Bailing Out The RIAA?
from the there-we-go... dept
At the Tech Policy Summit yesterday, David Carson, the General Counsel of the US Copyright Office spent a bit of time at the beginning of his talk explaining why the Performance Rights Act made sense. This is the bill that would make radio stations pay musicians (rather than just songwriters as it is now) for every song they play on the radio. The recording industry insists that it's somehow unfair that radio stations have been promoting their music for free, and Carson seems to believe their explanation 100% (which is, unfortunately, quite typical of the Copyright Office). He argued, unconvincingly, that while radio used to promote artists (the reason that stations don't need to pay musicians), it no longer does so. That makes no sense. While there are alternatives out there for promoting artists, and radio may not have the impact it once had, that hardly means that the stations aren't promoting the music.And, of course, the most damning argument against the recording industry's demand for money here is the fact that, for decades, the industry has (illegally) had the money go in the other direction. The system of payola has shown, quite clearly, how much the recording industry values airtime, in that it's willing to pay radio stations to play its music.
So, can anyone explain why it's illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it's okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.
Yet, with a nice push from the Copyright Office, the bill is moving forward, and will face a full House vote. During the Committee debate over the bill, Rep. Daniel Lungren made a perfectly reasonable suggestion: why not wait until the GAO had a chance to do an economic analysis of how the bill would impact radio stations. Considering that the bill is effectively a tax on those radio stations, this seems like a perfectly reasonable idea... but it resulted in Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood, always) accusing Lungren of trying to kill the bill. Isn't it great when simply waiting to find out what kind of impact the bill might have gets you accused of trying to kill it. Apparently in Congress, it's all about shooting first and asking questions later.
That said, Peter Kafka, over at AllThingsD, has made the best point: most people don't care about this bill because they don't realize that it's really a bill to bail out the RIAA by creating a radio station tax that goes straight into the recording industry's bank accounts. So, rather than call it the Performance Rights Act, it should more accurately be called the Britney Bailout Bill.
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
Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I will go on the record and say that the radio industry will eventually support this law, because it will completely kill off what's left of net and satellite radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another reason not to listen to radio
If this passes, Radio will die out... wait... we can have comercial radio stations that just play comercials all day long.. yeah.. that's the ticket.
I guess once you get elected to a public office, you take dumb pills and follow other people around like Lemmings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
This is how it works.
What is the most important item on every newly elected politician's agenda? Getting re-elected. Easiest way of getting re-elected? Big campaign warchest. Easiest way of getting a big campaign warchest? Agreeing to support certain issues from lobbyists in return for campaign contributions.
It's the path of least resistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
If I remember correctly wasn't it "Demolition Man" that had an all commercial jingle station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
Yes, but then it would be the CIAA (Commercial Industry Association of America) instead of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
So let me make sure I understand - here in the US it's legal to buy a congressman, but illegal to buy a radio broadcast?
Yup. This is because congressmen make the laws. If radio broadcasters did, you could expect the reverse to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
But that is what people should do. Radio is a place to discover music, not a place to "Hey I will listen to music without paying for it and legally".
If you like something you see there (or another place), you are supossed to buy (or other stuff like pirate) and then listen to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No skin off my back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No skin off my back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No skin off my back
Ugh no kidding. 107.7 The End in Seattle (one of our two, arguably three, big rock stations) is STILL playing the same Soundgarden and Alice in Chains songs we've heard a million times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No skin off my back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No skin off my back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what about LA?
KROQ is still playing the same songs from Nirvana, Sublime and The Smashing Pumpkins that we've heard gazillion times!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we'll have record labels paying radio stations to pay the record labels to pay the radio stations to...
And the only real winners are the companies that print their check pads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAB, Where Are You?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Stations already hurting...
The good part about this is that it would mean more independent songs will end up on the radio. Where before the program director would shy away from any but major hits, they'll now have a good incentive to start taking independent artist phone calls.
