[NewMusic] Save Internet Radio

[Brady Sharp]

The most loathesome thing about this is that Sound Exchange collects
royalties on behalf of even non-RIAA labels, so even if someone
releases their music for free, Sound Exchange is getting paid for it.
Theoretically, if you want to stream your OWN music for free, they'll
get paid.

I used to feel more on the fence, but most of me now regards the RIAA
as a bunch of greedy thugs, sueing whoever they can to scare as many
as possible.  I'm not one of those that abdicates stealing music, but
their scare tactics are pretty outrageous nowadays, and the more
artists that unaffiliate themselves from the RIAA (if that's
possible!), the better everyone will be.

The RIAA as a corporation is more loathed than Wal-Mart according to a
recent poll.  You have to work pretty hard to achieve that status!


Brady


On 5/4/07, olorin at lmi.net <olorin at lmi.net> wrote:
> so let me weigh in here on this discussion, though i've certainly
> never received royalties either for radio or internet play. i've only
> tangentially explored internet radio through pandora which i found
> pretty interesting overall. i've been reading various blogs about the
> situation and signed the petition as well and i hope something can be
> worked out.
>
> this situation looks like a pure money grab on the part of
> SoundExchange, until fairly recently part of the RIAA, the same
> company responsible for shutting down illegal downloading of music in
> various legal and not-so-legal ways. the RIAA has got just about the
> worlds absolute worst reputation on the planet at the moment so any
> company formerly affiliated with them i'd tend to look at with an
> extremely jaundiced eye and a truckload of salt to boot.
>
> the big deal with Sound Exchange is that they're now charging per song
> and per listener, whereas with radio it's just per song. i don't know
> what the copyright royalty  rate was like before but to increase fees
> retroactively between 3 and 12 times the original amount paid by the
> station will put mid and small size for profit internet radio stations
> like Pandora and Live 365 out of business, and i can't help thinking
> that that's what the RIAA basically wants, to kill any possibility of
> independent distribution dead.
>
> except that's too glib of a situation. the real situation is more
> complex than this. this copyright royalty rate relates to the rates
> for a statutory license to play any RIAA artists' music on the
> Internet. this is so the station doesn't have to go through red tape
> asking permission of every artist on every label for  an individual
> license for a song. internet radio stations complain that this red
> tape is too inconvenient but it strikes me that a simple web based
> interface is all it would take to have an artist or a rep personally
> approve the use of the license on the site. it would slow the process
> of processing material for that site, but the result is that a license
> fee could be worked out individually. the only issue is that fees
> would very likely vary a lot.
>
> there is of course the possibility that it could result in another
> licensing organization outside the RIAA which would manage all of the
> 'indy' licenses for internet performance, but RIAA forbids any member
> to use another licensing company which means the vast majority of
> classic jazz and rock tracks would remain locked up due to the strong
> - arming by the RIAA.
>
> oddly enough i don't see it affecting the experimental scene all that
> much. i think very few experimental labels are members of the RIAA and
> since there's not much money to be had from that sector i think it
> will largely get ignored.
>
> however finding stations (radio and internet) to play the music to
> potential buyers will become more difficult as larger independent
> websites shut down operations or redirect their energies to safer
> possibilities. it's quite possible at that point that the companies
> could end up being bought by a larger conglomerate.
>
> i am certain that some large companies will benefit from overturning
> the fee, but a lot of small and mid size companies will continue to
> flourish alongside and that's a good thing. SoundEXchange seems to be
> saying theat they're sticking up for the 'little guy' the artist's
> rights, but what they really mean is we want our 95/5  split (95 for
> them, 5 for the artist).
>
> anyway that's my .02
>
> scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>