RIAA Wants Songwriter Royalty Lowered 343
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be anyone left who believes the RIAA's propaganda that its litigation campaign is intended to benefit the 'creators' of the music, Hollywood Reporter reports that the RIAA is asking the Copyright Royalty Board to lower songwriter royalties on song file downloads, from the present rate of 9 cents per song — about 13% of the wholesale price — down to 8% of wholesale. Meanwhile, the big digital music companies, such as Apple, want the royalty rate lowered even more, to something like 4% of wholesale. So any representations by any of these companies that they are concerned for the 'creators' of the music must henceforth be taken with a boxcar-load of salt."
You're assuming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're assuming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're assuming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're assuming... (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll notice it's not the "Songwriting Industry Association of America", nor the "Music Publishing Industry Association of America"?
Anyway, an article far less screwed up then TFA (let alone the submission) is here [wired.com].
Let's look at what the NMPA actually wants: instead of 9.1 cents per song, they want 12.5 cents per song - almost 40% more. Note that they don't want a share (percentage) of the price, they want a lump sum no matter what the song is sold for. Hell, that would even be fine for the RIAA's plans for online music sales - 12.5 cents off of a $2 song is a smaller loss for them than 9.1 cents off of 99 cents. But it also means that any savings between digital distribution vs. physical distribution will not be used to lower the price of the song, but shall go into the coffers of the NMPA.
Re:You're assuming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're assuming... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
that anyone had any doubt that the RIAA were anything but money-grubbing middlemen.
Oh come one that's not fair ... they are obviously trying to lower royalties so that they can sell music to you, the customer, for less. ;)
Re:You're assuming... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It comes from italian - some kind of revenge cry for the death of someone's daughter (my daughter, ma fia)
Re:There goes the argument.... (Score:5, Funny)
Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard it was too complicated to do it that way. Maybe with modern computers it may be easier. It used to be that radio-stations etc. would simply[1] keep a list of each song they played and periodically handed that list over to the RIAA, who applied a set even percentage and collected corresponding fees to be distributed. It worked well for several decades. In fact, I think that patents should follow a similar technique so that you don't get slammed with surprise royalties.
[1] With random auditing.
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Informative)
"I heard it was too complicated to do it that way. Maybe with modern computers it may be easier. It used to be that radio-stations etc. would simply[1] keep a list of each song they played and periodically handed that list over to the RIAA, who applied a set even percentage and collected corresponding fees to be distributed. It worked well for several decades. In fact, I think that patents should follow a similar technique so that you don't get slammed with surprise royalties."
Huh? The RIAA doesn't deal with terrestrial radio... that's ASCAP and BMI, who represent artists. That's the beauty of terrestrial radio royalties... it goes directly to the artists. The record companies don't see any of it.
This is exactly why the RIAA wanted to get its paws on the royalties from streaming radio. They've missed 90 years of radio royalties; thus, they successfully got the rules changed. Thus was formed SoundExchange [wikipedia.org]. The artists still get much (or most) of the money, but now the record companies line up for their share, too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't even a matter of paying the artists at all.
This is a matter of the NMPA (an industry association of publishing companies representing composing artists), and the RIAA (an industry association of record labels representing performing artists) squabbling over which middle man ought to get a bigger cut of online sales.
How much either of them passes on to the artists they supposedly represent is a separate issue.
And, meanwhile, the DiMA (an industry association of online music sellers) is chiming in to suggest that they both keep their prices low to speed growth in online sales while CD sales tank.
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA is a trade group, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had some kind of power/influence written into all the contracts they administer to control where royalties are paid.
They do have some goals [wikipedia.org], which are not *all* related to litigation.
So you see, they do lots of things besides sue their customers.
You forgot one... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is the "settlement" that isn't worth a shit...So much for abiding by the law.
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get some fucking perspective. Yes the RIAA act like idiots and have questionable morals, but this adolescent whining that compares them to real violent criminals who kill, torture and maim people just totally discredits the entire argument, and makes people opposed to the RIAA look like dorks.
I genuinely believe that geeky kids get more upset these days by having to pay for mp3s than they do if their president lies to them in order to start a war for his self interest.
get some perspective.
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
get some perspective.
Well, one perspective is that they differ only in the details. The most famous example of this perspective is Clausewitz's remark that war is just a continuation of diplomacy by other means. Others have observed that the same principle applies in business, where there are various persuasion tactics ranging from misleading advertising, "industry standard" contracts and legal threats to actions like mayhem and murder of competitors. Which are used are determined not by any morality or ethics, but by what the local government permits.