The way for the record labels to fix the issue is to come up with better business models. This is short sighted at best and on the surface seems like a huge strategic mistake.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Some Logic, People
I can, genius. Payola is illegal because it introduces unfair competition in the marketplace. It's okay for congress to LEGALLY APPROVE A BILL to make stations pay the labels, because the stations are using their content. Every other country's radio stations pay artist and songwriter royalties. And yes, money does go to the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use Some Logic, People
How is payola "unfair" competition? In nearly every other market, those who are willing to pay the most get the deal. Why should radio be any different?
"It's okay for congress to LEGALLY APPROVE A BILL to make stations pay the labels, because the stations are using their content."
But yet you claim it would be unfair for Congress to legally approve a bill to make artists pay radio stations because the artists are using the radio station's services as advertising?! Heck, it appears to me that both radio stations and musicians benefit from the radio play, so maybe, just maybe, neither should pay.
"Every other country's radio stations pay artist and songwriter royalties."
An appeal to authority, i.e, the lemmings argument. If everyone jumps off a cliff, we should too! Wow, you're amazing. I'm convinced!
"And yes, money does go to the artists."
And that makes it OK how? I'd rather the money go to feed the poor. Why are they less deserving of a government tax on radio stations than rock stars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Terrestrial radio operates on public airwaves and is subject to regulation by the FCC. There is an obligation to the public that what is being played has not been manipulated under the table. Paying for music to be played on the radio is, in fact, legal if the station indicates that the playing of a song has been paid for.
"But yet you claim it would be unfair for Congress to legally approve a bill to make artists pay radio stations because the artists are using the radio station's services as advertising?! Heck, it appears to me that both radio stations and musicians benefit from the radio play, so maybe, just maybe, neither should pay."
Why would artists have to pay radio stations? They did not force the radio stations to play them. In fact, the radio stations never asked their permission. As it stands, radio stations are benefitting from artists' contributions AND getting paid for it. Let's be clear: radio stations need artists' content far more than artists need radio station's promotion.
"An appeal to authority, i.e, the lemmings argument. If everyone jumps off a cliff, we should too! Wow, you're amazing. I'm convinced!"
The fact that every other country pays for artist royalties does not in and of itself make the argument, but should suggest that they might be onto something if we're the only ones withholding.
"And that makes it OK how? I'd rather the money go to feed the poor. Why are they less deserving of a government tax on radio stations than rock stars?"
Makes WHAT ok? The artists should be compensated, because their product is being used. Promotion is a very nebulous term, and quite frankly, artists can get better promotion in other avenues (for example, a movie trailer broke MIA's Paper Planes and AFTER that radio jumped on the bandwagon). Further, it's not a tax. It's compensation. And why would bring up poor people? This has absolutley nothing to do with the argument at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Yep.
"There is an obligation to the public that what is being played has not been manipulated under the table."
Maybe you can cite to that specific regulation which led to anti-payola laws. Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.
"Paying for music to be played on the radio is, in fact, legal if the station indicates that the playing of a song has been paid for."
Yep, but you still have not answered my question. "How is payola "unfair" competition?
"Why would artists have to pay radio stations?"
Why, for the same reason they've been paying for decades, to get radio play to increase single, LP, and CD sales. Is this your first day on the planet? If so, welcome to earth! If not, move out of that cave!
"but should suggest that they might be onto something if we're the only ones withholding."
So you're only suggesting that we jump off the cliff. Thanks. I'll make a note of that.
"The artists should be compensated, because their product is being used."
Radio stations should be compensated because their services are being used. Exactly why is your assertion more correct than my assertion?
"artists can get better promotion in other avenues"
Radio can certainly get better music from what's being pushed by the major labels nowadays.
"Further, it's not a tax. It's compensation."
If two entities agree to make and accept a payment situation, its a free market at work. However, when the government requires it be paid, it's a tax. You can call it ice cream as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't change anything.
"And why would bring up poor people?"
I asked a question, why are musicians more deserving of this tax than poor people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
2) I hope you realize there is a difference between a royalty and a tax. The bill is trying to enact a royalty for songs played. Another example of you conflating terms to come to a faulty conclusion. Interesting.
3) you said "Why, for the same reason they've been paying for decades, to get radio play to increase single, LP, and CD sales. Is this your first day on the planet? If so, welcome to earth! If not, move out of that cave!"
