Street Performer Explains His Experience Connecting With Fans, Giving Them A Reason To Buy

Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax On To Consumers

from the but-of-course dept

Wed, Aug 19th 2009 8:38am — Mike Masnick

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

92 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

yozoo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:24am

Im a subscriber
If they raise my rate for this I will cancel, immediately. Not only because I don’t like the principle of the deal, I could live with that. Its not my company and I respect there responsibility to act in the interest of shareholders. However, in this case, I don’t even listen to music on my satellite radio (I have very eclectic music taste and use my MP3 player for that) . . . EVER (just Talk, News and OldTimeRadio)! So why should I have to pay royalties for listening to music I NEVER listened too. They will lose my business if they raise my rate one penny for this and that’s a promise!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:25am

Exactly what are the qualifications of a "Copyright Royalty Judge".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:26am

Hmm, I was thinking about signing up, since my new car stereo supports satelite radio. Nevermind now though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ED BUSECK, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:27am

SIRIUSXM
THIS IS OLD NEWS!!!!! IF YOU ARE GOING TO REPORT ON SIRIUS WHY NOT ALSO REPORT ON THE POSITIVES??? OR ARE YOU SHORT IN THE STOCK?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:29am

And so on... and so on... and so on....
And then the XM Sirius subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged (not matter of the money, more of principle), and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged, and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged, and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged, and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged, and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers go online and download a few songs to make up for the two dollars they were charged, and piracy goes up, and the music industry has to charge more to XM Sirius to make up for it, then the subscribers.... yada yada yada.

It will never stop until the music industry finally pulls their heads out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:33am

Re:
Here's answers to a couple of questions raised:

"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 thread ]
Brandon, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:35am

Re: SIRIUSXM
What Positives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:36am

Re: SIRIUSXM
Wow, thank God you made sure to put your idiotic comment in all caps and a plethora of punctuation marks, otherwise how would I know how passionate you are about the subject...and by passionate, I of course mean ignorent.

Ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:39am

Re: SIRIUSXM
THIS IS OLD NEWS!!!!! IF YOU ARE GOING TO REPORT ON SIRIUS WHY NOT ALSO REPORT ON THE POSITIVES??? OR ARE YOU SHORT IN THE STOCK?????

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 thread ]
Ryan, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:40am

This isn't any different...
This is surprising...how? Actually, I'm guess I'm a little surprised that Sirius apparently stated explicitly that the price raise is for the RIAA tax, instead of subtly working it in relatively unnoticed.

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 thread ]
diabolic (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:44am

And people wonder why everyone hates the established music industry. Maybe its because they tax us at every opportunity and then some. Radio has always been free to the listeners. Why would I pay for satellite radio? Especially when there is an extra tax for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:44am

Re: This isn't any different...
"Taxes are always paid primarily by the end users"

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 thread ]
yozoo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:49am

Re: Im a subscriber
Looks like this will work out for me actually. I can move down to the News and Talk ONLY subscription and save about 4 bucks a month and not have to pay the RIAA tax. I will lose my Old Time Radio (yeah it makes no sense to me either), but I guess I can deal with that (sorry advertisers on that chanel - I would listen if I could).

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 thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:49am

Re: SIRIUSXM
Caps Lock: Cruise control for cool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cara (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:51am

That's all I hear about is tax tax tax tax! I can't stand to be taxed anymore! The gov is already driving people to the poor house, literally, we don't need music to follow in its foot steps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:52am

Re: 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)."

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 thread ]
Ryan, 19 Aug 2009 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: This isn't any different...
Maybe you're just arguing semantics, but you can tax a corporation--hence, "corporate tax". If you mean that the hit ultimately comes to the consumer, worker, or shareholder, then I agree and this is precisely what I was saying in that taxes are ultimately paid by the end users. Businesses need to keep prices low to attract customers and wages high to get workers, but if all businesses are paying it then why would shareholders take the hit? They just pass it on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:00am

Re: SIRIUSXM (#4)
Two brief suggestions:
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 thread ]
vastrightwing, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:01am

Who's stealing?
Let's not kid ourselves, RIAA isn't about making sure musicians get paid, it's about ripping consumers off as much as possible. They see "piracy" as an opportunity. Piracy is a rip off! But not to the RIIA, to the consumer! The RIAA is looting us like a mob loots during a riot. The riot is this thing called piracy. We've all been led down the path that piracy is some crisis; it's been all fabricated by the RIAA. There is a business model and the music industry is making money, but they are also ripping us off too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:01am

