How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story

from the anything-for-the-money dept

Tue, Jun 16th 2009 6:22am — Mike Masnick

We've already discussed how silly the Performance Rights Act is -- and how it's basically an attempt by the record labels to get their own bailout courtesy of radio stations. There are all sorts of problems with it, and Jess Walker does an amazing job explaining just how ridiculous the Performance Rights Act is. In doing so, he highlights one point that is quite a common trick in the RIAA's bag of tricks, but which doesn't get enough attention: how it changes the story to flip things around to its advantage over and over and over again. Case in point: the RIAA is arguing that it needs to get royalties to performers for radio air play to "even out" the situation, since radio is the "only" platform where performers don't get royalties. For example, they point to internet radio and satellite radio, where artist do get paid.

So, the RIAA claims, this is unfair... after all, why should they get paid for all of those, but not radio?

Except, the RIAA conveniently wants us all to forget history. That's because it was the RIAA who argued that satellite radio, internet radio and other forms of broadcasting were different from terrestrial radio, and therefore required different royalty structures. In other words, the only reason why this "unfair" dichotomy exists in the first place is because the RIAA lobbied for it by claiming that satellite radio and internet radio were different.

Now it wants everyone to forget that and pretend that it's some weird "anomaly" that terrestrial radio doesn't include performance royalties? Don't buy it. This is the sort of thing the industry has pulled off for years -- pushing one country to extend copyright laws, and then moving to other countries and working up a lobbyist campaign about how that country isn't keeping up with other, more reasonable countries, concerning copyright laws. Have you noticed what's happening in Canada these days? That's a direct example of this sort of thing.

Walker also takes on other points to show how silly and dangerous the Performance Rights Act would be. It benefits no one but the record labels. It harms radio stations. It harms independent musicians. It harms big musicians as well (since most of the money doesn't go to them, but to the record labels). Who does it help? The RIAA, of course:

And for what? Imagine, as a thought experiment, that this bill were passed and, simultaneously, payola were made fully legal. Does anyone doubt that more money would flow toward the radio stations than away? Radio remains the primary means by which the music industry promotes its product. By pushing for this fee, the labels are essentially asking their advertisers to pay them for the service of selling their stuff.

Ah, you say, but what about the independent artists who don't get big promotional pushes from the major music labels? Surely they'd benefit from a new revenue stream? Actually, they'll be even worse off. The economic mission of most commercial radio stations is to deliver audiences to the sponsors whose spots are aired between tunes. So programmers have a built-in preference for music whose mass appeal has already been proven. If you increase the cost of playing a record, that just intensifies the incentive: The more you pay to play a song, the more conservative you'll be about which songs you play. The marginal cost of playing each track is the same, but the commercial payoff is greater for established artists.

Generally speaking, the more it costs to run a station, the more risk-averse it will be. That's one reason low-power and Web outlets are more experimental: They don't have as much money on the line. But those stations--the ones that go out of their way to play diverse and unfamiliar material--are precisely the ones that have the hardest time paying the song tax. The proposed law acknowledges the problem by introducing a sliding scale, with the least profitable outfits paying $500 a year. But while that may be chump change for a big broadcaster, it's a pretty big piece of the operating budget for a low-power, volunteer-run community or student station.

Nor is it the only cost the law will impose. "The record labels are completely out of touch as to how college radio stations operate," Warren Kozireski, president of College Broadcasters Inc., recently complained on his organization's website. "The extensive record keeping requirements that will be required by the Copyright Royalty Board alone will add hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to the true cost of a performance fee." It's relatively easy to do that book-keeping if you have a narrow playlist and rarely deviate from it, as is the case with most large commercial radio stations. But if you have a library of thousands of albums and 45s, many of which were never reissued on CD, and if you allow your DJs to choose which ones they play--or even to bring in still more music from their personal collections of rare soul or jazz or bluegrass or electronica obscurities--then tracking the data suddenly becomes a full-time job.

Worse yet: Though the rhetoric around the proposal focuses on the benefits to musicians, much of the money won't make it to the artists in the first place. In part that reflects the fact that the fees go not just to the performers but to the copyright owner, which frequently means the record company. But it also reflects the corruption in the industry, which legislation like this has probably abetted.