Way to miss the point of my question, which was not "what how would an artist benefit from bribing a station?" but was actually "why should an artist have to pay to get promotion when the radio station is using their product for free?"
4) you said "Radio stations should be compensated because their services are being used. Exactly why is your assertion more correct than my assertion?"
My assertion is more correct than yours because the radio stations did not ask the artists if they could use their songs in exchange for promotion. They played the songs FIRST and then called it promotion. The artists had no voice in how their work was to be used, and then were told by the radio stations how they would be compensated for it. Letting one side (the broadcasters) define the terms of compensation seems inherently unfair.
5) you said "I asked a question, why are musicians more deserving of this tax than poor people?"
Aside from the fact that your original question was a poor attempt to make a point by going completely off subject, I'll answer and steer us back on course.
Musicians are more deserving off this ROYALTY than your unamed, vague "poor people" (many of whom might be musicians, by the way) because their content has been used to make a profit. They are getting a royalty, specifically for songs that are performed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
This is where you're wrong and this is the center point for your entire argument
No radio station could ever pay any song without the permission of the copyright holder (The label, the artist doesn't come into play here). Back then the labels knew that there were so many options for the radios to play that they invented the idea of payola to get the leg up on the competition. This idea would never have been thought up if the labels thought that their music was more valuable than the time on the air and they didn't have to compete for that time.
Right now all the artists or labels have to do is sit down the the owners of the stations and say they can't use their music without paying (that's it, 100% legal and 100% binding). If they did this the stations would legally have to comply or not use the music. Why don't they? Because the labels know that the stations can just go somewhere else to get the music that's played (more than likely for free). The labels don't have that option (or they don't think they do). So, they end up going to the government to institute this tax (and it is a tax) to force the radio stations to pay the labels. And since they would be forced to pay (no contract can get around the law) the labels hope the stations will keep playing the music that the washed masses think is good.
If this is enforced then the stations go back to square one where they can play whatever they want and the labels end up back there too where they have to somehow compete to keep their mass marketed crap on the air. And we loop entirely back around to payola, but this time it has to be more to pay for the taxes as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
AND
"Right now all the artists or labels have to do is sit down the the owners of the stations and say they can't use their music without paying (that's it, 100% legal and 100% binding)."
Your first comment is correct. The songwriter signs up with a peformance rights society. Of course, the artists often isn't the songwriter and has no say in the matter. This is my point.
I'm not sure your second comment is accurate. Can you provide a link for this or cite a reference? Are you saying that the owner of the master recording can block a radio station from playing a song even if the songwriter has licensed this song for radio play? I don't believe that is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
"Why would artists have to pay radio stations? They did not force the radio stations to play them. In fact, the radio stations never asked their permission. As it stands, radio stations are benefitting from artists' contributions AND getting paid for it. Let's be clear: radio stations need artists' content far more than artists need radio station's promotion."
With all due respect, obviously you have never worked in radio or had a successful career in the music business. If you had, you'd know that not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio. And I mean ANYTHING. Gifts, wine and dine, money, whatever it took, they'd do, if they could get away with it. And the artists themselves would call you and beg you to please, please play their new song.
Ask any new artist who's trying to make it in the music business; "If you could have one thing that would help further your career, what would it be?" - almost all of them would say "play my song on the radio"
Just last week, on American Idol, as one of the judges gushed about a contestant's performance, she said "I can imagine hearing that song on the RADIO!!!" And the contestant's eyes flew open and he said "Wow! Thanks!"
Don't kid yourself. Radio is still the most effective way to mass market new music. What other way is there that's more effective? If you try to tell me the internet is a better way to introduce new music to the masses than radio, you are just plain crazy. I'd love to see an artist try to make it big without radio...good luck with that.
I seriously want to know, do you honestly believe that artists like Brittany Spears or Carrie Underwood would be as big as they are today if their songs had never first been played on the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Mhmm, how about you provide a breakdown of how people learn about music and then make unsubstantiated claims. The fact that payola still exists is a counter argument already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
My argument can logically be proven. If radio didn't have any music to play, the vast majority of stations would be talk format and most would die out.
However, if artists didn't have radio to promote them or play their music they would still be able to promote themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on and on.
