Pandora Continues To Push Users To Vote For Shameful Radio Performance Tax
from the can't-compete? dept
We mentioned back in July how Pandora was urging its users to support the Performance Rights Act, which is effectively a government bailout for the RIAA by taxing already struggling radio stations for the right to help promote the RIAA's music. It's a travesty. The only reason Pandora supports it is because Pandora was pressured into its own ridiculous webcasting rates and wants to help bring down radio too. While I like Pandora as a service, I think it's shameful that it's now using the political process to burden competitors with a government created tax, that goes straight to the RIAA.Apparently, Pandora has once again ramped up this effort to have the government tax its competitors. A whole bunch of you have been forwarding these ridiculous emails from Pandora that urge people to contact their elected officials in support of the RIAA Bailout bill. Most of those submitting those emails to us have said that you'll be doing the exact opposite, and are offended that Pandora is pushing you to support such a thing.
Yes, Pandora, it sucks that you got stuck with ridiculous webcasting rates that will make it difficult to remain profitable, but that's no excuse for trying to get the government to dump an unfair tax on your competitors.
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: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: pandora, riaa, soundexchange
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bailout??? ... really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bailout??? ... really??
I do believe that the costs of enforcement from all parties, will continue to burden the industry, and yes, eventually, it will implode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bailout??? ... really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bailout??? ... really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Example, your drivers license: Your renewal is a fee, not a tax. If you want to avoid the fee you can (stop driving). If it was a tax, everyone would pay it on their income taxes or property taxes every year, and your license would be "free".
Also, taxes are collected by the government for the government. The government is not collecting a tax for the RIAA (or anyone else) and then paying them tax free benefit. The government is only acting to uphold and maintain a fee structure system for those companies who choose to be in this business, assuring that there is not gouging or unfair application by either side.
Radio stations could avoid the fees by not broadcasting music (going all talk would work). If it was a tax, it wouldn't matter what the station did, it would pay a tax.
Thus, it isn't a tax - it's a fee. Pandora wants the fees that are paid by radio stations to be "fair" to the rates they are paying. They don't mention that they knew what the fees would be coming in, and were basing their business model on not paying fees or by paying signficantly lower fees. Their failed, now they want everyone else to suffer.
Fees. Not a tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're arguing semantics, tax, fee, stipend, it doesn't matter what's it's called the end result is the same. but if you'd like to argue semantics, then I believe that the government forcing one entity to pay another is called a tax, and by that definition it's apt here, even if the government is not the recipient. And no, claiming "pay it or choose not to" when the 'choose not to' option means closing up shop means it's NOT an option - it's forcing a decision on you.
But again, semantics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You tend to get nothing for taxes (property tax, sales tax) and the money goes into general revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For instance, taxes are avoidable - just stop living or making money(income), purchasing good and services(sales),owning property(property), etc. A fee for drivers license renewals is a drivers license tax - if you want to avoid the tax, then stop driving, right?
Same thing for music. This effectively places a tax on playing music - if they want to avoid the tax, they can do other things than play music but this does absolutely nothing good for their long-term financial prospects.
And taxes collected by the government for the government - right, that's why we have these trillion dollar "stimulus" efforts to reward politicians' buddies with free money to "create" or "save" jobs. This would be enforced by the government - hence, a de facto tax.
Your post makes you sound like a 5 year-old bitching for the sake of bitching. The original was tongue-in-cheek, but your rebuttal took it twice around the dance floor with a bunch of nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You eat food - it is taxed (the land it was grown on, transport, the gas used to bring it to you, sales taxes, property taxes of the store, etc). There is no way to entirely, utterly, and without a doubt exclude yourself from all taxes.
Radio stations can stop playing music and avoid a fee. It's like driving a car, you can NOT get a drivers license or own a car and plate it, and avoid the fees.
Not hard, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, not until you're dead anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, not until you're dead anyway.
---
Not so true. My dad passed away in July and as executor I have to file his tax return/s for '08 and '09.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arguable (homeless people can do it) but that isn't what you said. You drew a clear distinction: A tax doesn't involve choice, a fee does. And you were wrong. Really, REALLY wrong. Property taxes prove it wonderfully: if you rent, you don't pay the property tax, if you own you do. Choice.
