OT: RIAA seeks to lower Artists' $$$

[hunter]

RIAA moves to reduce artist royalty payments - The Digital Music Weblog

I don't know if this bit of news has been discussed here, but I just learned about it and just pains me to read it. It's amazing these people forget that without musicians, there would be no music "business". Maybe artists need to be reminded that THEY have the real power to influence the industry but are too afraid or concerned with other things to care about actually getting paid what they deserve.

I think it might be time the RIAA went the way of the dinosaurs and a new system was in place.

 

[BenMech]

the RIAA is a sham of an organization, built by liars, lawyers (same dif) and bankers.

 

[Unca Kev]

If the RIAA can't be an association that protects artists from record companies trying to exploit them among other problems, they shouldn't exist at all. In fact, I don't think that there should be any of these organizations to begin with. In the end they seem to serve them selves and the highest bidders.

 

[mtndewqueen88]

Disgusting.

 

[Wayniac]

Hey - it is called the Recording INDUSTRY Assoc of America.. not the Recording ARTISTS assoc...
As stated above - made up mostly of leeches who take away from the artists who are the creative backbone that the industry was built around.
Sucks, but's that's big business...

 

[freakchylde]

I suddenly see the influx of smaller recording houses on the horizon.

 

[kittybeast]

deleted post, at work can't finish statement

 

[Kenneth R.]

If the RIAA can't be an association that protects artists from record companies trying to exploit them among other problems, they shouldn't exist at all. In fact, I don't think that there should be any of these organizations to begin with. In the end they seem to serve them selves and the highest bidders.

my thoughts stolen before i could even type them.

 

[Jurakan]

call me ignorant but cannot a band record,release and distribute their own album these days?

Yes they can record, release and distribute, but I'm pretty sure it is extremely expensive for individual artists and bands.

I'm not an expert on the subject matter or anything, but that's the whole raison d'être for record labels. They take care of all the logistics of producing and distributing an album by providing the capital. They of course expect something in return, which is taken from the artists. The RIAA is an organization that goes beyond representing individual labels to actually making competing labels coordinate and cooperate towards common goals, and more $$$ is of course a paramount priority.

From Wikipedia (Recording Industry Association of America): "The RIAA represents a large number of members (see List of RIAA member labels), who are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US."

As such, the RIAA has a virtual monopoly on the music market, but since it is not a label itself, it is not an actual monopoly. Think of the RIAA as an example of a "corporate union", as opposed to a "labor union".

It'd be intresting to see what the artists' response to this will be (besides being pissed of course...)

 

[LunaTEKKE]

Record labels have seen both their revenues and their relevance decline over the last 10 years, because they didn’t see the Internet revolution coming -- and now they are being big, fat, crybabies because someone else has figured out how to use technology to their advantage.

However, I felt the article posted on the weblog was both misleading and inflammatory. “Artist Royalties” are individually negotiated between the label and the recording artists. The rate reduction requested by the RIAA would impact the statutory rate paid to songwriters (and the other intermediary organizations that get a piece of the pie).

For the bands that you’ll see discussed on this board, the terms "artist" and "songwriter" *are* interchangeable, but that’s not the case with many best-selling artists, who don’t write their own songs. And that’s no doubt where the labels are feeling the pain the most.

 

[SyXified]

Record labels have seen both their revenues and their relevance decline over the last 10 years, because they didn’t see the Internet revolution coming -- and now they are being big, fat, crybabies because someone else has figured out how to use technology to their advantage.

However, I felt the article posted on the weblog was both misleading and inflammatory. “Artist Royalties” are individually negotiated between the label and the recording artists. The rate reduction requested by the RIAA would impact the statutory rate paid to songwriters (and the other intermediary organizations that get a piece of the pie).

For the bands that you’ll see discussed on this board, the terms "artist" and "songwriter" *are* interchangeable, but that’s not the case with many best-selling artists, who don’t write their own songs. And that’s no doubt where the labels are feeling the pain the most.

I agree with you that articles like that are so incendiary and ill-informed that they really make the pro-artist side sound childish. There certainly are arguements to be made regarding the exploitation of artists by record labels. At the same time, record labels really do provide an amazing service to artists which, especially in the pop world, can take someones career from nothing to top of the charts. Whichever way you want to argue on those complex issues however, should at least be done in an informed manner - this article doesn't even mention anything remotely about the circumstances of the supposed rate change.

I'm mention this much - the statuatory rate is a penny rate that has been operating on a set increasing schedule every two years since the inception of the modern day Copyright Act. I believe right now we are at 8.5 cents per song per cd sold. Now, the reason this rate is always increasing is to offset inflation - ie its designed to work out to neutralize and basically be of the same value in purchasing power as time goes on. Now, if we happen to be in a period of deflation or stable price indecis in our currency - the RIAA would only be seeking to maintain that balance. I have no idea if that's the case here, but that's just an example of a scenario where there could be a perfectly reasonable explaination for such an action - being blown out of porportion by simple minded, shock value reporting

 

[Unca Kev]

I believe that the artists/bands, as soon as they can contractually, should pressure their labels into abandoning the RIAA or threaten a mass exodus. They should also abandon the usual copyright and adopt any of the Creative Commons licenses. With these licenses, P2P distribution wouldn't be an issue anymore. Of course, I don't expect that to happen now. That all artists and bands would have the moral mindset or sense of uniting for strength in numbers to change things. But a small number have turned independent or may have started off that way.

