Slashdot Mirror


The SoundExchange Billion Dollar Administrative Fee

palewook writes "On June 7th, Yahoo, RealNetworks, Pandora, and Live365 sent letters to US lawmakers emphasizing they owe SoundExchange 'administrative fees' of more than $1 billion dollars a year. These fees would be paid for the 'privilege' of collecting the increased CRB royalties effective July 15th, unless the Internet Radio Equality Act passes Congress. SoundExchange, the non-profit music industry entity, admits the levied charge of $500 per 'channel' is supposed to only cover their administrative costs. Last year, SoundExchange collected a total of $20 million dollars from the Internet radio industry. Under the new 'administrative fee' RealNetworks, which hosted 400,000 unique subscribed channels in 2006, would owe an annual administrative charge of 200 million dollars in addition to the retroactive 2006 rate hike per song played."

127 comments

  1. My heroes by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    They beat me to it. It's always been my dream to set up a non-profit (for everyone else except me of couse) that rakes in money by charging other companies fee levels that I just make up.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:My heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree. I have Sonos at home and Rhapsody + Sonos is pure bliss. Listening to it right now. It will truly be a sad day for me if, due to this fee, they have a rate hike or even have to shut down.

    2. Re:My heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course it's all administrative costs.
      If it would be 99% administrative costs then we have to share a very small part of the remaining 1% with artist! That would make no sense at all.

    3. Re:My heroes by Bodero · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's always been my dream to set up a non-profit (for everyone else except me of couse) that rakes in money by charging other companies fee levels that I just make up.


      There's always money to be made in the carbon offset business...

    4. Re:My heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:My heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already done by Underwriter's Laboratories.

      Even though these folks do not have any legal weight behind what they do, unless devices you make carry their approval stamp you can't get them into most government or hospital facilities and most builders won't use them either.

      I worked for a company years ago that made non-invasive products used in medical rehabilitation centers. UL came out to review our products so we could get the stamp. Cost wasn't cheap, this was like $2000 per visit in the late 80's.

      The inspector could fail you for any reason he or she wanted. And if you failed, you had to pay in full again for re-inspection.

  2. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With advocates like this, it's hard to believe people have difficulty taking Libertarians seriously.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. in fair comparison.... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. I'd like to see the math and results of income to such organizations and businesses ... but prior to internet.

    In other words, who gets what without the internet?

    1. Re:in fair comparison.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, who gets what without the internet? Well, I may not be a rocket surgeon, but I'd say without the internet you wouldn't get modded up.
  4. The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    As necessary as it seems, with all the snooping, the phishing, the scams, the logging, the data mining, the patent fights, and all the other crap that's going on these days, it is getting where the Internet is more necessary evil - with emphasis on the evil.

    I also agree with net neutrality. That's the problem. I just hate it that anyone thinks they have to resort what is tantamount to extortion. Or that anyone has to resort to extortion.

    People predicted long ago that once money got involved with the net, it would radically change. They were right. All of computing has.

    1. Re:The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      People predicted long ago that once money got involved with the net, it would radically change. They were right. All of computing has.


      You act like the statement was prophetic and not just stating the obvious. Money is a common denominator for all interests. As such, wherever money is involved, it will bring in all manner of individuals... including those with very predatory motives.

      The Internet and computing in general have expanded to a point that it attracts a vast number of individuals. Some are decent folks. Some are not. And as such, these things are becoming tools to do good things as well as tools to do bad things. Forgive me if I don't feign shock.

      Yeah - there's a lot of bad out there. I'm especially aware of it because that's what I do. But I'm also keenly aware of all the good involved too. I'll take the trade-off. I just wish the folks engineering the devices and mechanisms we use would be a little more keenly aware of that trade-off as well.

    2. Re:The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah - there's a lot of bad out there. I'm especially aware of it because that's what I do.

      Well then do us all a favor and stop doing it.

  5. I'm so conflicted by Evets · · Score: 0

    Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

    Wait a second here... that means whoever ends up getting screwed, I win. Rock On.

    1. Re:I'm so conflicted by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait a second here... that means whoever ends up getting screwed, I win. Rock On. No I think a more realistic way of looking at it is "Whoever wins... we lose". This situation is a lot like the AvP movie in other ways too: I can't bear to watch this either.
      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:I'm so conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

      This is actually pretty easy - RealPlayer for Linux is quite decent, and we all know what *AA thinks of Linux!