With both the Bush gang, and the RIAA, the motive behind their actions are essentially the same: power and profit. In both cases, they openly say that they consider themselves just businessmen, trying to maximize their profit. Bush, Cheney et al have done this by fomenting a war, as a way of channeling funding to their crowd's companies such as Haliburton. The RIAA uses shady legal tactics and bribery of politicians to control the distribution of funds away from artists and into their corporate coffers.
You can obviously argue that wholesale killing of innocent bystanders is something different from suing grannies. But to the top managers of these enterprises, this isn't really their concern. Businessmen have often used tactics like extortion, torture and killing when the legal system permits it. Bush's people are allowed to kill to get their way, so they do that. The RIAA is constrained by government regulation (criminal law) from doing this, but they are allowed to use the legal system as they have been doing, so they do. In each case, they're merely using the most extreme persuasion techniques that the legal system permits them to use. If the RIAA knew they could torture or kill people with impunity, that's what they would be doing.
See Russia for a nice example of how this works. Russia has been a "free and unregulated market" for over a decade now. It's open knowledge that extortion, torture and murder are now standard business practice in Russia, and the reason is simple: The government has stopped regulating such actions when done by businesses. At the other extreme, business in much of Europe is now suffering from the fact that some of them have actually been prosecuted for bribing politicians. In the US, political bribes are called "campaign contributions", and they're legal. So corporations like the RIAA might not be able to send in thugs to rough up "pirates", but at least they can pay money to politicians to get the laws changed so that more money gets channeled away from the artists and into the corporate coffers. And so far, they haven't been punished for scatter-shot lawsuits, so they use that tactic.
Actually, of course, there are a lot of politicians and businessmen with functional morals and/or ethics. But we're not talking about that kind of people here; we're talking about big, successful trade organizations and big, successful governments. These are usually not constrained by anything except the punishments they might receive for their actions. And that's really the only thing that explains differences in their tactics.
(It can be fun to look at "perspectives".
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm
Al Capone: Provided a quality product against the government's objections.
RIAA: Provides crap with the government's assistance.
Al Capone: Kills competitors (either himself or through his direct subordinates)
RIAA: Kills competition (collusion, price-fixing), bankrupts people through the legal system, gets laws passed to put geeks in pound-me-in-the-ass Federal Prison for writing software.
Their eagerness to get criminal laws passed to accomplish their objectives means that the difference between them and Capone is that they use more intermediaries.
Re:gangsters (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why the RIAA? (Score:4, Informative)
"Why is the RIAA even able to set any sort of financial policy for its parent companies? I thought it was just a big bunch of lawyers! Should not each recording studio set compensation based on the contracts it signs with the artists?"
Remember -- mechanical royalties are set by law. This isn't a contract issue. You're thinking of the royalties paid to the performers on the recording -- those are contractual.
Since the songwriting royalties are set by law, it's in the best interest of the record industry to use their trade group to fight to get the law changed. And, that's what the RIAA is -- a trade group. They're much like the AMA is to doctors... it's the AMA which you see lobbying congress, not individual MDs.
Wither Lars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wither Lars? (Score:5, Insightful)
On second thoughts, perhaps we should
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is everything about the dough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's even better (Score:3, Funny)
It is - and that's actually much better. Let's hear Lars and Dre defend this.
BTW, Lars...Dre....if by some bizarre chance you happen to read this: I Told You So. Nyah Nyah Nyah.
Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Informative)
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry.
Reducing costs is good for the Industry.
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, just not the artist you thought. They are really on the side of the con artists (I.E. the corp backers).
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me: the industry can find a thousand people to write crap like this [azlyrics.com]:
Oh baby, baby
Oh baby, baby
How was I supposed to know
That something wasn't right here
Oh baby baby
For the record, one of my all time fav artists does this. Ayria [ayria.com]. She's cute, too!
What?! Should we try Communism ONE MORE TIME because THIS TIME we'll "do it right"? Ha. Come on.
capitalism (Score:2)
True Capitalism - I'm talking Ayn Rand style Capitalism
Is Randian Capitalism anything like Adam Smith's Capitalism?
FalconRe: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, hold on! You KNOW that has happened in the past and you want to repeat it?!
So do you support banning all legal fictions in business or do you believe that only one side should enjoy collective bargaining and the peons should eat cake?
In other words if it's fair enough for corporations to form and use the bargaining power that comes from vast resources beyond those of any individual worker, then you should also find it perfectly fair that the workers do the same.
