No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
from the want-to-try-that-again? dept
Every couple of years, like clockwork, the RIAA gets its friends in Congress to introduce some form of a performance rights bill, that would require radio stations to pay compulsory licenses to performers of the music they play on the radio. Every year it goes nowhere because the radio owners' big lobbying group, the NAB, is about equal in power to the RIAA. So the two sides fight it out, donate a lot of money to Congress, and nothing changes. There's generally a lot of FUD thrown up in the process, along with some crap about "fairness" when that's not what they're really pushing for at all. It's all about more revenue for the record labels and that's it. If you're unaware, playing music on the radio already requires payments to songwriters/publishers, but not to performers. The reason being that being on the radio acts as promotion, allowing the musicians to make it up elsewhere. We know that this happens because of the widespread practice of payola, in which the labels pay the radio stations to play their music. If it wasn't worth it to get on the radio, the labels wouldn't regularly get involved in payola scandals. And yet, they do, because radio play (even today) remains great advertising for music.We thought things had reached a new low four years ago when Rep. John Conyers sponsored one of these bills and insisted that radio stations playing musicians' music was the equivalent of slavery. Apparently, the RIAA liked that line so much it fed it to a different Congressional Rep. this year. RIAA darlings Jerry Nadler, Marsha Blackburn and Ted Deutch have joined Conyers in releasing the latest version of a performance rights act, this time called the "Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015" and the RIAA's spin doctors somehow decided that having Rep. Nadler use the slavery line was a good idea:
Previously, radio complained about the economy, asserting that they simply couldn’t afford to pay performers. But as far as the radio industry is concerned, “it's never the right time,” Nadler said. “What other industry says, ' We can’t afford to pay our workers; We want them to work for free,'” he cracked. “We got rid of that argument here in the U.S. in 1865," referencing the abolition of slavery legislated by the 13th Amendment.I'm sorry, but in no possible way is promoting someone's music on the radio the equivalent of slavery. To say so is not just insulting and offensive, but it's ridiculous. You can argue about the appropriateness of royalties, compulsory rates or anything else -- but to argue that getting played on the radio without direct compensation (despite all the indirect compensation) to slavery is just flat out ridiculous. Nadler doesn't get paid each time he goes on TV to talk about whatever bill he's supporting, does he? Is that slavery? No, it's promotional, just like music being played on the radio.
Just the fact that Nadler has to resort to this silly and tired argument again, despite it flopping five years ago, should tell you all you need to know about this weak attempt by the RIAA to squeeze out more money without doing anything different.
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: congress, fair play fair pay act, jerry nadler, john conyers, marsha blackburn, performance rights, performance rights act, radio play, slavery, ted deutch
Companies: musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If Only
"ok. we'll pay you when we play your music"
"we haven't gotten your check"
"we haven't played any of YOUR music. We banned all *AA music from our network. We only play independent and our audience is growing again. Thank you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Only
Wait...is there a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Only
That's the so-called "Gemavermutung", the Gema suspicion. If you cannot prove that an artist is not under contract by the Gema, they cash in anyway. And of course, since the identity of the artist is not known, they get to keep all of it.
How's that for absurdity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like anyone would ever take this statement as honest, except maybe for Lars Ulrich and Prince.
Too bad Mitch Glazier's sneaky little attempt failed. None of this would be an issue today because it would have taken approximately 0.2 seconds for musicians to have abandoned the music industry and form a new one, where ASCAP (et al) would have collapsed.
It's also too bad Sony won its case, too. Just think where the entertainment industry would be today if Universal had won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot, meet kettle
As a musician, the first one that comes to mind is the recording industry - at least the part the RIAA represents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot, meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle
In fairness to the Mafia, their part was almost entirely on the live music side of things. Others developed the worst recording industry practices, and were already doing so before that. Having said that, the manager's role as uncritical mouthpiece for the label, whom he knows is screwing his purported client, is a direct extension of the Mafia's model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but...
