Webcasting Non-RIAA Music In Protest May Only Make The RIAA Wealthier
from the and-the-RIAA-may-keep-the-money dept
Following the latest webcasting rates that will likely put many webcasters out of business, one suggestion was that webcasters should simply play non-RIAA music. In theory this would help in multiple ways -- giving those independent musicians more publicity while avoiding the draconian webcasting rates. In practice... however, that won't work. Slashdot points us to an article dissecting the fine print, where you'll discover that SoundExchange, which is the RIAA's collection body, actually gets to collect money for non-RIAA members as well. In other words, even for independent artists who don't want webcasters to have to pay, webcasters will still need to pay up.The story actually gets even worse. As we noted a few years ago, part of the deal is that SoundExchange and the RIAA get to keep any unclaimed money for themselves. Even better, SoundExchange can simply pretend not to be able to find the musicians (as they've done with a ton of big name musicians in the past). So, chances are, many independent artists have no idea that SoundExchange is hanging onto a bunch of money they didn't even want collected and there's almost no chance they'll claim it -- meaning that if you try to avoid the webcasting rates by playing non-RIAA music, there's a good chance you're actually enriching the RIAA even more.
Just for fun, why don't we compare two situations? The RIAA tells people that simply listening to music without paying for it is a terrible crime that people should be punished for. Yet... the RIAA getting money for non-RIAA music and not paying the deserving artists that money is perfectly legal? Damn, the RIAA lobbyists are good.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Others
It's not their technology. They have no technology. They're just a collection agency -- and the point is that they can collect no matter what you play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal "oops!"
A) the owner of intellectual property rights gets to determine the cost of usage of those rights, and to negotiate those rates with whomever they see fit
or...
B) owners of intellectual property rights DO NOT get to determine the cost of usage of those rights, and DO NOT get to negotiate those rates with homever they see fit.
You see the problem? The RIAA would answer "A for anything *we* own and B for anything *you* own", which is not a legally firm position. They cannot claim that they can set royalty fees as they see fit, with whomever they see fit and also claim that indie artists cannot do the same. Remember, this is about intellectual property rights, who owns them, and what the owner can and cannot do with them. None of this has been challenged in court. I would love to see it done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal "oops!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal "oops!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indie Webcasters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Indie Webcasters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why hasn't anyone done anything about it?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why hasn't anyone done anything about it?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why hasn't anyone done anything about it?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SoundExchange
No, I don't want a sarcastic, or snarky reply about politics or the RIAA. An actual explanation would be nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel dirty just knowing this goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of music?
Or the otherway round. What if I sound like I'm rapping around? Will they still squeeze me? (hey this sh*t is easy!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of music?
http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-terms2005-1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition of music?
"The NRBNMLC further proposes that for news, talk, business, teaching/talk, or sports stations the aforementioned annual fee alternatives drop to $100 and $250 respectively. Mixed format stations would pay a pro rata share of these annual fees based on the demonstrated music-talk programming breakdown."
(p26)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ooooh I gotcha
If said artists wants a piece of that royalty pie, the artist must join and therefore pay a fee to Sound Exchange.
In short, internet radio has been hijacked. It is a horrible precedent as no doubt other media will follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they are ********
1 you have to pay if you are not even playing music
2 if you write and play all instruments and sing the track yourself then stream you have to pay and if lucky get a small percent of your money back.
3 at the moment if you are outside the US then it dont concern you but for how long as the IRAA put pressure on other countries to do the same. As I own a talk station I have no intention of paying for music we do not even play. At the moment not in US but how long before this is forced on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha, this is a May Fool's Joke, Right?
What I really want to know is how the have the *legal right* to do this... I need to do some research. What happens if I'm webcasting some music I, and only I, made and then refuse to pay them? Do I get sued, and for what? Do I go to jail?
This has to be a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haha, this is a May Fool's Joke, Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Band Together!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Band Together!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daily show material...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just give it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just internet radio?
(...or do they?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just internet radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You oughta know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's more than a little strange, that SoundExchange is in a position to collect money on other people's copyrights, with little to no obligation to pay the actual owners, and no way to opt out. Good job industry lobbyists, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad to see that Congress has stepped up as a result of the SaveNetRadio.org campaign. However, the real solution isn't a delay, postponing rate increases until 2010, nor is it keeping a revenue share model rather than per song per listener per stream fee. The solution is a serious rewrite of what a copyright is, what a performance right is, how each affect musicians and artists etc. Take lobbyists organizations out of the loop.
Kurt Hanson has a good explanation here:
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/031607/index.shtml. He explains a great deal and has some more appropriate solutions than just delaying the changes of the CRB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sharing copyrighted music.
I wrote my congressman twice on this issue, and only got automated responses. I didn't reallize that it was going to be voted on so soon, or I would have written a few more times.
Arg
nick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pack your bags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RICO perhaps?
So, let's try this tactic: don't call it music. Let's make up some words, like the Scientologists do, and we can webcast xyzzy's and we can enjoy the result as mxplxyt.
Or, we can just start building webcast farms in the Caribbean, where the weather is better anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RICO perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Alternatives
There are 2 alternatives that leave SoundExchange and the RIAA penniless:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The skinny...
As a webcaster, if you want to play RIAA-backed music you have to sign a license with SoundExchange, and once you've signed that agreement you fall under this provision.
