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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I remember seeing a similar ad in the theatres, it ended with some sort of slogan like :
"Don't download movies off the internet"
I couldn't believe what I was reading, so I said "Holy Shit! You can download movies off the internet?" As loud as I could. Since then I haven't seen the same ad in the theatre.
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.
The only problem with the monopoly aspect of their business is that they are a government sanctioned monopoly, just like Major League Baseball or Amtrack. If you tried to set up an interstate passenger rail service without the express permission of Amtrack, just for an example, you will find out in a real hurry who has been granted the monopoly and you won't find a judge to overturn this law either.
And the same goes here for the RIAA and "SoundExchange". They are a government granted monopoly. The real trick here is to make the charge of being a "monopoly" stick in the mainstream public media and to demonstrate why this monopoly is such a bad deal, or even how the RIAA is gradually killing off the American music industry. Or how it is already dead. Most average people don't understand this concept, even thought it is obvious by now that the only realistic way for a young singer to break into the top tier of recording artists is through gimicks like "American Idol". If the RIAA didn't have such a stranglehold on the American music industry, you would find this TV show to be a total flop, as much better performers would already be performing the top songs. IMHO, "American Idol" is a symptom of how bad the music industry has become, and not a genuine showcase of talent.
Mind you, I like some of the performers that have come through that contest (Ruben Stoddard is one of my favorites), but it is unfortunate that this was the only avenue he had to be noticed. The days of the "garage band" being able to make it to the big leagues through hard work and determination are long over, except for those who have some exceptional luck. People with genuine talent are being ignored and not allowed to propser.
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
No kidding! They practically TOLD me to do it! As soon as they make good enough movies to merit the effort of downloading, I'll do it.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
I haven't looked at it in legalistic detail
I believe that.
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.
No. The law does not require a copyright holder to pay royalties that are ultimately due to himself. It's not a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio at all, it's a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio where you otherwise don't have a right to do so (i.e. you're not the copyright holder and you don't have a separately-negotiated license with the copyright holder, and there is a copyright)
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.
Except when the law itself includes a license (as is the case here) which you don't get a choice in. You can always offer a different license, but anyone can opt to take the one Congress created. This is because Congress defines what copyright is in the US, and they've defined it to include this license.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.