Payola only assures artists get better promotion. It is not the be all and end all for artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Im Curious - What about up and coming artists?? I know that my band would love to be on the radio - I dont think i would mind not getting paid for it to spread my music.
>However, if artists didn't have radio to promote them or >play their music they would still be able to promote >themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, >public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on >and on.
tv shows and movies.... how exactly do i get my music into one of these... is their that abundant a supply???
Performances - yup - but im sure more people would come to my performance if i could get on the radio.....
ads - cost money I don't have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Im Curious - What about up and coming artists?? I know that my band would love to be on the radio - I dont think i would mind not getting paid for it to spread my music.
>However, if artists didn't have radio to promote them or >play their music they would still be able to promote >themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, >public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on >and on.
tv shows and movies.... how exactly do i get my music into one of these... is their that abundant a supply???
Performances - yup - but im sure more people would come to my performance if i could get on the radio.....
ads - cost money I don't have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
And for your question about placement, I've known plenty of friends who have gotten their music placed on tv shows and they've never had radio play beyond college stations. They generally have managers, though, that push their stuff. And of course, they're out there everyday making contacts and promoting themselves to music supervisors and other industry folk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
The issue here is whether radio is still the most viable method of promotion. I don't see it as being that, but some people still do.
I think Apple is probably doing better with the weekly free iTunes download than most other forms of promotion out there today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
But the fact is, my only argument was whether radio needs music more than artists need radio's promotion. Since artists have other ways to promote themselves (and there is a recent study that shows radio's help promoting artists has been greatly exagerrated) they will never be totally dependant on radio. Radio, however, will always need music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Paying with one hand and Getting rich on the other. It was a business deal that they saw as the most effective way to get maximum return for their exposure. Pay a station a few thousand so they play the song on high rotation... this means more people like the music, more people buy the music, merch and see the shows, star is better known... suddenly that payola fee is not such a big amount.
It was never just a one way street as seems to be so often suggested here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use Some Logic, People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biting the Hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And programmers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio would get better and small non-RIAA acts would get coverage.
Win-Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So stop playing those that demand payment and ask for Indie Bands to send you stuff you can play for free.
Welcome to the internets. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on one second there argument is that radio stations must pay the musicians in order to get the privilege to promote the musicians music?
did i sleep through ALL my marketing classes? isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stabbing a suffering medium
I hope to hell the rest of the legislators will destroy this bill. I hold out hope of hearing some of my favorite celebrities back on the radio again. (adam carolla, bonaduce, leykis, etc...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that is why..
My Creative Zen V Plus has done me just fine for the last few years and will continue to do so until such time I replace it with another player.
And besides the internet is a MUCH better tool for discovering new music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is the best way to f--k the RIAA without becoming a music pirate. Buy your music CDs second-hand. Eventually someone in the music industry old guard is going to get the message - or they'll find a way to get their hands on the royalties for a second and third-party sale of used music CDs. If the latter scenario ever happens, I will download bootleg music from that day forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempt at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempt at Answer
"So, can anyone explain why it's illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it's okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense. "
If no one else wants to take a crack at this I will. In the early stages of introducing (planting) a song the money would flow from the label to the station in (illegal) payola. In the harvesting stage the song is established and money should flow the other way to the performer.
So in my mind if the free market sorted things out (and as of right now terrestial radio has some legitimate competition) then the old model of granting a total governmental free pass subsidy to the radio for the performer share is incorrect in todays market and going the other way with a mechanical liscence for every performance is also inappropriate.
So I am somewhat in the middle on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe if the bill passes it would be a good thing for everyone. The artists that don't fit the main stream BS being pumped out right now can have a chance to get some exposure and I'll have something NEW to listen to. They could even allow the radio stations to play their songs for free in trade for the promotional time.
