SoundExchange taken to task
p2pnet news | music:- Ex-RIAA bag company SoundExchange is a non-profit which supposedly exists to collect money for artists and labels.
It doesn’t appear to be too successful, at least as far as the artists are concerned, not seeming to know who or where many of its clients, if they can be called that, are.
Consequently, it has considerable difficulty paying them the money it owes.
Exactly what happens to all the millions of dollars left in limbo? SoundExchange keeps the money.
Nashville entertainment lawyer and p2pnet correspondent Fred Wilhelms (right) has among other things been asking the organisation and its executive director, John Simson, embarrassing questions about how finances are handled, and how income is calculated and distributed.
He has yet to receive even vaguely satisfactory answers, and now another difficulty has arisen.
Says Eliot Van Buskirk in a Wired commentary:
Section 114(g)(3) of the Copyright Act explicitly limits how the nonprofit can spend the money it collects, approving just three carefully circumscribed activities:
“(A) the administration of the collection, distribution, and calculation of the royalties;
“(B) the settlement of disputes relating to the collection and calculation of the royalties; and
“(C) the licensing and enforcement of rights with respect to the making of ephemeral recordings and performances subject to licensing under section 112 and this section, including those incurred in participating in negotiations or arbitration proceedings under section 112 and this section, except that all costs incurred relating to the section 112 ephemeral recordings right may only be deducted from the royalties received pursuant to section 112.”
OK.
So, “it came as quite a surprise when a source familiar with SoundExchange told me on condition of anonymity that the group is engaged in lobbying and public relations activities, in apparent violation of the law cited above,” says Van Buskirk, continuing:
A little fact-checking showed that SoundExchange registered the MusicFirstCoalition.org domain on May 9, 2007; that it is a member of the organization; and that SoundExchange supports musicFIRST financially, although it has not disclosed the extent of its spending. (When asked about it, SoundExchange spokesperson Richard Ades called that information “proprietary.”)
Here’s what’s not proprietary: The musicFIRST Coalition (Fairness In Radio Starting Today) is a public relations group that launched on June 14, 2007 with the sole mission of implementing a sound recording performance royalty on terrestrial radio stations. It is comprised of labels, managers and artists, including Hall & Oates, Jay-Z, Celine Dion and various artists’ and labels’ organizations, including the RIAA. SoundExchange is listed as a sponsor on the homepage of the organization’s web site.
Asked about the legality of the lobbying expenditures, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson dodged the question. “Clearly the Broadcasters (CQ) will do or say anything so as not to pay artists for their work,” he wrote in an e-mail. “We welcome a full and open debate before Congress on ending the unfair free ride given over-the-air radio and the granting to artists the long overdue right to be paid for their recordings when they are played.”
With all of the above in mind, Wilhelms, who acts for many of the artists SoundExchnage is supposed to be paying, wrote a letter to Simpson in which he says:
I have read with interest and concern the recent article by Eliot Van Buskirk on the Wired.com blog suggesting that SoundExchange has exceeded its regulatory authority by engaging in the musicFIRST campaign.
I happen to believe, based on my own reading of the law, the lobbying efforts do exceed the legislative and regulatory authority given to SoundExchange. I also believe that the lobbying activity on a matter outside the scope of SoundExchange’s original charter constitutes a violation of the 501 (c) (6) tax-exemption held by SoundExchange. Again, that is just my opinion based on reading of the relevant statutes and regulations. You, I imagine, have received contradictory legal advice.
I am sure that a complete investigation by the appropriate authorities will, once and for all, resolve the questions of legal conduct. Nonetheless, I strongly urge SoundExchange immediately appoint a truly independent entity to review SoundExchange’s operations and issue a public report as to its compliance with all legal requirements and limitations. The credibility of the organization has been questioned, and only independent evaluation can restore it. SoundExchange already has important obligations to recording artists and record labels. The integrity with which it carries out those obligations is now in serious doubt. The questions and the doubt must be put to rest, one way or another.
As much as the questions of legality are a major issue, as an attorney for of a number of artists registered with the organization, I find even more troubling the comments made by SoundExchange representatives in the Van Buskirk article. They do not make me confident that SoundExchange is taking its current responsibilities seriously because it seems to have bigger plans for itself.
The first such comment is attributed to SoundExchange “spokesperson” Richard Ades. When asked how much SoundExchange money was spent on musicFIRST, he supposedly replied that the information was “proprietary.”
