Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Seeks Royalties From Radio
SierraPete writes "First it was Napster; then it was Internet radio; then it was little girls, grandmothers, and dead people. But now our friends at the RIAA are going decidedly low-tech. The LA Times reports that the RIAA wants royalties from radio stations. 70 years ago Congress exempted radio stations from paying royalties to performers and labels because radio helps sell music. But since the labels that make up the RIAA are not getting the cash they desire through sales of CDs, and since Internet and satellite broadcasters are forced to cough up cash to their racket, now the RIAA wants terrestrial radio to pay up as well."
I truly hope they get what they want, it seems like the only thing that could possibly take down Clear Channel.
This would basically ruin both CC and the RIAA. Without the radio telling the masses what to like, CD sales are doomed.
-- lol pwned
"Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills."
Yeah because they should be allowed to sit around all day earning money just because they are so great.
Pfff, it won't fly. The radio industry is too strong collectively for this to work. Plus also how could they even get close to having this accepted internationally?
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
One of 2 things will probably happen:
1) RIAA offends the courts by trying to reverse Congress and fails, and loses some steam and (more) public credibility (with those who think they have any).
2) RIAA bribes the right people and that law gets reversed, which then costs our country its music-playing radio stations and the music industry loses the majority of its sales.
I'm failing to see a down side....
I'd like to see all radio stations play only independent music for one day. See how the RIAA likes that..
If terrestrial radio falls, we will be left with nothing but talk radio. Paul Harvey all day!? NOOOOOO!!!
I'm just hoping maybe.... the judges will know what the hell radio is and realize and understand exactly what the RIAA is doing and not get confused/persuaded other ways by some techno-speak in the past.
...when reality and The Onion collide: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696
This is great news. There are only like 2 big radio conglomerates out there. They typically replay the same crap that the labels spoon feed them over and over again. Now, let's say they have to PAY to play that crap. Wouldn't it make sense to maybe play local stuff that doesn't cost a dime? Maybe it makes sense to play those albums that are not covered by the RIAA?
The best part is that if this is instituted it must be instituted across the board. They can't give radio stations breaks on a specific song over another. If they do, then this is payola. You can't pay radio stations to play your song. A discount on royalties is the same as paying them. Maybe we might hear some variety on the radio.
Again, another strategy not thought out to the logical conclusion.
From TFA:
Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills.
Yes, it's unfair that people are forced to work to pay their bills. There should be free money for all with no incentive to work. In a perfect world, congress should force everyone to pay record companies money, so record companies could distribute the wealth in whatever way they see fit.
I wonder who is going to pay for this since the artist wants his music on the radio. Record company pays radiostations fees to play their song on the radio. So in the end nothing will change, the music isn't going to get any better. The rich stay rich kind of thing...
What exactly is terstrial radio?
You post Soviet Russia jokes like you rode the short bus to school.
It all depends on how corrupt Congress is ... we're in deep trouble!
[Insert pithy quote here]
So wait, the law acknowledges that radio infringing on the rights of musicians is okay because it encourages people to buy the music. However illegally downloading it doesn't do this? WTF? How are the two different. I understand the RIAA's logic here. If one has a particular rule then the other should as well. Now having said that, I think the RIAA and I differ on which rule should be moved to which system ;)
Is that Clear Channel has lots of expensive lawyers, too. Also, even if this does work, it would be like taking a sawed off shotgun to their one remaining foot. When are these guys going to figure out that their business model just doesn't work anymore and will likely never work again?
In Sweden we have had such system in place for many years.
http://www.stim.se/stim/prod/stimv4eng.nsf
Zere vere zwei peanuts valking down der Straße, and von vas assaulted...peanut
This would drive radio stations to playing non-RIAA music, accelerating the RIAA's demise. There's nothing that could be better for the anti-RIAA forces than having them expensively bite the hand that feeds them new listeners.
I don't know why they're committing suicide this way, but I'll gladly set up the chair and help tie the knot.
They are attacking their own advertisers now. Most people purchase music after hearing it, which they usually hear it on the radio. Lets fast forward 5 years pretending this is successful. Radio stations are now put out of business because of lawsuits or refusal to pay the RIAA's ransom so as CD sales continue to fall; that will leave the RIAA scratching their heads wondering why, when they just killed their most wide spread advertising tool.
Whats next? Suing stores that play music inside for shoppers?
Ok, how about all media outlets just stop playing music at all for ... like a month. Then see what THAT does for the music business.
... well.. the RIAA taking a long walk on a short peer comes to mind
If their sales improve, they may have a case - if not,
I have spoken'eth.
This will be the last nail in their coffins. I do not need to explain why, it is abvious for any person with a little sence.
Of course, RIAA has bacome senceless long ago and its own worse enemy.
Like the old fable of the scorpion and the frog.
A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the scorpion's prominent stinger, the frog demurs.
``Don't be scared,'' the scorpion says. ``If something happens to you, I'll drown.'' Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.
The dying frog croaks, ``How could you -- you know that you'll drown?''
``It's my nature,'' gasps the sinking scorpion.
Sting the radios, RIAA, and sink alone. They will start promoting indie labels.
It's not like the radio stations aren't paying money to play music right now - they are. They pay money to the composer and the publisher.
All they're asking is that the artist and label get paid, too. Satellite radio and Internet radio have to pay the performance royalty. Why is broadcast getting the special treatment?
I know this invokes Godwin's law. But the RIAA is nothing more than a group of neo-nazi's out to destroy the music industry piece by piece. Sure they say they are helping the industry, but hitler said that he would help Germany too...
At first, I thought Slashdot had been duped into posting an Onion article on a similar topic.
This will be the end of music on radio. Period. AM radio is barely a blip on the screen relegated to church broadcasts and a few EIB partners now that 'talk' radio is moving to FM. There is already quite a track record of success using the 'talk' radio format. So when the RIAA does this, the radio stations I don't think will waste a lot of money fighting it. They'll just pull the plug and go to a 100% 'talk' radio programming schedule. I'm mixed about this. On the one I have zero tolerance for windbaggery and Crazy Redneck Libertarian Assholes in Stereo. On the other hand music on the radio truthfully died years ago. The only 'music' on the radio is Ballad Rock, "Country" and the meekest R&B/Hip Hop. So let that die. Even college stations are dropping music programming.
It will be a shame I guess to lose some of the more esoteric stuff like the all Jazz format of WSHA or the weekend world music programs on some of the left side of the band college and public radio stations. But if it means that that the RIAA has to eat dog food and sleep in a cardboard box on the sidewalk then it's worth it.
A long time ago my father (a construction worker) told me why you didn't see many houses made out of brick in California. Seems the bricklayer's union became way, way too successful and powerful, demanding more and more pay up to the point where people couldn't afford brick construction any more and moved to frame and plasterboard houses with tar shingle roofs (this was back in the early 50's). Basically they priced themselves out of the market, but they couldn't roll back their demands due to the nature of the organisation, and their leaders chose economic death over political death as an organisation because people are funny that way.
As Hawkeye once said, the operation was a success but the patient died.
Funny thing though, the frame houses seemed to flex a bit but the brick houses tended to rubble during earthquakes, lovely Aesopian message there.
Off-topic? No, just a very extended metaphor. The RIAA will eventually have absolute control over a commodity that absolutely nobody will buy. And when they start annoying Congressmen more than their lobbyists are worth by stepping outside the bounds of their anointed playing field, they're going to get slapped down hard. Nobody has a right to make money, the market has to be there, and RIAA is killing the goose.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
....and although I am usually in a particularly bad disposition against most anything the RIAA has been doing recently.
I think that at the very least there is something to be said for this. If anything, the radio stations are racking up
income hand over fist from all of those insipid commercials we are forced to listen to, and it would only seem fair
that besides the songwriters and publishers (who are justly being compensated), the owners of the sound recordings
also get a piece of that income, which wouldn't affect talk radio, news and sports stations, but mostly for those stations
who have a 'music format', said music being the main reason they are able to remain in business.
This exemption business was something that was passed more than a half-century ago, originally allowed to support the massive investment
buildout in infrastructure which radio had to go through, long since recouped, and the fact that it still stands today shows the colossal power
of the lobby behind the stations/conglomerates such as Clear Channel.
This makes the RIAA's position that Internet broadcasters have to pay a bit more sensible, although totally irrelevant to the reality of the Internet.
