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.
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.
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/
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.
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
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.
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...
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!
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...
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.
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
One ukulele/jug/spoons band and a 36 hour Shoutcast session later, the RIAA then regrets it's idea that it owns all music on the 'net.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
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
I've long considered starting an internet radio station of only CC-by-* licensed music (and other copyleft licenses) for the express purpose of "sticking it to the RIAA". I've known about musicians who release their music under these type of licenses, and I think it is time to really stand up and take notice about stuff like this.
One bizzare issue that I don't know how it would play here is if some artist released some content under one of these copyleft licenses and then subsequently signed with the RIAA, would I still have to pay a royalty? Some licenses such as the GPL/GFDL explicitly prohibit such a 3rd party revokation of licensing, after the content has been granted, but I think this may be one of the weaknesses of the Creative Commons license suite.
This certainly would be a strong test case to really test copyleft principles, unless the RIAA can show that they hold a patent on the concept of internet radio (which I don't think they do... and that also opens yet another can of worms in terms of "IP rights").
Out of principle I would hope the EFF would themselves host such an internet radio station, begging the RIAA to sue the pants off of them. And do that in a public manner. I would donate money to their legal defense fund (and to help pay for the internet radio station too!) if they would decide to go this route. It would be the ultimate in 'net civil disobedience.
Or the FSF doing the same thing but with GPL'd/GFDL'd music. It almost sounds like something Stallman would love to do for the hell of it.
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
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.
When people stop throwing in red hearings into important discussions
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
It is not true. This is Slashdot quoting DailyKos - what sort of standards did you expect?
1) You do not have to be a member to collect fees through sound exchange, though you do have to pay them an admin fee.
2) There is nothing to stop radio stations from making direct agreements with copyright holders and by passing Sound Exchange. You only need to use Sound Exchange to make use of the compulsory license.
The practical problem is that it would be a lot of work for a radio station to contact every copyright owner (often two of three per recording) and negotiate agreements with them, so it is difficult to avoid using Sound Exchange.
Solution for non RIAA copyright holders: unless you are going to make lots of money off radio (not likely) just have a free license for radio and net broadcasters.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
However if a webcaster choses to negotiate with a music copyright holder, and they come to terms, it's a non-statutroy license. SoundExchange can't get involved music under those type of licenses. The terms can be whatever both sided agree to. You can even ignore those silly restrictions on information display, interactivity with listners, time restrictions, etc.
What the article says thats wrong is that copyright holder can give their music away for free, and can't allow webcasters to use it for free. That's flat out wrong. SoundExchange can't stop that or even try to collect royalties for it. That would be interfence with the copyright holder's rights. I've love to see SoundExchance attempt to take that to court. Can you say "Crash and Burn!"
In regards to GPL'd/GFDL'd/CCL'd music, those are non-statutory licenses. The terms are already laid out. No need to negotiate. As longer as your agree to and follow the terms of the license, your use the music. And you can tell SoundExchance to go F... themselves.
My answer to all three questions: The Pirate Bay :-D
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
That is the beauty of taking this approach to the issue and boldly advertising that "internet radio" stations using this approach to music distribution. I'm talking about being blunt and obvious that this is something that the RIAA can't possible touch.
The problem here is that I don't see the RIAA/ASCAP/SoundExchange interpreting this in the way you are talking about. Sure, you or I would agree that the rights have already been negotiated here, but SoundExchange is claming rights to license all music which is distributed via "internet radio" channels. And backed up by the Library of Congress. The point of the original article posting here is that non-RIAA members (which can include musical artists who have released their music under the Creative Commons licenses) are being forced by statutory authority to have royalties paid to SoundExchange, regardless of the terms, conditions, or licenses that were granted by the artists in the first place. They are using this as a way to force smaller recording artists or even groups that want to create an alternative scheme to the RIAA methodology to having to stick with this one approach and only use the SoundExchange system.
The point of using copyleft approaches here is that it would force the issue out of a copyright violation issue into the patently obvious RIAA taxation authority by a for profit group of corporations. If music which is simply placed into the public domain can be "taxed" in this manner, why not GPL'd music? Of course this isn't the only bizzare tax on public goods that goes to supporting for-profit corporations, but this would force such an issue into the realm of public debate for exactly what it really is.
This is also why this move by the RIAA is so awful and needs to be challenged as forcefully as possible, or at the very least legitimate alternatives need to be publicized in such a way that this monopoly can be broken. I think it would be through copyleft content distribution that you can make this stick.
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
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.
-GiH
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Magnatune.com
You may also want to checkout Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
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?