Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax On To Consumers
from the but-of-course dept
Not quite sure how I missed this earlier (update: oops, turns out we didn't miss it -- so consider this an encore presentation), but Bret alerts us to the news that with the ever increasing royalty rates pushed by the RIAA in the form of its "spin-off" Sound Exchange, and codified by the Copyright Royalty Board (for whom I still do not understand how anyone can justify its existence), that Sirius XM has simply added a $2 RIAA tax to everyone's monthly bills to help pay for the new performance royalties. Yup, because the RIAA and its members haven't been able to come up with a business model that works, they get the courts to tax you for listening to your satellite radio (on top of what you already pay and what they already pay to songwriters and publishers) and that gets passed on to you. Just imagine what will happen if the RIAA gets its wish and gets to add a similar tax to terrestrial radio stations as well. If you thought radio was chock full of commercials before...
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
Filed Under: performance royalties, radio, satellite radio, tax
Companies: riaa, sirius xm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Im a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
So nice move SERIUSXM guys, I am a slightly less happy customer from whom you will now recieve less money . . . if that was your plan, well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Im a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
The 'Music Royalty Fee' is simply a business expense Sirius incurs as a part of its business. Adding this as some separate 'fee' rather than including it a part of the overall rate plan is misleading consumers. It is the same thing adding an 'Audit Fee' to cover the business cost of an outside audit of a business' financial statements. It is a business expense like any other and the cost should be included in the base plan rate (or eaten by Sirus).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
I promise you are going to be paying that fee, all users will be paying that fee when they get their next bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why does Judge Wisniewski, allegedly a PhD. in Economics, support an arbitrary award system based on abstractly (and outrageously) valuated copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And why does Judge Wisniewski, allegedly a PhD. in Economics, support an arbitrary award system based on abstractly (and outrageously) valuated copyrights?"
Well, probably because His Honor was supported by an arbitrary award payment based on abstractly (and outrageously) overvalued copyright collections received by his industry benefactors.
"the Copyright Royalty Board (for whom I still do not understand how anyone can justify its existence)"
Uh, because they must exist to support the (con)artists. And the musicians. Oh, and puppies...they like puppies. And long walks on the beach. Let's see, what else...Oh! The Jews! Their using the money to save the Jews from the Nazis. And they're fighting terrorism. Oh oh oh, they're also feeding the homeless. And the pandas. And their (cough cough) coke addictions (cough mumble grumble) ahem, and the CHILDREN!!! Won't somebody think of those damn children, with their big doughy eyes and little midget hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
....Naaaahhhhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
You lose the internets. Thanks for playing.
Stop shouting for a second a think this through - if this is in fact old news, any impact the news was going to have on the stock price would have already happened - the current stock price would already have this news factored in. Therefore, it would be silly to short a stock and then report a negative item knowing the news would have no material impact on the stock's price. Mike is not a silly person, so you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM (#4)
1) There is a key on most computer keyboards, located on the left, usually three rows up from the bottom, called something like CAPS LOCK, or CAPS, or LOCK, or it may just have a capital letter and a lock image on it. It's a toggle, so if you hit it once, it changes state from or to locking the capital letters obtained by pressing the other keys. Polite discourse is more easily performed when the toggle is in the off, or lower case, mode. If there is not any lighted indicator of which mode is operating, typing a couple of letters will show you which one you're using.
2) Reading the post will usually (although not always) improve the quality of your response. It's not "report[ing] on Sirius," it's reporting on a new fee imposed as a result of the RIAA's failed business model being propped up by massive campaign donations and lobbying efforts. Sirius XM just happens to be the conduit through which RIAA's grubby hand reaches into unsuspecting consumers' pockets.
I'm looking forward to your next post, as I'm certain that you will take this advice in the friendly and courteous manner in which it was intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
As if there is positives to add arbitrary taxes onto people in the middle of an economic crisis.
and shorting the stock? roflmao! As if TechDirt effects stocks of any company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
There are no positives in this story as they relate to the new economy. It's a look at the ramifications an earlier decision is having on a company in the marketplace.
If you're looking for unbiased, up-to-the-minute fresh news, then you've simply come to the wrong place. If you're looking for "insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow" ... then tap your caps-lock key once, calm down, and keep reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And so on... and so on... and so on....
It will never stop until the music industry finally pulls their heads out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so on... and so on... and so on....
But since previously they had provided mostly the only way (both a legal and technical monopoly) to deliver this music to the fans, then the fans still considered the extortion prices to be value.
Now that they have lost their technical monopoly (others can deliver the same service better and for less) then they are trying to further leverage their legal monopoly by such devious tactics as suing the potential customers, and other smaller more defenseless entities such as Real, Sirius etc. Why have they not taken on the deep pockets like Google, because Google can buy more politicians and judges than them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't any different...