    3. Re:I'm so conflicted by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Real Networks. There are other internet radio services around which are equally affected by this.

    4. Re:I'm so conflicted by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

      Why?

      The answer to the recording industry in can guess if you actually mean RIAA. But they are not the whole industry, they only represent the biggest companies.

      But why hate Real Networks? They have indulged in some dubious business practices in the past I thought they stopped those when they jumped on the Open Source bandwagon.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    5. Re:I'm so conflicted by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see here:
      The recording industry wants gobs of money, is inherently evil, and hates the internet.
      RealNetworks wants gobs of money, is somewhat evil, but loves the internet, puts out a very good mostly OSS Linux media player, and is just as screwed as SomaFM and (insert station here) if this goes through.

      Hmmm....

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    6. Re:I'm so conflicted by Evets · · Score: 1

      Are you guys actually saying the RealPlayer for linux is less crappy than it's window's counterpart? As in - not constantly putting ads in front of you, not constantly trying to sell you something?

      (this is an sarcasm free question)

    7. Re:I'm so conflicted by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. It's open-source (Helix player), very streamlined, and I'd go as far out as to say it's better than Totem, GNOME's built-in player (which personally doesnt mean much). It is also 100% ad free, and I think the non-Open version even handles DRM'd RealMedia (which is sometimes a necessary evil). If only they'd use the profits from the ads in the Windows version to put a CSS decoder and DVD support in the Linux version so we can finally have legit (in US) DVDs in Linux. I'd even pay for that.

      I hear the Mac version's pretty decent too.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    8. Re:I'm so conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should root for the end to statutory licenses, because that would mean the end of the Copyright Royalty Board and the end of this issue. Basically, the government forced a contract between copyright holders and broadcasters, and now the government is being asked to change the terms of that contract. If the government never created statutory licenses, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the agreements between parties would be completely voluntary, and justice would be done.

      The RIAA has a right to offer whatever terms it wants, and the broadcasters have the right to accept or reject those terms. With completely voluntary agreements, I don't see how the RIAA can be evil. Artists are free to form their own company or negotiate directly with broadcasters. Artists ALWAYS have a choice. They might not like the consequences of choosing not to sign up with the RIAA, but that hardly makes the RIAA "evil"; on the contrary, it demonstrates how much artists enjoy the services the RIAA offers.

    9. Re:I'm so conflicted by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      I hear the Mac version's pretty decent too.

      Interesting that this comes up when I just finished discusssing this with a friend not ten mins ago. I use the linux and os x real client fairly regularly. Id say the linux version is better... but the os x version is bad. It just seems to have the occasional visit to needing a visit from Mr SIGKILL every now and then. Thats said the real player is about a gazillion times better than the os x version of windows media player. I swear that microsoft write software for the mac just to irritate people.

    10. Re:I'm so conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoever wins... we lose"

      There was an old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto that ended with the punchline: "What you mean "we", paleface?"

  6. Just like a cancer by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA will kill off internet radio, then another piece of the 'music pie', and then another and another until it has nothing left.

    1. Re:Just like a cancer by KKlaus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except... selling albums. Or are you implying that people will stop listening to music? Destroying markets that aren't profitable for you or that you don't control is evil, and our freaking congress of all groups shouldn't be the ones giving these guys cart blanche to do so, but it isn't exactly bad business.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    2. Re:Just like a cancer by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correction: the RIAA will kill off internet radio FROM THE US of A. The RIAA is an american business association which lobbies the US government institutions to implement policies in order for their associates' business to thrive. It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, specially in countries where fair use rights are acknowledged and respected. So the only thing that the RIAA's antics will produce is effectively strangling the US market.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    3. Re:Just like a cancer by mmarlett · · Score: 1

      If it kills (U.S.) Internet radio then we can all laugh, say "I told you so," then pressure our government officials to prosecute the RIAA. And that will probably be the end of the RIAA as we know it. Then, when it's gone, (U.S.) Internet radio can come back. And almost everything about the music industry will change.

    4. Re:Just like a cancer by innerweb · · Score: 1

      For years, local performances have all but dried up due to unfair competition from big labels. I see them coming back now as people are more willing to part with money at these venues. Let the RIAA kill off the rest of the music world. What will be left is truly the best part anyway. What bothers me about this deal, is breadth and the reach of the internet radio fees. What about a station that plays nothing but non-label music with knowledge and permission from the artist(s)? Are these stations then taxed the same way even though they are playing music that is not part of the umbrella?