As we've seen time and time again, if the RIAA supports it, it's not good for consumers. It's not good for musicians. It's not good for anyone but a small selection of record labels. Hopefully, Congress recognizes this for the pure money grab it is and shuts it down.

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: copyright, performance rights, radio, recording industry, riaa
Companies: riaa

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 6:47am

"payola were made fully legal"

That's a great idea. I know it's great because I've been saying the same thing for years.

Exactly why do we need a single solution mandated by law?! Let a free market sort this crap out. Let the musicians, the labels, performers and the radio broadcasters work out contracts about who is willing to pay whom. Different solutions would be created based upon different situations. And the government would have no reason to be involved.

The problem is that the music industry has been tied to the government's teat for so long, it no longer even understands how a free market works. Its solution for every problem is to get a new law passed or to file a lawsuit. When new laws and lawsuits are the only means to save your business model, it's probably time to give it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Osno, 16 Jun 2009 @ 6:59am

Once again, we have the rare opportunity to see if this new law will be good or bad by comparing how this "equivalent" stations have done in the years that the other performance rights law was working. If the artists did well and the stations survived, then it may be a good thing. If the stations shut down and the artists didn't receive anything of the tax, then this new law is probably wrong. I think the second happened, but I have partial information on the subject. Can't congress find good data and use it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old guy, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:15am

Re:
Payola is not taking place in a free market. You are forgetting that the airwaves themselves are a government granted monopoly. You do not have "competition", it is not a free market. As such, the "free market" cannot decide the going rate for payola (which CAN be decided on the web where there is now regulatory control of radio spectrum).

Because the free market cannot dictate the price of payola, it is up to the government to regulate it. The government chose to make it outright illegal, which appears to be in the best interest of consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:16am

Re:
"Once again, we have the rare opportunity to see if this new law will be good or bad by comparing how this "equivalent" stations have done in the years that the other performance rights law was working."

You mean like comparing it to the law that the dying sat industry is under? The law that the fewer and fewer web radios are under? The law that the recording industry has recently increased and claims it's not enough?

"If the artists did well and the stations survived"

Artists aren't a part of this argument. They've been screwed over by their record labels so long they know how to survive despite them.

"Can't congress find good data and use it?"

What, congress doing work? When the hell was the last time you saw that? And when they do get the true data, the lobbyists twist and distort it with their own "data" so that no one who can't think for themselves can decipher it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:18am

Strangely enough, I kind of like this idea, assuming of course that only music released on RIAA supported labels would be affected (if this is a blanket tax levied by the government then I could not be more opposed to it, but it is unclear from the article whether or not that is the case.)

I like the idea of the big record companies pushing themselves further and further towards obsolescence. This might give the little guy a chance to step up. When the radio station has the choice between paying $1,000,000 to play the latest turd that U2 put out, or play a track for free from a local independent artist, the second option will become far more attractive.

Does anybody else have any further insight into how this law would actually work? Like I said before, if it was a blanket law for any and all copyrighted works with one flat fee, that would be bad. If this only applies to the RIAA, I think it could be a good thing. I have not seen much worth listening to come from the major labels since the early 90's, and I think many people would agree were they exposed to more independent music, which this law could potentially help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Osno, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:19am

So that's it. The other law didn't work, there's compelling evidence that this one will not work. Case closed. Thanks RIAA for making web stations and radio stations "equivalent" so we could compare!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:30am

At this point in time, I have a hard time feeling bad for the radio stations. They joined the RIAA in lobbying for this tax on satellite and web radio stations. Maybe it's now time for them to lay in the bed that they made. And I wouldn't hold it against any web or satellite radio company that lobbies congress for the passage of this law.

Would it be bad for consumers? I'm on the fence. Since radio is free to the consumer now, I don't see how that would change, other than throwing more ads up per hour (which I doubt would happen). If anything stations might be persuaded to break from the traditional "10 songs only; 10 times a day" format that makes your ears bleed after a while, and actually play some non-RIAA related artists.

