Ultimately the anti-Google and anti-blogger stuff isn’t about making bloggers stop linking or Google stop indexing, it’s a fantasy that somehow newspapers have some right to make money off of what Google and bloggers do.
Substantively, yes that is what they’re saying, but it isn’t about "rights." As Markos notes, all these organizations have to do is add "disallow" tags and the Google spiders won’t index their sites, but that’s not what they want. They see that Google has a profit center tangentially related to their product, and after having spent nearly a decade avoiding any kind of smart or reasonable business plan to enter the online world, they now want the government to execute a wealth transfer from Google to them. Because that’s just how it works.
Last week, the House passed the Performance Rights Act under similar circumstances. Radio stations in the US have never paid performance fees — rather, they pay flat fees to performance rights societies like ASCAP and BMI who track usage and are supposed to distribute it equitably to copyright holders (i.e., songwriters). Which is a fancy way of saying that if KJR played Mickey Dolenz singing "Last Train to Clarksville," KRJ paid a fee to ASCAP or BMI who paid Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart who wrote the song — Mickey Dolenz was SOL, and only got whatever he’d been paid to record the song originally.
So now, the RIAA has railroaded Congress into passing legislation requiring radio stations to pay performance licenses, too. Out of deep concern for poor performers like Mickey Dolenz:
Rep. Mike Quigly (D-Ill.), the latest arrival to the House, praised performers "who create, from nothing, art. I guarantee you it is worth more than nothing." He agreed that radio’s promotional value is worth something but couldn’t put a value figure on it.
That’s so touching. Really, it’s just beautiful. I’m so moved. It’s hard to put a value figure on it, but let’s try. How about nothing? Here’s the bill:
A featured recording artist who performs on a sound recording that has been licensed for public performance by means of a digital audio transmission shall be entitled to receive payments from the copyright owner of the sound recording in accordance with the terms of the artist’s contract.
So, Mickey Dolenz is still dependent on the kindness of the record companies to get paid for his performance, thank you Congress, which means exactly what you think it does — Mickey doesn’t get shit. And how about those hard working background vocalists and non-featured musicians?
[T]he copyright owner shall deposit 1 percent of the receipts from the license with the American Federation of Musicians and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (or any successor entity) (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Fund’) to be distributed to nonfeatured performers who have performed on sound recordings.
One percent. That’s all the record companies are required to pay out to performers. One percent. It’s not structured like nonprofits ASCAP and BMI, which retain only administrative costs and distribute the rest to songwriters (ASCAP claims 86 cents out of every dollar collected goes to songwriters). It’s just a wealth transfer to record companies in a year when radio advertising revenues are taking a huge hit.
Why? Because the RIAA kicked the shit out of the NAB, that’s why. It has nothing to do with right or wrong or what’s good for anybody, they just had more muscle and knew how to apply money in the right places. The entertainment companies are putting the screws to Feinstein right now, who will apparently try to move the bill in the Senate by tacking it on to the appropriations bill. And that will be that.
Pimco’s Bill Gross recently made headlines when he announced that the business plan of the world’s biggest bond fund was "shake hands with Uncle Sam," because that’s where all the money is going to be coming from. Raise your hand if you think the banks are going to continue to generate 41% of GDP. Probably not. So, anyone who wants to make money in this economy will get thee to Washington, hire thee a lobbyist or two and start shaking down Congress.
Because if you compare the growth of audio to online audience in 2008, there’s no way anybody is going to be able to resist that kind of big juicy revenue pie:
Google is now paying AP an undisclosed fee for its content, but all that means is that other carnivores like Newscorp and Hearst and Forbes want theirs. And they’ll gladly dispatch lawyers like Mr. Victoria Toensig to the pages of the Washington Post, who would also like to have a chunk of Google revenue thank you very much, to make a few threats and concoct some threadbare legal arguments to hide behind.
But mostly, they just really, really want to be the RIAA. And their chances of success are probably pretty good.




17 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
First album I ever got was the first Monkees album when I was in 4th grade.
I’ve still got mine somewhere, I think it was first grade.
Thanks Jane.
On air radio has always been the BEST form of FREE advertising for the music industry, where an artist’s music gets exposed to the most people.
