• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

More Dishonesty from SoundExchange

D

dbdigital

Guest
While the Labor Day deadline moves forward, SoundExchange has apparently been busy lobbying Congress, an activity it is forbidden to do under the Copyright Act. SoundEx has been doing this under the cloak of a shell non-profit it set up known as the MusicFirstCoalition.

Read all about the dirty dealings here:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/...ost/2007/08/listening_post_0806?currentPage=1

Congress begins a recess on Monday, and will return on September 4, the day after Labor Day. Senators Wyden and Brownback, the sponsors of the Internet Radio Equity Act, have given SoundEx until then to come up with a compromise solution. If they can't, then the bill goes before Congress.

These two Senators know very well the situation facing webcasters. Here is a statement from them:

"The fact is online radio services do not have enough revenue to support what will amount to unprecedented royalties. The $500 per channel minimum fee alone will deliver an over $1 billion annual windfall to record companies, a windfall that is not justified by any business or equity considerations. We feel the Senate must take action, and we will make every effort move the Internet Radio Equality Act to the floor."

db
 
The last I looked, IRS Code prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations form any kind of political action, including lobbying. I think they are a 501(c)(3),But I may be mistaken. There are other types of 501 nonprofits, which may be able to apply political pressure.
 
I think Soundxchange IS DOING A GOOD THING!!!

If it wasnt for them,all the radio we listen to online very well may be gone now! (Instead of us still listening)

Good job Soundxchange :)
 
The RIAA and SoundExchange is trying to screw the little guy any way these sob's can. Just examine what has already been brought up to date:

How about the fact that the RIAA claims they can collect royalties for ANY ARTIST:
REF: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

As a freelance musician I personally don't give the RIAA or SoundExchange any rights whatsoever to represent me or to collect royalties on my composed works. I will also not be extorted into paying them a fee to collect royalties tthey claim to have collected on my behalf - I will license my own works directly if I so choose.

What about the RIAA/SoundExchange trying to TRIPLE the rates charged to webcasters:
REF: http://www.crime-research.org/news/01.05.2007/2642/

No big secret here, but trying to take more than 100% of anything will leave the well high and dry. They want to make webcasting in the United States die - it's so plain to see you have to be living under a rock or dead not to see it.

There's also a question of just how much are the "administrative fees" that the RIAA/SoundExchange charges and just how much artists actually receive and how much is pocketed by the RIAA and SoundExchange.

What about the fact that they are now trying to blab and grab the same extorted fees out of terrestrial radio:
REF: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/08/listening_post_0806

So, to those who think SoundExchange and the RIAA are angels I think it's time you go to your physician as it sounds like you might just be suffering from cranialrectosis.
 
The Dude said:
They are trying to keep the streaming ONLINE!!!!!!
Click to expand...

OK Dude, I'll bite - show me the proof that they astronomical rates are going to keep webcasters in business! After you've done that, show me proof on how RIAA/SoundExchange going after terrestrials is going to benefit them!

[I hear the snowball's chance in hell warming up in the bullpen]
 
How about the fact that the RIAA claims they can collect royalties for ANY ARTIST:
REF: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

As a freelance musician I personally don't give the RIAA or SoundExchange any rights whatsoever to represent me or to collect royalties on my composed works. I will also not be extorted into paying them a fee to collect royalties tthey claim to have collected on my behalf - I will license my own works directly if I so choose.
Click to expand...

I learned a long time ago in life that anything [bad] is possible. Whereas I once said to myself, "There's no way they could get away with that", I now know "they" can and will. It's even more insulting when such injustices are done in my name as a U.S. citizen.

THIS, is the real story. As crazy and nonsensical as the new rate structure is, I've always maintained a copyright holder has the right to charge whatever he wants for his product. But the fact that the RIAA thinks it has the right to charge for what it does not own (and, some legal minds apparently agree that the Federal Government indeed gave it that right) is downright extortion. THIS, is what Congress should be looking into. THIS, is what lawsuits should be filed over.

It's sickening to see millions of dollars wasted going after players involved with so-called "payola", which is nothing more than a business transaction between two consenting parties. (And, frustrating, considering these "marketing techniques" happen every day in thousands of other industries without any law violation.) What's happening here, should these articles be accurate, is both theft and extortion. Again, to me, THIS is the big news story. Not that the recording industry is greedy. (We've known that for nearly a hundred years.)

This is akin to McDonald's collecting royalties from mom-and-pop diner customers who eat hamburgers, even though neither the patrons nor the restaurant owners want anything to do with McDonald's.

I shall also soon be in a position to argue it's a violation of the First Amendment.

Clarification on this matter is needed ASAP, not just for a handful of channels, but for every Internet-delivered audio station online. Many wonderful resources exist (i.e. GarageBand) that are chock full of non-RIAA music, with hundreds of stations relying on said music thinking it'll be safe from the RIAA's goons.