Meanwhile, even if you DO believ
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Informative)
You should be careful about such comments. One would think you were talking about "communism" the economic model since you are comparing it to capitalism, instead of "communism" the political ideology. This is important because "communism" the political ideology generally tries to apply extreme "socialism" as economic policy and has basically nothing to do with "communism" the economic model aside from the political parties that misleadingly stole the name. This is also important because "communism" the economic model is alive and well for those who apply it to small communist cell sizes. The most common example of this would be the family unit, which comprises a communist cell by buying and selling goods and services collectively (although these cell sizes are shrinking in the US). Other applications of communism that have stood the test of time are monasteries, co-op housing, co-op stores, credit unions, municipalities, etc.
Most Americans seem to have some messed up ideas about communism and socialism, both as political ideologies and as economic models. For example, public schools are an example of socialism, although those schools seem to have failed to educate their students as to that fact. Most people with an even cursory education in economics, however, will tell you that communism, socialism, and capitalism are all present in every economy in the world and what usually leads to disaster is when an economy becomes extremist and failing to balance these aspects. Extreme capitalism is just as unstable and disastrous as extreme socialism or extreme communism... that is the lesson we all should have learned from history.
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:4, Interesting)
A municipality getting state and federal funding amounts to a communism of communisms. A rich municipality ultimately funds a poor one. That's communism.
That aside, my family unit isn't subsidized but we're a micro-communism. We buy goods collectively. Income comes into the unit, is spent colelctively, and the remainder is allocated through the unit. My wife and I pool our income... if I don't work we live off her income, if I make a huge bonus we both profit. That's communism.
Re: (Score:2)
He had a broad face and a round little belly,
That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly,
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself
- Clement Moore, "A Visit from St. Nicholas"
RIAA don't need diversity of music... (Score:2, Informative)
1) In USA there are virtually no free media - everything is owned by one large corporation or the other
- This include radio, TV, magazines and so on - tell me one TV station or national radio station - or even a one state radio station that is independent of big companies likes of NBC, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., and so on.
2) The Internet is not yet established enough as a channel of new music
3) In the current system you need
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This results in less product diversity, therefore even less mar
Re: (Score:2)
What I do not understand is how they cannot see that making it LESS valuable for content creators to sign with their labels is going to result in LESS ARTISTS bothering to sign with their labels. There already has to be a certain breaking point that is leading the current boom in independent artists releasing their own content or finding alternate distribution methods. Further reducing the incentive will surely cause >0 others to do the same.
Unfortunately too many artists don't know how to go it on th
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:5, Funny)
That's the RIAA.
Re:Yet another reason for artists to go it alone (Score:4, Funny)
The RIAA has come a long way... (Score:3, Insightful)
vinyl records (Score:2)
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
What, you want to RIAA to make revival? While CD sales are declining [npr.org] vinyl record sells [time.com] are increasing. More and more stores are starting to carry vinyl turntables [forbes.com]. Yes, I've noticed this as I'd like to get one myself.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I hope they go the way of the square wheel, clear pepsi, and the dodo bird.
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lest anyone be at all surprised, remember that RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. It represents the record companies, and that's all it represents. If these companies could find some legal way to hold a gun to a songwriter's or musician's head and take their work at gunpoint, they'd do it.
I'm not going to insist that digital downloads are the future and that all artists should follow Radiohead's lead, but any artists who care at all about their future had damn well better examine every single alternative when figuring out how to produce and distribute their music. Things are changing, and you can be sure that the record companies are going to be looking out for their best interests. Artists had better do the same, or they're going to get screwed.
LAWL (Score:5, Insightful)
Royalty or Loyalty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
A little nugget of FUD to mask the fact that digital downloads are going to render obsolete their entire middleman operation.
What if the royalty was negative? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What if the royalty was negative? (Score:5, Informative)
ROFL, oh but THEY DO!!!! the traditional RIAA contract has the artist paying for all the costs out of their royalties. essentially companys RIAA represent take an artist onboard and fund the album, making the artist pay it all out of their royalties at an inflated price as well as taking their cut of the profits, so if an artist is very lucky they might walk away not owing them money... studio's are a pit of snakes, make no mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm confused (Score:2)
I have no Idea how the Nobel economic prise committee overlooked your work this year, the fools!
Websites != art (usually)... (Score:2)
But artists are not (strictly) business people.
Gene Simmons excepted (but is that the future you'd suggest?).
RIAA - The red herring? (Score:5, Interesting)
If so, then they are doing an admirable job of inspiring people to direct ire and hared towards the constructed organisation rather than to the parent companies.
It isn't often that I see people complaining about Sony or BMG (Comparatively speaking).
It always seems to come down to that nasty RIAA.
