Recording Industry: Radio Is Piracy, But Not Playing Our Music Is A Federal Offense

from the logic-much? dept

Wed, Jun 17th 2009 9:56am — Mike Masnick

It appears that the big record labels and their lobbyists aren't content with just suing and shaking down students across the country -- now they want to threaten them for taking a political stand as well. Earlier this week, musicFIRST, the big time lobbying group put together by the RIAA to push for the highly questionable Performance Rights tax on radio stations, did a neat little publicity stunt where it asked the FCC to investigate radio stations that apparently were "boycotting" musicians who supported the Performance Rights tax, claiming that it was an abuse of the airwaves. Remember, this is the same group that just recently called radio "a kind of piracy."

So, wait, which is it? If it's a kind of piracy to play songs on the radio, shouldn't musicFIRST and the RIAA be thrilled that radio stations aren't playing their music? Or do they recognize the free promotional benefits radio provides for artists? They can't have it both ways, can they? First they're upset that the music is being "pirated" and now they're upset that it's not being "pirated"? Please explain!

Now, as for those nasty nasty radio stations "boycotting" certain artists, well who are they? Turns out one of the main culprits is a tiny 100-watt high school radio station who has explained, in great detail the reasons behind their political stance. They are making a political choice by purposely boycotting musicians who support the view that playing their songs on the radio is "a kind of piracy." You would think that would make musicFIRST, the RIAA and those musicians happy. But, more to the point, that music "boycott" was a temporary thing, and lasted for one month, from mid-June 2007 until mid-July of that same year. Yes. It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago. And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation? Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not "pirating" materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?

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, high school radio, performance rights act, piracy, radio

86 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:00am

Simple
What part of "you must pay us and play our music" do you not understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:08am

The absolute insanity of these collection agencies never ceases to amaze me. How can anyone ever believe anything they say? How can anyone even try to defend these morons? Why do some people on this blog defend them? They have no defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:10am

Wow. Just Wow.
When products cost more to use/consume than others, naturally, the market will gravitate to the less-cost products. This is nothing new. Retail innovators such as WalMart, found a financial edge in the marketplace could leverage their size to drive down costs on products. However, today, it seems that smaller institutions such as schools, are looking for ways to lower "creative costs". Don't get me wrong, "Creative Costs" is just another way to describe taxation, and the Performance Rights Tax is just that.

As a result, smaller education-backed radio stations which depend on donations instead of advertising to maintain it's tax-exempt status, have found ways to lower associated "creative costs".

This tax sounds inherently anti-free market, anti-capitalistic, monopolistic, and perhaps it could be proven to be against The RICO Act.

I wonder how long this will last.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:23am

Hmm
"""It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago. And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation? Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not "pirating" materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?"""

Jeez Mike, when you put it that way, it sounds kinda silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:27am

I like NAB’s Dennis Wharton who had this to say in response the musicFIRST asinine request for the investigation:

If there's an FCC probe involving the music business, it ought to focus on claims from numerous artists -- from The Beatles to Prince to Cher -- that they were cheated out of royalties by their record labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:27am

WTF??
NOT GETTING PAID FOR SOMETHING IS NOT ILLEGAL!!

Why the F*CK cant these idiots understand that? Just because someone doesnt LIKE your stuff doesnt mean its illegal. If I choose to NOT listen to something, or NOT buy your product, ITS NOT ILLEGAL. I'm talking in terms of consumer choice here, not sharing btw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:37am

Re:
Great point, and I completely agree with Dennis Wharton. Except, this would probably fall under FTC jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:38am

Re:
No, because everyone knows that the record labels are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lancehassan (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:39am

Milo Minderbinder lives...the world is now safe for capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:39am

Abuse of what?
"claiming that it was an abuse of the airwaves"

So, is it an abuse of the airwaves (what the hell is that?) if a country station refuses to play hip hop? Is it an abuse of the airwaves if a talk show refuses to play music?

