Idolator

so what does the law have to say about this company arbitrarily keeping royalties that don;t belong to them?

Its all a bunch of shit. They are only "looking" for them now since they got found out about taking royalties for artists and never paying them out unless they where asked to (at which point they took out a heafty chunk as "payment)

Its all to cover their ass, I doubt they would ever make a effort.

@RepentTokyo: It's legal, at least in the case of Soundexchange. Coryright Royalties Board said they where completely in the right.

Of course we are talking about the same people owned by the RIAA

It must be so, so difficult to locate Kraftwerk. Or Jules Shear.

Not to mention that a number of these artists are no longer alive enough to google themselves. They list "Kristy Mccoll," which is just sad, because they probably mean the late Kirsty MacColl.

Even Vh-1 found Animotion.

I'd like to find Accept, myself. Now there's a story that would darken even the craziest horror fiction.

And don't worry about King T, Soundexchange. Hopefully, he'll find you.

glenn danzig lives in los feliz .
at the corner of franklin and rodney avenue on the south side of franklin . the place with the overgrown weeds and wrought iron gate . wheres my cut ?!!

@Falconfire: What about non-American artists?

I realize that sometimes you guys just need a story, but you should have at least straightened the facts since the first time you posted this. SoundExchange posted the artists who haven't signed up to claim their royalties. Many of those artists have been contacted on multiple occasions - including the RZA himself - about signing up, yet are simply slow or unwilling to fill out the paperwork, thinking that these royalties are mere pennies compared to their other income streams.

It would be nice to see you do some real reporting and consider all the facets of a situation, instead of sensationalizing an easy target to sell more click-throughs. I deal with artists, labels and webcasters on a daily basis, and I can tell you that only one of those groups is unhappy with SoundExchange.

Not to defend the evil beasties or antyhing, but if these are performance royalties, you can't just send it to a random address that the artist may or may not be at. They're paid to the publisher and writer, and you need to get all the writers' and publishers' names, addresses, and splits before you can send royalties out, because if you get it wrong, then there's a lawsuit, and you may be liable for money you've already paid out.

So OK, let's take RZA. You owe him money for writing the song, but you know from looking at the liner notes that you also owe money to the writer(s) and publisher(s) of the sample he used. But the available online information might not have the right addresses for these people, and they definitely don't have what percentage of the royalty each person is supposed to get. So you send letters to RZA, and to the available addresses of the other writers. Maybe they get back to you, maybe they don't, especially if it's not a very large royalty. (And I can't imagine these are.) So if you guess that it's a 50/50 split, you send 50% to RZA c/o the record label, then 25% to the publisher of the sample and 25% to the writer. But what if it turns out they were only supposed to get 10% each? Then you owe that extra 15% to RZA, and you've already paid it out.

Figuring out royalty payments is (weirdly, consider that's how people get paid) one of the hardest things to do in the music business. You need to get all your ducks in a row before you can do anything, and musicians are horrible about returning correspondence. In the end it tends to involve a lot of guesswork, but seriously, it can take a day to track down one song's info.

the thing is, artists can't stop this company from collecting royalty payments on internet radio if they want them to.

...can't even perform a simple MySpace search?

Coincidentally, the MySpace music search feature seemed to be on the fritz this past weekend. For example, I did a search for bands (i.e., musicians) that have "John Lennon" in the band name and indicated I wanted the results ranked by number of fans, and I got only one hit, which turned out to be a John Lennon (solo) tribute act. That can't be right.

Last week, we explored how SoundExchange, the body which has taken on for itself the task of collecting and distributing royalties from online radio in the US uses leftover cash to pay off 'loans' from the RIAA for their set-up.

@RepentTokyo:

That's simply the nature of the statutory license. As with regular broadcast radio, webcasters don't have to get permission from each individual artist (or label) to play their songs. They play whatever they want, and pay a PRO. Terrestrial radio pays BMI & ASCAP. Net radio pays these, as well as SoundExchange.

If radio stations had to work out individual, direct licenses with the owner of all the content they wanted to play, radio stations wouldn't exist.

@ryan: I can understand how the system works to simplify collection. But I feel that individual labels or artists should be able to opt out of these internet broadcasting royalty fees if they desire for their music to be broadcast royalty free. This only hurts small labels seeking exposure because it's killing grassroots broadcasting.

Know what kills me? These attempts by SoundExchange - and others - to paint webcasters as the bad guys in this fight. Way to go, P.R. firms!

Webcasting's the only thing giving a vast, vast majority of these small- and medium- sized artists any airplay. Period. Yet SoundExchange - an admitted RIAA sockpuppet, an organization that can't distribute a vast percentage of what it takes in, can't find these high-profile artists, has never published a detailed accounting of its distributions, and has *kept for itself* the very artist royalties they are tasked with distributing via royalty forfeiture - has the balls to try and paint the webcasters as the ones 'stealing' from the artists in this fight.

The sheer audacity ... it boggles the mind.

I would encourage your artists and labels, Ryan, to ask for an audit of SoundExchange's finances. Then we'll see who's finger-pointing ...

@ryan: it existed for year before the RIAA created there royalty groups.

You talk like a paid flogger.

@RepentTokyo: I may be wrong, but I believe that if a webcaster has a direct license with an artist or label, they CAN in fact opt out of paying the statutory royalty. The burden falls to the webcaster to simply not report those performances to SoundExchange, as they are exempt due to the direct license.

@Falconfire: Believe me, I wish I was getting paid for this. I simply represent a number of artists, all of whom are happy to get their SoundExchange check every quarter. While it's a pretty measly amount thus far, I'm pretty certain that these satellite/webcast royalties are going to be big bucks in the future, which is why I'm paying extra attention to the details - not just the hype - right now.