      -InnerWeb
      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    5. Re:Just like a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, Um...you know those "Free Trade" Agreements? Well you should read them and see what we are trading. To save you some time: Jobs for IP laws. Also see Allofmp3.com... I will give you this though, many of those countries(China) don't actually do anything to enforce those laws. Look who's the dope.
    6. Re:Just like a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh the same companies will bribe the bureaucrats in Brussels as well. All in the name of harmonization of course. Then The US and the EU will force the other countries via the good old WTO.

    7. Re:Just like a cancer by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      "Are these stations then taxed the same way even though they are playing music that is not part of the umbrella?"

      Yes. It is exactly like that. The RIAA will collect royalties for indie music as well. They keep those royalties until such time as the indie artist joins the RIAA. Granted, those pre-collected royalties would probablly not even cover the sign-up fee to join the RIAA.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    8. Re:Just like a cancer by Wayne247 · · Score: 1

      You just made a very minor error in your statement.

      The internet will kill the RIAA.

      Now that I have this post in my slashdot history, I can now count the time until I am eventually right. RIAA can absolutely not win, not now, not never. No amounts of lobbying, government attempts at control and regulation will ever stop people from doing what they want to do: listen to broadcasts.

    9. Re:Just like a cancer by innerweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow! That smells illegal. I have not followed in as much detail as I need to, but I had a feeling that what was going on was cartelish. For an organization to be allowed to have fiduciary powers over any or all of a non-granting principal's monies and then be allowed to force that principal to pay a fee (extortion?) to collect those monies does not seem even plausibly legal. (IANAL)

      At the very least the RIAA ought to be forced to surrender whatever fees they collect to the parties that have not signed on with the RIAA or be forced to return those unrepresented fees to the ones they collected the fees from. Whatever the outcome, the RIAA ought not have collected those fees in the first place, nor be allowed to keep any of those fees they have collected without permission from the copyright owner.

      Do I sound redundant yet? ;-)

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  7. Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaa! by throatmonster · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the sound of someone laughing - all the way to the bank.

    --
    All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
  8. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by Planesdragon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Republicrats and Democans enacted this and you voted for them asking for an intrusive and activist government. You have no room to complain now. You asked for this. By that logic, the libertarians are asking for broken roads, an end to education standards, and the conquest of the United States by Mexico.

    Given the choice between total obliteration of our society and the fiscal raping of a few for-profit companies, I think we'll screw Real.
  9. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by kiracatgirl · · Score: 1

    That's funny. You know that SoundExchange is the one taking the money here, and that they're not a part of the government, right? Right?

    Besides, the whole point of the idea of "democracy" is to let people complain about the government. We can complain all we want. Nyaaaah.

  10. What's not mentioned... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that the politicians want their share of shakedown. Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists? Internet radio will have to pay the piper.

    1. Re:What's not mentioned... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists?


      This is always touted as one of Microsoft's lessons learned - be involved in the government. Part of this is probably due to a belief that the anti-trust lawsuit was a vendetta brought on by more politically savvy sour-grapes competitors. I don't agree. But I do think it was only a matter of time for Microsoft to get involved anyway.

      Microsoft is a large entity with a vested interest in how the market behaves. And the market itself is large enough to touch on almost every aspect of our lives (its what "we" always knew would happen back in the '80s with our little hobbiest microcomputers waxing poetic about the future). With the market so important, Congress is going to get involved eventually... mainly at the prodding of lobbyists from other industries touched by the expanding IT market. It makes sense that Microsoft would decide to have its views put in the ears of Congress as well.

      Does this mean Congress-critters are demanding payouts? I'm not so sure its exactly that (although I would expect it is accurate in some cases). But I am positive you're not going to be well represented if those that would represent your view are unaware of what that view is. Or even worse... people with an opposing view have managed to convince your favorite Congress-critter that reality lines up with their viewpoint (queue this post's theme song).
    2. Re:What's not mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists."

      About half a million per year to 400 people. Yes, sounds about right.

      What would you do with 500 000 dollars per year? So called "no strings attached"-money, of course.

  11. I wonder what real will do.... by d3ity · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder what Real Networks will do if they can't come up with the $200 million dollars they apparently owe... They'll probably stall for time... Buffering...

