Royalty Rate: What's fair for songwriters?

The RIAA, labels, and Digital Media Association (DiMA) are back at it again -- trying to dictate who gets what in the wonderful world of the music industry. This time they're taking on songwriters.

The Copyright Royalty Board is meeting to determine which, if any, royalties need to be adjusted. The RIAA and DiMA are insisting songwriter royalties need to be at least cut in half. The reasoning? Because the music business can't be "saddled with additional, excessive costs". Coming from a label, that's actually pretty damn funny, or maybe the hookers and blow get filed under "operating expenses".

The excessive cost? 9 cents a song.

The labels' argument is that the rest of the business has taken such a hit that songwriting and publishing should cut their rates as well. That's sort of like saying that because your local grocery store couldn't figure out how to adjust to a changing economy, food suppliers shouldn't charge them as much.

Songwriters have one form of income, and that is the royalty. Record companies have plenty of revenue streams, whether they admit to it or not.

The DiMA takes it one step further and questions whether songwriters and publishers deserve any royalties period. They claim that since streamed music isn't permanent and doesn't leave a physical copy of the song, royalties shouldn't apply. Uh, ever heard of the radio?

And just like kids used to tape songs off the radio, there are plenty of ways to capture streamed music and convert to a "permanent" copy.

Read some more of the story at The Hollywood Reporter: Sides Chosen in Royalty Tussle, and another good analysis at Wired: What Better Music? Don't Stiff The Songwriters

Record Industry vs. The People sounds off as well.