Congressman Buys Recording Industry Argument That Radio Is Piracy

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

For pretty much the entire history of radio, everyone has known that getting your songs played on the radio was promotional. It helps sell albums. It helps sell concert tickets. There is no better way to prove this than to just look at the history of "payola" whereby record labels would pay radio stations to get their music heard. Obviously, the recording industry put tremendous value into being on the radio and was willing to pay for the privilege (even if it was illegal). In the US, radio stations have to pay royalties to composers and publishers -- but not performance rights to the musicians. That's because Congress also recognized that radio was a benefit to those artists.

Yet, in the last few years, with the recording industry execs desperate for more cash and unwilling to embrace business models that actually take some work, they've been running to Congress demanding that radio stations now pay performance rights to the labels. They even came up with a silly study that attempted to prove that radio play decreases sales. Late last year, it got so silly that one of the recording industry's many lobbying groups, called musicFIRST, claimed that radio is a "form of piracy." musicFIRST has been hiring big name lobbyists, like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey to push this view, and (of course) some politicians have obliged.

Rep. John Conyers has once again introduced a performance rights bill which is mistakenly described as creating "parity." It's only "parity" if you think that doubling the tax on playing music on the radio is "parity." This is, once again, nothing more than the recording industry trying to get the government to force others to hand over money, because the labels are too lazy (or clueless) to learn how to embrace some of the new business models that are earning musicians plenty of money. And Congress has no problem helping to prop them up.

It's worth noting, of course, that among the top contributors to Rep. Conyers recent re-election was the American Intellectual Property Law Association as well as DLA Piper, the big law firm that (oh look!) Dick Armey has been working for... It's also worth pointing out that Conyers, as head of the House Judiciary Committee, just so happened to have recently abolished the subcommittee on intellectual property -- which (hmm...) would have almost certainly been chaired by Rep. Rick Boucher, one of the few folks in Congress who actually has been known to fight for the rights of consumers, and against the RIAA, when it comes to copyright. This gave Conyers, rather than Boucher, control over new IP related legislation.

Filed Under: john conyers, payola, radio, recording industry, royalties
Companies: musicfirst, nab, riaa

In Case You're An Idiot: Canada Wants To Make It Illegal To Play Video Games While Driving

from the who-writes-this-stuff? dept

In the past, we've pointed out how silly it was for various politicians to go about banning very specific actions for drivers. There are a ton of distractions for drivers, and you're never going to successfully outlaw all of them. But it doesn't stop politicians from trying. Earlier this year, we asked for suggestions on what else politicians might try to ban while driving (beyond earlier bills that were put forth in various legislatures trying to ban using a laptop, using OnStar, faxing and (everyone's favorite) having sex while driving.

The latest is up in Canada, where a bill on driver distractions includes a ban on playing portable video game systems. While my first thought was whether or not this means it would still be legal to hook up a console gaming system and play it, that thought was quickly erased by the most basic question of all: who doesn't already recognize that you should not be playing a handheld video game while driving? I mean, if we're going to start banning totally theoretical dangerous driving activities, I'd like to throw juggling while driving onto the list. That's gotta be distracting. We must ban it. To save our children, of course.

Of course, to highlight how ridiculous this law is, it says it's okay for you to change stations on the radio while driving -- but you would be fined for skipping a song on your iPod. Why the distinction? Who knows. Reporters, sensing the ridiculousness of the situation, questioned a supporter of the new bill, asking him if it would be illegal to change songs on your iPod if the iPod were taped to the dash, like a radio. His response? "I would have to look at that one," while then noting "the proposed law is fairly general with details to come." Ah, so let's rush into passing a law, and then we'll work out the details of what the law actually means later?

Filed Under: canada, distracted driving, ipods, radio

Are Teens Listening To More Radio?

from the might-ask-them-to-define-radio-first dept

Here's a surprising study. A survey from a company called Paragon Media Strategies claims that people between the ages of 14 and 24 are listening to more radio than they were a year or two ago. This greatly contradicts the findings of Arbitron, which famously tracks radio listeners. Paragon suggests that radio stations may be doing a better job connecting with people and that "the music may simply be more interesting." Of course, all of this might depend on how you define "radio." I wouldn't be surprised if many folks in that age range are listening to streaming radio online or downloadable podcasts -- that they might consider to be radio. But that's quite different than actually listening to terrestrial radio.