  12. Only Americans will be silenced by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cheer up, the rest of the world will still have freedom on the internet. It's just us Americans who will be regulated out of having any expression.

    We'll still be able to listen to Russian stations.

    Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?

    1. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by coldcell · · Score: 1
      ...ok:

      In Soviet Russian, the radio listens to YOU!

      --
      Launchy.net changed my world.
    2. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by cabinetsoft · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Soviet Russian, the radio listens to YOU!
      That ain't funny, that's informative! The radio, the ashtray, the walls...
    3. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      at least some one is listening us. 'cause the recording industry and the politicians sure as hell aren't.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll still be able to listen to Russian stations.

      Only until your government bullies Russia into passing similar laws.

    5. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?


      Sounds to me like you're wanting "In Post-Soviet Russia..." jokes. We don't do those. They're not funny.
    6. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by Mistlefoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to the US where it's just the Phone, the TV and your computer.

      Privacy in the US isn't what it was anymore.

    7. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?

      I Soviet Russia, the internet radio plays swan song for American internet radio.
    8. Re:Only Americans will be silenced by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      It never was what we thought it was ... it's just that current technology makes it easier for the government voyeurs ^h^h^h^h^h^h^hagencies to poke around.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  13. Resposible Government, the anti-drug by Smight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Government to SoundExchange: What is this?! Where did you learn to charge these outrageous administrative fees? Was it from all those lawyers I see you hanging around with?

    SoundExchange to Government: I learned it from YOU OK! I learned it by watching you *sob*

    SoundExchange runs out of the room while Government stares into the distance meaningfully.

    --
    IOU one (1) signature
  14. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.


    What if I voted for a Constitution party candidate? Was that a vote against the Constitution as well?

  15. no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the RIAA is simply evil beyond all bounds of reason. I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire. Everything they are doing is so bad and so dangerous to the legacy of the late 20th and early 21st century, it really is criminal.

    While I don't advocate someone blowing their office to flinders with a bomb or some other evil terroristic act, I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet (one would think that with all the loosely bound people in the USA, one of them would have freaked out by now and targeted them...)

    What I DO advocate is that the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated organisations be banned and eliminated and the music and film artists and industry re-organise itself along more open and egalitarian lines.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      If you want to watch the RIAA start having real problems, you simply have to publicly and repeatedly associate them with abortion, or cute, furry animals, or any hot-button issue that has a militant wing. Maybe a bunch of wackos in pirate outfits would storm the place. Serve them right.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...Maybe a bunch of wackos in pirate outfits would storm the place. Serve them right.

      {cough}http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/{/cough }

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    3. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire.

      Probably because even the nutjob asshats reckon it's not worth the cost of the bullets
      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    4. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire.

      You're going to jail for this!

      While I don't advocate someone blowing their office to flinders

      Fine, you're off the hook...

      with a bomb or some other evil terroristic act

      That's is: jail time!

      I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet

      Oh ok, you're a fine fella.

      (one would think that with all the loosely bound people in the USA, one of them would have freaked out by now and targeted them...)

      Effin terrorist! JAIL!

      What I DO advocate is that the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated organisations be banned

      Oh, banned. That's cool I guess. ... and eliminated

      Screw it, I'm calling the FBI on ya!!

    5. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The ratio of nut jobs in the US currently willing to go serial killer on something vs other people seems to be a lot less than 1:10,000,000. It might seem like there are a lot of violent nut jobs, but to suggest that is fallacy of misleading vividness, for one thing. One nut job killing two or three dozen can be the subject of news for several weeks, enough of them and it seems like it happens everywhere and all the time. In reality, it's a very rare and unpredictable event such that wholesale shifts in society would generally be a needless and overbearing knee-jerk reaction.

    6. Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - by DragonCMNDR · · Score: 1

      NO... The real truth to "why someone hasn't..." is because all of the likely suspects are camping outside of Jack Thompson's house/place of work... It's just plain poor luck that a fair portion of the Internet Radio listening community are video game players... And in that arena, there is currently more at stake, and bigger fish to fry.

  16. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by bigdavesmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and the conquest of the United States by Mexico.
    If they can get those Cheezy Gordita Crunches down to 99 cents, count me in.
  17. Re:If you didn't vote Democrat YOU ASKED FOR THIS by Nullav · · Score: 1

    ...Am I the only one who thinks this thread reads like the Timecube site?

