Adrian22 Q&A with Fred Wilhelms
p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA News:- “That’s a huge long post Jon,” says Emerald in an email from the UK. “I admire the thought but you are only wasting your time. No one in the industry cares.”
She’s talking about Project Unfound Artist, an effort to let the 7,575 artists the Big 4’s unSoundExchange just can’t seem to find know they have money coming to them.
“[...] you are wasting your time.”
Not really, Emerald. In April this year, the number was 7,874 and if people such as Fred Wilhelms, the Nashville entertainment lawyer who started this, and people like you, keep it up, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG will care.
Because the pigeons are coming home to roost not only here but in all kinds of other areas.
Adrian22 says he’s posted questions to the thread on the Velvet Rope (StarPolish site) which are worth asking here as well.
Wilhelms obliges »»»
Here’s my reply to Adrian, as posted on the Rope.
Adrian22 - in order to collect the money that SoundExchange has collected on their behalf does an artist have to register with their program and authorize SE to collect for them in future?”
Wilhelms – No. Technically an artist has no option. SoundExchange has been established by law as the collection and distribution agent for all recordings. This arrangement allows a broadcaster to obtain a blanket license by agreeing to pay the royalty rate established by the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-member judicial entity within the Library of Congress. A broadcaster may negotiate a lower rate with specific copyright holders (as last.fm has done with the four majors), but as long as the broadcaster agrees to pay the CRB rates for everything else, he can play anything else he wants. This is somewhat parallel to the compulsory mechanical license that anyone can get to record any composition (after first use). The negotiated lower license fee is equivalent to the Adrian22 – negotiated” controlled compositions clause in the standard recording contract, but a bit less one-sided.
Adrian22 - We’re increasingly in an age where one-size-doesn’t-fit-all, and this reality doesn’t appear fully reflected in the approach of the PROs, in the online or offline domains.”
Wilhelms – It does, in one important respect. Blanket licensing means that a creator will receive compensation equal to that paid to any other creator for the exploitation of his or her recordings without having to negotiate individual licenses with every potential broadcaster. That makes the flow of music a lot less restrictive, and allows the musicians to actually practice and write new stuff.
Adrian22 – SE has been collecting monies without the express approval of many artists’, and, pretty much for the same folks, without even their knowledge. It seems an odd practice that the law sanctions, and, a lot of people would say – so what? – who doesn’t want a cheque, even if it’s for $20?”
Wilhelms – The system works to free broadcasters from the threat of infringement complaints by assuring them they have the rights to play all music under a blanket license. If you accept the premise that a statutory or judicially set license fee is not arbitrarily set too low, then the compensation is probably going to be fair. Problems arise when the statutory rate is set too high for the market to bear, as in the current rates set by the CRB for Internet streaming audio. While the rates, if paid, theoretically mean that many artists will receive substantial royalties from Internet play, the reality is that the rates are so high as to run off most webcasters, thus reducing the overall amount of royalty revenue, and the amount each artist will receive. The few outlets able to pay the high rates, like Clear Channel simulcasting terrestrial stations, are going to be focusing on only the most popular music in order to draw audiences large enough to justify the high ad rates necessary to pay the fees, so the money will get paid only to those artists played on those stations. A big check for Rhianna. No check for the Carolina Chocolate Drops. The compulsory license system has proven to work pretty well for songwriters over the years. I know that some of them chafe when they feel a song has been butchered by some cover version, but for every one of those, there are a thousand thankful guys like Otis Williams who wrote Adrian22 – Little Darlin’” and who has lived comfortably off the royalties from the Diamonds’ cover.
Adrian22 - Of course, there’s much more complexity and variety in this digital age. There’s plenty of free music sites, blogs, podcasts, etc., and ways of releasing music – such as though Creative Commons – that can, and will, make artists, particularly of the indie/grassroots nature, much more money than they’ll ever receive from the PROs such as ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN or SoundExchange.
Wilhelms – I don’t know how SoundExchange works, but, with the old model PROs, the artist in registering, assigns certain song rights to the PRO – which may conflict with the other, potentially, more profitable, new model usages for promotion and marketing. So, there’s a split forming, but, as yet, there is no collecting body that appears to differentiate in how it collects and or administers song rights. Naturally in its the PROs’ interest to be able to take the monolothic, one size fits all approach. Still, that doesn’t necessarily serve the artists’ interest.” But remember that SoundExchange deals (today anyway) only with Internet and satellite radio performance royalties. This is really only one slice of the complete exploitation picture. Uniformity of treatment inside the wedge shouldn’t be extrapolated over the entire pie.
Adrian22 – Today, though, there appears no choice. You either sign up with a PRO and have them collect monies from a multitude of folks – some of whom the artist may appreciate payment from, and some of whom are better left as free/promotional services. If you sign up to SoundExchange, is the artist’s right of choice of how the songs are administered lost – in the same way as when one registers with SOCAN, ASCAP, BMI et al?”
Wilhelms – Not really. SoundExchange only collects and distributes royalties derived from Internet and satellite radio airplay. The artist, in essence, gives up the right to negotiate individual performance licenses, a right he never really had under law and which would become a full time job, in return for compensation that has, at least, the promise of being set at a reasonable level.
Adrian22 – Earlier this year there was a lot of concern raised about the small podcasters, webcasters et al.”
Wilhelms – It hasn’t gone away. Negotiation between SoundExchange and large and small webcasters has stalled, and probably won’t pick up again until a new Congress reconvenes and starts asking why nothing has happened while they’ve been busy with the election.
Adrian22 – Just wondering, if you register to get your cheque of $20 or $200 – are you legally joining a team that can, one day, drive out of business or existence the same folks who’ve supported and built your career as an artist?”
Wilhelms – As SoundExchange seems determined to prove, they are going to try to drive those people out of business whether or not the artists register. To be blunt about it, SoundExchange doesn’t exist to serve artists. They got stuck with the job because it was the only way they could achieve their real goal; giving the RIAA a role in deciding who gets to play what on the radio. There isn’t enough payola money in the world to influence enough webcasters to play the Pussy Cat Dolls to make them megastars, but if you can run off the niche webcasters by forcing royalty rates they can’t afford to pay, you are going to be left with the usual suspects; the big terrestrial broadcasters who just love to do deals with the majors in return for favors. Look at everything SoundExchange does. Run it through a very simple filter. Does their conduct promote the interests of the RIAA or the interest of recording artists? I assure you those choices are mutually exclusive. Not paying artists and getting to keep the money doesn’t help artists, no matter what kind of spin you put on it. Simson and his gang are very good at sounding like they love artists, but judge them by what they do, rather than what they say. There are nine artist ‘representatives’ on the SoundExchange board. All nine were invited to join the Board by the RIAA. Their absolute silence in the face of such anti-artist conduct as the failure to find and pay 40,000 artists is as clear an indictment of their complicity as anything could be. They have betrayed the artists they say they serve. In an earlier age, those Quislings may have risked being dragged out of the Board Room on to K Street and being horsewhipped at high Noon. Other than Ted Nugent, I don’t think there’s anyone capable of that kind of action these days.
More’s the pity.
Stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
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.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Here’s the Velvet Rope link, for anybody looking for it:
http://www.velvetrope.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=549801&page=1#Post549801