This response is simply unsatisfactory. That an organization ostensibly existing only because of obligations to my clients and other artists and labels believes it has a right not to disclose what it does with their money is simply astounding. It is arrogant, and it is wrong. The money does not belong to SoundExchange, and SoundExchange does not have the right to dispose of it merely as it sees fit.
The amount spent by SoundExchange is from money received from licensees for performances by my clients. That money, less the actual cost of administration of the collection and distribution process, should be paid to them. That is the job SoundExchange promised to do.
Any reduction of the payment on account of expenditures for a purpose unrelated to the royalties earned by my clients by their performances on satellite and Internet broadcasts is impermissible by law and a breach of the trust placed in SoundExchange. It doesn’t keep that promise to pay the artists and labels what they have earned when it spends money on something that doesn’t promote those specific goals.. Any suggestion that the amount of that reduction is information they cannot have because it is “proprietary” is reprehensible. My clients’ interests are not served by keeping that information private.
No one who is registered with SoundExchange is served by keeping that information private. The only interests served by keeping this information private are those of the individuals making the contribution and the entity receiving it. Neither of these is equal to, let alone paramount to, the interest of my clients. What right does SoundExchange claim to keep it a secret?
On behalf of my clients, I demand that you immediately publicly release all information relating to the expenses incurred in the musicFIRST campaign by SoundExchange, and the extent of its commitment to cover future costs of the campaign. My clients deserve to know what you are doing with their money. My clients want to know who approached SoundExchange, who brought the matter to the Board’s attention, and who voted for and against it.
Some time ago, you were quoted as saying that you thought SoundExchange’s operations should be “transparent.” This is your opportunity to prove you were telling the truth.
You and I have had some issues about SoundExchange secrecy before. In 2005, you claimed that the list of artists you could not find was proprietary information and you wouldn’t release it to me unless I agreed not to disclose any information about the list. I declined, saying I couldn’t place myself in a position to know what artists were entitled to money but constrained from telling them, or asking anyone else to help me find them. In retrospect, all that was accomplished by keeping that list secret was delaying, for over a year, any organized effort to find those artists and get them paid. Maybe that was the goal. If so, it worked.
The secrecy policy didn’t make any sense then, and it doesn’t make any sense now. It leaves the deep impression that SoundExchange has something to hide, and that it is intent on hiding it from the people it is ostensibly working for. That imperious attitude might work for a trade association that only has to answer to its members, like the RIAA. For an organization like SoundExchange, the attitude is simply wrong.
As for your own statement, Mr. Van Buskirk classified it as not responding to his question about the legality of SoundExchange’s sponsorship of musicFIRST. Perhaps you were misquoted, but it does not appear that you ever directly addressed the question. All too often in five months since the CRB rates were announced, SoundExchange spokespeople have not answered questions that were asked, but have simply said what they wanted to say. It is immensely frustrating to try to engage SoundExchange people in a dialog when they don’t pay attention to what is being said by the other parties. You missed an opportunity to promote the discussion by actually entering into it, rather than ignoring it.
But let me try one more time to ask some questions to see if you will actually answer them.
Does it really matter who blows the whistle on SoundExchange violating legal and tax restrictions on its operations?
Does the fact that broadcasters may have brought this up this time mean they aren’t true?
Frankly, the questions, whatever the source, are nothing new. Rusty Hodge raised the same points on his blog nearly six weeks ago. SoundExchange representatives, including Director Dick Huey, have deigned to “explain” SoundExchange policy and procedures (inaccurately, as it turns out) on Mr. Hodge’s blog before, but the questions about the relationship between SoundExchange and musicFIRST went unaddressed. Maybe you thought you could just ignore them when Mr. Hodge raised them, after all, he’s just a webcaster, and he must be a puppet for DiMA in your estimation. But now, Mr. Van Buskirk has asked them again. I guess he’s a dupe of NAB, and that’s all the reason you need not to address what he asked.
Enough dissembling, Mr. Simson. The broadcasters are not responsible for SoundExchange violating the law. When that child pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, it wasn’t the child’s fault the emperor was naked, was it?
