discuss.December 7, 2006 - The RIAA rose to public prominence around the year 2000 when the growth of internet file sharing and music piracy was blamed for rapidly declining album sales at the time. The RIAA's subsequent highly publicized and aggressive litigious action against those the group identified as distributors of copyrighted music, which has famously included grandmothers, single mothers in economic hardship, and children, won the organization little sympathy from the general public. While protecting copyrights is a fully legitimate concern, many believe the piracy that blossomed in first blush of the Napster and KaZaa was primarily due to the fact that there were no viable legal means to acquire music in mp3 format via the internet. That changed when Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, the subsequent massive success of which would seem to illustrate consumers' willingness to pay for music files on the internet if they are conveniently available.
In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music.
On December 1 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the RIAA is currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cell phone ring tones and other digital recordings. The last time the American government set the rate was in 1981, but since that time, the RIAA argues in its petition, a lot has changed.
"While record companies and music publishers were able to agree on royalty rates during that 25-year period, the assumptions on which those decisions were based have changed beyond recognition," the RIAA brief reads.
There's no doubt about that, but it's obnoxious to see the RIAA finally acknowledge that fact only when it serves to aid their cause rather than that of consumers who rejected CD-based distribution years before the music industry got onboard the digital distribution train. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry (Highly debatable. Sales went down, but a direct relationship to piracy is not proven. -ed.) profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other "innovative services" grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music.
As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."
The language of this statement reveals a great deal about who the RIAA is looking out for, and it's not artists. Couched in terms of apparent necessity, the RIAA's is insisting that the real musicians be paid less so that the record companies can continue to "drive revenues." If piracy really is devastating the recording industry and cell phone ringtones are one of the remaining highly profitable distributed mediums, should the RIAA really be trying to ensure that musicians be paid less for them while they're already hurting from lost revenue on album sales? At best the RIAA is kicking artists when they're down via this action, and at worst has fully revealed that despite repeated claims that artists need to be protected from piracy, the organization is very much the tool of the major labels and publishers who have famously never really cared about the artists in the first place.
Tactics like this raise serious concerns for the future of interoperable DRMs and any trend towards more rapid acceptance of new technology and the demands it imposes upon the music distribution industry. If the RIAA is nothing but a litigious arm of the stodgy business men in the music industry who can't see past a perceived necessity of protecting established revenue streams rather than pursuing innovation and listening consumers' demands, it seems doubtful that the litany of complications currently facing consumers who demand flexibility in managing their legally acquired digital content will be resolved anytime soon.
RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties (swipe)
-
brian relly
- fan-tas-tic
- Posts: 2711
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003 10:03
- Location: 303
RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties (swipe)
http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html
esteban barnez
myspace.com/rawcakes
myspace.com/rawcakes
david wrote:I was just sitting here surfing and my mom looks over my shoulder. I had to jab down the down key real quick so she wouldn't see that topic title and question me about what kind of site I was going on.
-
Iron Clad Ben
- Superior Precision Bionics
- Posts: 2522
- Joined: 08 Jan 2006 19:11
- Location: La Habra, CA
- Contact:
SB thanks for the article. Further proof that corporate greed in this world is out of control. I really like this subject. Back when Napster came out in 99/00 I was a punkass college kid who farmed up quite a few mp3s, I really got into the whole concept of freedom of information. I was reading a lot of cyberpunk books at the time too.
Back on subject:
RIAA basically ran a racket, a monopoly, all through the 20th century. They provided services that really couldn't be replicated and since they were the only ones, they made a hell of a lot of money doing it. They could record music under the highest quality conditions, mass produce physical recordings of it, sell them to distributors and bought air time for the music that they wanted to promote.
With the advent of file sharing, mass producing of CDs/tapes/records became partially obsoleted. You could get music, easier, cheaper and faster over the net than going to a record store. Obviously the legality was in question and the RIAA was able quell a lot of that. The money hungry artists like the Metallicas and Dr. Dre's of the world rallied behind the RIAA. They would all claim it was about the music, but I think we all know it was about the Benjamins.
Now 5/6 years later the ability to mass produce music is not the only thing that has been replicated. The distribution and promotion aspect can be done over the internet. Bands are promoting themselves through MySpace and countless music sites (a personal fave of mine is riffrock.com). They can sell their self-produced music on internet record stores like CDbaby.com. It's a work around the RIAA and guess what, it's LEGITIMATE. Who needs a record label?