Taxes are always paid primarily by the end users. Minimum wage? Companies don't pay employees more, they hire fewer. Corporate and payroll taxes? Companies raise prices on consumers and lower wages(or cut workers).
This tax just goes directly to pay a large corporation deep in the pocket of politicians instead of to the politicians themselves(that they then redirect to their contributors, of course). Business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't any different...
You can't tax a corporation. You're taxing consumers, shareholders, or employees. (and almost never the board or the execs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't any different...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
That was my point. I wasn't arguing, just reinforcing what you said.
The thing is that people think taxing "corporations" will get more money out of them, which it might, but only at the expense of more money going into them somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't any different...
Wait I thought the free market established prices? Corporations cant just charge whatever they want . . . can they? Isnt this the basis of market capitalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't any different...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
Exactly so corporations cant just pass on taxes imposed on them to consumers, eventually they will price themselves out the market and so out of business. By "free market" reasoning actually they would only be able to pass on taxes to thier customers, if they were already selling thier product too cheaply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
Additionally, many markets are not particularly free thanks to artificially high cost-of-entry and overhead requirements. The market for satellite technology, especially, has an astronomical cost of entry, so there's not a whole lot of competition anyway. Many consumers will just drop out, but the ones that want satellite radio will pay more. When the government mandates taxes or a nonsensical royalty such as this one, consumers in general will pay more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't any different...
I'm glad they did. Hopefully it'll help raise public awareness of the RIAA insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, one point; The Music Industry can't levee a tax, taxes are compulsory, you don't have to pay the RIAA or their many front organizations a penny. Which I have already sworn to do. Looks like its time to ditch my Sirius subscription.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's stealing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---
was answered with:
"Not quite sure how I missed this earlier"
Too bad monies are taken away from our public education system, as reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.
Now, on topic:
It's a good thing I no longer listen to radio, free or not.
Now I'll just sit back and wait until the tax propagates itself to online music.
Wait. $1.30 per song.
Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I already quit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: how to beat the increase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This I don't get
So the RIAA has a lot of moves which we've shown to be bad for everyone except the RIAA. I get that, it's unbridled self interest and greed.
This one I don't get. Radio is how they foist off their chosen "stars" on the public, via payolla, for e.g.
If they get to "Tax" radio stations, they will essentially cause more people to stop listening to radio, they'll go look for music from independent sources, internet, pirate bay, etc...
While I don't agree with many RIAA moves, they are at least strategic in their self-interest. This strikes me as strategically stupid for them. Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This I don't get
They are used to foisting off various fees through myriad collection agencies, and for people to continue more or less acting as they ahd before the fees. This WAS because they had a lock on discovery and distribution, and because demand for music IS very strong (inelastic). But now that their are other options, people can react to a change and seek their media elsewhere, either legally or not.
Fairly consistently, it appears that if the music market were a chess game, the RIAA plans just one move at a time, and ignores the fact that the other player may take a turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I refuse to pay such a tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA tax has always been there
The problem with SiriusXM's response (this is for you ED BUSECK), is that the fees only increase by .5%, but SiriusXM used the judges ruling as a justification to pass the entire amount on to its subscribers, rather than just the increase. This has the effect if increasing your monthly subscription, despite promises not to do so as a condition of the merger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You (Techdirt) didn't miss it
As a matter of fact, I used the information on your website when I called the company to complain after I received their later alerting me to the increase. The increase in rates is greater than the tax imposed on Sirius. But it provides a nice excuse to raise rates even they were not supposed to after the merger. A win-win for the RIAA and Sirius which equates to 2 loses for the consumer.
It worked out better that I just signed up for life and saved money and do not (I think) have to worry about this BS tax.
F*** the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because your car doesn't have an AM or FM radio, right? And you don't carry a cellphone or have access to an MP3 player where you live. Fire up that old 8-track under the dash, and see if it doesn't play music.
Your monopoly accusation declares that you don't have any options for substitutes. Well, I'm glad we have comments coming in from Cuba. Hasta Luego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not holding out hope though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lots of people arguing this line in these comments. But it's a very trite simplification of fiscal issues. Of course taxes are paid by people in the end. People are the only things that are real. Corporations and businesses are imaginary, arbitrarily created entities, which are ultimately owned by people and financed by purchases of end customers. No news there. But it adds another group of people and busts your assumption that all costs are borne by "end users", namely "shareholders". All taxes are paid by shareholders OR end users, and it's unclear in what proportion.
But the point you're trying to make seems to be that taxing corporations is futile because the taxes just get passed back to consumers. You seem to think that "we are only taxing ourselves" or that it would be simpler (but not desired) just to increase income taxes or do a poll tax. Taxes do more than just taxing ourselves to pay ourselves, they redistribute money, and have distortion effects on the market.
But what if the fiscal policy were intended to inflict a distortion in the market, like a pollution tax? Occasionally, we actually want to distort markets towards a more desirable equilibrium (like one where pollution externalities ARE counted.)
