Bailing Out The RIAA?
from the there-we-go... dept
At the Tech Policy Summit yesterday, David Carson, the General Counsel of the US Copyright Office spent a bit of time at the beginning of his talk explaining why the Performance Rights Act made sense. This is the bill that would make radio stations pay musicians (rather than just songwriters as it is now) for every song they play on the radio. The recording industry insists that it’s somehow unfair that radio stations have been promoting their music for free, and Carson seems to believe their explanation 100% (which is, unfortunately, quite typical of the Copyright Office). He argued, unconvincingly, that while radio used to promote artists (the reason that stations don’t need to pay musicians), it no longer does so. That makes no sense. While there are alternatives out there for promoting artists, and radio may not have the impact it once had, that hardly means that the stations aren’t promoting the music.
And, of course, the most damning argument against the recording industry’s demand for money here is the fact that, for decades, the industry has (illegally) had the money go in the other direction. The system of payola has shown, quite clearly, how much the recording industry values airtime, in that it’s willing to pay radio stations to play its music.
So, can anyone explain why it’s illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it’s okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.
Yet, with a nice push from the Copyright Office, the bill is moving forward, and will face a full House vote. During the Committee debate over the bill, Rep. Daniel Lungren made a perfectly reasonable suggestion: why not wait until the GAO had a chance to do an economic analysis of how the bill would impact radio stations. Considering that the bill is effectively a tax on those radio stations, this seems like a perfectly reasonable idea… but it resulted in Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood, always) accusing Lungren of trying to kill the bill. Isn’t it great when simply waiting to find out what kind of impact the bill might have gets you accused of trying to kill it. Apparently in Congress, it’s all about shooting first and asking questions later.
That said, Peter Kafka, over at AllThingsD, has made the best point: most people don’t care about this bill because they don’t realize that it’s really a bill to bail out the RIAA by creating a radio station tax that goes straight into the recording industry’s bank accounts. So, rather than call it the Performance Rights Act, it should more accurately be called the Britney Bailout Bill.
Filed Under: bailout, performance rights act, radio
Comments on “Bailing Out The RIAA?”
This just goes along with the whole “free ride” argument that’s become all too common. Aretha Franklin complains that some hat maker is getting a free ride from her. Newspapers complain that Google is getting a free ride from them. The state of Alaska complains that CrackHo.com is getting a free ride off of the state’s website. This is all nonsense. It seems that everyone thinks they’re owned an income for whatever they do, even when they do absolutely nothing.
I will go on the record and say that the radio industry will eventually support this law, because it will completely kill off what’s left of net and satellite radio.
Just another reason not to listen to radio
I am just going to plug my IPOD into my car input jack and listen to my own playlists, so I won’t have to listen to commercials and once this bill passes only one song per hour since the radio stations will have to get more airtime from its supporters to pay the RIAA.
If this passes, Radio will die out… wait… we can have comercial radio stations that just play comercials all day long.. yeah.. that’s the ticket.
I guess once you get elected to a public office, you take dumb pills and follow other people around like Lemmings.
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
It’s not that “once you get elected to a public office, you take dumb pills and follow other people around like Lemmings.” It isn’t like that at all.
This is how it works.
What is the most important item on every newly elected politician’s agenda? Getting re-elected. Easiest way of getting re-elected? Big campaign warchest. Easiest way of getting a big campaign warchest? Agreeing to support certain issues from lobbyists in return for campaign contributions.
It’s the path of least resistance.
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
It should also be illegal. A counterbill should be introduced to force the labels to be publicly audited quarterly by multiple independent sources, with noncompliance being punishable by immediate IRS seizure of all of the RIAA’s and labels’ financial assets.
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
>If this passes, Radio will die out… wait… we can have comercial radio stations that just play comercials all day long.. yeah.. that’s the ticket.
If I remember correctly wasn’t it “Demolition Man” that had an all commercial jingle station.
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
“If I remember correctly wasn’t it “Demolition Man” that had an all commercial jingle station.”
Yes, but then it would be the CIAA (Commercial Industry Association of America) instead of the RIAA.
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
Once you get elected to office, your morals and judgment morph to those of the highest bidder. Nothing dumb about that, just crooked, underhanded and pathetic.
Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
So let me make sure I understand – here in the US it’s legal to buy a congressman, but illegal to buy a radio broadcast?
Re: Re: Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
So let me make sure I understand – here in the US it’s legal to buy a congressman, but illegal to buy a radio broadcast?
Yup. This is because congressmen make the laws. If radio broadcasters did, you could expect the reverse to be true.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just another reason not to listen to radio
How strange, then. I guess the only winning move, is not to play.
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
One song per hour. lol. We aren’t too far from that now. If you’re lucky you 5 songs per hour. And it just have bad on tv. It takes an hour for MTV to do a 10 video countdown and most of the time they only play about 60% of each video.
Re: Just another reason not to listen to radio
“I am just going to plug my IPOD into my car input jack and listen to my own playlists, so I won’t have to listen to commercials and once this bill passes only one song per hour since the radio stations will have to get more airtime from its supporters to pay the RIAA.”
But that is what people should do. Radio is a place to discover music, not a place to “Hey I will listen to music without paying for it and legally”.
If you like something you see there (or another place), you are supossed to buy (or other stuff like pirate) and then listen to it.
No skin off my back
I barely listen to the radio as it is. The radio stations in my neck of the woods have either been playing the same, though arguably good, songs for 10 years, or vomit out pop music of which i am not a fan. I live close enough to a college town that I can pick up some interesting stuff on the college station, but frankly I’m only interested in about half of what i hear there. The only radio station I would really miss is our local NPR/PRI affiliate, and they aren’t driven by (much) add revenue or RIAA incentives. So charge away RIAA, and watch one of your main outlets dry up. It won’t bother me a bit.
