this was posted on another site, but I thought I repost it here to see how [censored] up the RIAA is, when it comes to establishing rates...PLUS if you are sued $750 per downloaded song, how much does the artist get awarded...NOTHING!...Read On
If you have for one second believed any of the [censored] that has been uttered from the mouths of the Recording Industry Association of America (the RIAA) then sit up and hear the real truth.
First off let's look at what the RIAA has been fighting. They are after music downoaders. According to one news report a RIAA letter said one student has downloaded 584 songs and named several of the songs. She will have to pay at minimum $750 per song or arrange a settlement agreement.
So at this point we should believe the cost of one song is $750.00
This I find quite strange consdering the cost of an entire CD averages $10 - $15 which if a CD contained just ten songs that would equate to $1.00 - $1.50 per song. This really makes the $750.00 per song fine seem quite insane.
But wait. If you go somewhere like Napster (which is now licensed by the music industry and endorsed by the RIAA for 9.95 a month. This gives you unlimited access to over three million songs which you can burn and keep. If you try to caculate 3,000,000 by 9.95 the amount is so unmeasurable it will probably freak your caculator out. This would mean songs are pretty much worthless.
That makes 750.00 a song even more insane.
At the same time the RIAA wants new royalty rates imposed on internet broadcasters that are many times higher than the current rates and within just a few years well more than ten times the current rates. These royalty costs are being imposed while these very same stations are giving an unmeasurable amount of exposure and promotional value to their artists and to their product. There have been many cases of record labels bribing...err giving payola to radio stations to play certian artists and in many cases to not play others. This proves that under the right circumstances there is a financial benefit to the record labels for radio promotion.
In both cases the RIAA wants a large amount of money for someting that in another venue they have proven it to be next to worthless. In both cases the RIAA is not in the least bit interested in royalties to the artists. They never have been. Know why?
The reason is in the list of members of the RIAA.
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Notice there are no artists. No musicians. No composers. No producers. No one invoved in the creation of music nor the performance of it. Never has been and never will be. The RIAA members are all record labels and their only motive is profit and making sure they protect by whatever means they can their business model.
This means elimination of internet radio. Why? Because internet radio isn't FM radio. They can't control us the way they can them. First there was payola which in short was the labels paying stations to promote and play certian music and to not play and/or promote other stuff. After being busted twice in the past 30 years for that the new model is that if you don't do what they want you to do then they will make sure you don't have access to the bands for interviews and don't have any connection to concerts and such. They can even prohibit them from playing music.
So why do this? Because if they don't you could actually get exposure to new bands and artists who haven't been forced to sign their lives away to the record labels. They are called indie artists or unsigned artists - they are the lifebood of rock music in a few years. The record labels want them either signed and slaved out or gone and never heard from. They have managed to do that with FM radio but not internet radio. So they keep trying to impose higher and higher royalty rates that eventually will bankrupt every single independent internet radio station operator out there.
If we go back to 2002 the royalty rate was $0.14 per song. That has increased three times which is about one tenth of what it would cost to buy it if we used the RIAA's own methodoogy. But this is not to buy the song - this is just to listen to it. No station out there can generate that kind of income unless we would become as innundated as FM radio with commercials - and probably worse.
Instead the RIAA has a plan - one it's had all along. If they can bankrupt internet radio operators - stations that actually pay royalties to the artists via ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN - then they can take over the industry much like they did with Napster. Since they do not have to pay royalties to themselves they can replace the current broadcasters with stations of their own and only play what they want you to hear. The whole time through the artists receive no royalties at all and the record labels continue their grasp on your freedom to listen to music that you want to.
You can download and own 3,000,000 songs for 9.95 a month. But if you want to play it on the radio it's a minimum of $0.14 per song per listener. And if you download it on your own it's $750.00 per song.
Now tell me there's not something really wrong with the RIAA.
And unlike the fairy tales you hear on the internet there is something you can do. You can refer to the above list of RIAA members and tell them to stop being a member of the RIAA or you will stop buying their product. This includes record labels, record stores and anyone else on that list. If the RIAA lost their members the RIAA would not exist so going directly for the throats of the record labels can an will get rid of the RIAA once and for all. And as we all know the record labels care more about their money than anything else. Cut off that money and they will pay attention.
Doing that one thing coud save internet radio. It could also save a fed up music fan $750.00 per song in fines. And it might even lower prices on those three million songs.
And yes - if we're all lucky it would turn the lights off on the RIAA once and for all.
Bookmarks