"You eat food - it is taxed"
I can think of about ten reasons instantly upon reading this statement where that absolutely isn't true. Amongst them are dumpster diving, being given food by friends, soup kitchens, free samples at the grocery store, Hors d'ouevres (sp?) provided at an art exibit, etc. Again, while these may be rather extreme examples, your premise on choice fails. Half the things you listed aren't being paid by the consumer, but by someone else. If your point is that government gets it's hand in all pies, your probably right enough to just accept. But to state that you can't eat without paying taxes...mega-wrong.
"There is no way to entirely, utterly, and without a doubt exclude yourself from all taxes."
Yeah, you could. Your life would suck, but you can live completely off the grid, even in this country. Even in a major city you could do it.
"It's like driving a car, you can NOT get a drivers license or own a car and plate it, and avoid the fees."
And I can NOT buy a house or own a condo and avoid a property TAX. So again, choice isn't the qualifier.
"Not hard, is it?"
No, not hard, just not as easy as you're making it sound.
And FYI, Mike the whole bailout thing is being overplayed. I don't like the use of that word either, and I'm fairly supportive around here. I believe I covered hyperbole in one of my previous decrees....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes taxes are hidden, or at least not given directly. You rent an apartment - the owner is paying taxes, and passing those taxes on to you in the rent. Thus, you are paying taxes.
You can THINK you are avoiding tax, but you are not.
It's not hard, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's true, if you redefine terms as you go, it's pretty easy to make any point you want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee. I bought this shirt from a rummage sale, and the previous owner bought it from a store in MN (where there is no tax on clothing), but the store itself bought it from a distributor who pays taxes and took that into consideration when pricing it, so therefore I paid taxes on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great logic. Kudos!
The music fee is a tax then, because even if you can rid of it, you will still pay SOME kind of tax on something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
hmmm .... how about sales tax??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I could also avoid paying income taxes as well by not working, and all forms of property tax by being homeless. So taxes are avoidable you just have to be willing to be homeless and own nothing of value.
Or you could just go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
death and taxes. It's all there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Property taxes depend on (a) having a home when you could rent, and (b) the expense of your home. By your 'opt-in' criterion, then, it seems that property taxes are equivalent to fees. Similarly, one could do a variety of things to change their income-tax bracket; so, it starts to look like a fee by your criterion as well.
On the other end of things, many people may well consider their owning of a home (which you seem to consider as something beyond choice) as largely dependent on their owning a car. Maybe they have no access to public trans. and need to drive to or for work. In that case, no registration fee (for the car) -> no driving -> no house. Therefore, if owning a house isn't a choice, then, for some people, neither is driving a car.
I don't see how your distinction holds without some platonic breakdown of what people need that includes units like "owning a house". In other words, I don't think it works out at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. They don't.
This has been stated by the musicians / artists many times over. Only the very few at the very top see anything from these royalty / fee / tax collection agencies. The only thing they are there for is to siphon money from the system into a few fat cat pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as the high fees are only on the net, net radio will be at a competitive disadvantage. When radio calls it quits due to costs then people might talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a good thing.....
AC ... For the past couple years we have been watching the labels and the agencies representing them do a ton of self defeating things. I have been saying we should support everything they wish done, every new tax, every new fee, three strikes, charging for 30 second samples, charging public performances fees for ring tones, even making it a criminal offense with jail time to illegally download. The reason why is we need to reach the breaking point for this whole situation to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Your own fee is removed, allowing both services to continue without this monetary burden.
2) Both services now pay the same fee, forcing both to compete on the same level.
Pandora wins both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Mechwarrior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. That's not the case. First, Radio has already been fighting the fees, but did not help when the webcaster fees were put in place. The webcaster fees are already put in place and Radio has no interest in fighting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think this is a decent plan, and seeing the ways Pandora has bent over backwards to stay alive, I'd like to think this is a strategical move and not a spiteful one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Tony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I haven't used Pandora, so I don't know how its service compares, but I haven't had any issues skipping songs or been forced to listen to ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
Yes, Pandora, it sucks that you got stuck with ridiculous webcasting rates that will make it difficult to remain profitable, but that's no excuse for trying to get the government to dump an unfair tax on your competitors.