There goes my idea of opening a radio station and only letting people in who want my advertising service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob R. (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:41am

It won't be long until we have a monthly quota of music we are required to purchase at whatever rate the RIAA chooses. If we fail to meet this purchase requirement, we just have an amount arbitrarily deducted from our wages to compensate them.

And after that, being allowed to listen to music will be a luxury and subject to being taxed. The IRS will determine how much we should pay, and of course the RIAA will get 50% of that.

Isn't that how it should be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin, 17 Jun 2009 @ 10:52am

Credibilty
What a bunch of retards. Not that they had much credibility left but this really takes a chunk out of it. This should be noted and every time the RIAA has a court case pending this should be brought up, to instantly discredit anything they have to say. What a bunch of dumbass retarded politicians we have that they listen to the shit the RIAA has to say and goes along with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:01am

Re: Abuse of what?
"abuse of the airwaves"

When you consider the number of mergers and amount of consolidation which FCC provided it's blessing to over the past years, it seems that the power these lobbying interests have within the FCC is much larger than that which they within the FTC, where it seems, is the proper setting for such a debate.

Additionally, the timing and positioning for this issue is odd- as President Obama recently announced his proposed FCC chairman. The very act seems more like a "Hail Mary" to get another gift, provided on the backs of customers. The poorly designed distribution method which lacks logical, and tangible cohesion to today's reality.

If the copyright interests invested a similar amount it currently earmarks to lobbying efforts into research, development, and innovation, I'm sure they would be able to find something customers would desire by choice instead of by force.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:04am

I wish all radio stations
would just stop playing music that comes from the labels that support the RIAA, there are plenty of other labels and musicians that would love to get that exposure.

On a side note, I really don't feel bad for the radio stations, it is not as if they have had a bad thing to say about any of this copyright BS from the begining, maybe if they took a stand (at least criticizing the ridiculous lawsuit efforts) before it directly affected them we would not be where we are now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Abuse of what?
"I'm sure they would be able to find something customers would desire by choice instead of by force."

The radio stations shouldn't be forcing a political agenda on their listeners either. Boycotting or trying to avoid valid performance fees, and therefore limiting the playlist of your listeners is just a sort of reverse payola scheme.

Perhaps if the artists not wanting to charge fees instead made music customers would actually want by choice, there wouldn't be any issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
"The radio stations shouldn't be forcing a political agenda on their listeners either."

....you're kidding me, right? First off, what media outlet exists that can claim they don't force a political agenda in some way or another. For Christ's sake, the newspapers publically endorse candidates. Some radio stations offer conservative programming, like El Rushbo (largely Disney on that one, no shock there), others offer liberal programming (NPR comes to mind). Yes, those are talk stations, but why should music stations be any different?

"Boycotting or trying to avoid valid performance fees, and therefore limiting the playlist of your listeners is just a sort of reverse payola scheme."

No, it's a REFUSAL of ANY kind of Payola scheme. You can't say to someone, "You have to pay to use my product AND you MUST by that product". How can you not see the problem with that? Remember, in most cases, the airwaves might be public, but the stations are run by corporations that answer to shareholders, not the music industry. Why do you think the industry should get to tell them what they MUST play?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
"Perhaps if the artists not wanting to charge fees instead made music customers would actually want by choice, there wouldn't be any issue."

Good idea. But that would require artists to shun the current system and engage more with their customers (read: fans). Such a change would truly shake up the entire industry, and invert the entire business model. It's a delicate balance that needs to be proven and walked by artists, with the support of more people like Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:22am

Re: Hmm
"It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago. And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation? Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not "pirating" materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?"

What a waste of taxpayer money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
No, actually, it wouldn't matter - if they make what the people want, the people will take it, no matter if there is a payment or not to be made. Radio stations do play what is available AND what people want to hear.

The problem with most of the "free" artists is that they couldn't get arrested, let alone airplay in normal times because their material doesn't merit it.

It's intentionally free for a reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jme, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:24am

I haven't listened to any music today. I wonder how much I owe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tinfoil, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:34am

They just want to control us. It doesn't matter if there is an inherent contradiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
The problem with most of the "free" artists is that they couldn't get... airplay in normal times because their material doesn't merit it.