Sure, net radio existed before SoundExchange; technology always outpaces regulation. But are you really saying it would be fair for webcasters to pay no royalties to the artists whose music they make money from?

@alant: I'm a Soundexchange board member. Alant, your post begs for a blow-by-blow response, so here it comes:

- "Soundexchange is an RIAA sockpuppet" - Really? Have you done your homework to see who is on the SX board? Nine artist reps - nine label reps, including three independents. Do the math - the artists plus independents outvotes the RIAA members. This tired saw of SX being an RIAA puppet is old news designed for easy target/sensational headlines, it's got no accuracy and falls apart if you do even a cursory study of the individuals involved.

- "organization can't distribute a vast percentage of what it takes in" - SX goes to extraordinary lengths to distribute money - it has no vested interest in *not* distributing money, as SX cannot collect a distribution fee on distributed revenues until those revenues are actually distributed (and the first distribution of unclaimed revenues, those prior to March 2000, has already been pushed off three times in an effort to increase the number of artists who have registered with SX) - accept that the task is herculean, given the number of bands, and the many bands and/or managers who have been contacted who do not respond because the income stream isn't large enough. I managed bands for years, I can attest to the fact that just the ones I managed are hard to keep track of.

- "can't find these high-profile artists" - this has been roundly debated and is simply a sensationalist headline (see comment above), easily manipulated to make SX look bad (insert the tired RIAA argument here next to this). Last I checked there were fewer than five artists owed more than $1000 for the time period of the initial payout (pre-March 2000) - this is entirely due to pavement-pounding by SX and by its board members to find artists who may hot realize that this will be an important revenue stream in the future, but for whom a couple hundred dollars is not important enough for them to deal with at present. Not every unfound artist fits into this camp, but many do, I have personally spoken to many of their managers.

- "has never published a detailed accounting of its distributions" - Soundexchange isn't required to do this in a public fashion, and doesn't do this in a public fashion in the interest of privacy. Exact breakouts of artist or label distributions *are* available to any rightsholder.

- "and has *kept for itself* the very artist royalties they are tasked with distributing via royalty forfeiture" - your facts are mixed up here. Every collecting society has rules about collecting monies that are due you - were you aware that w/in one year, BMI/ASCAP royalties disappear if you haven't signed up to collect them? - it's nearly unprecedented that people can collect SX royalties, simply by being located and responding with a verified address for payment to SX, without being a registered member of the organization. Royalty forfeiture? Read the statute from the Copyright Office - SX is allowed to distribute any unclaimed monies to its registered artist pool three years after the royalties are collected, but has three separate times put this off in the interest of distributing *more* money to more artists, given that SX is still a relatively young organization and is building its artist database. Once the unclaimed monies distributions *do* happen, Soundexchange keeps only its distribution fee (which is also low, comparatively, to other royalty distribution organizations), the remainder is distributed to all registered rightsholders. Your line is a tired line, well debated, and with no basis whatsoever in reality.

Webcasters aren't the bad guys. Neither is Soundexchange. Each represent different interests, but both have *very* vested interests in a healthy webcasting industry, on behalf of not only the majors, but also the independents and the artists. What you see now is a dance in advance of negotiations, SX has put out the olive branch for discussions and both sides are maximizing their positions.

Promotion is incredibly important to music - but it can't exist in a vacuum of sales, and to the extent that the world is moving away from physical sales of cds to a more performance-based model, it's crucial for all artists and labels that the performance income stream is set up correctly to allow future survival of the creators *as well as* the webcasters. SX pays artists directly for exactly this reason (SX payments to artists are not recouped through labels, and therefore are an increasingly rare direct revenue stream for artists who are signed to labels).

I am a stand up comedian who first filled out the sound exchange paperwork almost a year ago.....I waited until feburary of this year to finally contact them. They said they had no record. I Knew that I saved the original email confirming that they were processing my stuff, so I sent them that...."Oh, ok"....they said "we found your info"...you should get a check after out next "cyle" in a few months.....
Several weeks later my manager got an email (why didnt they just email ME?) saying they were looking for me for unpaid royalties....Lucky she opened the email, as it easily looked like spam......
well, after I contacted them again, they tried to send me the whole bunch of paperwork to fill out again. This time I got a bit angry and told them I took care of this months ago....."Oh" they said, "we found the paperwork"....
So, long story short, I was told I would recieve a check around August. August came and went, no check., I emailed to find out it will be here beginning of September.....Middle of September comes. No check. So then I am told they will be mailed on Sept 20....It's now the 30. No check. So I emailed again, and here's what I am told

Hi Michael,
There's been a slight delay due to problems with the new distribution software system that we have just implemented. (I might have mentioned that before) I checked with our Ops Dept.and they are telling me that checks will start going out this Thursday and will continue to for a week after that, so basically you should be receiving something within the next two weeks.

I apologize for the delay.

I just wonder how much they are able to collect in interest alone as they keep OUR money in THEIR bank? Not to mention the many bucks in residuals that sit their as they "work to find" the folks who are unaware they have money coming?
Back in the 80's, actors who worked as extras in tv/film in LA would get the same type of "run around" with their checks....Sometimes getting paid 6 months after doing a gig.....The government finally passed a law, as it was discovered these casting agents were keeping the funds in their banks as long as they could to collect interest.

Are you telling me nothing can be done about this?!?!? This is MY money, not THEIRS.....How is it I have no choice in the matter?

Thank you
Michael Joiner
michaeljoiner.com.