However, starting somewhere with rock and roll, the specific recording and its uniqueness, the vocal performance of a specific star and their interpretation, is as important as the song itself. We identify a song as much by the single specific recording session that became the "hit" as much as by the music and lyrics.
So it only stands to reason that the recording artist should share in the wealth generated by the song. Their performance as much as the published music sheet "makes" the song. of course, IMHO that means the radio people should pay the same, and the music publishers should split their revenue and take less.
After all, in every debate, the RIAA insists it's all about the artists (which IMHO includes the performers along with the writers). Maybe they, not the middlemen, should end up with the biggest share of the pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry, but...
Who wins then, the radio station?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry, but...
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...
The fans of artists/performers care about the artists/performers making money.. Nobody really sympathizes with the multi-billion dollar studios who have done more damage to the distribution of creative arts than anything Le Google has not done..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
In the days before the recording industry got going, having multiple bands play your songs was the only way that they could reach a wide audience. That also allowed many performers to make a living from their art. Since the recording industry got going, the labels have repeatedly manipulated the market via buying laws, so that they can make a fortune while supporting as few artists as possible, and with as little payout to them as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
>>> payola scandals. And yet, they do, because radio play (even today) remains great advertising for music.
That's due to limited outlets. Bet your last yuan that Apple and Spotify are being paid behind the scenes TOO.
Masnick DOES want creators to work for free. That's why he still supports Megaupload: unlimited copying effectively FORCES them to work for FREE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Go home, you're drunk. Computing technology is built on the premise of copying "bits" - your statement is about as ludicrous as saying everytime you use Office you are asking Microsoft developers to work for free.
It's in digital format on a technology built for copying.. This isn't Megaupload's fault for creating a platform which utilizes said technology. Blaming Megaupload for the RIAA/MPAA short sightedness is like getting mad at Ford bcz their vehicle was used in a bank robbery and the vehicle was drive-able.
For every obstacle the RIAA/MPAA tries to create someone will come up with new technology to disrupt it. It's a losing battle and the sooner they realize this the sooner they can start looking towards innovating for the future rather than attempting to retain control on outdated thinking.
zomg, techdirt is hosted on a webserver and everytime you access an article those bits are transmitted to your PC.. you must just want all these journalists to work for free.. You're such a terrible person - that's equivalent to cannibalism!
^see how stupid this line of thinking is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Baloney. I have been producing commercial software for decades (without ever using copy protection schemes). Most of my software has been widely distributed amongst the pirate community. And yet, I've managed to make a very good living anyway. I can personally demonstrate that unlimited copying hasn't forced me to work for free. If it hasn't forced me, then how can it force anybody else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
My hat is off to you sir for showing that you can survive and make a living despite the BS propaganda the copyrightists come out with. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Sheesh. If you had to get millions in funding BEFORE even typing the first byte, you'd know why copyright is important.
And yet again, YOU are free to NOT worry about copyright on your own products.
But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
How insulting. You insinuate that John's hard work is insignificant.
You should apologize for being an asshole, Blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Really, after 10 years of movie piracy, the industry is now bigger, stronger, and making more expensive films than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Nice try at an ad-hom, though.
"If you had to get millions in funding BEFORE even typing the first byte, you'd know why copyright is important."
If you have to have millions in funding before type the first byte (or playing the first not, as the case may be) then you are doing it completely wrong. Regardless, you aren't making an argument here. You're just repeating an unsupported assertion -- one that I stand as a counterexample to.
"But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others."
I never said that I did. I was simply saying that to claim that unlimited copying forces people to work for free is complete bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Since, I don't recognise the handle, I'll bite. Why do you people always pick this as your go to figure? Why do movies that cost far less than that not count? Yes, that includes studio productions ($50 million or less for a movie isn't actually that rare unless you're trying to make a CGI wankfest).
But, it's a handy indication that you don't give a shit about anyone other than major corporations, so we can safely assume you have no real facts to back up your arguments...
