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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 .. ).

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

Go Wilhelms !!!!