---
THIS IS OLD NEWS!!!!
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 thread ]
ervserver (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:02am

RIAA
Doesn't actions like this push more people to steal music??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:02am

I already quit
I got my invoice in the email a couple days ago and quit right on the spot. Back to MP3's and P2P for me,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:05am

Re: SIRIUSXM
This isn't an advertisement blog for Sirius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:09am

Re: SIRIUSXM
Wow. This isn't really about whether they are good or not. That is a personal choice. This article was about the stupidity of the RIAA. I think if you learned to type without the caps lock constantly on, and learned to read and understand before just blurting out your gut reaction. You might just figure out that you need to SHUT UP. See how if not every letter in your post is caps that when you do use them they become effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
caseedo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:12am

how to beat the increase
Simply be a lifetime subscriber like me since 2005.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:14am

Re: SIRIUSXM
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:16am

Re: how to beat the increase
yes! the more you buy, the more you save!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:18am

Re:
@diabolic: "...hates the established music industry. Maybe its because they tax us..."

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 thread ]
Trails, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:19am

This I don't get
"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..."

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 thread ]
Yakko Warner, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:20am

Re: This isn't any different...
Actually, I'm guess I'm a little surprised that Sirius apparently stated explicitly that the price raise is for the RIAA tax, instead of subtly working it in relatively unnoticed.

I'm glad they did. Hopefully it'll help raise public awareness of the RIAA insanity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fiercedeity (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: This isn't any different...
No. Corporations can charge anything they desire. Anything at all. However, consumers may or may not buy their product based on that. That is the free market at work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
I was right there with you til you spelled ignorant incorrectly. Oh the irony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:26am

Re:
This is not a tax, the RIAA CANNOT TAX you. They can only charge users of their licenses more or less (of course its always more.) Don't participate, don't use their licenses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:28am

The tax assume I listen to RIAA music. What if I just listen to talk radio?
Can I refuse to pay such a tax?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
goober, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:31am

The RIAA tax has always been there
The royalty fee has always been an aspect of XM's programming. The difference here is that previously, XM buried those fees in the monthly subscription, and now, they are allowed by a judge to pass them on explicitly.

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 thread ]
I hate the RIAA, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:33am

You (Techdirt) didn't miss it
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090603/1211175111.shtml

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 thread ]
David (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:41am

Re: Im a subscriber
Good luck with that! They did not raise your rate, they added an additional charge :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
diabolic (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:55am

Re: Re:
Fair enough, call it a tax or a tax-like fee. Whatever, you are right, no one has to pay - we can all just stop buying music, as I already did. The musicians I support will see me at thier shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
batch, 19 Aug 2009 @ 10:59am

Sirius is always adding some new fee or raising rates regardless of their promise to do no such thing as part of the agreement for their merger with XM. Good thing this monopoly was allowed. Its been a boon for consumers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:02am

Re: SIRIUSXM
lol, as if TechDirt prides themselves on cutting edge news reports.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
THATS IRONEY, JURK!!!!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:12am

One of these days people will realize that companies don't pay taxes, end users do.

I'm not holding out hope though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:24am

Mike, get a job at RIAA please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:42am

Sirius sent me a nice letter explaining this in July. Ridiculous. A death knell for an already troubled industry.

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 thread ]
vastrightwing, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:42am

Re: RIAA
Just how do you "steal" music? If you mean copying: copying does not equal stealing: there is no damage, no one lost anything. You can not make the argument of potential loss of income being equivalent to theft. Using that argument, then cooking food at home would the equivalent of stealing money from a restaurant because you didn't patronize the restaurant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
"No. Corporations can charge anything they desire. Anything at all. However, consumers may or may not buy their product based on that. That is the free market at work."

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 thread ]
yozoo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Im a subscriber
Good luck with what? I already switched my subscription . . . its done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 11:58am

The problem is this: It isn't a "tax", its a cost of doing business. Sirius is just framing it in a way that they can raise their prices by $2 and not have to deal with the costs that are a normal part of doing business.

They are being corp-tards on this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:05pm

Re: SIRIUSXM
Because he's not reporting on general news. This is an analysis of the news website. It's not a general, unbiased look at the news, but a look at news topics & how they relate to the ideas & ideals of a new economy.

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 thread ]
Ryan, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
Taxes are applied to everybody selling the product, so they raise the market cost of doing business. Businesses don't choose whether or not to pay the tax.