Re: No skin off my back
That’s a great point. While the RIAA is nothing but a self-perpetuating bureacracy and doesn’t deserve any money, it’s moot for me, because I get my music elsewhere, and sometimes by just making it myself, which is totally quaint nowadays.
Re: No skin off my back
“The radio stations in my neck of the woods have either been playing the same, though arguably good, songs for 10 years”
Ugh no kidding. 107.7 The End in Seattle (one of our two, arguably three, big rock stations) is STILL playing the same Soundgarden and Alice in Chains songs we’ve heard a million times.
Re: Re: No skin off my back
I know this is off topic but still. 99.9, and 107.7, whats the third ‘big’ rock station?
Re: Re: Re: No skin off my back
If you’re talking about Seattle, 99.9 KISW and 107.7 The End, don’t forget 102.5 KZOK,Seattle’s Classic Rock
Re: Re: And what about LA?
And what about LA?
KROQ is still playing the same songs from Nirvana, Sublime and The Smashing Pumpkins that we’ve heard gazillion times!!
Countdown to radio station bailout bill in 3… 2… 1…
Re: Re:
Good one!
Re: Re:
…and it will make payola statutory.
So we’ll have record labels paying radio stations to pay the record labels to pay the radio stations to…
And the only real winners are the companies that print their check pads.
Re: Re: Re:
What? How will this bill change what happens with Payola? Payola will still be illegal. Please explain exactly how this will work.
I agree it is stupid for radio stations to pay additional royalties. This is simply a money grab by the labels. That being said, this bill at least puts radio stations on equal cost footing with internet radio and music streaming services who already have to pay this stupid reverse-payola royalty.
NAB, Where Are You?
Still licking your wounds over the XM/Sirius merger? Come on, this time you’d be on the side of right and good. Go get ’em!
Radio Stations already hurting...
We have multiple radio stations for clients and their hey day is definitely over. Not as bad as what the newspaper industry is going thru now, but similar. Their locked in market is gone and as their market share/influence has been declining, they did stupid things like reduce on-air talent which has made them even less appealing. For the RIAA to add a tax onto them is like adding weight to sinking ship. It is almost like the RIAA wants to make sure that everyone arounds them sinks with them.
The good part about this is that it would mean more independent songs will end up on the radio. Where before the program director would shy away from any but major hits, they’ll now have a good incentive to start taking independent artist phone calls.
The way for the record labels to fix the issue is to come up with better business models. This is short sighted at best and on the surface seems like a huge strategic mistake.
Freedom
Huh?
People still listen to the radio?
Re: Huh?
Apparently it’s used to facilitate the exposure of sequenced rhythms to increase the bank accounts of no-talent lip syncers. I know, I know… I’m as perplexed as you are.
Re: Huh?
If I didn’t have a radio in my car I would never listen to radio at all. And now that my new car has an iPod plug in I think the little bit I do listen to in my car will go to almost zero.
Use Some Logic, People
“So, can anyone explain why it’s illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it’s okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.”
I can, genius. Payola is illegal because it introduces unfair competition in the marketplace. It’s okay for congress to LEGALLY APPROVE A BILL to make stations pay the labels, because the stations are using their content. Every other country’s radio stations pay artist and songwriter royalties. And yes, money does go to the artists.
Re: Use Some Logic, People
“Payola is illegal because it introduces unfair competition in the marketplace“
How is payola “unfair” competition? In nearly every other market, those who are willing to pay the most get the deal. Why should radio be any different?
“It’s okay for congress to LEGALLY APPROVE A BILL to make stations pay the labels, because the stations are using their content.“
But yet you claim it would be unfair for Congress to legally approve a bill to make artists pay radio stations because the artists are using the radio station’s services as advertising?! Heck, it appears to me that both radio stations and musicians benefit from the radio play, so maybe, just maybe, neither should pay.
“Every other country’s radio stations pay artist and songwriter royalties.“
An appeal to authority, i.e, the lemmings argument. If everyone jumps off a cliff, we should too! Wow, you’re amazing. I’m convinced!
“And yes, money does go to the artists.“
And that makes it OK how? I’d rather the money go to feed the poor. Why are they less deserving of a government tax on radio stations than rock stars?
Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
I have to agree with the above. Payola shows that there’s value in promoting. This seems to be all about forcing money in an counter direction. Well, it just shows that paying off politicians is (in the long run) more profitable than paying off DJs.
Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
“How is payola “unfair” competition? In nearly every other market, those who are willing to pay the most get the deal. Why should radio be any different?”
Terrestrial radio operates on public airwaves and is subject to regulation by the FCC. There is an obligation to the public that what is being played has not been manipulated under the table. Paying for music to be played on the radio is, in fact, legal if the station indicates that the playing of a song has been paid for.
“But yet you claim it would be unfair for Congress to legally approve a bill to make artists pay radio stations because the artists are using the radio station’s services as advertising?! Heck, it appears to me that both radio stations and musicians benefit from the radio play, so maybe, just maybe, neither should pay.”
Why would artists have to pay radio stations? They did not force the radio stations to play them. In fact, the radio stations never asked their permission. As it stands, radio stations are benefitting from artists’ contributions AND getting paid for it. Let’s be clear: radio stations need artists’ content far more than artists need radio station’s promotion.