According to whom?

-----
Secondly, as you've probably noted, an editorial decision was made and something was omitted from your comment-- "couldn't get arrested". What did you mean by your seemingly unclear, unintelligible thought? Is the current business model really focused on the ability to arrest customers?

If so, that's a real poor excuse to do business within the framework of the current model. I hope others take note of your slip of the tongue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:42am

I want the Performance Rights Act to Pass
I am more than a little Anti-RIAA, But it would be a good thing for the Performance Rights Act to pass. As we know Everything RIAA/RIAJ/etc do backfires.

It would be interesting to see the results. big ole -GRIN-
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
If that's the case, then they would just lose listeners. There are always other radio stations playing the top 40 of some genre. Listeners lose nothing, they just go elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:56am

Re: Simple
More elegantly, "you must pay to play our music."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gill Bates, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:56am

RIAA = Insanity
RIAA = Retarded Idiot A-holes Association
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:58am

Disagree
I'm concerned about giving more power to the current broken system. In some aspects, it may be seen as bailout authority in the form of taxation. This act and it's subsequent taxation does not create additional authority to the Government to invest in or further develop the growth of the creative industry.

Point is, it's not logical in a Democracy. The RIAA and MPAA are not effective, and made some huge mistakes which got us to where we are today. The fact is that you can't have Taxes created and pushed forward by the entities that are selected by the industry itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:59am

Hope and Change
I had HOPE that goofy crap like this would CHANGE, but I guess I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
"You can't say to someone, "You have to pay to use my product AND you MUST by that product"."

It's tyranny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:24pm

Re: WTF??
I don't think anyone, including the lawyers, would argue with you, dude.

The argument, in this case, is that musicFIRST is upset a high school station because said station complied with musicFIRST's request.

To better understand the irony behind this case read Joseph Heller's "Catch 22". It's freaking hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:33pm

An intersting side-point
Most of the time, high school radio stations are, at least primarily, operated by Juniors and Seniors.
Sooooo......
It's been two years...........
The kids have GRADUATED!!!! The people who, likely, made the decision in question, aren't even THERE!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:34pm

Re: Hope and Change
...and how!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jebrew (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Simple
Or you can just shorten it to:
"You must pay us"
seems regardless of whether or not you play, you pay! :)
Good times for all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:40pm

Re: Abuse of what?
Is it an abuse of the airwaves if a radio station play hip hop.

Hipping and hopping does distort the waves to such an extent that they are no longer in their original configuration. That is abuse.

And besides, just think of all the energy that could be saved by no radio station playing any music at all.

It is scandalous that waves are bent out of shape at such a high cost to the environment. Just think if it was not for those wave polluting radio station there would be no hip hop and no global warming due to all the people hipping and hopping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Abuse of what?
It's certainly an abuse to my ears when I have to hear it from the car next to me at loud volumes. That applies to any music, but it tends to be mostly either the hippity hop or bawling country around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mechwarrior, 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
But its a choice to listen to the radio. Unless youre the RIAA. Listening to radio is not a choice AND it should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
Plus those damn kids should get off your lawn...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
richard o langley, 17 Jun 2009 @ 1:05pm

radio
There was a time when an artist would beg a radio station to play there music.Radio makes an artist move up the charts.If it were not for radio,most artist would remain on the bottom rung of the ladder.People here a song and say,hey thats cool,then by the album.We are not going to buy something without hearing it first,fact of life!

How much money do you think an artist would make if no one heard their music??Thats what it would be without RADIO>>>>>>>>..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sailingmaster (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 2:17pm

Basically. . .
It comes down to this:

RIAA: Waaah! Our business model is failing and we're going to attack any possible threat to it! Radio is PIRACY! Waaah!

High School Radio Station: We're going to boycott Pro-Performance Rights Tax artists for a month as a protest.