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  18. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by Ghubi · · Score: 1

    Close, the point of democracy is that people can CHANGE the government when they don't like it. Change means more than just complaining about something.

  19. Misread TFS. by sconeu · · Score: 1

    At first I thought SoundExchange was billing the CongressCritters for [pinky-to-mouth]ONE BILLION DOLLARS[/pinky-to-mouth].

    Then I reread it, and realized Real, Yahoo! and the others were pointing out the consequences of the CRB decision.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  20. I think you spend WAYYYYY too much time on /. by briancnorton · · Score: 1
    I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire

    Perhaps you have lost your perspective from too much time on the net. When all is said and done it's just music were talking about. People go nuts for lesser reasons, sure, but I question if the issues surrounding the RIAA has had anywhere NEAR the exposure it would take to have the statistical nutjob appear. Ask 100 people about the RIAA and 95 will have no idea what you're going on about, while the other 5 think it some kind of STD. The strong moral issues that create nutjobs don't exist with net radio. (unlike abortion, joblesness, etc)

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:I think you spend WAYYYYY too much time on /. by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      Oh, those strong moral issues exist. It's just that those who know and are affected most crazily usually just post here, or are trying to making a living signed to one of the labels creating these problems.
      Now, if SoundExchange continues on its quest for a billion dollars in administrative fees, some of the moral issues will become known. Thousands of people would be annoyed or distressed if Yahoo! Launchcast (all zillion stations--Yahoo! personalizes them for their users) was taken off the air. Many of them will be people with just enough computer savvy to work Yahoo!--but they would be aware, and they would be irate, and they might even know who to blame. Yahoo! would be quick to assure its users that removing Launchcast was against its will.
      Repeat with variations for the other large internet-radio conglomerates.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
  21. Non-profit spending accounts ? by billcopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IANAA (i am not an American), but if SoundExchange is supposed to be a non-profit, doesn't that mean they have to actually spend a significant portion of those funds on whatever issue they're supporting ?

    I know here in Canada, charitable organizations have to spend something like 80% of their income on the cause, with the remaining 20% expected to cover administrative expenses and salaries. I could be wrong on the numbers but it's in the ballpark. There is also a limit on how long an org can sit on their money, so for example they couldn't raise 1 million in a year and siphon off the 20% over five years. If that weren't the case, everyone and their mother would have their own non-profit company as a tax-free retirement account.

    And don't start telling me they're actually paying the artists. They're paying the publishers, the agents, the producers, the "everything up to 11" pop mix "engineer", and of course the lobbyists. Besides, SoundExchange's information is such a market driver that it's in the industry's best interests to have doped and skimmed numbers depending on who they're pushing that particular week.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? by admiralfurburger · · Score: 1

      You've confused "nonprofit" with "charitable organization"

      From the wiki for nonprofit:
      Most experts consider the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders as what fundamentally distinguishes nonprofits from commercial enterprises.

    2. Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? by Intheway · · Score: 1

      The IRS does keep an eye on non-profits who must file informational returns. While they keep the criteria secret, a general rule of thumb is that expenses in excess of 20% of annual revenue raises a red flag to the auditors. There are exceptions; small non-profits can have higher expenses, and at start up, large ones are generally given some time to bring expenses down to an allowable level. In a press interview two years ago, John Simson said that SoundExchange operational expenses were still above 25% of revenue, but because they don't have to show their books to anyone, no one knows if he was telling the truth or not.

      The real point here is that SoundExchange doesn't want the $500 for each channel. They want those webcasters to go away. SoundExchange is probably very happy with being able to absorb money from the "unfound artist" accounts when they need additional operational money (someone has to pay for the top shelf liquor at the Christmas party), so having to spend the extra billion would mean more work for them. If SoundExchange can run off Live365, Pandora, Yahoo and Real, tbeir job gets that much easier, and they don't need the per-channel fees.

    3. Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      This raises the question: If all these "acceptable" webcasters can afford the inflated fees, wouldn't those monies be better spent viciously attacking SoundExchange and its political backers ? If the MAFIAA can play the frivolous lawsuit game, maybe we should play it right back to them.

