SoundExchange Claims To Open Up, But Somehow Its List Of Unpaid Musicians Has Disappeared [Updated: List Found]

from the hide-and-seek! dept

Update: SoundExchange got in touch to respond to some of these points, please read the updates in the post and at the end.

SoundExchange, the collections group in charge of collecting and distributing money to musicians from a variety of different services (radio, satellite, webcasting, etc.), is technically a "spinoff" of the RIAA, but as many people who have dealt with SoundExchange will tell you, it's still tied at the hip with the RIAA. In fact, I was recently talking with someone who told the story of "negotiating" with SoundExchange, and was surprised to discover at the meeting that there was an RIAA representative who did all the talking. The SoundExchange guy stayed quiet.

Why the government has granted exclusive rights to this industry group to collect and distribute money to musicians is troubling enough. But it's made worse by the fact that if SoundExchange "can't find" musicians to give the money to, it gets to keep the money. Thus, for years there's been a struggle over the fact that SoundExchange seems to have incredible trouble finding musicians -- including some huge rock stars, and that means that SoundExchange, officially a non-profit, is holding on to a ton of cash (currently somewhere around $200 million). There are also questions about how SoundExchange has violated the law that created it, in order to lobby for even more rights to collect money from radio stations.

Based on all this, we've always had trouble taking SoundExchange seriously, so consider us skeptical now that the organization claims that it's going to be much more open and communicative and has launched a new website to help be more open. Only problem? The big list of artists that SoundExchange can't find has gone missing Update: Apparently this was a mistake by the lawyer criticizing SoundExchange who was unable to find the list, though it is still there. In the link above to P2Pnet, entertainment lawyer Fred Wilhelms goes through a variety of questions that SoundExchange hasn't answered, and he asks what happened to that list (while also noting how the list almost never seemed to change) Update: Again this appears to be an error on the part of Wilhelms, as the list is on the website:

The new website is a lot cleaner and easier to use, but there's one thing the old site had that the new site doesn't; the unregistered artist list.

As of now, there's no way for anyone outside the organization to assist in the effort to locate artists that SoundExchange has been unable to register since 2006. Despite your glowing reports on how many artists SoundExchange has been finding, you and I both know that, before the list disappeared, no names had been removed from the published list in over seven months, and only a couple dozen in the last 18 months. I'll take your subsequent assertion that the full and updated list will appear on the website at face value. Is there any schedule for that? Please don't tell me "soon." That's a devalued coin in the SoundExchange treasury.

Wilhelms also notes that for all of SoundExchange's claims to be "open" it's also conveniently not explaining how it determines who gets paid:

There's another thing that is missing from the new website which was repeatedly promised to me by John Simson and Neeta Ragoowansi; an explanation of how SoundExchange uses samples to determine which artists get what share of the royalty revenue when complete census data is not available. I was told two years ago that this information would be provided on the website, but I find that, not only is sampling not mentioned, SoundExchange continues to say things like "Get Paid When You Get Played." That's the header on the Featured Registered Artist page.

I have clients who have gotten a lot of play, but haven't gotten paid, and they've been told it was because their plays were not in the sample playlists provided by the webcasters who play them. Perhaps you can explain why SoundExchange has decided not to mention sampling on the website. I come back to related problems later on in this letter, but I would like to know if SoundExchange is ever going to explain how it samples, or even that it relies on sampling at all.

This is a big issue. As we've seen over and over again, many of these collections societies use sampling and counting methods that greatly overvalue big stars (who need the money less) at the expense of up-and-coming artists. It's like the poor get to pay the rich.

From there, Wilhelm's letter goes on in great detail responding to claims from SoundExchange and debunking them one by one. SoundExchange claims that they're now going to be much more open and respond to these types of questions. We'll be interested to see what they have to say.

Update: SoundExchange disputes many of the assertions in the post and in the letter from Wilhelm. I've corrected the one factually incorrect issue that we made -- the list was still there (though some in our comments argue it's now much more difficult to use). I'm not going to edit Wilhelm's letter, because that is his work, but SoundExchange disputes his claim that "sampling is not mentioned" by pointing to an FAQ response, and also disputes the issue of the list not updating by stating "We do not update the list on the website as it was a one-time release of artists who stood to lose money in a 2006 pool release (which was later cancelled in favor of ongoing efforts to find artists). This is clearly stated on the list. Names come off the unpaid list all the time, but the website list was a static, one-time release." Even though this is stated on the list, it seems like it would only make sense to keep the list current.