It appears part of the SoundExchange playbook to attack the messenger rather than the message, and you’re just sticking to the script. Your Director Dick Huey indulged himself in an anonymous personal attack on me on p2pnet.net in an attempt to discredit my criticisms there of SoundExchange operations. When he was caught at it, he didn’t apologize for the personal attack, he just declared he had directed it at the wrong person. The propriety of the personal attack didn’t bother him in the slightest. And, just like you did on Velvet Rope, after promising to answer any questions about SoundExchange, he disappeared when his first statements were demonstrated to be untrue. He came, he threw mud, he left. This hit-and-run tactic also appears to be part of SoundExchange standard operating procedure. As long as it distracts from the real subject at hand, it appears to be permissable.
The third SoundExchange representative quoted in the Van Buskirk article is Michael Huppe, SoundExchange counsel.
Mr. Huppe is quoted as saying: “Funding provided by SoundExchange to musicFIRST is authorized by copyright owners and performers who have chosen to become members of SoundExchange. These contributions come only from our members and not from non-member royalties, and were unanimously approved by the SoundExchange board.”
I have reviewed the SoundExchange registration documents executed by my clients. I have pored over every page of the SoundExchange website. I can’t find a single word that could be taken as authorization to spend my clients’ money on something beyond collection and distribution of Internet and satellite performance royalties, which is the job SoundExchange promised to perform.
Please show me where that permission was granted by my clients.
As far as I can tell, my clients authorized SoundExchange to collect royalties due them from Internet and satellite broadcasts of their recordings and to distribute those royalties, less a reasonable cost for administration. You’ve never even tried to explain what that administrative cost is, but let us save that discussion for another day. Just tell me where my clients approved SoundExchange sponsorship of musicFIRST.
As far as those allowable costs are concerned, 17 USCA 114 (g) (3) appears to limit costs that can be deducted from my clients’ share of the royalty proceeds to three types of expenses, the “reasonable costs” of:
1. the administration of the collection, distribution, and calculation of the royalties;
2. the settlement of disputes relating to the collection and calculation of the royalties; and
3. the licensing and enforcement of rights with respect to the making of ephemeral recordings and performances subject to licensing under section 112 and this section, including those incurred in participating in negotiations or arbitration proceedings under section 112 and this section, except that all costs incurred relating to the section 112 ephemeral recordings right may only be deducted from the royalties received pursuant to section 112.
My clients, your registered members, would like to know which one does SoundExchange claim applies to sponsorship of musicFIRST? Which one permits SoundExchange to deduct the sponsorship costs from their share of the royalties?
Mr. Huppe says the money was taken from my clients’ share of the royalties.
Why? How?
The simple fact that SoundExchange’s board voted unanimously to take actions that violate the law doesn’t make those actions legal. That fact might make your Directors personally liable for the unauthorized expenses (and the tax penalties incurred), because my clients will expect that SoundExchange be made whole again. They have a right to that. Of course, keeping secret the amount misspent on musicFIRST will make determination of what should be paid back by each Director a bit more difficult.
All of a sudden, I understand Mr. Ades said that information is considered “proprietary.”
Please advise me how SoundExchange expects to recover the resources improperly spent on musicFIRST.
My clients are well aware of the problems SoundExchange has historically had in finding the artists it is supposed to pay. They know that over 8,100 of their peers, 30% of the artists you can identify, are still on the “unfound” list on your website. They believe that list is a indictment of operational ineptitude and indifference that brands as outright lies SoundExchange’s public statements of respect for artists.
They also know there are probably tens of thousands more artists who have been played but SoundExchange can’t identify because you are relying on sampling to allocate royalties. Artists who aren’t lucky enough to be in the sample aren’t going to earn any royalties at all. You don’t even mention the fact that you rely on sampling in your website FAQ, but my clients know all about it anyway. They just consider your lack of disclosure about that, and the misleading statements SoundExchange spokespeople have made about it to be further evidence that SoundExchange only cares about artists when they can serve as poster children for one self-aggrandizing campaign or another.
My clients and I believe that when words don’t match the deeds, believe the deeds. SoundExchange has given them enough words, and few enough deeds, to make the choice an easy one. It isn’t in SoundExchange’s favor, Mr. Simson.
To be blunt, SoundExchange already has a job it promised to do. It isn’t doing it well.
Not finding 30% of the artists you can identify is not doing a good job.
“Reserving” tens of millions of dollars a year, then absorbing that money when you “can’t find” the proper recipients is not doing a good job.
