Slashdot Mirror
RIAA and Net Radio Broadcasters Reach Agreement
An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA and internet web broadcasters have reached a royalty agreement. Instead of facing massive increases per song played, they will be generally charged 10.5% of their yearly revenue."
What about the radios that don't make any profit?
I am specifically thinking of SOMA FM and WCPE. I know that WCPE is a non-profit, for instance, and they are two of the best radios I know.
Are these exempted or not? Does anyone know?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Perhaps if there were some mention of what broadcast radio stations were paying for their tithe or per-song charges we could make a reasonable comparison. Somehow I doubt that all-talk/mostly-talk broadcast stations are paying 10% of revenues in tribute.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Let's all hope this keeps Pandora on the air.
We've all heard about RIAA tricks to scam the artists out of their fair share. Like taking a percentage of revenues for 'breakage' based on the rates of vinyl records breaking in shipping even though CDs are much more sturdy and MP3 downloads are impervious.
So I suggest the radio stations change their business models to run revenue-free. Like becoming an ancilliary service that does not generate revenue under normal conditions - like you can pay a fee so outrageous for the radio service that no one in their right mind will pay it, or you can get it 'free' as part of membership (paid or advertising-supported, or some other scheme) with some other web-site or service provider. Let the free-radio and the revenue-generating service be subsidiaries of the same parent company and you are all set.
Of course I am writing this without actually reading the details of the contracts - those MAFIAA lawyers are really good at putting together contracts that fuck the other guy in novel and unexpected ways, so anybody trying to fuck them back needs to pay real close attention to the details.
Profit motive is a fascinating thing. It's not in the RIAA's best interest for web radio stations to go offline, because they generate no money from web radio that way. Whatever they charge is going to be the highest possible without alienating their customer base, which is the web broadcasters. It took them long enough to finally admit that their pricing was extraordinary to say the least.
I do find it fascinating that the major labels, via "Independent promotors" actually pay radio stations to broadcast specific songs, whereas they do no such thing for web radio services. I would think that something like the web radio in iTunes would be a perfect target for this.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I read TFA and something is seeming strange to me.
You pay 10.5% of all revenue to the MAFIAA. Does that mean that they're waiving the current royalties? Or is this tax in addition to the old royalty rate?
If this is all they pay does that mean I can:
* Stream RIAA music all I want if I don't make any money?
* Broadcast it DRM free?
* Get from the RIAA their music to play?
Clearly I'm missing something big somewhere, 'cause there's no way the RIAA would allow that chain of events.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Maybe without the RIAA around there could be some legitimate structuring of the music industry. As a programmer, if I had to find all my own clients I'd probably barely get by too.. although there are plenty of one-man bands in this field who get along just fine, it's not for everyone.
How we know is more important than what we know.
For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments.
I believe that Steve Albini may disagree with you.
If you don't know who he is, this essay is extremely interesting.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I'm not so sure. I think it's a matter of the law. We have several laws, most of which are observed and obeyed that go against raw supply and demand. The most basic of which is stealing. By the same logic, we couldn't expect people to pay for a plasma TV when they can steal a perfectly good one for a lot less, but thanks to certain property laws, their enforcement, and the fact that their existence has penetrated into our collective morality, people generally go for the more expensive option.
There are real and very good reasons why we don't let ourselves be ruled by supply and demand, many of which apply here. The difference here is that copyright law is the new kid on the block hasn't had the time nor the education to penetrate public morality.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Actually, that doesn't matter. If the RIAA is not doing anything good, then they will fail. They will get no artists, and no customers. They will fail and it will be no skin off your nose. There's no need for intervention on behalf of the artists, and those who enjoy some of the RIAA's music, as we can and will decide what we want for ourselves.
