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."
Give them what they want! (Score:5, Interesting)
This would basically ruin both CC and the RIAA. Without the radio telling the masses what to like, CD sales are doomed.
Excellent! (Score:5, Interesting)
1) RIAA offends the courts by trying to reverse Congress and fails, and loses some steam and (more) public credibility (with those who think they have any).
2) RIAA bribes the right people and that law gets reversed, which then costs our country its music-playing radio stations and the music industry loses the majority of its sales.
I'm failing to see a down side....
Nice idea for a protest? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this would go over well..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:5, Interesting)
I always find it unnerving... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is going to backfire.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great news. There are only like 2 big radio conglomerates out there. They typically replay the same crap that the labels spoon feed them over and over again. Now, let's say they have to PAY to play that crap. Wouldn't it make sense to maybe play local stuff that doesn't cost a dime? Maybe it makes sense to play those albums that are not covered by the RIAA?
The best part is that if this is instituted it must be instituted across the board. They can't give radio stations breaks on a specific song over another. If they do, then this is payola. You can't pay radio stations to play your song. A discount on royalties is the same as paying them. Maybe we might hear some variety on the radio.
Again, another strategy not thought out to the logical conclusion.
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
What the RIAA doesn't realize (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely! Strong support! (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know why they're committing suicide this way, but I'll gladly set up the chair and help tie the knot.
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:2, Interesting)
Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, RIAA has bacome senceless long ago and its own worse enemy.
Like the old fable of the scorpion and the frog.
A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the scorpion's prominent stinger, the frog demurs.
``Don't be scared,'' the scorpion says. ``If something happens to you, I'll drown.'' Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.
The dying frog croaks, ``How could you -- you know that you'll drown?''
``It's my nature,'' gasps the sinking scorpion.
Sting the radios, RIAA, and sink alone. They will start promoting indie labels.
At the risk of being very unpopular... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that at the very least there is something to be said for this. If anything, the radio stations are racking up
income hand over fist from all of those insipid commercials we are forced to listen to, and it would only seem fair
that besides the songwriters and publishers (who are justly being compensated), the owners of the sound recordings
also get a piece of that income, which wouldn't affect talk radio, news and sports stations, but mostly for those stations
who have a 'music format', said music being the main reason they are able to remain in business.
This exemption business was something that was passed more than a half-century ago, originally allowed to support the massive investment
buildout in infrastructure which radio had to go through, long since recouped, and the fact that it still stands today shows the colossal power
of the lobby behind the stations/conglomerates such as Clear Channel.
This makes the RIAA's position that Internet broadcasters have to pay a bit more sensible, although totally irrelevant to the reality of the Internet.
Being that records are not selling that much anymore, and that people still listen to terrestrial radio quite a bit, it would make sense that some
of the income stream commercial radio is deriving from music should be used to give people an incentive to create more of the same material
the stations are using to earn income with.
I really don't see what's far-fetched or ludicrous about this; there should however be exemptions for not-for-profit, college radios, and low-power transmitters.
Z.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)
Diverse? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wonderful! (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA has to fight it out with Clear Channel, which definitely has the resources to fight them.
This will finally get public attention on copyright, royalties, and how aggressively the RIAA has been acting for the past several years. Most people don't know much about internet radio, but they know plenty about the noise box that keeps them entertained as they drive to and from work.
Then, if the RIAA are successful, they'll be making unsigned and non-RIAA artists who will happily sign royalty-free contracts, far more attractive to radio stations. More radio play, means more sales, which means real competition with RIAA.
I see a huge upside, and very little downside, for the public.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)
We already have that. Practically all rock, adult contemporary, etc. stations play the same thing...
Re:This is going to backfire.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It lasted about six weeks before the radio stations capitulated. Their listeners wanted music from the big names.
Irony, +1 (-1 for the rest of us) (Score:3, Interesting)
The key phrase here is 'mutually beneficial' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:5, Interesting)
Clear Channel and the other huge companies could and would pay without even flinching, and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs (and then some, since they can now blame RIAA for pretty much ANY amount of rate increase). Big Media wins, makes more money, gets bigger.
Advertisers now have Big Media sucking up a larger chunk of their advertising budgets, so they have to make cuts somewhere. Since the smaller, independent stations (are there any left?) have to pay RIAA too, their costs go up. With smaller audience shares, they are now even less cost effective than before. Advertisers pull ads from small stations to pay for the ads on big stations, small stations are now in an even bigger hurt than before.
Because the FCC has been spreading its legs for media companies for so long - and Congress is too clueless to notice or care -- Big Media is now able to suck up even more smaller stations as their financial position becomes untenable. Big Media wins again, makes even MORE money, gets even bigger. Talk radio and NPR survive as the only alternative to what Clear Channel, Journal Broadcast and the other handful of winners want you to hear.
This would be a huge long term win for the handful of huge media companies that now control most of the market anyway. Unfortunately, I suspect it would be a Pyrrhic vistory. They've alreay driven millions to satellite radio, and this would probably drive nails into terrestrial broadcast radio's coffin at an even faster rate.