The other issues that SoundExchange has with the post are points of disagreement, but are not factually incorrect. It notes that while it can keep the money, it has not done so (though, leaves out the fact that this was due to publicity over the fact it was going to do so). SoundExchange also disputes the claim that it has "trouble finding artists," saying that the real problem is the rightsholders themselves, who fail to register. If that's the case, then it would certainly be useful to provide details on how many artists that SoundExchange holds money for that SoundExchange has contacted and then still failed to register. SoundExchange also insists that it has every right to lobby, but I'll link to the original article explaining why it seems likely that SoundExchange is in violation here. Finally, SoundExchange doesn't like being lumped in with other performance rights groups who use sampling methods which tend to favor large artists over smaller ones, saying it supports "census" data that would accurately account for all plays. Duly noted.

Filed Under: collections, musicians, openness
Companies: riaa, soundexchange

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves RIAA Bailout Radio Tax

from the and-so-it-goes dept

Because the federal government apparently hasn't helped the RIAA enough in the past century -- despite repeatedly changing copyright laws to favor the industry again and again and again (and again) -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the Performance Rights Act, which effectively serves to tax radio stations for promoting music. It's quite obvious to anyone who actually understands radio economics that this makes no sense. After all, the history of radio has always been about payola -- having the labels pay the radio stations to play certain works. That's because the record labels know quite well that airtime leads to more money in terms of promoting an artist and building a business model around music, concert and merchandise sales. To the labels, airplay has always been the equivalent of advertising. That's why they pay for it.

But now they want the radio stations to pay them to advertise the labels' music? Isn't that getting the equation backwards?

This is nothing more than a federal bailout of the RIAA, who still refuses to embrace new business models. Instead, they have to squeeze others and get the government to force them to hand over money. A real business model doesn't involve changing the law. It involves giving others a reason to buy. Apparently, that's too difficult for the RIAA.

As for the claims that a performance license will somehow help musicians, that's bogus as well. First, ask the RIAA's SoundExchange about all the money it keeps for itself and about all the musicians it "can't find." Besides, all this will do is harm up-and-coming musicians. Because radio stations will now need to pay more for playing music, they'll play less music, and if they're playing less music, they'll focus just on the big name acts. Smaller up-and-coming artists should be furious with the RIAA for giving radio stations less incentive to play their works. Remember, this is the opposite of payola. While payola got new records on the air, this will make sure fewer get on the air. But it will sure put a bunch more money in the pockets of the major record labels. So there's that.

Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: riaa, soundexchange

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.

Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: pandora, riaa, soundexchange

Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA's Bogus Radio Witchhunt?

from the waste-of-resources dept

Earlier this year, MusicFirst, a lobbying group that is run by the RIAA and pushing for a special tax on radio stations for daring to promote songs, came out with its latest in a long list of bizarre claims, demanding that the FCC investigate the fact that radio stations were supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the Performance Royalty tax. There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was "a kind of piracy" for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.

So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it's piracy. If it doesn't play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.

Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell... well... pretty much every radio station around.

That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn't happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.

And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it's quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.

Based on all of this, you would hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition... but tragically, it's opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott). The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that's the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?

Filed Under: bailout, high school radio, performance rights act, piracy, radio
Companies: fcc, musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange

Pandora: If We're Getting Taxed So Heavily By SoundExchange, Radio Should Be Too

from the strange-bedfellows dept

Well, this is rather disappointing. Just days after caving in and agreeing to new webcaster rates that will harm pretty much everyone, Pandora has gotten right into bed with the RIAA/SoundExchange in supporting the Performance Right Act (the RIAA Bailout Act) to extend a similar unnecessary tax on radio. Pandora's reasoning is no surprise: basically it's saying that if it has to pay such a silly tax to help promote musicians, it's unfair that radio stations get away without paying something similar. But, still, it's disappointing. Rather than looking at adding value to the overall market, Pandora has basically decided that it's "enemy's enemy is a friend" and is supporting such a law simply because it will harm radio stations. This makes me think significantly less of Pandora.

Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: pandora, soundexchange

Why The New Webcasting Rates Are A Death Sentence For Webcasters

from the plainly-ridiculous dept

When the announcement came out this week that webcasters had somehow "come to an agreement" with SoundExchange over webcasts, what was unbelievable was that many presented this as a "victory" for webcasters. Hell, even SoundExchange made public statements about how it was disappointed by the rates, but it was an "experiment." But when you looked at the actual numbers, this made no sense. The rates are ridiculously high when compared to royalty rates for traditional radio or satellite radio. Michael Robertson breaks down the numbers and explains away the myths of this deal. It will almost certainly bankrupt nearly every webcaster out there. Robertson focuses on the big webcasters, and points out that the 25% royalty rate promoted by the press isn't accurate at all, and for a company like Pandora the real rate will be north of 40% of revenue -- which is not even close to sustainable.