If you have not signed an agreement with SoundExchange, you're in the clear so long as you don't play any RIAA-backed music.
Got it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The skinny...
Got it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the benefits of owning music really worth all this?
I can just listen to the radio, and really not have to worry about it.
To me, it's just not. I don't bother downloading it, as I don't see fit to swipe it all. But buying it? CD's are too pricey and digital media is mostly too costly, especially when you take into consideration all the DRM issues.
Frankly, I'm tired of even thinking about it all. The RIAA and these artists can keep the music to themselves. If the radio's left just playing old hits from the 50's, 60's, 70', 80's, etc... that's ok.
It says a lot when songs from the 80's make it back onto the charts again, anyway.
I personally think they all can stick their BS where the sun don't shine...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't do what they say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't do what they say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late to band together...?
"We" just need to get organized...
1) band together, on a site like for example (I quickly googled it, I don't know if this is the best one) http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
2) more importantly, TAKE action...we all (including me) like to bitch and complain about what the RIAA is doing, but that's pretty much all most of us do...
How about we start actually doing something, like educating the general public...go to stores that sell CDs, counter the FUD, hand out pamphlets, explaining some of the crap the RIAA gets up to (like fixing legislation so they can collect money for any artist, even ones that aren't members, keeping money for arists they "can't find",...), have people sign a petition, etc...
You'd be amazed how fast things can change when the "public opinion" is involved...after all, doesn't matter how much money corporate america gives politicians, it doesn't help them if they don't get elected
I would have no problem spending whatever time necessary, and even a little $ to draw a line in the sand and say, you've gone way too far, this is ridiculous and we won't stand for it...fix it or else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too late to band together...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mascot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mascot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds familiar...
I'm in Iowa (one of the fly-over states), and this year our legislature considered a bill which would have forced a company's non-union employees to pay what amounted to a subset of union dues for "services rendered". The bill was modified--this session at least--to only impact government workers, and was passed and signed into law.
Very similar to what's going on with RIAA/SoundExchange. Not a member? Pay up anyway. Don't want people charged for your music? Too bad...pay up anyway.
All about wealth transfer via unions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what if I don't webcast but set up downloads i
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And what if I don't webcast but set up downloa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another RIAA.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (i.e. no copyright)
or
A performance for which the service has obtained a license from the copyright owner. (i.e. you own the copyright, or have permission from the owner to play it)
or
Incidental use, like transitions, etc.. Like short snippets of recordings.
So SoundExchange can NOT (legally) collect for public domain music, your own music, presumably certain Creative Commons licenses of music, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So do you mean that the RIAA and SoundExchange are publishing false statements about the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: definition of performance
http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-terms2005-1.pdf
The definition of a performance, referenced in comment above, is on page 104.
It seems clear from the definition that if you have a license agreement with the owner of the copyright, then the use of that work is not covered by the rates set by Royalty Judges.
However, if you do not have an agreement with the owner of the copyright, or possibly even if you do but can not prove it, then it appears that SoundExchange can collect payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 - The number string that is causing censorship in blogs (HD-DVD key for Linux use)
Fight the DRM with information, I just thought that this would be most relevant to this story being you can download hd content to your pc, but only legally buy buying it, not if you already own it and want to transfer it to another medium
This is the website contact address that sent the cease and desist take down notices to Google..... Have fun with it (DOS-it? :P)
webmaster@proskauer.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This thread is getting more annoying as I head dow
Here we go again: Who and/or what gives Sound Exchange their 'right' to collect funds from a webcaster that uses no RIAA-related content? The FCC? The SEC? The FDA?
Please somebody point me to an article that helps me understand why there would be any involvement at all if, say, a bunch of high school students wrote and recorded their own original music, and I contracted independently with them to give their songs 'airtime' -- how and/or why is Sound Exchange a factor?
*Making fun of me for being so ignorant is not the same as answering my question. Pretending that you are a 'victim' and acting all hurt that I insulted your godlike omniscience about the webcasting world does not make me cower any lower in insignificance.
I've got nowhere to go but up, baby...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This thread is getting more annoying as I head
Here we go again: Who and/or what gives Sound Exchange their 'right' to collect funds from a webcaster that uses no RIAA-related content? The FCC? The SEC? The FDA?
It's the Copyright Royalty Board: http://www.loc.gov/crb/ which is part of the Library of Congress. All the background info can be found at that site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
If someone were to create a site and have indie artists who are willing to have their music used for free played, this law wouldn't or shouldn't hold up in court. I say it's unconstitutional, or whatever you call it cuz it's overlapping with other laws. The RIAA is not the government, it's an organization. The RIAA is NOT above the law. Someone should really try this in the U.S., it'd hold up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So this is default unless you opt out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold your horses...
And interprets it to mean that the radio station must enter into SoundExchange's license and pay them to play music, even public domain music, CC music, etc.
That interpretation is wrong (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license). Compulsory in this sense is actually a compulsion on the copyright holders, not the radio station. The copyright owner of the song must license his song to be performed by the radio station for the legally defined price. This is the same kind of license that has been in existence for years so that restaurants, over the air radio stations, etc. can play whatever music they want. Those who play music for which they already have (or don't need) a license don't owe SoundExchange a thing. This is a well established practice.
This whole article is a big to-do about nothing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound Exchange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound Exchange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound Exchange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sound Exchange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: damned if you do, damned if you don't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]