How The DMCA Is Restricting Online Radio In Ridiculous Ways

from the can't-play-that-show dept

When webcasting first started to become popular, as with any new and useful offering, the RIAA was quick to try to kill it off with ridiculously high licensing fees. While there was some back and forth over the years, the current fees make it nearly impossible to legally stream music online profitably. But, the details are even worse than you think. Even if you are paying the super high fees (which are much higher than terrestrial radio), there are all kinds of restrictions as well. Michael Scott points us to an excellent article in the Tufts' student paper highlighting how these restrictions are harming college radio without any benefit. As the article notes, they are:

"now prohibited from forwardly announcing song titles, broadcasting more than three songs from the same album or four songs from the same artist in a three-hour period, making archived webcasts of their shows available online for longer than two weeks and making those webcasts available for download."

The article points out that nothing in these restrictions will stop people from illegally downloading music, but they will serve to create an annoyance for the DJs who put together the programs for this station, and for listeners. Making shows available to download as podcasts, seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to build up a fanbase. But... not allowed. The whole thing about preventing three songs from an album or four songs from the same artist in a three-hour period is the RIAA's ham-fisted way of trying to stop DJs from playing a whole album straight -- but it also kills off programs dedicated to a single artist. The article mentions, for example, how the University of Michigan's radio station can no longer air a radio show it used to have, dedicated to Duke Ellington. When I was in college, our student-run station had a show dedicated to the Beatles, which I imagine also could not be run today under these rules. Now, the article doesn't mention that there apparently are some ways to get waivers for these restrictions, but they appear to only be in very limited cases, and the details are somewhat secretive.

Yet another case of the DMCA putting in place ridiculous restrictions that do nothing to actually stop unauthorized copying.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, radio

Will The NAB Agree To A Performance Rights Tax In Exchange For Having RIAA Support Mandatory FM Radio In Mobile Phones?

from the rearranging-deck-chairs dept

We've discussed, for quite some time now, the ridiculousness of a performance rights tax on radio. This is the attempt, by the record labels, to get radio stations to pay performers for advertising and promoting their music. This is clearly not needed, because in the real world, without this, record labels already know that radio play is valuable: it's why they keep running payola scams. For them to try to then legally mandate that money should flow in the opposite direction is downright ridiculous. In what world does the government make someone pay to promote someone else?

After years and years fighting this, we should have known that the NAB would come up with some ridiculous idea in the end. The NAB, which represents broadcasters, is almost always on the wrong side of policy debates (that's what happens when your job is to protect a dying industry), but on this one issue we agreed... until now. Rumors are circulating that the NAB is willing to cave on performance rights, if the RIAA, in exchange, supports a totally wasteful plan to require FM radio receivers be placed in mobile phones, MP3 players and other digital devices. Now, everyone involved says no deal is done yet, but there are multiple indications that this is exactly where the conversation is heading.

The NAB tries to defend this by comparing FM radio -- a dying technology -- to federal mandates on digital television tuners. That, of course, was entirely different in so many ways. It involved attempts to move the country forward to a new technology, not mandating an obsolete one. It also was done for a very specific reason: to try to recapture tons of valuable spectrum that could be put to much more valuable and practical use. Mandating FM tuners is just a waste of time and money in a quixotic attempt by broadcasters to prop up FM radio. My mobile phone has an FM receiver today, and I've never even looked at it. Some manufacturers have chosen to put this technology into devices today -- and that's fine, if they choose to do so. But, mandating it as part of a backroom political deal? No thanks.

Filed Under: deals, fm radio, performance rights, performance tax, radio
Companies: nab, riaa

Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio

from the no-more-radio dept

We recently wrote about a UK hairdresser being fined for not paying the PPL license for playing a radio in his shop -- even though he'd already been paying the PRS license. Now, if you follow this stuff, you probably know that PPL and PRS cover different aspects of collective licensing, but it strikes many, many people as being patently ridiculous that they need to pay two separate license fees just to turn on a radio in your shop. That story has a rather epic comment thread (well over 500 comments at this point), mainly involving one very, very insistent UK resident who sees no problem with this setup. Of course, he also states that if something is in the public domain it means no one's allowed to sell it at all -- so he's a bit confused on the subject.