I really don't think so. How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists can't make decisions for themselves.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I read about this yesterday on Betanews actually and headed to the source (DiMA to take a closer look). There's actually *even better* news in the agreement for non-interactive services: "Outside the scope of the draft regulations, the parties confirmed that non-interactive, audio-only streaming services do not require reproduction or distribution licenses from copyright owners." Hard to believe, I know, but take a look: http://www.digmedia.org/content/release.cfm?id=7243&content=pr
You underestimate lawyers & politicians. The RIAA has been around for a lot longer than the history of net radio, and has their finger in suppressing competing business models since at least the era of the phonograph (see: RIAA preamp and how they colluded with certain label owners to control the recording & record pressing industries).
If anything they're MORE successful these days. Between the constant erosion of fair use (the MPAA has a hand in this too), the extension of copyright limits (with the MPAA again), the debtor's prison approach to instilling fear in their audience and their magical ability to be nominated as sole arbiter of all internet radio related profits I think they're quite capable of inserting themselves into the music business regardless of whether that is seen as 'doing anything good'.
And if you're curious how it could be easier in the "choice of being with a big label" then you're obviously not familiar with who has been behind the majority of the big labels for much of the music industry. The lawyers aren't the only side of the coercion and profiteering in the music industry...
The product isn't the music, it's the media the music is stored on. CDs going away? I doubt it, until a replacement media comes along, but music can be used to sell other merchandice; phones, memory sticks, even soda pop (which they're already doing).
Advertising needs music. TV shows need music. Movies need music. Jukeboxes in bars aren't going away any time soon. There are a lot of ways to monetize music without selling it directly.
Free Martian Whores!
What makes musicians so special and whiney? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are really really good at, you can get paid to do.
What makes musicians so special and whiny? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are a really really good entertainer , you can get paid to do.
Fixed that for you.
And just to play devil's advocate what potentially high paying profession doesn't have a high cost of entry? Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer, et al all pay a high premium for their education and arguably work harder and are more disciplined than the majority of musicians. The bulk of musicians are musicians because they wanted fame, fortune, women, etc. without having to work for it. I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
>>>Listen to music produced today and compare it to what was around up to 15 years ago.
So 1993 or earlier. The tops hits at that time were New Kids, Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, C+C Music Factory, Snap, Black Box, Boyz-II-Men, Will Smith, Salt-N-Pepa, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and so on. It was the middle of the dance music craze where almost all songs were composed around a simplistic beat box, with an occasional love ballad "to break-up the monotony of that hardcore dance that has gotten a little bit out of control".
Are you really sure your statement, that these artists were "better quality" than what's on the radio today, is accurate?
I honestly don't see much difference in talent.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
There are milions of excellent bands trying to make it out there. Most can't get airtime because the RIAA also have control over radio stations and their playlists, so will only allow their own manufactured poptastic crap to get any airtime.
If I was an internet radio station I'd tell the RIAA to go screw themselves and that _they_ should be paying _me_ for airing (read: advertising) their music. I would only play music from independent bands and musicians who haven't signed up with RIAA-linked labels so the RIAA have no legal recourse to do anything.
The bands themselves would probably more than welcome the opportunity to get some free airtime/plugs for their music and maybe sell a few CDs or downloads through the site.
I wonder if this applies to things like college radio stations. Back in school our radio station (long banned by the FCC) operated an internet stream. The radio station itself garnered no revenue (and was of dubious legality), and thus wouldn't be subject to the 10.5% fee; but I wouldn't put it past the RIAA to argue that some portion of our tuition acted as the station's "revenue"
The fact that you keep posting this comment seems to imply that you think that non-interactive streams will be free.
You're correct that there's no reproduction licenses or distribution licenses for non-interactive streaming.
But that leaves the $0.0019 per user/per song royalty (with a $500 minimum per year per station)
Specifically, here's the rates broken down by year:
a per play rate of $.0008 for 2006, a per play rate of $.0011 for 2007, a per play rate of $.0014 for 2008, a per play rate of $.0018 for 2009, and a per play rate of $.0019 for 2010
From: http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/final-rates-terms2005-1.pdf
I'm interested in seeing how Severed Fifth does. Jono Bacon (yes, from LugRadio) did everything for it, so it will be interesting, to say the least.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I couldn't agree more. I also listen mostly to music from the 70s and 80s. When I listen to more modern stuff, it's often the good bands from that period who continued to perform.
