RIAA Moves to Lower Songwriter Royalties

[RoyGBiv]

Someone please tell me again how RIAA just has the best interests of "the little guy" at heart in their idiotic crusade.

Sides chosen in royalty tussle
By Brooks Boliek

Jan 29, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.

...

The labels contend that the music publishers have gotten fat as their business has starved and want the payment method rewritten. According to papers filed by the RIAA at the Copyright Royalty Board, the labels want the board to reduce the rate to 8% of wholesale revenue. The current rate is about 9 cents per song, but it often is lowered in negotiations with the record companies. That money usually is split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter.

The RIAA contends in its documents that the rate is out of whack with the rest of the world and historical context.

"Record companies are suffering a contraction of their business at a time when music publisher revenues and margins have increased markedly," the trade group wrote. "While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to steadily rising mechanical royalty rates and alternative revenue streams made possible, but not enjoyed, by record companies."

...

Internet streams should not trigger any copyright royalty, the association contends, saying that they are performances and not covered under the mechanical license.

More

So, if Internet streams shouldn't trigger any copyright royalty, just who is RIAA trying to "protect" be prosecuting people who download music without paying for it? Yes, I know, there's a technical difference between a "stream" and an encoded file containing a song, but admitting to that undermines RIAA's entire premise.

[msongs]

1. file sharers move to eliminate songwriter royalties completely nt

[RoyGBiv]

4. Actually, no ...

File sharers are responding to a market inequity, to wit the record labels for too long stuck to an old business model that no longer worked in the modern marketplace. *They* created this situation and are hell-bent on preserving their own profits, songwriters be damned.

[givemebackmycountry]

2. Can I be the first to say it please?

FUCK THE RIAA.

Greedy bastards.
It's only a matter of time before the artists figure out a way to go around them all together.

Radiohead anybody?

[RoyGBiv]

6. Be my guest ...

I'll add to the chorus. FUCK THE RIAA. :-)

[Mojambo]

3. Support independent music.

Screw the RIAA.

[Political Heretic]

5. Better yet, support music's independence!

[BeHereNow]

7. I own both my publishing and writers shares as well as my masters- FUCK RIAA

I think they are figuring out that more and more of us
are collecting ALL our royalties because way back when,
we figured out that they were parasites feeding off OUR creativity.
Now that the net has made our product MORE available and
eliminated the corporations all together, they are trying to
figure out a way to get some control of the revenue that
goes directly to our pockets.
Fuck em.
They wanted us to believe we needed them.
We never did.

BHN

[RoyGBiv]

8. Amen ...

I happily pay for music, or video, or whatever ... when that payment goes into the correct hands and is delivered in something approaching a reasonable manner.

Otherwise I do without.

[BeHereNow]

9. Most of my payments come from film or TV usage- never was a record company involved.

Essentially, the record companies have been eliminated from the loop.
The business these days is usually done directly between the
music supervisor and the owner of the masters/publishing etc...

In the old days, record companies charged enormous synch license fees,
took a piece of the publishing and if they could manage it, part of the
writer's share too. They tried to perpetuate the myth that if
you wanted to place a song in TV or film, you needed them to get you heard.
Total crap then and even more so now.

Fact is, the music supervisors are looking for the CHEAPEST synch licensing fee
and independnents like me, are more than happy to make a deal on the master use
as long as a cue sheet is filed with an agreed time period for air dates/usage.
That's where we make our money.

Why the FUCK should I pay anyone for something I created and OWN completely?
If I place it. why the hell should anyone else get a cut?

BHN

[RoyGBiv]

10. I truly appreciate your insights ...

I knew the business model had changed, but I wasn't aware of those kinds of details.

Excellent information.

[BeHereNow]

11. Ani Defranco was probably the first to show the rest of us-

You CAN keep all your publishing and writer's shares as well
as TOTAL ownership of your masters, and STILL make money,
not to mention keep all of it.

YaY Ani,

BHN

[charlie]

12. Keep an eye on Congress

With the recording industry's eye-popping collapse, their last and only recourse for revenue is a federally enforced tax, something they've been making noises about in Europe. Remember, those clowns got Congress to divert part of the price of blank media into their pockets for a couple of decades, they'll try to do it again.

[RoyGBiv]

13. That's what I'm watching ...

Gopod forbid mass-media would report on any of this, so its a challenge to find any of it at all. Just not interesting what with all the controversy over who smokes and who cried and who shook hands with whom. I never would have seen this story if not for /.

I keep looking for riders to various bills, and I haven't seen it yet, but it'll come.