In the meantime, however, it appears that PPL has decided that targeting hairdressers and barbershops is in the best interests of its members. mike allen points us to the news that a second hair salon in the same town has been hit with fines. Like the first, she had no idea she had to pay two separate licenses just to turn on her radio, and thought that when a PPL person called (and wouldn't leave a callback number) that it was an obvious shakedown scam. Unlike the other guy, this hairdresser is refusing to pay, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous, seeing as she already paid for a license from PRS.

Once again, while people who are heavily involved in this stuff understand the difference between the licenses, it's pretty ridiculous for anyone to expect a mom & pop shop owner to do the same. All these actions are doing is convincing everyday folks just how ridiculous copyright law is -- while, at the same time, convincing these shops to just turn off their radios, which helps no one. It's such an incredibly short-sighted view by PPL.

Filed Under: hairdresser, licensing, radio, uk
Companies: ppl, prs

Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms

from the oh-come-on-now dept

We've seen all sorts of ridiculous claims by performance rights collection societies trying to demand performance rights for things that clearly were not intended as "performances." There was the woman stocking shelves in a store who was singing without paying. There was the owner of a horse stable who played music to her horses. There was the attempt to say that your mobile phone ringing with a ringtone was a public performance. Basically, they're willing to claim just about any music playing is a public performance that requires yet another fee.

Niall.e points us to a legal issue in Europe, where the Irish High Court has asked the European Court of Justice to weigh in on a claim by the Irish collection society Phonographic Performance Ireland Ltd (PPI), which is claiming that music played in hotel rooms for guests requires a performance fee. Yes, you read that right. PPI is claiming that since the hotel provides radios and televisions in the guest rooms, they need to pay a performance right fee on the usage of those devices.

PPI can't honestly believe this is a public performance that deserves a performance right. This is just a blatant money grab to try to force someone else to pay up. What's next? Auto dealers will have to pay a performance fee for having radios installed in cars?

Filed Under: hotels, ireland, performance rights, radio
Companies: ppi

Rep. Conyers Compares Lack Of A Performance Right Tax To Slavery

from the sing-along-now dept

We thought it was crazy enough when an RIAA-organized lobbying group called radio "a form of piracy" because it didn't pay musicians to promote their songs. But it appears that Rep. John Conyers, one of the biggest backers of forcing radio stations to pay an additional tax to help promote music, has taken it a step further. Via Copycense we learn that at an event put on by recording industry lobbyists, Conyers decided to compare the lack of a performance right mandatory fee for radio stations to slavery and indentured servitude. Seriously:

"In 1865, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. No more free labor," Conyers said. "It abolished at the same time involuntary servitude. What does that have to do with what we're here for today? Well, when you tell somebody that you're benefiting from their work product but there's no avenue for compensation, it kind of harkens back to that great problem."

What an incredibly shameful thing to say. Beyond making the absolutely bizarre and ridiculous connection between the failure of one giant industry to force another big industry to hand over a chunk of cash (most of which never will be seen by any musicians), it ignores basic economics. Historically, the money has flowed the other way. For decades, record labels and promoters have used forms of payola to pay radio stations to play certain musicians. Why? Because they clearly knew that they got a ton of value out of those songs being promoted on the air. Songs on the radio are advertisements. What kind of industry gets Congress to force broadcasters to pay to run their advertisements -- and then has the gall to have an elected official claim that not paying to play these ads are the equivalent of indentured servitude?

Of course, Conyers knows all about Payola. Back in 2002, he was the one who called for payola hearings on Capitol Hill. So how is it that he suddenly thinks that money not going the other way is somehow "no avenue for compensation"? He's being blatantly intellectually dishonest here. Is it worth mentioning that in the last election the two largest contributors to his campaign were lawyers and the Music/Movie/TV industry?