RIAA: OMG! OMG! Investigate them now! They're not playing our music! It's WRONG! Piracy? What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
It should be both mandatory and illegal at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 2:29pm

Tax
90% of the tax should go to the artist and only artists who make sub $1 mil per year should benefit from this since we shouldn't make taxes to siphon money *into* the rich.

if the artist is making too much money, then the 90% of that tax should get recycled back into the radio station
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 2:37pm

Re: radio
"There was a time when an artist would beg a radio station to play there music"

Actually, I would guess that as far as the ARTIST'S are concerned, that is still the case.

As a related aside, a couple of weeks back I woke up on a Sunday morning and was flipping through the channels waiting for Meet The Press to come on and landed on the CW, which had WWE Wrestling on. For a laugh, since I hadn't tuned in to wrestling for over ten years, I decided to check it out.

I was SHOCKED to see they had Linkin Park on for an interview, since they did the theme music for one of WWE's Pay-per-views (I think it was Wrestlemania), and they were talking quite honestly about how THRILLED they were to have their music played as the theme music, and what a great experience it was to watch their music played in conjunction with the wrestling adverts, since they had been fans when they were kids.

Now I don't know if WWE had to pay LP for the music, but money didn't seem to be the point with them, at least in that interview. It was BEING HEARD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Korrosive, 17 Jun 2009 @ 2:42pm

Re: I wish all radio stations
Here here!! I love that post. First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: radio
Trust me, they got paid - big time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: Abuse of what?
"When you consider the number of mergers and amount of consolidation which FCC provided it's blessing to over the past years, it seems that the power these lobbying interests have within the FCC is much larger than that which they within the FTC, where it seems, is the proper setting for such a debate."

The proper venue is the IRS. The RIAA wants to tax us so they should lobby the IRS that we are evading their taxes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 Jun 2009 @ 4:29pm

Re: radio
Trust me, they got paid - big time.

We don’t do “trust me” on this site, we do “put up the facts to back up your claims or shut up”. That’s what Mike and his co-bloggers regularly do, so why should you get away with anything less?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Die RIAA!, 17 Jun 2009 @ 4:54pm

What really needs to happen is the failure of the RIAA. They have been way too powerful over artists for far too long and steal from the artist.

This all comes from the simple design that most music has been lost to pirating, and now the RIAA feels short changed if they loose additional fees in ANY other area of music.

Evil=RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DTS, 17 Jun 2009 @ 5:04pm

So much for all the arguments saying that music, videogames and other forms of entertainment are an option and therefore the arguments against those arguments are null and void.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HG, 17 Jun 2009 @ 6:14pm

Artists
MusicFIRST is a coalition that only mildly includes the 'industry' you guys are having a great time demonizing--while no doubt buying their stuff hand-over-first. MusicFIRST is predominantly the artists who are not getting paid for the music's exposure. yes, radio play is promotional, for a few months until album sales are no longer greatly effected by radio play. After that radio play is a way for stations to create a listener-base large enough to run ads and make money,and the artists performing that service--the service of making money for the stations--get no money. In America, when you hear a song on the radio, 5 minutes or 5 decades after it was recorded, the artist gets NO money. There are a very few countries where this is true: North Korea, Iran, and right here is the US. Get your facts straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
viperfl (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 6:23pm

If radio stations have to pay then they have every right to choose who they want to play on the radio. We all know with the RIAA that it's never there fault. They don't seem to understand business because you can't charge for every little thing. A company ends up losing money when they do that. Customers get turned away because they think the company is trying to nit pick for every dollar.

With the PRA, your going to find a lot of the smaller radio stations go out of business. The radio stations are going to lose money because of it. In the end, it's the RIAA and the musicians who are going to lose out. Of course they are not going to blame themselves for causing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AB, 17 Jun 2009 @ 9:12pm

Re: Artists
Umm.. you should get your facts straight. COMPOSERS of music are paid royalties when the song is played on radio in the US, just like in most countries around the world. Very few countries pay performance royalties for radio airplay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:19pm

Re: Re: Hmm
Doesn't the FCC have better things to do? The RIAA wants them to waste taxpayer money on pointless investigations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2009 @ 11:26pm