Either way, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dougie5oul, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:33am

I dont get it. Radio stations already pay a performance fee to PROs, who in turn pay royalties to the copyright owner. How is this different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tomas, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:39am

Music Industry circa 1920
I was listening to an interesting radio program, 'Oh My What A Rotten Song' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l0yl1 looking a music hall of the 1920s. What was interesting was the anecdotes of how it worked back them. According to the people interviewed:
- The income came from sheet music and ticket entry to the music hall.
- Most people did not buy sheet music but instead learned the songs at the music hall in sing-a-long sessions.
- Newspapers would publish songs as a free gift to readers.

It seems that the concept of free music was very much a part of the music industry circa 1920.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:41am

Re: Re:
"Payola is not taking place in a free market."

Sure, it's not currently taking place in a free market only because it's illegal. Once the laws are removed, then it could become a free market.

"Because the free market cannot dictate the price of payola"

You're assuming your conclusion. Why could a free market not exist where musicians and labels contract with radio stations for payment associated with airplay. It happens all the time on TV. A production company produces a pilot for show and then takes it around to the broadcasters. NBC, for example, decides it likes it so it pays to buy a full 13 episodes and agrees to put it on its fall schedule. The production company produces the episodes. NBC airs them, on public airways, and everyone is happy.

"The government chose to make it outright illegal"

The government can do a lot things, but that does not mean it should do such things.

"which appears to be in the best interest of consumers."

Yet another assumed conclusion. How am I harmed by the legality of payola?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike's got no talent, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:45am

So, I stopped reading this blog and went strictly to Slashdot because of Mike Masnick. Why? Well, not because I don't agree with him about the RIAA, but because well...that's all this guy writes about. And given that he is one of the most frequent writers on this blog, that doesn't allow much variety does it? So today I came back to see after a year...I wonder if Mike's gained journalistic talent and added some variety to his writing. The verdict? HELL NO. So far this year Mike's written about the RIAA over 70 times. 70 times!!! Could you imagine opening the New York Times every day and the front page has an article about the RIAA practically every day? No, obviously you would not read it, just as I have stopped reading this blog. This is not an avocation to just try to get everyone to rise up against this blog. No, this is more trying to get Mike to finally wake up and add some diversity to his writings. Then maybe he will actually be worth reading instead of a monotonous waste of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:49am

Re:
"we have the rare opportunity to see if this new law will be good or bad.... Can't congress find good data and use it?"

You seem to have no understanding as to why laws should be passed. We don't pass laws merely to see what happens in the future.

There is absolutely no need for a law to be passed when the market can solve the "problem."

Right now, the RIAA, performers, musicians, and labels can negotiation with radio broadcasters in good faith for payment. Nothing is stopping this from happening.

However, the music industry does not want to negotiate in good faith. It wants its terms imposed on radio broadcasters under force of law. There is simply no reason for such a draconian measure.

This law is nothing more than unfunded corporate welfare to the music industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:53am

I dont understand why .....
In new york city I heard a radio station talking about how this is going to hurt the radio stations, wanting everyone to go out and call their reps in congress. That was the only station that was trying to get people to do something.

I dont understand why every radio station isnt taking a stand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
res2 (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:55am

Re:
Don't let the door hit ya' where the Good Lord split ya...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tanya Morgan, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:00am

I don't understand...
Radio stations already have to pay a license fee for the music they play. I don't understand why they are introducing this law and why everyone is acting as if radio stations don't already have to pay for the music they play.

Could someone explain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC's long lost brother, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:00am

You're kidding right?
"Hopefully, Congress recognizes this for the pure money grab it is and shuts it down."

Of course they know it's a money grab, but congress is grabbing money from these lobbies, so they will do whatever they can to keep money flowing to them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:04am

Re:
Thanks for stopping by!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:07am

NAB bites own ass
I am pretty sure the National Association of Broadcasters helped get those "fees" in place for internet and satellite radio to hamper the competition. It is only fitting that it comes back to bite them in their own ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebel Freek (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:28am

Re:
I have a feeling it will be much like the royalties that bars and other venues payout to have anyone preform there, a blanket royalty system because "you dont know if the content will be infringing".

I would enjoy watching the RIAA drive themselves completely under, but they seem to be grabbing onto everything they can as they go under, including the average person...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bshock, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:28am

it's overly simplistic thinking, but...
I wonder if forcing radio stations to pay royalties for music would discourage radio stations from playing music at all, perhaps in favor of something cheaper, like talk shows.