“An appeal to authority, i.e, the lemmings argument. If everyone jumps off a cliff, we should too! Wow, you’re amazing. I’m convinced!”
The fact that every other country pays for artist royalties does not in and of itself make the argument, but should suggest that they might be onto something if we’re the only ones withholding.
“And that makes it OK how? I’d rather the money go to feed the poor. Why are they less deserving of a government tax on radio stations than rock stars?”
Makes WHAT ok? The artists should be compensated, because their product is being used. Promotion is a very nebulous term, and quite frankly, artists can get better promotion in other avenues (for example, a movie trailer broke MIA’s Paper Planes and AFTER that radio jumped on the bandwagon). Further, it’s not a tax. It’s compensation. And why would bring up poor people? This has absolutley nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
“Terrestrial radio operates on public airwaves and is subject to regulation by the FCC.“
Yep.
“There is an obligation to the public that what is being played has not been manipulated under the table.“
Maybe you can cite to that specific regulation which led to anti-payola laws. Thanks. I won’t be holding my breath.
“Paying for music to be played on the radio is, in fact, legal if the station indicates that the playing of a song has been paid for.“
Yep, but you still have not answered my question. “How is payola “unfair” competition?
“Why would artists have to pay radio stations?“
Why, for the same reason they’ve been paying for decades, to get radio play to increase single, LP, and CD sales. Is this your first day on the planet? If so, welcome to earth! If not, move out of that cave!
“but should suggest that they might be onto something if we’re the only ones withholding.“
So you’re only suggesting that we jump off the cliff. Thanks. I’ll make a note of that.
“The artists should be compensated, because their product is being used.“
Radio stations should be compensated because their services are being used. Exactly why is your assertion more correct than my assertion?
“artists can get better promotion in other avenues“
Radio can certainly get better music from what’s being pushed by the major labels nowadays.
“Further, it’s not a tax. It’s compensation.“
If two entities agree to make and accept a payment situation, its a free market at work. However, when the government requires it be paid, it’s a tax. You can call it ice cream as far as I’m concerned. But that doesn’t change anything.
“And why would bring up poor people?“
I asked a question, why are musicians more deserving of this tax than poor people?
Re: Re: Re:2 Use Some Logic, People
1) You seem to be largely conflating artists and their product with major labels. Your response that “Radio can certainly get better music from what’s being pushed by the major labels nowadays” is the clearest example of this in your post. Let’s make this clear: this bill will benefit artists as well as major labels. Of course labels are backing it–they stand to profit. But so will artists who may or may not be on a label, let alone a major one.
2) I hope you realize there is a difference between a royalty and a tax. The bill is trying to enact a royalty for songs played. Another example of you conflating terms to come to a faulty conclusion. Interesting.
3) you said “Why, for the same reason they’ve been paying for decades, to get radio play to increase single, LP, and CD sales. Is this your first day on the planet? If so, welcome to earth! If not, move out of that cave!”
Way to miss the point of my question, which was not “what how would an artist benefit from bribing a station?” but was actually “why should an artist have to pay to get promotion when the radio station is using their product for free?”
4) you said “Radio stations should be compensated because their services are being used. Exactly why is your assertion more correct than my assertion?”
My assertion is more correct than yours because the radio stations did not ask the artists if they could use their songs in exchange for promotion. They played the songs FIRST and then called it promotion. The artists had no voice in how their work was to be used, and then were told by the radio stations how they would be compensated for it. Letting one side (the broadcasters) define the terms of compensation seems inherently unfair.
5) you said “I asked a question, why are musicians more deserving of this tax than poor people?”
Aside from the fact that your original question was a poor attempt to make a point by going completely off subject, I’ll answer and steer us back on course.
Musicians are more deserving off this ROYALTY than your unamed, vague “poor people” (many of whom might be musicians, by the way) because their content has been used to make a profit. They are getting a royalty, specifically for songs that are performed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
“My assertion is more correct than yours because the radio stations did not ask the artists if they could use their songs in exchange for promotion. They played the songs FIRST and then called it promotion. The artists had no voice in how their work was to be used, and then were told by the radio stations how they would be compensated for it. Letting one side (the broadcasters) define the terms of compensation seems inherently unfair.”
This is where you’re wrong and this is the center point for your entire argument
No radio station could ever pay any song without the permission of the copyright holder (The label, the artist doesn’t come into play here). Back then the labels knew that there were so many options for the radios to play that they invented the idea of payola to get the leg up on the competition. This idea would never have been thought up if the labels thought that their music was more valuable than the time on the air and they didn’t have to compete for that time.
Right now all the artists or labels have to do is sit down the the owners of the stations and say they can’t use their music without paying (that’s it, 100% legal and 100% binding). If they did this the stations would legally have to comply or not use the music. Why don’t they? Because the labels know that the stations can just go somewhere else to get the music that’s played (more than likely for free). The labels don’t have that option (or they don’t think they do). So, they end up going to the government to institute this tax (and it is a tax) to force the radio stations to pay the labels. And since they would be forced to pay (no contract can get around the law) the labels hope the stations will keep playing the music that the washed masses think is good.
If this is enforced then the stations go back to square one where they can play whatever they want and the labels end up back there too where they have to somehow compete to keep their mass marketed crap on the air. And we loop entirely back around to payola, but this time it has to be more to pay for the taxes as well.
Re: Re: Re:4 Use Some Logic, People
You said, “No radio station could ever pay any song without the permission of the copyright holder (The label, the artist doesn’t come into play here).”
AND
“Right now all the artists or labels have to do is sit down the the owners of the stations and say they can’t use their music without paying (that’s it, 100% legal and 100% binding).”