Once the sattelite channels are devoting as much time to advertising as they are to music, we're right back to where we started - buy now you're PAYING to listen to it, which works out far better for the media companies. You're not naieve enough to think THAT won't happen, are you?
More independent/ local Artists on the Radio (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio Stations will adapt, and only play the expensive stuff during peak times when it will get them the most listens for their advertisers. During most of the day, and the evening hours they'll be able to play the free stuff from independent artists. It might even mean that stations will have to hire an actual program director to seek out local artists that appeal to locals.
Like any change, some stations won't be able to adapt and will wither and die, but there will be a bunch of kids with a vision to take their place. Imagine a station that only played music licensed by a creative commons license that allowed unlimited radio play.
The Uk (Score:2, Interesting)
It costs so much here to operate a radio staation that they are all shite because they all cover 'mainstream' things...
sure the BBC is good in many respects, I'm all for the BBC, but unless you plan on listing to stations devoted to:
8 songs of pop
#(radio 1)
anything from 30's to now which includes just about everything
#(radio 2)
classical music
#(radio 3)
news, radio plays, and unfunny radio comedy
#(radio 4)
sport
#(radio five [live])
-
on DAB digital radio and on the internet there is
There is also 6music (which is alternative / 'indie'[guitar-pop])
and several others which no-one listens to...
so what does this mean:
well think what stations you have in the US?
country, hiphop, rock, community, that crazy Evangelist who always seems to be there etc
We don't have any of that.
there are NO terrestrial community radio stations.
There are no terrestrial folk music stations
Compared to you we have nothing
Now I'm not pointing the blame some-one else can do that.
But you Americans are LUCKY
[I'm sticking to last.fm anyway]
Playing two parties against each other (Score:4, Interesting)
"Hey, you Internet radio people! The normal radio people are paying $$. You should pay $$$$ because it's New and Different and it can be copied all over the place. And now we're getting a law passed for it."
"Okay, okay, here you go."
"Hey, normal radio people! Internet radio people are paying $$$$. You guys should be paying $$$$$$, I mean we can't even measure how many people you reach! And now we're getting a law passed for it."
"Okay, okay, here you go."
"Hey, Internet radio people! Normal radio people pay $$$$$$, why are you only paying $$$$?"
Re:From the article... (Score:2, Interesting)
And thereby perpetuating a misconception. Social Security was conceived as a means of alleviating poverty among the elderly, which was widespread. It is a wealth transfer. Period. It is not a reward, nor an investment. It is taking money from my paycheck (and yours, assuming you are employed), and giving it to someone else.
As a social program, it has been very successful - poverty among the elderly has been drastically reduced. Fiscally, it is a disaster, as lifespans increase and the working population decreases. Politically, it is a paralytic, causing a lockup whenever politicians even think about changing the system.
If the performer in question feels that SS and the money she has squirreled away isn't enough for her to live in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed, she needs to do what everybody else does - keep working. If she didn't put money away? More reason to keep working. No one owes her a comfortable retirement.
WFMU (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.wfmu.org/ [wfmu.org]
Everyone calm down, I think this is the onion (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet you someone reported the onion as fact again... everyone just calm down.
Re:From the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:1, Interesting)
They can all burn together for all I care. (Score:3, Interesting)
To paraphrase:
Hey, First they came for the music file sharers and you did nothing.
And then they went for Internet Radio Stations and still you did nothing.
And then they got the Satellite broadcasters and you didn't do anything then.
And now they're coming for you.
The radio stations can complain as much as they like, but in this situation, I can't be fucking bothered.
Actually... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I always find it unnerving... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Give them what they want! (Score:3, Interesting)
But that doesn't mean anything other than that your money will go more directly from your pocket to the RIAA's than before.
Before: You -> Radio ~> CD sales -> RIAA
After: You -> Radio -> RIAA
Radio music causes people to want to buy CDs of music they like. Previously your money funded advertising which provided money for the RIAA in the form of CD sales.
I'd like to think that your option would be the one chosen, and that radio stations would listen to those who pay them money directly... But XM and Sirius take money directly from their consumers and they seem to ignore their customers as much or more than regular stations, so I don't have much faith in companies doing the 'right thing' for their customers in this case. (And most others, anymore.)
Enjoy your radio station. It may end up being the last decent one in this country.
Re:Payola (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this is the RIAA so egregious is the silent e.
Re:Everyone calm down, I think this is the onion (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh no. Real people are going do those stupid and crazy things in the Onion?! Maybe these people should read the "Darwin Awards" and do those things on there and that would help us immensely.
The RIAA needs to get get on the current world situation and look at other methods of getting revenue for their clients. DRM is dead and there needs to be other reasonable methods to allow music listeners to get their music at reasonable prices so that people don't pirate music. It is the true deadbeats that the RIAA and other law enforcement organizations need to go after since these are the real people that steal from others to feed their habits. The RIAA and other organizations like them are make laws for a few bad people but are punishing the large majority of reasonable and paying customers.