Certainly good music is being produced today. But not being a real music buff, it's not worth my time or money to search for it. I'll listen to music from a time where other people have put in all that time or money, and wait for them to do the same to today's stuff.
Most of the great performers of yesteryear made their bread and butter off of concerts anyway, and the financial incentive for those isn't going anywhere. Record sales basically just gave them enough money to get hooked on drugs, fly to their concerts in private aircraft, and think that they were better than they really were. We'd probably be better off without all that if you ask me.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
The music industry would prefer to be in control these days. Allow me to explain a bit.
Back In The Day(tm), you had bands with enormous talent. Let's pick Led Zeppelin as an example. Please - no flames or debate on my choice of band. I've picked them for a reason, so bear with me.
They were pretty revolutionary. Fantastically talented and ahead of their time. It's been almost thirty years and you can still hear them on the radio.
And the stories on how they behaved were equally legendary. They'd blow into town, rent entire floors of hotels and absolutely trash them. Their post-gig parties were the stuff of legend. Once the dust had settled they'd simply pass it off to their label. "Deal with it." And if anyone complained it was "Fuck you - we're Led Zeppelin. You can't replace us, and you know it."
So they flaunted that. Most bands of the era did, but they were famous. Their partying habits were closer to acts of nature. I'm sure at the time you if you were a hotel owner you could buy Led Zeppelin insurance. At a premium.
So understandably, the labels got sick of this. That's why music is the way it is today.
Look at what's popular. Rap and bands like the one you mentioned. And what do they have in common? More style than talent. Why? Talent is rare. Style can be manufactured. Music stopped becoming something special that only a gifted few could do well, and became a product. Something you could buy in a shrink wrapped box. And replaced just as easily.
Bands today could not get away with Led Zeppelin-esque excess. Let All Saints try that crap with their label, just once. "Fuck you, we're All Saints. Just try and replace us." Every single person in the band will be working in a 7-11 the next Monday, with a bill for the damages.
This is beneficial to the labels, of course. But the problem is that the special spark that makes truly great music is systematically removed from the system in an attempt to make everything easily replaceable. Nobody stands out anymore. They can't, by definition. Anyone irreplaceable is too much potential trouble. They want mediocrity. Polish it up a little bit so it sells, and receive maximum benefit with minimum hassle.
The downside is that you will never hear truly great and innovative music ever again. At least from the big labels, anyways. It would be like being able to buy a really excellent coq au vin at McDonalds. The business model of bulk production and speedy turnaround simply forbids it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
And for broadcast over the air radio, the model is still twisted the other way and the labels bribe the radio station one way or another to play their songs.
Many people have been popularized through the internet. The cost of this is 0 for marketing/advertising i'd say about 100$ for producing to get good computer recording gear (Increase after a few hundred thousand sales to rent a recording studio for songs). Overhead costs being a website for lets say 20$ a month (start costs will expand with viewers aka customers). If you charge .10 a song and sell a 'cd' to 6M people every month ala nickleback everyone in the band gets 1million per cd made. Though I think more cds could sell seeing how its going for 1/10th the regular price. Then with advertising deals and concerts they can probably make that again. So a band without dealing with record companies could actually end up making more than alot of signed bands. Because of the ease of entry into the market (under 100$ for a band is like a night out). And because they will be charging so much less per song it is more likely customers will buy all their songs rather than picking and choosing cds. The only groups I wouldnt suggest this for are ones targeting people that arent internet users, best of 50's dance or w/e.
Of the money that the manufacturer does collect, most of it goes to employees, suppliers, and contractors -- not the fat cats.
Who are all these essential people you are referring to?
I've heard the very same reaction from every person I have ever met that walked into a major record label: "What are all these people DOING?"
If you're making $100k per year for essentially nothing, you're a fat cat.