As far as better promotional venues...what did you have in mind? Radio reaches more people than just about every other platform I can think of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bite a hand that helps to Feed
Lets think about this for a second, lets say the RIAA Nazi's get this bill passed and now radio stations have to pay the artists they are essentially advertising. What does that mean for the radio stations? A higher operating expense for having to pay those extra fees which = the need for more revenue which means selling more ads on the radio. More ads means more fed up listeners turn off the radio because too many commercials (I am already here). Less radio listeners = less advertising for the artists this...supposedly helps which translates to lower song and album sales. In the end congratulations! You have shot yourself in the head in order to try and cure a minor headache. FAIL!!!!!!!! Let's not even mention the radio stations that could go under or switch to talk radio because it becomes too expensive or cost ineffective to play music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is how much their product is worth to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Payola
I have long promoted the idea that if radio stations are forced to pay to play music, they should charge record cos. for the privilege of playing their music. I suspect even in this day of the diminished listenership, record cos. would be willing to pay more than the royalties, so the radio stations would come out OK in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both my bands "Big Meat Hammer" and "The Lynn Rebels" would both shed no tears to see the big music RIAA Signers do a bellyflop.
Hey look at it this way they charge money and all of us who refuse to sign with the RIAA would love you to play us for free.We really appreciate the exposure you give us.
Support non-corporate music and you can hasten their inevitable demise.
And by the way if you do like punktype hard rock I give a lot of music out all for free and all at 320k MP3.
These corporate guys are so greedy I really have to wonder wehy any of you would ever want to buy a big label product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA deserves to DIE OFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
I can see a lot of radio stations going indie, there are hundreds (thousands? not sure about millions) of bands that would love their stuff to be played for free. All of that promotion, maybe at the 'cost' of the radio station putting a link to the band pages on their website so that listeners can investigate bands further (and if they are offering free downloads, then get access to more music)..
less talk time... more variety... station profits from having something to play... band profits from (potentially) massive exposure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bite the hand that feeds you
This bill will cause a lot of changes to radio as we know it. Radio stations will likely take one of two options. The first is to change their format to more talk based shows. They may not completely sway from music, but it's unlikely that they'll keep the same level of musical programming. That will reduce their costs and help to maintain their profits.
The second option is to increase revenue. (ie: commercials) Of course this will also decrease airtime available to music, and this is only an option for stations that can sell additional commercial spots. You may even end up seeing Paid Programming on radio... Way to bite the hand that feeds you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bailing out the RIAA and Payola
On the other hand when the record companies pay off our Congressmen and Senators through campaign contributions to write laws that benefit the record companies and increase costs to consumers, the record companies claim their payoffs(campaign contributions) are protected free speech.
Is it possible that our government has become fascist and is corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah right
RT
www.whos-watching.net.tc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these musicians ...
And this proposed right doesn't even collect money for the *musicians* - it collects the money for the /copyright holders/ - which is more often than not the record label, and not the musicians.
This is just another case of bait and switch on a bunch of musicians too blinded by the thought of a paycheck to realize that they're going to get f'd over again, by the same labels and managers that have been doing it for a hundred years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists deserve to be paid
Writing a song (including music) - 40 hours? (I don't know if this is right, I'm not a writer)
Practice - 20 hours?
Recording and mixing - 10 hours?
total = 70 hours
Given a reasonable wage of $20/hour = $1400 per song (per collaborator), no matter how often it is played. If someone makes a hammer, do they get paid every time a builder hits a nail with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists deserve to be paid
I agree that life of copyrights should be kept in check, but you're basically advocating doing away with copyright. So basically anyone could use a work to make money, but the creator wouldn't see another cent beyond the initial creation. That makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
Radio created payola through extortion ... "You want your record played ... pay us under the table!"
The NAB has gotten its way with Congress for years through extortion ... "You want to get re-elected in your district, don't listen to the artist's calls for parody with laws in the rest of the world or we'll bury you."
With radio's power slipping away ... it's time for fairness to prevail ... There is no rational for anyone to provide high quality entertainment to radio for free if the trumped up reason - quid pro quo - (airplay causes record sales)is gone.
American artists, whose music is the most popular in the world, have suffered for years in that they have received none of the billions of dollars paid in other countries for performances on radio - The rational? If US radio doesn't pay foreign artists for performances in the US, we (the foreign collections societies) are not going to pay American artists for the performance of their music in our countries.
It's time for radio to start acting like any other business by paying for the goods (music) they need operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break OK?
They are self serving and political and have NEVER represented the best interests of the artists. It is enough and time that people stop helping them. The recording industry is working on an outdated business model and WE ALL KNOW IT!!! This bill is ridiculous and I only HOPE someone with some brains sees it as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why talk when we can just sink the RIAA?
So why does anyone give them money? I don't, and if things are allowed to happen natually, the RIAA will die. But then again, they are shoulder deep in the anus of congress, so I'm sure they'll find a way to make us pay for silence as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why talk when we can just sink the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody has to listen to their overproduced trash anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indie Artists Led The Fight For This Bill
The Future of Music Coalition is dedicated to enhancing opportunities for indie artists to compete with the majors.
At that conference, indie artists were advised that copyright laws in most other countries of the world provided for payment to artists for the performances of their works on broadcast media ... They were also told that because the US didn't have those rights in its copyright law, money for performances of US recordings overseas was being withheld and distributed among foreign artists whose countries had laws that did contain performance provisions.
Over the years, we're talking billions of dollars not paid to US performers for the performances of their recordings in foreign countries!
The Future of Music Coalition led the charge on behalf of its constituency - indie artists - to make lawmakers aware of the inequity.
Artists (including those from the Recording Academy, AFM, AFTRA and other artist based organizations - indie and majors) as well as songwriters from all over the country joined in the effort to make Congress see how unfair US artists were being treated.
Sure the RIAA joined in and lent its weight to the fight, but it was the artists (and mostly indie artists) that carried the water ...
And, you will say ... sure the RIAA would join in because you all want to believe that they will get all of the benefit from the results of this bill.
Not true ...
Artists will get 60% of the monies earned and the record company will get 40%. Not only that, but the Artists will be paid direct ... no skimming off the top by the record companies.
This is the right bill at the right time for all the right reasons.
The National Association of Broadcaster (NAB) are the bad guys in this piece ...
If you are for the advancement of indie artists ... you should support of this legislation. It will help them stay alive while they produce the music you say you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
Radio, both terrestrial and internet, already is (or should be) paying public performance royalties through these Performing Rights Organizations.
Is this a new copyright, akin to what was created by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
Yes.
ASCAP, BMI or SESAC collect and pay songwriters, and music publishers.
This would pay artists and record companies through SoundExchange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA just needs to be made illegal
Take a look at the RIAA site and their member list. You will not find a single artist, songwriter, composer or musician anywhere on the list, period. The RIAA is the record labels and it's just one more way the RIAA yanks money from the aforementioned groups and gives little to nothing back to them.
So here's the deal - get rid of the RIAA and any law that the RIAA helped pass. I have no issue giving the aforementioned groups their fair share of money but NOT THE RIAA. The RIAA members have been taking their money for way too long. Considering out of a $15.99 CD an artist might be lucky enough to get .50 cents out of it tell me just who are the crooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get real
With all due respect, obviously you have never worked in radio or had a successful career in the music business. If you had, you'd know that not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio. And I mean ANYTHING. Gifts, wine and dine, money, whatever it took, they'd do, if they could get away with it. And the artists themselves would call you and beg you to please, please play their new song.
Ask any new artist who's trying to make it in the music business; "If you could have one thing that would help further your career, what would it be?" - almost all of them would say "play my song on the radio"
Just last week, on American Idol, as one of the judges gushed about a contestant's performance, she said "I can imagine hearing that song on the RADIO!!!" And the contestant's eyes flew open and he said "Wow! Thanks!"
Don't kid yourself. Radio is still the most effective way to mass market new music. What other way is there that's more effective? If you try to tell me the internet is a better way to introduce new music to the masses than radio, you are just plain crazy. I'd love to see an artist try to make it big without radio...good luck with that.
I seriously want to know, do you honestly believe that artists like Brittany Spears or Carrie Underwood would be as big as they are today if their songs had never first been played on the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's get real
In fact, I do have a successful career in the music business. If you read my other posts, you'd see that my argument isn't whether or not radio is a good promotional tool for an artist, but whether the radio stations need the music more than artists need their promotion. Artists have other avenues for promotion, radio stations do not have other ways to get music (unless you're talking about bands giving it to them for free).