"But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others."
...as indicated by your idiot assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with the current copyright system is a pirate. Yawn. Get some new material, you're a new name to me but your arguments are stale and weak.
What the hell does "dispose of" mean in this context. I threw away some cheap DVDs that had no resale value recently. A couple of them were of movies that had budgets in the range of $100 million. Was that wrong of me somehow? Or, are you the kind of mental midget that thinks that every interaction without payment is a lost sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
After shaking his fist angrily (though impotently) while twirling his evil mustache made of rare Arabian yak hair and disappearing off the site the last time, he returned, swearing to never use the nickname he heavily tarnished himself.
But it's the same jackass. Telltale hints include writing an annoying, insinuating tagline in the post Subject, capitalizing random words to sound condescending, repetitive usage of words like "piratey", "Masnicking" and "$100 million movies".
His new shtick is to claim that he's being blocked - even though in his very first post for the year, he's claimed that no one "ran him off the site" - which "forces" him to switch IP addresses every time he makes a post via TOR. Yeah, the same program out_of_the_blue and other idiots insist that pirates use to hide their identities. His handles nowadays switch between some horrible word that has TOR inside (torpedo, gladiator, etc).
And the best part, he actually either thinks no one can tell, or that he's so clever for trying to run circles around a non-existent block. It's pathetic.
It might also be worth pointing out that Whatever/Just Sayin'/horse with no name had the same victim gambit of screaming "censorship" before disappearing, then out_of_the_blue reappeared. Whatever also threatened to use TOR to make 50 different IP addresses so they could all downvote anyone he disagreed with, so... yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another name to add to the list, at least...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Care to share these so-called "facts"?
If you bring up Microsoft, I'll have a good laugh. Their world market share is due in part to illegal sharing. Didn't they also purchase Minecraft? A product made phenomenally popular because of Notch's policy of not getting all upset about pirated copies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
In the larger sense, though, my viewpoint regarding software piracy is pretty mainstream in the industry. That there may exist larger software companies who may disagree with me on various points means nothing.
...unless you are saying that a company must be right or represent the majority view simply because it's big. I hope not, because that's nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Mind. Blown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
https://vine.co/v/OQqxU7KFzKY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
With the megauploads. Content creators data was also lost due to the seizure. How much money did they lose due to RIAAs and US government ham fisted actions. Sure, there was a lot of illegal stuff on megauploads. I bet you could also find illegal files on Drive, Dropbox, and any other cloud storage services. But what I think is worse than illegal files is that the some independent artist just lost all of their work due to illegal seizure and deletion of evidence. It may have been crap or it could have been something amazing but it was all deleted without any ability to recover it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Sorry, who died?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Oh, thas right.. Everyone working for the MPAA/RIAA.. Darwin does strike.. Can you feel the clock ticking away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Just admit that the actions of the twats you support have real harm on innocent law-abiding citizens. It's got to be easier than making up random excuses that don't pass any kind of internal logical test. No wonder you people are insane - the fantasy world you try to exist within doesn't make any kind of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
And she had it coming for wearing a short skirt and low-cut top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Promotion
Well said!
As evident by HBO's own admission.. Game of Thrones being the most popular TV show amongst the pirating community and ALSO being one of the most popular shows of ALL time is no coincidence..
Anybody else notice HBO isn't raising kane over the first episodes of season 5 being leaked online?
They recognized the promotional value early on and in the end are still making butt loads of money in merchandising and new subscribers. Not everyone in the entertainment industry is as blind as the MPAA/RIAA.
Pirates are nothing more than FANS (not criminals) responding to a lack of innovation by the labels/studios. Time and time again we can see that people will use innovative and legitimate alternatives to consume media. If you as an industry don't wish to offer legitimate alternatives you cannot get upset when a developer creates technology that delivers the experience consumers want.
