Talk:SoundExchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Needs attention[edit]

Needs more mention of the fact that SoundExchange is actually a racket. They claim to have the authority to collect royalties "on behalf of" artists who haven't actually signed any agreement with them, and charge a fee to hand those royalties over. [1] 71.203.209.0 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. If they're "collecting on behalf" of someone who doesn't actually get money, how croooked is that?


Half of this page is blatantly copied from the Sound Exchange website. See http://www.soundexchange.com/about/about.html jasker 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. The multiple recent edits from DCMara smack of sockpuppetry.


Unfirsted and unseconded. Congress and the Copyright Office have authorized SoundExchange to collect and distribute royalties based on the statutory license for digital transmissions. No "fee" is charged to receive royalties- an administrative fee is deducted before they are distributed, but that is common for all royalty collections around the world. It is a legitimate, non-profit organization. Read the actual determination from the Copyright Royalty Board - the group that actually creates the rates and terms for people using the license. [2]. Anyone calling SoundExchange a "racket" should spend less time denigrating and more time looking up their facts.

Edited some bias in recent accusations of illegal lobbying. DCMara 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara Added articles of reference DCMara 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Clarified language regarding SoundExchange funding of musicFIRST, and in the purpose section. DCMara 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Someone keeps adding the word "promotional" to "funding", and they shouldn't, since it is a limiting and inaccurate modifying description. DCMara 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Needs Actual History[edit]

The "History" section is not a history of SoundExchange but rather a brief explanation of the creation of the exclusive right of public performance of a sound recording by a digital audio transmission, as found in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(6). [3] The history section needs to discuss the actual history of SoundExchange. E.g., that it was originally a subdivision of RIAA and later spun-off as a separate non-profit organization. ResearchGuru2009 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

SoundExchange is the mechanism to distribute collected royalties under US copyright legislation. Legitimate music services in the USA report sales and distribute payments through SoundExchange, who then distribute them to their content owners. Of course the "content is free" crowd hates SoundExchange, mostly because the Internet Radio sites that stream music don't have a legitmate business model, and find the prospect of actually paying for the content they serve abominable. Like almost everything involving digital music, a deep ignorance in copyright mechanics prevails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.131.105 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs less bias[edit]

In reading this article, the first thought that entered my head was "who wrote this puff piece?" This thing reads like it was written by SoundExchange themselves. Certainly with all the controversy surrounding this group over the past year, some of this could be added to the article? --Fightingirish (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix this page. SoundExchange is a racket, and how is a mandatory 10% bookkeepers fee for all performance royalties non-profit? --71.229.204.25 (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No mentions of SoundExchange's enormous yearly 'missing artist' lists, and criticism thereof. No mention of the 3-year unclaimed royalty forefitures. No mention of the lack of transparency in accounting re: artist royalty distributions. No mention of the minimum $10 ($20?) cap on artist royalty collections.

(And if you're going to say "There's no fee. Except, of course, for this administrative fee" - don't start lecturing people on their fact-checking.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.124.156 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is definitely pro-SoundExchange and could use some neutrality and discussion of the negative aspects. Their actions and methods are controversial to say the least and there should be mention of that. And even though I agree SoundExchange and the RIAA are guilty of extortion and coercion I think maybe some less inflammatory language should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnMiddleton (talkcontribs) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [Please give examples of "extortion" and "coercion," as those are pretty strong (and possibly libelous] words.]

This article also fails to mention that SoundExchange, organized as a tax-exempt nonprofit, is listed on Whois as owner of the domain for the lobbying organization MusicFirstCoalition.org [4] and has apparently not even bothered to bury its tracks. It's outrageous that the Wikipedia article completely "forgets" verifiable facts such as this, betraying serious bias on behalf of SoundExchange. ---- Arthur P. Johnson

Sources required[edit]

Unfortunately, people, what Wikipedia needs is sources. Please find something from a reliable source (e.g. a major newspaper, such as the New York Times, a respected/neutral website, such as CNet, or a magazine, such as The Economist) to support your point of view.

My two cents: It seems to me that the key issue must be this: how is SoundExchange better or worse than ASCAP and BMI? They can't be expected to be held to higher standard than these well-respected organizations. ---- 173.120.81.172 (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The one thing you tagged as dubious was in fact cited at the end of the paragraph it was in, and as the citation indicates, the info in question was taken right from the Washington Post. —mjb (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at a couple of things. First, the lobbying organization largely responsible for the creation of Sound Exchange is the RIAA, representing record labels. Right now 50% of royalties collected go to the owner of the master recordings (primarily, record labels). 45% goes to featured artists and 5% to background artists by way of the American Federation of Musicians and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. If the background artists are not union members, they're out of luck.

Sound Exchange is also lobbying desperately (by way of MusicFIRST) to collect from terrestrial sources. For better or worse, this will be at the expense of writers and publishers who now collect by way of ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

The reason so many recording artists lose their Sound Exchange royalties is because they're unaware of its existence. WW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildweezil (talkcontribs) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Illegal[edit]

Can we get some discussion of the fact that SoundExchange illegally claims royalties for music owned by unsigned artists?

I would also like to see some information regarding the collection of royalties on unsigned artists. L0ckd0wn420 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone can provide a reliable, secondary source that discusses these claims, than it would be easier to determine whether it merits inclusion in this article. Hartboy (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Credible[edit]

As a functioning recording artist enjoying some degree of success in digital transmission, I can say, firsthand, that SoundExchange is better run, more organized, more modern, and more lucrative than other govt authorized agencies performing related collection services (ASCAP, BMI, etc). It's certainly incumbent on artists to have a functional understanding of copyright law/mechanism, and to correctly register with the site such that SoundExchange can successfully distribute monies.

As recording artists move towards owning/licensing their own content, SoundExchange provides a vehicle via which to collect all contemplated monies.

Propagating the idea that this is a fraudulent enterprise is simply ignorant bomb-throwing.

I am totally unaffiliated with SoundExchange, other than being a pretty happy customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.164.4 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Authority Section Is Unclear[edit]

Article says that SoundExchange is the only one that collect royalties for what exactly? It could use some examples of what it can and cannot collect for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Frahm (talkcontribs) 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Legislation Activity Section Needed[edit]

H.R. 3219: Free Market Royalty Act introduced Sep 30, 2013 Sponsor:Rep. Melvin “Mel” Watt [D-NC12] Status:Referred to Committee

Designates SoundExchange, Inc. (an independent, nonprofit organization that collects and distributes royalties), or any successor entity, as the sole common agent to negotiate, agree to, pay, and receive royalty payments.

reflects evolution of SoundExchange.

I would like to add a section to the main article showing sponsors of legislation that have relevance to the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)