Actually, it is. This is not a perfect world. Pandora must act accordingly. A principled approach is probably desirable, but is not very effective at all, especially in the society we live in today. Pandora did not choose the rules of the game it has to abide by, but they did well to adapt to the new game. This proves it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
IF broadcast radio cannot survive while paying fees then there is no reason why musicians would want to prevent their music from being played. If the value radio stations are able to survive while paying fees they why shouldn't musicians charge? Musicians like (whomever is popular these days) should be able to charge more than some unknown artist because of the amount of listeners that musician attracts.
In this case, I think government intervention was inappropriate in the first place, never mind this latest fee imposed on Pandora. There are plenty of anti-trust and other price fixing laws in place that could have taken care of any price gouging by the labels.
On top of that, the point is almost moot at this point. Music is so widely available it's only a matter of time before these fees are eliminated.
Pandora may not survive (although I hope it does) but eventually this will all work out. No one is crying for Napster but they've also been struggling for years. Eventually the RIAA will crush all their own distribution channels under their fees while music continues to spread beyond their control and musicians (as they are already doing) will realize that the RIAA is a dinosaur that isn't needed anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
At least, I think thats how it works. I may have made that up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
I don't love the idea either. And there's an easy way to solve the issue - make sure everyone follows the same scheme. If you don't want traditional radio to pay this way, make sure Pandora and other sites don't too. If it's not fair, then it's not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
So two wrongs make a right? How does that make sense.
Yes, the webcaster fees are ridiculous and unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they should be added elsewhere as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What?
It's far from an ideal solution but it at least levels the playing field. Webcasters already tried (and failed) to stop these fees; what other choice do they have but to force their competitors to pay the same fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get back to the original solution
It's only illegal because it's worth something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
performance royalties.
it's like $500 a year. They pay more than that for NBA "fees".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: performance royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: performance royalties.
http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/549087.html
"The Performance Rights Act brings the United States in line with almost every other nation in the world. Only a few countries do not provide a fair performance right on radio, including Iran, North Korea and China. And because the U.S. doesn't have a performance right, foreign stations do not have to pay American artists when their music is played on stations around the globe -- an inequity that costs American artists tens of millions of dollars each year."
Also quoted on the AFTRA site:
http://www.aftra.org/press/pr_2009_02_25performancerights.html
AFTRA = American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
"Today, AFTRA members, including will.i.am, Sheryl Crow, Herbie Hancock, Emmylou Harris, Patti LaBelle, Dionne Warwick, Crystal Waters, and Jon Carroll joined with local AFTRA artists, other musicians, and members of Congress to kick off the effort to pass the Performance Rights Act."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: performance royalties.
Well, putting aside for a moment that Feinstein is one of the most pro-content industry, anti-fair use politicians in the country, I said I like FACTS. Facts and statements by politicians rarely have much to do with one another.
"Also quoted on the AFTRA site:"
The quote you pointed out is interesting, but not terribly useful with regards to my quest for facts, as it has none regarding the statement I was addressing.
However, the link you provided WAS more helpful to the discussion, it just doesn't say what jes said it did. Jes said:
"the countries currently not paying these performance royalties for terrestrial radio play are the United States, China, North Korea and the Congo"
and the link you sent me to said:
"Only a few countries do not provide a FAIR performance right on radio, including Iran, North Korea, China and the U.S." [Caps added for emphasis]
Now, putting aside the fact that countries mentioned don't match up, those two statements aren't even CLOSE to being congruent. It turns out that terrestrial radio stations DO pay performance royalties for songwriters in America. The article did mention, however, that there is no performance royalty paid for foreign artists.
Now we get to have a debate about the word "fair". To have that debate, we would need the rates of all the relevant countries (or at least a good sampling) and compare them. Do you have a link for that as well?
Again, not saying that either of you is wrong here, but I like FACTS, not ambiguous statements regarding what's fair or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: performance royalties.
Let us keep enjoying life in America without them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pandora is merely asking the government to keep it fair; because, right now the FCC is FORCING an unfair competition to occur. Capitalism doesn't work [when there's not a level playing field].
Mike, you complain about bloggers being held to lower standards than journalists/"well-established review site"/newspapers/the media/etc.
How is this different from pandora's point of view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. You cannot be reasoned with I see. You are a fool.
It's not fair to hold pandora to a higher standard than commercial radio.
So because lobbyists got a ridiculous deal against Pandora everyone else must suffer? Are you really sure you want to go down that road?
