RSSAfter 'Day of Silence,' Was Webcasters' Message Heard?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 27, 2007, 3:32 PM
On the day that most American webcasters fell silent in protest of scheduled performance royalties rate increases to be imposed by the US Copyright Royalty Board, the key sponsor of House legislation to override those fees finally got one minute of floor time, to speak on behalf of his bill.
"Mr. Speaker, many of the 70 million Americans who enjoy music over the Internet woke up and their music was silent today," stated Rep. Jay Inslee (D - Wash.). "And the reason [is] because of an outrageous decision by a federal agency that caused outrageous increases of 300 to 1200% of the copyright fees that Internet Web broadcasters have to pay.
"And in protest of that outrageous decision," Rep. Inslee continued, "Web broadcasters today have joined together in a day of silence to let Americans know what's going to happen if Congress refuses to act to right this wrong. And I call today on my colleagues who will be hearing, and have heard, from many of their constituents on this day of silence.
"I hope they will co-sponsor H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act. The simple fact is, if we do not pass this bill, Web broadcasters are going to go out of business, many of the 70 million Americans who enjoy music over the Internet will not get to listen to it. Congress needs to act, it's the right thing to do, and let's pass this bill."
While supporters of this legislation, including the webcasters themselves, claimed their efforts to provoke individuals to call their congresspeople resulted in flooded switchboards on Capitol Hill yesterday, an independent statement on the subject has yet to be issued by lawmakers.
But such a statement could come tomorrow morning, when the House Committee on Small Business will hold hearings scheduled to feature arguments on both sides of the issue. Cincinnati Public Radio CEO Richard Eiswerth is scheduled to speak on behalf of NPR, many of whose member stations have online streaming channels, and many of whom may see their royalties rise from as little as $500 per year to, as one San Francisco station director predicted this morning, hundreds of thousands.
Also slated to appear is American Federation of Musicians President Thomas Lee. The AFM has been cited by the SoundExchange performance rights organization as supporting the new rates. But recent comments in the press seem to take a more conciliatory stand, concentrating more on webcasters' need to file appropriate reports so that artists can be compensated to any degree whatsoever.
H.R. 2060 would cap performance royalties paid by most commercial webcasters to 7.5% of their revenues, which many are saying easily beats 140% or more. A statement released by Lee last month seemed to refer to this concession, and indicated the group may even agree to it if webcasters can ensure proper reporting.
"In return for below-market rates, small webcasters should file the required reports so performers can be paid," Lee wrote. "Bottom line, musicians' creative work has value and it is important that they be fairly compensated for its use." While that statement on the surface appears to refer to SoundExchange's recent offer to extend a reduced revenue-capped rate to small webcasters, tomorrow's hearings could conceivably challenge the grounds for not applying the cap across the board.
I sort of like this mess. I don't think the artists are getting anything out of this. If the recording industry wins, maybe there would be stations that only play independent, unsigned acts. Sure, a lot of the music would be crappy, but if that sort of thing started happening a lot, it could really change how the industry works, and I'd love to see the current recording industry go down in flames. With things like MySpace and mp3's, are a majority of artists really going to need the recording industry and record labels in the future? If they can cut them out, they could potentially see more money depending on their distribution model. All I'm saying is big changes need to start happening.
Score: 0
|Word.
Score: 0
|I think musicians deserve money for their work. I think organizations such as the RIAA aren't doing any favors for the industry though. When you see the amounts they have sued people for, the question I have to ask is this: did the musicians who lost out through copyright infringement actually see any cut from these legal cases?
Anyway, be interesting to see how all this pans out. I never listen to internet radio anyway, but hey, I hope something reasonable is decided on for everyone who enjoys it.
Score: 0
|I think that's the real problem... if the artists actually got the money, most people wouldn't mind.
Score: 0
|RIAA wants more and more money!!!!
greedy
Score: 0
|Apropos of nothing, at this point I'd like to mention the return of Phil Hendrie to radio this week, unfortunately this time it seems without the humor component.
Score: 0
|you gotta be kidding. Is he coming back to KFI? he said over and over, no more terrestrial radio. where did you hear about this?
Score: 0
|http://www.philhendrienews.com/news.php
Oh man the first four days were dull, but thank the Lord, in less than a week Bobby Dooley was back...