Meanwhile, small webcasters don't get much of a break either. Live365 is pointing out that these rates will basically kill off every webcaster it hosts by requiring a $25,000 fee. As the company notes, the guy running the Armenian folk music station for $10/month isn't going to pay $25,000 and certainly isn't going to make enough revenue to pay up.

Make no mistake: these new rates are effectively going to kill off a significant portion of online webcasters. The recording industry, of course, doesn't find this problematic, because they don't like the fact that they can't control webcasters the way they can radio, so they are fine with taxing them out of business. But what a waste of what technology allows. These days, anyone can and should be able to effectively express their own musical views by webcasting what they like. And that's about to become prohibitively expensive for no reason other than that SoundExchange/RIAA have a gov't granted monopoly over any kind of broadcasting.

Filed Under: copyright, royalties, webcasting
Companies: live365, pandora, soundexchange

Why Should Webcasters Pay 25% Of Revenue To Promote Musicians?

from the how-is-this-possibly-good? dept

After years of back and forth negotiating (and more than a couple public spats), it appears that SoundExchange and music webcasters like Pandora have finally worked out an agreement on webcasting rates. If you don't recall, the Copyright Royalty Board assigned absolutely ridiculous royalty rates a few years ago, which seemed to have no bearing on reality (random aside: no one has yet explained why we feel it's okay for a small group of judges to determine what is a "fair rate"). The original rates would almost certainly put most webcasting operations completely out of business. But before delivering that death sentence, SoundExchange, the RIAA-spinoff that gets to collect the money (and has a long history of hanging onto it for longer than necessary and having trouble "finding" the artists it owes money to), thankfully agreed to hold off enforcing the new rates while everyone negotiated.

Since then, there has been a wide variety of back and forth details until the official agreement was put in place today... and even though many of the news stories present this as SoundExchange somehow backing down and "Pandora" winning, the details, frankly, seem so out of touch with reality it's difficult to see how it makes any sense at all. The main issue is performance rights, which radio stations already don't have to pay because radio is helping to promote artists. The idea that webcasters/broadcasters should need to pay artists for the right to promote them to fans just seems bizarre and borderline incomprehensible in the first place.

Also worth noting is that the royalty rates that traditional broadcasters do pay (to composers/songwriters/publishers) averages out between 3 and 4% of revenue. So, if you really had to come up with a reasonable rate to pay performers as well, you might think that it would start around that same 3 or 4%. Even that would be a pure bonus for performers who are used to getting nothing as a royalty (tax) from radio. But... no. The agreement is an astounding 25% of revenue as a bare minimum, with a requirement to kick-in $25,000 just to be a webcaster at all.

Pandora claims they're happy about this because it keeps Pandora in business (and settles a big legal dispute, which hopefully allows them to go raise some money to stay in business). But it's a stunningly large percentage of revenue that will make things prohibitively expensive for most webcasters to really stay in business. You now have to have huge margins to get anywhere in a notoriously competitive business.

Who loses? Well, just about everyone outside of SoundExchange/RIAA. Already, despite being happy about this deal, Pandora has announced that it's sharply curtailing its free service, and if you listen to more than 40 hours per month, you'll need to start paying. Most webcasters now have a huge expense that will make it difficult for many of them to remain in business at all. Musicians are severely harmed as well. While a few top musicians might get a new royalty check from SoundExchange (when and if it gets around to "finding" those artists), most musicians will now get less exposure, making it that much more difficult for them to put in place the successful modern business models needed to succeed today. This basically just rewards the RIAA/SoundExchange and a few large artists who will get an extra royalty check. Everyone else is worse off.

Some might say the NAB and traditional radio stations also make out nicely, in that since these rates may harm webcasters, it takes away some competition, but even if the radio stations are happy in the short-run, it's a bad deal. These rates, certainly, will likely influence any eventual "performance right" that's added to terrestrial radio, and could significantly jack up the cost of running a regular radio station as well.

We're living in an era of amazing technological progress, where it's easy for anyone to go out and promote musicians to others and help get those musicians and a larger audience, and all the RIAA has done, time and time again, is work as diligently as possible to prevent anyone but itself from promoting artists. What a shame. This "deal" does nothing to help up-and-coming artists and will significantly limit their ability to get their music noticed.

Filed Under: performance rates, promotion, royalty rates, webcast
Companies: pandora, riaa, soundexchange

Yet Another Copyright Lobbying Group Caught Infringing

from the always-seems-to-happen... dept

These days, it's nearly impossible not to infringe on copyright in one way or another during your regular day -- but it's always amusing when big-time copyright supporters are caught infringing (and it seems to happen quite frequently). The latest is musicFIRST, the lobbying group funded (potentially illegally) by the recording industry, which has been pushing a campaign claiming that radio is piracy and demanding that radio stations pay even more royalties than they already do.