Setting a schedule for forfeitures of millions of dollars, and then not making any effort to publicize the forfeitures, is not doing a good job.
Being unable to explain how and why you rely on sampling to allocate royalties, and not even formally admitting you do, is not doing a good job.
Claiming that the amount of money you spend on something clearly outside the limited function you have been granted by law is “proprietary” information, is not only not doing a good job, it is a slap in the fact of the people you are supposed to work for.
Attacking the people who point out that you might be violating the law is not doing a good job.
Deducting the cost of violating the law from the money of your registered members, in open and direct contradiction to the law, is not doing a good job, no matter how many of your Directors approved.
SoundExchange shouldn’t even be thinking about extending its reach until it proves it can grasp what it has now and discharge those duties competently. From where my clients stand, you have a long way to go. Contributing to a campaign that will expand its authority, while 30% of the artists it already has money for remain unpaid, is not only illegal, it is presumptuous and the height of arrogance.
Sincerely,
Fred Wilhelms
Definitely stay tuned. But don’t hold your breath.
Click on the microphone on the right to hear this story. 
If you’d like to do a p2pnetcast, just pick a post that hasn’t been done and send the results to p2pnet @ shaw dot ca. You have an accent? No problem 
Also See:
millions of dollars left in limbo – Small broadcasters live another day, July 16, 2007
Wired – SoundExchange, Caught Lobbying, Says Lobbying Bar Does Not Apply, August 8, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Wired has picked it up > http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/music-lawyer-to.html
Go Wilhelms !!!!
August 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Wilhelms lays out EXACTLY the sort of questions that thousands of artists and their various representatives should be demanding from SoundExchange. Because it looks like they’ve been using artist royalties to fund their lobbying and litigation efforts. I guess they’ve got to spend all that cash somehow – so it doesn’t wind up on the IRS filings – but of course hiring more folks to LOCATE AND PAY THE ARTISTS THEY PURPORT TO REPRESENT is out of the question …
I’m going to go ahead and predict how this one pans out:
1) In a few days, SE will release a press release on the matter, saying that no such money was used to fund their lobbying efforts blah blah vast conspiracy against paying artists blah blah big radio funding campaign of misinformation blah blah why just today we saved a starving artist from certain doom, now please move along. They won’t, however, provide any proof whatsoever.
2) They’ll dodge the nonprofit question completely, or simply say “Our work with (and yes, they’ll always say ‘work with’ – never ‘creation and funding of’) musicFIRST is in keeping with the broader effort of representing artist rights and therefore part of our nonprofit status.” And then they’ll just hope that no actual tax lawyers show up.
3) In about 25 minutes, this press release will be proved factually incorrect, intentionally misleading, and stupidly vague in key areas by just about anyone with a pulse and three minutes on Google.
4) If we’re *really* lucky, they’ll trundle out some has-been, one-hit-wonder dipshit artists nobody’s ever heard of as “proof” that their efforts are in line with artist representation. (Heads up SoundExchange! I can pretty much guarantee you “International Recording Artist Kristine W” has Thursday free. Along with every other day.)
p.s. Kudos to Wilhelms for digging out the nice fat raises that SoundExchange staff got between ‘04 to ‘05 in a prior article – folks will want to note that was another period where SoundExchange couldn’t find all those wonderful, hiding-in-plain-sight artists in order to pay them their royalties. Which, come to think of it, is also something these artists should be asking SE about: why their staff get paid for not finding people.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Fred – I haven’t disappeared. I believe I made it clear in my last post that you had asked me to address a seriously long raft of issues and allegations, and I left a post saying I was intending to do so. And I am in the process of doing so, right now. If you review the correspondence I had with you, you’ll see that I made it clear that I was going to be traveling for several weeks, and would respond in as timely a fashion as possible. I realize many of the issues you raised are time-sensitive, and am doing my best to respond to that reality, as they are also complex and you are obviously not the only person asking questions.
You also made it very clear that “You are going to have to do some research to give me honest answers. I suggest you do it before you post this time.” I’m not a SX employee, and much of the information you laid out requires a lot of fact-finding on my part. I didn’t dismiss your arguments out of hand, and I am in fact looking into each issue you raised…and there were a lot of issues raised.
