OT: RIAA seeks to lower Artists' $$$

[Pellaz]

According to the law, none of the actions listed above is an infringement. A person in European Union is entitled to play CDs freely at home or in his car, lend the original CD to anyone and make "a few" copies of it for his own or his family members to use and even give an occasional copy to his friends without violating anyone's copyright.

Then again, playing copyrighted music for commercial purpose of any kind - were it in or outside an enterprise's premises, at a show or gig, on the radio or TV, you name it - is due paying to the copyright owners' association, which is a legal body authorized collecting the fees and delivering the money to the members according to the official regulations and agreements.

That's basically how it is in the States. If you use music in a business, whether it be background music or whatever, someone has to get paid. Businesses typically pay the licensing fees as part of a subscription fee to Muzak (or whichever satellite-delivered music service they use).
--But if you're playing music for yourself or for a few friends and there is no money or like-kind exchange for the music, you're okay.

 

[Magius]

That's basically how it is in the States. If you use music in a business, whether it be background music or whatever, someone has to get paid. Businesses typically pay the licensing fees as part of a subscription fee to Muzak (or whichever satellite-delivered music service they use).
--But if you're playing music for yourself or for a few friends and there is no money or like-kind exchange for the music, you're okay.

Do night clubs that play music pay someone if the music is DJ'd? How about if they hire cover bands? Just curious as I have no idea.

 

[Pellaz]

For the first, yep, I think they're supposed to. For the second, a cover song is not subject to licensing unless and until someone makes money of off it (on a CD, say). Technically the club and indirectly the band are making money from it via ticket sales.....so this is probably one of those below-the-radar things.

Clubs typically pay a monthly or annual licensing fee to ASCAP to cover everything...when they bother to pay, or after they get a shakedown visit or email from ASCAP. (This happened to Dragon*Con, a SF and fantasy convention, this past year.)

 

[St Enigma]

At least in Europe basically, yes. And I imagine it's the same in the USA. Running a nightclub is a business for making profit, and when copyrighted music is used to advance *any* business, the licence fees are the way to compensate the use of someones hard work for the business owners' own good. It doesn't matter who plays the music, wether it is a DJ or a live band. The basic rule is that when copyrighted music is played for any commercial purpose, (some)one has to pay the licence fee to the copyright owner(s).

As for paying the licence fees, clubs and bars here are inspected for all possible licences (alcohol, fire safety...) in "regularly irregular" periods by authorized officials, and they may loose all of them if any licence or payments are neglected.

 

[Magius]

That's interesting. So the next question is... how much of that gets back to the artists? I'll wager not much, or none.

 

[Pellaz]

If a smaller artist is on BMI, they get a relatively small royalty check every once in a while. This is what Lyle (ex-Solitude Aeturnus) told me about his band Ghoultown.

If a smaller artist is on ASCAP, they don't get diddly-poo. This is what Lyle told me about Solitude Aeturnus. (!)

Larger artists get 'real' money, of course. That's how they got so large...and can incidentally afford accountants and bookkeepers to keep ASCAP honest.

 

[St Enigma]

I can only speak for things happening in Finland, but it has usually been around 5/6 of the annually collected sum which has been delivered to the copyright owners. How it is shared among thm is another question. They use some kind of complicated formula which, like Pellaz said, brings a bigger share to those whose music is performed more during the year. Not even the biggest names get wealthy with this money alone, but for some it brings "a lump of butter on the bread".

If you are interested, here is the annual report 2005 of Teosto in English (.pdf) . Teosto is one of the two main associations representing the copyright owners.

 

[Ramaries]

Too bad that case ended on a settlement agreement and does not address RIAA as the institution, it acts againts its individual members... the initiative was good, but in reality there's still a veeeery looooong road before having RIAA classified as a cartel for price fixing in a court of law..

Yes, it is too bad. They pay big money to settle and make sure they are not proven as crooks in court.

 

[LunaTEKKE]

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.

Right - and it doesn't just apply to major labels. Based on a thread from a couple of months ago (if I'm remembering correctly), this statutory rate is one reason that we won't see all those awesome cover tunes performed at PPVII on the upcoming DVD. The payment of the statutory rate for each song makes an already thin margin even thinner.

 

[LunaTEKKE]

If a smaller artist is on ASCAP, they don't get diddly-poo. This is what Lyle told me about Solitude Aeturnus. (!)

This goes back to the artist/songwriter issue. ASCAP and BMI only collect on behalf of the publishers and songwriters. Does Lyle write the band's music?

If so, I would look into the formula that ASCAP uses to calculate payments (or check to see if my publisher was driving a really nice new car).

If not, someone else in the group is getting the "big bucks".

 

[Exploding Ned]

RIAA is a bunch of lawyers who work for the RIAA/record labels, not the artists. I've had some run ins with them myself over the years, and believe me I agree with you 100%. They are pathetic road kill scum.

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.

 

[Exploding Ned]

Amen. Like u say.... no musicians... no music biz!

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.