Being that records are not selling that much anymore, and that people still listen to terrestrial radio quite a bit, it would make sense that some
of the income stream commercial radio is deriving from music should be used to give people an incentive to create more of the same material
the stations are using to earn income with.
I really don't see what's far-fetched or ludicrous about this; there should however be exemptions for not-for-profit, college radios, and low-power transmitters.
Z.
Strange. Someone who worked in radio once told me that radio stations kept records of what songs they played in order to pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI (a penny or two a song, I think). So I believe this is still the case. I always wondered if the RIAA would try to get a share, too.
Anyway, if radio stations can't avoid paying ASCAP and BMI then how successful would they be in fighting off the RIAA?
My blog
Surely it should have been up to the rights holders how much they charge. Not government. If they want their music to be advertised, they should decide with the radio station how much the music is worth the the radio stations revenues, how much the advertising is worth to the label and sort out a price based on these facters. Who decided that these two numbers should be the same?
All the record industry is asking is that those who distribute their music be obliged to pay a royalty. Since this is the way the copyright system is supposed to work, this exception seems ludicrous.
From the summary: But since the labels that make up the RIAA are not getting the cash they desire through sales of CDs, and since Internet and satellite broadcasters are forced to cough up cash to their racket.
I mean seriously. Are these people hungry? Are they homeless? Are they unable to pay their bills? Is their mansion really too small?
I ran into a former owner of a CD store in a college town a few years ago, and she said that she had to close down because CDs were not selling, so she sold the business, and started another one. She said explicitly that downloads hurt her bottom line, but oh well, times change, and she had to change with the times.
I mean, how many steam engine engineers are trying to sue these new fangled gasoline, oil, diesel, electric, fuel cell, etc engineers? Or their customers, or their kids, or dead people?
To me, this is some kind of psychological or socioligical problem that is not properly addressed as such, and the bottom line is that _everybody_ is losing because of it. The real problem is that the government is an accessory to their psychological/sociological problems, because I guess they have the same issues.
Why isn't the government or anybody concerned about real issues like national debt, health care (oxymoron) reform, energy costs, housing costs, and the stuff that actually affects real people that are real problems. I mean, if nobody bought a 1970s technology like a CD is ever again, would it really be a big deal?
Is this kind of sociopathy just "normal" when a society is collapsing on itself? Does anybody know what the real issues are here? This is a control/powertrip thing that makes no sense.
Amarican radio is not particularly better than European radio - both are more of the same and still more of the same. Which is probably because that sums up American and European music pretty well. Go listen to some Japanese music.
Lars Ullrich does receive royalty payments for his songs being played as a fee is paid each time a song is played on Radio or TV in the UK and also in Ireland. I do not know about the rest of Europe* but I do know this the distribution system sucks.
... (Proof that there is a huge loophole in the French law)
A musician from outside Athlone in Ireland had an inspector call asking where his IMRO (Organisation that collects royalties) license was. He went into his office and threw the cheque that IMRO had sent him of 25p (Roughly 35 to 45 cents) at the inspector.
Meanwhile we are told that poor starving former Glasnevin inhabitant Bono (and his pals) receive a large amount of money because it is estimated that they get the most plays.
*I suspect France does as 25% of radio plays has to be local (in French) meaning that Celine Dion gets 9000+ plays for Pour Que Tu M'aimes Encores? as she is
Late addition. Won't you please think of the lawyers? They would be out of work without cases like this happening!
I haven't heard a better idea in a long time.
RIAA has to fight it out with Clear Channel, which definitely has the resources to fight them.
This will finally get public attention on copyright, royalties, and how aggressively the RIAA has been acting for the past several years. Most people don't know much about internet radio, but they know plenty about the noise box that keeps them entertained as they drive to and from work.
Then, if the RIAA are successful, they'll be making unsigned and non-RIAA artists who will happily sign royalty-free contracts, far more attractive to radio stations. More radio play, means more sales, which means real competition with RIAA.
I see a huge upside, and very little downside, for the public.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It's kind of sad, I would say, when life imitates The Onion.
The word is "no." I am therefore going anyway.
You won't be able to give your music away in the future. Giving the MAFIAA a new revenue stream only gives them more money to do more harm. The only place to stop them is at the voting booth.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First off let me say I think it is reasonable for an artist (or a label) to want compensation for music played on the radio. BUT why does the RIAA fucking monopoly have to get in there all the time? Why should the RIAA / Congress decide how much airplay is worth to the artist or the radio station? Why not create a market where each artist / label could decide the price of each song? Then if you want publicity you could set the price at zero. If you think you are doing the radio station a favour letting them play your music set the price high.
All the systems are automated these days anyway, the could add this if they wanted.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
It may not be suicide when they'll be able to point to the effect on the sales, and lie about it, say "Ahah! Piracy!" Despite the fact everyone (other than them and the legislators) will know darn well they are bringing it upon themselves.
...And they get retaliatory legislation from their lobbyists (using extreme drop in sales as justification) that makes electronic sharing punishable by death, imposes a mandatory computer and CD-tax whose proceeds will be paid to the RIAA, and permits the RIAA to force spyware, cameras, and listening stations to be installed, wherever computers are used.
Appearing to commit suicide in the short term may be the way to get some RIAA-preserving legislation in the long term. I don't know if it turns out to work or not, but it's a possibility.
-Styopa
Coming soon, to a radio station near you! 5 minutes of uninterrupted music, followed by a short (30 minute) commercial break.
This next song, Junk, by the Trash Brothers, is brought to you by Gillete Razors, Mountain Dew, Coca Cola, and Serta Matresses.
Radio stations will have to make more money to pay these extra royalties, and how will they do that without playing more commercials and less music?
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Spongebob: [voice over]"At least I'm safe in my own mind...." Patrick: [voice over]"At least I'm safe in my own mind...." Spongebob: "Ack!!!"
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If this passes, which I doubt it will, what is next? Will coffee shops and restaurants be required to pay? Maybe the grocery stores. Or perhaps even chargeing you for every time you play a song on your CD or mp3 player. Their greed knows no end.
Just not to RIAA, they pay the writers of the songs through ASCAP, which is like the song writer's version of the RIAA. I worked for a guy who wrote a song that actually got some air time on the radio, and he eventually got some checks in the mail. Note that artists who write their own songs actually make money when they are played on the radio, too, but the ones that don't, don't make any money from radio play.
7 89776,00.html
See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,
Great is ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers). To ASCAP belong about 1,450 composers and writers and about 130 music publishing houses in the U. S. ASCAP holds the performance rights to their works. ASCAP collects royalties for its members, deducts about 20% for operating overhead, 10% more for the 20 foreign performing-rights societies with which it is affiliated. What is left is allocated, 50-50, between composers and writers and publishers. Distribution to individuals is arbitrary, based not upon number of performances but upon ASCAP's fixed ratings.
Radio, the juiciest source of ASCAP royalties, pays the society monthly on a contract basis, muttering horrible epithets. The present contracts, under which individual stations pay 5% of net receipts plus varying fees, networks pay nothing, expire next December. Last month ASCAP revealed the terms of the next contract: 3%-5% for individual stations, 7½% for the networks. Radio paid a total of $4,300,000 last year, would pay as high as $8,500,000 (its own estimate) in 1941. Last week the two major networks, CBS and NBC, gave their answer: nothing doing. For the first time they had a weapon with which to hit back.
Founded last fall, with stock owned by broadcasters, was Broadcast Music Inc., a music pool intended to rival ASCAP (TIME, Sept. 25). Last week B.M.I, issued its first catalogue: six songs, (sample: We Would Make Beautiful Music Together) which to many a broadcaster sounded sweeter than any of ASCAP's.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I'd like to see all radio stations play only independent music for one day. See how the RIAA likes that.
Do you really think the MAFIAA and US government would tolerate such disrespect? They want to be able to charge against the will of the artist and publisher and may already have it. Something needs to change.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well, after all the hubub surrounding the Internet royalities stuff, I can't see how this is going to work at all in their favor...
I think this is a desperate move on their part as they head into the death-throes. Expect a lot of news about label "kick-backs" and stuff like that to be dredged up in response.
Insert Sig Here
The RIAA's member labels already collect royalties for songs played on the radio. Radio is not exempt from those royalties - in fact, they usually make up the majority of the income a recording produces, now that songs get played over and over, forever, in our pop/classic corporate "rock" broadcast culture.
