RIAA Seeks Royalties From Radio 555
SierraPete writes "First it was Napster; then it was Internet radio; then it was little girls, grandmothers, and dead people. But now our friends at the RIAA are going decidedly low-tech. The LA Times reports that the RIAA wants royalties from radio stations. 70 years ago Congress exempted radio stations from paying royalties to performers and labels because radio helps sell music. But since the labels that make up the RIAA are not getting the cash they desire through sales of CDs, and since Internet and satellite broadcasters are forced to cough up cash to their racket, now the RIAA wants terrestrial radio to pay up as well."
From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because they should be allowed to sit around all day earning money just because they are so great.
Pipe Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills.
Yes, it's unfair that people are forced to work to pay their bills. There should be free money for all with no incentive to work. In a perfect world, congress should force everyone to pay record companies money, so record companies could distribute the wealth in whatever way they see fit.
Awww, diddums (Score:5, Insightful)
Double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
As somebody already pointed out the rest of the world gets by paying a fee for radio play. What this WILL mean is that you'll end up with the bland "selection" of national radio that other Western countries have. I was always surprised at how diverse the US music industry was but I didn't realise your radio stations got a free ride. Now it makes sense and I'm sure this would mean less exposure for niche artistes. Gotta love an industry that's trying to hammer nails in its own coffin.
Silly RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats next? Suing stores that play music inside for shoppers?
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:3, Insightful)
This would basically ruin both CC and the RIAA.
Yeah. Let them eat their seed corn. Gobble it up boys.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:4, Insightful)
No? What? What's "reality TV" got to do with music television? Nothing?... =V
is this about money? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously. Are these people hungry? Are they homeless? Are they unable to pay their bills? Is their mansion really too small?
I ran into a former owner of a CD store in a college town a few years ago, and she said that she had to close down because CDs were not selling, so she sold the business, and started another one. She said explicitly that downloads hurt her bottom line, but oh well, times change, and she had to change with the times.
I mean, how many steam engine engineers are trying to sue these new fangled gasoline, oil, diesel, electric, fuel cell, etc engineers? Or their customers, or their kids, or dead people?
To me, this is some kind of psychological or socioligical problem that is not properly addressed as such, and the bottom line is that _everybody_ is losing because of it. The real problem is that the government is an accessory to their psychological/sociological problems, because I guess they have the same issues.
Why isn't the government or anybody concerned about real issues like national debt, health care (oxymoron) reform, energy costs, housing costs, and the stuff that actually affects real people that are real problems. I mean, if nobody bought a 1970s technology like a CD is ever again, would it really be a big deal?
Is this kind of sociopathy just "normal" when a society is collapsing on itself? Does anybody know what the real issues are here? This is a control/powertrip thing that makes no sense.
New Rules Charge Free Music Too! (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't be able to give your music away in the future [slashdot.org]. Giving the MAFIAA a new revenue stream only gives them more money to do more harm. The only place to stop them is at the voting booth.
Re:Absolutely! Strong support! (Score:2, Insightful)
It may not be suicide when they'll be able to point to the effect on the sales, and lie about it, say "Ahah! Piracy!" Despite the fact everyone (other than them and the legislators) will know darn well they are bringing it upon themselves.
...And they get retaliatory legislation from their lobbyists (using extreme drop in sales as justification) that makes electronic sharing punishable by death, imposes a mandatory computer and CD-tax whose proceeds will be paid to the RIAA, and permits the RIAA to force spyware, cameras, and listening stations to be installed, wherever computers are used.
Appearing to commit suicide in the short term may be the way to get some RIAA-preserving legislation in the long term. I don't know if it turns out to work or not, but it's a possibility.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:5, Insightful)
Indirect Payola (Score:5, Insightful)
A major record label can create a list of songs they want played, and offer special royalty-free licenses to broadcast them as a promotion. Independent artists, bands that the RIAA's members just doesn't feel like promoting for whatever commercial reason, etc., won't have the beureucratic infrastructure to *offer* such an arrangement, even if they wished to do so.
And, of course, if they don't like particular *stations*, for whatever reason, they can refuse to cut deals with them.
It's the same story as with internet radio - it's all about control.
Re:Absolutely! Strong support! (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet "radio" is going back to congress asking to be treated like a real radio station and get back to a zero royalty rate. The RIAA wants to head this off and say that real radio needs to pay too. It won't work, but they are going to give it a go...
Boss, we've a problem: (Score:2, Insightful)
Boss: "Right. Fire up another 3% broadcast time in commercials."