Your first comment is correct. The songwriter signs up with a peformance rights society. Of course, the artists often isn’t the songwriter and has no say in the matter. This is my point.
I’m not sure your second comment is accurate. Can you provide a link for this or cite a reference? Are you saying that the owner of the master recording can block a radio station from playing a song even if the songwriter has licensed this song for radio play? I don’t believe that is true.
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
James wrote:
“Why would artists have to pay radio stations? They did not force the radio stations to play them. In fact, the radio stations never asked their permission. As it stands, radio stations are benefitting from artists’ contributions AND getting paid for it. Let’s be clear: radio stations need artists’ content far more than artists need radio station’s promotion.”
With all due respect, obviously you have never worked in radio or had a successful career in the music business. If you had, you’d know that not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio. And I mean ANYTHING. Gifts, wine and dine, money, whatever it took, they’d do, if they could get away with it. And the artists themselves would call you and beg you to please, please play their new song.
Ask any new artist who’s trying to make it in the music business; “If you could have one thing that would help further your career, what would it be?” – almost all of them would say “play my song on the radio”
Just last week, on American Idol, as one of the judges gushed about a contestant’s performance, she said “I can imagine hearing that song on the RADIO!!!” And the contestant’s eyes flew open and he said “Wow! Thanks!”
Don’t kid yourself. Radio is still the most effective way to mass market new music. What other way is there that’s more effective? If you try to tell me the internet is a better way to introduce new music to the masses than radio, you are just plain crazy. I’d love to see an artist try to make it big without radio…good luck with that.
I seriously want to know, do you honestly believe that artists like Brittany Spears or Carrie Underwood would be as big as they are today if their songs had never first been played on the radio?
Re: Re: Re: Use Some Logic, People
Let’s be clear: radio stations need artists’ content far more than artists need radio station’s promotion.
Mhmm, how about you provide a breakdown of how people learn about music and then make unsubstantiated claims. The fact that payola still exists is a counter argument already.
Re: Re: Re:2 Use Some Logic, People
Your claim that payola exists today is “unsubstantiated.” And even if it did, and was widespread, this would be a poor counter argument.
My argument can logically be proven. If radio didn’t have any music to play, the vast majority of stations would be talk format and most would die out.
However, if artists didn’t have radio to promote them or play their music they would still be able to promote themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on and on.
Payola only assures artists get better promotion. It is not the be all and end all for artists.
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
Like hell I’m going to PAY to listen to an artist I’ve never heard before. What are you smoking? Without the radio, I’d have never heard most of the music I enjoy. On the flip side, internet radio introduced me to a LOT more until all this copyright crap started getting shoved down our throats. Yes, the COPYRIGHT HOLDER can tell a station to NOT PLAY their music. They own the copyright, after all. The writer? Well, he’s kind of screwed if the copyright holder does this, isn’t he?
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
>My argument can logically be proven. If radio didn’t have >any music to play, the vast majority of stations would be >talk format and most would die out.
Im Curious – What about up and coming artists?? I know that my band would love to be on the radio – I dont think i would mind not getting paid for it to spread my music.
>However, if artists didn’t have radio to promote them or >play their music they would still be able to promote >themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, >public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on >and on.
tv shows and movies…. how exactly do i get my music into one of these… is their that abundant a supply???
Performances – yup – but im sure more people would come to my performance if i could get on the radio…..
ads – cost money I don’t have
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
>My argument can logically be proven. If radio didn’t have >any music to play, the vast majority of stations would be >talk format and most would die out.
Im Curious – What about up and coming artists?? I know that my band would love to be on the radio – I dont think i would mind not getting paid for it to spread my music.
>However, if artists didn’t have radio to promote them or >play their music they would still be able to promote >themselves through: songs placed in tv shows and movies, >public appearances and performances, ads, websites, and on >and on.
tv shows and movies…. how exactly do i get my music into one of these… is their that abundant a supply???
Performances – yup – but im sure more people would come to my performance if i could get on the radio…..
ads – cost money I don’t have
Re: Re: Re:4 Use Some Logic, People
I don’t deny that radio is a good means to promote an artist, I was only proving to another poster that having access songs is more valuable to a radio station than promotion of artists by a station. After all, if radio stations didn’t have music to play they wouldn’t be able to stay in business, but artist would always have ways to promote themselves apart from radio.
And for your question about placement, I’ve known plenty of friends who have gotten their music placed on tv shows and they’ve never had radio play beyond college stations. They generally have managers, though, that push their stuff. And of course, they’re out there everyday making contacts and promoting themselves to music supervisors and other industry folk.
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
‘Better Promotion’ IS the be all end all for artists in today’s RIAA controlled world. You fail to recognize this pivotal fact. While many independent artists are making a go of it, none come anywhere close to becoming as successful as the ‘favored ones’.
The issue here is whether radio is still the most viable method of promotion. I don’t see it as being that, but some people still do.
I think Apple is probably doing better with the weekly free iTunes download than most other forms of promotion out there today.
Re: Re: Re:4 Use Some Logic, People
Great music is the be all and end all for artists. If you’re an amazing musician who has unique music that people want to hear, AND you are actively marketing yourself (that’s where promotion comes in), you will be successful–RIAA or not. You do not have to be played on mainstream radio to be successful. And apart from major acts promoted by major labels, individual artists build up a following and then get radio play and spots on ITunes. Not the other way around. People like to pretend that if a band as amazing as the Beatles came out today that they wouldn’t find success. This is just ridiculous.