Those "performance" royalties are collected by whichever agency represents an artist who wrote the songs: BMI, ASCAP are the biggest, the remaining <10% of artists are represented by a couple of "big little" agencies, and then a bunch of really little ones. But those agencies are at least as corrupt as the record labels which collect sales income, then find every excuse to count "expenses" before returning the minimum (if any) share of "profit" to the artists who made the record. Very little of the performance royalty is paid to the artists, and the return to them is pretty random.
This formula is also worked against the rounding effect of the sampling for determining royalty payments: either one "representative" hour a day, or one "representative" day a week is usually used, which of course means only the most popular artists have a chance of registering in a sample and getting paid. Since the most popular artists get played so much more (the same goddamn song, year after year, too), only the biggest artists get cut in. To make it even worse, the distribution of top artists in the "random" sample is used to divide the royalty collected from radio stations which pay a subscription fee as if they're playing every artist. So in effect those biggest artists are collecting the share of the littler artists who do get played, but who get rounded down. Those "rarities" and "from the vault's back wall" bands they're playing to keep you listening to the classic rock station so it sounds "fresh", with occasional "new" (30 year old) songs, all get lost in the rounding down of the sampling process. So their most valuable songs return the least share of the royalties to their artists.
And of course the BMI/ASCAP/etc collection agencies just underreport plays and percentages to the artists. I have friends in bands which registered half their artists with BMI, the other half with ASCAP, to see which paid better. For some bands BMI paid their half more, for other bands ASCAP paid their half more, sometimes 5-10x different, when they should all have paid the same. Then, since artists are flaky and move around & disappear on benders (or OD), the agencies often collect money they "don't know how to pay", so they just keep it. This also happens whenever there's the slightest possibility that a contract disagreement or unknown might allow different interpretations of how much should go in the check.
All of those scams are also fed back into the radio station's decicisions of how much to play (and promote) which songs. Since there's money attached, money gets spent on those deciders to influence which songs are played when. And to influence which "random" hour/day is picked to report who gets how much.
So now the RIAA wants to get in on the act. And of course they'll charge (mostly independent) streaming radio station even more than they charge (nearly all corporate) broadcast radio stations. Right when the Copyright Office has just rocketed already insane streaming royalties through the roof, threatening the entire noncommercial and small webcaster industry segments.
Broadcast radio already sucks worse than ever. Streaming was the only hope for people to escape the corporate noose in realtime and archived media delivery. Right as streaming was starting to get a hold in video, presenting an on-demand P2P (or communities small to large) world of all media, both kinds of royalties got jacked up to destroy the free publishers. Right as cameraphones also have the bandwidth (and caches) to play streaming radio, and even upload "news from the street", the media mainstream corporate got yet another life extension from the government, killing
--
make install -not war
My guess would be that the RIAA is actually trying to *control* what radio stations play, since that annoying "law enforcement" stuff is getting in the way of payola.
A major record label can create a list of songs they want played, and offer special royalty-free licenses to broadcast them as a promotion. Independent artists, bands that the RIAA's members just doesn't feel like promoting for whatever commercial reason, etc., won't have the beureucratic infrastructure to *offer* such an arrangement, even if they wished to do so.
And, of course, if they don't like particular *stations*, for whatever reason, they can refuse to cut deals with them.
It's the same story as with internet radio - it's all about control.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Oh this has nothing to do with music sales and traditional broadcast radio. This is still about internet "radio".
Internet "radio" is going back to congress asking to be treated like a real radio station and get back to a zero royalty rate. The RIAA wants to head this off and say that real radio needs to pay too. It won't work, but they are going to give it a go...
which is a concept that the RIAA seems not to understand. Radio and TV airplay are what drives sales and in turn what attracts listeners to listen to the radio. If radio and TV thought for a while and bypassed the RIAA, music radio would probably survive, but for how long would the RIAA survive without this free promotion? Let them cut off their nose and see how many copies the new Madonna LP sells without the radio.
buhu! So they can afford one ivory backscratcher less. God forbid they should actually have to work for their money.
I want to be stinking rich and complaing about being ripped off too.
In a perfect world, congress should force everyone to pay record companies money, so record companies could distribute the wealth in whatever way they see fit.
Gee, that would be like them collecting money from strangers without any investment or effort. Why not just let them collect money for every song played regardless of ownership or artist intent? That would achieve the same thing because people are always going to want music. Like media taxes for "piracy", the new rules are closer to the nationalization of recorded music than most people realize.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If the excemption is passed, *all* radio stations will be more like college radio. The record companies will have to give the little know stuff away just to get air time. This could concievably level the playing field so that small bands could actually compete with "Madonna".
Radio Stations will adapt, and only play the expensive stuff during peak times when it will get them the most listens for their advertisers. During most of the day, and the evening hours they'll be able to play the free stuff from independent artists. It might even mean that stations will have to hire an actual program director to seek out local artists that appeal to locals.
Like any change, some stations won't be able to adapt and will wither and die, but there will be a bunch of kids with a vision to take their place. Imagine a station that only played music licensed by a creative commons license that allowed unlimited radio play.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
so after they kill radio and there is no way for people to hear the new songs i guess they will be attaching the undrground/indie music scene. after all it must be their fault that no one buys any new music.
Marketeer: "Boss, we have a problem here: RIAA wants us to pay another 3% of our revenues."
Boss: "Right. Fire up another 3% broadcast time in commercials."
Marketeer: "But Boss, this will shrink by another 3% our music broadcasting time. Listeners will not appreciate."
Boss: "Who fu**ing cares?"
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
I'm confused... Do they still broadcast using radio waves?
So don't listen to the popular stations. In NYC/NJ, we have 89.9, 89.5, 91.1, etc, that are university or independent stations and play a lot more interesting stuff than the big stations. Plus we have several classical stations. Play with the dial a bit, stop looking at the billboards, and enjoy.
-b.
-b.
Someone should start a not for profit music production company that releases music for artists over the internet.
Most musicians don't make a pile of money even if they have record company contracts*. If the RIAA manages to shut down music on radio stations, the only way anyone will find out about new music is on YouTube, etc. That creates more of a level playing field for most musicians and, hopefully, more money.
*The standard scandal is that you can sell a million records (OK I'm dating myself) and not making any money. In fact there are cases where the musicians ended up owing money to the record companies because ALL the promotional expenses come out of the musician's cut.
Why is broadcast getting the special treatment?
Because broadcast spectrum was once a scarce, expensive and regulated resource owned by the public. The rules were made to insure that resource was well used and include the forced licensing terms you mention for the composer. The original goal of copyright law is to distribute culture and advance the state of the art and those rules can be interpreted that way. If the goal had been to support publishers and artists, they would be paid a stipend without further obligation.
The new rules look more like a prop for a dying industry than ever before. They allow the RIAA to collect fees on all music with or without the artist and publisher's consent.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The RIAA members would be selling more music if the didn't fight downloading.
Downloading has replaced Radio for many of our "youth" as how they learn about music. Based on why Radio is free, so should downloading.
Oh, and RIAA members need to find music that doesn't suck.
http://www.hawknest.com/
I would say what you have is amazing in the US - practically anyone can set up a radio station...
It costs so much here to operate a radio staation that they are all shite because they all cover 'mainstream' things...
sure the BBC is good in many respects, I'm all for the BBC, but unless you plan on listing to stations devoted to:
8 songs of pop
#(radio 1)
anything from 30's to now which includes just about everything
#(radio 2)
classical music
#(radio 3)
news, radio plays, and unfunny radio comedy
#(radio 4)
sport
#(radio five [live])
-
on DAB digital radio and on the internet there is
There is also 6music (which is alternative / 'indie'[guitar-pop])
and several others which no-one listens to...
so what does this mean:
well think what stations you have in the US?
country, hiphop, rock, community, that crazy Evangelist who always seems to be there etc
We don't have any of that.
there are NO terrestrial community radio stations.
There are no terrestrial folk music stations
Compared to you we have nothing
Now I'm not pointing the blame some-one else can do that.
But you Americans are LUCKY
[I'm sticking to last.fm anyway]
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
To me this just sounds like a bunch of saber rattling. The baby learned that if they throw something down, mommy or daddy will pick it up. Its a game. Rewarded behavior.
However, who pays in the end?
The RIAA demands money to allow the radio station to air their work? How about the RIAA PAYS the radio stations to advertise their product?
Radio is missing a huge business opportunity. They can sell their own airtime to the music industry and make even more money.
