arstechnica.com — Copyright law is packed with strange features, but here's one of the strangest: webcasters, satellite radio, and those music stations transmitted through your cable connection all have to pay performance rights both to the composers who wrote the song and the performers who played it.
Mar 23, 2007 View in Crawl 4
masgradaMar 23, 2007
Suprise! RIAA sucks!
shark72Mar 23, 2007
"It would be difficult to direct these fees to such an artist, since the infrastructure is primarily geared towards funneling the fees through the major record labels."Some good news for once... the radio stations pay ASCAP and BMI, which are run by and for artists. The money isn't sent to the record labels to pass along to the artists. So, if you're an indie / unsigned artist, just sign up for ASCAP and BMI and you can have a nice little revenue stream that the record industry doesn't get to touch.The record industry doesn't like this, which is why they created Soundscan to try to get a piece of the web radio action. But for terrestrial radio, cable, and all the traditional places you hear music, the money still goes directly to ASCAP and BMI.
bigslackerMar 23, 2007
I thought the current pricing structure was "broadcasters pay for the right to use the materials and webcasters steal it."
bmac2000Mar 24, 2007
"Some good news for once... the radio stations pay ASCAP and BMI, which are run by and for artists. The money isn't sent to the record labels to pass along to the artists. So, if you're an indie / unsigned artist, just sign up for ASCAP and BMI and you can have a nice little revenue stream that the record industry doesn't get to touch.The record industry doesn't like this, which is why they created Soundscan to try to get a piece of the web radio action. But for terrestrial radio, cable, and all the traditional places you hear music, the money still goes directly to ASCAP and BMI."Wrong. ASCAP is owned by the member composers and publishers, not all of whom are "artists." BMI is owned by broadcasters. Soundscan? Do you mean SoundExchange? Also not owned by record companies. Check yer facts, dude.
stalky14Mar 24, 2007
My viewpoint on this kind of thing is rather extreme and is analogous to: "If bridgebuilders don't get paid for every car that drives over their bridge, why should a musician get paid every time his song is played?" He should certainly be paid each time he plays his song, or any recordings he or his proxy sells, but the bridgebuilders got paid once for their work based on the overall value of the job at hand. Why should other forms of creation be treated differently and be paid indefinitely for something that already exists?
fecesclubMar 24, 2007
TJRC - Not that it matters, but compulsory mechanical licenses are in Section 115. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license</a>If you like, you could read Marybeth Peters testimony on the issue, which the ArsTechnica article was referring to.<a class="user" href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032207-1.html">http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032207-1.html</a>Here is how the issue of whether a DPD is also a public performance is playing out in real life.<a class="user" href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic7c7395405a27b054414b0f8985cd87c">http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic7c7395405a27b054414b0f8985cd87c</a>Section 116 deals with compulsory jukebox licenses.
subscriberMar 24, 2007
Also note that ASCAP and BMI both seem to embrace new media. They make it easy to get a license to play music on your site, and they don't sue their customers. When the RIAA tries to tell you that downloading music hurts the artists, ask yourself why the organizations that represent the artists (like ASCAP and BMI) don't rush to tell you the same thing. The truth is the RIAA doesn't really care about the artists.
mgadalskyAug 15, 2007
Wonderful! sweet! <a class="user" href="http://hobbyzoom.blogspot.com">http://hobbyzoom.blogspot.com</a>