RIAA Takes Cue From The Onion: Wants Radio Stations To Pay Up For Promoting Music
from the no,-seriously? dept
You know your business is in trouble when you feel the need to start taking cues from the Onion for ways to squeeze more money out of customers. Last year, it was Verizon, who was found to have copied The Onion's satirical "charge-you-at-a-whim" plan. The latest, as submitted by a few folks, is that the RIAA is following the basic recommendation famously laid out by the Onion five years ago to go after radio stations for "giving away free music." It's not quite that bad, but pretty close. The LA Times notes that the RIAA and some musicians are asking Congress to change the law to force radio stations to pay up for promoting their music. Of course, radio stations already do have to pay some royalties, but they're for composers and publishers. The actual musicians are exempt from royalties because Congress (correctly) recognized that they get the benefit of their music being promoted. However, the new charge is being led by an original member of the Supremes, Mary Wilson, with the support of the RIAA, complaining that she can't just sit at home and collect royalties and actually has to (gasp!) work to get paid these days. Oh, the horror. If only everyone else could sit at home and get paid for work they did forty years ago. In the meantime, she ignores the fact that radio play is a big part of what helped make the Supremes famous allowing her to make any money from her music at all. It's what drove people to buy the records. It's what drove people to go to the concerts. This is just like the musicians in the UK whining about not extending copyright. They're acting as if this is a welfare system, and the government needs to make sure they keep getting paid for work they did decades ago.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What about payola?
The record industry pays radio stations payola, to make sure that their songs are played, but now they want the stations to pay them back?!
From what planet are they?
And yes, I want to make money from stuff I did many years ago, too! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about payola?
better get xm, because the riaa is going to kill the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about payola?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is your brain on drugs
To be fair to the RIAA, everyone else is doing it. Everytime you pay for a brand something: NIKE, BOSE, Sony, Lexus, a good chunk of money is because of the brand recognition. Which, if you think about it, is just the companies strategy to get you to advertise their stuff. Nike gets the benefit of all the kids at school wearing their shoes.
The RIAA is just trying to cash in on the same scam. Who knows, maybe this will start the pendulim swinging back the other direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yet again
A statement of the obvious but so what? Royalties are typically based on audience size anyway. And some internet stations have larger audiences than some terrestrial stations and vice versa while some stations are free while some are not. But so what of it? We're talking about different royalties per audience member being charged to different stations based solely on their broadcast technology.
Why should operating costs have anything to do with it? If I drive a gas guzzler should I get free gas? And if I drive an economy vehicle should I pay extra for gas so as to subsidize the free gas for the guzzlers? That sounds like some kind of welfare system to me.
I agree but still see no legitimate reason for rate discrimination here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
"Does your face hurt when you say stupid stuff"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Stations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a job.
Yeah, go figure. She is complaining because she has to keep working to make money. I read it, and my nose started to bleed.
I don't know exactly why musicians like this think they're better than everyone else-- that they have to work for a few years of their life and be set until their great grandchildren die. It makes me glad I stopped buying music.
I think this law needs to get passed. It's the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. I can't wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mary Wilson???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe not stupid....
Thus the Record Companies would have even more control over what is being played. There would be fewer "choices" for programmers and listeners, but we would be listening to what the Record Companies wanted us too.
Or we would be "paying" by being forced to purchase a Satellite Service to get the music we want... thus they would make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe not stupid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Onion's Trademark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight...
Last time I checked if I wanted someone to play my ad I had to pay them for the airtime.
I'd really like to know why the RIAA and musicians think that they are so special that only they should get paid for work they did decades ago.
Is the family of the architechs that designed the Brooklyn or Golden Gate bridges still collecing a salary for their ancestor's work?
Is the family of Thomas Edison still collecting royalties from all the inventions he came up with?
I work in the IT department of a bank, does that mean that 20 yr. from now I can still get paid for people I'm helping now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So let me get this straight...
no, you don't have millions of dollars to buy legislation with.
you're a serf just like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA
Obviously you don't like music the same I do, I like to listen to my music. How am I suppose to do that if I boycott? You are lame, quit posting.
As far as this article goes, I would not worry about it. The RIAA will never win this issue since radio is considered a service. The courts will go against any action the RIAA tries to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA
Ugh... I wish there was some way to genetically engineer people to be born with at least an ounce of common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Mary's First Cash Grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
I have news for you, I can find an example of one lazy technoid person but I would be extremely resistant to calling all technical people lazy.
Also, chances are that Mike has some amount of money in a savings account and (gasp) he is just sitting around at home earning passive income.
People, look at his underlying arguments. I think passive income is a great goal (hard to achieve) and I wish it for all here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
Mike didn't say musicians are lazy. He said that its unreasonable for anyone to claim recompense for work done decades ago.
I'm tempted to call shill on this comment, because no one with a double digit IQ could deduce what you have deduced from Mikes article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
At one point we were having a bad time financially and he went back to writing music for a while, but that's the point: he went back to writing. He produced new and different work in order to get paid. It's sad to think that there are people who believe this isn't how the world should work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
Also, chances are that Mike has some amount of money in a savings account and (gasp) he is just sitting around at home earning passive income.
And if Mike does have some money in a savings account collecting interest I'll bet it's money that he earned it instead of still getting paid for blog posts he made 5-6 years ago.
There is a big difference between investing and buying laws that will save you the trouble of working decades after your career is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again Mike Says Musicians Lazy
Now there's an odd statement. I have nothing against musicians at all. I'm trying to help them understand better business models.
He has done this before (called musicians as a group lazy).
Wow. I'm not calling musicians as a group lazy at all. What gives you that idea? I'm pointing out that these musicians (and the RIAA) are asking to be paid again for work they did years ago. That certainly doesn't mean or imply that all musicians are lazy. Quite the opposite. I know plenty of musicians who are exceptionally hard working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#19, #20, #21
#20 - Along with voting with the wallet/purse its just as important to get the word about about the RIAA's underhanded tactics. Two or three years ago I didn't know (or care) about what how the RIAA was acting but I'm a little more informed and I think I'm better for it. It's not like this stuff gets a lot of mainstream media coverage.
#21 - The Supremes were around in the 60s and 70s but if you go back to the 20s and 30s the musicians of that day had it even worse and I hate to play the race card but it was even worse than that if you were not white. The idea of the entertainment industry screwing the acutal talent out of money is a very old practice. It's pretty obvious that the music industry has enjoyed this position for a very long time but now technology has finally advanced to the point where they can't maintain the stranglehold anymore. So their solution is to buy a few custom made laws from Congress (using the money they've amassed over the years). And as for who she should go after I'm sure those old contracts are tighter than a nun's...innocence. They are probably riddled with all kinds of clauses that prevent her from taking any action so after decades of bitterness she is not concerned with getting her money from the ones that actually cheated her but instead she just wants money no matter where it comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Webcasters back the terrestrial royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Webcasters back the terrestrial royalties
Lets not forget that the terrestrial stations have to pay all kinds of license fees, shell out millions for radio equipment, and pay all their employees (and perhaps their fines to the FCC). I'm sure there's a cut in there somewhere for the music industry as well. It's not like their sitting in their living room bathing in cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are lame, quit posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are lame, quit posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are lame, quit posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as people keep paying the price for entertainment the insanity will continue. Internet radio (the free stuff) is not a high dollar business, they can’t pay the price for very long. And Satellite Radio passes their cost directly off to it’s customers. If the RIAA gets their way, small terrestrial stations will be out of business as well.
Who will this leave and how much will it cost us? Who will be telling us what we can listen to, what to watch? Corporations like Clear Channel and Citadel, or the RIAA/MPAA themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA version of a UAW pension fund
We'll all be charged by the mile, and absolutely NOONE is allowed to sell or purchase a "used" automobile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promotion is indespensible from licensing
But the company can not license IP if it's not promoted. The two are inseparatable from each other.
The current distribution system is broken, and is focused on each other's back through what seems to be on a handshake and a smile.
Once senior level folks actually understand potential cost savings and Return-On-Investment required to maintain the current process in comparison to potential new processes or utilizing new entrants into this space, the dam will break.
It will happen eventually... As a result of people retiring if nothing else. Whoever lands that position- Music 2.0- will be one lucky person. The world will be their oyster.
In order for a company to survive the times, I firmly believe they need to constantly re-invent themselves, at least every 5 years- Throw the entire process out and reinvent asking "If I was to start this business today, how would I do it?"
It's tough for the RIAA to do this simply because too many people have their hands in the cookie jar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullies
http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/04/30/clear_channel/index.html
It would be interesting to see which company can bully each other:
In one corner, the RIAA, which represents artists (but is usually only trying to make money for itself).
In the other corner, Clear Channel Communications, which owns or operates thousands of radio stations.
If the RIAA pushes Clear Channel, will they push back and no longer play RIAA-backed music? How would this affect all the artists whom the RIAA claims to represent?
Of course the other question is: how relevant is "top 40" radio? How many people still listen to the same cookie-cutter "Best Mix of the 60's, 70's, and 80's" stations? How many people listen instead to talk radio, sports radio, or satellite radio? How important is it to have your song played on the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" onclick="javascript:alert('fixme')"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbeleivable!
Traditional media man! I hate these dinosaurs sticking to their traditional ways of marketing. Change or die RIAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]