But the fact is, my only argument was whether radio needs music more than artists need radio’s promotion. Since artists have other ways to promote themselves (and there is a recent study that shows radio’s help promoting artists has been greatly exagerrated) they will never be totally dependant on radio. Radio, however, will always need music.
Re: Re: Re:3 Use Some Logic, People
The other funny thing about payola is that it was never only one way. Sure the DJ’s got paid by labels to play their music but that meant in turn that the labels who owned that music got a larger cut of the music licensing fees being paid out.
Paying with one hand and Getting rich on the other. It was a business deal that they saw as the most effective way to get maximum return for their exposure. Pay a station a few thousand so they play the song on high rotation… this means more people like the music, more people buy the music, merch and see the shows, star is better known… suddenly that payola fee is not such a big amount.
It was never just a one way street as seems to be so often suggested here.
Re: Use Some Logic, People
Actually, it’s legal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music. What’s illegal is not to announce that the airplay is ‘sponsored’. I’m cynical enough to believe that’s so the Media Companies make sure the money flows into their coffers, and not the DJ’s pockets.
Biting the Hand
OK, that’s it. If this bill passes I shall discontinue buying any more of the music I hear on broadcast radio.
And programmers?
I’ve written a lot of cde in my days and it’s currently executed millions of times per day all over the world. Think any money transaction. I want a royalty everytime it is executed.
So stop playing those that demand payment and ask for Indie Bands to send you stuff you can play for free.
Radio would get better and small non-RIAA acts would get coverage.
Win-Win.
Re: Re:
So stop playing those that demand payment and ask for Indie Bands to send you stuff you can play for free.
Welcome to the internets. 🙂
“The recording industry insists that it’s somehow unfair that radio stations have been promoting their music for free[…]”
Hold on one second there argument is that radio stations must pay the musicians in order to get the privilege to promote the musicians music?
did i sleep through ALL my marketing classes? isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?
stabbing a suffering medium
So let me get this straight… in a time of economic hardship, when Radio is suffering, a large number of stations have been bought out, or shut down (more so than usual anyway) due to lack of advertiser cash (since the advertisers are dying). We’re going to hurt their bottom line even more?
I hope to hell the rest of the legislators will destroy this bill. I hold out hope of hearing some of my favorite celebrities back on the radio again. (adam carolla, bonaduce, leykis, etc…)
And that is why..
the little bit of radio I do listen to in the car (when I’m only driving a short distance and its not worth turning on my mp3 player) these days consist almost entirely of talk and news shows. As people have said already most radio stations play the same things constantly. That plus only getting about 5 songs per hour has ruined radio.
My Creative Zen V Plus has done me just fine for the last few years and will continue to do so until such time I replace it with another player.
And besides the internet is a MUCH better tool for discovering new music.
I will continue borrowing CDs from my public library and ripping them to my IPOD. Those CDs that I feel are worth keeping and paying for, I buy used from Amazon or Ebay. While I am staying an ‘honest’ consumer by owning all of my music, not a penny goes to the record labels or the artists, since I’m buying used products.
I think this is the best way to f–k the RIAA without becoming a music pirate. Buy your music CDs second-hand. Eventually someone in the music industry old guard is going to get the message – or they’ll find a way to get their hands on the royalties for a second and third-party sale of used music CDs. If the latter scenario ever happens, I will download bootleg music from that day forward.
Attempt at
Attempt at Answer
Mike quote:
“So, can anyone explain why it’s illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it’s okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense. “
If no one else wants to take a crack at this I will. In the early stages of introducing (planting) a song the money would flow from the label to the station in (illegal) payola. In the harvesting stage the song is established and money should flow the other way to the performer.
So in my mind if the free market sorted things out (and as of right now terrestial radio has some legitimate competition) then the old model of granting a total governmental free pass subsidy to the radio for the performer share is incorrect in todays market and going the other way with a mechanical liscence for every performance is also inappropriate.
So I am somewhat in the middle on this.
uhhh…..musicians and labels are way over paid as it is imo. Britney Spears makes more money than 250 teachers combined. For what? Being a slut with a decent voice? Hell, same thing goes for athletes but that’s for another post…
Maybe if the bill passes it would be a good thing for everyone. The artists that don’t fit the main stream BS being pumped out right now can have a chance to get some exposure and I’ll have something NEW to listen to. They could even allow the radio stations to play their songs for free in trade for the promotional time.
As far as better promotional venues…what did you have in mind? Radio reaches more people than just about every other platform I can think of.
Bite a hand that helps to Feed
The recording industry blows my mind with it’s constant examples of short sightedness and it’s practice of treating it’s friends and customers like enemies instead of friends.
Lets think about this for a second, lets say the RIAA Nazi’s get this bill passed and now radio stations have to pay the artists they are essentially advertising. What does that mean for the radio stations? A higher operating expense for having to pay those extra fees which = the need for more revenue which means selling more ads on the radio. More ads means more fed up listeners turn off the radio because too many commercials (I am already here). Less radio listeners = less advertising for the artists this…supposedly helps which translates to lower song and album sales. In the end congratulations! You have shot yourself in the head in order to try and cure a minor headache. FAIL!!!!!!!! Let’s not even mention the radio stations that could go under or switch to talk radio because it becomes too expensive or cost ineffective to play music.
Do what I did…stop listening to music.
That is how much their product is worth to me.
Any chance radio station companies will countersue the RIAA under antitrust law? Based on how RealNetworks is going after the MPAA, I’m thinking the time is ripe here.
Payola
It is NOT illegal for a radio station to charge record cos. to pay their music — as long as that sponsorship is disclosed. “Payola,” which is illegal, only arises when the radio station does not disclose to the public that it is being paid to play the music.