It’s a mistake to presume that there’s some kind of rubber-stamp process going on at Soundexchange. It simply isn’t the case. If, after study, there is merit to your arguments, they’ll be addressed and raised, but I do intend to respond to your questions and statements, and perhaps more importantly, I intend to continue to present an independent viewpoint on the SX board, whether or not the view from the outside looks homogenous.
- Dick Huey (not an anonymous post – and neither was my original post, for the record)
August 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Mr. Huey,
I would like to mention upfront, as I did in a reply to a p2pnet article dated July 5th, that I’m not the best at knowing everything that goes on at Sound Exchange, however I do know enough to know a few important things.
As I’ve stated in a response to the aformentioned article, there is nearly 9,000 (actual: 8,280 as of July 6th) artists that were unpaid by Sound Exchange. This is an extrodinary high number, even to some standards. What is being done about it? At a rate of two artists per week being removed from the list, the target date of eliminating the list will be January, 2088. A sad turn of events.
So what must Sound Exchange be doing with that money? Obviously it isn’t going to be sitting in a bank, collecting interest, and with all the secrecy that is going around, it makes it seem like something out of a mobster film, or the Enron scandel.
Now why do I say that? The answer is simple, really. Enron was found guilty of cooking the books, and we all know that. But what has Sound Exchange done with the millions that is sitting there waiting for the artists to pick up? It has supported movements like the MusicFIRST campaign with funds that clearly should go to artists.
Now this brings up a problem, a big problem. Since section 114 (g) (3) of the Copyright Act clearly limits how nonprofits can spend funds, what should happen to SE’s 501 (c) (6) tax exempt status?
If it were anyone else, they would not only lose that status, but people would be going to jail over it. However, since SE’s books are shouded in secrecy, we will never know how badly they misapporiated the funds, unless Congress and/or the courts step in.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Mr. Huey,
Start with questions that requires no research.
1. Tell us why you voted to spend SoundExchange royalty revenue to sponsor musicFIRST.
2. Tell us why the amount of royalty revenue which otherwise would have been paid to artists and labels is considered “proprietary” information.
Fred Wilhelms
(And when you don’t give your name in a post, it’s anonymous)
August 7th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I heard it mentioned that Sound Exchange is working to make it legal to force royalties from terrestrial radio stations. I hope that this plan is successful, because it would mean the end of corporate crap being pumped into our airwaves. It would also mean the end to all of the free advertisement given to lamescream “artists.” This would mean the end of radio as we know it.
What we would likely end up with is nothing but talk radio, static, or local independent musicians. Talk radio has a very big way of arousing the anger of population. With more talk radio playing, there is a more likely chance that people will begin to realize how much like mushrooms they have become. They have been kept in the dark and fed a bunch of crap. Hopefully, we will begin to see the same popular uprising that has occurred in Eastern Europe during the 80’s and 90’s. It would be nice to see the people of Canada and the United States regain their freedom.
If all there is on the radio is static, then the void will very likely be filled by “pirate” radio station that will broacast content that is free of government and corporate control. With more talk radio playing, there is a more likely chance that people will begin to realize how much like mushrooms they have become. They have been kept in the dark and fed a bunch of crap. Hopefully, we will begin to see the same popular uprising that has occurred in Eastern Europe during the 80’s and 90’s. Again, it would be nice to see the people of Canada and the United States regain their freedom.
If Sound Exchange forces radio Stations to pay money to be allowed to play corporate content, then just maybe stations twill go entirely to independent music. This also will be good. I for one would like to hear music that caters to my tastes. With the exception of oldies, all the “music” on the radio now sounds alike. I would like to see that change.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Mr. Huey,
After you answer the two “research-free” questions about SoundExchange and musicFIRST, here are the questions I put to you a month ago:
1. Please explain what you know about the usage limits that are supposedly part of the SoundExchange offers to small webcasters. There has been no public disclosure of what they are, or how they are supposed to work.
2. Richard Ades says that the 7.5% royalty rate called for in IREA is a 75% decrease from the old rate. Please show how he came to that result.
3. Numerous SoundExchange spokespeople have consistently referred to a “fact” that large webcasters pay 95% of SoundExchange royalties. Of course, SoundExchange has never disclosed anything that actually supports this contention, including the criteria for inclusion as a “large webcaster.” Can you, as a SoundExchange Board member, get the organization to release the information necessary to verify the 95% number? At the very least, I believe it would require the identities of the “large webcaster” class, the amount of royalties paid by each and the total amount of royalties received from all Webcasters.
