Slashdot Mirror
Radio May Have To Pay To Play
devjj writes "Ars Technica reports that Congress is considering two bills that will remove the exemption terrestrial radio broadcasters currently enjoy that allows them to broadcast music without compensating the artists or labels for it. In the current dispensation only songwriters get paid. The National Association of Broadcasters is furious at the RIAA, which is pushing repeal of the exemptions, and has responded by agreeing that artists need better compensation — and is asking Congress to investigate modern recording contracts. "
This is good in my humble opinion, perhaps it is time for radio to stop playing RIAA's JUNK and start playing REAL music from REAL artists and compensate them directly without the MA****... er, I mean the record companies as middle hand..
Sadly, this is a no-win case in Congress either way. With Republicans in the hands of big business and Democrats in the hands of Hollywood, the possibility of anyone looking out for the consumer is pretty much nil. Calls for reform usually only end up with even more onerous legislation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Has the entire industry gone insane? Maybe it's a generational thing, but with today's one-hit wonders, there's very little in the current marketplace that I'm interested in buying. The ONLY advertisement the industry can count on is radio air-play. If broadcasters are charged, then we'll be forced to listen to more adverts, which in turn will prompt me to discontinue radio as an entertainment medium.
And here is an example of what I always tell people about myself -- that my mind is open and I can change opinions the instant I see my old one is wrong.
When I first read this article my only thought was "goodbye college radio"... but your point is so very true. This will shoot the 'AAs squarely in the foot. Radio stations can't afford to pay for music. Even ClearChannel etc won't pony up for this. This may just clear the way to get the forest of unwanted garbage music out of our face so we can see the few trees of good music that are out there!
Sorry, I'll come up with a better metaphor after my coffee...
-Vort
A small part of me wants RIAA to succeed in this - heresy I know. The notion is that if they win, terrestrial radio broadcasters will all but stop putting the mainstream music on the air and cater more towards local or indie artists, since they would be most likely to trade profit for exposure. Not only would this give those artists the chance they could desperately be wanting, but in a perfect world, would force the studios and labels to see 'the error of their ways'. It's a pipedream, but as most dreams are, it's a happy one.
With all our modern technology, though, musicians could make money with only one or two guys helping them with distribution, even worldwide distribution, and take home a much larger percentage of the profit. As long as a quiet place to record the music can be located, even someone with almost no financial backing could potentially sell a lot of music. If only there weren't people fighting such ideas...
Palm trees and 8
See The New Yorker for more information.
All the RIAA is going to do is find a way to pay the radio stations what they pay in royalties, and then charge that cost back to the artists via some "promotional fee" or other such garbage.
The only solution to getting artists paid is the death of the RIAA and its component companies.
Does it not seem like the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this? I always thought one of the main points of playing tunes on the radio was advertising for the artists, enticing people to buy the whole album.
If people stop hearing new songs on the radio, then the RIAA will really see a dip in CD sales. This is just more proof that the RIAA is way out of touch with how the market works.
I got nothin'
Sorry, but artists just like NICKLEBACK are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Honestly, I hope this passes. If it does, it will be the end of music radio as we know it and finally the record companies will understand they've slit their own throats. Clear Channel and the like won't like the music industry cutting so heavily into their profits and they'll do whatever they can to defeat this. Two heads of the same monster fighting can't be that bad, right?
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
"RIAA killed the radio star..."
Coming soon to a radio station near you! Oh, wait...
...I read TFA. It says the payments are to be in the form of a flat fee, per station, per year. That means that if a radio station wants to be able to ever play any RIAA-artist music, even just once a year, they have to pay the same fee as a station that plays the stuff all the time. Given that circumstance, there's no special motivation to seek out non-RIAA artists.
Of course, the article is short. The actual text of the bill may include a pay-per-play option that would encourage stations to drop most RIAA-artist music while still retaining the ability to play a bit of it, on occasion. I don't know because I haven't read the bill so, as always, the devil's in the details.