Does this remind anyone of how copyright law gets legislated?
"Hey, you Internet radio people! The normal radio people are paying $$. You should pay $$$$ because it's New and Different and it can be copied all over the place. And now we're getting a law passed for it."
"Okay, okay, here you go."
"Hey, normal radio people! Internet radio people are paying $$$$. You guys should be paying $$$$$$, I mean we can't even measure how many people you reach! And now we're getting a law passed for it."
"Okay, okay, here you go."
"Hey, Internet radio people! Normal radio people pay $$$$$$, why are you only paying $$$$?"
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
The next logical step is for the RIAA to go after radio listeners.
Which begs the question: at what point will the RIAA feel that artists are being properly compensated?
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it, but this one is mine.
Good. Let the RIAA squeeze everyone they can.
The end point is where the masses walk away or are criminals.
At some point, let the rule of law take hold. If they are soldiers with a multi gig MP3 server, let them be fined. If the are employed by the government, let them be the 1st to be checked for compliance as part of their job.
WFMU in the NY/NJ area plays all kinds of great music and has no commercials. Their DJs are actually amusing, yet they don't talk too much, and you can listen to them online and even listen to archives from the last 7 years or so (though older than two weeks is lower quality real audio).
http://www.wfmu.org/
is a tremendously powerful and gigantic lizard, who can kill dozens with just the sweep of its tail ...and its tail tends to sweep a lot when it's in its death throes, doing a lot of damage to everything close by, when it is facing extinction
so do what small dextrous nocturnal mammals do best, fellow inhabitants of the dawning age of the internet dominated media landscape, and run and hide from the slow clumsy dimwitted blind and deaf dinosaur, until it finally stumbles and draws its last breath
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696
I bet you someone reported the onion as fact again... everyone just calm down.
Have you looked at the date on that link? 1940. Good job with the karma-whoring, buddy. You might also want plagarizing an article that actually uses dated language.
;^)
For the record, BMI was not founded last fall. It's been around since 1939, which is an eternity in radio. ASCAP currently claims to have 275,000 members! In fact, being a member of ASCAP or BMI is virtually a requirement if you are a professional musician, as is being a member of a professional union.
But I'd like to also point out, having worked in radio, that ASCAP and BMI fees can be huge for small stations. The radio station I belonged to was owned by a university, and as a result, the university was able to negotiate a blanket contract for all peformances, radio stations, and jukeboxes operated on the campus (excluding the big performance venue, which was actually subcontracted to an outside vendor). We could have paid this fee ourselves, but it would have been a huge chunk of our operating costs.
This is greed, plain and simple. The reason why the RIAA wants a cut is because ASCAP and BMI (and SESAC, if you count Europe) fees do not go back to the labels, unless the label owns the copyright on the score (contrasted with owning the copyright on the recording). ASCAP and BMI fees are generally regarded as a good thing, because this is money that artists actually see. When a radio station plays a Nirvana cover of a Meat Puppets tune, the Meat Puppets get the dough. This is a good thing for small artists.
But there is a downside: ASCAP and BMI reporting is, at best, wildly inaccurate. "Charting" happens infrequently, and relies on stations actually taking the time to report this information correctly. Often it is not. I've heard rumors that SoundScan also has a service that scans the airwaves using a detection heuristic, but I can't find any information about that service, so maybe it was just speculation on the part of one of my coworkers.
Anyway, labels send radio stations boxes and boxes of free music. We're supposed to pay them now for playing their crap? I thought that's what all the coke and blowjobs were for
Is to start charging you royalties every time you hear a song. Got the Brady Bunch theme song playing over and over in your head? Pay up buster! Walk by a department store playing Huey Lewis and the News? Get out that credit card!
It's been said over and over again: If you want to end the RIAA, stop listening to the stuff they sell. Frankly, I can't stand the crap they've been putting out for the past 10 years. Most of the music I listen to these days are small bands with freely available music or on indie labels. There's so much great music out there that doesn't have anything to do with the RIAA.
What we really need is a better way for the average person to find out which of these free or indie label bands fall into their area of interests so that they can find music they like without rewarding the RIAA.
- 10. Marching bands
- 9. Wedding singers
- 8. Kindergarten classes (they see a veritable MINT in The Hokey Pokey alone!)
- 7. "Hold-Music"
- 6. "Elevator-Music"
- 5. Doorbells (esp. the kind like at the Clampett mansion on The Beverly Hillbillies)
- 4. Ambulance sirens (their lawyers are nostalgic about chasing them anyway...)
- 3. Organ grinders
- 2. Merry-go-rounds
And the #1 next target for their evil attentions:This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Great metaphor, but California doesn't have many brick houses because we have earthquakes and masonry construction is far more dangerous in those cases.
Wood "gives" and flexes during minor earthquakes, often with little or no damage. If the house "breaks" wood is relatively light, you will likely walk away from the disaster. Brick cracks if the house is even slightly flexed and a brick wall falling on you is ill-advised.
I'm not even sure traditional masonry is allowable in new construction here.
The part I find most interesting is the fact that it's pretty standard for the big recording studios to bribe stations to play their music. Sony got its hand slapped for this a year or two ago, but it appears to be commonplace.
So, if the RIAA demands royalties from radio stations for playing music they were paid to put on air, and the companies behind the RIAA are the same ones who're paying the radio stations...
Is this robbing Peter to pay Peter?
All of this may be a ploy to get everyone to pay for Satellite radio (or an equivalent). There is a huge majority of us paying for TV now (how many of us actually get to watch the shows or programs broadcasted on TV), Cable/Sat is going through the roof and I guess they want a piece of that pie. With DRM enabled media player and PC's controlling some of the content the last thing to suck revenue out of the general public is to restrict the airwaves and encode the broadcast for subscription paying customers.
I would assume just like HDTV, forcing everyone to buy a new subscription enabled receivers (radio stations can purchase large blocks of freq.) and encode all their broadcasts to allow only those people paying is the next more for the RIAA.
I quit listening to music about two years ago, I listen to a song once in a blue moon but that's about it, hardly anything to fork over more dough than I can count on one hand for.
I have to admit, my life has been better since doing so & I get more accomplished.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
As fas as I know, the majors pay the programmers of the main radio stations so they will put their records "on the air", knowing that otherwise nobody would hear about them nor buy them. Of course, this is not done officially, but from somebody having worked in Radio-Luxembourg, I have been told that. Frome the same source, what is paid to the disc-jockeys represents slightly more that what the radio stations gives to the RIAA. Just my two cents.
Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
Sorry, radio stations. I'm the guy who keeps pointing out that it's easier to get the latest top ten songs by sampling pop radio than from P2P, and that the quality is far better.
On a slightly related note, will I go to prison for this story I posted at K5 a few years ago because of the DMCA's prohibition of circumventing worthless DRM?
Damn, now the RIAA and the radio stations hate me! I'm doomed!
-mcgrew
The radio stations should collectively turn around and start charging air time to the artists and labels that are demanding royalties from the radio stations. If the labels want their crap played, charge them 10 cents per minute per listener. A 3 minute song would cost the artist/label $30,000.00 to be played to an audience of one hundred thousand listeners.
Give the non-commercial locals and indies that aren't demanding royalties a break with free air time.
Old Model 1.Produce Music, by enticing and exploiting naive young artist with Faustian Contract. 2.Payola - pay, and otherwise illegally influence, radio stations to play music 3.????? 4.Profit
New Model 1.Produce Music, by enticing and exploiting naive young artist with Faustian Contract. 2.Payola - pay, and otherwise illegally influence, radio stations to play music 3.Demand, and otherwise illegally influence, money back for the same radio stations for playing the music. 4.Profit. More.
Please everyone, the time has come, the time is now. Tell your friends, tell your family, to stop buying music from record companies. These people are pure evil and must be stopped. It's good for them, it's like euthanasia, they are already committing economic suicide, let's just help them by speeding up the process.
RIAA killed the radio star.
If only I had mod points today! You are 100% right.
The RIAA already pays the radio stations to tell people what to like. They have all but admitted to manipulating playlists via bribes because they acknowledge that radio play == sales. So I'm not entirely sure how they are now going to argue that radio play is suddenly detrimental. Particularly not when they're still actively engaged in it. (though now via a corporate shell-game to side-step the FCC)
My guess, is that the RIAAs is trying to put an end to payola. If the stations legally 'owe' the RIAA money for broadcasting, then they can negotiate airplay without having to write checks. They'll just grant the broadcasters performance rights 'coupons' for certain artists/tracks. Nothing really changes, the labels cut down some of the cost-of-doing business.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
RIAA will ask elevator operators to cough up money for their elevator music, per floor per person.
