[mplpost] Web Royalty news (US) - LONG POST

[ghoti]

Hey all -

In a nutshell, this means that the RIAA has agreed to let musicians access
royalties from cable, satellite and Internet broadcasts directly, rather
than having the money funnel through the record company, who would take a
piece of it.  It's only necessary because the language in most major
recording contracts gives record companies control over all aspects of a
artist's career, not just the recording and selling of music on CDs.

I'm focusing on Internet royalties here, because this post is long enough as
it is.

This, of course, means that the artists themselves are going to have to
administer these royalties.  Which in turn means that either the artists are
going to have to arrange and collect this stuff individually (which is not
going to happen for anyone but the biggest of the big.  It's just too much
work.), or some other organisation is going to have to step in and do it for
them (AFM,  AFTRA, SOCAN, ASCAP, etc. or a publishing company).  All of
these scenarios (and the organisations themselves) incite a certain amount
of controversy.

At first blush, this appears to be good news, because it gives artists
better control of their music on the Internet.  But only from the
administrative side.  What this neatly sidesteps, of course, is the whole
idea of how to collect these royalties on the Internet in the first place.
For non-real-time performances (formerly known as "recordings,), there are
little issues like
 - how to create encryption that actually works
 - how to get everyone to agree on it
 - how to get manufacturers to make players or software to make it work
 - how to convince the audience to use those players or software
 - how to keep people from cracking this stuff, or posting unencrypted
copies of the content.
Hint: You can't--or at least you can't afford to without the backing of a
big organisation with lots of control in the industry like the RIAA.  Wait!
They couldn't do it either, which is probably why they gave it away.

The bottom line, the one that everyone kept harping about, is the fact that
the record industry was still selling CDs at the same rate as they were
expecting to, regardless of this here Internet thing, and that all the
Internet noise was only generating good publicity and pushing hard-copy
sales.  Even for Lars Ulrich.

So maybe the record companies finally heard the harps, and realized a few
things:
 - The awards they were getting from the Napsters of the world are going to
dry up now that the boom is off.
 - The legal and technical resources they would have to use enforcing
copyright and collecting royalties could make them more money in their core
business of selling shiny silver disks full of nothing (this thing with
Sam's excepted).
 - Their artists will get more exposure on the Web if the spectre of legal
action by the RIAA was lifted, and the record companies would benefit
further from this exposure in new hard-copy goods, which will be seen as
more of a rarity once the artists' entire back catalogue is available for
nothing everywhere.

Keep in mind the problems which will arise with the SDMI (an initiative
largely backed by the RIAA to create a secure music format--by secure, we
mean "it secures royalties"), should it end up being anything other than a
playground for L337 crackers.  Even if a secure format is found, it is
easier, and thus cheaper, to apply it to hard copy.  As well, it is too late
to protect anything which was not originally released in a protected format,
because someone could just pirate an old copy.  This means that the moment
that a protected format hits the market, all back catalogue material can be
perceived as officially unprotected. And this brings up the sticky issue of
what to do about it.  From a record company perspective, the margin is a lot
better selling something that only you have(new protected music), than
selling something that anyone can get for free(back catalogue).  But how do
you step out of selling the back catalogue your business was built on and
save face? You make it someone else's problem...

So now this whole "how to enforce copyright and collect royalties form the
Internet" issue has moved from "How are they(RIAA et al) going to do it?" to
"How are we (artists) going to do it?"

Any ideas?  Bueller?  Bueller?

The first thing that springs to mind is that artists might decide to go
without encryption, hoping that this new direct connection will make their
fan base will simply want to support the artist, so that the artist will be
able to keep playing music.  Which is pretty much where we all were prior to
this landmark decision.

 - ghoti

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas McArthur" <dugimac@sympatico.ca>
To: "Postto Maplepost" <maplepost@icomm.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:42 AM
Subject: [mplpost] Web Royalty news (US)


> This is from the US but may portend changes in Canada:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/new_media/newsid_1646000/1646
> 811.stm
> --
> Doug McArthur
>     Web Design & Music
>         http://www3.sympatico.ca/dugimac/DMWEB.html
>
> Artistic Director
>     Festival of Friends
>         http://www.creativearts.on.ca
>
> Artistic Director
>     Eaglewood Folk Festival
>         http://www.eaglewoodfolk.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe: mail majordomo@icomm.ca with
> "unsubscribe maplepost" in the body (not the subject line)
> Need help? mail owner-maplepost@icomm.ca

-
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo@icomm.ca with
"unsubscribe maplepost" in the body (not the subject line)
Need help? mail owner-maplepost@icomm.ca