If I am to understand this correctly, should I have a few too many beers one night and wander into my studio, sing some nonsensically original song onto tape, then play the tape on AUDIO 18, I'll be in violation and liable for SoundExchange royalties?

Whatever happened to that RIAA apologist who was hanging around here? I'd really like some input about now!

NO private organization will tell me what I can do with my own created work. The RIAA thinks it can force everyone who speaks in a melodic tone into submission. I'd like to see more attention placed on this, and less whining from audio stations owners who think they have a "right" to others' copyrighted music. That attitude is just as wrong as the RIAA's.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We'll no doubt be talking about this on Friday night (and likely, on subsequent shows).
 
George,

Excellent points all around. I want artists to be fairly compensated for their works (and I'd like to see them get more than the smile and the handshake the RIAA gives them after "administration"). Personally, I'm not a fan of much of today's "rock" music, but compensation should still be there for ALL performers and writers alike.

I think as the RIAA gets more people angry they will only do more damage to the music world at large. People who are fed up may very well stop buying music altogether and venture into file sharing where the artists lose out. I've personally have gone back to vinyl since much of my favorites can still be obtained there with variety and I don't have to deal with the nonsense of DRM (besides the personal challenge of restoring the vinyl recording to sound as good as possible - I've gotten vinyl to sound sonically equal to or better than CDs depending on the condition of the source).

I truly believe the RIAA is going to cause a rebellion by those who are educated in the facts and who are tired of the garbage and it's going to hurt plenty of folks in its wake. Radio listening will decline even more and I'd hedge a bet CD sales will go further into the dumper. Hell, I've gotten to the point that I think artists should pay ME to listen to some of the dreck they put out if they want listeners so bad - what do you think about that, RIAA?
 
What I find particularly irritating is the hypocrisy of the RIAA, SoundExchange and now AFTRA over the issue of royalty fees. They give the appearance of being pro-active for artists when, in reality, the artists are at the bottom of the food chain. This isn't about them. It's about the survival of these organizations; expanding their power base and influence and maintaining relevancy in a rapidly changing industry.

Artists must not allow themselves to be fooled by what's going on. They lose if the RIAA and SoundEx win.

db
 
Well put, db. I've heard the horror stories from people about how small the royalties are, thanks to the "administration" charges of the RIAA. If these putzes ran Save The Children there would be starving kids all over the globe waiting to be fed! With all the "administration" there wouldn't be anything left to buy food! I love the way some artists so strongly support the RIAA and they can't even figure out how much in royalties they're screwed out of due to "administration"

The RIAA, SoundExchange and the phoney "musicFIRSTcolition" plain and simple are in the business to illegaly get what they can - it's truly evident by their play to lobby politicians even though it's against the law (and for those wondering about the MusicFirstColition.org site, here's the net info: http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=musicfirstcoalition.org&type=domain)

I'm still waiting for some honest governmental person to investigate this - unless everybody is getting greased by these jokers! I have a great disdain for all past and present RIAA'ers including Ms. Rosen (would you trust anybody named Hilary?), Mr. Sherman and the likes of ClownExchange's Mr. Simson.

They think they're going to solve everybody's woes of poor CD sales with screwing web and terrestrial radio. I think it's about time that artists start paying everybody to listen to their music - let the RIAA put that in their pipe and smoke it!
 
Bill DeFelice said:
Well put, db. I've heard the horror stories from people about how small the royalties are, thanks to the "administration" charges of the RIAA. If these putzes ran Save The Children there would be starving kids all over the globe waiting to be fed! With all the "administration" there wouldn't be anything left to buy food! I love the way some artists so strongly support the RIAA and they can't even figure out how much in royalties they're screwed out of due to "administration"

The RIAA, SoundExchange and the phoney "musicFIRSTcolition" plain and simple are in the business to illegaly get what they can - it's truly evident by their play to lobby politicians even though it's against the law (and for those wondering about the MusicFirstColition.org site, here's the net info: http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=musicfirstcoalition.org&type=domain)

I'm still waiting for some honest governmental person to investigate this - unless everybody is getting greased by these jokers! I have a great disdain for all past and present RIAA'ers including Ms. Rosen (would you trust anybody named Hilary?), Mr. Sherman and the likes of ClownExchange's Mr. Simson.

They think they're going to solve everybody's woes of poor CD sales with screwing web and terrestrial radio. I think it's about time that artists start paying everybody to listen to their music - let the RIAA put that in their pipe and smoke it!
Click to expand...

You should file a complaint with the FEC about this if it is illegal, as well as the US attorney. Granted Federal cases take years of evidence building before they are even presented to a grand jury, ie Scooter Libby, Michael Vick, of course they also have a 90-95% conviction rate as well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom