Slashdot Mirror
Radio Royalty Legislation Described As 'RIAA Bailout'
An anonymous reader tips an article at TechDirt about draft legislation from Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that would dramatically increase the music royalty fees for cable and satellite radio to put them at the same level as internet radio streaming. TechDirt calls this the 'RIAA Bailout Act of 2012' and says the RIAA has been pursuing similar legislation to increase royalty rates for terrestrial radio as well.
"As it stands now, the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable. Yes, never. Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started. That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income. Also, the idea that any particular Congressional Rep. should be (effectively) determining what the "fair" price is for anything is, well, horrifying. "
Seems they (the RIAA) would rather take nothing, and blame it on piracy, than take something!
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started.
I think that's quite the desired effect by the RIAA, to repress technologies and services. This is a deep rooted mentality that has been "proven" in their eyes by cassette tapes (remember when people were duping records and recording radio plays and that was destroying everything?) and Napster and Bittorrent -- all new technologies that they attribute with the decline of their iron grip on their "consumers." Internet radio is just the latest demon and, of course, if their profits slide it will be the new scapegoat. The article notices this as well:
“Congressman Nadler’s discussion draft would only perpetuate this hypocrisy and worsen an already flawed legislative mistake that is discriminating against new technology and hampering innovation,"
I do slightly object to this statement:
t's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income.
No, I disagree with you there. I think services like Amazon and iTunes have shown them this and they reject that concept anyway. They built up their empires by reducing the diversity of music and creating a single song that everyone had to have. Radio jockeys play it 24/7, the Billboard Top 100 tells you what it is and it's basically slammed down your throat everywhere. This strategy payed off very well for them for quite some time. They wanted to reduce the amount of music you wanted or desired and price it out at $18 for the album. Everybody had to buy it and that's why you can pick up New Kids on the Block or Brittany Spears albums at your local thrift store for pennies now. And that's the best way the RIAA could have it since everyone got sick of that music, burned out on it and had to have the next $18 album that they were told to buy. Since everyone had to buy it that was $18 * tons of money.
Now new technology comes along and offers a more diverse music repertoire and the possibility of buying that single song and *GASP* radio jockeys that aren't yoked into playing the same goddamn song over and over again. And this frightens the music executives. They know about price elasticity, they just don't want the profits they should be making and instead wish to return to a simpler time when they told you what to pay and everyone paid that because there was no other option and society was shoving it down their throats. Lower prices CAN create higher profits but the way the RIAA has been running the show means it probably will not.
My work here is dung.
the government we currently have wants to control everything. 'spread the wealth around' i think is the catch-phrase
This would be the opposite. This is "concentrate the wealth and make sure it doesn't get into any new hands"
This isn't about the money, it's about control. If they can get a law that makes default royalities so high no-one can enter the business, they'd be overjoyed. Then, when everyone else is locked out of the business, they can buy up the failed businesses, and run their own monopoly services. They might not be extracting every last cent out of the music, but they, and only they would control it. (Artists and Listeners can take a hike)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Anyone with a few thousand can create a damned good recording studio, cut an album
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
release it online independently (and to streaming sites)
How should they promote it to listeners who aren't already streaming music in their vehicles? These listeners use FM radio because they don't already have a sufficiently expensive data plan or they aren't aware of the streaming sites.
Can somebody explain why the government is involved in this at all? Why are royalty fees simply negotiated between the licensor and licensee?
This is not like utilities, food, or health care where we need to prevent an oligarchy from profiteering by withholding necessities. If you do not agree to the fees, do not license the content.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Lower prices can create higher total income.
This is true when the lower price generates more sales. This is not happening in the music world.
People are buying single tracks or tuning into Pandora instead of building up a collection of CDs. This benefits the consumer because it is much more efficient to listen to music this way.
i.e. the new cost structure of the internet means that the consumer reap most of the rewards of improved efficiency. I am not a friend of the RIAA but I do recognize that they have left the land of honey and milk for a barren desert.
It would be fascinating if someone were to start an IndieGoGo fundraiser to "Buy a Senator"
Buy a senator and have him introduce a bill - something good, like forcing the cablecos to share their lines with competitors at cost, or legalizing marijuana for adults.
How much money would it take? $5 million? $10M, $20M before a senator publicly announces, "Okay, I'll do it. What law do you want introduced and give the cash to my campaign manager so he can get to work on spinning this"
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
The entitlement mentality of the RIAA is astounding.
Radio has for decades played their songs as advertising. In the past record companies have gotten in trouble for paying radio stations to play certain music.