Love them or hate them (and I suspect most choose the latter), taxes CAN be a much more nuanced tool than you seem willing to acknowledge. They can be used to gain revenues for specific things that incur costs, such as highway tolls. Or to dissuade certain behavior, such as smoking. Or to encourage certain behavior, such as home ownership. I'm not casting a judgement on any of those fiscal policies, merely stating the more nuanced reality that taxes beset onto corporations/industries are not unilaterally "passed on to the people".
Even if passed on to the customer 100%, they only get passed back to consumers of THAT company/industry. Thus, it is a tax on that industry, which offers advantages for competing substitutes.
When a tax is placed on an industry, supply meets demand at a lower volume. A reduction in total production has unpredictable effects on average costs. Basically, there are many intended and unintended consequences of a tax on a specific good, but the burden of the tax is usually split between shareholders and consumer, not just passed on 100%.
Despite your best efforts to simplify the world, it remains complicated.
Also, this is a tangent, since the article is about RIAA fees, not taxes. Understood. As we have seen in these comments, Sirius may lose enough customers by raising fees that it would be better to eat the loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music quality sucks on satellite. They should pay me $2.00/ mo.for putting up with the compressed low bitrate drivel that passes for music.
Time to let my per-month subscription expire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are being corp-tards on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fees,Taxes, No Matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another reason
I honestly don't see how anyone supports the entire regime (except those who make money from it, their reason is obvious) that hurts artists and fans alike so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short SIRI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short SIRI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Price of XM
I know many people pay this, but WTF? I can get radio for free, I have an MP3 player with all my faves in the car, and Google gives (better) traffic info for free.
I listen to a little talk, and the comedy channels. What I hear is digitized crap, still full of ads. The comedy routines are repetitive. The damned thing cuts in and out when there are trees, buildings, bridges, hillsides, etc. Overall, the XM product is very slightly better than terrestrial. I don't commute, so have limited use. I am willing to pay up to $3/mo for a subscription.
I can't believe people are willing to pay the going rates. I guess that's one of the great things about the market. Different people have very diverse demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax (FEE) On To Consumers
1) Elimnated a benefit, that included in the subscription fee, access to Sirius/XM via the Internet. Sirius/XM is now charging subscribers a fee of $12.95 to listen to their programming via the Internet. Why doesn't the Government considered that charge, an increase in the subscription fee.
2) The RIAA fee that Sirius/XM now claims to pass on to subscribers, Sirius/XM represents as justifiable. Author Mike Masnick pointed out that Sirius/XM is misleading the FCC and Subscribers because the original subscription fee included payment to the RIAA for using copyrighted music. Sirius/XM management is simply using a small increase in RIAA fees to increase subscriber rates in violation of the merger agreement.
In my opinion Sirius/XM have violated the terms set forth by the Government to allow the merger. The Sirius/XM company should be forced to refund all increases in rates and fees to subscribers. The company should then be fined for violating the agreement with the Government to obtain the right to merge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA - Radio - Satellite
Honestly, does anyone listen to that crap anymore?
99% of the crap played contains 100% or more crap, that last 1% is miscellaneous crap, containing crapmercials for crappy products and services.
Let the RIAA tax the crap out of that crap - it's still crap, and no one should be listening to it. Keep crap out of your ear - stick it in the toilet where it belongs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to Cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SIRIUSXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bull shit
there just going to download it from p2p stop lieing to your self and us where not stupid
i cant remember the last time a album was worth pay money for
i use the web for all my music youtube mtv yahoo and what not
i do not care about there ads what so ever and when the radio goes in to 10 mins of songs and 45 mins of talk to commercials i just change the channle
and im more then 90% less likly to ever buy the bull shit that they were advertise on there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That means every time a Beatles song is played, Paul and John get paid while Ringo and George get nothing. When a Led Zeppelin song is played, Plant and Page get paid, while Bonham and Jones get nothing.
What is proposed is change to the copyright law that says that the musicians playing on the recording, as well as the person who wrote the song, should get a little bit of money each time radio uses the song to generate advertising revenue, which is every time any song is played.
I say that's fair enough. Have you ever heard of this imbalance of wages in any other field? Does the person who draws the blueprints get payed while the contractor that builds it gets nothing? Does the script writer get paid while the actors get nothing?
To make it fair, the radio stations will have to pay the musicians and the writers. They're only in it for the money. If you haven't noticed, commercial radio stations only play the songs that are guaranteed to generate advertising revenue. They no longer care about the music, only reaching the demographic so they can sell ads.
The radio tax wouldn't even go to the government, which means IT'S NOT A TAX AT ALL!!! The radio industry is just calling it a tax, because it's a damn fine way to get people upset at the government, and get them on their side. Well, people that don't read the details anyway.
So good job people. Shoot down the "tax"! Don't bother looking it up or educating yourself so you can make an informed decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sirius XM passes RIAA tas on to consumer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want be paying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]