As The RIAA Lobbies For More Royalties For Itself, It's Fighting (And Losing) Over Having To Pay Royalties To Songwriters
from the what's-good-for-the-goose... dept
The RIAA is in the middle of a big fight for new royalties (i.e., a performance rights tax) on songs played on the radio, going on and on about how anyone against those fees are "stealing" from them. Yet, when it comes to the royalties that RIAA members have to pay to others, suddenly those are worth fighting against. As you hopefully know, there are a few different copyrights related to music. There's the copyright on the recording itself, which is usually held by the record label. But there is also the copyright on the song or composition, which can be held by a music publisher or the songwriter.For whatever reason, while there is a compulsory license setup for anyone doing a cover song, such that if you cover a song, you don't have to first get permission to do so, but you just have to pay an agreed upon rate, which is usually set by the Copyright Royalty Board (a group of judges who more or less pick a number out of a hat). There are all sorts of problems with having a group of judges trying to randomly set prices on royalties, but it is how the system is set up. What's amusing is that after a recent Copyright Royalty Board ruling on cover songs set the rate higher than the RIAA liked, the RIAA went to court to get those rates changed. A district court turned the RIAA down, and now an appeals court has done the same.
In both cases, the court rules against the RIAA, pointing out that, even though the RIAA doesn't like the ruling, the CRB is well within its legal mandate to make both decisions. To be honest, I actually think the RIAA is correct that these rates and the reasoning behind them are ridiculous and not at all sensible. The ringtone rate, in particular, is particularly egregious, and make it difficult for creative business models that embrace things like free ringtones to exist.
However, I find it to be quite hilarious to see the RIAA arguing so vehemently against these rate rulings, when it's demanding similar rulings on its own behalf. Apparently, the RIAA really only supports such rates when it gets to collect them. When it has to pay out, suddenly those royalties are a problem. Funny how that works...
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: copyright, copyright royalty board, royalties
Companies: riaa, sga
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Please explain how free ringtones can be charged for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a complementary good given out with other goods? Why not? "Attend our concert, get a free ringtone of our hit song."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
" The ringtone rate, in particular, is particularly egregious, and make it difficult for creative business models that embrace things like free ringtones to exist."
But this is a really good thing for us. They charge more for "record label content", sales go down, to maintain the same lifestyles prices are again increased. They price themselves out of the market. In the end they fail because they have to many conflicting interests dictating what they want monetarily.
Again its a good thing.
AC - "That's not what he means."
He is right. How can they charge for Creative Commons or other ringtones along the same license types?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A) Millions of people that don't know better
or
B) Companies like Verizon that make it very difficult for people to put their own MP3's onto their phones for ringtones. (but not always impossible)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bright lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we all know you are trying hard to find a slam, but that is incredibly weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here is the quote in context, read through that whole paragraph again and think on it.
Seems to me its almost exactly the same thing. Every time a startup tried to negotiate rates with the RIAA to a percentage model they say no in order to crush a startup with burdensome fees before they can even get off the ground. Now that the RIAA sees its profits dropping its all in favor of a percentage model that will allow it to pay less when it earns less but thinks this is not OK for anyone else.
So i would say Mike is right on point on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the riaa is seeking to take an incoming pie, and split it up by percentage. the money in is licensing rights, and is not dependent on any other sales or marketing campaigns to set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would think even minuscule revenue for the RIAA is better than none at all but if they would rather continue running themselves into the ground then so be it.
Also, these contracts do not last until the end of the earth, they can be negotiated to only last a few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"For years, various digital music startups have tried to license music from the RIAA -- and all of them go to the RIAA with a "percentage of revenue" offer."
Still too hard?
"For years, various digital music startups have tried to license music from the RIAA"
Oh, I forgot, you're TAM. Your attention span is even shorter. Try this one:
"digital music startups"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every artist knows not to take percentage of revenues because the industry never makes to the black on paper ever!
Everybody knows they are a bunch of fraudsters scamming not only artists, but the government and the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think i'm beginning to understand the riaa's strategy...
i know i am filled with a weird combination of anger and apathy. it's like: "those bastards!" and, at the same time: "oh, more riaa stuff. yawn..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not know why you are suprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royalties are fine
sorry, but if an artist performs a song, that ought be equal or higher than the songwriter royalty. which in many cases are different people.
also, artists ought to get performance royalties from radio airplay, for a long time, artists in any other country get radio royalties from airplay on commercial radio, but in the US it is mainly limited to songwriters only, unless it is from digital radio.
sorry, this needs to change. artists get screwed, not only from income in the usa, but around the world, US artists dont get royalties from other countries at all, but artists from say Canada , UK or asia do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]