      If you're in the business of online music distribution, and this extortion organization is threatening your bottom line, it is your duty to protect the livelihood of your business, by suing the enemy.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    4. Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? by Intheway · · Score: 1

      The great thing about this "administrative fee" fiasco is that it really gives no place to stand to the Congressional supporters of the RIAA/SoundExchange. They're stuck with it. Representatives Berman and Coble, both unabashed industry apologists have already "written" to SoundExchange asking them to make accomodations for small commercial and non-commercial webcasters. (I say "written" because it is pretty obvious all they did was sign a letter SoundExchange drafted which was intended to give them political cover from the IREA campaign.) Even those guys have to be wary about trusting SoundExchange again. Either Berman and Coble have to admit they didn't appreciate the full impact of the CRB decision by not addressing the administrative fees (which is pretty silly, given their committee leadership positions), or admit they intentionally didn't mention them, which would be an admission that they're fools. Even better than all that embarrassment, however, is the pure simplicity of the administrative fee issue. There's no way to avoid the result - $1 billion in fees to collect $20 million in revenue. Even some of the potted plants who serve in the House can understand the difference. They don't have to figure out the fraction-of-a-penny pay-per-play rates, they've got a number with all those zeros to focus on. This might be the factor that puts IREA over the top. I can't see someone from SoundExchange actually testifying that they need a billion dollars to run their operation. Someone is sure to ask if the real purpose of the $500 per channel fee is to run off as many large webcasters as possible, and they aren't going to be able to give an honest answer. The committee may not notice, or care, but the public will hear it.

  22. It's sad... by Ghubi · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to America being the land of freedom and opportunity?

    1. Re:It's sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got lost when greed and power came around the corner.

    2. Re:It's sad... by jstomel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What ever happened to America being the land of freedom and opportunity? The last hundred years.
    3. Re:It's sad... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      About 500 years ago white people showed up and it became the land of slavery, genocide and marketing. You have to admit those marketers were good. Know any other countries who had genocide as an official policy who convinced most everyone they were the land of freedom and opportunity?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:It's sad... by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1
      That is, and only ever was, bullshit made up to sell things to people. Which is what America is the land of.

      Captcha: dollar. How appropriate.

    5. Re:It's sad... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That was just a marketing ploy.

    6. Re:It's sad... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      It gave some people the freedom and opportunity to rob others of theirs.

  23. I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone tell me, that how much money is being collected and sent to the artists for this 1 billion dollars administration fee?

    1. Re:I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? by Intheway · · Score: 1

      SoundExchange doesn't have to show anyone their books, but estimates of annual royalty payouts run between $20 and $35 million, depending on what number favors SoundExchange on any given day. In other words, it looks as if SoundExchange needs to spend $35 to deliver $1 in benefits. Ain't monopoly a wonderful thing?

    2. Re:I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? by Intheway · · Score: 1

      And remember that the $20-35 million is split 50/50 between artists and copyright holders (read labels). SoundExchange, however, sets aside a full 40% of the royalty pool for claims by artists they can't find. This is the money they get to keep after three years of not finding artists. The RIAA labels get about 70% of the label share, which works out to something between $7 and $12.5 million split four ways. The A2IM, the indy label RIAA, says it gets the other 30%.

  24. I'm confused. by wfs2mail.com · · Score: 1

    Are they a non-profit organization? Who gets the money? What are their admin costs?

    1. Re:I'm confused. by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      Their admin costs are ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Didn't you read the headline? :)

  25. It's only fair ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    Apparently, the way this works is that each session between a client (that would be me and thee) and a server counts as a "channel".

    If this actually becomes law, I think the proper thing to do is to sue on behalf of the "not for profit" SoundExchange (a.k.a. a front man for the RIAA) all the radio stations, counting each listener as an individual channel.

    Then sue all the record stores, counting each customer as a unique individual channel. At the end of all this, no industry recorded music would be sold, and the recording industry would collapse.

    It's only fair that they get what they asked for.

    1. Re:It's only fair ... by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 1

      Then sue all the record stores, counting each customer as a unique individual channel. At the end of all this, no industry recorded music would be sold, and the recording industry would collapse.

      As mentioned previously - this is ONLY the U.S. of A ;) . The world's recording industry wouldn't collapse, and I'm tempted to say let 'em do it. Cripple themselves. Go on, guys, kill your own industry. I won't cry.