4. What is the current SoundExchange operational budget, and what percentage of royalty receipts does it represent?
5. How much of the SoundExchange operational budget is dedicated to public relations and legal counsel in regard to the Webcaster rates?
6. There have been repeated claims by SoundExchange that artists who received royalties for 2006 are going to have to write substantial refund checks if IREA passes. Please explain how much money is involved in this and how SoundExchange came to the conclusion that refund checks will be required.
7. Explain the sampling metric used by SoundExchange to allocate royalties to artists where census data is not available.
8. Explain why the SoundExchange FAQ doesn’t mention sampling but does include a contradictory statement that SoundExchange can “accurately match unique performances with record companies and artists, and pay exactly what has been earned.”
9. Explain why SoundExchange chose not to announce publicly that it was going to absorb millions of dollars from “unfound” artist accounts on June 30.
10. Explain why SoundExchange’s “outreach” has only resulted in the reduction of the “unfound artist” list by fewer than 70 names in over three months.
11. According to recent news reports, two new wireless streaming services, Slacker and nuTsie, have both signed direct licenses for performance royalties with major copyright holders. [N.B. Since first posting this question, I have learned that nuTsie has advised SoundExchange it will be paying the statutory rate. The questions no longer apply to nuTsie. However, it has also been announced that last.fm has signed direct licenses with the major labels, so you can substitute last.fm for nuTsie.]
a. Please explain if SoundExchange is going to be the collection and distribution agency for these agreements, and if so, how SoundExchange justifies participating in any private arrangement regarding terms that do not comply with the statutory requirements.
b. Please also explain how artists who are covered by the statutory licenses will be assured that they will not be defraying any costs related to these privately negotiated agreements, and what steps SoundExchange has taken to insure that all costs related to the privately negotiated agreements are borne by the parties to those agreements alone.
c.If SoundExchange is not involved, please explain how artists can be sure they will be compensated fairly by the labels, and if the possibility that artists are not going to be compensated fairly is of concern to SoundExchange
——————
One other matter that doesn’t require research:
Please remember you started our conversation by trashing my opinions personally and completely without justification. You explained that you confused me with someone else, as if it would have been alright to personally attack someone else the way you attacked me. You’ve acted like a thug, and you now presume a collegiality you simply haven’t earned, Mr. Huey. Don’t call me Fred.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Mr. Huey,
a) How much is SoundExchange paying Prism Public Affairs for their PR services?
b) Does that money come from funds collected as artist royalties?
c) Does Prism’s work overlap with the musicFIRST efforts?
August 8th, 2007 at 5:05 am
” a. Please explain if SoundExchange is going to be the collection and distribution agency for these agreements, and if so, how SoundExchange justifies participating in any private arrangement regarding terms that do not comply with the statutory requirements. ”
This one’s actually pretty easy to answer.
The statutory requirements are so outrageous that they serve as a virtual ‘lead pipe to
the kneecaps’ of net broadcasters. It makes it much easier for soundex to encourage
‘deals’ ( force DRM compliance etc .. ).
August 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Odd that I find in this exchange no infomation coming forth from the SoundExchange side. All I hear is verbal fencing without a concern for any of the topic, nor the addressing of any issue laid out. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
Not only does it speak far too loud but is condemning in nature by its very lack of concern to those issues. But of course if you are hiding something how else would it be?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
SoundExchange and its puppets like Mr. Huey have difficulty telling the difference between saying they are doing something and actually doing something. Because Mr. Huey says (after a month’s silence) he’s going to answer questions, Mr. Huey wants us to give him credit for saying he’s going to answer questions although he hasn’t answered any.
I’ll wait to see what his answers are.
Mr. Huey has been shamed out of his month long “research” efforts because his ham-fisted hit-and-run smear attack didn’t work at stopping my criticisms of SoundExchange. He now wants us to credit him with answering questions I asked a month ago because he says he’s going to answer them now (apparently if he gets permission to answer them).
It is just like when he says he’s an independent voice on the SoundExchange board even though he admits there’s no real evidence of his independence. Mr. Huey tells us he’s a rebel, and his word alone ought to be enough to satisfy everyone, I suppose. After all, it’s been over a month since he lied about anything. That’s another obvious benefit of spending all that time doing “research,” you can’t get caught making things up if you don’t say anything in public. It looks like that break is over.