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 thread ]
bigpicture, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:15pm

Re: And so on... and so on... and so on....
Let's simplify it all. It is not really their music (the Recording Companies that is) they stole it from the musicians who created it, so that they could monopolize it under the (special buddies interests) monopolization laws.

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 thread ]
Nick Burns (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:18pm

Re: how to beat the increase
When I signed up early this year (after my 3mos free with the new vehicle), I didn't see a lifetime membership, otherwise I think I would have opted for it over the 3year subscription. I don't believe they can charge me more since I'm all paid up for that, though I will keep an eye on my cc statement and complain/quit if they do charge it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom The Toe, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:19pm

Fees,Taxes, No Matter
I voted with my wallet and canceled my subscription. Less service, fewer stations worth a damn, higher rates. What a shame (sham).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
maniac in a speedo, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: RIAA
Relax, man. He meant holding up the Record Town at the mall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Stapp (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:30pm

Re: Im a subscriber
The 'Music Royalty Fee' on satellite radio sounds eerily similar to the 'fees' cellular companies tack on their rate plans. There have been numerous consumer complaints over the practice of advertising low rates plans then tacking on official sounding 'fees' to disguise the real cost of the services.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:36pm

Re: SIRIUSXM
Apparently you are a retard Ed. This is more a report on the RIAA and the bad ruling against SirusXM by the judge then anything negative about SirusXM. It's not like it's SirusXM's fault anyways, and they spent a LOT of money trying to stop this from even happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
Wow, sometimes I make some silly ass mistakes. Maybe I should cut others some slack.

....Naaaahhhhh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ED BUSECK, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
"IGNORENT"?????? At least you spelled your name (ASS) correctly!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:54pm

Re: SIRIUSXM
AGREE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 12:59pm

Just another reason
why everybody (well just about) hates the RIAA. Another reason on a so very long list.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 1:52pm

Short SIRI?
It's only .50 cents.. how can anyone be short on that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: This isn't any different...
"They just pass it on..."

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 thread ]
weneedhelp, 19 Aug 2009 @ 1:58pm

Ha Ha
So after it becomes too expensive to justify paying for Sirius XM, and radio becomes too filled with commercials; Where do they think the public will go for new/old music? Uh oh, the evil internet and P2P will be blamed yet again. I just love to watch a train wreck in progress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 2:02pm

I had three XM radios set up. As soon as they raised the prices I dropped all three. This is the second increase in rates they have had in a year!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2009 @ 3:07pm

It isn't a tax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 4:06pm

Re: SIRIUSXM
Newsflash: SiriusXM rumored to be running out of capital letters. Name to be changed to siriusxm. Cause unknown. I've got to get Winthorpe on the phone and tell him to SELL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 4:23pm

Re: This I don't get
Answer: They are consistent in their ability to not understand change. They don't see it coming, they don't see that it came, and they don't see that they can be the cause of it. They probably think that there will be no effect from the "tiny" charge. History has taught them to think thus.

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 thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 4:28pm

Re:
Monopoly?

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 thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:12pm

Re:
"companies don't pay taxes, end users do."

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 thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:18pm

The Price of XM
Got a new car, and I'm in the free trial phase of XM. They're sending me brochures fast and furious. But I think it's about $17/mo for the radio+traffic service.

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 thread ]
Mike Raphone, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:48pm

Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax (FEE) On To Consumers
I am a subscriber to Sirius/XM and I am not happy. I intend to contact my Senator and Congressman to find out why the Government has not forced Sirius/XM to honor the agreement they made with the Government in order to get approval for the merger. Sirius and XM agreed not to raise rates for Three Years. They have actually raised rates by:

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 thread ]
Steve, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:57pm

This is why I cancelled my account with them last week..No thanks, My Slacker radio works great in my truck and for more then half the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tristan Young, 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:29pm

RIAA - Radio - Satellite
What is this Radio and Satellite you speak of?