We all know how successful AM radio talk shows have become, and what less-than-wonderful things they may be doing to political discourse in the US. When I hear the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys and their petty imitators openly call for violence against various groups and individuals, I worry. Let's stick with music on the radio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:46am

More talk, less music
The predictable outcome of this is more talk radio, more sports, more of everything except music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anymouse (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:47am

It's all about the moolah
To the people who don't understand and think that the radio stations are already paying a licensing fee to play the music they play.... DING DING DING....
YOU ARE CORRECT...
1 point for you.

Now follow along (since you didn't read the article), this can get complicated... RIAA claimed internet/satellite was 'different' than terrestrial radio and had laws passed that required them to pay an ADDITIONAL licensing fee (that supposedly goes to the performers, when actually the majority of the fees goes directly in their pockets) which made licensing costs for internet/satellite much more expensive than terrestrial radio. NOW they are claiming that terrestrial radio needs to pay the same licensing fees as the other guys 'to be fair'....

To put this in perspective, lets say there are 2 5 year old kids, a 15 year old, and an 18 year old bully. First the bully shakes down the two 5 year old kids and takes their lunch money (because he can - he had laws passed to make it legal to do so), now he comes to you the 15 year old and demands that you pay up as well 'to be fair'.... Seems reasonable right? Nope seems like extortion and anti-competitive monopolistic business practices to me, and the whole industry should be taken out back and shot (or just make them actually pay out all the money they have collected 'for the artists' over the years, I'm sure the end result would be the same).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebel Freek (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:49am

Re:
Lets just say Mike writes 10 posts a day, 5 days a week all year. S0 10x5x52= 2600 posts in a year. Then your 70 posts is only equal to around 2.6% of the time... I dont think that equals all the time, but hey, I could be mistaken somehow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CD, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:53am

dougie5oul, Tanya Morgan: an explanation
Radio stations currently pay the PRO, which in turn pays a composition's publisher/rights holder. Radio stations do not pay the owner of the performance copyright (the owner of the recording) which is most often a record company.

So, for example, when you hear Aretha's version of "Respect" whoever owns songwriter Otis Redding's publishing rights gets paid. Atlantic Records, which issued the Aretha recording, does not. The RIAA is trying to change this, as they have for years.

The RIAA does not represent, nor does it care about, artists. It represents record companies. Full stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incorrect, 16 Jun 2009 @ 8:59am

Re: Re:
You're forgetting I said so far...so that's 70 in about 6 months, not a year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 9:30am

Re:
Yet here you are reading the monotonous waste of time. Oh, did Mike ever mention that he was a journalist? No? Well then, there you go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 9:33am

Re: Re: Re:
So that's 5.2%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cixelsid, 16 Jun 2009 @ 9:54am

Re:
Dude, nobody's forcing you to read anything on the internet. You don't like it, then fuck off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebel Freek (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re:
And yet you came back again... What, do you like being a troll or something? As the AC pointed out, you still have a 96% of the time that he hasnt written about the RIAA...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebel Freek (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 11:30am

Re: More talk, less music
[sarcasm] So radio going to turn into MTV? YES!!![/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 11:38am

Re: Re:
"I have a feeling it will be much like the royalties that bars and other venues payout to have anyone preform there, a blanket royalty system because "you dont know if the content will be infringing"."

If an artist has a contract with a radio station saying that the station can play the artists music without paying the RIAA taxes then there should be no infringement. Presumably, the artist has rights to his own music (but, if he somehow doesn't, then the artist is the one to sue for lying).

Besides, isn't it up to the RIAA to know what content is and is not infringing? Isn't that partly what they're getting paid for? So radio stations should be able to call them up and ask. Or they can have a website where people can look up the info. If the RIAA can't do it's job and inform radio stations what music is and is not infringing (or even know) then they shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Requiring everyone to pay for any music that's played because one person "owns" some music is absolutely ridiculous. It's hard to come up with a comparable analogy (it has shortcomings) but I'll try.

Imagine I own 20 widgets (ie: cell phones or whatever) and I lose them. Should I then disallow everyone else from buying widgets because one of them might be mine? Do I have the right to restrict thousands of widgets from being distributed (ie: without paying me) because some of them might be mine.