I have long promoted the idea that if radio stations are forced to pay to play music, they should charge record cos. for the privilege of playing their music. I suspect even in this day of the diminished listenership, record cos. would be willing to pay more than the royalties, so the radio stations would come out OK in the end.
FM radio became a wasteland in the 80s when profit became the sole driver in programming. It doesn’t matter one bit to me what happens with royalties because I don’t listen. Somewhere along the way, everyone got so busy figuring out how to make more money that they forgot about the listener. If radio ever does become relevant again, it will be because the focus is placed back on the music.
I am a musician and have been playing in rock bands since 1972.I am one of the original punks of the 1970’s still doing it.
Both my bands “Big Meat Hammer” and “The Lynn Rebels” would both shed no tears to see the big music RIAA Signers do a bellyflop.
Hey look at it this way they charge money and all of us who refuse to sign with the RIAA would love you to play us for free.We really appreciate the exposure you give us.
Support non-corporate music and you can hasten their inevitable demise.
And by the way if you do like punktype hard rock I give a lot of music out all for free and all at 320k MP3.
These corporate guys are so greedy I really have to wonder wehy any of you would ever want to buy a big label product.
Re: Re:
I agree that labels have majorly messed up in the past and are basically reaping what they sowed, but the reason i’d buy music from an artist on a big label is because there is a lot of good music still being put out by big labels.
if 1 penny of my tax dollars goes to this I will note everyone who votes for it and remember to vote against them in the next election.
The RIAA deserves to DIE OFF!
hmmm
What are the chances of the RIAA starting it’s own radio station when the regular stations die off? They could play whatever they like then (and probably dodge the fee bullet since they have copyright of a lot of artists work)..
I can see a lot of radio stations going indie, there are hundreds (thousands? not sure about millions) of bands that would love their stuff to be played for free. All of that promotion, maybe at the ‘cost’ of the radio station putting a link to the band pages on their website so that listeners can investigate bands further (and if they are offering free downloads, then get access to more music)..
less talk time… more variety… station profits from having something to play… band profits from (potentially) massive exposure…
This bill is most likely the first step in an attempt to get other platforms(youtube) to pay royalties to the recording industry.
Re: Re:
Youtube already does this.
Bite the hand that feeds you
Go ahead, pass a greed endorsed bill. Greed is what’s destroying this country and it will destroy radio too. (And eventually the RIAA)
This bill will cause a lot of changes to radio as we know it. Radio stations will likely take one of two options. The first is to change their format to more talk based shows. They may not completely sway from music, but it’s unlikely that they’ll keep the same level of musical programming. That will reduce their costs and help to maintain their profits.
The second option is to increase revenue. (ie: commercials) Of course this will also decrease airtime available to music, and this is only an option for stations that can sell additional commercial spots. You may even end up seeing Paid Programming on radio… Way to bite the hand that feeds you.
Bailing out the RIAA and Payola
Let see. If the record companies pay off the D.J.’s to plug their tunes Congress investigates the D.J.’s and ruins the careers of a few of them.
On the other hand when the record companies pay off our Congressmen and Senators through campaign contributions to write laws that benefit the record companies and increase costs to consumers, the record companies claim their payoffs(campaign contributions) are protected free speech.
Is it possible that our government has become fascist and is corrupt?
Yeah right
Are you freakin kidding me? Bail out the RIAA? ROTFL let the RIAA and the useless MPAA ROT!
RT
http://www.whos-watching.net.tc
All these musicians ...
… all these musicians clamoring for more cash might want to take a look at the folks in charge of collecting and distributing all the money. They do a crap job and keep about half of it.
And this proposed right doesn’t even collect money for the *musicians* – it collects the money for the /copyright holders/ – which is more often than not the record label, and not the musicians.
This is just another case of bait and switch on a bunch of musicians too blinded by the thought of a paycheck to realize that they’re going to get f’d over again, by the same labels and managers that have been doing it for a hundred years.
Artists deserve to be paid
I think the artists should be paid for the work they do. Let’s work it out:
Writing a song (including music) – 40 hours? (I don’t know if this is right, I’m not a writer)
Practice – 20 hours?
Recording and mixing – 10 hours?
total = 70 hours
Given a reasonable wage of $20/hour = $1400 per song (per collaborator), no matter how often it is played. If someone makes a hammer, do they get paid every time a builder hits a nail with it?
Re: Artists deserve to be paid
The same recording is played everytime. That is why they get a royalty. The same hammer is not used.
I agree that life of copyrights should be kept in check, but you’re basically advocating doing away with copyright. So basically anyone could use a work to make money, but the creator wouldn’t see another cent beyond the initial creation. That makes no sense.
Extortion
I haven’t read all of the comments; so, maybe I’m late to the party with these thoughts.
Radio created payola through extortion … “You want your record played … pay us under the table!”
The NAB has gotten its way with Congress for years through extortion … “You want to get re-elected in your district, don’t listen to the artist’s calls for parody with laws in the rest of the world or we’ll bury you.”
With radio’s power slipping away … it’s time for fairness to prevail … There is no rational for anyone to provide high quality entertainment to radio for free if the trumped up reason – quid pro quo – (airplay causes record sales)is gone.
American artists, whose music is the most popular in the world, have suffered for years in that they have received none of the billions of dollars paid in other countries for performances on radio – The rational? If US radio doesn’t pay foreign artists for performances in the US, we (the foreign collections societies) are not going to pay American artists for the performance of their music in our countries.