The performance right tax is not about "indentured servitude." It's not even about people benefiting from a product where "there's no avenue for compensation." Quite the opposite. Getting your music on the radio is a huge challenge for most artists, and if you can get your music heard that way, it's still a huge boost to a musician's career. Does Conyers think that when there's a popular commercial on TV that people want to see that the makers of that commercial are "slaves" because they're not getting paid every time the commercial is played? It's yet another example of corrupt politicians in DC pushing legislation that helps one particular industry, and making up completely ridiculous arguments to support their position. This isn't about slavery or indentured servitude. It's about Congress granting a huge mandatory windfall to the record labels (at the expense of radio stations) because those labels are unwilling to actually do something to properly capitalize on free promotion from the radio stations.

Filed Under: copyright, john conyers, payola, performance rights, performance rights act, performance tax, radio, slavery
Companies: riaa

Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians

from the say-what-now? dept

Singer Garth Brooks got some attention for sorta kinda unretiring, and in answering some questions he made some bizarre comments about how the government doesn't protect musicians from piracy:

"Our government's not doing anything about piracy. Until we can hear what a day of radio is like with no music, until this place sits silent because the music creators and the artists and copyright (holders) are not happy because they're not being protected like everyone else is, then, yeah, I would like that power myself. It has to be placed in the right hands, so it can't be one person, but a board that represents music, its creators and its content owners. I think that'd be more than fair to stand up and say, 'Look, you've ignored us, because there's 50,000 of us and 300 million voters. You've ignored us, and now to show you, we would like to just simply stop for a day,' and see how dry this world gets."

Really? This is the same government that has only increased copyright protections over time and never decreased them (never). This is the same government that has both Republicans and Democrats repeating the RIAA's bogus stats on piracy. This is the same government that allows the RIAA unprecedented access in terms of setting the copyright agenda of the nation. It's hard to see anything that the government has done that "ignores" artists in favor of the rights of the rest of the country. I can't name a single thing.

And I'm curious as to what he means by "they're not being protected like everyone else is." That's also not true. Copyright has been twisted to grant more rights than everyone else, in that it allows copyright holders to control what happens to works after they're sold. In many ways they get extra protection from folks in any other line of work.

Finally, he seems to assume that the only reason people create music is because of these protections -- and yet, as piracy has increased, so has the number of musicians and albums being produced. So, if he wants to create some sort of union that goes on "strike" for a day, I would imagine that there would be a massive influx of indie musicians (I guess they'd be "scabs") more than willing to get their music on the radio instead.

The problem is that for the vast majority of musicians who are not Garth Brooks, the bigger issue is obscurity, not piracy. Having those big name musicians take themselves out of the competition for even a day would thrill plenty of smart musicians, giving them a chance to get attention normally reserved for the Garth Brooks' of the world.

Filed Under: copyright, garth brooks, music, piracy, radio
Companies: riaa

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves RIAA Bailout Radio Tax

from the and-so-it-goes dept

Because the federal government apparently hasn't helped the RIAA enough in the past century -- despite repeatedly changing copyright laws to favor the industry again and again and again (and again) -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the Performance Rights Act, which effectively serves to tax radio stations for promoting music. It's quite obvious to anyone who actually understands radio economics that this makes no sense. After all, the history of radio has always been about payola -- having the labels pay the radio stations to play certain works. That's because the record labels know quite well that airtime leads to more money in terms of promoting an artist and building a business model around music, concert and merchandise sales. To the labels, airplay has always been the equivalent of advertising. That's why they pay for it.

But now they want the radio stations to pay them to advertise the labels' music? Isn't that getting the equation backwards?

