Re: CARP passed- this sucks.

["Stephen P. Goodman" <spgoodman@earthlight.net>]

Combine this recent collusion with the stuff preceding it posted by myself
previously, and what you get is the situation I was talking about: where, 
in
order to legally claim or collect copyright or performance payments, an
artist must form an entire company, including escrow-handling functions, 
and
later have to report all disbursed moneys to the Gubmint as well!

Previous analysis by myself is found at
http://www.earthlight.net/Thoughts002.html on this.  This ain't "black
helicopter thinking" folks.

> A good explanation is here:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8271-2002May25.html
> Also, I've heard but have yet to confirm that the RIAA will be collecting
> fees "on behalf" of artists and labels that are not RIAA members. Meaning
> that if I have a song that plays on somafm or any live365 stream (etc) 
>the
> RIAA is collecting money for that song... and I highly doubt that I or 
>any
> other small artist will see that money unless we go to the RIAA and 
>demand
> it.
> -
> valerie
>
> >  From what I gather, it's not so much the rates as it is the fact that
> >internet radio has to pay an extra fee that the regular radio stations
> >don't. Everyone pays to BMI or ASCAP for rights to broadcast. The
> >Internet guys pay that and then this CARP fee to the RIAA because the
> >RIAA claims that it's easier to copy from Internet radio.
> >  It's a punitive fee, used as a weapon in the RIAA's war on all
> >Internet audio technology.
> >
> >
> >on 6/21/02 Kim Flint wrote:
> >
> >>I don't really know many details about the CARP thing, in regards to
> >>what
> >>royalty rates would be fair or not....
>
>
>
>
>