It’s time for radio to start acting like any other business by paying for the goods (music) they need operate.
Re: Extortion
You are so ignorant of all this, the NAB is a non-profit that helps protect broadcasters from thiefs like the RIAA, SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, etc. that is supposed to help the artists out, but just sits on millions of dollars and makes people like you think they are actually doing something good…
Re: Re: Extortion
What exactly do you think ASCAP and BMI do, you idiot? They pay performance royalties, and aren’t rolling in dough. In fact, one of them still is not for proft.
Give me a break OK?
Having worked in the music business and in radio broadcasting for over 30 years…. and seen what the internet has done…. I am sick and tired of the RIAA… They should just go away!
They are self serving and political and have NEVER represented the best interests of the artists. It is enough and time that people stop helping them. The recording industry is working on an outdated business model and WE ALL KNOW IT!!! This bill is ridiculous and I only HOPE someone with some brains sees it as such.
The RIAA is looking more and more like a drowning person. They’re grasping at anything and anyone who is near to them is in danger of getting pulled down with them.
Why talk when we can just sink the RIAA?
Buy CDs directly from artists or http://www.cdbaby.com. I pay for music, a lot, but I never, EVER send a cent to the RIAA. They are dying because they created a false industry through bullying and mob connections, that was based off the idea that music was expensive to record (its not anymore), expensive to promote (it’s not anymore), and expensive to distribute (again, not anymore). The reason none of that is true is computers and the internet. I can afford to record my own music, promote it and sell it online, without any interference from a vampire organization that has never stood for anything other than stealing money from musicians.
So why does anyone give them money? I don’t, and if things are allowed to happen natually, the RIAA will die. But then again, they are shoulder deep in the anus of congress, so I’m sure they’ll find a way to make us pay for silence as well…
Re: Why talk when we can just sink the RIAA?
The National Association of Broadcasters are just as shady as the RIAA, but funny that no one is calling them out in these posts. They are equally entrenched with congress, and have a long history of fighting to keep paying any royalties. Also, on the whole, their music broadcasters have been playing crap for decades.
Nobody has to listen to their overproduced trash anymore
You can listen to plenty of awesome music for free on websites like thesixtyone.com. Then find ways to support the bands and songwriters you like…
Indie Artists Led The Fight For This Bill
This latest push to get the US to grant performance rights to artists started some 4 to 5 years ago at the Future of Music Coalition conference in Washington DC.
The Future of Music Coalition is dedicated to enhancing opportunities for indie artists to compete with the majors.
At that conference, indie artists were advised that copyright laws in most other countries of the world provided for payment to artists for the performances of their works on broadcast media … They were also told that because the US didn’t have those rights in its copyright law, money for performances of US recordings overseas was being withheld and distributed among foreign artists whose countries had laws that did contain performance provisions.
Over the years, we’re talking billions of dollars not paid to US performers for the performances of their recordings in foreign countries!
The Future of Music Coalition led the charge on behalf of its constituency – indie artists – to make lawmakers aware of the inequity.
Artists (including those from the Recording Academy, AFM, AFTRA and other artist based organizations – indie and majors) as well as songwriters from all over the country joined in the effort to make Congress see how unfair US artists were being treated.
Sure the RIAA joined in and lent its weight to the fight, but it was the artists (and mostly indie artists) that carried the water …
And, you will say … sure the RIAA would join in because you all want to believe that they will get all of the benefit from the results of this bill.
Not true …
Artists will get 60% of the monies earned and the record company will get 40%. Not only that, but the Artists will be paid direct … no skimming off the top by the record companies.
This is the right bill at the right time for all the right reasons.
The National Association of Broadcaster (NAB) are the bad guys in this piece …
If you are for the advancement of indie artists … you should support of this legislation. It will help them stay alive while they produce the music you say you want.
Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
I didn’t read every comment, but I searched and found no mention of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC on this page.
Radio, both terrestrial and internet, already is (or should be) paying public performance royalties through these Performing Rights Organizations.
Is this a new copyright, akin to what was created by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings act?
Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
“Is this a new copyright, akin to what was created by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings act?”
Yes.
ASCAP, BMI or SESAC collect and pay songwriters, and music publishers.
This would pay artists and record companies through SoundExchange
Re: Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
Yes, and SoundExchange (created by government action) is sitting on how many millions of dollars and not disbursing it to artists like they are supposed to? Just another example of “your money is better in my pocket”.
Re: Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties
You need to extract your head from your azz and realize that The RIAA will be doing exactly as SoundExchange and just sitting on the money to be paid to the artists, you and James neet to get a fully-functioning brain!!!
The RIAA just needs to be made illegal
The RIAA keeps telling people that they are doing this for the artists and musicians. BS!
Take a look at the RIAA site and their member list. You will not find a single artist, songwriter, composer or musician anywhere on the list, period. The RIAA is the record labels and it’s just one more way the RIAA yanks money from the aforementioned groups and gives little to nothing back to them.
So here’s the deal – get rid of the RIAA and any law that the RIAA helped pass. I have no issue giving the aforementioned groups their fair share of money but NOT THE RIAA. The RIAA members have been taking their money for way too long. Considering out of a $15.99 CD an artist might be lucky enough to get .50 cents out of it tell me just who are the crooks.
Re: Let's get real
James,
With all due respect, obviously you have never worked in radio or had a successful career in the music business. If you had, you’d know that not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio. And I mean ANYTHING. Gifts, wine and dine, money, whatever it took, they’d do, if they could get away with it. And the artists themselves would call you and beg you to please, please play their new song.