Somehow, I doubt an RIAA-backed bill would include a sensible measure like this, though. Even they aren't stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that. Are they?
Anybody got a link to the actual bill text?
I think you're right that RIAA endorsed labels do have many respectable bands signed, unfortunately. However - and I don't mean to insult your taste here - You should be aware that Nickelback is almost certainly the kind of [RIAA crap] band that the grandparent was talking about. Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity, at least in the circles in which I run. There was the Digg story a while back that pointed to this interesting site: evidence of similarities between Nickelback songs. Regardless of whether you like them or not, they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio. Anyway keep up the good analysis; just use better examples like Radiohead (which you also used). They are distributing In Rainbows under a label associated with the RIAA according to RIAA Radar.
Radio is a bit different, however. With all of the other forms of advertising you mentioned, the consumer is making a deliberate choice to attend a specific concert or buy a specific CD. The consumer already has an idea of the music he or she wishes to buy. With radio, this is not necessarily the case - radio is nonspecific, and therefore is likely the medium in which the first exposure to new music will occur.
Now, different arguments can be made as to what a consumer buys when he purchases a CD. The music itself, certainly - but he can already listen to that for free by waiting for it to appear on the radio. In my opinion, what the consumer buys when he buys a CD is choice - the choice to listen to a particular song whenever he wishes rather than waiting for it to appear whenever a radio station plays it. The radio then becomes the advertisement for this purchase.
I hate you.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
> Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap.
Heresy.
All popular music is worthless. If anyone with a clean shirt and a decent haircut has heard of a band, then they're over-processed sellout pop shit for teenagers. It's a scientifically proven fact that the worth of a band is inversely proportional to the number of records they've sold. That's why The Beatles are the worst band in history and quality music peaked when G.G. Allin shoved a Sennheiser up his ass after a baked bean dinner.
You've got it backwards. All stations - Terrestrial and over-the-air - pay royalties to the copyright holder of the song itself. These royalties are paid to organizations like ASCAP and BMI, who then distribute the money to the songwriter. The royalties this article discusses are collected by SoundExchange on behalf of the copyright holder of the "performance" of the song (ie the recording the radio station plays). This copyright is generally held by the record company.
Terrestrial stations have so far been exempt from paying the performance royalties, but it looks like that may change.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Worst. Example. Ever.
Sorry, but you're displaying a fundamental lack of understanding about how radio works (from a financial point of view), along with a lack of knowledge of radio history. Understandable, because no one knows this stuff anymore except for telecom geeks.
Playing music over the radio has, since it's inception, been about advertising to promote sales of music (records, sheet music), advertising to promote attendance at live events, and to provide programming to attract listeners for, of course, advertising other goods and services. In the last case, think of how flowers use nectar to attract bees. Giving away nectar is just a cost of doing business if you want to be polinated.
Of course, it isn't a perfect analogy, because unlike flowers, radio stations aren't producing what they're giving away.
What radio explicitely hasn't been is a revenue source for song performers. Song writers, absolutely. I'll leave it up to you to look up the ASCAP / BMI controversy of 1939/1940.
In fact, what is amazing about this is that, were the RIAA's proposal to be adopted, it would end up setting up a system exactly the opposite of the Payola scandal, where record producers paid / bribed radio station employees and execs to play records.
I also have to wondeder what ASCAP and BMI will think of this. If this proposal results in a drop in radio play, then payments to songwriters (as opposed to song performers) will fall.
Oh, and this could definitely blow up in the RIAA's face. Clear Channel, Infinity and the like are notorious for being very, very tough business people. If this proposal goes through, and if they aren't able to negotiate a miniscule enough rate per play, I wouldn't put it past them to start buying up the larger RIAA members, just to get their music catalogs. Would there be anti-trust implications? Sure. Would it be worth a few tens of millions here or there to try. Absolutely.
Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?
Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members.