Re: Hmm
It's not only silly, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Taxpayers should be upset that the RIAA wants the FCC to waste taxpayer money on pointless investigations. What's there possibly to investigate? What are they so likely to discover that justifies them wasting taxpayer money on such a pointless investigation like this? Have these people lost their sanity? What the heck?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2009 @ 4:08am

Re: Re: Hmm
Not at all - not charging a fee for airplay (or opting out of the existings programs, which everyone else is part of) has the smell of payola - pay for play. Basically, the pitch is "play my music, and you will make more money". The recording industry use to do it by stacking money of the table. Now certain acts may be doing it by telling the stations to keep their money in their pocket - either way, the station is getting paid to play that song.

It's illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jun 2009 @ 6:36am

Re: Re: radio
FYI, upon review, I think I had the band incorrect. I believe it was Revelation Theory, not Linkin Park.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jun 2009 @ 6:41am

Re: Re: Re: radio
Dammit, I was wrong again. Can't see it at work, but I'm pretty sure THIS is the interview transcript: http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/extremerules/2009/june1-7/10404678

And the band was Sick Puppies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ashman, 18 Jun 2009 @ 7:09am

Music industry needs some regulation
When is the government going to step in an bitch slap the music industry. Yes, artists and writers need to be paid REASONABLY for their work and not extort money from everyone under the sun. These people from the music industry are all over the place wanting to sue people for everything including a deep breath that sounded like it was stolen from a song. I think it's about time the government stepped in, put a stop to this crap because obviously the music industry can't come up with a unified policy that benefits the music makers, players and lovers. Now when I say regulation, I am NOT referring to Obama's former RIAA lawyer picks who are biased out the waah zooo, I am talking about at least a semi-neutral party who can see both sides with out greed and dollar signs flashing in there eyes. I haven't bought a song, cd or albumn in years and have no plans to until the music industry stops targeting the people who consume there music and until the RIAA is dismantled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Known coward, 18 Jun 2009 @ 8:10am

But it is to
PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

Seriously sometimes people need to be killed as an example to others. I suggest the entire executive committee's of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 18 Jun 2009 @ 9:31am

How To Flood The Airwaves With Music The RIAA Can't Touch.
You can take a piece of sixteenth-century dance music, such as the work of John Dowland

http://www.classicalmidiconnection.com/cmc/dowland.html

and you can run it through a computer program which applies certain regular transformations, ie, making it faster, making it louder, emphasizing the beat. GIMP has "filters" which do this kind of thing for artistic styles. There is no reason why it should not be applicable to music. You might have to use a MIDI editor to hand-tinker with the results a bit, but MIDI "sequencers" have terrifically high productivity compared to conventional instrumental players. Private individuals, unpaid amateurs, commonly undertake major projects such as Bach's _Brandenburg Concertos_. When you have a false note, you can fix just that note, without having to replay the whole piece. One person can reasonably arrange enough music for the requirements of of a radio station, or a dance club, or whatever.

Funny story: about fifteen years ago, I introduced a classical musician (pianist, church chorus singer, soprano) to Neil Rubenking's Pianoman, a remote ancestor of the modern MIDI programs. This was before computers had sound cards. You could program the internal speaker to produce a pure note at a specified frequency. The musician listened to the music which came with the program, and said it was dreadful. She wanted to leave it at that, but I showed her the program's editor window, showed her how the controls worked, and said "make it better." In spite of herself, she started doing just that, adjusting the timings, the spacing between notes, etc.

I am not a musician or an artist, but I am a cook, and it is just a commonplace that you can modify a dish in certain conventional ways, according to whom you propose to serve it to. You can make the dish more or less hot by adjusting the herbs and spices, or you can increase or decrease the meat and fat contents, eg. using tuna instead of beef, or use Parmesan cheese instead of Cheddar or Mozzarella. You can modify an Indian curry in such a way as to make it an acceptable school lunch.