Pandora doesn't like the fact that it's being taxed out the wazoo, but the sheer fact that it's the only thing being taxed in such a way when other services with more lobbying and government influence get off scott-free.
You got it backwards. The others aren't getting off scott-free. It's the lobbying power of the RIAA that put Pandora on the hook.
Pandora is merely asking the government to keep it fair; because, right now the FCC is FORCING an unfair competition to occur. Capitalism doesn't work [when there's not a level playing field].
Um, there was a level playing field until the RIAA got these new performance taxes added to webcasters. What sort of fool thinks that when one bad tax is added through regulatory capture the only "fair" thing is to add it to others?
What does the FCC have to do with any of this?!? Answer: absolutely nothing.
You clearly don't know squat about what you are talking about. Come back once you've been educated.
Mike, you complain about bloggers being held to lower standards than journalists/"well-established review site"/newspapers/the media/etc.
How is this different from pandora's point of view?
Really? You can't tell the difference between these situations? Ok. Enough talking to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
Pandora's position is they want a level playing field, which is not an unreasonable position for any business to take. You might not agree with their acceptance of the rates imposed upon them, but they clearly feel this is the only option left to them.
As for the argument over artist compensation for FM radio play, as I understand your position it is that radio play is promotional, and historically this has always been compensation enough.
But what I don't see why you are trying to make an historical argument in today's climate; so much is changing it hardly seems relevant. It made sense when so much of the industries revenue came from selling units; anything which encouraged unit sales was complimentary. These days album sales are not what they were, and radio is shrinking in importance as a promotional platform next to new technologies.
If a big chunk of artist income in the future is going to come from licensing content to businesses to leverage for profit to the public, it makes sense to bring FM Radio into line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
Like who he is, or who he's employed by (possibly identifiable via IP address?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
Now I for one, being a hateful sumbitch, have no problem with this stuff, but I do wonder about the impetus for such change in tone and language...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
I don't think the tone has really changed that much. But there's a point at which it sense to stop conversing with idiots and point out that they are, without any doubt, idiots. :) It's not hateful. It's just making the point clear.
I'm certainly not doing it to anyone. Just those who are here every day, posting things that are clearly idiotic, for which we've had long discussions on these subjects, and who still post ridiculous things. You begin to realize that they're asking to be called an idiot, so why not just do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
Like who he is, or who he's employed by (possibly identifiable via IP address?)
Indeed. But I won't reveal it. The one time I hinted at it, this particular individual went ballistic and threatened to sue me. Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I see. You are a fool.
Fair enough. But I'm not afraid to share my opinions, and my opinion is that anyone who claims two wrongs makes a right is a fool. And deserves to be called one.
I understand Pandora's position, but that's not what this particular person was arguing. He was arguing that two wrongs make a right.
These days album sales are not what they were, and radio is shrinking in importance as a promotional platform next to new technologies.
Indeed, but as we've shown -- repeatedly -- other aspects of the music business are increasing, and all of those are promoted by radio play as well.
The fact that payola is still rampant should make that clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering the totality of the political situation regarding royalties for the transmission of music, Pandora's position makes perfect sense. It wasn't just the RIAA who screwed Pandora and other online webcasters with ruinous royalty rates; the over-the-air broadcasters were cheering from the sidelines at the prospect that their competition would be hobbled if not put out of business entirely.
At this point, the only hope for survivable rates for webcasters appears to get the over-the-air broadcasters, who still have political clout, tossed into the same royalty-paying pot, and then start talking about lowering the rates across ALL transmission media. Platform neutrality, yay!!
As somebody wrote somewhere else about this scrap: The National Association of Broadcasters might be the only trade group which could make the RIAA look good. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Po-tay-toe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay the fee like everyone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay the fee like everyone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When congress tried to pass some legislation to give these apps/services time to negotiate a deal with the RIAA directly (instead of the forced rates passed via the lobbied legislation), the NAB lobbied against that too.
That story was reported on right here on Techdirt btw.