Now they want to have their cake and eat it too.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between the radio playing the song and a streaming service playing the song. It is still advertising for the record company. I have bought many songs after hearing them on a streaming service. I also already own many songs that play on streaming services I listen to. The record company being paid per play by streaming services is obnoxious crap.
I always smile when I think of how badly Apple and Amazon screwed over the record companies in providing access to digital versions of their music. They had the ability to build their own stores and they were idiotic enough to fail and it the process hand over billions to companies that laid the digital groundwork for them. True, record companies make money from Amazon and Apple, but Amazon and Apple make money off the record companies too _and_ they completely control the ecosystem.
I'm anxiously waiting for Apple, Amazon, and Google to start getting into the business of distributing artists songs just like they do for app developers. They could also use their promotional capabilities to drive sales for these artists. Sales where they make more money than selling what the record companies give them. When this happens the writing will be on the wall and the record companies will finally die the death they so deserve.
Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started. That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income.
This is too simplistic of a view. By limiting the number of stations that can play music you licence, you will make less money on the licencing, sure. But you also will have more control over what plays on the airwaves (or satallite waves, etc). By playing king-maker for what's hot and what's not you end up making far more money in the long run. The music industry has to compete with it's back catalog, all the way back to when music was first recorded. They need some way to get people to buy current music over the greatest of the past. They do this by controlling what becomes popular.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I'm still not sure, what is RIAA's purpose? The artists compose and perform the music, the distributors (radio stations, iTunes, Google Play, Pandora and P2P etc) distribute that music to the masses. What is RIAA's role in this ecosystem? Where does RIAA fit?
Is it possible to set up an alternative RIAA?
Not as long as the music publishers affiliated with the major record labels threaten to sue people who write their own songs for copyright infringement on the grounds that too much of a melody was accidentally copied. See, for example, Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.
When RIAA music becomes prohibitively expensive for radio stations, non-RIAA music will get more airplay and exposure.
Can somebody explain why the government is involved in this at all? Why are royalty fees simply negotiated between the licensor and licensee?
There are two copyrights involved: copyright in the underlying musical work and copyright in the sound recording. Three different cover versions of "Yesterday" by three different recording artists, for example, are three different sound recordings of one musical work by one songwriter. As of right now, only the musical work is subject to royalties in all broadcast mediums, and these are already negotiated with BMI and ASCAP. The difference is that unlike webcasters, cable and satellite radio systems currently don't owe any extra royalties for performing a sound recording. It would take an act of Congress to make cable and satellite radio systems subject to royalties in the first place.
This is not like utilities, food, or health care where we need to prevent an oligarchy from profiteering by withholding necessities. If you do not agree to the fees, do not license the content.
Until you start suing people for writing competing songs that are vaguely similar.
In every dying industry that made loads of money in its heyday, they're whining to Congress.
The correct action is to let them die out.
However, the most steady trait of corporate fat cats is they are all for the free market in public but are the first the whine about it when the market turns against them.
The artists compose and perform the music, the distributors (radio stations, iTunes, Google Play, Pandora and P2P etc) distribute that music to the masses. What is RIAA's role in this ecosystem?
Originally, the RIAA was formed to establish the "New Orthophonic" emphasis curve for vinyl records. Now, it boils down to promoting the music.
Is it possible to set up an alternative RIAA? Trade group monopoly must be broken.
Well, I'm not in the business but used to gig. After seeing people that should have some minor record deal being signed to littler labels like Afternoon Records or Asthmatic Kitty, it's my opinion that the best replacement for the RIAA is no replacement at all. The RIAA is restricting their member labels and being destructive "in the interests of their members" ... sometimes this is helpful but in the instance of online radio, it's quite the opposite. Meanwhile a lot of the smaller labels affiliated with the RIAA suffer while the top executives make millions. The way I see it, by setting up an alternative RIAA, you'll inevitably fall prey to that sort of bullshit. Like the best capitalistic systems, the music industry would be healthier if the labels competed with each other and actually desired exposure (which they do) like online radio and no single entity was acting as a self-appointed policeman to how that system worked. Then and only then would you see.
Here's an example, I just purchased Headlight's latest album on vinyl and minutes later I had downloaded the MP3s. I can list tons of non-RIAA labels that do this and you can go on Bandcamp and see a third party system doing this for labels and selfpublished artists (for example, here's the album I just bought). Now, from the RIAA point of view this is super bad. I just got TWO copies of an album for one price and on top of that you can stream that album right there for free, possibly forever. Oh my god, copyright violations! Now, if you were the RIAA or a replacement for the RIAA you would find yourself in the position of making a decision about this sort of sales tactic. And that's bad whether you weigh in one way or another. Fine, let Metallica or whoever else I don't care about put up a picture of their album and ask for $20 from their fans for it before even hearing it. They can do what they want. But you'll find that if you throw your lot in with RIAA, you won't be able to upload live videos of your own concerts to YouTube, you might have ads on your music videos and you'll be restricted by this umbrella. Furthermore, no matter how forgiving you are of your fan's misdeeds, the RIAA is not. And I think a replacement is a bad thing.
Frankly put the advent of the internet and digital distribution means that artists shouldn't have to depend on the RIAA or an RIAA replacement. They should exist in hundreds of different labels acting, innovating and competing on their own terms (diversity is a good thing).
Right now it feels like an exacerbated Pareto Law inside the music industry and it doesn't have to be that way. Your attention, your ears, your money and your support should be spread around and free of restricted influence by some massive entity.
Right now, there's music out there that you like that somebody somewhere is making. But if they're not on a label that's part of the RIAA, you're most likely never going to hear it. That's why internet radio stations are so important to upending the RIAA, self-published groups from Portland can be heard by Brooklynites and vice versa. That's why I think the RIAA is trying to impose arcane radio royalty fees.
My work here is dung.
I don't see how the page you linked applies, for two reasons. First, I thought use by a U.S. resident of a work of a U.S. author was subject to U.S. law, not international treaties. Second, I thought sound recordings, as opposed to the underlying musical works, were not covered by the Berne Convention and thus needed a separate "phonogram treaty", especially in light of article 13 of the treaty you mentioned.
Write original material?
Then let me rephrase: What should I do to verify that my material is in fact legally original?
If I write a song, what steps should I take to ensure that I didn't accidentally write a song that is substantially similar to an existing song?
No need to worry.... if you start out thinking like that you'll never write a song, ie. you won't have that problem!
No sig today...
viva pirate radio! make little 1 watt transmitters that runs on 12 volt DC to turn any mp3 player in a car in to a tiny pirate radio capable of covering several city blocks, and just as easily be run from an AC outlet with a wallwart transformer, murder the RIAA with millions of tiny cuts
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
There is no way to make sure you don't get sued. Wrong goal.
Realistically....you can't do fuck all.
In reality, if someone wants to try to sue the pants off you, they will. Hell, you could get sued by some asshole that hasn't even released a song yet but can (try to) show that he wrote similar music or lyrics before you did.
There's nothing you can do to protect yourself. NOTHING.
Of course....what the industry doesn't tell you...they can't protect you either against some lunatic asshole that thinks (correct or not) that you ripped off his creation.
So realistically....you're fucked whether you release RIAA or indie. So just don't be that asshole that releases with the RIAA.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
You do all realize that this is precisely the argument used to lower taxes in general, right? And specifically, to lower taxes on businesses. If we replace "royalty" with "tax" and "Pandora" with "every small business in America", then you have the exact argument that Republicans use to support tax breaks.
Just thought I'd point that out. So, in order to be intellectually consistent, should we also support Republicans on the tax breaks? Should we slash taxes to encourage economic growth?
I think that in this case the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that US terrestrial radio has been able to successfully keep extending an exemption from paying royalties to the owners of the sound recordings that Congress has granted them since 1934 or so; at the time the exemption was given in order for them to build their FM networks... wait! they're still building them. That's what it must be ... or else it would imply that radio and the NAB who represents them were just a bunch of greedbags.. clearly, this can't be!
we're not talking about the publishing side, only sound recordings, which is totally different
Keep in mind that every other radio station in the entire world is paying this sound recording royalty for the use of music on their stations.
Made sense to give US radio a break when records were selling by the bucketload, but now that they don't anymore, what's the reason for those stations to keep making bushels of money off advertisers by broadcasting that music for free, only paying the songwriters but not those who own the recordings?
The kicker is that because of reciprocity laws, no US owner of sound recordings gets paid from radio stations in the rest of the world for those same royalties which go to black box and gets shared by foreign companies since the royalties are not paid to foreign copyright owners by US terrestrial radio.
Of course, on the other hand Internet and Satellite radios have to pay... lovely... >:(
Your summary includes the quote: "As it stands now, the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable. Yes, never." The link you included talks about Pandora's founder supporting a bill and opposing another one, but in that article he never says anything like "the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable". That quote does come from the TechDirt article without a source.