From this framework, it doesn't seem particularly shocking to, um, translate old music to make it useful for the way a modern audience uses it. That said, there is a virtually unlimited supply of public-domain classical music, of every possible description. Now, as it happens, sixteenth-century dance music was timed for a woman in high-heels and a crinoline, that is, a hoop skirt. When she moved, it took maybe a second or so before her clothes caught up with her, and the timing of contemporary dance music reflects that. For someone wearing jeans and running shoes, the timing naturally needs to be adjusted. Similarly, the sixteenth-century woman had been taught to play some instrument or another, as a matter of course, so she could listen and pick out the beat without it being louder than the rest of the music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 18 Jun 2009 @ 11:17am

Wow....you guys have put lots of thought into your arguments
I don't agree with RIAA on lots of stuff, but Performance Royalties for radio is a great idea. Until now, radio has been given a free pass on playing music. Essentially they have made their money off a product that they do not pay for.

It's like having a newspaper that doesn't pay its writers. Sure the writer gets "free promotion", but promotion doesn't pay the bills.

The reason the RIAA is complaining about the boycott, is because the boycott of artists standing up for their right to be paid for their work is unethical. In the 1960s would you have said to bus drivers in the South that it was ok to just not pick up Blacks who refused to sit at the back? Or maybe all those union workers who go out on strike should just be fired?

It's funny how people think that they have a right to free music, all its done is flood the market with shitty quality recordings and made it that much harder for completely grassroots, independent artists like myself to make a living.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LVGlen, 18 Jun 2009 @ 11:18am

Re: I wish all radio stations
Ever hear of the NAB? That's the National Association of Broadcasters. Go take a look at their site (www.nab.org) and you'll see they've been yelling about this performance tax for a long time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sammie Houston (profile), 18 Jun 2009 @ 11:30am

Watunes, The New Music Industry!
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. 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 ]
George, 18 Jun 2009 @ 12:28pm

RIAA
I am one of the oldest pirates out there. Back a few decades ago I recorded a LOT of music from the radio. I still have those recordings - reel to reel tapes, mono cassetes and later stereo cassettes. Over the years I used those COPIES of songs to find original copies I could purchase. I bought a lot of music, but there were many songs that I could not find or were "out of print".

Then along came Napster. In less than 1 hour my first time using Napster I located every song I was ever searching for (that were unavailable for purchase). But Napster also gave me a means to sample music that I otherwise would not have. I bought more music that year than any other in my 5 decade+ life.

When Napster was 'shut down', and the RIAA started suing people, I STOPPED purcahsing music. I'm not the only one. Had they prosecuted me way back when for recording from the radio like they are suing people these days, I would have never had an interest in music nor made ANY purchases. That's what they are doing to their "future customers".

Their business model is broken. Everyone knows their game. The ONLY effective means they currently have for promoting new music is RADIO. Now they want to bite off the only hand that is feeding them. If the performance tax was not going to put 100s of businesses out of business, I'd say go for it. But the real problem is that musicians are highly underpaid and the lawyers at the RIAA are (over)paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
saris, 18 Jun 2009 @ 2:03pm

Boycott
Well, everyone should stop buying music for a whole month, do not buy music anywhere, and do not download it, just listen to what you have, for one solid month (Longer if you an handle it)

if enough people did that, it would give them an eye opener. However, the RIAA will probably start suing everyone for NOT listening to music. I think the RIAA should be brought down hard if they are not willing to work with their customers to work out a viable business plan.

And last I knew radio stations had control over what they played over the frequency they pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Harry Kozlowski, 18 Jun 2009 @ 6:28pm

And what of TV?
As I watch bands perform on the Letterman and Kinnel shows I wonder if the Performance Tax applies to live performances on TV shows? If not, isn't that grossly unfair? Aren't TV shows that benefit from bands actually performing their songs be subject to the same tax radio is facing? You can't pick-and-choose, RIAA...or can you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Samuel Lee Albert, 19 Jun 2009 @ 12:46am

RIAA Tyrants
Thier material is not worth more than peoples lives!
what they deem as illegal is punishable by over
whelming fines and inprisonment. the purpus of media
is for it to be seen and/or heard.

