Slashdot Mirror
RIAA loses court battle over royalties
Jeff Hyche wrote in to point us the latest RIAA
shenanigan. The record industry organization had been attempting to garner a larger amount of royalties from digital distribution - IE Internet, satellites and cable modems.
DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM:
-
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
-----------------------------------------------
BMG Entertainment
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
EMI Records
1290 Avenue of the Americas
39th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
550 Madison Ave, Sixth Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 833-6105
Universal Music Group
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
(818) 777-8409
Warner Music Group
4000 Warner Blvd
Burbank, CA 91522
(818) 977-7900 / fax: (818) 977-3135
Rhino Records
10635 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90025-8300
(310) 474-4778
fax: (310) 441-6580
Tommy Boy Records
902 Broadway 13th Floor
New York, NY 10010
(212) 388-8300 / fax: (212) 388-8400
La Face Records
One Capital City Plaza, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
H.O.L.A. Recordings, Inc.
235 Park Avenue South 10 th Floor
New York City, NY 10003
(212) 777-5678
Maybe the reason is because a lot of these companies and organizations [opinion,opinion] haven't earned their "tons o' money" in a fair and equatible manner.
Profit *earned* shouldn't be in dispute.
Profit garnered thru dubious means should be questioned.
It's a little difficult to hire an orchestra to play for you at work. It also tends to annoy your workmates.
There certainly isn't space in the back seat of my car for a rock band.
My bank would get upset with me *very* quickly if I tried to attend a concert every evening.
Yes, live music is great, but a purist attitude like that is unrealistic and pointless.
You ought to like the mp3 revolution, though - it can only *help* small-time musicians playing unusual, non-mainstream music.
-Mars
RIAA is one of those entities that is created out of nothingness to fill a perceived void, but once instantiated fights to the bitter end to preserve its lifeless hulk. Witness stock brokers and internet trading. A few steps behind are record labels and internet media (MP3 et al). A few steps further behind are realty conglomerates and online auctions. All of the former entities came into being when we as a society or community needed a buffering entity to make it easier to deal with a specific type of service, media generation, or purchase.
The difference is how the entity reacts to its changing environment. I get my stock updates from an automated web-based system, and execute trades online. My realtor (I bought another house last year) sent me digital images of houses she thought I'd like via email, and her brokerage ditched the controlling operational rules and allows its clients to browse MLS listings directly. But RIAA? RIAA has dug in its heels so hard against the changing technological environment that it has virtually guaranteed its own demise.
RIAA wants to stop the unencumbered flow of digital media by killing MP3? They might as well try to quell a revolution by driving firearms manufacturers out of business. People will fight against ethically corrupt entities even if it means taking a pitchfork against a tank. RIAA keeps fighting these little battles because it doesn't realize that it has already lost the war. And even this argument gets a little tiring, because there's no need for anyone to ever buy into RIAA's fossilized rules again. It's an entity that has only as much power as we voluntarily give it.
Listen to what you want, pay artists as directly as you can, support organizations that treat their artists well, and *poof* RIAA diappears into the grave it has already dug for itself.
I think not...(*poof*)
I guess I should point out that you listed the firms that represent over 80% of the music sales in the US. Something that you, and many others, do not understand is that the RIAA is a separate entity from its component parts. Many members do not agree with the actions that the RIAA has taken and are generally unhappy with it. To 'boycott' their music would not accomplish anything. Instead, why not take some time to write a thoughtful letter to them and/or to the RIAA giving your thoughts in a calm and rational manner. That, IMHO, would be the best way for people to make a change in the system. (Mind you, I'm practicing what I'm preaching: I'm flying down to LA on Monday to talk with Warner.)
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
Oops, I was mistaken. I foolishly read the RIAA PR before reading the court decision. The RIAA is acting as the agent of recording companies and copyright holders here. They collect and distribute this new kind of performance royalty, even for non-members.
RIAA originally asked for 41.5%.
Prior to the 1995 Act, the copyright holders (composer, lyricist, publisher) were already entitled to royalties for the use of music. What the 1995 Act does is to give the recording companies a cut too, for a specialized sort of performance right.
IANAL, but from reading the court's decision, it does not seem to me that this royalty structure applies to all audio music transmitted via satellite or cable. The ruling seems to directly affect only commercial subscription services. Nothing says that this is completely irrelevant to other transmission of music, though, since the decision itself refers to an earlier ruling on jukeboxes.
Who in thier right mind thinks this way? The only other people that I see thinking in that sort of convoluted logic is Microsoft. Theyve convinced themselves that they DESERVE 40% of profit of music... just because they always have. Thats rediculous. The landscape is changing and they arent in the picture in the same way anymore.
Sigh, the RIAA keep trying to make me hate them more, it's going to get to the point where I can't dispise their existance any longer. They do not give a rats ass about the music's creators or performers, they want these royalties to buy themselves a new yacht. The RIAA is run by the heads of it's member companies, they are the rich of the rich. If I thought maybe they cared about the artists on their labels this wouldn't be such a horrible thing to do, but they don't care. These record companies are just a logo and some accountants, they own the key steps that an artist needs to release a CD. They feel threatened by MP3 because it allows anyone with a few bucks to build a decent recording studio. It's all about money. The record companies want more of it and damn everyone else.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Before this law passed, the RIAA couldn't get any of this money. Now they think they deserve 6.5x what the 1995 law so generously gave them? What will they be satisfied with? Do they wish to become the only organization that can sell music to the public? Do they wish for a large share of every company that deals with music?
The RIAA is trying to become a horizontally and vertically integrated company that's the only game in town. They can't do this in the marketplace, so they're trying to do it in the courts. They can't do it with present law, so they're trying to legislate and get rulings on future law. Law which helps no one but themselves, and harms many.
I feel that the RIAA should be shut down. They make so much money off the artis and the artist.. Well lets see he has a sore butt.
I will not let myself join RIAA due their "stupidity". As I have mentioned before, I own my own record label and the label goes against the RIAA's beliefs. Our artists are the one's making the money, becuase we charge for the materials needed (which comes out our pocket) + $1 additional which is sent to the artist. So if we round out the prices of tapes and paper w/ print, we may score $.02 from each tape..... Not much at all, when the artist is paid $1 per tape. They are the ones that do all the work in all actuallality.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I believe his main point is not that they make alot money, but the amount of money they make off thier artist in comparison to the amount the artist themselves make money. The average artist makes less than 5% of thier record sales this is outragious and a complete abuse of thier power over the artist.
Here is the Text of the opinion of the Court
for those of you who are interested.. havn't finished reading it yet.. will give my opinion then
down with M$ dammit ;)
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
I feel that the RIAA should be shut down. They make so much money off the artis and the artist.. Well lets see he has a sore butt.
This seems to be a common train of thought with Slashdot readers, and it's one I take issue with.
Let's stop focussing on how much money anyone makes, Bill Gates, the RIAA, or whomever. It's just NOT relevant to anything. I would love for EVERYONE to make a ton of money at what they do.
I think the REAL issue we have is that the RIAA continually tries to impede on other people's rights, just like the REAL complaint we have with Microsoft/Bill Gates is the quality of the product, and industry domination that Microsoft imposes.
Linux advocates definitely have an anti-profit reputation. Let's keep our agenda's striaght and stop fixating on what other people make. It just shows jealousy, not a desire to make things better.
My $.03
http://www.bullnet.com