royalties. (Obviously, a webcaster can't legally perform someone else's song with no license at all.
Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free.
Yes they absolutely can grant a royalty-free license if they which, or any other type of license agreed to by both parties.
So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.
No, you DON'T have join SoundExchange to get your royalties. There is an administrative fee which is deducted automatically from the compulsory license royalties, but you don't have to pay anything outside of that. In other words, if you want to collect your compulsory license royalties, you don't have to cut a check to SoundExchange, all you are required to do is collect, but the amount you collect will be slightly less than the the amount paid by the webcaster, due to the administrative overhead. If you don't like the idea of SoundExchange deducting a percentage for their overhead, that's fine. You can opt out by directly negotiating with the webcasters for royalties.
The only part of this that is even slightly a racket is that currently SoundExchange is the only body authorized by the government to collect the compulsory royalties, so there's no incentive for them to lower their administrative costs. Also, the fact that the compulsory royalties are so ridonkulously high to begin with. But in principle, so long as copyright exists at all, compulsory licenses are a good thing. They enable webcasters to play music without having to find each and every copyright holder and personally ask their permission to play their music. One could argue that the royalties should be much lower, or even zero, but that's a different discussion.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Somebody needs to call SoundExchange, play a little recording saying the standard version of "this call may be recorded", then ask how you, if you wanted to start your own internet radio station, playing Creative Commons music, would go about setting up your payments. If they tell you how, then, only then, ask if it's actually required for you to pay them.
Yes, that's right, assume the worst and play along in the hypothetical. Then post what they said to you here on Slashdot, on a registered account.
If this thing is what the "calm down" people are saying, then it's a really weird law: "if you don't know how to licence, we have to offer you ours, which says you pay us."
Oh yeah. And one more thing. Did I say anything correct at all?
So according to this why can't I start a new company called softexchage. Softexchange now declared that it will collect all royalties for using any software of any kind. If you'd like to collect your share of the royalties you have to call me at home on my one telephone line or provide in writing a notorized copy of your declaration of ownership of material, and then for a small (large) annual fee you can collect some random amount of money that I decide to give you. And this is legal how? oh right because our government and copyright office suck. They basically just said "ok all copyrights you hold on any musical works have just been transferred to riaa's new company, and they get it for free. And to enable them to continue to get rich off your work if you want the money that you should be getting you have to pay them for it. What next create a sham company to collect all of our paychecks and if I want my paycheck I have to pay said company to receive it? I feel like the government has far overstepped its bounds on this one.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
All this will really end up accomplishing is the internet companies moving offshore to other nations that don't recognize the RIAA. There's a real mental disconnets with the RIAA's leadership. They just don't get it that you can't legally lock down the internet because it's not a U.S. only thing.
If say, all the internet radio sites went to South Korea to do their broadcasts, which is a very nice country, actually, to do this sort of thing, the RIAA would essentially eat dirt. Zero recourse. Instead of getting a little bit of money and helping to maybe create a workable system all they have done is force the entire industry/technology offshore. It's a total bonehead move by them.
Of course, most of us know this already. This new piece of junk they are touting will be fought. I can see a *ix type open-source music copyright coming out of this. A specific copyright that disallows any recording industry to ever claim patent to a piece of music(but of course protects the original owner/ie - has to be credited). I used to be a musician myself a decade or so ago so I understand the desire for getting paid and such to make a living if you can, but given the industry's corruption, I'd gladly do something like this if I was still playing - just to spite them.
So if a copyright holder licenses her work without fee to everyone on the condition that the licensee does not collect royalties on that work, SoundExchange can still make money off it thanks to the compulsory license created by law. Another example: the folks who illegally share music without charging money are criminals of the worst sort yet the crooks who collect royalties for works they don't own are given a compulsory license.
What an incredibly fucked up system.
By this same "logic" file-sharers should be able to claim they are holding royalties for copyright holders and will pay up as soon as the copyright holder contacts them. Heck, except for the penalties sought by the RIAA, it's essentially what's happening. And if it's legal for Sound Exchange to do it why not everyone else?