Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA's Bogus Radio Witchhunt?
from the waste-of-resources dept
Earlier this year, MusicFirst, a lobbying group that is run by the RIAA and pushing for a special tax on radio stations for daring to promote songs, came out with its latest in a long list of bizarre claims, demanding that the FCC investigate the fact that radio stations were supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the Performance Royalty tax. There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was "a kind of piracy" for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it's piracy. If it doesn't play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.
Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell... well... pretty much every radio station around.
That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn't happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.
And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it's quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.
Based on all of this, you would hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition... but tragically, it's opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott). The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that's the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?
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
Companies: fcc, musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because when you pay those in charge of the FCC money behind the scenes then they become your puppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Payolla 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only conspiracy here is the fact that the FCC even listens to these RIAA morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you sure you have understood the word "hypocritical" ? (see here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's my only problem with your post AC....
WHO THE FUCK CARES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously you don't!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocritical
* Main Entry: hyp·o·crit·i·cal
* Pronunciation: ˌhi-pə-ˈkri-ti-kəl
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1561
: characterized by hypocrisy; also : being a hypocrite
* Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
* Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
* Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion at its finest: You MUST play our music and you must pay us for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looks like par for the course to me...
YouTube MUST play our music videos and they must pay us for it.
Google MUST link to our news articles and they must pay us for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
Because my suspicion is that with the consolidation of entertainment/news/broadcast media that occurred over the past 50 years this is all a pointless academic question from the standpoint of the radio station anyway, since both sides of this issue are probably owned by the same corporations and/or banks.
Which, as per usual, means that they're just finding ways of trading money back and forth with each other as a way to invent reasons to take even MORE money from the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause they're getting paid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still Clueless After All These Years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the CC in FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the CC in FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake is right
That means that any future cases like it don't need a full investigation, but can then be dismissed simply through reference.
A case may SEEM open and shut, but until it is examined in full, by people that know the subject, one never knows. A full and open investigation will expose any unusual aspects of the case, and will fully document it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignoring the players for a second, would you consider it fair to block artists because they were gay, or black, or jewish, or "of color"?
The very basics lie there: you cannot exclude a group because you don't like the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want the stations to pay to have the artist's music on there, then shut the hell up and be happy about it when the stations cut them off.
Otherwise you just look like the biggest tool ever.
Ignoring groups in some areas would be bad yes. These radio stations though are not publicly funded. They have no obligation to air every single person who wants to be heard. If that was the case, then there would be no radio, it would be one permanent talk show.
If MusicFirst wants their propaganda to be heard so much, maybe they should just start a radio station and promote their hypocritcal ideals? There are plenty of rights groups who do stuff along those lines. They get their voice heard and don't expect their opposition to freely promote their side of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really wonder if you guys even bother thinking through this stuff...
Oh, by the way, if you fail to pass on this post to everyone you know, you're violating my right to word of mouth distribution. I can take you to court for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not an issue of, you're discriminating against the artists because of race. It's an issue of, I DON'T WANT TO BUY YOUR PRODUCT AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO FORCE ME. The artists VOLUNTARILY signed with the RIAA, they didn't have to, they could have gone independent and made their own music. We're discriminating against them based on the poor business decisions they make just like customers discriminate against a store that sells an inferior product at a higher price and they choose the store that sells a superior product at a lower price. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE, it has to do with free markets and the fact that no store is entitled to my money just like the RIAA and no artist is entitled to payment by radio stations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So then what about all the artists who make Creative commons music? Where are their freedoms? I never hear any creative commons music on public airwaves, it's all copyright, and there is a plethora of CC licensed music that many artists would love to be on public airwaves.
and what about me? I want to be able to talk or public radio too, it's my freedom of speech. So why do I need a license? Why can't I just buy broadcasting equipment and talk? What if the govt stopped me? If I petitioned the government, would they force broadcasters to allow me on public radio? Does every artist have a right to have their music heard on public stations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really want the Performance Royalty tax to happen....
Lets give them the rope and support them. The faster we make this happen the more likely a large group of people will see the change. We all know people dont like change.
Just a small list .....
-- unconstitutional level of Fines for copyright infringement
-- Monopoly through copyright
-- Public performance fees (Playing music to horses ..LOL)
-- DMCA with rules that conflict with past copyright laws
-- Fees for Web radio
-- Fees for Sat based radio
-- 3 strikes policy (that violates due process)
-- Performance Royalty tax
-- Various attempts to make ISP's police their systems for infringers (major privacy issues here)
Please feel free to reply to this with other addtions to my small list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fcc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]