What was free promotion has become piratcy.
They should pay for any and all promotion.
If they want so much to alienate themselves
from the people let them kill thier business.
Without piratcy forean markets are cut off.
The laws were meant to protect companies from
each other, not from the people.In short, RIAA
will kill itself, for lost touch with the world.

George - Jun 18th, 2009 @ 12:28pm artist are over
paid too. cars! houses! but i agree with every thing else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lee, 19 Jun 2009 @ 4:37am

Re: Artists
Have not bought or Downloaded a CD or song in 10 years.

If everyone stopped and did not buy any music for a month, things would change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rixstep, 19 Jun 2009 @ 4:37am

Award
An award to TechDirt: a brilliant article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 19 Jun 2009 @ 12:09pm

The Media MAFFIA strikes again
Shows all to well that the media maffia strikes again.

Cant both have the cake and eat it RIAA. If radio is piracy well than you should be VERY VERY VERY happy that you are boycotted by some station or does infact free samples sell copies down the road. cant have it both way Mr Maffia boys.

We are smart people we dont get lied to like this without exposing those LIES
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 10:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of what?
Plus those damn kids should get off your lawn...

And take their stupid helmets with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesus Christ, 20 Jun 2009 @ 8:33pm

Self righteous spoiled brat Media industry.
Most of the media today just plain sucks. If I have to pay a tax for a bunch of lazy ass musicians, then this country is goint to hell quickly. I guess it is time to sell our tv's and radios. As soon as I get up to date linux, I will cut off my internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radio Veteran, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:10am

RIAA = Mafia
"You can't say to someone, "You have to pay to use my product AND you MUST by that product"."

It's tyranny."

Kind of reminds me of the stories of the Mafia wiseguys who shake down local store owners every week for their payment for "protection"...doesn't matter if the store owner didn't make a profit that week, the Mafia still gets paid...the same would be true of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radio Veteran, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:14am

The real dirt on Ascap/BMI/Sesac fees
If this RIAA bill passes, and if it's anything like the current copyright fees paid to BMI, Ascap, and Sesac, it really doesn't matter WHAT music you play. If you're a radio station that plays music, whether it's mainstream pop, or African tribal music, you pay. And you pay based not on the actual songs you play, you pay based on how much money you Gross (BEFORE EXPENSES) on advertising sales. What format you are doesn't matter a bit. What matters is that you play music - any kind of music.

Once a year they ask us to give them a playlist of songs we played just two days of the year. Our fees don't ever go down if just so happens that we aren't playing any of their artists. They just quietly shove those playlists into a drawer somewhere and happily raise our fees the next year. And there's not a thing we can do about it.

And because rates are based on Gross Revenue, if you don't make a profit one year, doesn't matter, you still pay.

We have one radio station that's been on the air for 26 years in a town of 5,000 people, and another that's been on the air for 3 years in a town of 50,000 people. The one in the small town pays TEN TIMES the amount the one in the larger town pays...because there is no cap on fees. They can continue to raise you rate every single year from now until the end of time.

The RIAA would get the same type of compensation if this tax passes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
james, 24 Jun 2009 @ 2:14am

Re: paying
ok seriuosly i dont see the big fucken deal about this they shud be fucken happy there music is being used and being spreded around to people get more people into it and then they sell more albums i cud see songs that havent come out yet ok thats not good but when the album id from the 80's id say fuck it at least there music is being used and herd and people shudent have to pay to use there fucken music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 2:17am

Re: Re: paying
and if u run a online radio its not like its file sharing its just people listen to music online u think local radios call every person to play there music i dont fucken think so
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 2:19am

Re: Boycott
u no i agree with u and the stop buying and downloading thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Sheller, 28 Jun 2009 @ 7:14am

Greed, greed, greed
It seems to me that the very same artists and organizations that depend on radio stations to get their music out there are now biting the hand that feeds their bank accounts. Maybe this is more about wringing more money out of anyone that they can.

Well this sort of greed often backfires. Consumers aren't the stupid clods that the "suites" think we are. I like the response of some to charge the artists to play their music. After all they made a cash cow issue first.

