Daily Kos

Is the RIAA Pulling a Scam on the Music Industry?

Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

The Internet radio game is rigged and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has rigged it in their favor.

There has been an understandable public outcry against the RIAA’s attempts to more than triple the sound recording copyright royalties on Internet radio. (See Save Internet Radio from Corporate Money Grab) One solution proposed by Webcasters is to just not play RIAA-member songs under the assumption that then they don’t have to pay the royalty to the RIAA’s collection body, SoundExchange; Webcasters would then just pay the independent artist the royalty.

This sounds just and fair because it is. However, the RIAA is not about being just and fair. The game is rigged and the RIAA has rigged it in their favor. The strategy of playing only non-RIAA songs won't work though because the RIAA has secured the right to collect royalties on all songs regardless of who controls the copyright. RIAA operates under the assumption that they will collect the royalties for the "sound recording copyright" and that the artists who own their own copyright will go to SoundExchange to collect at a later date.

Look at the information on SoundExchange.com (RIAA created SoundExchange) and see how it works. The RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers all recorded music.

"The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

"SRCOs (sound recording copyright owners) are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music...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."
(http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a4)

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. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

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 (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b6). But, and this is a big "but," you only get royalties if you own the sound recording copyright. If you are signed to a major label, chances are you don’t. Even if you do own the copyright to your own recording of your own song, SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you don’t want them to do so.

Go to the SoundExchange site: http://plays.soundexchange.com/... and take a look at the hundreds of indie labels for whom SoundExchange claims they have collected royalties. Enter some of those label names on http://www.riaaradar.com/... and notice how few are actually members of the RIAA. Contact the label and ask if they are a member of RIAA and they almost certainly aren’t and may not even be aware that SoundExchange is collecting royalty fees on their music.

And what exactly is SoundExchange doing with the money they have collected for those hundreds of labels that must have thousands of songs???

Contact your Congressional Representatives

Tags: music, internet radio, copyright, media, corporate (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 34 comments

  •  The RIAA is evil and the DNC should not work with (4+ / 0-)

    it

    Is this still true?

    Kos: DNC hires RIAA shill

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Wow! I had no idea. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion, vivycakes, dennisl

    I've heard about the drive to Boycott RIAA and what they have done to music sharing is criminal, but this is all news to me. Thank you, DJ.

  •  how can (7+ / 0-)

    how can they charge for something they don't own?

    Who died and made them masters of the universe?

    Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

    by pissedpatriot on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:25:20 AM PDT

  •  someone with some authority (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion, mphilosophers, pwrmac5

    needs to look at their books, how much money have they returned to the artists they supposedly represent?

    Rod Torkelson's Armada Featuring Herman Menderchuk

    by howardx on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:29:59 AM PDT

  •  I have never been happier... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion, mphilosophers, howardx

    ...to be in a non-signed, nobody band from nowhere!

  •  In a word (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    keirdubois

    "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

    by theRoaringGirl on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:39:12 AM PDT

    •  Future of Music Coalition (0+ / 0-)

      I wrote to them a few days ago and received an e-mail from a Jenny Toomey that was disappointing. FoMC is taking the position that the RIAA is justified in their royalty hike and that individual Webcasters, if they don't like the royalty hike, should try to negotiate with the RIAA. I find that very unrealistic.

      Embrace your inner Obama - vote hope and honesty not the politics of cynicism and division.

      by DJ ProFusion on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:30:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jenny Toomey Has Washington D.C. Disease (1+ / 0-)

        I tried to work with her early on.  She struck me as out of touch and a little bit daft.  Negotiate with the RIAA?  How's this for a negotiation: get your fucking hands off my music, my culture and and my artform you sleazy Hollywood whores?

        "When you're a worker it rains stones seven days a week." - Jimmy in Ken Loach's 'Raining Stones'

        by Near Vanna on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I would like to remind you all (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion

    Music is an artform not a business...

  •  Constitutional? Paging Adam B... (0+ / 0-)

    OK...

    I am an amature songwriter.  Let's say I decide to do an internet radio station, KOJAK-Radio, all JGKojak songs, all the time (now... I realize there would be zero listeners... that's not the point)... and I put up the dozens of ORIGINAL compotions I have written and recorded as a RADIO station.  Maybe a couple of my musician friends, all of us terribly amature and having no chance of ever being signed to a label, put their songs on there as well.  

    Are you saying that if I don't pay the RIAA the royalty rate to broadcast MY OWN SONGS that is illegal?  So I have to pay a fee to, say, air my views on Bush?  

    How can this be Constitutional?

