Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Professional sound production This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [Please give examples of "extortion" and "coercion," as those are pretty strong (and possibly libelous] words.][reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Current Copy: SoundExchange is an American non-profit collective rights management organization founded in 2003.

• Proposed Copy: SoundExchange is an American non-profit collective rights management organization founded in 2003 and currently providing products and services to a global community of more than 650,000 creators.^[1]

• Why it should be changed: The number of creators using SoundExchange does not currently appear anywhere else on their page. It provides important context for readers by establishing the company's size and reach within the industry.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference included above.

Hannrose (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done but reworded for WP:NPOV and WP:RELTIME. Let me know if the edit properly satisfies you.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 15:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thank you. 136.49.23.226 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: Overseen by a board of directors composed of artists, artist representatives, and sound recording copyright owners, SoundExchange is also an advocate for music licensing reform. As of 2020 it had paid more than $6 billion to recording artists and rights owners.

• Proposed Copy: Overseen by a board of directors composed of artists, artist representatives and sound recording copyright owners, SoundExchange is also an advocate for music licensing reform. As of 2023, it has paid more than $10 billion to recording artists and rights owners.

^{[1] [2]}

• Why it should be changed: This change updates the current information from 2020 using the most recent available data from 2023.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References included above.

Hannrose (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: SoundExchange exists to administer statutory licenses for sound recording copyrights, primarily through the collection and distribution of royalties for sound recording performances occurring under the jurisdiction of federal law.

• Proposed Copy: SoundExchange exists to administer statutory licenses for sound recording copyrights, primarily through the collection and distribution of royalties for sound recording performances occurring under the jurisdiction of federal law. As of 2023, the organization collects more than $1 billion annually^[1] for distribution and claims one of the lowest overall administration rates in the industry.^[2]

• Why it should be changed: This addition provides the first mention of specific annual distribution numbers along with relevant industry context that helps explain the company's purpose. Readers should know that SoundExchange exists for the purpose of collecting and distributing that annual $1B+ without applying extensive administration fees.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References included above.

Hannrose (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: An administrative fee is deducted from royalties before they are distributed, with the remainder divided between the performing artists on a given recording, and the copyright owner of that recording. SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses. It has collection agreements with more than 40 international performance rights organizations around the world, allowing it to collect and pay royalties to recording artists and rights owners when their music is played in those countries. In 2017, SoundExchange expanded into music publisher administration with its acquisition of Canadian mechanical rights society Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA).

• Proposed Copy: An administrative fee is deducted from royalties before they are distributed, with the remainder divided between the performing artists on a given recording, and the copyright owner of that recording. SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses. It has collection agreements with more than 50 international performance rights organizations around the world,^[1] allowing it to collect and pay royalties to recording artists and rights owners when their music is played in those countries. In 2017, SoundExchange expanded into music publisher administration with its acquisition of Canadian mechanical rights society Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA).

• Why it should be changed: This number is no longer accurate. The most recent number available is 50.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference included above.

Hannrose (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Primary sources are often reliable but not always. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: In December 2017, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) increased the Sirius XM royalty rate from 11.5% of revenue to 15.5% of revenue through 2022. The CRB also rendered a decision on royalty rates paid by Muzak and Music Choice in December 2017, reducing the royalty rates paid by those services from 8.5% of revenue to 7.5% of revenue.

• Proposed Copy: In December 2017, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) increased the Sirius XM royalty rate from 11.5% of revenue to 15.5% of revenue through 2022. The CRB also rendered a decision on royalty rates paid by Muzak and Music Choice in December 2017, reducing the royalty rates paid by those services from 8.5% of revenue to 7.5% of revenue. These rates originally were in effect for the 2018-2022 term. The Music Modernization Act of 2018 subsequently extended the rates for an additional five years, through 2027.^[1]

• Why it should be changed: Previous information was outdated and no longer factually correct. This update provides most recent information available about royalty rates, including context as to the terms set by the Music Modernization Act, which have been extended through 2027.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference included above.

Hannrose (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: How are these rates relevant to SoundExchange? If this information applies generally to all other collective rights management companies, then there is no point in adding it to this particular article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! SoundExchange was a leading force behind successful efforts to pass the Music Modernization Act of 2018 and you will see the company mentioned many times in the reference provided. Aside from their direct involvement in advocating for and setting these rates, it's important to note that the establishment, fluctuation and current status of royalty rates in the U.S. is key context when speaking about SoundExchange. Hannrose (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: The CRB judges established webcasting rates (per song, per listener) on December 16, 2015, for the 2016–2020 term – $0.0017 for non-subscription performances and $0.0020 for subscription performances for commercial webcasters in 2017, with rates for each subsequent year adjusted upward or downward, according to the Consumer Price Index for the year. As of 2018, webcasting rates were $0.0018 for non-subscription services and $0.0023 for subscription services.