      --
      Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  26. Creative Non-Violent Protest: Don't Effing Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that every company that the CRB says owes them money should simply refuse to pay and force the CRB and Sound Exchange to thereby spend every penny in their coffers litigating against these companies indefinitely. It will not strengthen the resolve of the CRB or SoundExchange to behave in a manner consistent with their decisions, but will force Congress to mediate an action that will be amicable for everyone. Worst case scenario for SoundExchange and CRB: nobody pays them a single penny and they run out of money paying lawyers to sue everyone who eventually files bankruptcy protection to prevent having to pay them. Best hack ever.

    1. Re:Creative Non-Violent Protest: Don't Effing Pay by MooUK · · Score: 1

      One major problem with your plan. The lawyers win.

  27. Re:dollars $ dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gots to try me one of them new fangled automated teller atm machines but they haven't sent my required personal indentification pin number yet.

  28. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Given the choice between total obliteration of our society and the fiscal raping of a few for-profit companies, I think we'll screw Real.

    I guess the collateral damage makes it all worth it? That's a little like killing a guy by blowing up the 747 he's riding in with 350 other people. It's much better to eliminate the laws that protect the cartels that are nearing the end of the road. But then, who's going to kill that golden goose? ...So much money being thrown around and so little benefit...For most of us, it's like seeing it go straight into the incinerator.

    --
    What?
  29. Re:dollars $ dollars by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was walking over to an ATM machine the other day, when I realized that many other people have the same PIN number as me. I thought "they should have a personalized PIN number." Also, my bank still uses those old CRT tubes and they are hard to read, so they really need to upgrade the whole thing. Anyway I went into the bank to sit and talk to a representative about this, and I was reading a DC comic, and the light next to me was flickering. Damn that AC current! I took out my laptop, since I wanted to learn more about CSS style sheets. (Are they under the GPL license btw ?) After about 5 minutes of reading I had a headache - I felt like an ICBM missile had hit my head! Or maybe it was from my LCD display. What I need is a vacation I thought - so I went home and started to pack my SCUBA gear.

  30. Re:dollars $ dollars by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

    You were doing pretty good until the end there. You should've said you were packing your SCUBA apparatus.

    --
    -- 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.
  31. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

    Don't feed the trolls.

  32. To put this in perspective by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    To put the $1 billion in perspective, the net revenue for all music sales in 2006 in the U.S. reported by the RIAA was only $11.5 billion. That's revenue, not profit.

  33. Is this a prime example of a GetRich Quick scam? by MadJo · · Score: 2

    Is this a prime example of a GetRich Quick scam?
    It really looks that way.

  34. Re:dollars $ dollars by coleblak · · Score: 1

    The dollar sign is used to signify US Dollars. So, it's pronounced 'One Billion US Dollars.'

    --
    77 HITS
    Really Long Off Topic Combo
  35. The Admin fee will pay for more lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Admin fee will pay for more lawsuits, SoundExchange will start going after anyone who has music on their website, e.g. all those podcasters out there, mp3 blogs, etc. They'll start suing them as well as spend tons more money lobbying for their own self-interest.

  36. A Racket for sure by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, the revelation of these so called "administrative fees" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that SoundExchange is not in place to benefit the artists. They are attempting to line their pockets as thick as they can now that they have been given the opportunity. They are trying to get paid for song plays for artists that they do not represent and pay no money out to.

    What prevents me from creating my own organization and start billing radio stations and internet sites for song plays, because I represent at least one artist (myself)? And if there is a legal reason for me not to be able to do this, how the heck did these theiving creeps at SE get the gig?

  37. just use internet media outside USA? by Octavio+Paz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As the USA and RIAA, etc continue to crush the USA, isn't the most direct remedy
    for the American media consumer to listen to internet radio from provider outside the USA?

    The US GOV and commercial media can certainly herd the mass, though for the computer literate
    it is possible that they go outside USA while sitting at home in USA?

    Either way, the USA is turning into terrible place with much economic stagnation, not to
    mention that general intellect is simply absent there.

    1. Re:just use internet media outside USA? by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      isn't the most direct remedy for the American media consumer to listen to internet radio from provider outside the USA?

      This isn't practical in an Internet without pervasive global multicast services. Do you think ISPs are really going to let their extraordinarily expensive trans-continental pipes be clogged with Internet radio?

      And don't assume BitTorrent-like schemes solve the problem, as your friends and neighbors participating in a swarm would have the RIAA beating on their door for redistributing Internet Radio without paying license fees. BitTorrent is a clever hack to emulate multicast in the unicast Internet, but it has the undesirable property that participating nodes must store and publicly redistribute data blocks, thereby running afoul of the whole copyright regime.

