Someone please tell me again how RIAA just has the best interests of "the little guy" at heart in their idiotic crusade.
Sides chosen in royalty tussle
By Brooks Boliek
Jan 29, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.
...
The labels contend that the music publishers have gotten fat as their business has starved and want the payment method rewritten. According to papers filed by the RIAA at the Copyright Royalty Board, the labels want the board to reduce the rate to 8% of wholesale revenue. The current rate is about 9 cents per song, but it often is lowered in negotiations with the record companies. That money usually is split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter.
The RIAA contends in its documents that the rate is out of whack with the rest of the world and historical context.
"Record companies are suffering a contraction of their business at a time when music publisher revenues and margins have increased markedly," the trade group wrote. "While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to steadily rising mechanical royalty rates and alternative revenue streams made possible, but not enjoyed, by record companies."
...
Internet streams should not trigger any copyright royalty, the association contends, saying that they are performances and not covered under the mechanical license.
MoreSo, if Internet streams shouldn't trigger any copyright royalty, just who is RIAA trying to "protect" be prosecuting people who download music without paying for it? Yes, I know, there's a technical difference between a "stream" and an encoded file containing a song, but admitting to that undermines RIAA's entire premise.