RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work
from the hard-day's-work? dept
The RIAA has been touting this for a little while already, but the AFL-CIO has officially signed on to support the RIAA's highly questionable performance tax. This is a bogus attempt to boost RIAA revenue by taxing radio stations for promoting their music. The RIAA has been going around claiming that radio promoting its music is a "kind of piracy", while at the same time claiming it's somehow illegal for radio stations not to play RIAA music. Yeah. Logic is not the RIAA's strong suit. Even worse, of course, is that the RIAA has blatantly demonstrated that it knows there's tremendous value in getting its music on the air. It's been involved in payola scams for decades. To basically get the government to mandate reverse payola is the height of obnoxiousness.Of course, what does the AFL-CIO have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. It's pure politicking on the part of the RIAA and its offshoot lobbying group musicFIRST. The main point is to get more Congressional folks on board with the tax by saying "the unions support it!" Somewhere down the line, I'm sure the RIAA will come to the support of the AFL-CIO on some other random bill as well.
But what's really ridiculous is the statement made by the AFL-CIO explaining why they support this:
"The labor movement was founded on the principle that a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay. That's the principle at stake in the fight for the Performance Rights Act."But that's not even close to true. The Performance Rights Act is about the opposite of a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. It's about getting paid over and over and over and over and over again for a bit of work done years ago. And, it's not a "fair day's pay" either. A fair day's pay is a contractually agreed upon wage between two parties. This is about the gov't forcing a totally unnecessary and nonsensical tax on radio stations for promoting RIAA music. In what world is it fair to tax someone who helps promote your work?
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: performance rights, performance tax, unions
Companies: afl-cio, musicfirst, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Squeezing blood from a turnip
Besides the fact that the RIAA pushing a performance tax is hypocritical -- see above -- it seems like a rather bad business move. The last time I checked, the radio business wasn't doing so great. They don't have a lot of extra money to pay to the RIAA. But maybe the RIAA knows this and are just trying to grab as much money as they can before the whole system collapses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squeezing blood from a turnip
I suspect a judge would strike it down too if this idea was ever challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was like a decade or so ago.
The downside is that they're making it impossible for legal alternatives to even exist.
Thank gods for pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I had discovered more new music in such a short time span that my interest in music, which was waning at the time, began to grow again. Then it went away and was replaced by, what, nothing?
I know that the recording industry is not the music industry but once the recording industry started suing people for copyright infringement then I stopped listening to music, all together. I stopped caring about music.
Lost a customer there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What kind of crazy fucked up world do we live in where the number one album doesn’t even sell a hundred thousand copies? One where music has lost its perch atop the entertainment food chain. It’s like music is the sideshow at the entertainment circus. You don’t want to stay too long, the stink might stick.
Used to be artists spoke from the heart, we waited to hear what they had to say with bated breath, we quoted them. Now we feel superior to them, as the blogs make fun of their antics. And then there are those so indie that the mainstream doesn’t care. Used to be you started outside the mainstream and then the mainstream came to you. Now, it’s like these acts are on the other side of the Continental Divide, and their music has never got a chance with the general public, the twain shall never meet. And you wonder why? It’s just not vital enough. Hell, there’s more honesty on a Facebook page than there is in music. And a dying media is complicit with the dying labels. They’re in cahoots hyping tripe to the point where most people just don’t give a fuck. This is a business?
Every day people forward you links. Telling you to check out great shit. How often is it a record? And, if it is music, do you even bother to listen?
Music is the land of losers. The "New York Times" piece on Irving Azoff was more riveting than any album on this chart. This is a guy who did it his way, who gave the middle finger to the man and won. Isn’t that what the musicians used to do? Now they want to cozy up to the man. Don’t you think there’s a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Used to have music on Audiogalaxy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the bricklayers are living off of royalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How is a salary not 'up front?'
More the point, the analogy is flawed. If it was going to be equivalent, you'd have to be able to instantly replicate any building that suited your fancy.
It's a different world, and all metaphors fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The owners of the hotel are charging you for all of the services which go along with using the room, not some abstract concept of "use of the room". The owners pay people every day to run the hotel, just like they paid people to build the hotel. Through their employees, the hotel owners are providing a service every day in return for payment. How does this relate to an artist receiving payment, in near-perpentuity, for work they did years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Space is a limited item.
People pay for the luxury of a place to stay that isn't their home and for the roof over their heads with a bed to lay down on. There are also other things that help draw in the customers like pools. Paying for access is actually one of the things Mike advocates that musicians can do to make money. Charge for their time. Time is limited. Anything digital is not.
Any econ professor knows that from econ 101 that as supply increases price drops. Infinite supply because it can be infinitely copied means price will drop to zero. You can try to fight it but it is inevitable. However, it still has value, so you can tie it to other things that do still have a price and use it to help sell them.
I went through college for computers but passed through an econ 101 class along my time there and that concept seemed pretty damn simple to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another example of someone that has no clue.
Somebody paid for the hotel: The hotel owners. And with no assurance they will recap their investment by providing a service: Renting rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we should ask our politicians to reverse the situation
Yeah, that seems fair, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe we should ask our politicians to reverse the situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe we should ask our politicians to reverse the situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy way to offset the tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mine was better
... "this isnt about a hard days work or a fair days pay, its about getting paid everyday for the rest of your life for one days work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.bigmeathammer.com I am the founder and vocalist for the oldest punk band in Maine "Big Meat Hammer".
I just wanted you to know this musician is very glad for the free promotion I have been given by being on the radio.The 1st time I was on a radio was in 1978 with my 1st punk band.I have never asked for nor wanted money for being on a radio.
This law is disgusting.Please boycott all corporate artists and labels.do not support these assholes.There are 10's of thousands of artists like me who have a great appreciation for what radio has done for us.And we never ask for a dime.
Kiss My ASS RIAA !!Q!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying for performance on radio is good
sorry, but here i think the evil is the NAB, which has successfully prevented artists getting a matching performance royalty to what songwriters get. This is only a good thing. helps artists earn a living when say someone like SAM MOORE can't tour to get an income.
this is just and right, can't believe so many people are embittered against it, this has nothing to do with big or small record labels. this is about artists rights, and it is only good for artists. if passed, small and large artists to get income for their work. not tons, but a lil. and when all these p2p network or websites are out there making it hard to get income from record sales, this radio income is important
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying for performance on radio is good
http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx
http://www.bmi.com/
I think is time for radio stations to charge a PAY FOR PLAY to RIAA music. You want me to give you "air time" to play your music??? PAY!!
Imagen Pizza Hut sending a boy to a street light or a corner to supply people their flyers of Pizza offers and then charge the boy for the flyers he gave away? would you do it? would you be that boy??? Without radio people dont get to know about new music. Another example, can I ask the Mailman to pay ME a tax because he got paid for delivering MY MAIL???? Next time I send a letter I'll try to charge the Mailman for my mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]