It’s my guess Mr. Huey will continue to claim he’s independent even after he explains why he voted to spend artists’ money on an illegal campaign orchestrated by the RIAA for their benefit. That is, of course, if the RIAA gives him permission to continue to say he’s independent.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:37 am
SoundExchange is to artists what the performance rights organization are to songwriters. They both collect money for their master, the record companies in one case and the music publishers in the other. Saying they collect money for the always mentioned artists and songwriters is bullshit.
The conflict of interest is obvious. SoundExchange can only work for one master, the record companies or the artists, but not both, as they claim. We know who they work for. Same for the performance rights organization. They can only work for the publishers or the songwriter, not both as claimed. We know who they work for.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
How funny that the SoundExchange’s side in these responces to the article went dead and silent. Hit and run responces never speak well for the author.
One can only gather from that type of behavior that the water got hot too fast. When attempting to do cover up, the subjects one keeps seeing once exposed only bring more questions when they are not addressed at the start. If hiding and not satisfying those question because they are uncomfortable or too close to home, it only builds the interest and tends to spread this interest to others.
It definately looks to the be case on the surface and people will go with the idea that where there is smoke there is fire. Sure looks like a forest fire looming to me.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
On July 5th, Mr. Huey said he would answer any questions put to him.
On August 7th, he surfaced and said that he meant it about intending to answer questions.
If he keeps to this schedule Comet Huey should return to p2pnet sometime in the second week of September. At that time, he will tell us he really, really, is going to answer the questions. Someday.
Mr. Huey will probably remind us again that the delay is because he isn’t a SoundExchange employee, which really doesn’t explain why a member of the Board of Directors is so completely ignorant of SoundExchange policies and procedures that he can’t answer a single question about them in six whole weeks. There are several good explanations for that that come to mind, but none of them are consistent with Mr. Huey’s insistence that he’s really an independent voice on the Board, even if there is no evidence of that visible to the naked eye.
But, hey, he says we’re not the only people asking questions. That just means we aren’t the only ones he’s bullshitting about really, really intending to answer. Someday. Maybe.
As the Happenings put it, “See You In September.”
August 13th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Perhaps Mr. Huey is simply competing with the “shot clock” the National Association of Broadcasters is currently keeping on /their/ tally on how long it takes to get an answer from SoundExchange. (They’re currently at 67 days.)
See: http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_Room&CONTENTID=10085&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Maybe they’ve got an internal contest going or something to see who can go the longest without answering … winner takes a gold-plated bucket of cash they collected for artists, that sort of thing.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Well, if there’s a SoundExchange “no answer” pool, Mr. Huey is currently in third place. I asked John Simson and Neeta Ragoowansi in May for information on how they use sampling to identify who gets paid. In June, Ms. Ragoowansi told me I would hear from her “soon.” Simson said the same thing in July. I don’t expect either of them to break down and actually say something subtsantive anytime soon. This way they get to pretend they don’t really sample, I guess.
We must always keep in mind that SoundExchange doesn’t have to give anyone any answers about anything. Even if I ask on behalf of my clients who are the artists they say they love, they can just tell me to go to hell. What information, or misinformation, we get from Mr. Simson, Ms. Ragoowansi and/or Mr. Huey is only what the RIAA wants us to hear, when the RIAA wants us to hear it. Remember, it was SoundExchange’s spokesperson Richard Ades who had the temerity to tell Eliot Van Buskirk that the amount of artist money SoundExchange is spending on musicFIRST is “proprietary.”
With this kind of attitude, anyone who thinks SoundExchange is the right entity to handle several hundred million dollars a year in possible terrestrial performance royalties deserves the screwing over they are going to get.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:15 am
“I asked John Simson and Neeta Ragoowansi in May for information on how they use sampling to identify who gets paid.”
The answer is they don’t use any sampling for anything. They just say they do because that is what the major “composer” performance rights organization says they do.
It is all a gimmick. The sampling is impossible to do. Its just that a ficticious sampling is needed to justify not keeping records of what is perfomed and how money is spread around among the music publishers who never wrote a song.
The sampling, is impossible to do and statisstically meaningless, btw. Which explains why songwriters get hardly paid by the performance rights organizations, the publishers get all the money and the statistics of how the money is paid to whom is never published and is a secret.