 

[Unca Kev]

my thoughts stolen before i could even type them.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks like that.

 

[ProgMetal_Lover]

I'd love for all my favorite progmetal bands gather together and have a website where we can buy their music as a download and have all the money go directly to them(the artists) instead of a middleman

 

[Unca Kev]

Hey - it is called the Recording INDUSTRY Assoc of America.. not the Recording ARTISTS assoc...
As stated above - made up mostly of leeches who take away from the artists who are the creative backbone that the industry was built around.
Sucks, but's that's big business...

Yeah even if there were an RAAA, they'd still probably become corrupt. And that's even if it started out on the right foot.

 

[SyXified]

I believe that the artists/bands, as soon as they can contractually, should pressure their labels into abandoning the RIAA or threaten a mass exodus. They should also abandon the usual copyright and adopt any of the Creative Commons licenses. With these licenses, P2P distribution wouldn't be an issue anymore. Of course, I don't expect that to happen now. That all artists and bands would have the moral mindset or sense of uniting for strength in numbers to change things. But a small number have turned independent or may have started off that way.

Its not Creative Commons that is the problem with P2P. Creative Commons is an ALTERNATIVE to normal Copyright registration, it's used by companies like Linux to create things that can be enhanced and developed by anyone using it. They benefit financially by advertising or by gaining noteriety or other means than usual royalty payments associated with Copyright. But NO record company uses the CC license, they all use the traditional licenses. The issue with P2P is the fact that modern day Copyright language was written in 1976 and didn't exactly expect the capabilities of the Internet. Then, you get into really difficult issues of what "ownership" implies. If you buy a CD and you play it for your friend in your car, its not like you are committing a crime - nor are you if you loan a CD to a friend. Artist's can't exactly fairly possess a stranglehold on their material - it's art and ultimately for the common enhancement of our society. That's why Beethoven's heirs can't still sit on all his material and only sell it to the highest bidder - our society would be less culturally enriched if we didn't have access to all those old classical masterpieces.

 

[Unca Kev]

Its not Creative Commons that is the problem with P2P. Creative Commons is an ALTERNATIVE to normal Copyright registration, it's used by companies like Linux to create things that can be enhanced and developed by anyone using it. They benefit financially by advertising or by gaining noteriety or other means than usual royalty payments associated with Copyright. But NO record company uses the CC license, they all use the traditional licenses. The issue with P2P is the fact that modern day Copyright language was written in 1976 and didn't exactly expect the capabilities of the Internet. Then, you get into really difficult issues of what "ownership" implies. If you buy a CD and you play it for your friend in your car, its not like you are committing a crime - nor are you if you loan a CD to a friend. Artist's can't exactly fairly possess a stranglehold on their material - it's art and ultimately for the common enhancement of our society. That's why Beethoven's heirs can't still sit on all his material and only sell it to the highest bidder - our society would be less culturally enriched if we didn't have access to all those old classical masterpieces.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't saying that the CC license was the problem. I said that adopting it would be the solution for the P2P issue. That the current copyrights are the problem. I know that was a tangent, but I threw that in there too, since it is also relevant to the RIAA. And yes, I also noticed the similarities to the OSS (i.e. GPL and BSD ) licenses.

 

[lady_space]

Yeah even if there were an RAAA, they'd still probably become corrupt. And that's even if it started out on the right foot.

There's some kind of musicians' group thingie in Sweden, and I think some or most of the rest of Europe. I don't know the details, so it may not be similar to what that would be, but it's something. It protects artists' rights to some degree at least. Don't know the details and don't have time to do the research right now, but someone who's really interested and does have the time may want to look it up.

Shaye

P.S. The musicians' union is called 'Svenska Musiker Förbundet'. Then STIM is the organization that makes sure musicians get paid for airplay and such. Then there's NCB and SAMI for similar but different functions.

 

[Unca Kev]

There's some kind of musicians' group thingie in Sweden, and I think some or most of the rest of Europe. I don't know the details, so it may not be similar to what that would be, but it's something. It protects artists' rights to some degree at least. Don't know the details and don't have time to do the research right now, but someone who's really interested and does have the time may want to look it up.

Shaye

P.S. The musicians' union is called 'Svenska Musiker Förbundet'. Then STIM is the organization that makes sure musicians get paid for airplay and such. Then there's NCB and SAMI for similar but different functions.

Cool! Thanks for the info. I'll check that out sometime. Swedes don't put up with any shit! I'm sure that you've heard about the Pirate Party (I forgot the Svenska spelling for it).

 

[SymphonyOfDreams]

Hmmmm by bits here...

A non-profit association like RIAA is perfectly legal under all standards, it does not operate as a monopoly as it's not an entity within the market itself, it's just an association that seeks to protect label's interests, wich is completly normal and legal, and blocking it would be inconstitutional. However... if RIAA is used by labels as meeting ground to set market rules between them and price fix, then they are working as a cartel attempting against consumer rights and the free market, wich would mean that there would be strong grounds to disolve it... but that's very unlikely, and not to mention, VERY VERY hard to prove.

And you cant apply the CC licenses to music, CC licenses are specially made for software that is expected to be improved with time and is allowed to be so by the original creator, that just doesn't apply for music.

And I believe that what lady space is talking about are the (forgot their name in english) associations that are delegated by labels and/or artists to collect their royalties from any form of public difution, like radio or even clubs...

And there's stuff like that all over the world...