So, in my opinion I think you think you are incorrectly labeling which side is the "real" bully here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's to the RIAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaving aside the use of the term "performance right"-what we're discussing is a performance royalty-a musician has a "right" to perform on the street, but only if we pay a fee for a license; otherwise, we can be arrested for panhandling and/or vagrancy, If we play in a bar or cafe, the venue must purchase a license, or they're liable to pay a fine, (ASCAP/BMI, not RIAA) but I digress; my point is that this situation has had some unintended consequences-a sort of American musical hegemony on the airwaves in many foreign countries. It's cheaper for them to broadcast American artists than their own, which tends to increase the popularity and sales of American artists in those countries.Hard to put a figure to it, but the Madonnas and Garth Brookses of the world have certainly benefitted, to the tune of some number of "millions of dollars each year". Many countries resent what they see as a cultural invasion, and have instituted statutory retaliation for their artists not receiving performance royalties in the US, but it amounts to a pittance compared to the American market, because until recently, an American artist (or more correctly, their record company) could more than make up in overseas record sales what they were denied in broadcast royalties.
"Hmm. I think the musicians and songwriters are really in the same boat here. It's free publicity. And actually, I think the songwriters are getting less publicity, at least from the general public. I often hear the performing band's/musician's name announced (or see it, in the case of streaming audio on the net), but rarely hear who exactly wrote the song's music or lyrics."-Geekish
I think you've argued yourself out of your point-hardly anyone bothers with listing proper credits anymore; digital and sattelite radio do stream artist info along with the music, but if you want to know who wrote the song, you get that info from the CD or the Harry Fox Agency, or Billboard, Cashbox, et al, but you will likely pay for the info, one way or another. Quick; how many artists can you name? Now, how many songwriters?
"One thing I'm looking forward to is reading about all the lawsuits the RIAA will file against stations that choose not to play songs by the artists they represent. I'm not claiming to know the facts here, but they (the RIAA) will actually be getting paid to broadcast/advertise their songs on the radio (makes zero sense and should actually be the opposite-- it costs exponentially more to broadcast an FM signal than it does to burn a CD or encode an mp3, and in most cases, record the song itself). I see there being a big shift toward local, indie and underground artists for all but the largest radio stations. Mainstream music will be mostly streamed over the net, probably swarming with great big tacky paywalls and heart-wrenching propaganda glorifying the starving RIAA. It's really disturbing that an organization like this has such a great deal of clout in our society"-.Lonzo 5
It does cost exponentially more to broadcast FM radio at 50,000 watts or so, but those costs are likely to plummet in the near future due to new digital broadcast technologies and regulations in the pipeline, though no one expects they'll drop to anywhere near webcasting levels. I don't see a groundswell of demand for non-RIAA represented music at this moment, nor in the near future.
"Considering the totality of the political situation regarding royalties for the transmission of music, Pandora's position makes perfect sense. It wasn't just the RIAA who screwed Pandora and other online webcasters with ruinous royalty rates; the over-the-air broadcasters were cheering from the sidelines at the prospect that their competition would be hobbled if not put out of business entirely.
At this point, the only hope for survivable rates for webcasters appears to get the over-the-air broadcasters, who still have political clout, tossed into the same royalty-paying pot, and then start talking about lowering the rates across ALL transmission media. Platform neutrality, yay!!" -wallow-T
AGREED. Except, speaking as both an arist and a songwriter, I don't mind at all when someone wants to share my music with others for the sheer love of it, but as soon as (s)he gets paid to do so, I want my cut. I believe royalty rates are too high across the board. I want them reduced to sane and sustainable levels for both broadcasters and webcasters, but I also want an end to statistical sampling of a very few playlists, so that everybody that gets played gets paid.
If the performers actually received the money from the royalty it would be one thing. The royalty is paid to the owner of the "master recording" ie the record label. It is then up them to decide if the performer/artist gets it. If record labels already make it difficult for artist to get paid by album sales, who says they won't make it difficult for artists to receive their share of the "performers royalty."-Mesh
Yes, and this is the point in history when we have an opportunity to do away with the 'plantation mentality' that the RIAA and major labels have encouraged; still it's only fair that the entity which pays for the production owns the master recording.There is also another major inequity that should be dealt with: the US is also the only country in which composers and performers are not paid royalties for performances of theatrical films. (hope that's not too off-topic, and as an aside, I think this thread could do with some pruning of the posters that want to argue about the difference between a tax and a fee)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAB forced these fees down other services' throats
What's the matter NAB, can't take the taste of your own medicine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't recall seeing a post on this. Why are radios struggling? Is it a biz model problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]