Dear RIAA,
Fuck off, now and forever. Thanks.
Hugs and Kisses,
The World
If something like this goes over (and we all have our doubts), it will be interesting to see the underground community respond with pirate radio stations. It's easy! All you need is an ipod full of illicitly obtained digital media and a nice strong FM transmitter. Then get a boat and park in international waters, or have a buddy drive you all over the place...don't stop for too long, because you not only have to dodge the short stubby fingers of the *IAA, but the long federal arms of the FCC as well.
Here's something to think about...
When's the last time you actually heard music on the radio? For cry'n out loud, you get 2, maybe 3 songs before a commercial break lasting what? 2-3 minutes? So carry the 2..... Radio stations will not be forking over uber amounts of cash from this it would seem. The only tragedy here is the likely death of the "40 Minute Rock blocks" that happen on occasion.
That said I am totally against this and the RIAA, but I hate radio too. If we thought radio was bad enough now, can't wait for this to take effect. The RIAA is shooting the artists and the consumers looking for some damn variety in the foot.
No words of wisedom here.
yes, indeed, they do have blanket BMI and ASCAP licenses to allow them to play recorded music. they don't have to log the songs and pay by play, but there is a pool of broadcast money that the agencies divvy up. kind of like Macy's had better have their blanket license, or the Tone Police can come in and take them by the lawyers for the background music.
kind of like you can take out a blanket license for your website, go see bmi.com for details.
what congress did in the copyright law in the 30s was write a law that, in one section, required the music folks to license their music for broadcast and other public purposes. not create a free ride.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
... she won't be getting from radio stations. She won't see a dime of the royalty. It will all be siphoned off by the middlemen. The only dime she'll see is from getting paid by the RIAA and others to be their celebrity shill.
They already pay fees to play this music. Ever heard of ASCAP and BMI? That's why indie radio stations can't play commercial artists. Radio stations already pay to play, and now the RIAA wants royalties on top of licensing fees?
What's the difference, someone point it out to me, please!
My Babylon
While part of me says this is a great idea because it will forcibly wean radio away from the RIAA, I can help but think of the evil possibilities. Demanding royalties will force out smaller less RIAA friendly stations. Pricing structures for royalties could be tier based so that top 40 stuff gets a discount rate to oldies or less promoted bands. In the long run this could force even more control over what is heard over the air.
The idea that thousands of radio stations will balk and go non-riaa is nice but not realistic. More likely the only thing this will lead to are job cuts for on-air personalities and more clearchannel type automation.
How have we allowed ourselves to be a society that pays to be advertised to? We pay to have clothing manufacturers labels emblazoned across our shirts, we pay for cable TV so we can watch commercials with crystal clarity, we even pay for ring tones which do nothing but promote the artist of the moment. This is just a step up the chain, suckering radio stations into paying to advertise the labels product. Hopefully I'm wrong and more than a handful of stations will have the balls to stand up and refuse, it would be a hoot to see the RIAA peddle their crap with just word of mouth and see how long that lasts.
"Anyway, if radio stations can't avoid paying ASCAP and BMI then how successful would they be in fighting off the RIAA?"
Very. The radio stations already pay the immaterial rights holder for the use of their work. The RIAA holds the distribution rights solely, and also originally these rights were limited to the medium only. The plastic. Legal bandying seems over the years to have caused these rights to somewhat bleed into the content as well. That's mainly what sets RIAA apart from their sister organisations in different parts of the world. That's the wedge they're attempting to use here.
I never thought of your aspect of what this is. Personally I like this look at things.
What I was wondering if maybe the RIAA going after radio stations, something that Congress exempted years ago, would not really alert Congress to the actions of the RIAA. I mean, sure we have seen their act, and it has made enough news, but things like that tend to really get glossed over by the mainstream person. I think by taking their case to the steps of Congress, they might really be opening themselves to some scrutiny that maybe they don't want, by people they don't want.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
No, no it wouldn't. Don't fool yourself. People who listen to radio, for the most part listen to music the RIAA controls because they like the music. That's why people pirate the music the RIAA controls. Clear Channel exists because there are lots of people that like its product. Sad? Perhaps, but no less true.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Part of enjoying music is knowing what to expect next. They'd have to listen to your weird music numerous times before that'd be true, but they don't expect to get a chance. They know they won't be hearing it elsewhere, so it will never become a familiar tune to them.
Eat Mor Chikn.
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/
But since the labels that make up the RIAA are not getting the cash they desire ...
Uhm... they'll never get what they desire. They desire "all of it" + 1.
In this world where "success" is measured by growth and accelleration, a culture of cannibalism. If you have read [or heard] "From Good to Great" you would understand that good is the enemy of great, not a step below. It's that mentality that really seems to be causing this chaotic and carnivorous meltdown in business and culture.
For me, in my mind, I think it's perfectly apparent that there are limits to one's ability to accellerate. There are limits to growth capacity. In both cases, when limits are exceeded, bad things happen. We live in a finite world with finite reasources. If "success" is measured by how something approaches something "infinite" I'd have to say there's a flaw in the logic.
Given the amount of support given from the National Assn. of Broadcasters to Internet radio stations over royalty payments (ermm, none), I'm pretty happy for Radio stations to start paying royalties.
To paraphrase:
Hey, First they came for the music file sharers and you did nothing.
And then they went for Internet Radio Stations and still you did nothing.
And then they got the Satellite broadcasters and you didn't do anything then.
And now they're coming for you.
The radio stations can complain as much as they like, but in this situation, I can't be fucking bothered.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
Unless we consider this a "freedom of expression" versus "corporate interests" battle for control of a major block of frequency ranges, we all lose because if the RIAA wins (i.e. the mammoth music production companies such as EMI, Sony, etc.) ), the little guys automatically lose, and we get more of the corporate fodder-crap music, etc. and NO outlets for true expression.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The diversity in the US - meaning many different genres on many different stations in one market - has nothing to do with not paying royalties. It has much more to do with the way the US goverment operates the spectrum: you find an open frequency - you can have it. This means many stations operating and you can't make a buck if everyone sells the same thing. That is how you end up with a couple of urban, country, CHR, talk, adult contemporary, etc. in each market.
In Europe, traditionally, the airwaves were the domain of the goverment operated stations and only in the past decade or two have commercial broadcasters been allowed in most countries.
Also, stations pay based on profit (like XM and Sirius already do in the US) so no profit, no royalties. This means at most Clear Channel, AM/FM, et al would lose maybe 5-10% of their profit, not enough to put anyone out of business - be it corporate or independent radio.
FTA...
"The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales," said RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bainwall doesn't take into account that it's possible that sales are declining because the music being created isn't very good.
The big companies will strike deals (Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus, Infinity, et al) and leave the independents to fend for themselves.
Posted AC because IAAB (I Am A Broadcaster).
... only bought up stations because they were in financial trouble. Sharing costs by commoditizing jingles, news and so on, is the only way to make money. The whole radio industry is dying. Many don't make a profit at all. This probably will be enough to kill most of them.
Funny thing though, the frame houses seemed to flex a bit but the brick houses tended to rubble during earthquakes
Just a thought, but couldn't this be the reason you don't see many brick houses in California? Your anti-union story was cute, though.
steampunk web design
Part of enjoying music is being surprised. If you know what's going to happen before it's played, what is the point?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Random noise would offer surprise, but it sucks. :-)
People like to hum along, literally or just in their mind. They like to sway to the music. That only works if they know the song.
God help college radio
...when you go to other country, radio stations do pay royalties.
No sig for now.
Random noise is highly predictable statistically.
If you've heard the melody once or twice you should be able to follow along in your head. You should be able to feel the tension as the solo moves away, be surprised a few times as he plays around, and you should feel the release when it returns to the melody. You should be able to sway to any rock rhythm, they're not that different. Appreciating new music is really not that hard.
Frankly I think people mostly just don't like music. They may like going to concerts, but they go for the company, not the music.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No. People who listen to RIAA dominated radio stations listen to them because that's what's there. This is especially true for the stations that play newer stuff thats shouldn't rightfully be public domain stuff. Those sheeple will listen to whatever is fed to them just like they will buy whatever OS is on a Dell.
