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.
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.
How could they not get slapped in court? What judge could take such a claim seriously?
If they actually start enforcing this, I'm just going to start an internet radio station with my own music. Other artists should do the same. Just let them try to sue me for royalties on music that I wrote/recorded/produced.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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!
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.
Actually, it could be held to be non-binding because of several different factors.
1) The non-RIAA artist whose royalties are being held by SoundExchange has not entered into a contract with SoundExchange, therefore, SoundExchange does not have the legal right to hold the royalties, or make any pre-existing conditions on the disbursement of said royalties.
2) The non-RIAA artist can enter into a seperate contract with an Internet Radio station to provide music for whatever rate they desire, whether it is a greater rate then the current legislation provides, or even give it away for free. They did not waive their rights to set the terms for their own copyright assignations, after all.
Of course, IANAL, so all this could just be talking out my ass. But it makes sense (wait, there's the clear sign that I might be wrong. It makes sense, therefore, there has to be legislation preventing it) that SoundExchange cannot hold someone else's royalties and then require them to pay a fee to get what is rightfully due them without any pre-existing contract.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Doesn't matter. There are laws in many countries that mandate that certain portion of the sale price of a recording device, or a recording medium go to RIAA or their respective equivalent in that country. You could claim all you want that you never recorded or dealt with an RIAA copyrighted content and you never recorded any of it using that device or medium you purchased, but that doesn't exclude you from the RIAA tax - you still have to pay it.
The same general principle could apply to the Internet radio and given that it has successfully worked for the recording devices/media, there is no guarantee that all of a sudden lawmakers in all countries, including the U.S., will come to their senses and deny the RIAA their "right" to purchase their share of legislation.
From the article: "SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you don't want them to do so"
Are you saying that this isn't that case?
As an aritist, you can choose not to register with any of those licensing agencies, but then you never get a cut of the fees that those agencies collect. For most artists, they don't see much of those fees anyway though since it's based on sampled reporting from radio stations, TV, etc.
What the RIAA is doing is so much worse because they are saying that you must pay fees to them whether you play artists they represent or not. As a station, you can't choose to only play indie stuff and not pay SoundExchange. As a band, you don't have a choice about whether or not the RIAA is collecting fees in your name.
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
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...
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
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.
Congress has decided not give you exclusive rights to published performaces of your songs
That is perfectly Constitutional. They can even decline to implement copyright at all
and also to grant SoundExchange the right to collect taxes on people playing copyrighted musical performances.
That's the part they can't do. The collected cash doesn't go to the government at all. Some of it is reclaimed by lables and some stays in SoundExchanges pockets. That makes it not a tax. Actually it makes SoundExchange more or less a Feudal Lord.
I'd like to point out that I'm not a US citizen, I don't live in the US, I've never been to the US and the US Govt cannot assign away anything that is mine to a US organisation. In fact I am going to change the copyright of my music to state that it is open to be copied, played (on any device), sampled provided the copyright is attributed EXCEPT by any agent, member or affiliate of the RIAA.
I have a very strong dislike of this crowd, and they have absolutely no right to collect royalties on anything I produce or allow to be played by on an Internet radio station.
I'm not sure how much good writing the Pope would do. You might want to try writing certain studios in Nashville, some of the Christian Universities that are heavy on media and music (Liberty University comes to mind), and some of the larger religious coalitions (like the Southern Baptist Convention). In all seriousness, a well-written letter to those folks would have a pretty good chance of getting a large slice of the public energized about the issue.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?