• 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

SoundExchange illegally lobbying Congress

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 Dude said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the RIAA through SoundExchange is getting rich without paying artists, illegally lobbying Congress as well as what can only be described as internet radio's demise - that's a good thing? I haven't even touched upon the RIAA/SoundExchange's movement to pull the same garbage on terrestrial radio.

Dude, with all due respect, wake up and smell the coffee - you've either been brainwashed by all the mudslinging of the RIAA or you've been living with your head in the clouds. When 'net radio disappears let's see how pro-SoundExchange you are then.

Then again, as someone who actively works in the broadcast industry I probably see more of what's going on in radio than the lurkers who are woefully uninformed.
 
as a former broadcaster & professional musician for 38 years, i applaud soundexchange and the riaa.

i fear it is you who has been brainwashed by the "music is supposed to be free for everyone" flower children leftists who haven't had a thought of what it costs to manufacture music from inception to delivery.

i too am a fiscal conservative, socially liberal centrist who thinks the idea of free means the ability to work for what you want and be paid for your labors.
 
duncanalausa said:
as a former broadcaster & professional musician for 38 years, i applaud soundexchange and the riaa.

i fear it is you who has been brainwashed by the "music is supposed to be free for everyone" flower children leftists who haven't had a thought of what it costs to manufacture music from inception to delivery.

i too am a fiscal conservative, socially liberal centrist who thinks the idea of free means the ability to work for what you want and be paid for your labors.
Click to expand...


You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. duncanalausa. SoundExchange appears to be breaking federal law. Read this snippet here from the Wired Blog Network:

Music Lawyer To SoundExchange: My Clients Did Not Authorize Lobbying Expenditures

Fred Wilhelms, a Nashville entertainment lawyer -- whom music writer Dave Marsh once called "the (music) industry's ethicist-in-chief if the industry had ethics" -- has written a letter to SoundExchange executive director John Simson, asking how much SoundExchange has spent on lobbying and public relations efforts that don't appear to be covered by the section Copyright Act that specifies how the organization can spend its money collected in the name of its members, some of whom Wilhelms represents... (much more at the link below)

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/music-lawyer-to.html
 
i read the entirety of the articles as well as several others on the wired site. i was not expounding on the lobbying but on the act of collecting royalties for performances on radio and television.

the lobbying can hang fire for all i care. i regularly lobby my congressmen for myself. let the riaa & soundexchange ask me to lobby a senator or a rep and i will be there. no fees asked.


anyone called an "ethicist" is a far left liberal in my book. ethics rules are to keep someone in line politically, not to keep undue influence from being proferred.

i am all for the establishment of performance royalties for radio and television to match the writer/publisher royalties now collected. i am a member of BMI (since 1979) and proudly work as an advocate FOR the riaa.

musicians and writers have not been getting paid for their work and it is about time.
 
duncanalausa said:
i fear it is you who has been brainwashed by the "music is supposed to be free for everyone" flower children leftists who haven't had a thought of what it costs to manufacture music from inception to delivery.
Click to expand...

Hmm, did I ever say I didn't want to see artists and musicians fairly compensated for for their works? If you can find a thread where I said this please feel free to bring this up, otherwise stop putting words in my mouth!

Have you even bothered to look at many of the broad steps the RIAA and SoundExchange are doing?

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 do not 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

As both a broadcaster and a performer I have to say the entire thing stinks on ice - I smell racketeering all over the place and let's just see how the government deals with it. Getting greased by the RIAA there are many politicians who will show their true colors - I know I will truly remember these folks when election time comes!
 
duncanalausa said:
at this point we must agree to disagree. i see the issue exactly as i have stated. i am a member of bmi and of the riaa.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what percentage of your royalties that your buddies at the ol' RIAA keep for "administration" costs. I'm sure a well informed person as yourself could quote those figures right off the top of your head since you feel so strongly that the RIAA is of such benefit.
 
Something on a lower level to ponder: When I hear Smooth Jazz Network hosts Ramsey Lewis, Dave Koz, Kenny G, Norman Brown, Paul Hardcastle and others introduce their own songs, I think about them getting a paycheck from the network AND paying themselves with the new royalties. I don't know the legalese involving all that, but on a layman's level it just sounds wrong.
 
Artists are not getting paid at all. This is about CONTROL plain and simple. No, were not brainwashed at all we know the TRUTH.

Music isn't free but what the RIAA is doing is [EDIT]
The RIAA doesn't give a rats ass about the artists.

Why are they not getting paid? Why are they struggling?

People will still broadcast even if this goes through.