This is nothing more than a federal bailout of the RIAA, who still refuses to embrace new business models. Instead, they have to squeeze others and get the government to force them to hand over money. A real business model doesn't involve changing the law. It involves giving others a reason to buy. Apparently, that's too difficult for the RIAA.

As for the claims that a performance license will somehow help musicians, that's bogus as well. First, ask the RIAA's SoundExchange about all the money it keeps for itself and about all the musicians it "can't find." Besides, all this will do is harm up-and-coming musicians. Because radio stations will now need to pay more for playing music, they'll play less music, and if they're playing less music, they'll focus just on the big name acts. Smaller up-and-coming artists should be furious with the RIAA for giving radio stations less incentive to play their works. Remember, this is the opposite of payola. While payola got new records on the air, this will make sure fewer get on the air. But it will sure put a bunch more money in the pockets of the major record labels. So there's that.

Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: riaa, soundexchange

Pandora Continues To Push Users To Vote For Shameful Radio Performance Tax

from the can't-compete? dept

We mentioned back in July how Pandora was urging its users to support the Performance Rights Act, which is effectively a government bailout for the RIAA by taxing already struggling radio stations for the right to help promote the RIAA's music. It's a travesty. The only reason Pandora supports it is because Pandora was pressured into its own ridiculous webcasting rates and wants to help bring down radio too. While I like Pandora as a service, I think it's shameful that it's now using the political process to burden competitors with a government created tax, that goes straight to the RIAA.

Apparently, Pandora has once again ramped up this effort to have the government tax its competitors. A whole bunch of you have been forwarding these ridiculous emails from Pandora that urge people to contact their elected officials in support of the RIAA Bailout bill. Most of those submitting those emails to us have said that you'll be doing the exact opposite, and are offended that Pandora is pushing you to support such a thing.

Yes, Pandora, it sucks that you got stuck with ridiculous webcasting rates that will make it difficult to remain profitable, but that's no excuse for trying to get the government to dump an unfair tax on your competitors.

Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio, webcasters
Companies: pandora, riaa, soundexchange

As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

from the squeeze-squeeze-squeeze dept

While the RIAA keeps pushing and pushing for a performance tax for radio stations, it looks like ASCAP and BMI on the songwriter/composer side are apparently now looking to increase their existing tax on stations (via Michael Scott). As you probably know, right now, stations do pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI for the "performance right" on music they play on the radio, which gets distributed to the composers and songwriters. But performers don't get a royalty, as Congress recognized (correctly) that radio was free advertising for musicians. So, the first battle is about adding another tax, but this newer battle would be about increasing the existing one.

Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. As we've been detailing lately, ASCAP, BMI and other similar groups around the world have gone on something of a rampage lately, trying to get larger and larger fees from just about any use of music -- including ringtones, the 30-second previews on iTunes, and YouTube videos embedded in blogs (despite the fact that YouTube already pays a fee). Sucks to be a terrestrial radio station these days. Not only do you have a ton of new competition from other sources, but the rest of the industry is looking to tax you until you're gone.

Filed Under: copyright, radio, royalties
Companies: ascap, bmi

Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax On To Consumers

from the but-of-course dept

Not quite sure how I missed this earlier (update: oops, turns out we didn't miss it -- so consider this an encore presentation), but Bret alerts us to the news that with the ever increasing royalty rates pushed by the RIAA in the form of its "spin-off" Sound Exchange, and codified by the Copyright Royalty Board (for whom I still do not understand how anyone can justify its existence), that Sirius XM has simply added a $2 RIAA tax to everyone's monthly bills to help pay for the new performance royalties. Yup, because the RIAA and its members haven't been able to come up with a business model that works, they get the courts to tax you for listening to your satellite radio (on top of what you already pay and what they already pay to songwriters and publishers) and that gets passed on to you. Just imagine what will happen if the RIAA gets its wish and gets to add a similar tax to terrestrial radio stations as well. If you thought radio was chock full of commercials before...

Filed Under: performance royalties, radio, satellite radio, tax
Companies: riaa, sirius xm