Or if I was a widget manufacturer and say 100 widgets got stolen and sold to distributors (the distributors don't know they're stolen of course. This is an oversimplified model). Should I restrict the sale of all widgets simply because 100 of those should be mine? Should I require a "royalty" for every widget that ever gets sold? No, I should ONLY require profits for the widgets I sell.

It's ridiculous to block all music distribution just because some entity might own some of it. That's stupid, the entity is NOT entitled to profits on songs it does not own. Plain and simple. This is extortion and it's stealing. They are stealing from artists who don't want to be represented by them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 11:42am

Re: Re:
Oh someone can only read something on the internet and comment on it if they like it? What is this a dicktorship, because you are being a dick. Congratulations on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shawn (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 12:14pm

yes it is a dicktorship, now pay your license fee and sit down
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cixelsid (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
And congratulations on coming up with the lamest insult in the history of lameness. Not even George Bush stepping on a land mine during a paralympics race can top the lameness of it.

What you're doing isn't commenting, douchebag, it's whining. You get your content for free then you complain about your free content, as though you're a paying customer at a fucking restaurant. You're not, you're a whiny little poodle and nobody cares about your complaints, not here and especially not in real life. If you really were coming from . then every one of your comments probably got voted down to obscurity in the first few seconds of it appearing.

So take a lesson from the Black Eyed Peas and just shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Presumably, the artist has rights to his own music (but, if he somehow doesn't, then the artist is the one to sue for lying)."

Now lets go into the reasoning for this. If someone steals something and sells it to me and I didn't know it was stolen, can I be held accountable? No. If I bought it knowing it was stolen then I can be held accountable. Same with radio stations. If someone gives them something to broadcast and the radio station thought it's not stolen work then they shouldn't be held accountable, the person who gave it to them should.

The collection agency should also provide reasonable means to inform people about what they own (a website maybe). We can't allow them to restrict everyone from playing music just because the agency won't do this.

"They are stealing from artists who don't want to be represented by them."

The collection agencies are stealing from radio stations for playing songs that the agencies do not own (every time a station pays royalties to an agency for a song the agency does not own).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re:
Lets just say Mike writes 10 posts a day, 5 days a week all year. S0 10x5x52= 2600 posts in a year. Then your 70 posts is only equal to around 2.6% of the time... I dont think that equals all the time, but hey, I could be mistaken somehow...

Also, to clarify, we tend to average more like 13/14 posts per day. So the % is even lower.

But, of course, you can't make everyone happy all the time.

The amusing thing? We actually get more complaints from people for *not* writing about the RIAA more often. We skip an awful lot of stories as not being worthwhile (the current Tenebaum and Thomas trials, for example) and people ask why we're not covering them.

So, it's unfortunate that this anonymous person is unhappy, but it seems that most of our readers quite like the mix of stories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
Sure, it's not currently taking place in a free market only because it's illegal. Once the laws are removed, then it could become a free market.

You aren't being very clear as to which laws you are suggesting should be removed. The ones granting the FCC the authority to regulate spectrum and thus restricting competition? If so, then I would agree with you.

Why could a free market not exist where musicians and labels contract with radio stations for payment associated with airplay.

Such a market does exist, and it's called the payola system. However, it's not a free market because of local gov't granted spectrum monopolies.

It happens all the time on TV. A production company produces a pilot for show and then takes it around to the broadcasters. NBC, for example, decides it likes it so it pays to buy a full 13 episodes and agrees to put it on its fall schedule. The production company produces the episodes. NBC airs them, on public airways, and everyone is happy.

And that happens all the time on radio, too. I'm sure why you think it doesn't, but that isn't the payola system either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 10:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
correction
"I'm sure why you think it doesn't..." should have been "I'm not sure why you think it doesn't..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sammie Houston (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 4:40am

Watunes, The New Music Industry!
To help alleviate issues with P2P file sharing whereby artists & record labels lose major revenue, we offer a service that allow the artists & record labels to collect all their revenue. As representatives for the largest digital distribution in the world, we will show you how to benefit from a Digital Distribution relationship. Gone are the days of selling your music through a physical means. Statistics say 48% of teenagers purchased their music online in 2007 with that number increasing from 32% a year prior. If you are still slanging CD’s, you are quickly falling into the dinosaur arena. We can help you change all that.

Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.

WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. I've also attached a PDF file of all the other services we're affiliated with should you choose to upgrade to our VIP service! Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.

Best,

Sammie

Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

--
watunes.com

Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439

Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum

Youtube advertisements:

http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=vJhsSKB2-u4

http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=O2AYrc DVhCs

Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:

http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 5:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You aren't being very clear as to which laws you are suggesting should be removed."

God, do you have any understanding about how pronouns work? We're talking about payola, so when I use "it" it means payola.

"However, it's not a free market because of local gov't granted spectrum monopolies."

You're assuming your conclusion Explain why musicians and labels contracting with radio broadcasters in good faith for airtime, and vice versa, is not a free market. The only thing keeping musicians, performers, labels, and broadcasters from doing exactly that are laws against payola. Those laws, those payola laws, are the only thing interfering with a free market. Remove the payola laws and a free market would be created.

"but that isn't the payola system either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"but that isn't the payola system either"

I have no idea what happened to the second half of my posting, but here I go again...

Producers and TV broadcasters contracting in good faith for airtime, how is that not payola? Payola for radio is when musicians pay for airtime. From some reason no one has ever explained to me, that's illegal. But when it happens on TV, it's called advertising and is perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
My god, do you even have a basic understanding of how performance rights organizations operate? That is what you're talking about when you say "collection agencies," isn't it? Guess what? They (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) have SEARCHABLE websites with info on all of the songs they adminster. And what the hell are you talking about when you say "every time a station pays royalties to an agency for a song the agency does not own"? What does own mean to you in this situation? No, PROs don't "own" the a copyright in songs, but they do have agreements to adminster songs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you're describing really isn't analagous to payola. NBC is paying for the programs, not the producers of the programs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
don't know for sure, 17 Jun 2009 @ 5:08pm

Re: NAB bites own ass
I don't believe NAB supported that, but I don't know for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 9:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you're describing really isn't analagous to payola. NBC is paying for the programs, not the producers of the programs.

She seems too ignorant to understand that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 9:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God,

Nope, you have seriously confused me with a higher being.

do you have any understanding about how pronouns work? We're talking about payola, so when I use "it" it means payola.

Hmm, I didn't ask you what "it" was. You said, "Once the laws are removed, then it could become a free market." Now, "it" there appears to me to reference the market. If not, then perhaps it is you with a problem using pronouns. And that still doesn't identify exactly which laws you were talking about. I would have thought the laws keeping it from being a free market.

Explain why musicians and labels contracting with radio broadcasters in good faith for airtime, and vice versa, is not a free market.

Because the airtime being sold to them is provided as a result of gov't provided monopolies. And in one direction it's payola, and in the other (vice versa as you called it), it isn't.

Remove the payola laws and a free market would be created.

No, remove both the payola laws and the gov't provided monopolies and a free market would be provided. The payola laws exist only to limit, somewhat, the abuse of the gov't provided monopolies. The only thing worse than a gov't provided monopoly is an unregulated one, which is what you seem to be advocating. And you want to call that "free market"? That's really warped.

Producers and TV broadcasters contracting in good faith for airtime, how is that not payola?

First of all, that's not exactly how you previously described it. So, you're trying to back pedal now, huh? Here's some music to go with that.

Now previously, you said, and I quote,"It happens all the time on TV. A production company produces a pilot for show and then takes it around to the broadcasters. NBC, for example, decides it likes it so it pays to buy a full 13 episodes and agrees to put it on its fall schedule. The production company produces the episodes. NBC airs them, on public airways, and everyone is happy."

In that case, NBC is buying programming to broadcast and that happens all the time on radio, too. The fact that you seem to think that it doesn't really shows your ignorance.

But when it happens on TV, it's called advertising and is perfectly legal.

Umm, I hate to tell you this, because it's only going to make you look doubly ignorant, but they have advertising on radio too. Have for a long, long time.

Payola for radio is when musicians pay for airtime. From some reason no one has ever explained to me, that's illegal.

You know, I doubt if anyone could explain anything to you.

You really ought to research things a little more before shooting you mouth off like you did. It could save you a lot of embarrassment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
liaa, 6 Aug 2012 @ 7:12am

iusgfzsjfgvkuy
oh yeahhh oh yeahhh
[ link to this | view in thread ]