This situation will only hurt the "oldies" stations where the audience is old and cranky and set in their ways.
This might help create another generation gap: RIAA vs. Indie.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I say "Come on in, there is room for one more"
Maybe congress will eventually get hit with a clue stick and stop this nonsense. Who knows, it may take them being voted out off office after the RIAA is allowed to search house to house for Brittany Spears CD's.
vi +
these licensing and webcasting rules are killing low budget operations like college/community radio. a lot of college stations had to scrap their webstreams because of additional fees, and adding downloadable shows is a whole different licensing scheme. some may be small enough to escape it, but plenty of small non-commercial stations have been hit for all this.
college/community stations have a lot more reason to offer downloadable/podcasts of shows because they are often made of of specialty shows with a DJ that is on for 1-3 hours once a week.
Right on! Stick it to em! Show em who is "da man!"
On the serious side I can't see a downside for us. As Clear Channel owns just about everything.
It now seems as if the RIAA is joining BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC in wanting more money.
In the late 1970's/early 1980's, BMI & ASCAP (maybe both, or it was one of them-I forget which, and I'd never heard of SESAC at that time) went after clothing stores (for some reason JC Penny's comes to mind, but I could be wrong) for playing music in their clothing departments. It is the reason why Muzak (the company, not the "style") is now so popular in so many stores these days-Muzak pays the royalties while the store gets a new tape of music to play once a month or so. I recall seeing a sticker on the door of an Olive Garden stating that they only were playing (licensed) music from BMI artists in their restaurant.
FWIW, read the back of any CD from the major labels from the past 15 years or so, where the copyright info. states that "public performance is prohibited" to better understand why the stores pay up.
Worked in commercial broadcast radio for many years...both on the air & behind the scenes. It is finally way past the time this is done.
You have no idea how much these station owners/companies make...with the figure going up every year. Before getting out of the business...due to making more money doing almost anything else...saw more than 1 owner basically running their own local bank & printing their own currency. Think your cable rates rise like crazy? Never seen a station owner who wants a new car or house raise the rates to the point where local businesses can no longer afford to advertise.
You do have a rare business owner which tells the sales person no to the rate increase. They end up either not advertising or finding a competitor which doesn't jack up the rates to allow the owners to rape the communities they're in.
Want to know how greedy it has gotten in broadcast radio...Rush Limbaugh got $475 million in a 10 year contract...before being caught taking drugs... losing his hearing due to the drug use & having his ex-wife file against him for divorce. Don't feel sorry for any on-air broadcast station. You want to "serve" the community you operate in...quit operating your business like a banana republic.
Even as bad as the business model & customer service for satellite radio is...am willing to pay my fee every month...because it gives me what I want. 20 minutes of commercials an hour & having an underpaid hillbilly isn't something I enjoy...even for free.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
I think this is a conniving scheme by the RIAA. Your forgetting that because it's radio, in the past if a artist came in to a station, and they didn't have the RIAA backing them, then too bad for the RIAA. But if the station is paying for the Artist that is backed by the RIAA then out the window goes the artist that strikes out on their own with no RIAA backing. All the RIAA has to do is set minimums for the stations to play. The Artist that has no RIAA has no backing, their song(s) are not played because the station doesn't have a time slot for the artist. Up till now Radio has started playing these no label, or own their own label artist. This is a clever way for the RIAA to stop them. The other thing this does, is introduce the RIAA to be able to collect royalties from Internet Radio. They only need to insert that clause into the new Radio Station payola. Another way for the RIAA to fool and screw the public.
I disagree with a lot of what is being said. I don't think this is going to hurt them. They already pay to have the major radio stations play their music. So, now they can 'waive' the fee for these bigger stations. However, college stations and smaller independent stations will no longer be able to play a lot of music. They will be able to play independent labels.
It sounds like they want to kill the smaller stations again, just like they're killing internet radio.
Parent isn't slamming christian music, it's a play on the "As a record store owner, my business faces ruin" troll. Subtle and well-played if you ask me.
on the other hand...
There's a possible precedence that could set for any kind of compensation for any kind of entertainment (read: artists = singers, actors, painters, jugglers, etc.)
Heck, it might even be construed into applying to any kind of services rendered! "Happy 1st anniversary honey! Shall we dig into our wedding cake slice?" "No! We'll have to pay the baker and the caterer...! Again!"
-M
Will draft for food...
Smaller labels need to form a new "RIAA". If radio stations have a CHOICE: play music from the evil RIAA labels, or play from the OTHER group, eventually there will come a time when the other new IAA is large enough to be a viable alternative.
It's times for labels and musicians to grow a pair.
Commercial music was once one of the great joys of my life. I loved mainstream rock'n'roll, high-profile jazz artists, famous classical artists; in fact, I loved just about everything except country. I spent a lot of money on vinyl, then tape, then CDs, often re-buying the same music when a new format came along. You wouldn't believe how much I've spent over the years.
I loved Napster and Kazaa when they came along because they allowed me to sample a lot of music I wouldn't have heard otherwise. When I found something I liked, I'd go out and buy a CD. You know, to 'support the band'. Only it turns out the bands didn't get much (if any) of the money, anyway; it went to the record companies and stopped there. Didn't matter, because the RIAA shut the download sites down. No more music sampling for me.
Then the RIAA went on a rampage and started dragging grannies and gradeschoolers into court. That's when I stopped buying music. I just quit completely. I haven't bought a new CD in over four years.
I began listening to Internet-streamed radio and loved it. Then the RIAA began trying to shut that down. Now they're going after commercial radio.
Well, screw them. I'm done. No more commercial, big-record-company music for me. The RIAA can kiss my shiny metal ass.
In the process of listening to streaming music, I've discovered some great independent music. I don't need the craptactular garbage the record companies dish out anymore. Especially not if they're going to try to fine me or send me to jail if I don't listen to it on their terms.
Screw them. I hope they all starve, and their children, too.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
For me radio was dead once the internet came into force. I no longer bother discovering new bands by listening to radio when I can do same thing on MySpace, Pandora or Last.fm. Lot of indie bands allow streaming off the internet of songs and some allow the streaming of entire albums. Why waste time at 2 AM for some obscure radio station to play music I might be interested in? I can listen/discover stuff whenever I want on the internet.
IMO this is a last ditch cash grab attempt by the RIAA before they realize the obvious: radio is dying.
Someone really needs to read them the story of the golden goose.
Hard to believe they are even considering this option.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Because the MAFIAA owns the Democrats.
It's over. You got here just in time for the death rattle. Last gasp. Last grope.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
All we have to do is repeal the first amendment, then we can ban groups like the RIAA. That will show them!
I hate slashdot
to the radio and the clear channeling of the air waves.
:-)
Podcasting is uncensored media (Imagine listening to Prince's "Dirty Mother Fucker" on ANY radio. Well you CAN listening on a podcast.
There are thousands of podcasts from thousands of producers and they're FREE (well, mostly. You have to pay for some or for versions of some.)
I haven't heard a radio in years and I PRODUCE a podcast.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They can bully your ISP, break down your front door, lean on your satellite and silence your FM. Music is DEAD, RIAA is suicidal and they're taking it with them.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
While you posted with a sarcastic tone, that a very real argument that some artists make, and there are laws in some countries that implement some version of this. From my understanding, they basically say that if you resell a piece of art for far greater than you purchased it, the artist gets a (usually small) cut. In France, the rule is known as Droit de Suite, though that's not the only country with such a law in place.
It's not something I support, though it's interesting to see how different cultures feel about the same problem. It's also occasionally disturbing to see how "content creators," or any group, will support a law just because it benefits them without thinking of the greater ramifications.
I found out about the law on this post of The Online Photographer blog. There are some links you can follow from there to learn more about it, and I'm sure a bunch of information can be found elsewhere.
Good Summary. What really needs to happen is this:
/ever/ makes money ;-)).
1. Make all forms of broadcast equal: Terrestrial Radio, Satellite Radio and Internet Radio (possibly put a clause to catch future developments). Make it low, fair and statutory. Have exemptions for low listener "hobbyist" stations, etc.
