Big Music Owes You Money !!!
2pnet.net News:- The Los Angeles Times has picked up on the SoundExchange story – you know, the one where an ex-RIAA collection agency says it can’t find droves of artists it owes money to?
“Rapper Mos Def, producer T-Bone Burnett and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir have gone missing,” says the story. And that’s the least of it.
Originally created by the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), it’s now out there on its own, theoretically, with something called PLAYS (Performance Log Archive of Your Songs), a kind of DIY search site. But, “the organization can’t seem to find these and other artists to whom it owes checks,” says the story.
‘Other artists’ means some 9,000 people to whom the outfit owes half-a-million-dollars.
Chicken feed to the Big Four, but a lot of money to the performers.
According to the LA Times, SoundExchange is now in a “last-ditch effort” to distribute the money for digital broadcasts dating from the late ’90s,” and, “the clock is ticking,” declares the story.
“Last-ditch” means if the recipients aren’t found, SoundExchange gets to keep the cash. All of it.
Fred Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney in Nashville, primarily representing artists and songwriters, with a focus on royalty and rights recovery, and in a recent p2pnet comment post, he had a few words to say on the subject, among them:
“The Internet is an endless smorgasbord. And the RIAA ignored the party until it was too late. And because the smorgasbord was already up and running, they graciously ‘volunteered,’ through SoundExchange, to be the guys sitting at the front door, selling tickets. They also sit at the back door, selling tickets in the form of license fees to the people bringing the musical food in.
“Quite a racket, and completely legal.”
The release of the list of unpaid artists, ” has become the butt of jokes on industry Internet forums,” understates the LA Times. “And the disclosure comes at an inconvenient time for SoundExchange, which is arguing before the Library of Congress that it should remain the exclusive distributor of digital performance royalties that amount to millions of dollars a year.”
Here’s Fred Wilhelms again.
There are some pretty remarkable things in that article, if, as one of the quoted, I do say so myself.
“Look, there may be people that you can Google and find,” said John L. Simson, executive director of SoundExchange. “If they’re well-known people, we’ve probably found them too. We’ve probably mailed multiple things to them without any response.”
Here’s a hint, John. If you aren’t getting a response to your mailings, THEY AREN’T WORKING AND YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT TRYING SOMETHING ELSE.
Way to think out of the box!
It’s funny, but fans and non-industry types have been able to accomplish what a paid organization of alleged professionals has not. I did an article for Counterpunch.org that has been spread on music boards and email lists around the world. (I’m very big in Singapore this morning: http://www.bigozine2.com/ ). I’ve been hearing from people all week about how they’ve contacted artists that were on the list with an hour or two of searching, and received thanks from those artists.
The anecdotal stories that have come back to me over the past week all seem to indicate that the artist is always surprised to find out about the money and knew nothing about SoundExchange. Imagine that.
Simson goes on to say:
“What it shows you is perhaps for major artists or their management this may have been lower on the priority list than the current tour or the current recording.”
Just in case you’ve overlooked it, SoundExchange is not just for “major artists or their management.” If there’s anything that shows the self-limiting mindset of the organization, it has to be that statement. It comes down to, “if you’re big enough for us to recognize you, maybe we’ll find you.” But then again, maybe not.
When SE was given the literal franchise as default collector, I don’t recall them saying they were only working for major artists or management. They had to know, going in, that there were going to thousands of “non-major” artists they were going to get money for, and would have to make an effort to find. Narrowing their focus after the fact is incredibly self-serving in light of the poor job they’ve done with the actual mandate.
But wait, there’s more:
Simson says it’s not SoundExchange’s job to hunt down performers any more than it’s a bank’s responsibility to hunt down depositors who have left money in inactive accounts.
I love this analogy.
How wrong is it? Let me count the ways:
1. If you open a bank account, it means you know where the bank is, and you’ve already been in touch with them. No bank I know can, like SoundExchange, open an account in my name without me being involved somehow. (Any bankers out there are invited to open accounts for me to test this premise.) Even if I forget about the account, I am going to get a 1099 in February telling me about the interest I earned.
2. Oh yeah, that reminds me. Banks pay interest on the money that’s sitting there. SoundExchange doesn’t. That means SE isn’t a bank.
3. After an account is dormant for a time specified in state law, the money in bank accounts escheats to the state. (This is how Spitzer got to go after those “lost artist” royalties – those accounts should have been turned over to the state and the labels were in violation of NY law for not doing so.) The banks don’t get to keep the money like SE does.
4. Even if it is years later, a proper claimant can go to the state escheat fund and get his money back. Here the money is forfeited, forever, on December 15.
5. SoundExchange VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS JOB. They said “we will collect the money and distribute it the way it is supposed to be done.”
6. If my bank screws up, I can get it fixed, either by complaining to the bank or GOING TO ANOTHER BANK. Neither option is available to me here.
7. My bank is accountable to me, and to state and federal regulators. SoundExchange is accountable to no one, except the members of the RIAA.
8. No bank I know of has an account equivalent of “Various Artists,” yet SoundExchange is holding money for “Various Artists.” Usually a bank has a better grip on the identity of its account holders.
The overall tone of the article makes it clear that SoundExchange and John Simson cannot be embarrassed by the amount of bad press they get. This just goes to reinforce the argument I made earlier this week. Their collection and payment programs are mere sideshows to SoundExchange’s main function: giving the RIAA a major voice in discussions about digital distribution.
If you think I’m wrong about this, tell me where SoundExchange has done ANYTHING since they’ve put up the list to publicize it.
Everything about it since then has been word of mouth.
They don’t care. They don’t have to. And they’re just rubbing it in the faces of every artist, whether they’re on the list or not.
Definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
Los Angeles Times – Music Royalty Checks Languish for Unreachable Stars, September 29, 2006
endless smorgasbord - Unpaid Artists: Part II, September 26, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
March 28th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Ok, what is the deal with so many comments being completely off topic? Is this an ADHD Forum?