Well done indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It always seems to come down to that nasty RIAA.
The RIAA represents the big four [wikipedia.org] and many smaller [riaa.com] record companies. You shouldn't direct any special malice against Sony BMG... but identify songs by RIAA artists [riaaradar.com] and then use your own judgment.
I actually prefer searching for songs that are distributed under Creative Commons-style licenses [jamendo.com], as these are often pretty high quality and always free-and-clear of all litigation worries.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA represents the big four [wikipedia.org] and many smaller [riaa.com] record companies.
Just so you know, that list includes record companies that are not part of the RIAA. For example, Fat Wreck Chords (hates the RIAA) is on the list because one of their distributors is part of the RIAA, but that is quite different from being a member themselves.
Seen same with H1B issue (Score:5, Insightful)
So, anyone else with me? (Score:2)
Apparently so. Magnatune doesn't seem to be growing much. And Big Labels are still raking in millions.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I've paid for several albums off of Magnatune. It's a great site, and I've recommended it to others. (And I didn't pay the $5 cheap-o price, either. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Record Companies Victimized (Score:5, Funny)
Now the record companies, who created the internet and invented downloading music and streaming audio, have seen their take of the pie stay the same, whilst freeloading music creators are actually making more.
I shall write to Orrin Hatch about this...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But no lower prices (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA bad, Apple... (Score:5, Funny)
This is right (Score:3, Funny)
So where does EMusic fit in all this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor conclusion regarding Internet Radio (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, streaming internet radio is quite different than music sales.
Wrong. (Score:2)
Incorrect. Apple doesn't want to pay anything For streaming music. The 4% is for permanent digital downloads. Greedy Assholes.
Have a read of this article [audiogeekzine.com] for more:
Streaming not Sales (was Re:Wrong again) (Score:5, Informative)
To quote from the brief:
This assumption, made by the RIAA and NMPA, that streaming is the same as selling a music track, is what triggered a whole stream of Slashdot stories about how the RIAA was trying to destroy Internet radio, such as: Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy [slashdot.org].
This would have nothing to do with Apple iTunes Music Store sales of music, which are considered the electronic delivery of an album.
As a side note, I'm astonished how quickly so many otherwise intelligent Slashdot readers seem to pile up on one side or another of an issue, such as Internet Radio royalties, depending on how the winds happen to be blowing--because they fail to think for themselves. If supposedly more intelligent than average Slashdot readers are this easily manipulated, then God help us during tomorrow's Super Tuesday elections...
Going the Way of Nine Inch Nails? (Score:5, Informative)
"Steal it. Steal away. Steal, steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealing," Reznor, who has been dubbed the Ralph Nader of the music industry, said.
Steal NIN music too? He steals he says. Read that article. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The digital shift. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA would be quite happy if the "artists" would do as they're told, the "consumers" would buy whatever's being sold at the price offered, the internet would go away and everyone would simply shut the hell.
I'm sure they would enjoy their huge salaries and bonuses much more without all the whining.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
8/13 = 62% (Score:5, Insightful)
So everyone else's cut is going up, even though the songwriter's costs and work are the same. But the rest of the "value" chain to the consumer (which now is composed mostly of the consumer, recommending and trying to share the content) is drastically reduced in cost and increased in availability of inventory (which was typically paid off according to plan many years ago).
It means the songs will be cheaper! (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
An Explanation of The Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
For This Reason, New Media Players (Apple, Yahoo, Napster, etc) argue that the "mechanical royalty for copyright" should be lowered significantly on digital downloads (specifically, to 4%).
RIAA etc argue the fee should be dropped only slightly (specifically, only to 8%).
RIAA are arguing to maintain profits for their (arguably, exceedingly dinosaur-like) "distribution model".
The New Media crew are arguing the way of sanity and intelligence. (ie trying to push the 'downloads are effectively performances, because there's no way to differentiate' argument)
Every time you hear something new from the RIAA it boils down to "someone needs to shovel more money into our bank accounts, without any additional effort or contribution on our part. Our business model dictates an infinitely increasing profit margin, for infinitely decreasing effort, ad-infinitum."
And the same can be said of those ISPs who intend to violate the concept of "net-neutrality". ("someone's making money , and the bits cross our network. Ignore the fact we already billed someone for those bits, I want to directly bill BOTH the producer AND the consumer of those bits, even though they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me").
That's not a business-model, that's a fantasy.
strike (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Musicians: (Score:2)
Why would any artist not set up their own web site (Score:2)
If there was a need for any FOSS project, it would be a project that lets artists sell their music online, and simply so, so much so that ISPs could bundle it in like the way they bundle forum software or Apache.