Now let's get some sanity back. Stop the madness, to borrow a phrase. When I find who is supporting this greedy commercial grab, I will personally boycott those very same folks. Chew on that Musicfirst and RIAA. I don't need you. Do you need us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm, 1 Jul 2009 @ 1:40am

OK I have the perfect solution:

1) ALL radio stations are forced to pay $80,000 per song regardless of whether or not they ever play that song.. (must be RIAA controlled music).
2) Listeners are forced by a tiny ear implant to listen to the music whether or not they want to 24hours a day...and every song deducts $5 from your wages.
3) In order to preserve democracy, these ear implants only have one volume setting 0%...so although you're forced to PLAY and LISTEN to the music you actually end up with nothing at all (except an empty wallet).

EVERYONE WINS (well everyone important...and thats only the RIAA isn't it...everyone else can just go screw themselves as long as they leave everything to the RIAA in their will)...which leads me to......

4) Everyone is a filthy dirty pirate (except the boss of the RIAA who is the second (and possibly third) coming of Christ, therefore everyone has to leave everything in their wills to the RIAA otherwise they don't get into music heaven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm, 1 Jul 2009 @ 1:44am

Actually I've come up with a much shorter alternative..

Everyone who the RIAA decides is a "filthy dirty pirate" (which also means a terrorist because as we know anyone who's ever downloaded a song is also an Al Quaeda member and enjoys blowing up babies) is punished by actually having to listen to some of the princess-pop crap that the RIAA thinks is actually classed as "music"!...That should be enough of a deterrent for anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pierre Opperman, 14 Jul 2009 @ 6:52am

I would love more airplay
I am not complaining aboutt radio-stations per se:
but about not getting enough airplay!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pierre Opperman, 14 Jul 2009 @ 6:52am

I would love more airplay
I am not complaining aboutt radio-stations per se:
but about not getting enough airplay!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The_New_Bing_Crosby_of_2009, 8 Nov 2009 @ 5:10pm

Royalty Fees
Well, ain't this somethin'? Seems to me and bunch of other old codgers that it is time that students who take a stand simply get an "A" in their government class rather than be the targets of a witch (and warlock) hunt. Support our young'uns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2010 @ 8:23pm

radio stations pay 8 to 15 cents per song as a royalty for being able to play them on the air. how is paying an agreed price piracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DjGrooveD, 27 Mar 2011 @ 1:39am

Re: Credibilty
Thats the problem with RIAA's involvement with politicans. They feed money to "fix" what they want. The politicians dont give two shits what its about because theyre too busy sniffing the corrupt money!! I can and used to have a radio station online, but all this crap makes it impossible to have a hobby like that. I will be in the PI soon. Find me! Lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bryan O'Doyle, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:58am

Re: Music industry needs some regulation
Commenter wrote "These people from the music industry are all over the place wanting to sue people for everything including a deep breath that sounded like it was stolen from a song."

~ Has WIN inherent

Got me thinking the days of absentmindedly humming ANY tune as one goes about their day, may be over. Not that Bhudda would have an issue with that.

Last : hope that nobody points out to those gov't/industry busybodies the popular JACK FM "Playing What WE Want." Oh Shit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jahanzaib Ashraf, 16 Mar 2016 @ 11:37pm

Pakistani and Indian Clothing,Pakistani Salwar Kameez,Indian and Asian Dresses in Europe, USA and Canada
Discount Me is the ultimate destination for all your fashion requirements. We are One of the Best Online Ethinic Store in Europe and America, we aim at providing a stress free enjoyable experience that derives the maximum level of customer satisfaction. We have revolutionised the concept of retailing, and taken it into a new era. With our concept of high quality products, at low prices, we have prospered.With our advanced e-commerce base, prompt warehouse management system and experienced customer support team, We caters for all customers wanting to purchase fashion products. Ranges we carry include items such as fashion fabrics, readymade garments, footwear, fashion accessories, skirts, kurtas, children's clothing and so on with our ever expanding product range.
[ link to this | view in thread ]