Marketeer: "But Boss, this will shrink by another 3% our music broadcasting time. Listeners will not appreciate."
Boss: "Who fu**ing cares?"
The record companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
-b.
Re:From the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the good, old-fashioned concept of SAVING money while the going is good? Save a few $100,000, invest it, and let the money work for you. Why expect a free ride when you've blown all your money?
-b.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure the radio stations are making money. If they didn't play Supremes they'd play something else. I remember a buddy who had a show on the campus radio station and often he'd get requests for songs they can't play and he'd tell the callers "yeah, sure, I'll play it, keep listening." I've never felt the need to call a corp radio station but it's probably the same way.
The stuff they play is just a commodity. At least the smaller costs of running internet radio stations had the semblance of caring about actual music and content.
For the behemoth MAFIAA every win, every law, every take in their favor is never independant and always a stepping stone to even greater reaches. Next thing you'll know the public will need to pay a fee simply to remember how great a particular song goes.
If denying Mary Wilson name-brand bon-bons in favor of the off-brand ones keeps them from taking advantage of ANOTHER stepping stone towards the continued bilking of the public at large, I'm all for it.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean its somehow WORSE in Europe? How is that even possible? Every FM station in my area plays the same 20 songs that have been approved for that genre. Radio stinks.
Europe... maybe this is The Final Countdown for decent radio? I hope this doesnt spread to Asia, or Africa, or even Kansas or Chicago.
Hehe... Battle of the Bands Geography Bee.
Broadcasting Industry is missing an opportunity... (Score:1, Insightful)
However, who pays in the end?
The RIAA demands money to allow the radio station to air their work? How about the RIAA PAYS the radio stations to advertise their product?
Radio is missing a huge business opportunity. They can sell their own airtime to the music industry and make even more money.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh... wait...
Re:This is going to backfire.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
3) The RIAA pulls this one off. Member labels get fewer artists signing with them so they can participate in the new wave of music production, allowing them to garner air time on net radio stations. Additionally net radio stations outside the U.S. will continue to grow like some kind of pirate radio. The world (and especially the U.S.) will be exposed to artists that they never would have been exposed to via the current radio setup.
In this situation, the RIAA loses, corporate radio loses, but the people and the artists win. If the RIAA keeps this up, they will destroy their own industry by making online-music the new on-line gambling. It will be legal everywhere but in the U.S.
yeaaahhh RIAA
May I suggest a few tracks for theme music to their new program:
1) RIAA killed the radio star
2) Hey man, nice shot!
3) Suicide is painless
Re:From the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, that's bollocks. Sorry. You do the work once, you get paid once -- iff you're lucky. That's how it works in The Real World.
Look at the dates on your sources (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record, BMI was not founded last fall. It's been around since 1939, which is an eternity in radio. ASCAP currently claims to have 275,000 members! In fact, being a member of ASCAP or BMI is virtually a requirement if you are a professional musician, as is being a member of a professional union.
But I'd like to also point out, having worked in radio, that ASCAP and BMI fees can be huge for small stations. The radio station I belonged to was owned by a university, and as a result, the university was able to negotiate a blanket contract for all peformances, radio stations, and jukeboxes operated on the campus (excluding the big performance venue, which was actually subcontracted to an outside vendor). We could have paid this fee ourselves, but it would have been a huge chunk of our operating costs.
This is greed, plain and simple. The reason why the RIAA wants a cut is because ASCAP and BMI (and SESAC, if you count Europe) fees do not go back to the labels, unless the label owns the copyright on the score (contrasted with owning the copyright on the recording). ASCAP and BMI fees are generally regarded as a good thing, because this is money that artists actually see. When a radio station plays a Nirvana cover of a Meat Puppets tune, the Meat Puppets get the dough. This is a good thing for small artists.
But there is a downside: ASCAP and BMI reporting is, at best, wildly inaccurate. "Charting" happens infrequently, and relies on stations actually taking the time to report this information correctly. Often it is not. I've heard rumors that SoundScan also has a service that scans the airwaves using a detection heuristic, but I can't find any information about that service, so maybe it was just speculation on the part of one of my coworkers.
Anyway, labels send radio stations boxes and boxes of free music. We're supposed to pay them now for playing their crap? I thought that's what all the coke and blowjobs were for
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I should totally get a cut of absolutely any profit derived from my work at any point in the future!
Otherwise I'd have to plan for retirement or continue building houses.