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 thread ]
fred, 19 Aug 2009 @ 6:53pm

Time to Cancel
Been a subscriber for 6~ years. Getting time to cancel. For this money, can just load the iTouch -- and listen to Y Rock online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jennifer, 19 Aug 2009 @ 7:17pm

Re: Im a subscriber
There is a new movie called: STOCK SHOCK that tells the whole history of Sirius XM (including an interview with the founder and shareholders). Amazon sells the movie on DVD but it is not available for rent. stockshockmovie.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yodel, 20 Aug 2009 @ 12:55am

Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
Did you even READ the comment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Im a Terrorist, 20 Aug 2009 @ 4:56am

SIRIUSXM
Death to SIRIUSXM and Death to America
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 20 Aug 2009 @ 5:48am

Re: Im a subscriber
I was a subscriber till yesterday; the day before they were going to charge me for 3 months more service with the increased rates. I am not blaming XM really, but to me it's not worth 15 bucks a month for sat radio. I rather put that 15 bucks towards a phone data plan and get Slacker or some other streaming radio service for "free".

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 thread ]
ChrisDG74, 20 Aug 2009 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: how to beat the increase
You won't see the increase until when/if you renew three years down the road. I have a lifetime subscription, which I paid for back in 2005, so it has more than paid for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisDG74, 20 Aug 2009 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: how to beat the increase
You won't see the increase until when/if you renew three years down the road. I have a lifetime subscription, which I paid for back in 2005, so it has more than paid for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisDG74, 20 Aug 2009 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: Re: how to beat the increase
Sorry for the double-post. Finger twitched.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny Bill, 20 Aug 2009 @ 5:55am

SIRIUSXM
Before anyone commits to a subscription, try googling "XM Radio Complaints" They are rampant. I paid a full year in advance (back in November) for the service and also paid for a full year for the upgraded "Best of Sirius". The result was: I only got 8 months as they started billing me for another year in May! I refused to pay until my year was up in November 2009, now I have NO service. Trying to get help from their shoddy CS people who can't speak English let alone think is impossible. This company is in trouble (yesterday's stock quote was $0.60 a share!) My advice: Get an HD radio, or stick to your iPods! At least on the iPod you don't have those annoying commercials
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisDG74, 20 Aug 2009 @ 7:37am

Re: SIRIUSXM
Not to get into a pissing contest, but the stock was at $.05 a few months ago. An increase of 12x does not scream of a company in trouble. HD radio is pathetic. It has as many commercials as regular radio(because that's what it is-just more channels of regular radio). I have been a SiriusXM subscriber since 2005 (and XM in my wife's car since 12/08). Never had any issues with customer service, aside from them calling every so often trying to get me to re-activate the radio I cancelled that was in my wife's old car, that I don't need anymore).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 8:40am

bull shit
no one is going to go and look for independent music
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 thread ]
anon, 20 Aug 2009 @ 1:38pm

So a musician records a song, and the radio gets lots of listeners and advertising revenue because of it. In return, the person who wrote the song, who may or may not have actually played the song, gets money. The performance of the song is usually a joint effort between the person who wrote it and the person who played it, but if the musician playing on the recording didn't write the song, even if they're in the band with the songwriter, they get nothing.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 9:13pm

Re: Short SIRI?
Only 134 million shares?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2009 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: SIRIUSXM
How about up 100% in the last month??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trav, 21 Aug 2009 @ 8:31am

RIAA
For us persons paying for satellite radio and tv, all music should be free... We can only listen to one song at a time. Also dont forget all the records, 8 track tapes, and cd's we bought in our lifetime... We can never proove what we bought in our lifetime and neither can the riaa.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ivan Jubilee, 10 Sep 2009 @ 7:14am

Sirius XM passes RIAA tas on to consumer
I saw my bill increased by 13.26%. I called Sirius and they said it was a music royalty fee that was assessed to everyone. They told me if I paid up front, they would not charge me the additional fee. I am thinking about it but I don't like the fact that this fee got passed onto me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon, 17 Sep 2009 @ 1:36pm

Re: Im a subscriber
They already have raised it. I called to reactivate my service(today) and they told me it was approx. 15 bucks a month. I asked why the website says that it is only 12.95 a month and they said it was a "Music Royalty" of $1.90. I too never listened to the music channels so I inquired about the News, Talk and Entertainment package for only 9.99. She said that this package is not subject to the royalty. That's great except for the fact that 2 of the only 4 channels that I listen to are not available for with that package. (Fox News and Raw Dog Comedy) I decided not to reactivate my service; it wasn't worth it to me, let alone the fact that not a single person I spoke to had any sort of grasp on the English language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sandra, 26 Oct 2009 @ 9:31am

Want be paying this
Just canceled my service, will not be paying this bull shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
News Listener, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:44am

I use Sirius for listening to news talk radio. Paying RIAA for music sucks wind!
[ link to this | view in thread ]