This is the fabric of a capitalist society - if you don't want to appease your audience then someone else will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Promotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Promotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Promotion
Wrong. GOT is simply very popular. There is one large fanbase. It's just that some douches steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Promotion
The show's director and Time Warner's CEO state that they "benefited" from the piracy of GOT:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Promotion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Promotion
None? Wait, you mean they're making more money today than ever before? Funny how that works aint it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, I'm totally confused. Do stations not need permission to play songs, and does that apply in all cases or just certain cases? Is the "publisher" mentioned the same one that the performer contracts with? If so, then how can they argue that the performer isn't getting paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next up ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next up ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next up ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone Should Submit a Counter Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make you a deal: we'll stop talking about the music business when you stop pretending that you understand how tech and the online ad industry works? Because, seriously, if you think we don't get the music biz, your total misunderstanding of tech is much worse.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. How are those "bad" things?
Thousands of musicians never turn a profit either, are they "bad" too? Thousands of musicians license their music for TV and radio ads, are they "bad" also?
Just trying to figure out your logic here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
< \/>"I'll tell you to fuck off every day and twice on Sundays."
This is the attitude of the music industry that wants us to give them money! This is a "representative" of artists who claims to be working in their best interests, while crudely insulting anyone who disagrees with them from the safely of anonymity. Is it any wonder there is so little public respect or support for these people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You have provided a very thoughtful and informative comment, but I fear that it will be ignored as persons skip by the message in their zest to attack the messenger."
It's pathetic to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and this is a bad thing because...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did I miss when music industry insiders have shown anything that resembles intelligence? I must have blinked.
We can create the technology that makes the world go round but can't wrap our heads around greedy interest attempting to cripple innovation.. I guess we "tech douches" should just quit altogether since we're incapable of grasping the complexities of simpletons..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about 'access'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its advertising ,promotion,
like youtube lets play videos ,of video games being played .
Many people over 20 will not buy any cds or digital songs itunes downloads,unless they hear that singer,band on the radio .
when you get paid on the local top 40 pop radio station,
you know you are successful .
ie you are in the charts,you have a hit .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enjoy your freedom
Being played on radio is slavery? Congrats, you're free, enjoy it. Meanwhile, smaller, independent bands are now quite enjoying their 'slavery', and would like to thank you for making it possible.
Assuming the radio stations stuck to their guns, watching the major labels go to the radio stations begging to be allowed to don their 'chains and collars' again would be downright hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enjoy your freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enjoy your freedom
Well, radio is dead anyway, so who cares who pays who. I guess as long as some sucker advertisers can be found, they can find something to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Enjoy your freedom
While payola is probably happening (especially since it was legalized), the more probably explanation for this is that almost no radio programming is done by the local radio station anymore. Most of it comes from a tiny number of companies who provide the exact same programming to hundred of stations across the nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Enjoy your freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*reporter stands up and raises hand*
"Congressman?! Congressman?! You and your colleagues have been equating radio stations not paying artists as the artists being slaves; a position the RIAA has publicly taken as well. Given the similarities of that argument and you're presentation of it today, are you (and by extension, your colleagues) being paid by the RIAA or are you slaves to the RIAA? Congressman?! Where are you going, Congressman?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entitlement, (noun), See: RIAA/MPAA
It's basically like a company calling up a newspaper, one that had been running ads for that company, leading to a significant increase in sales, and demanding that the newspaper pay for the 'privilege' of doing so(so you know, just like various EU newspapers/sites have done with Google).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh and they want everyone in tech to work for them alone and not offer any alternatives that people would actually.. you know.. enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that a trick question?
The top two industries contributing to Jerrold Nadler's Campaign Committee and Leadership PAC for Campaign Cycle 2014:
1. Lawyers/Law Firms
Individuals: $100,494
PACs: $31,350
Total: $131,844
2. TV/Movies/Music
Individuals: $38,350
PACs: $59,500
Total: $97,850
(From opensecrets.org)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]