Journal twitter's Journal: Is the RIAA collecting fees without artist consent? 9
DJ ProFusion charges that the new internet radio collection scheme forces artists and broadcasters into RIAA hands.
The strategy of playing only non-RIAA songs won't work though because the RIAA has secured the right to collect royalties on all songs regardless of who controls the copyright. RIAA operates under the assumption that they will collect the royalties for the "sound recording copyright" and that the artists who own their own copyright will go to SoundExchange to collect [a portion of] at a later date.
... Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. ... SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you dont want them to do so. Go to the SoundExchange site: http://plays.soundexchange.com/... and take a look at the hundreds of indie labels for whom SoundExchange claims they have collected royalties. Enter some of those label names on http://www.riaaradar.com/... and notice how few are actually members of the RIAA. Contact the label and ask if they are a member of RIAA and they almost certainly arent and may not even be aware that SoundExchange is collecting royalty fees on their music.
This kind of rigging is par for the RIAA course, but it's surprising the US Government continues to go along with it. If true, the system described violates copyleft arrangements from Creative Commons and should be challenged. Unchallenged, internet radio is owned by your favorite broadcasters of old.
Updates
- The SoundExchange's huge We have money you don't know about list. If SoundExchange does not know how to contact these artists, it stands to reason that most of them did not consent to fees being collected on their behalf. According to this, they kept your money if you did not contact them and sign your rights away by Decamber 15, 2006.
No. Just no. (Score:4, Informative)
If a song is released under a "copy-left" license which allows royalty-free playback, then any station is free to play the song WITHOUT paying SoundExchange a red cent. If you're a personal friend of David Bowie and he signs a contract with you allowing you to play China Girl without paying him, you don't owe SoundExchange a cent. Hell, if he signs a contract with you stating that you can play China Girl once, backwards, and you'll owe him ten billion dollars, you still don't owe SoundExchange a thing. This law, and any payments to SoundExchange do not supercede copy-left, explicit contracts, or any other part of the law except for one specific thing:
If you like a song that's copyrighted, and you want to play it on your internet radio station, you can. Without speaking to the artist/copyright holder. Without entering into any agreement with them whatsoever. The government has established a de-facto contract between every internet radio station and every artist who's ever released an audio recording. They've set rates, and a 3rd party to handle collection of the payments for this contract. You're still free to negotiate a separate contract with any artist you please, or release a recording under whatever alternative licensing arrangement you want. But this law changes the default state from "you can't play it without violating copyright" to "you can play it if you pay the artist through this escrow service".
This is a good thing. It lets small stations play music by a wide variety of artists without having to negotiate a contract for every single song. It caps the amount you have to pay per song, so companies can't charge dollars per track for small stations they dislike for whatever reason. Yes, artists who have songs out there need to start checking with SoundExchange to see if they're getting royalties. Yes, there probably should be a greater effort to inform the community of this new arrangement, so nobody gets left out. But this is not just a power play by the RIAA. It has some good things about it as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have any evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to believe you but I'll need a working example. Until then, I'll have to take the letter of the law as written and the opinion of the artist who says he's being ripped off. At the very least, this forces everyone to join Sound Exchange, which is an outrage in a free country, and pay them royalties if they wish to charge anyone else. At worst it forbids free music and fees will be collected regardless of the artist and publisher's intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is being forced to join SoundExchange an outrage? It's a non-profit organization. There are no membership fees. I don't even know what you're trying to say with regard to royalties, but if you mean that an artist can't directly enter into a contract with an internet radio station without paying SoundExchange royalties,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the royalties are collected by SoundExchange. Royalties collected through other means (say, by direct payment and contract) are not subject to any kind of fee from SoundExchange.
No. You can't provide your music via another royalty aggregator li
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, what you say does not stand to reason. (Score:2)
Why is being forced to join SoundExchange an outrage? It's a non-profit organization. There are no membership fees. I don't even know what you're trying to say with regard to royalties, but if you mean that an artist can't directly enter into a contract with an internet radio station without paying SoundExchange royalties, then that's flat-out wrong.
Compulsory membership in anything is unAmerican. You should never have to sign a list to exercise your rights. I understand that there's a lot of that out
Yes, really, yes. (Score:2)
If a song is released under a "copy-left" license which allows royalty-free playback, then any station is free to play the song WITHOUT paying SoundExchange a red cent.
Do you really think they checked with every artist listed here as "we have money for you" [63.236.111.137]? No, they think they own everything.