    That would be like requiring me to pay a fee to Kinkos (beyond the paper its written on) to publish and copy an orginal work.  

    Again, how is this legal?

    Also... I'm not a lawyer... but ... since when am I, as the copyright holder, compelled to sell my music to ANYONE?  Doesn't this violate every major property rights law in existence?

    You know what someone should do... record some of the most hellishly amaturish (hey I qualify) B.S. and broadcast it just to see if they'll make you pay a copyright on it.  Ohhhhhh so tempting.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:01:14 PM PDT

  •  Have you all looked at their forms (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion

    Its worse than doing your taxes.

    IT APPEARS THAT THEY HAVE MADE IT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE AN INTERNET RADIO STATION WITHOUT BEING ESSENTIALLY REGISTERED WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:09:07 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      The RIAA is trying to make it nearly impossible to be an indpendent musician or an independent Internet radio station. They want to control everything and of course take a cut of the profits off of everyone else's work.

      Embrace your inner Obama - vote hope and honesty not the politics of cynicism and division.

      by DJ ProFusion on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IANAL, but (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DJ ProFusion

    I don't see how this could possibly stand up in court if an independent artist wished to challenge it. A copyright owner gets to control the use of their material, that's the whole point. It appears to be a compulsory contract, which is a contradiction.

    •  Love to see it (0+ / 0-)

      I'd love to see a court challenge, but I am sure the big corporate lawyers got the Republicans to write the laws to withstand such a challenge. The law acknowledges that the copyright owner gets to control use of the material but gives SoundExchange and NOT the artist the control over royalties.

      Embrace your inner Obama - vote hope and honesty not the politics of cynicism and division.

      by DJ ProFusion on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Keep the Music, Hollywood Keeps the Money (0+ / 0-)

        It's all they were ever interested in anyway.  They'd sell bags of flaming shit if people would buy.

        "When you're a worker it rains stones seven days a week." - Jimmy in Ken Loach's 'Raining Stones'

        by Near Vanna on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:43:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You *Can* Opt Out (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    epcraig

    You can license direct to companies, but you cannot designate another collective to collect on your behalf. However, this doesn't present a problem if you simply allow websites to broadcast your works without royalties, but they claim that you have to inform them of your recording and the fact that they should not be collecting royalties for it.

    http://soundexchange.com/...

    If I join SoundExchange can I still negotiate a license with a webcaster if I want to?
    Yes. Although membership in SoundExchange prohibits you from licensing your sound recording copyrights to another royalty collective for purposes of collecting and distributing Sections 112 and 114 statutory royalties on your behalf, your membership in SoundExchange does not in any way limit your ability to enter into direct (i.e., nonstatutory) licenses of any sound recordings that you own, whether with webcasters or other potential statutory licensees. SoundExchange simply requires that SRCOs notify it of any direct licenses entered into with statutory licensees or digital music service providers so that it can ensure that payments received from services that hold direct licenses to certain recordings are calculated correctly and allocated properly.

    •  They Need This Information From You (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      epcraig

      So they have a name and address for the RIAA to hit you with a bogus file-sharing suit.  See how it works?

      "When you're a worker it rains stones seven days a week." - Jimmy in Ken Loach's 'Raining Stones'

      by Near Vanna on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:41:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are forgetting something (0+ / 0-)

      ...actually several things. One, note the sentence in your quote (directed toward artists, not Webcasters): "SoundExchange simply requires that SRCOs notify it of any direct licenses entered into with statutory licensees ". So, you still have to file with SoundExchange to form your own agreement with Webcasters. You have to file a new document every time you form an agreement with each and every Webcaster and file continuous re-permission to opt-out of the compulsory license. It is NOT a simple process. Second, an artists must sign away their rights to royalties if they form such separate agreements. If an artist wants royalties they MUST go through SoundExchange (I linked to that in the article). Third, and more important, Webcasters entering into separate agreements does NOT stop the requirement to pay the Webcaster compulsory license with SoudnExchange. Webcasters are still required to pay royalties to SoundExchange even if you have agreements with individual artists.

      Embrace your inner Obama - vote hope and honesty not the politics of cynicism and division.

      by DJ ProFusion on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:53:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cool! The published it... (0+ / 0-)

    I e-mailed Mike Magee at the Inq about this and they did a little story linking to this site.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/...

    Well, time travelers had best not kill me off now, I'm influential in human history.

    Just put the ray guns down fellas, you don't wanna do that..... aaaak!

    Uh, oh. It's a class war and I'm unarmed!

    by Sharkmeister on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:39:21 PM PDT

Permalink | 34 comments