Come collect from me. Throw me in jail. I dare you.

I wrote this opinion piece back in June. Although the situation has changed somewhat, I think the basic idea still applies.

…
Now, the question that everyone has been asking from the start of this fiasco back in April has been “what are they doing?” They keep talking about how anything less then the outrageous fees dictated by the CRB will leave the artists “desecrated, and homeless.” Anyone with a couple hours in an econ. class will tell you that the artists won’t get anything if there is no means to advertise their goods. Furthermore, basic math will tell you that if a company has to pay 1300% of it’s revenue (that’s money coming in, not profit left over) to stay open, it won’t stay open long.

How many people would spend $20 on a CD with music that they have never heard before, from a band that they don’t know? My guess is, not many. Fact of the matter is, people buy the songs they hear repeatedly. Why else would the labels utilize “Payola” to promote their songs?
( ie: Sony / J.Lo report on Fox)

I know what some of you are thinking. “RIAA…err…Soundexchange is trying to close down the small stations that can’t afford to pay these rates. The big corporations will streamline their operations, lay off a few people, and pay the fees.” That’s not the case.

The big corporations (ie: AOL, Yahoo, MTV, Pandora, Live 365, Real Networks) have all come out declaring that if the choice is between paying 773% of what satellite radio pays, or shutting down their operations, they will choose the latter. Obviously these companies don’t want to close down, giving up all their hard work, let alone revenue streams. So what will they be forced to do when they can’t afford the “standard, everyone pays the same amount” fees that have been dictated?

Negotiate directly with the labels.
The law explicitly allows companies to negotiate directly with the “copyright holder” (ie: Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Warner Music, EMI Group) for a reduced fee structure, less than the “common” compulsory agreement.

This does nothing but benefit the labels:
* More money. — Remember, no Soundexchange, no requirement for 50% of the collected revenue to go to the artists. (you know, those pesky people that they can’t seem to find anyway)

*Label controlled set lists. — “You agreed right here in this contract that if we let you play the music, we got to choose what music gets played.” (Independent artists? What independent artists? Go play some Britney Spears!)

*Limited numbers of *casters. — It’s easier to control a small group. If there are a limited amount of “stations” playing music, they can justifiably dictate that they play only the most “popular” music, that appeals to the masses (ie: the 12-22 age range). By the way, this market happens to be what they make most of their money.

*Limited format choices. — If you believe that maintaining Xnth different genres is easy, or desired, think again. (“Oh, we got both kinds. We got country *and* western.“)

Shane Chambers
General Manager
Big Blue Swing.com

why dont indie artists just announce they dont associate with the RIAA and are proud to offer music for the modern generation. ….or something to that effect…might that make some impact on those retards at the RIAA? if the RIAA bullies consumers, why dont the artists who dont affiliate with the RIAA start bullying the RIAA. I have to wonder…

OK, I skipped the background when I posted my comments earlier. I presumed that people reading techdirt would already have the background, and not need me to repeat it for them.

Perhaps I was wrong, as there appears to be some misunderstanding of what and who the SoundExchange is.

First off, the RIAA is NOT a “pawn of the NAB.” Up till recently, the NAB, and the RIAA have had a very close relationship (cousins sharing the same bed). However, there seems to be a little bit of a family feud going on recently. Presumably this was instigated when SoundExchange proclaimed that members of the NAB were “stealing from the artists,” by not paying them royalties. These decelerations have led to the proposed performance royalty changes currently in congressional hearings.

The NAB, seeing the winds of change, has recently thrown it’s full lobbing power behind the Internet Radio Equality Act. I can only presume that they figure they’ll loose their royalty free status sometime in the near future, and want to limit the damages.

SoundExchange might as well be called RIAA, in my opinion. “SoundExchange was created in 2000 as an unincorporated division of the RIAA. In September 2003, SoundExchange was spun off as an independent organization.”[wikipedia]

SoundExchange doesn’t think they can “tax all music.” The Library of Congress / Copyright Office declared they can collect royalties on all performed music. If you’re going to place blame, place it in the right people. “Beginning on January 1, 2003, SoundExchange became the only collective designated by the Copyright Office to distribute statutory royalties to copyright owners and performers entitled under 17 U.S.C. 5 114(g)(2).” [wikipedia]

Not all performances require payment of royalties to SoundExchange. Statutory licensing provides for direct contractual agreements between the copyright holder, and licensee. For example, if a station decides to only play non-RIAA music, it has two licensing options. First, the station can contact every copyright holder in their library, and cut a deal direct. In many cases, particularly with small non-represented artists, this is often limited to “publicity for performance.” Royalties for these independently contracted songs do not have to be paid to SoundExchange.

The second method is the station can purchase a “statutory license” from SoundExchange. The statutory license basically provides them with a legal CYA in case the copyright holder decides they don’t want anyone playing their music. With the statutory license in hand, the most the copyright holder can do is demand that everyone stop using the performance with out a direct contract. (note the “everyone,” as this right can not be selectively enforced) The copyright holder can only then sue if the “infringing entity” doesn’t comply with the demand. They can not sue the station up till that point, because the station has a “get-out-of-lawsuit-free” statutory license.

Shane Chambers
General Mangager
Big Blue Swing.com

First what is EFF ??????
The Riaa have turned on the NAB wanting them to pay high rates !!!!
The NAB have stated they support ihe internet radio equality act.
The UK record companies have set even higher rates than the RIAA.
The whole thing is a total mess. the guy who said just keep streaming and stuff em is right like the the Beatles said REVOLUTION.

The organization sound exchange are basically the Nazi’s of our time. Instead of throwing children into the ovens. Mrs.Fienstien/Senator and her lobbies’t/RIAA friends are stamping out the hopes and dreams of up and coming Acts from ever making it to the big time from grass roots beginnings. All this for the control of cell phone web-casting and its huge profits. In the Euro’s this has already came to fruition and life is allot grayer there. This is America dam it we support free choice and somewhat free listening.Call and write our friends in Washington and tell them you want this miscarriage of justice aborted along with the people that caused it.

La mot cong ty chuyen ve tu van va quan ly ngon ngu, chung toi coi viec chuyen ngu khong chi la dich thong tin tu ngon ngu nay sang ngon ngu khac. Chung toi xay dung ten tuoi dua tren viec truyen dat thong tin hieu quả.
Dich vụ: Dich thuat/dia phuong hoa/chuyen ngu/bien phien dich/thong dich vien
Website: http://www.best.com.vn