RIAA: More full of S#@$ than ever before

We have long railed against the stupidity of the recording industry, and their obnoxious pederast front group, the Recording Industry Association of America.

Anyone who thought the RIAA was anything less than a group of shameless hucksters shilling on behalf of their corporate masters should by now be thoroughly disabused of that notion.

The latest proof of their whoring activities comes in in their new proposed royalty schedule for song writers and lyricists:

"Throughout its campaign against peer-to-peer services, The Recording Industry Association of America has insisted, unequivocally, that file-sharing hurt musicians. There is a clear correlation between file-sharing and loss of revenue for the music industry, the RIAA argues, one that undermines the livlihoods of the recording artists whose work it peddles. It’s a sympathetic argument and one that the group has trotted out time and time again as it fired off lawsuits at college students, grade schoolers and
deceased grandmothers.

But it’s a disingenous one as well. Because much as the RIAA would like us to see it as a champion of creative artists, it’s an industry group concerned with industry profits. And the best interests of artists matter little when it comes to exploiting the revenue streams they create. So, while it’s sad to hear that the RIAA is lobbying to reduce rates on royalties paid to songwriters, it’s not unexpected. Earlier this month, the group began
petitioning 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. Citing general music industry change, RIAA Executive Vice President and General Council Steven Marks told The Hollywood Reporter that so-called "Mechanical Royalties" have become badly outdated. That may be true, but
is reducing them really the answer? If anything they should be increased, shouldn’t they? Particularly if ringtone services generated additional revenues at a time when piracy was "devastating" the record industry. My God, don’t these people ever stop?" (GMSV)

I don’t understand why musicians and songwriters put up with this sort of crap.

But don’t think its just here in the US that where cancerous industry groups lie cheat and steal. They do the same in the UK too . . .

>

See Also

Squeezing Money From the Music    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/business/media/11music.html


Sources:
Labels seek lower royalty rate
Brooks Boliek
Hollywood Reporter, Dec 1, 2006
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466811

RIAA proposes new "Less is More" royalty schedule
John Paczkowski
GMSV, December 11, 2006, 06:03 AM
http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/12/throughout_its_.html

RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties
Aggressively
litigious group has claimed to protect musicians in the past. Now
believes musicians deserve less for "innovative" music distribution.

Gerry Block
IGN.com, December 7, 2006
http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. A Little Ludwig Goes A Long Way commented on Dec 12

    RIAA: More full of S#@$ than ever before

    it is hard to feel sympathy for the industry when they are actively working both ends of the revenue stream at once — whacking users to get us to pay more, and whacking artists to pay them less — The…

  2. KP commented on Dec 12

    This is why so many artists, once they have gotten big enough, try to open their own labels. The rap artists are perfect examples of this.

  3. Charles Butler commented on Dec 12

    About four years ago, the Spanish rights agency unilaterally decided to withold 25% of royalties owed to extranationals – retroactive to the year 1992!

  4. Bob A commented on Dec 12

    Sharing increases the total paid market. ie… Ipods which are mostly loaded with music that wasn’t paid for… simultaneously create a vastly larger market for paid Itunes downloads.

  5. Jack commented on Dec 12

    I run a website for an extremely talented musician who works w/ some heavyweights but has gone very independent w/ his own projects. From what I can tell, there ARE many more talented musicians w/ business sense… you just haven’t heard them yet. If you want to here this guy — Danny Barnes — check out dannybarnes.com. He gives away some track and would love to know that they are in your ipod.

  6. Estragon commented on Dec 12

    Of course the RIAA shills for record companies. That’s their job. To expect otherwise is just silly.

    IMHO, artists and labels should be free to choose how they do business, either individually or collectively. Governments have no business getting involved in royalty rates, and neither do you.

  7. Brandon commented on Dec 12

    “But don’t think its just here in the US that where cancerous industry groups lie cheat and steal. They do the same in the UK too . . .”

    Industries are made up of people…people lie, cheat and steal. Individuals lie, cheat and steal. peer to peer users who download songs are stealing from anyone who might profit from the music, not just the industries but yes the artists also in most cases. Making them the faceless “cancerous industries” just makes people feel good about themselves.

    -Filesharer

  8. KirkH commented on Dec 12

    One day, like Voltron, David LeReah and the RIAA will merge to form an unstoppable IP beast that will force us to swipe credit cards through our car stereo every 3 minutes to keep the music playing.

  9. my1 commented on Dec 12

    I wonder what Steve Levitt who wrote Freakonomics would say about this.

    Could trying to “save” the recording industry destroy the recording industry?

  10. jjr commented on Dec 12

    The RIAA (and the MPAA) are backward-thinking cretins clinging to obsolete business models. They apparently believe that they are entitled to cashflows in perpetuity, regardless of their ability to innovate. Eventually these whores will be forced out of the game, but the have a lot of money and a lot of power, and they won’t go down without kicking and screaming.

    Unfortunately, no new model has proven fully capable of allowing creative artists to transact directly with their audiences. Selling merch (shirts, posters, etc) and touring are still the best models of disintermediation. But these still rely on an audience being aware of an artist, and proactively seeking them out. There are still few ways for artists to make audiences aware of their work from scratch, outside the traditional means like radio, advertising, etc. The whores still control access to these means.

    p.s. Jack, Danny Barnes is indeed a musician worth seeking out. I remember when the Bad Livers were recommended to me as one of the best bands in Austin, back in the early 90s … and they sure lived up to their billing.

  11. Jeremy de Beer commented on Dec 12

    Canadian music creators — that is, the real human beings who actually create and perform music — are not putting up with it. Their coalition includes some very big names, some independents and some unknowns. Their white paper is a must read.

    http://www.musiccreators.ca/

    Unfotunately, whether the decision-makers listen to them is another matter.

  12. Sherman McCoy commented on Dec 12

    Looks like Big Music is in a death spiral… More egregious behavior on part of the RIAA promotes less “buy-in” for the system, which means more downloading of pirated songs, which means more egregious behavior by RIAA, etc…

    It all ends when some smart guy steps up to the plate and decides to put a couple hundred million behind a venture to replace Big Music. It’ll be a venture where the whole retail/CD aspect is ignored in favor of iTunes-style distribution. And it’ll have more emphasis on creating cultures around artists (making money through concerts, events, add-ons to the songs, etc…) than through sales of recorded songs.

    A lot could be learned from the porn business- in porn, so so so so much is given away for free. But people still whip out their credit cards to sign up for the stuff behind the membership gateway. The more widely-distributed the free stuff is, the more people sign up for the stuff that needs to be paid for. It’s actually quite simple. Just different. And not business as usual under old-world Big Music rules.

  13. steeliekid commented on Dec 13

    Funny that the recording industry and certain artists are stuck on this model. “Jam” bands are a genre that has figured it out. No matter what you think of the bands or their fans, the financial success of the Grateful Dead (plus later permutations) and Phish show that bands can hit it big by constant touring, creating loyal fans, and all the while allowing taping of concerts and unlimited distribution. Maybe the rest of the music world should look at albums as a loss leader (or pirating as “viral marketing”) to get folks in the doors at concert venues vs. suing their fans for downloading.

Posted Under