Funny how you mention "not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio" and use Britney Spears as one of your examples. Let's keep the talk in the present, please.
Frankly, the argument that artists and labels don't deserve to be compensated for radio stations playing their music-- because the promotional value is worth so much--seems exclusive to radio. Sports radio and tv stations have to pay for broadcasting rights to air sports games even though the stations are giving promotion to the sports teams. This makes sense, because while the stations are promoting the teams, the teams are also used by the stations and networks to promote themselves: "Tune in to CBS 5 for The Final Four!"
Also, there is one study the broadcasters are citing that supposedly proves that radio's promotion is invaluable (which the NAB advocates use) and another that proves, on the whole, radio's promotion is marginal at best (this of course used by the bill's proponents). Who do we believe?
A lot of this promotion talk also seems to contain a significant amount of circular logic. Does playing a song on radio significantly drive the popularity of artist up, or is the artist being played so much by radio because they are becoming more and more popular in general? Not to mention, not all artists are made equal. Pop and rap acts will likely benefit significantly more from radio exposure than the next Radiohead. MIA has a giant career right now because "Paper Planes" was featured in the trailer for "Pineapple Express."
And finally, what about artists who aren't up and coming? Radio's promotion of them has to be minimal at best. What exactly is the value of playing a Bob Marley song for the Wailers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's get real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play non-corporate music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget Internet radio
I'm sorry but if they have to pay for this, they deserve it.
I'm not happy knowing that the money goes to RIIA and not the artists but at least they are getting something.
Just ask a radio DJ how much the radio station pays him or her and you will get the idea. They help them to make thosusands even million of dollars a year and they just want to pay $10 an hour.
How does it feel radio stations?
You can ask your DJ's too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio is top place people find new music
Radio delivers massive music sales.
Check out the just released study on Rock listeners by Jacobs Media at www.jacobsmedia.com/articles/tech5main.asp
It shows the following:
Top place that people find new music – 85% say FM radio.
Friends, movies, and TV follow.
56% say FM radio is the primary source of new music.
Knowing this, those who wish to continue to benefit from radio's free airplay of music should oppose the performance fee too.
The study also highlighted 4 stars that are showing a big increase -
audio streaming, social networking, video streaming and text messaging. Our radio stations, and many others, provide these "stars" for our fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radio is top place people find new music
Exerpt from USA Today Interview titled
"5 QUESTIONS FOR MUSIC LABEL ICON CLIVE DAVIS"
By Gary Rawlins
Q: We've seen a decline in radio listening. Has the Internet taken its place to introduce an artist or song?
A: No. Radio is still the leading force of determining what songs and artists break through.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/monday/2009-05-31-business-books-tv-movies -clive-davis-q-and-a_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip#five
Oh, and any musician on here who is in favor of this performance tax, please do let us know the full name you record under. We want to know exactly who you are so that we can make sure that we never, ever play any of your music on our radio stations. Since you don't need radio to succeed, we don't want to waste our valuable airtime on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that radio stations rely heavily on older music (whether a pop hit from 5 years ago or a classic rock song from 30) that does not get much of a promotional bump from airplay, seems to indicate that often times the value derived from a music in the favor of broadcasters. The performance royalty is a way to balance this relationship. This might mean that newer songs, which would benefit more from airplay promotion, would cost broadcasters less than established songs.
More fundmentally, the whole promotion value argument the broadcasters make is innacurate. Broadcasters say they give artists artists free promotion and that this is the artists' compensation--and that the broadcasters are compensated by ad revenue.
This is incomplete. A more complete version would be this: Broadcasters give artists promotion, in turn broadcasters make money from ad revenue generated by playing records, and IN ADDITION broadcasters use the music and the artists to promote themselves--"Listen to your favorite artists (insert mash up of the top hit songs) on KISS FM!" In a way, broadcasters are double-dipping. This is why TV networks pay to broadcast sports games. Promotion goes both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A TV viewer cannot see a football game, become excited about it, then go buy that football game at their local K-Mart so they can watch it over and over. A radio listener, however, CAN do the same thing with music, new and old.
On another subject, do you, James, actually disagree with the great Clive Davis? After all he is an undisputed expert on the music business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]