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."
"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.
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.
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 ;)
As somebody already pointed out the rest of the world gets by paying a fee for radio play. What this WILL mean is that you'll end up with the bland "selection" of national radio that other Western countries have. I was always surprised at how diverse the US music industry was but I didn't realise your radio stations got a free ride. Now it makes sense and I'm sure this would mean less exposure for niche artistes. Gotta love an industry that's trying to hammer nails in its own coffin.
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?
This would basically ruin both CC and the RIAA.
Yeah. Let them eat their seed corn. Gobble it up boys.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
It may also mean less music. Instead of the same 8 songs. We will now have the same six songs.
No? What? What's "reality TV" got to do with music television? Nothing?... =V
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.
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.
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.
You get 8 songs?! I just get DJs who think they're a lot more amusing than they really are and commercials. I'd love to have a radio station that actually played music.
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...
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.
-b.
I was always surprised at how diverse the US music industry was but I didn't realise your radio stations got a free ride.
You mean its somehow WORSE in Europe? How is that even possible? Every FM station in my area plays the same 20 songs that have been approved for that genre. Radio stinks.
Europe... maybe this is The Final Countdown for decent radio? I hope this doesnt spread to Asia, or Africa, or even Kansas or Chicago.
Hehe... Battle of the Bands Geography Bee.
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.
Good point, but... this isn't the same world that it was 37 years ago. Spreading music person-to-person is so much easier now, for example; it wasn't even cheap to copy an album to tape back then, cassettes not having taken hold, most 8-track machines not being recorders, and open-reel machines not found so often in teenagers' bedrooms. So even though the Clear Channel et al play the same 13 songs from the same 6 "artists," people are (or at least can easily be) exposed to a much wider range today without any trouble on their part. I just don't see that kind of demand from listeners happening now, though I expect there'll be plenty of shady deals between promoters and station/network personnel.
I think you missed an option:
3) The RIAA pulls this one off. Member labels get fewer artists signing with them so they can participate in the new wave of music production, allowing them to garner air time on net radio stations. Additionally net radio stations outside the U.S. will continue to grow like some kind of pirate radio. The world (and especially the U.S.) will be exposed to artists that they never would have been exposed to via the current radio setup.
In this situation, the RIAA loses, corporate radio loses, but the people and the artists win. If the RIAA keeps this up, they will destroy their own industry by making online-music the new on-line gambling. It will be legal everywhere but in the U.S.
yeaaahhh RIAA
May I suggest a few tracks for theme music to their new program:
1) RIAA killed the radio star
2) Hey man, nice shot!
3) Suicide is painless
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
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?"
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.
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.
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...
Because radio stations, if they have to pay more money, will need more income.
I see 2 ways to get more income:
1) More ads.
2) Charge the content producers to air their music.
2 sounds stupid at first, but if the options are 'massive advertising' or 'pay the radio a few cents to play your song', I know which would be cheaper and better. The consumer (that's us) loses either way, and the RIAA is the only one who gains.
'Overpaid Shock Jocks' exist because they bring in listeners, no matter how stupid any single individual may think them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist.
'Indie music' doesn't get much airplay because radio stations don't think it'll bring in listeners and because it is so hard/expensive to find good stuff. Music producers sift through the cruft and find the money music, and radio stations take advantage of that currently. The only way for a radio station to afford that sifting process would be to have 1 company (or a very few) sort for many radio stations. That's basically what we have right now.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I assume this would apply to all of those nice indie college stations too. Be careful what you wish for.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
while this doesn't necessarily require more money, there is an option you've overlooked:
public radio. member owned/sponsored. the listeners give money to the local station to cover expenses, and the station has a duty to/they're-paying-our-bills-so-we-better play what they want.
i'm not necessarily talking about national public radio, either; as that comes with quite a bit of politicing, and while generally something i enjoy listening to, tends to run somewhat less controversial/edgy type content. in the town where i live, we have at least two local public radio stations. one is run by the local college, the other turns 29 years old today, and is in no danger of going away. when either one of them says they play a mix of eclectic music, there's no telling what you'll get. folky guitar song followed by peruvian flute music followed by swedish black metal. none of which is owned by the riaa, so they don't have to worry. the artists are happy to get airplay on a station the listeners of which have brains of their own.
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.
You get Jimi Hendrix on the radio? I don't know if I've ever heard him on radio in the UK :P You can't say that he has no talent or art to him, but anything gets boring if you overplay it..
Yeah, apparently you don't know the "classic rock" radio format in the US, in which the same Jimi Hendrix songs get played over and over about 8 times a day each. I listen to my local classic rock station (Q104 in NYC - one of many "Q104's" across the country) in my car because there's nothing that's any better, but it really is programmed like any other top 40 station. Same four songs fifty times a day. If you think that gets old on a top 40 station where the nature of the beast means you've at least got some turnover throughout the year, just imagine what it's like when your playlist never changes! If I hear "Hotel California" one more time this week, somebody's going to get strangled.
All the other stations in NYC play either lame urban music or some combination of modern "hits". There is college radio, but a) the reception where I am is really bad, as their power output is not very high, and I'm not near any colleges, and b) honestly, I know some people really like college radio (and I was music director of my college radio station back in the day), but I find it a little too random now that I'm getting on in years. So there really aren't any good choices. There's no such thing as a station that just plays good quality rock music that experienced DJ's pick out themselves from a massive collection of LP's or CD's lining the station walls - as used to be the norm even just 20 or so years ago. Nowadays a DJ's job is just following a playlist and filling time in between songs with some pointless one-way banter.
I hate the RIAA and I hate the modern radio industry. I really don't know who to root for here.
One thing I'm sure of, though, is that royalty payments to the RIAA will cause the radio industry to lose whatever independence it still has. It seems like a way for them to get around payola laws while still raking in some extra cash. Let's say the RIAA collects 10 cents per play of most songs, but oh, they'll "waive" the fee for a particular artist they want to promote that week. The music director of the local top 40 station thinks that artist is crap, but the accountants tell the VP of finance how filling 4 minutes every half hour with that artist will save the station $5,000 per week. And let's say it's not just one artist, but five or ten at any given time. You tell me what's going to happen.
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.
"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!
Not necessarily... keep in mind SoundExchange and Internet Radio... I'm sure the RIAA has plans to enforce this royalty scheme for all broadcast music, whether from a member label or not. If so, this will mean nothing for independent labels and bands - and will mean (1) the RIAA will have control over all content played on the airwaves as well as (2) reap the profits from royalties of such.
Keep in mind, while the direction I think they are going in is pure speculation, nothing else seems to make sense... after all ASCAP and BMI are already collecting royalties on behalf of the artists for music played on the airwaves and elsewhere - so the RIAA's efforts, as stated, make no sense at all, without there being some other plans and motivating factors behind them (like assuming control of all royalty payments for music played and control for all music played using such a system; as I speculate). It would though leverage control over who gets played, putting such a thing entirely in the RIAA's control - making paid airtime even more prevalent (since the RIAA could now "reimburse" stations for playing their member's selected content to offset the new royalty scheme).
And, with a congress that currently seems to be willing to bend over backwards to change the law so the RIAA can break it, change the law so the RIAA benefits and change the law so the RIAA gains more control over everything musical; this seems like one more step in their plans for total domination of any music played or performed anywhere... slowly musicians on any label are losing the right to decide how their music is played, to whom, when and how they receive payment for said music.
My only question is what is next? At this rate, we wont even be able to sing in the shower without having to pay the RIAA royalties (though for some of us, perhaps me included, that isnt necessarily a bad thing ;-) )
-Robert
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I disagree with that quote... its too insulting to KFC, and I'm by no means a fan
KFC actually is at least mainly comprised of chicken (or chicken like substances).. Albeit fried and of questionable quality
where as MTV is not really comprised of music at all anymore.. Unless you count the background music in the shows... It's mostly comprised of crap, propaganda, stupidity and teeny-boppers mixed in with thugs.
better one:
MTV is to music as astronomy is to science
I would have used "tampa bay devil rays are to baseball" as in the simpson's except they are having a better year than the yankees.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
...and both feature breasts prominently.
± 29 dB