Money talks I guess. Welcome to Nazi Germany.

[EDIT-profanity]

-Rob
 
When it comes to terrestrial radio, doesn't some of the "payment" towards artists come from the fact that most of them would be absolutely nowhere without the exposure they gained from radio?

I'd love to see all the major new music stations just stop playing new music for a month to give the RIAA a lil' message about who is really helping whom.
 
Bill DeFelice said:
duncanalausa said:
at this point we must agree to disagree. i see the issue exactly as i have stated. i am a member of bmi and of the riaa.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what percentage of your royalties that your buddies at the ol' RIAA keep for "administration" costs. I'm sure a well informed person as yourself could quote those figures right off the top of your head since you feel so strongly that the RIAA is of such benefit.
Click to expand...

i am sure your infantile proding puffs your chest out. my business involvement with both bmi and the riaa is beneficial to me as well as those organizations.

i don't have "buddies" at these organizations. these are professional companies that do not rely on a buddy system but rather on solid business practices.

i say again we must agree to disagree.
 
Figures.

This is unfair and will ruin a lot of talent that could be brought to the open.
Again, money talks, people walk.. I guess. Go back to watching your American Idol

Time to start boycotting CD's since that's where the real money is, right?

-Rob
 
robfwb said:
Figures.

This is unfair and will ruin a lot of talent that could be brought to the open.
Again, money talks, people walk.. I guess. Go back to watching your American Idol

Time to start boycotting CD's since that's where the real money is, right?

-Rob
Click to expand...

That's why I let people use my own composed music directly and not go through the bandits of the RIAA. Their pundents can't even give a real answer when asked a direct question about their own royalties - I guess they're not as well informed as I gave them credit for.

I've actually been purchasing vinyl again for more than 4 years now and rarely buy any music CD. I went back to vinyl because I was looking for specific versions of songs not generally available on CD. Also, with the RIAA idiots are on the warpath against web radio I know that buying "recycled" music that they get no additonal cut toward royalties. I also know that ClownExchange/RIAA can't put copy protection on my legacy vinyl. If only more people took a stand and boycotted crappy music and the RIAA they just might take notice!

Long live the Technics turntable! With every revolution of the platter I declare my independence from RIAA-nastied CD-based music.
 
Bill DeFelice said:
Their pundents can't even give a real answer when asked a direct question about their own royalties - I guess they're not as well informed as I gave them credit for.
Click to expand...

some of us do not feel the need to parade ourselves or our business in public. my business is just that.
 
If you support what they are trying to do, then welcome to Nazi Germany.
As I stated, this is about CONTROL.

Nothing to do with the artists. PERIOD.

-Rob
 
robfwb said:
If you support what they are trying to do, then welcome to Nazi Germany.
As I stated, this is about CONTROL.

Nothing to do with the artists. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Rob,

If more people voted with their wallets maybe the RIAA would get a clue - hell, I'll be the first one to toss 'em a quarter so they can buy one!

I truly feel sorry for the artists as they are getting screwed by the RIAA's own greed. Some see it, many others are in la-la land. With this in mind, I buy used CDs and the vast majority of my music is on vinyl. I have a pile of 35 45 rpm singles I need to remaster once I get my new noise reduction software and audio editor upgrades.

If the artists aren't getting their royalties it makes no matter whether I buy new music or not. They still aren't going to see a dime and the only difference is the RIAA isn't going to get rich on my dollar anymore!
 
..and I know artists who wouldn't DARE touch the big labels. One of them is a singer/songwriter who goes on tour and makes a good living for himself.

another is an up and coming very talented singer.

Both are great personalities but when asked to be on Iduhhh.. i mean Idol their answer is f**k no!
(by me as a joke)

and, both are blind. (blind people almost have perfect pitch)
My best friend is one hell of a singer she can hold a note better then me.

Rob
 
one) your assertion that "blind people have almost perfect pitch" is wrong. there are many more tone deaf blind people than ones with good or near perfect pitch.

two) i am very glad your friends are making a good living performing. it is one of the most satisfying parts of my life.

that said, for them to say (or you in their stead) that they "wouldn't touch the big labels" is a reaction to not being asked to record for one of those big labels.

alison krauss chose a performer friendly big label (rounder) to release her first album (she was 15 i think) and has remained with rounder for her entire career. she has a huge following and a stable performance life.

the point of that is that she had competent council (legal and familial) to help her decide what was in her best interest.

i say once again, if a performer gets screwed by a recording company, then it is the fault of the performer not the company. read your contracts, get legal counsel, and don't sign away your rights just for a big check in the beginning.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom