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
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..
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.
Well we've always had this here in Britain, and it seems to work. If the RIAA do manage to pass this in the US, I think their main problem will be explaining to artists why they don't get any of the new revenue.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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?
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.
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.
....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.
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.
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
-Styopa
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.
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)
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
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.
"Not that I support her claim, but none the less ... think about the social security system. In my opinion, I believe it is there for the simple fact that the government is "rewarding" tax payers for so many years of paying taxes. Along with retirement funds, this lets the older generation live (sometimes) comfortably in their later years."
And thereby perpetuating a misconception. Social Security was conceived as a means of alleviating poverty among the elderly, which was widespread. It is a wealth transfer. Period. It is not a reward, nor an investment. It is taking money from my paycheck (and yours, assuming you are employed), and giving it to someone else.
As a social program, it has been very successful - poverty among the elderly has been drastically reduced. Fiscally, it is a disaster, as lifespans increase and the working population decreases. Politically, it is a paralytic, causing a lockup whenever politicians even think about changing the system.
If the performer in question feels that SS and the money she has squirreled away isn't enough for her to live in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed, she needs to do what everybody else does - keep working. If she didn't put money away? More reason to keep working. No one owes her a comfortable retirement.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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/
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696
I bet you someone reported the onion as fact again... everyone just calm down.
The irony being that when her records are played in the UK, where you (and I) are commenting from, she does get a royalty...
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
...when you go to other country, radio stations do pay royalties.
No sig for now.
It'll be interesting to see how ASCAP reacts to this development. The argument that the RIAA has any sort of write to royalties on performances is tenuous at best. Radio stations already pay licensing fees as do restaurants, elevator companies and others that play recorded music. Expecting them to pay another set of licensing fees to cover the incompetent management of the CD industry is egregious.
Of course, this is the RIAA so egregious is the silent e.