RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio

ben_j_davis · 30 Apr 2007 at 10:47

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

How is this possible? This company beggars belief.

Deep · 30 Apr 2007 at 10:48

this is going to make it even harder for decent bands to become well known and popular!
DAMN RIAA

Indy500 · 30 Apr 2007 at 10:50

Trying to establish a monopoly on digital media, by the looks of it.

ben_j_davis · 30 Apr 2007 at 10:52

They are very cunning, very few internet radio stations will be able to afford to pay the new prices and will go under. This way the RIAA prevents any artists not signed to their labels getting airtime.

Gilly · 30 Apr 2007 at 10:55

Isn't that racketeering?

I almost feel like making my own music, just to get airtime so that I can sue SoundExchange (and therefore the RIAA) to get my own money that I didn't ask them to collect that they're withholding.

kaiowas · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:11

With the all important "America" word being contained in the RIAA acronym, if an internet radio station were to simply block any US based IP address from listening to their service they'd presumably bypass the whole thing and not have to pay them any royalties at all?

ben_j_davis · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:15

That is the one good thing, don't think they would be able to convince the EU that this Monopoly was a good thing. Let's hope that the likes of Pandora etc move to somewhere in Europe.

Gilly · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:25

ben_j_davis said:
That is the one good thing, don't think they would be able to convince the EU that this Monopoly was a good thing. Let's hope that the likes of Pandora etc move to somewhere in Europe.

Unlikely, given that their copyright doesn't extend to here (unless there's been developments I haven't seen very recently).

Indy500 · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:36

I believe the original source for the story is here, for those that are interested:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870

afraser2k · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:41

kaiowas said:
With the all important "America" word being contained in the RIAA acronym, if an internet radio station were to simply block any US based IP address from listening to their service they'd presumably bypass the whole thing and not have to pay them any royalties at all?

Would the stations get the rights to play songs from artists listed with American music companies if they refused to pay the fees, even if they blocked US IP addresses?

ben_j_davis · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:47

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...uld-overturn-decision-on-webcasting-fees.html

Last attempt to save Internet radio

the-void · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:49

I don't see how they can enforce what they are suggesting. If I have not broken any UK law and I have the copyright permission to broadcast their work on the net how is an American company going to claim ownership of UK copyrighted work.

"andy" · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:53

most artist are very happy to get there music played on internet radio or featured on music blogs if it helps get them known :/

silly silly riaa

the-void · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:57

RIAA only applies in the US. They will not be collecting royalties for music in the UK.

http://www.out-law.com/page-7975

And it also appears this law is already being challenged in the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/30/internet_radio_law/

However, I imagine that what gets passed in the US will influence what law is passed by MCPS-PRS in the UK.

Baa. baa.

Darg · 30 Apr 2007 at 11:57

They have no jurisdiction outside the united states as the law is of course american.

They could argue that you are broadcasting to a potential american audience but then again stick a 1000metre aerial on your house and I'm sure you'd faintly pick up some AM signals from across the atlantic.

It's complete BS and couldn't possibly stand up in court. Just waiting for a decent legal team to rip them a new one.

Booner! · 30 Apr 2007 at 12:18

I just can't see where this is going to stop... Soon small bands doing covers will be charged for rights to play a cover of a song

******'s

ben_j_davis · 30 Apr 2007 at 12:48

Here's hoping the EFF do something about it.

pyro · 30 Apr 2007 at 13:35

Darg said:
They have no jurisdiction outside the united states as the law is of course american.

So this doesn't affect internet radios in the free world, right? I hope di.fm moves to Europe!

Raikiri · 30 Apr 2007 at 13:42

Darg said:
They have no jurisdiction outside the united states as the law is of course american.

Clearly you didn't know, the RIAA are the American World Police :rolleyes:

Archangelus · 30 Apr 2007 at 14:03

So, If I'm an independant artist, writing and performing my own music, and I decide to broadcast my music on the internet for anyone who decides to listen, the RIAA will attempt to collect royalties from me for playing my own music, that they won't forward on to me as I'm not registered with them?

Sounds like a mugging to me.