Signing with a real label seems madness.
Thank god, my life is calm again (Score:2)
Artists are sick of it already... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Flashbulb wrote: Hello listener...downloader...pirate...pseudo-criminal... If you can read this, then you've more than likely downloaded this album from a peer to peer network or torrent. You probably expect the rest of this message to tell you that you're hurting musicians and breaking just about every copyright law in the book. Well, it won't tell you that. What I would like to tell you is that my record label understands that a large portion of people pirate music because it is easier than buying it. CDs scratch easily, most pay-per-download sites have poor quality and ****ty DRM protection, and vinyl is near impossible to find or ship without hassle. In many cases I wonder why people buy CDs at all anymore. A few like the tangible artwork, some haven't adapted to MP3s yet, but most do it because they have a profound love for music and want to support the artists making it. Kind of restores your faith in humanity for a moment eh? So, now what? Like the album? About to go "support the artist" on iTunes? Well, don't. Alphabasic is currently in a legal battle against Apple because NONE of our material (Sublight Records included) receives a dime of royalty from the vast amount of sales iTunes has generated using our material. Want to buy a CD just to show your support? If you don't particularly like CDs, don't bother. Retailers like Best Buy and Amazon spike the price so high that their cut is often 8 times higher than the artist's. Besides, most CDs are made out of unrecyclable plastic and leave a nasty footprint in your environment. If you do particularly like CDs, buy them from the label (in our case, alphabasic.com). After manufacturing costs are recuperated, our artists usually receive over 90% of the actual money coming out of your wallet. In addition, all of our physical products are made out of 100% recycled material. Want to show your support? Go here and browse our library of lossless, DRM-free downloads. Already have that? Then feel free to donate whatever you want to your favorite artist. 100% will go directly to them. Hell, you can even donate a penny just to thank the artist. If you really like 'The Flashbulb - Soundtrack To A Vacant Life' and want to show your support without it going to greedy retailers, distributors, and coked-up label reps, then click the button below. http://www.alphabasic.com/index2.htm [alphabasic.com] If you send us your mailing address, Alphabasic may occasionally send you various goodies (overstocks, stickers, even rare CDs) in appreciation and encouragement for your support. Thanks for reading. Who knows if my little business plan here will work to fund new releases, but even failure is better than the crappy label/distributor/retailer system musicians have suffered from for over 50 years. We hope you enjoy the music as much as we do releasing it. Finally, if you plan on sharing this release, please include this file. The only reason it is here is to show the listener where he can support his favorite artists! Benn Jordan CEO - Alphabasic Records
Even more interesting: it was on the site as a "free leech", meaning it did not count toward your download ratio. There were about 2700 seeds. even if 0nly a tiny percentage send a little donation, the artist will be doing better than through the normal distribution channels, with the added bonus of getting it out to more people, which is what I believe true artists are in it for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the overall response won't be the realization by the evil and greedy that they need an evil and smart person in tow at all times whilst everyone else moves on.
A Karl Rove for every opportunist...not a world i want to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, David... I wasn't meaning to include you in the pro-piracy crowd (in fact, we haven't met until now). Thanks for speaking up for the anti-anti-piracy crowd. Does anybody want to chime in to represent the anti-anti-anti-piracy crowd?
No matter what crowd you're in: the mods, the rockers, the mockers, the greasers, the bloods, the crips, the AARP, the "time cube" guy, people who are still coding in Simula 67, the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads -- you're prob
Oblig (Score:2)
Cause if this takes hold, how long till the radio jingles become a more popular form of entertainment then "popular" music?
Do you folks like coffee!
REAALL COFFEEEE
From columbia....
The Duncan Hills will wake you.
From a thousand depths.
A cup of blackened blood.
(Die, die)
You're dying for a cup. [wikipedia.org]
(Thanks Mr. Small and Mr. Blancha [adultswim.com])
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is. In Melbourne, it's called "Bourke St. Mall". Best not to set up too close to the tram tracks though.
Re:Maybe Songwriter's Strike soon? (Score:4, Informative)
Given the usual release cycles of albums (probably the real difference between the music industry and TV shows), they will need to do be able to sustain their strike for one year or longer—how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?
Re: (Score:2)
"Is the songwriter the only artist who is compensated for the download? Is the performing artist or band also compensated, and if so by how much? As much as I don't like the RIAA, I also want to understand the surrounding context. I guess the real question this begs is exactly where does all the money go?"
The composer, lyricist and performer each get royalties. The royalties for composers and lyricists are set by law (hence the news whenever the record labels want to change it), while the performer's ro