2. This includes giving them what they want (Recording Royalties, in addition to publishing royalties, for terrestrial broadcasts)
BUT:
3. Have 100% mandated logging for any broadcaster over say 1000 listeners.
4. Have a government body, NOT ASCAP/BMI or SoundExchange tabulate the royalties, collect and disburse them.
5. Tax them as they are disbursed (like withholding) as normal income.
This would normalize US practice with most of the rest of the industrialized world, and make things saner. It would also take out of private hands the disbursement of royalties and spread it where it needs to go, instead of sticking to the PRS's who learned their accounting in hollywood (no movie
Part of the fun here, is that the broadcast (terrestrial) radio industry has had a free ride on performance royalties for 50 years or so, but because this happened, even though in theory, if a US artist gets say, UK airplay, they should get paid, in practice they DO NOT because the UK figures, we (the US) don't pay their people (UK artists), why should they pay ours.
I have mod points, but there's so much crap and so little points, and I hate to mod down, so I'd rather put up my own thoughts. In summary, I guess my point is: give 'em what they want, but level out the whole playing field and get the crud out of the system. If they did this there'd be a lot of pissed players in the industry, but they'd all be the ones already rolling in dough, the ones who really need it would benefit, finally getting some share of the benefits of their work.
MSRP - Tax, Title & Licence Extra Your Milage May Vary
jesus.
One would think that with COMPUTERS operating all the shows, stations would have a very convenient LIST of what they play. Have the stations submit lists of what was played and pay the poor composers and recording companies.
I do not see this as having that big of an impact on broadcasters, if it is done right.
Up here in the Great White North, a radio station pays 3.1% of it's gross income to ASCAP http://www.ascap.com/ and SOCAN http://www.socan.ca/. Every 6 months, they must submit a survey of every song played in a given time period. ASCAP and SOCAN then statistically calculate how much each composer gets. The money goes to the composer of the work, not the *AA.
Of course, if the RIAA wants that revenue stream it is just another way to screw the composers and performers who created the artistic work.
In the US only the songwriter gets royalties from radio performance. The performer doesn't. In MANY other countries both performer and creator get royalties. One notable example is France, that vaunted bastion of socialism that Slashdot seems to adore. So it's funny to see this vexing conundrum Slashdot has. You are now in the position of denying revenue to artists in favor of the corporation. Really funny stuff.
They're going to go after loud parties next...
"When they came after Napster and kazaa, I said nothing, because I was not a Pirate.
When they came after Internet Radio, I said nothing, because I did not have a stream.
When they came after AM & FM, I said nothing because I was not a DJ.
When they came after Picnickers and Sports Fans, I said nothing, because I'm not 'outdoorsy'.
What do you mean I gotta pay RIAA for my party music?"
And *why* is it there? Because that's what lots of people want. Perhaps not you, perhaps not most Slashdotters. Pop is around because lots of people like pop.
If you think without Clear Channel, huge numbers of people would start listening to more "inde" rock (or as I call it, noise), you're wrong. All that would happen (and it's actually a good "all") is that more stations would have real DJs and Program Directors who would give their listeners what they like, which in many, many, many cases is... pop music.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I totally agree (including your modpoint vs replying policy).
I do think the royalties have to be lowered to what I said, $0.0001/audio $0.0002/video, and most importantly, no minimum. The current $0.0007:play, and rising, fee was derived from totally made-up numbers based on the Broadcast.com acquisition by Yahoo for 1990s stock: at least 10x the actual value, and really in now way related (onetime IP purchase vs per-play royalty).
And every play should be logged, with aggregate reports queryable by the collection agencies. There doesn't need to be any more weasel room to screw the people due the royalties.
I'd add that the copyright itself must expire sooner, to reflect the passage of content into folklore. By the time more value is created by the audience in replaying recordings than is recreated by the author, that should be reflected in the copyright term. Authors should register their auditable costs with their copyright, and expire the copyright after probably 10x ROI, or some timespan. The original 17 years (a human generation) for books and songs is probably right, TV and movies shorter - based on how long the transition to folklore takes. If the author can't make an average of 10x in a generation, their content isn't valuable enough to "progress in science and useful arts" to protect their "temporary" monopoly.
This structure would destroy the 20th century "scarcity mogul" content industry model. And replace it with a model of the 21st Century "surplus networks". Creating more value, appropriately (and manageably) monetized. Spreading the money around all the millions of people actually doing work that adds value, while incenting content producers to invest. But without all the political control the old scarcity moguls are using to perpetuate their model and their power.
--
make install -not war
"Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills."
Oh no! You mean those poor musicians have to keep working, just like the rest of us!? What is this world coming to!?
Does an older assembly line worker at Ford continue to get paid every time someone drives a classic Mustang? Does an Amish quilt maker get a nickel every time someone gets cold and covers up? Of course not! Then what makes musicians so special?
Idiots. Get back to work!
The recording industry just wants to recoup the investments they made in cocaine and hookers to get airtime from the broadcasters.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's the same deal internet radio stations get too. You pay copyright (ASCAP/BMI) licensing fees and then royalties. It's a bitch.
Quack, quack.
I wondered why I kept hearing "The day that music died" on the radio during my morning drive.
Or maybe it is one of the eight songs allowed...strange, eh?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
One small correction though: the RIAA does not get those license fees. The performance-rights organizations (ASCAP and BMI) get them.
Terrestrial radio is going to fight.
what separates them from satellite or Internet radio?
are they better? or special?
apparently not!
They're using their grammar skills there.
I wasn't aware of the rounding and "only the top-played get paid" aspects, thanks for the enlightenment (ugly as it is). It certainly explains why the big stations play the same few songs over and over.
As you say, the whole system needs to be scrapped and started over without any for-profit entities being involved.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I don't personally listen to mainstream music stations cause I don't like most mainstream music. It just all sounds the same to me, but I still don't agree with the RIAA trying to extort more money out of anyone. These people have a obviously failing business model and are desperate to make money however they can. Unfortunately they have paid the government enough to pretty much have free reign. These stories have become far to common and something should really be done. Unfortunately the only solution I see is that everyone simply stop buying music and let these companies die. When I say everyone I mean absolutely every single person on the planet. Then the RIAA and their ilk would either collapse or change to meet the new demands of society. I know a lot of good people would be out of jobs and some good music wouldn't be heard for quite awhile but it's the only solution I see to ending this madness.
WTF?
But I believe they pay royalties to ASCAP (ie: the artists or their estate) and not the RIAA. I remember that ASCAP went after the Boy Scouts for not paying royalties on their campfire jingles.
First good thing out of the RIAA...
maybe i'll be able to get into the car without hearing
"HEY HEY YOU YOU I DON'T LIKE YOUR GIRLFRIEND"
for the first time in months.
who knows? maybe it'll eliminate Avril all together.
Though i doubt it... the Radio is doing that fast enough by just playing her...
Well, content production is a legit business, as is royalty collection, management, and other administration. But the foxes are running the henhouse, so hens just see their eggs scrambled. That kills the next generation of chicks - the music biz always comes down to chicks, even when we're talking about money ;).
The process needs to be simple, complexly scalable, and auditable by disinterested parties overseen by an accountable government agency. Which means ripping it up by the roots.
--
make install -not war
I thought these organizations were already in place to do exactly that. Collect performance royalties on behalf of artists and publishing licensors. RIAA's members already screw a lot of artists out of their publishing rights so, in essence, they're already getting royalties from radio. This is just plain greed.
He who laughs last...probably didn't get the joke.
What we need are new ways to enjoy music. By enjoy, I mean paying a fee. What I have in mind is an ear implant that uses wifi to automatically deduct $99.99 from my bank account every time I hear a song. If I am not connected to wifi, my hearing is automatically disabled until I come back into range of an access point. If my bank account runs dry (as it frequently does), my hearing is automatically disabled until more money is deposited.
I would also appreciate a way to pay a small royalty to the RIAA for telling people about my favorite songs. After all, even hearing about good music provides some small form of enjoyment.. right?
After thinking about it, there are many things in life I'm not getting full entertainment value from, simply because there is no established way to pay royalties for them. Nothing can quite replace the clean, happy feeling one gets from paying royalties to the RIAA. If only that feeling could be canned, and sold for $29.99 each!
One other area being neglected is the good feeling that lingers after listening to your favorite song. If I continue to be in a good mood 30 minutes after listening to a song, shouldn't I rightfully pay money to the RIAA for that? Failure to do so is just not fair to me, the listener.
It's hard to criticize a great organization like the RIAA for neglecting to provide enough royalty payment options; they've just done so much for us! Thank God for the 200 or so cassette tapes I bought in the 80's that no longer work! My eco footprint wouldn't be complete without that pile of highly useful plastic. Thanks also for the scratched LP's and CD's, because soon we will get to re-buy all of that music on a different format!
