Just when you thought the RIAA was taking a spring break ...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080302-riaa-wants-to-pay-percentage-rate-it-denied-to-webcasters.htmlReaders will no doubt be shocked—shocked—to hear that the RIAA works for its own self-interest, but a recent Public Knowledge piece suggests that the organization is being more than usually self-interested in two current debates. On the one hand, the major labels think that webcasters should pay a flat rate for every track streamed, even if this means that a webcaster's total bill for music exceeds revenues in any given year. On the other hand, the RIAA does not want to pay a flat rate for its own music, suggesting that a percentage rate of the kind that webcasters were denied is the way to go.
All of this begs the question: why should the RIAA get a percentage deal for itself but insist on a widely-despised flat-rate deal for webcasters who want its music? That's what Public Knowledge staff attorney Rashmi Rangnath asked this week. "Is it fair that RIAA/SoundExchange switch to a percentage of revenue model for music sales while holding back the small webcasters from taking advantage of the same for streaming?" she wrote.
Anyone thinking the RIAA are fair and honest is deluding themselves, they exist soley to allow a mafia style control of the music industry by big business, smaller upstarts are squeezed out mercilessly.
With the current drive to force more revenue out of the radio stations we can expect to see a few casualties along the road, lets hope the artists dont despair in the meanwhile over the miniscule amount they are likley to recieve under the newley proposed royalty rates.