And that doesn't sound fair. Not while people are out there profitting off my work.
Re:From the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Payola (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA already pays the radio stations to tell people what to like. They have all but admitted to manipulating playlists via bribes because they acknowledge that radio play == sales. So I'm not entirely sure how they are now going to argue that radio play is suddenly detrimental. Particularly not when they're still actively engaged in it. (though now via a corporate shell-game to side-step the FCC)
My guess, is that the RIAAs is trying to put an end to payola. If the stations legally 'owe' the RIAA money for broadcasting, then they can negotiate airplay without having to write checks. They'll just grant the broadcasters performance rights 'coupons' for certain artists/tracks. Nothing really changes, the labels cut down some of the cost-of-doing business.
Re:Absolutely! Strong support! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no it wouldn't. Don't fool yourself. People who listen to radio, for the most part listen to music the RIAA controls because they like the music. That's why people pirate the music the RIAA controls. Clear Channel exists because there are lots of people that like its product. Sad? Perhaps, but no less true.
They'll never get what they desire. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm... they'll never get what they desire. They desire "all of it" + 1.
In this world where "success" is measured by growth and accelleration, a culture of cannibalism. If you have read [or heard] "From Good to Great" you would understand that good is the enemy of great, not a step below. It's that mentality that really seems to be causing this chaotic and carnivorous meltdown in business and culture.
For me, in my mind, I think it's perfectly apparent that there are limits to one's ability to accellerate. There are limits to growth capacity. In both cases, when limits are exceeded, bad things happen. We live in a finite world with finite reasources. If "success" is measured by how something approaches something "infinite" I'd have to say there's a flaw in the logic.
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we consider this a "freedom of expression" versus "corporate interests" battle for control of a major block of frequency ranges, we all lose because if the RIAA wins (i.e. the mammoth music production companies such as EMI, Sony, etc.) ), the little guys automatically lose, and we get more of the corporate fodder-crap music, etc. and NO outlets for true expression.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:3, Insightful)
I see 2 ways to get more income:
1) More ads.
2) Charge the content producers to air their music.
2 sounds stupid at first, but if the options are 'massive advertising' or 'pay the radio a few cents to play your song', I know which would be cheaper and better. The consumer (that's us) loses either way, and the RIAA is the only one who gains.
'Overpaid Shock Jocks' exist because they bring in listeners, no matter how stupid any single individual may think them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist.
'Indie music' doesn't get much airplay because radio stations don't think it'll bring in listeners and because it is so hard/expensive to find good stuff. Music producers sift through the cruft and find the money music, and radio stations take advantage of that currently. The only way for a radio station to afford that sifting process would be to have 1 company (or a very few) sort for many radio stations. That's basically what we have right now.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:2, Insightful)
public radio. member owned/sponsored. the listeners give money to the local station to cover expenses, and the station has a duty to/they're-paying-our-bills-so-we-better play what they want.
i'm not necessarily talking about national public radio, either; as that comes with quite a bit of politicing, and while generally something i enjoy listening to, tends to run somewhat less controversial/edgy type content. in the town where i live, we have at least two local public radio stations. one is run by the local college, the other turns 29 years old today, and is in no danger of going away. when either one of them says they play a mix of eclectic music, there's no telling what you'll get. folky guitar song followed by peruvian flute music followed by swedish black metal. none of which is owned by the riaa, so they don't have to worry. the artists are happy to get airplay on a station the listeners of which have brains of their own.
So Let's Not Listen To Commercial Music (Score:5, Insightful)
I loved Napster and Kazaa when they came along because they allowed me to sample a lot of music I wouldn't have heard otherwise. When I found something I liked, I'd go out and buy a CD. You know, to 'support the band'. Only it turns out the bands didn't get much (if any) of the money, anyway; it went to the record companies and stopped there. Didn't matter, because the RIAA shut the download sites down. No more music sampling for me.
Then the RIAA went on a rampage and started dragging grannies and gradeschoolers into court. That's when I stopped buying music. I just quit completely. I haven't bought a new CD in over four years.
I began listening to Internet-streamed radio and loved it. Then the RIAA began trying to shut that down. Now they're going after commercial radio.
Well, screw them. I'm done. No more commercial, big-record-company music for me. The RIAA can kiss my shiny metal ass.
In the process of listening to streaming music, I've discovered some great independent music. I don't need the craptactular garbage the record companies dish out anymore. Especially not if they're going to try to fine me or send me to jail if I don't listen to it on their terms.
Screw them. I hope they all starve, and their children, too.