What I REALLY want is a way to buy my music in blocks of 500 songs. For instance, if I want to buy the song "In A Silent Way" by Miles Davis, I'd like it to be lumped in with 499 other songs that I'll never listen to. That way I'm able to enjoy it 500 times more than if I just paid for one song! We'll call this the 500x licensing model. I should also be able to pay a monthly 500x licensing fee for that song to simulate media format changes in the digital era.
What? Who even said that people hate RIAA music?
The fact that people like RIAA music doesn't mean they hate all other music. There are tons of small bands out there, it just takes a few days for someone to sort through thousands of various songs and pick out the decent stuff to air.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I'm not nearly as upset about the RIAA attempting to extract royalties from radio stations as I am about their attempt charge me royalties based on how many people are in my living room or car when I'm listening to music. And don't tell me about their family "discount" plan. It's a crock. Furthermore, my children don't enjoy listening to the music I play--they suffer through it. Why should I be charged extra for them, when they're not even listening voluntarily? Sheesh.
I'll go ask the chicken. You guys consult the egg.
I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. I even wear the t-shirt. Fuck the RIAA.
That's pretty much all there is to it. As far as the shareholders are concerned, the organization is not there to keep their investment stable, but to provide a constant increase in revenues. Other organizations diversify, this one just finds new ways to squeeze blood from a stone. The problem is, they're approaching the point where their chosen rock will begin to crumble into sand.
I have actually bought a foot-high stack of music since October 2005, which was quite a bit after I was determined to stop buying CDs (to avoid unintentionally rootkitting my desktop). What happened was that I found out about the local music scene and started buying CDs directly from bands. They get a bigger cut of the pie, and I get clean, playable, rippable to my own digital collection, CDs.
If you are getting sick of the crap music on the radio that you don't want to support industry greed by buying, go local.
By the way, the top five bands that play at my favorite venue and are worth checking out:
- Super 400 (just released a new CD)
- Fluttr Effect
- Frank Morey & His Band
- The Campaign for Real Time
- HUMANWINE
It's a snake! ...
No, you dumbass, it's obviously a tree trunk.
What the hell are you people on? This thing is obviously a wall.
I agree that the RIAA should be paid for their music...
However, I also agree that everyone should be paid for their work should they desire, and that means paying the independent artists for playing their music, if they want to be paid.
Personally, I hope the decision to force internet radio in the US to play a $500 is repealed.
Coffin meet Nail.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
People have just a certain amount of time to allocate to leisure and today internet and computer gaming is competing with music and movies. Compare this to the 50's where there was music, movies and some get-together with friends. Computers was something you saw in the movies. And music was something you played when you got together with friends.
Another issue is that almost all music produced the last 50 years are available on CD today, often in the form of collections "Best of..." and so on. The music industry makes less money from these collections than from new records, but the audience has so much to select from that they can get music for just about any taste already. New music has to be smashing and crossing the borders of what's considered good taste to get out. Just consider last year's winners of the european song contest; Lordi. Not the usual flashy pop music... And not what you really expect at an event that mostly results in bland pop music or ballads. Funny thing is that most winners there has never taken off to get REALLY big, with the exception of ABBA.
The point is - The music industry has to accept that the way things have been going before with perpetual growth is over. It's time to settle for a stagnant market and adapt to that. It's likely that not all large record labels will survive.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
But that's not how it would work. RIAA claims it has the right to collect royalties for non-RIAA artists, and would certainly write its contracts with radio stations in such a way that they could either pay a flat fee, or a per song (any song, RIAA or not) fee.
Any radio station refusing to pay on the grounds that they don't play RIAA affiliated artists would be taken to court and would need to provide records of everything they have played in order to prove that they haven't. That will cost them more than agreeing to pay the protection money.
I would be nice if someone in the justice system had the balls to stand up to them. We used to have laws against extortion. Then again we used to have laws against bribery. I guess they are both "protected speech" these days.
Support SETI@home
Don't be daft. It's there because some record label thinks that it's what people will buy.
More to the point, it's what they think certain groups of people will buy in bulk because they will think it's cool.
If the RIAA doesn't want radios to play their music, then radios should stop playing RIAA music
CC Music is fine, I bet 90% of the listeners won't even notice... the stations have faster access by just downloading the material instead of going and buying cds...
I think this is a PERFECT example for "be careful what you wish, you might get it"
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Actually it has to do more with building codes and earthquakes...
Oh and I'm not anti-union per se, just anti-stupid. And stupidity is what you get only after the ignorance is gone.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
However, for the RIAA president to call this practice "criminal", when it's duly legislated by their own government, indicates that this group is not in touch with reality. As far as the "all request" stations go, I can't see how these pose a problem for the recording industry. It's not as if one person can request every song from a CD, record it and avoid purchasing the music in another from, is it?
I do not see how any of this [insert appropriate word] that the RIAA is pulling helps the artists they supposedly represent, nor how it encourages people to start buying CDs. On the other hand, they appear to be sleeping too soundly for any reasonable wake up call to rouse them. This activity is likely to continue and become even more egregious.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Here is the problem with thinking that the radio stations will just play more non-RIAA music.
If they do this anything like they are trying to do with internet radio stations, then the RIAA will still require that radio stations pay royalties to them for everything, even non-RIAA content. Then, those fees colledted on that music will be held "in escrow" for the independant artist until such time that the independant artist joins the RIAA. If the independant artist never joins, then the RIAA gets royalties on music it does not hold the copyright to...
Doesn't sound as good of a deal NOW does is?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
I got slightly drunk and bought a cd from some band who was playing. Sure enough, BMI. Thus ended the 9 year streak of not buying the Racket's product. Bastards.
If people like RIAA music so much, the RIAA needs to find ways to extract more money out of them. I don't feel sorry for these people. It's like people who buy a 8 mpg SUV and complain about the price of gas, or people who complain about the price of Windows but insist they "need" it for playing the latest video games.
Let me see:
* I get billions of dollars of free advertising a year.
* I don't have to pay for promotions as much.
* I have to woo radio stations with free stuff as it is.
Then I get a bright idea... I know, I'll charge them for my free advertising!
So the question is, has the RIAA done the maths on the cost of what it would take
radio to discover and market it's own talent. There is a station down in in Aus that
every year goes out an unearths new talent and records it (www.triplejunearthed.com).
Then compiles a CD or two and sells it. The economies of scale are not that much more
for ramping that up.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
Speaking as a musician...
What's wrong with you if you don't want to "work"?! Change careers if you don't like it. A million people are waiting to take your place, and since they enjoy what they do, I'd bet at least a few of them will do better "work" than you.
Oh, the horror of doing what you love every day. Don't like it? Then quit.
[|]
That link is total FUD. Any artist (or copyright owner) can still enter into direct contract with any broadcaster, with a royalty fee of zero (if they like) and then SoundExchange cannot, and will not, collect royalty fees for that music.
That's not the letter of the law and it's not how it's working. If you have a link to contradict the artist I've linked to, I'd like to see it.
Good luck finding such a thing, because it would destroy SoundExchange. There are many artists already signed up with Creative Commons and they will undercut SoundExchange unless the practice is forbidden. SoundExchange is designed to eliminate free internet radio and the Creative Commons. They claim to represent artists, but artists are clamoring to get away.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Important to clarify the situation re Net radio's request to Congress -- they are in fact asking that rates be rolled back to previously agreed up per-station rates, rather then using this new per-track-per-listener formulation. They're certainly not asking for a "zero royalty rate," though it would in fact be fairer. (And over-the-air stations, frankly, should have been fighting for the Net radio stations' zero-royalty rates all along, since only an idiot didn't see this RIAA move coming -- the performers, or the performers' reps, have ben sulking for DECADES about the writers getting paid and not the performers. But that would require senses of both responsibility and history from the likes of Clear Channel, and, well...)
The bipartisan Net-radio proposal is BTW known as the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007; you can read the House version and the Senate version. You can follow the whole saga and tell your Congresscritter what you think at savenetradio.org.
Question, Is the next RIAA move to pursue legal action against public performances by individuals singing along, with or humming music? Also, will RIAA prevent "tin ear" people (like myself) from singing songs to prevent brand Dilution? Will American Idol be sued for it's performers using songs sung by "professionals"? How will NASA be required to pay royalties for plying music to "wake up astronauts"? Just curious
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.