  38. Re:dollars $ dollars by kakofb · · Score: 1

    No. $ is used for "dollars" no matter which dollars it means.

  39. Re:dollars $ dollars by memojuez · · Score: 1

    USD 1 Billion is used to signify One Billion United States Dollars $1,000,000,000 or $1 Billion is simply one billion dollars and could just as easily be Canadian Dollars as well as US Dollars.

    --
    Signature applied for, Patent Pending
  40. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by WingedEarth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Libertarian Party is asking for conquest by Mexico, but Ron Paul isn't. He's against open borders, and that makes sense. The point of libertarianism is to protect the liberty of the American people. You can't do that by allowing foreign invasion.

  41. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by KKlaus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Whoever modded me offtopic is a retard. The post I replied to was on the subject of libertarianism, was it not? Surely I didn't overstep the bounds of the discussion... but thanks anyway whoever thought they were making slashdot a better place by doing that.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
  42. Re:How dare they. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to pay your $1,000,000,000 licensing fee you cock-smoking tea baggers.

  43. The Fee is Per Channel... by Benedick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The fact that the fee is per channel gets me thinking. At Pandora, I have two defined channels. Those channels introduce me to new music, new artists, perhaps artists not represented by the RIAA. Think about that.

    If Pandora has ten thousand listeners like me, that's twenty thousand stations times $500 per station is ten million dollars. That's probably enough to kill Pandora and any other customizable channel internet radio site. But if the internet radio site only had say five channels, that's only $2,500, easily affordable by a commercial site.

    My conclusion from this little exercise is that the RIAA is out to kill customizable channels. They don't want you to learn about music on your own. They only want you to listen to whatever the latest pop sensation is. They want to eliminate choice and the extra expense of having so many artists. If they can make it so all you ever hear is the generic artist of the moment, that's all you'll know and all you'll buy.

    This is all about control. RIAA wants to make sure they control not just your access to their artists but your ability to discover new artists not under their contracts. Internet radio is a growing force and a growing threat to their ability to pick what music you buy.

    I can only hope that they have overreached; that the huge amount of money involved here makes their motives visible to Congress. And that Congress cares. That sure makes it sound like a lost cause, doesn't it?

  44. Re:dollars $ dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close, but the sign for US dollars is actually the "$" with 2 lines through it. "$" is unspecified dollars (but usually calculable from othe context).

  45. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

    That's the dumbest argument ever. It's pretty easy to stand back and say "my guy would have been better". He has never been in office, so we can't know how good/bad he'll do.

    I can just as easily say "Thank God we didn't vote Libertarian. Things would have been so much worse."

    Meh. I hate politics.

    --
    There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  46. Re:dollars $ dollars by Melfina · · Score: 2, Funny

    That would have been redundant. :p

    --
    :3 rawr.
  47. how about $100K in your freezer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Does this mean Congress-critters are demanding payouts?

    if your name is William Jefferson, it sure does, you betcha'!

  48. Yahoo! would have it easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only need to promise whoever don't side with them will get only negative publicity on their news page during the election year.

  49. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I don't want to waste too much time on this, because it's off topic"

    your words.

  50. EXACTLY by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    yes.

  51. Looks pretty easy... by ArAgost · · Score: 1

    1. Set up royalties collecting company 2. ???? 3. Profit!

  52. Re:dollars $ dollars by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Pet peeve of mine. How do you pronounce "$1 billion"?
     
    With my pinky finger at the corner of my mouth and a pool full of sharks with lasers attached to their heads in the background.

    That's how I pronounce it. Muhahaha.

  53. Re:dollars $ dollars by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Fine. SCUB apparatus.

  54. Re:How dare they. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, given that he doesn't care and speaks perfect english, he's probably a fag-smoking tea-bagger and doesn't care because he's not living in Fortress America.

  55. stop by rodentia · · Score: 1

    Or are you implying that people will stop listening to music?

    I've stopped listening to recorded music entirely, as a matter of principle.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  56. If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The members of the MAFIAA are not a part of the government either. They got their power the same way SoundExchange got theirs, through creating laws which are unconstitutional. Through legislation SoundExchange can now take money from someone who has an Internet Radio Station at gunpoint. Don't believe me? Well try running an internet radio station, refuse to pay SoundExchange,and resist arrest when they come for you. You will see those gun points pointing right at you.
    _____________________________
    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.