Austin being the live music capitol of the world I see a LOT of bands start up here. Some are good, some are bad, some are eccentric, some are carbon copies of things that have been done 1000 times, some are terrible, some are boring, some are unsalvagably mediocre... and there are some that are great. More and more I've seen bands that are self-producing their own CD (it's cheaper that way!) and promoting themselves through MySpace, their own website and touring.
So now music has found alternate routes around 2 aspects of the RIAA's monopoly. It's social darwinism at its best. Musicians can self-produce and distribute their music over the internet and they can promote it there too. The work around is legal, the RIAA can't sue musicians who self-produce and self-promote. Of course the RIAA is pissed!
Well it looks like a desperation move for the RIAA. They're acknowledging that they don't care one bit about the artists, all they care about is money. They can't make any more from the consumer, so it's time to squeeze it out of the artist. It's a last-ditch effort. This is just going to encourage more artists to go independent. The service the RIAA offers grows more and more obsoleted each day. How much longer can they last? It's great to see one area where the good guys are winning against corporate greed.
Back on subject:
RIAA basically ran a racket, a monopoly, all through the 20th century. They provided services that really couldn't be replicated and since they were the only ones, they made a hell of a lot of money doing it. They could record music under the highest quality conditions, mass produce physical recordings of it, sell them to distributors and bought air time for the music that they wanted to promote.
With the advent of file sharing, mass producing of CDs/tapes/records became partially obsoleted. You could get music, easier, cheaper and faster over the net than going to a record store. Obviously the legality was in question and the RIAA was able quell a lot of that. The money hungry artists like the Metallicas and Dr. Dre's of the world rallied behind the RIAA. They would all claim it was about the music, but I think we all know it was about the Benjamins.
Now 5/6 years later the ability to mass produce music is not the only thing that has been replicated. The distribution and promotion aspect can be done over the internet. Bands are promoting themselves through MySpace and countless music sites (a personal fave of mine is riffrock.com). They can sell their self-produced music on internet record stores like CDbaby.com. It's a work around the RIAA and guess what, it's LEGITIMATE. Who needs a record label?
Austin being the live music capitol of the world I see a LOT of bands start up here. Some are good, some are bad, some are eccentric, some are carbon copies of things that have been done 1000 times, some are terrible, some are boring, some are unsalvagably mediocre... and there are some that are great. More and more I've seen bands that are self-producing their own CD (it's cheaper that way!) and promoting themselves through MySpace, their own website and touring.
So now music has found alternate routes around 2 aspects of the RIAA's monopoly. It's social darwinism at its best. Musicians can self-produce and distribute their music over the internet and they can promote it there too. The work around is legal, the RIAA can't sue musicians who self-produce and self-promote. Of course the RIAA is pissed!
Well it looks like a desperation move for the RIAA. They're acknowledging that they don't care one bit about the artists, all they care about is money. They can't make any more from the consumer, so it's time to squeeze it out of the artist. It's a last-ditch effort. This is just going to encourage more artists to go independent. The service the RIAA offers grows more and more obsoleted each day. How much longer can they last? It's great to see one area where the good guys are winning against corporate greed.
Two things people need to know about the RIAA.
The RIAA does not represent the artists, it represents a group of companies that profit from an government sanctioned cartel covering distribution of music.
They are not a law enforcement agency, but the government seems to let
them behave as if they are.
When confronted with an RIAA notice to appear in court, fight back. Nobody has ever been defeated in court by the RIAA. They do not follow the rule of law when collecting evidence, and do not have a leg to stand on in a court of law. The RIAA profits when people settle out of court. They will drop the case, because they can't afford to lose a single case. If a precedent is set in court against them from even a single loss, they lose their income from people who settle out of court.
The RIAA does not represent the artists, it represents a group of companies that profit from an government sanctioned cartel covering distribution of music.
They are not a law enforcement agency, but the government seems to let
them behave as if they are.
When confronted with an RIAA notice to appear in court, fight back. Nobody has ever been defeated in court by the RIAA. They do not follow the rule of law when collecting evidence, and do not have a leg to stand on in a court of law. The RIAA profits when people settle out of court. They will drop the case, because they can't afford to lose a single case. If a precedent is set in court against them from even a single loss, they lose their income from people who settle out of court.