Re:Payola (Score:4, Insightful)
It gives the labels a payola workaround.
PROGRAM MANAGER: We really want to give this awesome song some airplay, but it costs too much; can you give us a break on the air-time fee?
LABEL: Sure, but you'll have to play this list of 10 crappy songs for every time you play awesome song.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, apparently you don't know the "classic rock" radio format in the US, in which the same Jimi Hendrix songs get played over and over about 8 times a day each. I listen to my local classic rock station (Q104 in NYC - one of many "Q104's" across the country) in my car because there's nothing that's any better, but it really is programmed like any other top 40 station. Same four songs fifty times a day. If you think that gets old on a top 40 station where the nature of the beast means you've at least got some turnover throughout the year, just imagine what it's like when your playlist never changes! If I hear "Hotel California" one more time this week, somebody's going to get strangled.
All the other stations in NYC play either lame urban music or some combination of modern "hits". There is college radio, but a) the reception where I am is really bad, as their power output is not very high, and I'm not near any colleges, and b) honestly, I know some people really like college radio (and I was music director of my college radio station back in the day), but I find it a little too random now that I'm getting on in years. So there really aren't any good choices. There's no such thing as a station that just plays good quality rock music that experienced DJ's pick out themselves from a massive collection of LP's or CD's lining the station walls - as used to be the norm even just 20 or so years ago. Nowadays a DJ's job is just following a playlist and filling time in between songs with some pointless one-way banter.
I hate the RIAA and I hate the modern radio industry. I really don't know who to root for here.
One thing I'm sure of, though, is that royalty payments to the RIAA will cause the radio industry to lose whatever independence it still has. It seems like a way for them to get around payola laws while still raking in some extra cash. Let's say the RIAA collects 10 cents per play of most songs, but oh, they'll "waive" the fee for a particular artist they want to promote that week. The music director of the local top 40 station thinks that artist is crap, but the accountants tell the VP of finance how filling 4 minutes every half hour with that artist will save the station $5,000 per week. And let's say it's not just one artist, but five or ten at any given time. You tell me what's going to happen.
Stop the yelling, other nations do this already. (Score:1, Insightful)
Proof that musicians are deluded (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no! You mean those poor musicians have to keep working, just like the rest of us!? What is this world coming to!?
Does an older assembly line worker at Ford continue to get paid every time someone drives a classic Mustang? Does an Amish quilt maker get a nickel every time someone gets cold and covers up? Of course not! Then what makes musicians so special?
Idiots. Get back to work!
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily... keep in mind SoundExchange and Internet Radio... I'm sure the RIAA has plans to enforce this royalty scheme for all broadcast music, whether from a member label or not. If so, this will mean nothing for independent labels and bands - and will mean (1) the RIAA will have control over all content played on the airwaves as well as (2) reap the profits from royalties of such.
Keep in mind, while the direction I think they are going in is pure speculation, nothing else seems to make sense... after all ASCAP and BMI are already collecting royalties on behalf of the artists for music played on the airwaves and elsewhere - so the RIAA's efforts, as stated, make no sense at all, without there being some other plans and motivating factors behind them (like assuming control of all royalty payments for music played and control for all music played using such a system; as I speculate). It would though leverage control over who gets played, putting such a thing entirely in the RIAA's control - making paid airtime even more prevalent (since the RIAA could now "reimburse" stations for playing their member's selected content to offset the new royalty scheme).
And, with a congress that currently seems to be willing to bend over backwards to change the law so the RIAA can break it, change the law so the RIAA benefits and change the law so the RIAA gains more control over everything musical; this seems like one more step in their plans for total domination of any music played or performed anywhere... slowly musicians on any label are losing the right to decide how their music is played, to whom, when and how they receive payment for said music.
My only question is what is next? At this rate, we wont even be able to sing in the shower without having to pay the RIAA royalties (though for some of us, perhaps me included, that isnt necessarily a bad thing ;-) )
-Robert
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:2, Insightful)
KFC actually is at least mainly comprised of chicken (or chicken like substances).. Albeit fried and of questionable quality
where as MTV is not really comprised of music at all anymore.. Unless you count the background music in the shows... It's mostly comprised of crap, propaganda, stupidity and teeny-boppers mixed in with thugs.
better one:
MTV is to music as astronomy is to science
I would have used "tampa bay devil rays are to baseball" as in the simpson's except they are having a better year than the yankees.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:New Rules Charge Free Music Too! (Score:3, Insightful)