Hey, has anyone mentioned that Nickleback sucks? No? Well then, FYI, Nickleback sucks.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Nobody asserts that the RIAA music sucks because their business practices are abhorrent/repugnant/unethical. Instead, the general assertion is that
- (a) the fact that the majority of RIAA music sucks, and
- (b) the fact that many find the RIAA's biz practices repellent
are not causal of each other in either direction, but are both symptomatic of (i.e. caused by)- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
This is true for the radio single version of a song, but is not universally true. There will be some performances that are owned not by the record company but by the radio station. When an artist is on tour, drops by the local radio station to plug their album and performs an in-studio version of their song, that copyright can easily end up going to the radio station.
What passage of this bill might mean is that such recordings owned by the radio stations would become more important. You'd end up hearing more "exclusive tracks" and I can easily see radio stations deciding to play an artist or not based on their willingness to provide them with non-RIAA owned performances. And I can easily see radio stations in different markets setting up trade deals that would give them access to each other's in-studio performances.
At that point, I imagine the RIAA probably tries some sort of counter-shenanigans like stipulating in artists' contracts that they have to assign the copyright for all performances to their record company.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
They want everyone to pay every time they listen to or even think of a song. Hookers and blow aren't cheap.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And that is the way it should be. Bands should be propped up for any reason. They should get by on talent alone.
Ah, I remember when I was 20 and an idealist...
How is a band intended to "get by on talent alone" when nobody can hear your music? There are about 50,000 bands in every state in the US. Why should any given person listen to any one of them over any other? It would take you years just to sit through the cruft to get to a single band worth following.
I give you Bjork as a prefect example of propped shit.
Bjork was part of one of these non-RIAA bands that people like you espouse. I'm sure if it was 1985 you'd be on here talking about how we should all be buying Sugarcubes albums and boycotting the RIAA. That's the problem with idealism; reality has a different dogma. She signed to a major label as soon as she was able to, and her fans continued to follow her regardless. Nothing much about the music changed that couldn't be attributed to 20 years worth of age. Only the label changed.
So when your favorite current indie band signs to a major, will you call them "artificially propped up"? Will their music suddenly suck? Will they suddenly be really boring live? No-talent hacks...
It's pretty ridiculous to indict an entire range of artists simply because of the record label they're signed to. Talk about blind stereotyping... that's supposedly what music idealists like yourself are so against.
Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity... they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio
Someday, there will be a thread about the RIAA without all this elitist bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH POP? I like meatloaf, bubblegum, McDonald's hamburgers, pizza, Mountain Dew, and pop music. Music is not the center of my life, nor is it the apex of the arts. It's enjoyable noise that makes my commute more pleasant. You don't like pop? Fine. The rest of the world does. Not because it's what's been forced down their throats, but because they didn't study enough to learn that they're not supposed to like it--whatever the fuck that means.
Go find a classical music snob and ask him what he thinks about the music you like. ("Radiohead? HA!") While you're at it, ask a chef what he thinks of your dinner selection, a car enthusiast what he thinks of your ride, and the unwashed masses of Slashdot about your operating environment and text editor of choice. Maybe send these folks a picture of what you're wearing right now. There is no dispute concerning taste. (And I refer to the Latin form of that phrase not because I'm a language snob but to make the point that this idea has been around for a long, long time.) And while you're out gathering all these opinions (as if they matter), I highly recommend hitting a bookstore (NOT a video store) and checking out High Fidelity.
Note that this doesn't mean I like the RIAA's tactics, but that's unrelated to what they happen to sell. They could sell bottled water, or own baseball teams, or make operating systems and office suites--they'd behave the same way and they'd still be assholes for doing it.
Ask yourself this: pick any band you like. Imagine they get picked up by the RIAA. Does that make their music bad? Imagine they become unexpectedly, insanely popular and spawn a whole new world of music, Sprite ads, flannel-based fashion, and extreme sports. Does that make their music bad?
If your reflex is to tell me "Nirvana really sucked, Pearl Jam and Soundagarden were the real geniuses" then you're missing my point--ignore the band I chose as an example. Just imagine any band you like in their place.
PS: I'm not picking on you in particular. I could have replied to any of a dozen posts in this thread.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.