Score: 0
|I really don't give a crap.
Score: -1
|"Bottom line, musicians' creative work has value and it is important that they be fairly compensated for its use."
I guess multi-million dollars wasn't good enough? This isn't about the musicians anyway. This about the RIAA wanting more money. I guess they couldn't afford to by their own personal island or something.
Score: 0
|I guess multi-million dollars wasn't good enough?
So, in your world, every musician out there makes millions of dollars?
See, when you base your opinions on fantasy, they mean nothing when faced with reality.
Score: 0
|Tell us, PC_Tool, why don't many more artist make "multi-million dollar" deals, even though some of these artist, e.g., TLC, sell millions of albums? It wouldn't have anything to do with the *exploitive* hierarchy of the music business, would it?
Score: 0
|Multi-million dollars?
Whom are you referring to? The RIAA or the artist? If the latter, you'd be surprised at the high number of successful artist whom make no more than $60K a year, though they could be selling 300,000 units per week for four months straight.
In the 'industry,' image is indeed everything!
Score: 0
|I honestly can't tell if you're trying to say they aren't signed with a RIAA label (They are), aren't making money (They are), or that they're being exploited (They probably don't feel they are).
Here's some info about TLC. Not a group I listen to, but easy enough to Google.
TLC:
Label(s): LaFace, Arista (RIAA labels, LaFace is an Arista spin-off)
A RIAA suit in which LaFace was a plaintiff.
The following is a list of the record company plaintiffs in (RIAA)Arista v. Does 1-21:
Arista Records LLC
Warner Bros Records Inc.
Atlantic Recording Corporation
Virgin Records America, Inc.
UMG Recordings, Inc.
BMG Music, Inc.
Capitol Records, Inc.
SONY BMG Music Entertainment
Motown Record Company, LLP
Maverick Recording Company
Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.
LaFace Records LLC
etc...
It seems they're doing quite well...
Their second album, CrazySexyCool (1994), which was one of the first albums to be awarded diamond certification by the RIAA for selling at least 10 million copies,
Perhaps I am missing your point. They signed with a RIAA member label and have made millions. I doubt they feel they've been "exploited". The deal apparently allowed them to break records, become insanely popular, and make tons of money.
Score: 0
|Well, in 1995, TLC filed for bankruptcy, claiming debts of over 3.5 million dollars, in part stemming from Lopes' insurance payments over an arson incident. They also claimed they hadn't seen their fair share of royalties from CrazySexyCool.
Score: 0
|lmao...
Yeah, that'd be the first time stars and starlets wasted their fortunes and ended up going bankrupt...
It's gotta be the label's fault. Everyone knows musicians are financially stable and responsible folk.
Sorry, that's just too funny.
Score: 0
|Such a cynical comment... look, people in general are too often irresponsible with money. It has little to do with a degree of fame and more to do in my estimation with an illusion of wealth, whereby parties with an interest in your talent (whether it's entertainment or tile laying skills) either owe you money or promise you money. An uncle of mine calls it "paper rich".
It's not that a label or representative or agent does not deserve to profit; that is completely besides the point. The point is at some point this system ends up being exploitation, akin to loan sharks offering deals they know are only good for the lender. The talent being skilled at their art, is not necessarily skilled in business and negotation, and may just be naive enough to be duped into securing a deal prematurely or with a deceptive label. Your research on TLC did not seem to negate the earlier post, but rather to substantiate it!
Score: 0
|Everyone knows musicians are financially stable and responsible folk.
That was sarcasm, my friend.
Thanks.
As for artists being taken advantage of, what do you suggest? That we fund their stupidity? That we feel sorry for them for making bad deals, trusting the wrong people and not taking responsibility for the handling of their wealth?
Sorry. Doesn't work that way. If they lost the money, it's no-ones fault but their own.
Score: 0
|I completely agree that people are responsible for their own choices. My suggestion would be to buy music outside of the music industry's ring of greed, and thus provide a further disincentive (as if they needed more) for artists to even look into that route. That is such an archaic infrastructure, and to Apple's great credit, it is about time somebody came along with today's tools to shake 'em up.
Score: 0
|Instant popularity and the aesthetics of "making millions" must be the definitive reason why the chart topping band filed bankruptcy a year after the record breaking album, huh, PC_Tool (hereby “Mr. Tool”)?