Filed Under: radio, teens, trends

Old Media Always Afraid of New Media... Even Back in 1929

from the history-lesson dept

Petrea Mitchell reminds us that "old media" always ends up reacting poorly to "new media" no matter what we're talking about. As an example she points to this story about theaters (the kind that put on plays) fearing new-fangled radio broadcasters back in 1929:

Once upon a time, complimentary theatre tickets would come with a covering note like this: "Dear Sir, The Management of the ------ Theatre will be much obliged if you will very kindly co-operate with them in safeguarding the enclosed invitation from being used for the purpose of broadcasting a notice of the play from any station of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The invitation is intended to meet the convenience of legitimate journalism, exclusive of broadcasting." Dated 10 October 1929 and quoted in Ego: The Autobiography of James Agate (1935)

That's right. If you were a journalist who was given free tickets, you could report about it the newspaper, but heaven forbid you talk about it on the "radio." Why, that would just be bad.

Filed Under: fear, new media, old media, radio

Recording Industry Calls Radio 'A Kind Of Piracy'

from the and-mocks-broadcasters dept

It would appear that the recording industry now likes to call any sort of business model it doesn't like "piracy." At least that's the only explanation I can come up with in its latest battle, where it has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.

Filed Under: fees, publicity, radio, recording industry, royalties, taxes
Companies: musicfirst, nab, riaa

DOJ Finally Approves XM-Sirius Merger

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

It only took over a year of ridiculous protests from traditional radio stations, but the Justice Department has finally decided that XM and Sirius can merge without creating a monopoly. It will be interesting to see if the NAB's own lobbying efforts helped disprove its point. The NAB, representing terrestrial radio stations argued vehemently that if XM and Sirius merged, it would create a "monopoly." The only problem with that statement is that if that were the case, it would mean that terrestrial radio wasn't competing in the same market. And, if that were true, why would the NAB care? So, by arguing so vehemently against the merger, it effectively showed what we all knew: terrestrial radio and satellite radio compete in the same market. Of course, the merger isn't a done deal yet, as the FCC still needs to weigh in. But given the amount of time it has already taken for the DoJ to make its decision, you would hope that the FCC was at least close to being done with its review as well. Update: No surprise here, the NAB is "astonished" by the decision.

Filed Under: fcc, justice department, mergers, nab, radio, satellite radio, terrestrial radio
Companies: sirius, xm

SoundExchange Caught Lobbying, Despite Strict Rules Against Using Its Money For Lobbying

from the somehow,-this-doesn't-come-as-a-surprise dept

SoundExchange, which is a "non-profit" spinoff of the RIAA is supposed to be a neutral party, simply in charge of collecting certain royalties and distributing it to the artists. Of course, things aren't always the way they're supposed to be. After all, SoundExchange is famous for having trouble finding many of the musicians it's supposed to pay -- which isn't all that surprising since it gets to keep the money that goes unclaimed. However, part of the law that governs SoundExchange's existence makes very clear that the organization may only use its money for three things: administration of collecting and distributing royalties, settling disputes about the royalties and licensing and enforcement. One thing clearly not on that list is building a PR campaign and lobbying Congress to expand its ability to collect royalties from other sources. However, Eliot Van Buskirk over at Wired has discovered that's exactly what SoundExchange is doing, and it appears to be breaking the law.

You'll recall the recent stories about the music industry claiming that radio stations are getting a free ride in not having to pay musicians' royalties, despite the fact that, for years, the record labels felt they needed to pay the radio stations just to get airtime. This came out as a new lobbying group and PR campaign kicked off -- including the ridiculous assertion that radio makes people buy less music. It turns out that the group behind this lobbying effort, musicFIRST, happens to be funded in part by SoundExchange. It makes sense why SoundExchange would do this. After all, it would be in charge of collecting those royalties. However, the law seems pretty clear that SoundExchange can't use its money for lobbying (especially lobbying to expand its own power). Van Buskirk got the run around from SoundExchange on this, with the executive director ignoring the question and simply repeating the laughable statement that radio stations (who are promoting the music for the record labels) are somehow getting "a free ride." A lawyer for SoundExchange then tries to explain the situation away by saying that the royalty money being used for lobbying was authorized to be used this way by SoundExchange members. That's like saying it's okay that they broke the law, because they gave themselves permission to break the law. Very convincing.