But, of course, when it comes to licensing or paying royalties itself... well, you know... that's a different story.

Billboard has noticed that MusicFIRST appears to have quoted the entire lyrics to the Beatles song "We Can Work It Out" in a mocking press release it put out earlier in the week -- but failed to get the necessary license. Now, of course, many of us believe that quoting lyrics like that is perfectly reasonable fair use. But... the recording industry (you know, the folks behind MusicFIRST) doesn't believe that, which is why they've shut down plenty of people for posting lyrics on the web and even thrown people in jail for posting lyrics on the web.

But, when they do it? It's fine? Funny how that works...

Filed Under: copyright infringement, lobbying, lyrics, musicfirst
Companies: musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange

How Come SoundExchange Is Holding Onto Over $100 Million?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

We've talked about the ridiculousness of the various music collections societies being involved in the discussions on new music business models. To them, the answer is always the same: add another license and let us collect it. They're middlemen and they take in tons of money and would only be all too happy to take in more. Some got upset with us in the comments, by noting that some of these collections societies are non-profits. In fact, the new Choruss offering, which we've already explained why it's a bad idea that's more of a bait-and-switch than anything useful, has been described as a similar "non-profit" collections group.

But, as we've noted in the past, supposedly nonprofit collections groups such as SoundExchange (a spinoff of the RIAA) are notorious for not finding artists to pay -- even some of the biggest names in the business. Oh, and did we mention that if the royalties go "unclaimed" the recording industry (via SoundExchange) often gets to keep the money? Given that bit of info, it's perhaps no surprise at all that P2Pnet is noticing that SoundExchange's own tax returns note that the nonprofit was sitting on over $100 million at the end of 2007, a pretty significant leap over previous years, and a somewhat startling sum for a supposed "nonprofit" in charge of both collecting and distributing funds.

It seems like those musicians sure are difficult to find.

The P2Pnet report also points out that it will be interesting to see how much SoundExchange has spent on lobbying efforts. SoundExchange is actually barred from lobbying the government, but has been ignoring that for years by funding musicFIRST, a recording industry lobbying group that's trying to add a new license for radio stations to pay (collected by SoundExchange, of course) by claiming that radio is actually a form of piracy.

So, even if Choruss or these other collections societies seem to be designed with the best intentions in mind (and I'm sure they are), it seems that they're wide open to abuse -- which is yet another reason to be quite worried about simply handing over the entire industry's business model to such an operation.

Filed Under: collections, money
Companies: choruss, soundexchange

Traditional Radio Stations Agree To Webcasting Rates; Internet Only Webcasters... Not So Much

from the battle-still-brewing dept

While the big radio stations, represented by the NAB seem to have worked out a deadline deal on webcasting rates, it appears that internet-only webcasters have had their talks break down. This is bad news, of course. The whole situation is something of a farce. Rather than letting the market work the issue out directly, the Copyright Royalty Board (basically some internet-illiterate judges) basically gave the recording industry everything it wanted when it declared what the rates should be -- and made them quite high. Many online radio stations noted that the rates were so high that they would shut down. And, of course, the whole process would make RIAA-spinoff SoundExchange tons of money in administrative fees while separately benefiting the major labels that make up the RIAA by driving the smaller indie webcasters (who play less RIAA music) out of business. A win-win! And, of course, protesting by playing non-RIAA music wouldn't help. SoundExchange gets to collect for that music as well.

About the only reasonable thing was (despite the CRB's refusal to stay the ruling) that SoundExchange agreed to hold off new royalties while the parties negotiated. Time to work out a deal was supposed to end last fall, and despite SoundExchange and many webcasters asking for more time, the NAB lobbied hard to deny that extra time. Luckily they got it anyway, but even the extended period of time has ended. NAB and its big radio stations are fine with their deal, but internet-only webcasters still don't see anything reasonable. On top of that, SoundExchange made a separate offer to "small" webcasters, but most have found that to be way too onerous as well -- especially the part where if they ever get acquired by a larger player, they'll have to go back later and pay the higher rates even for the time when they were small and independent.

And, no one has yet explained why webcasters should need to pay so much money for helping to promote new acts in the first place. Radio, streaming online or over the air, is a great way for people to learn about new acts, giving them reasons to go out and buy products and merchandise or see those acts live. By forcing the very people who want to promote the music to pay ridiculous fees, all the industry is doing is shooting itself in the foot. Again.

Filed Under: copyright royalty board, radio, royalties, webcasting
Companies: nab, soundexchange