We mentioned that there was a tentative deal reached between the "small webcasters" and the RIAA regarding royalty payments over the weekend, but that at the last moment SOMETHING happened to jeopardize the deal:
- Under an agreement reached previously, royalty money would be distributed directly to musicians, rather than going through record companies, after lawyers' fees and other expenses were taken out.
But while the new agreement states that legal fees will be taken out of royalties, it makes no guarantee that musicians will then be paid directly, said Ann Chaitovitz, national director of sound recordings for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.
As a result, the deal may be threatened.
"They knew we would object to it," Chaitovitz said.
- To provide everyone with a understanding of my and others postion on the issue, what follows is a email that I sent last night to my contacts in the House and Senate Judiciary that sums it up nicely:
I am *extremely* disturbed to learn that the RIAA had language added to HR5469 (The Small Webcaster Act) that would:
1 - eliminate direct payments to artists
2 - allow expenses to be recouped before making payments to artists
This language is not, of course, in the copy of the Legislation provided to us by the House Judiciary staff.
Despite the RIAA spin, small commercial webcasters actually support artists - and artist rights. We have *never* sought to create an industry at the expense of the artist. And, even though this Bill is intended to provide Legislative relief for my own business and industry, as a matter of principle, I am *extremely* disturbed to think that this same Bill could become law at the expense of artists and artist rights.
Last week the RIAA rallied the artists and unions to railroad HR5469 on grounds that it would delay artists payment - and now apparently the RIAA is attempting to use the same bill to delay payment themselves and/or to avoid direct payment to artists altogether. In truth, it is the RIAA and their label clients who have created an industry off the backs of artists - and this is proof of it.
Either that or its proof that they have actively sought to insert language that would doom the fate of HR5469. They couldn't possibly think that the artists and artists union would support such language. And they were sadly mistaken to think that desperate small business owners would support such language.
Article comments
1 - no spam
I find the requirement of webcasters to uniquely log all listeners disturbing. I assume they're also required to turn this over to someone or what's the point. The TV networks have lusted over this kind of demographics for decades.
Does this new law supersede the Internet child protection act, or whatever it was called? Which required parental concent before gathering such data?
2 - Eric Olsen
For our slashdotty friends - we have a post today dealing with the Webcaster Alliance suit against the RIAA in the context of all they (RIAA) are doing to make the world a better place.