Filed Under: lobbying, music, radio
Companies: riaa, soundexchange

Why Does The RIAA Hate Webcasters? Webcasters Don't Play Very Much RIAA Music

from the nothing-like-a-little-competitive-pressure,-huh? dept

Back in March, when the word came out that the new royalty rates for webcasting were much higher than in the past, we were confused. After all, webcasting helps promote music -- so why would the RIAA (and its SoundExchange spinoff) want to set rates so high that it would kill off this promotional channel? The answer isn't that hard to figure out. Traditional radio, of course, is dominated by a few similarly formated stations that all play RIAA-backed music. 87% of the music you hear on the radio is from an RIAA-member record label. However, when it comes to music on webcasts, the story is quite different. Jon Healy, at the LA Times, points out that only 44% of music on webcasts are from RIAA labels. This, at least, based on the findings of Live365, one of the larger webcasting services out there. So, with more than half the songs coming from non-RIAA labels, no wonder they're less interested in keeping webcasts alive. And, of course, the situation really is a win-win for the RIAA (in the short-term). It either kills off those webcasters who don't contribute to the homogenization of music, or it forces them to pay large sums even if they only play non-RIAA music. Of course, this is a strategy guaranteed to backfire in the long run, as it simply pisses off even more music fans who will simply look elsewhere for music.

Filed Under: music, radio, riaa, webcasting
Companies: riaa

Is Radio Bad For Music? Not Really, But The RIAA Will Say So

from the misunderstanding-markets dept

Remember a few months back when the RIAA started asking the government to get radio stations to pay up for promoting their music? This seemed pretty ludicrous (especially when you add in the fact that record labels for years have paid radio stations via payola to get them to play their music in the first place). Well, the group organized by the RIAA to push this plan has found a professor to publish a study saying that radio actually makes people buy less music. This way, they can claim that radio actually is not a promotional medium for music. Of course, there are a ton of questions about the methodology of this. First of all, if this were actually true, why has the entire history of music radio included the recording industry payola to get songs played? If radio really wasn't promoting sales of records, then why would they keep doing it, even after getting fined over and over and over again. Clearly, the record labels know that there's a benefit in being on the radio. However, even if it is true that radio decreases the demand for albums, nowhere is it explained why this is a problem that the government should solve. Whether or not radio promotes album sales, it clearly promotes music and that opens up all kinds of opportunities for the musicians to make money. The fact that the record labels are unable to capitalize on that is a marketing problem -- which doesn't need a government-backed tax on radio stations to fix. Update: And W. B. McNamara shows up with an excellent explanation that could explain the numbers in the report that suggest it's not "radio" that decreased buying interest -- it's crappy radio, driven by radio consolidation and homogenization.

Filed Under: copyright, music, radio, riaa
Companies: riaa

Clear Channel Says XM-Sirius Merger's Fine -- As Long As It Can Buy More Terrestrial Stations

from the the-more-things-change... dept

Matthew Lasar writes in to let us know that terrestrial radio behemoth Clear Channel says that if the XM/Sirius merger is allowed to proceed, restrictions on terrestrial radio station ownership should be lifted. Once again, by tying the two issues together, Clear Channel is making it clear that terrestrial broadcasters do compete with the satellite radio companies. It's hardly surprising to see Clear Channel take this stance, though, as it's consistently lobbied for the ownership limits (which state that a company can own no more than eight stations per market) to be lifted. The details from a Clear Channel exec's letter to the FCC are slightly amusing. The guy says "With poorer content, local radio stations will lose listeners, and, consequently, advertisers, not because local radio would face a better competitor after the merger, but because it would be able to offer only an inferior product to listeners and advertisers." His comments came in the context of saying that a merged XM-Sirius would lock up all kinds of content through exclusive deals, making it unavailable to terrestrial stations. But taken more broadly, you have to say that the guy knows what he's talking about, given Clear Channel's experience in churning out inferior products with little success.

Filed Under: broadcasting, fcc, mergers, radio
Companies: clear channel, sirius, xm