Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hi Valerie- At 08:23 PM 6/21/2002, valerie wrote: >A good explanation is here: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8271-2002May25.html thanks for the article, that was interesting and helps me come up to speed a little on the whole thing. But now I'm totally confused as to why musicians would be fighting this. As that article states, the existing situation with broadcast radio was that musicians and performers didn't get anything. We all got screwed there a long time ago, before any of us had an opportunity to do anything about it. Now, according to this article, there is new legislation in place that guarantees musicians and performers a chunk of the royalty in the case of new forms of broadcasting over the internet. Sounds like a victory to me. Finally musicians get some pay for all the work they do to bring money to somebody else. So why fight against that? It doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me you should all be fighting to get the laws changed so royalties are also paid to musicians by the broadcast radio business as well. You achieved one victory with internet broadcasters, now march on to get another one. Am I missing something in all this? Well, it does explain one thing to me. It sure is clear why musicians are always poor and getting screwed out of their rights. When somebody finally offers you something you fight against it? Please don't tell me you actually think the internet industry is on your side any more than the recording industry or the broadcast industry. They are all seeking to maximize their own profit, because this is capitalism. If you are not sticking up for yourself, they will ALL happily maximize it at your expense. >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. >- Oh, the RIAA bit... I don't know much about them or why there is so much animosity towards them. (don't have much time to follow this stuff lately.) I remember a while back when they were fighting against sampling, which I thought was really idiotic. Is that it? Anyway, you are concerned that they will collect money on your behalf, but never pay you. The way I see it: -if there was no requirement to collect money for you, you definitely never get paid. (as with broadcast radio) - If there is a requirement to collect money, but no organization assigned to handle that, you probably never get paid. No money actually collected in an account to pay you with and nobody to hold accountable. good luck. - If there is a requirement to collect money for you, and an organization assigned to do that (whether they are evil or not), and they actually do collect money, your chances of getting it are pretty good. that seems to be the situation you've achieved, congratulations! If the RIAA collects the money and does not pay you, you have a good legal position to stand on. (as i understood from that article, based on digital millennium act or whatever.) That is the best position to be in, you have money collected, a legal right to it, and somebody to hold accountable. The obvious recourse would be a class action lawsuit against them to collect the money owed and ensure future money is paid. That would be pretty straightforward, I would think. You could also bring the problem to the attention of your congress person, and perhaps the law would be amended to correct whatever problems happen in practice, or the RIAA could be threatened with losing their position if they don't follow the rules. That might be slower, but never hurts. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com