Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Seeks Royalties From Radio

Posted by kdawson on from the deja-vu-all-over-again dept.

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."

13 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. Give them what they want! by tehwebguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Give them what they want! by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually the radio will be telling people who to like. It will be people they can afford (most likely free people in many cases). Sounds like a win for me if the RIAA gets what they want.

    2. Re:Give them what they want! by dotfile · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You'd love to think that, but it's not what would happen. Let's follow the money for a moment...

      Clear Channel and the other huge companies could and would pay without even flinching, and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs (and then some, since they can now blame RIAA for pretty much ANY amount of rate increase). Big Media wins, makes more money, gets bigger.

      Advertisers now have Big Media sucking up a larger chunk of their advertising budgets, so they have to make cuts somewhere. Since the smaller, independent stations (are there any left?) have to pay RIAA too, their costs go up. With smaller audience shares, they are now even less cost effective than before. Advertisers pull ads from small stations to pay for the ads on big stations, small stations are now in an even bigger hurt than before.

      Because the FCC has been spreading its legs for media companies for so long - and Congress is too clueless to notice or care -- Big Media is now able to suck up even more smaller stations as their financial position becomes untenable. Big Media wins again, makes even MORE money, gets even bigger. Talk radio and NPR survive as the only alternative to what Clear Channel, Journal Broadcast and the other handful of winners want you to hear.

      This would be a huge long term win for the handful of huge media companies that now control most of the market anyway. Unfortunately, I suspect it would be a Pyrrhic vistory. They've alreay driven millions to satellite radio, and this would probably drive nails into terrestrial broadcast radio's coffin at an even faster rate.

      Once the sattelite channels are devoting as much time to advertising as they are to music, we're right back to where we started - buy now you're PAYING to listen to it, which works out far better for the media companies. You're not naieve enough to think THAT won't happen, are you?

  2. Excellent! by Algorithmnast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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....

  3. Nice idea for a protest? by irexe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see all radio stations play only independent music for one day. See how the RIAA likes that..

  4. I always find it unnerving... by dbolger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...when reality and The Onion collide: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696

  5. This is going to backfire.... by RenegadeTempest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This is going to backfire.... by ribuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, it won't backfire. The same thing happened in 1969/1970 in Australia. The main radio stations stopped playing the big-label records that they would have had to start paying for. Instead, they played music from the independent labels, who were happy to not demand a royalty.

      It lasted about six weeks before the radio stations capitulated. Their listeners wanted music from the big names.

      --
      Paid Q&A/Research
  6. Re:Pipe Dream by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  7. Idiots by aysa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Wonderful! by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  9. Everyone calm down, I think this is the onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696

    I bet you someone reported the onion as fact again... everyone just calm down.

  10. Re:From the article... by lysse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The irony being that when her records are played in the UK, where you (and I) are commenting from, she does get a royalty...