iTunes Chart-Toppers (a/o February 21st):
This is Exhibit A in the ongoing battle between Sirius XM Radio and SoundExchange. It's a letter being sent to SoundExchange member labels, and part of an increasingly aggressive move towards direct licensing relationships. According to one label speaking with Digital Music News this week, Sirius XM partner Music Reports, Inc. has been calling multiple times to forge a direct agreement. Sirius, alongside Pandora, dwarf most other SoundExchange revenue sources.
The shift away from SoundExchange and into a direct Sirius license takes just one signature, found in this contract.
Comments Closed
Alpha W Friday, November 18, 2011
In case it is useful to anyone - people signed up with SoundExchange but based outside the US did not receive this letter.
Label Owner Friday, November 18, 2011
wow, they've dropped their rate even further -- at least when i got this letter they were offering 7%. it was a bad deal at 7%, now it's worse! i can't imagine who would take them up on this. yes, SoundExchange has problems, and their reporting isn't perfect. but they are dedicated to paying artists and labels SEPARATELY, thereby ensuring that artists get their money, and most importantly, the rate SoundExchange pays is determined by the CRB and specifically BENEFITS ARTISTS, whereas the rate at MRI is designed to be as low as possible to benefit Sirius XM and any other clients they might take on. this is not a move designed to help artists and labels, people. this is a scam to reduce the rates that internet radio outlets have to pay to artists and labels. they see terrestrial radio continuing to get fat by using OUR content for free, and they want a piece of that pie too. don't give it to them.
MisterSoftee Friday, November 18, 2011
Sirius is a scam? That's hilarious. They're offering clear terms, and not holding money in a giant bank account somewhere while saying they're artist friendly... like [cough] [cough]....
Food For Thought Saturday, November 19, 2011
Clear terms? And you know this because...?
I know labels who've been offered 6% and labels who've been offered 7% and even some who've been offered more.
Some have been offered advances, others nada.
Most I know get a deal that not only includes the right for Sirius to stream music (the same right they have now under the compulsory license) but also a host of other "additional rights" - a land grab of sorts - that they would typically have to negotiate separate licenses for (eg. getting rid of the performance compliment, getting tethered download rights, on-demand streaming features, etc.) but Sirius is folding it all into this 6-7% rate that is LESS than the already discounted rates they currently pay SoundExchange. More rights, less money...oh, and they're ONLY running this game on indie labels.
Yup, very clear. Clearly looking to continue to pad their own wallets at the expense of fairly compensating those who create the music that drives their business.
If this offer had a thing to do with anything other than them fearing how poorly they're going to do in front of the Copyright Royalty Board next year they'd have offered these licenses 2 years ago, 3 years ago... There's a reason they're offering this license now: get some labels to sign up at 6 or 7 percent and then take those licenses to the CRB as "evidence" that this is a fair rate in hopes of stopping the CRB from imposing the 13% (or more) rate they said would be a fair rate back in 2007 (but wasn't imposed because of Sirius and XM's then financial hardships).
It's never what it seems to be, people. This is big business and they play hard. SoundExchange, for all its faults, is the best thing that has ever happened to indie labels and artists. F up SoundExchange and it will be just one more thing the industry can take credit for getting wrong.
CraigDiPaolo Saturday, November 19, 2011
Are you crazy? SoundExchange is a boondoggle created by the RIAA. They sit on 100's of millions in unpaid royalties in fact Barrie KEssler was forced out because of such a messy system that is now threatning to siink this bloated bureaucracy. It's NOT good for artists and is inefficient. Sirius will pay direct, to people that actually exist instead of being 'artist friendly' which almost always means the exact opposite.
Pandora's next.
a fly on the wall Sunday, November 20, 2011
Craig, the RIAA created SoundExchange but for almost a decade now they've not "controlled" SoundExchange. After initially funding its creation, the RIAA ceded control to a board of directors that is made up of 18 representatives (9 of which are artist representatives and 9 are label representatives - and 3 of the 9 label seats are held by independent label representatives).
To your point - and a point highlighted here and other places often - SoundExchange DOES have a huge balance of unpaid money. Guess what? That's a GOOD thing. Almost every other performance rights organization doesn't pay out a lot of the money they collect either. Why don't they, then, have huge unpaid balances like SoundExchange? Because those other PRO's "release" the unpaid ("unclaimed" or "unmatched") balances to the general pool...the notorious "black box" which mostly finds its way to major labels (or major publishers) and superstar artists (or songwriters).
Led by independent representatives on the SoundExchange board, every attempt made by the majors to have SoundExchange do a release of this "unclaimed" and unmatched balance has been blocked so that unregistered artists and unregistered labels have MORE time to sign up and not lose their money (you'd be SHOCKED if you knew some who still hadn't registered...who, by the way, make up a large portion of the money that is sitting at SoundExchange).
It's always funny to me when I see this complaint issued about SoundExchange when I know that the truth about how these PRO's typically work. Imagine if SoundExchange did a similar release. For PR purposes it'd be huge. Their financial records are public and lazy "journalists" who don't do any digging beyond what is easy to access would no longer see that huge unpaid balance so these "journalists" would no longer be able to publish their unresearched allegations so you (and others) would THINK that everything is ok when in actuality it would be the worst thing for indie labels and artists (since MOST of this unclaimed money is due to indie labels and artists not being registered but the pool release would no doubt be done on a pro-rata basis that would see MOST of the money go to major labels and huge superstar artists).
My apologies for the long post, but I've read this complaint about SoundExchange here so many times. Want to check my assertions? I challenge Digital Music News to ask Ascap, BMI, Sesac, Harry Fox, etc. how many dollars go unclaimed or unmatched each year that then goes into the "black box" (eventually to be released pro-rata to their registered members).
I know what SoundExchange's answer would be. Zero. Let's see if any other organization can say the same.
canadian record label Monday, November 21, 2011
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us