So of course, the only logical thing to do is to try & stifle it by demanding that radio stations pay even more money per song. Excellent plan, Smithers, EXXXCELLENT!
R.I.A.A. – musics best friend.
Proves once again that artists, musicians, writers, are no better than the rest of the “ordinary” downtrodden citizens. Money to the powerful. Depleted white bread that lacks any value to the rest of us.
RIAA broke through on performance royalties with online radio last year, so this levels the playing field, so to speak.
Except they never made any provision that the money go to the performers. All the biggies lobbying for this — Billy Corgan, Don Henley — will be able to exact a pound of flesh in their own contracts, but other performers (particularly older ones not currently recording, with no clout & nothing in their contracts) apparently won’t see a thing.
Nice work, Congress.
Still have mine but nothing to play it on.
I wonder if anyone asked John Hall about this. Do we know how he voted?
I guess I was in 8th grade when my sister got her copy. Was watching a Tragically Hip concert video over the weekend. They’re named after something in a Michael Nesmith video project, called, Elephant Parts.
Fascinating post. I take it this is JH’s area of expertise.
I don’t know as much as Howie Klein does, but yes, intellectual property law and royalty licensing was a focus of my graduate program.
I had a vague recollection of that factoid, but for some reason more in terms of practice than school.
James Burke noted in his Day the Universe Changed series that bits of the past live on when deemed acceptable even under changed circumstances — such things, in this day and age of ever more rapid change, as royalties, e.g.
Ion Audio makes a turntable with a USB port. I bought one last year for around $80 and it’s worked out well. You can listen to your old vinyl albums while converting them to digital.
I still have four of the old Monkees albums on vinyl. I’m afraid my plastic model Monkeemobile, however, is lost to the ages.
Jane – I had understood that actors who performed in old TV shows made after a certain date were paid residual royalties when they were re-run on TV years later ad infinitum. So, is it true that Gilligan and Jethro get payment for their memorable work years later, and Mickey doesn’t, and if so, why is this the case? Do the actors have a better union agreement than the musicians in this respect?
USB turntable. Kewl!
Am I the only one old enough to remember payola, the multiple scandals where record companies paid the radio stations to broadcast their content? Now the radio stations have to do the reverse? I’d call this irony, but the term isn’t pejorative enough.
We need to add rolling back spurious “intellectual property claims” to the list of Democratic priorities. These are abusive monopolies that masquerade as copyright and patent law while allowing the least creative portions of our society–the coprorations–to profit at the expense of the creative intellects that the laws were supposed to protect.
Congress should repeal the Millenium Copyright Act. It should legislate judicial creations like corporate copyright and work-for-hire doctrine out of existence. Only creative individuals should be able to hold a copyright or a patent. Congress should make invalidation of copyrights and patents the automatic punishment for abusing the limited monopolies that the law grants. Abuses would include unreasonably high pricing, artificially limited distribution, and any and all attempts to limit fair use by side agreements, such as licenses. Congress should reduce the length of time that both patents and copyrights run. For copyright, it should be no more than 20 years (yes, I am a professional writer if you were wondering). Congress should explicitly exclude performances and athletic events form copyright, since neither arises to the level of substantive originality required by copyright. Finally, if we really want to protect creative activity as the Constitution intended, we should legally limit transfers of rights, so that the songwriter never loses his rights to the record company. Publishers should only have the rights for as long as they are paying royalties, and royalties should be renegotiated periodically at fair intervals.
I remember back in the ’70s the English rockers I knew got checks from the radio stations that played their music.
There was little enough money from the record companies and it helped keep the musicians off the dole.
Why am I not surprised that when the U.S. finally gets around to radio royalties it’s only the record companies that see the money?
The way I see it, the internet is the perfect place to just ignore the greedheads that have distorted the music business for the last at least 250 years.
So how do artists get paid? We simply must create a patron culture. If you enjoy the work of an artist, tip what you can afford. And if this means you pay $10,000 for a CD because you really want an artist to succeed, it should be EASY to make the $9,980 into a charitable contribution.
Yes, this is technological pass the hat, but I’ll wager the artists come out ahead. After all, all the artists that are making a living in the religion biz are already using this form of economics.
Of course, to make this work, there needs to be some cultural cops who hector the free-loaders like they do for fund-raising at PBS.