"In *1995*, TLC filed for bankruptcy, claiming debts of over 3.5 million dollars."
Basking in the flow of those then hundreds of thousands of dollars must've went to those girls' heads. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Tool?
For every musician that earns and receives a 'clean' million dollars (i.e., post recoupable expenses and advances), there's at least one-hundred other “established” (famed) artist whom are riddled with “production expenses.”
This rinse and repeat practice cum exploitive business model -- dare I say, venture? -- is, of course, what obligates those fledging, would-be entrepreneurs (musicians) to laborious demands (extensively high, grueling number of tour dates) of the capitalist/underwriters, (i.e., the big four--EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal and Warner Bros.). Not to mentioning the oft-times unilateral decisions labels make in the hawking of merchandise and cross-brand promotion (synergy), without the artist(s) consent. Such decisions bark up the "Who is truly the owner of intellectual property?" tree. But I digress.
Young talent may have the *potential* and *opportunity* of becoming famous and wealthy. After all, fame, fortune, a lasting legacy, and all the groupies one can stand is part of the lure of being a successful musician. However, most artist with a modicum of fame are indebted to their label bosses. Many artist claim exploitive conditions. Case in point, the strenuous relationship pop sensation George Michael shared with CBS cum Sony, as well as the iconic Prince doing live performances during the early to mid 90s bearing the word “slave” across his cheek.
Do you listen to Prince, Mr. Tool? Are you familiar said artist's work? If so, do you recall when Prince wrangling with Warner Bros. over his contract?
So I ask, what's the point of being famous when you are indebted a rough $450,000, and your recent album/production is only bringing in 1/8 of that amount a month?
Why is it a "new(b)" artist will make something between 70-80 cent per $18.99 CD, while the labels take the lion's share of riches? Cost of investment? Production cost? Marketing fees? Media writers? Video directors? Save 'em all! I've not only heard those reasons/excuses cited before, I once swore by 'em during the course of my then-profession.
Nevertheless, the record business has never been predominately artist-friendly or artist-conscious. Hence the swell and surge of entertainment lawyers, independent and start-up labels, in addition to being a leading explanation behind the madding popularity of Web sites such as Myspace.com.
That said, Mr. Tool, have you ever been accused of being a bigot, in the classical sense of the word?
Score: 0
|Well said, Netjustin. Well said!
Score: 0
|Lmao...
Awesome. You complain that they aren't getting enough from their labels, that they are being exploited, and then, in the next post, propose to stop giving the artist *any* money at all.
Yeah, that'll help 'em.
Score: 0
|Instant popularity and the aesthetics of "making millions" must be the definitive reason why the chart topping band filed bankruptcy a year after the record breaking album, huh, PC_Tool (hereby “Mr. Tool”)?
"In *1995*, TLC filed for bankruptcy, claiming debts of over 3.5 million dollars."
Basking in the flow of those then hundreds of thousands of dollars must've went to those girls' heads. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Tool?
Pretty much. Aside from some unexpected and tragic expenses (such as a house fire), yes.
For every musician that earns and receives a 'clean' million dollars (i.e., post recoupable expenses and advances), there's at least one-hundred other “established” (famed) artist whom are riddled with “production expenses.”
This rinse and repeat practice cum exploitive business model -- dare I say, venture? -- is, of course, what obligates those fledging, would-be entrepreneurs (musicians) to laborious demands (extensively high, grueling number of tour dates) of the capitalist/underwriters, (i.e., the big four--EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal and Warner Bros.). Not to mentioning the oft-times unilateral decisions labels make in the hawking of merchandise and cross-brand promotion (synergy), without the artist(s) consent. Such decisions bark up the "Who is truly the owner of intellectual property?" tree.
I'm *so* sorry they signed a contract. Let me get out my violin...
That said, Mr. Tool, have you ever been accused of being a bigot, in the classical sense of the word?
lmao.. If not being a slave to popular opinion and understanding the basics of free-market and ya know, understanding the simple fact that *all* artists have a pretty simple choice (sign or not) makes me a bigot in your eyes, well...
Look up the term. Your definition is flawed.
In terms of being bigoted against dysfunctional, irresponsible superstars? You bet.
Score: 0
|