Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
If I start explaining more about how artist royalties are paid (and underpaid) I will get accused of schilling my services. Besides I have royalties to claim for my artist clients who do indeed get paid, otherwise they couldn't afford my services.
With respect, your facts are wrong. The fees will go to to an agent (e.g., SoundExchange), which will distribute royalties as follows:
50 percent - Sound recording copyright owner (while often a record label, some artists own the copyright for their master recordings)
45 percent - DIRECTLY to the featured artist (not to the record label or RIAA)
5 percent - non-featured artists [AFTRA] and [AFM]
HFA has nothing to do with sound recording royalties or performance royalties, now or in the past (HFA licenses and collects mechanical publishing royalties).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
Artists are often underpaid for their work, which is why I audit record companies. However, artists often do get paid something for their work and neighboring rights are one way through which they will be paid for their work, so I don't get why you are against it, if your main concern is artists getting paid.
I am not ignoring any "evidence". I am in the business of getting artists paid! Your statement that artists do not get paid for their work shows that you are ignorant of a mountain of well documented facts that I don't have time to enumerate for you.
You should read the book "All You Need To Know About the Music Business" by Donald Passman, Esq. to learn from a more objective viewpoint than an opinion blog the difference between artists and songwriters and to learn about different basic sources of income, and the history behind them.
No music means no music station advertising dollars, which means no music stations. If there were no music stations, music sales and audiences of music services that do license sound recordings would increase, not decrease. Therefore, although you can argue that big radio does promote one artist over another, it fails to promote music overall in any kind of a macro way. Moreover, the more profitable the broadcast business has become, the less profitable the music business has become. As I have heard someone else say "Who's really promoting who?"
Is there any other major business that pays nothing for the product it sells?
This is something I learned on March 17 at the Beverly Hills Bar Association program "Artist's Performance Rights: European Income and the New Legislation."
I agree with you that the problem is that the government got involved many years ago. If it hadn't, artists and sound recording owners would have been collecting US neighboring rights royalties this whole time!
P.S.
Small commercial stations will pay less than $5,000 per year, with many paying just $100. Non-commercial stations would pay $1,000 per year or less.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On April 20, I will be moderating a panel discussion at the California Copyright Conference where we will discuss the impact of the neighboring rights legislation. You can hear about it from other experts, not just me.
I see that you don't know the complete history: The government got involved many years ago to exempt radio stations from paying sound recording royalties. The new legislation is meant to undo that, so that there can now be negotiations between the buyer and seller, or radio stations can take advantage of statutory licensing, instead of having to negotiate with every copyright owner. (Further, these statutory rates are intended to reflect the promotional value offered by airplay.)
Also, incidentally, the government won't be "collecting the tax." One or more agents of those with sound recording interests will be collecting the license fees, which will bring parity to all types of radio.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
The handful big media companies who own nearly all of the USA's commercial radio stations are going to great lengths to mislead the public to think that artists will not receive a significant share of the performance royalties. This is a lie.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
I know what I am talking about. I am a royalty auditor and I audit performance royalties, so I know how it works. There are always problems, but, sound recording performance royalties are paid from the collection agent directly to the artist and record companies, so the artist share will not pass through the record companies.... Thus, record companies won't ever get their hands on the artist shares of US sound recording performance royalties.
My 90% division was rough (actually it only added up to 80%, LOL) but it was pretty accurate. Your depiction is not at all accurate. I appreciate your skepticism, but your figures are not factual in this case. You have been brainwashed by big media conglomerates.
It isn't a tax. The money does not go to the government. It is a license fee.
Even if radio promotes recordings, radio derives profit from the recordings through ad sales, so it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music.
We are one of the only countries outside of places like North Korea and Iran who don't recognize this.
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
LOL re: Onion.
With respect, your facts are wrong. The fees will go to to an agent (e.g., SoundExchange), which will distribute royalties as follows:
50 percent - Sound recording copyright owner (while often a record label, some artists own the copyright for their master recordings)
45 percent - DIRECTLY to the featured artist (not to the record label or RIAA)
5 percent - non-featured artists [AFTRA] and [AFM]
HFA has nothing to do with sound recording royalties or performance royalties, now or in the past (HFA licenses and collects mechanical publishing royalties).
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
I am not ignoring any "evidence". I am in the business of getting artists paid! Your statement that artists do not get paid for their work shows that you are ignorant of a mountain of well documented facts that I don't have time to enumerate for you.
You should read the book "All You Need To Know About the Music Business" by Donald Passman, Esq. to learn from a more objective viewpoint than an opinion blog the difference between artists and songwriters and to learn about different basic sources of income, and the history behind them.
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re:
Is there any other major business that pays nothing for the product it sells?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re:
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
I agree with you that the problem is that the government got involved many years ago. If it hadn't, artists and sound recording owners would have been collecting US neighboring rights royalties this whole time!
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re:
Small commercial stations will pay less than $5,000 per year, with many paying just $100. Non-commercial stations would pay $1,000 per year or less.
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re:
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
Visit www.theccc.org to reserve your seat!
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
Also, incidentally, the government won't be "collecting the tax." One or more agents of those with sound recording interests will be collecting the license fees, which will bring parity to all types of radio.
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: This isn't a tax
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
Re: Payments go to the performers?
40% to the sound recording owner (usually the label)
30% to the featured artist
10% to non-featured artists
On the post: Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
This isn't a tax
Even if radio promotes recordings, radio derives profit from the recordings through ad sales, so it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music.
We are one of the only countries outside of places like North Korea and Iran who don't recognize this.
Next >>