[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] ASCAP follows RIAA down the road guaranteed not to make friends
--- Bob Olhsson <olh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That $1083 a month is supposedly only 6% higher than
> the current statutory
> rate.
Once again, you DO NOT KNOW YOUR FACTS and are FLAT
WRONG.
The only 6% rate increase is between the years 2009
and 2010. The 2010 rate increase is 149% over the
current rates.
Here is the ACTUAL breakdown of per song per listener
royalty rate increases:
1999-2005
Rate: $0.000762
2006
Rate: $0.0008
5% increase over 1999 - 2005
2007
Rate: $0.0011
38% increase over 2006
44% increase over 1999 - 2005
2008
Rate: $0.0014
27% increase over 2007
84% increase over 1999 - 2008
2009
Rate: $0.0018
29% increase over 2008
136% increse over 1999- 2005
2010
Rate: $0.0019
6% increase over 2009
149% increase over 199 - 2005
> You obviously don't pay the current statutory
> rate and you won't have
> to pay the new one unless you are stupid enough to
> not make a better deal
> directly with SoundExchange
SoundExchange does not have the authority to
unilaterally cut deals for statutory royalties. Any
negotiations between them have to be ratified either
by the CRB or by Congress. One simply does not go to
them and negotiate.
Nor are they especially willing to negotiate.
Negotiations with large webcasters have broken down
because SoundExchange has tied the implementation of
DRM technology to any negotiations. SoundExchange had
not even acknowledged the attempts to negotiate by the
NAB on behalf of terrestrial broadcasters who stream.
The NAB was so frustrated by this that it has actually
come out in support of the Internet Radio Equality
Act. If there is any group of broadcasters out there
that are potential allies in RIAA/SoundExchange's
attempt to shut down Internet radio, one would think
it would be the NAB. But apparently, SoundExchange
has ticked them off too.
> SoundExchange is a membership
> organization exactly like ASCAP. Its board is half
> artists and half
> copyright owners who in many cases are also artists.
SoundExchange is a puppet organization of the RIAA.
That is a well documented fact. As for the artists
and copyright owners who are on the board - who picks
them and on what basis? It is by invitation only and
those who do the inviting are the RIAA as it was the
RIAA who founded SoundExchange to beging with. And,
until recently, SoundExchange shared office space with
the RIAA.
> A friend of mine works at WFMU. They found it was no
> big hassle to simply
> negotiate directly with the artists they play. The
> internet makes this kind
> of communication utterly trivial.
There may be isolated instances where a particular
program might be able to do that. But for reasons I
have covered in EXCRUCIATING detail in previous
postings and which you choose to ignore and/or evade,
this is not a commercially viable option for the vast
majority of webcasters. The result if Congress does
not impose changes is most webcasters will be forced
to shut down with those that remain commercially
viable being ones who sign sweetheart direct license
deals with the RIAA labels.
And even if those surviving broadcasters were willing
to play independant artists and did not feel
intimidated doing so under the not unrrealistic
threat that their sweetheart direct license deal with
the major labels might not be renewed if they play
formats that are disadventageous to the intrests of
the RIAA labels, the ONLY way they could do so is to
demand that indies get NO royalties AT ALL. Stations
might be able to, on an ad hoc basis here and there,
direct license a few non-RIAA recordings. But there
is no way that they could pay them. With a sweetheart
deal with the major labels, a station would end up
cutting four royalty checks - one for EMI, Warner,
Universal and Sony. But there is no way that it is
practical to cut and send hundreds of checks for very
small amounts to individual artists or copyright
holders. It would cost more in adminstrative expenses
to cut those checks than most of the checks are likely
to be worth. And unless one puts out polka
recordings and is willing to forfeit all royalties,
there is no alternative orgniazation in place that
would allow non-RIAA copyright holders to negotiate
royalties with broadcasters on a collective basis and
which would collect royalty payments on behalf of its
members. This is not just me saying this. This is,
in fact, what is already happening with last.fm which
was bought out by CBS and has sweetheart deals in
place with the major labels bypassing payments to
SoundExchange (and, incidentally, the artists as the
labels are not obligated to split the money from
direct deals with artists as they are with
SoundEschange royalties). Independants are able to
submit their recordings to last.fm - but ONLY on
condition that they forfeit their royalties.
> The intent of the
> law is to favor people
> who are willing to make a direct deal.
Yes. That is indeed the case. And since making a
direct deal with just four RIAA labels will give one
access to all of the most popular formats and artists
out there, most broadcasters would have every
incentive to negotiate with the labels and stop there.
And the result of that would be Internet radio would
become a carbon copy of the FM radio style formats
which play 90 percent RIAA music (By contrast, only 45
percent of the music played on Live365 is from RIAA
labels). The ENTIRE PURPOSE of these rates which the
RIAA asked for and the CRB granted is to put as many
obsticals in place as possible for non-RIAA artists
and non-RIAA approved formats to get airplay and
thereby preserve the major labels' historic
"gatekeeper" status of who does and does not get
airplay. Since it does not cost much to produce and
distribute sound recordings these days, that
"gatekeeper" status is the ONLY thing the major labels
still have going for them.