• Proposed Copy: The CRB judges established webcasting rates (per song, per listener) on December 16, 2015, for the 2016–2020 term – $0.0017 for non-subscription performances and $0.0020 $0.0022 for subscription performances for commercial webcasters in 2017 2016, with rates for each subsequent year adjusted upward or downward, according to the Consumer Price Index for the year.^[1] As of In 2018, webcasting rates were $0.0018 for non-subscription services performances and $0.0023 for subscription services performances for commercial webcasters. The CRB judges set the webcasting rates for the 2021-2025 term on June 11, 2021. (The rate determination was delayed by six months because of the Covid-19 pandemic.) The rates for 2021 were $0.0021 for non-subscription performances and $0.0026 for subscription performances for commercial webcasters, with rates for each subsequent year adjusted upward or downward, according to the Consumer Price Index for the year.^[2] As of 2024, webcasting rates were $0.0025 for non-subscription performances and $0.0031 for subscription performances for commercial webcasters.^[3]

• Why it should be changed: Previous numbers were factually incorrect or outdated. This update pulls from government records to provide accurate information and more recently available data.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Included above.

Hannrose (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: SoundExchange is controlled by a board of directors composed of recording artists, representatives of recording artists and sound recording copyright owners. As of 2017, the board was composed of Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (SAG-AFTRA), Jay L. Cooper (attorney), Andrea Finkelstein (Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.), Ray Hair (American Federation of Musicians), Jeff Harleston (Universal Music Group), Michael Hausman (artist manager), Steve Marks (RIAA), David Byrne (artist), Kendall Minter (attorney), Richard Burgess (American Association of Independent Music), Patrick Rains (artist manager, PRA Records), Martha Reeves (artist), Perry Resnick (RZO Royalty Management), Paul Robinson (Warner Music Group), Cary Sherman (RIAA), Darius Van Arman (Secretly Group), Ron Wilcox (Warner Music Group) and Victor Zaraya (Razor & Tie).

• Proposed Copy: SoundExchange is controlled by a board of directors composed of recording artists, representatives of recording artists and sound recording copyright owners. As of 2024 2017, the board was composed of Mitch Glazier (Recording Industry Association of America -RIAA), Aaron Harrison (Universal Music Group), Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (SAG-AFTRA), Jay L. Cooper (attorney) Jay Cooper Esq. (West Coast Entertainment Practice, Greenberg Traurig, LLP), Andrea Finkelstein (Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.), Alasdair McMullan (Universal Music Group), Tino Gagliardi (American Federation of Musicians of the US and Canada), Ray Hair (American Federation of Musicians), Jeff Harleston (Universal Music Group), Michael Hausman (artist manager), Steve Marks (RIAA), David Byrne (artist), Kendall Minter (attorney), Richard Burgess (American Association of Independent Music), Patrick Rains (artist manager, PRA Records), Martha Reeves (artist), Perry Resnick (RZO Royalty Management), Paul Robinson (Warner Music Group), Jessica Goldenberg (Warner Music Group) Cary Sherman (RIAA), Laurie Soriano (King, Holmes, Paterno and Soriano, LLP), Darius Van Arman (Secretly Group), Jon GlassRon Wilcox (Warner Music Group) and Victor Zaraya (Concord) (Razor & Tie).

• Why it should be changed: The existing list of board members is no longer correct and does not reflect member departures or new board members over the last seven years.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

^{[1] [2] [3]}

Hannrose (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Copy: SoundExchange is an advocate for the reform of U.S. music licensing laws, seeking to ensure that music creators earn fair market value for their work when it is used on any music platform. During the 115th Congress, SoundExchange actively supported the Fair Pay Act of 2017 (H.R.1836) and the CLASSICS Act (H.R.3301). It is a founding member of musicFIRST, a coalition of organizations representing musicians, recording artists, managers, music businesses, and performance rights advocates.

• Proposed Copy: SoundExchange is an advocate for the reform of U.S. music licensing laws, seeking to ensure that music creators earn fair market value for their work when it is used on any music platform. During the 115th Congress, SoundExchange actively supported the Fair Pay Act of 2017 (H.R.1836) and the CLASSICS Act (H.R.3301), and helped lead efforts to successfully pass the Music Modernization Act (H.R.5447). ^[1] The American Music Fairness Act (H.R.4130) was reintroduced to the 117th Congress in February 2023 with the endorsement of SoundExchange, AFL-CIO, the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the American Federation of Musicians, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and SAG-AFTRA. ^[2] SoundExchange It is a founding member of musicFIRST, a coalition of organizations representing musicians, recording artists, managers, music businesses, and performance rights advocates.

• Why it should be changed: Previous copy has not been updated since 2017 and no longer reflects SoundExchange's advocacy work in the music industry. Readers looking for information on SoundExchange can not currently find up-to-date information on this Wikipedia page related to their advocacy work.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References provided in-text.

Hannrose (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannrose (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]