Ask any new artist who’s trying to make it in the music business; “If you could have one thing that would help further your career, what would it be?” – almost all of them would say “play my song on the radio”
Just last week, on American Idol, as one of the judges gushed about a contestant’s performance, she said “I can imagine hearing that song on the RADIO!!!” And the contestant’s eyes flew open and he said “Wow! Thanks!”
Don’t kid yourself. Radio is still the most effective way to mass market new music. What other way is there that’s more effective? If you try to tell me the internet is a better way to introduce new music to the masses than radio, you are just plain crazy. I’d love to see an artist try to make it big without radio…good luck with that.
I seriously want to know, do you honestly believe that artists like Brittany Spears or Carrie Underwood would be as big as they are today if their songs had never first been played on the radio?
Re: Re: Let's get real
Veteran:
In fact, I do have a successful career in the music business. If you read my other posts, you’d see that my argument isn’t whether or not radio is a good promotional tool for an artist, but whether the radio stations need the music more than artists need their promotion. Artists have other avenues for promotion, radio stations do not have other ways to get music (unless you’re talking about bands giving it to them for free).
Funny how you mention “not too long ago record reps would do anything to get you to play a particular song on the radio” and use Britney Spears as one of your examples. Let’s keep the talk in the present, please.
Frankly, the argument that artists and labels don’t deserve to be compensated for radio stations playing their music– because the promotional value is worth so much–seems exclusive to radio. Sports radio and tv stations have to pay for broadcasting rights to air sports games even though the stations are giving promotion to the sports teams. This makes sense, because while the stations are promoting the teams, the teams are also used by the stations and networks to promote themselves: “Tune in to CBS 5 for The Final Four!”
Also, there is one study the broadcasters are citing that supposedly proves that radio’s promotion is invaluable (which the NAB advocates use) and another that proves, on the whole, radio’s promotion is marginal at best (this of course used by the bill’s proponents). Who do we believe?
A lot of this promotion talk also seems to contain a significant amount of circular logic. Does playing a song on radio significantly drive the popularity of artist up, or is the artist being played so much by radio because they are becoming more and more popular in general? Not to mention, not all artists are made equal. Pop and rap acts will likely benefit significantly more from radio exposure than the next Radiohead. MIA has a giant career right now because “Paper Planes” was featured in the trailer for “Pineapple Express.”
And finally, what about artists who aren’t up and coming? Radio’s promotion of them has to be minimal at best. What exactly is the value of playing a Bob Marley song for the Wailers?
Re: Re: Re: Let's get real
So payola never happened? It did. And just because it doesn’t happen today doesn’t mean the same desire to get songs played on the radio doesn’t still exist. The only reason it doesn’t happen today is because the laws against payola are now being enforced. Why do you always avoid an answer to the payola question?
I am the owner of a radio station that currently plays music. Believe me, we don’t need to. If this RIAA nonsense passes, I will have talk programming on the air faster than you can imagine.
Re: Play non-corporate music
Dude, play non-corporate music, play Independent music, play MySpace music … those artists are really great.
Re: Re:
Then stop playing it. You seem to care so much about helping out the artist. The heart you wear on your sleeve is practically bleeding.
Don't forget Internet radio
Internet radio does A LOT LESS THAT A RADIO STATION and they still survive.
I’m sorry but if they have to pay for this, they deserve it.
I’m not happy knowing that the money goes to RIIA and not the artists but at least they are getting something.
Just ask a radio DJ how much the radio station pays him or her and you will get the idea. They help them to make thosusands even million of dollars a year and they just want to pay $10 an hour.
How does it feel radio stations?
You can ask your DJ’s too.
Radio is top place people find new music
Several of our younger music stations showcase new music by artists who are not receiving a penny from the recording industry. Their music sales grow as a result. We are honored to provide this free promotion to them. We also are honored to promote well-known artists who are aligned with the recording industry. We are in the “art” of radio. We love the music and the artists.
Radio delivers massive music sales.
Check out the just released study on Rock listeners by Jacobs Media at http://www.jacobsmedia.com/articles/tech5main.asp
It shows the following:
Top place that people find new music – 85% say FM radio.
Friends, movies, and TV follow.
56% say FM radio is the primary source of new music.
Knowing this, those who wish to continue to benefit from radio’s free airplay of music should oppose the performance fee too.
The study also highlighted 4 stars that are showing a big increase –
audio streaming, social networking, video streaming and text messaging. Our radio stations, and many others, provide these “stars” for our fans.
Re: Radio is top place people find new music
If this doesn’t convince you that the record companies rely on radio for an artist’s success, then nothing will…
Exerpt from USA Today Interview titled
“5 QUESTIONS FOR MUSIC LABEL ICON CLIVE DAVIS”
By Gary Rawlins
Q: We’ve seen a decline in radio listening. Has the Internet taken its place to introduce an artist or song?
A: No. Radio is still the leading force of determining what songs and artists break through.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/monday/2009-05-31-business-books-tv-movies-clive-davis-q-and-a_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip#five
Oh, and any musician on here who is in favor of this performance tax, please do let us know the full name you record under. We want to know exactly who you are so that we can make sure that we never, ever play any of your music on our radio stations. Since you don’t need radio to succeed, we don’t want to waste our valuable airtime on you.
The issue is not whether record companies rely on radio for an artist’s success. The issue is
The issue is not whether record companies rely on radio for an artist’s success. The issue is: is promotion sufficient compensation across the board? That is, does the value of promotion always equal or outweigh the value of a song or artist, thus negating the need for a royalty?
The fact that radio stations rely heavily on older music (whether a pop hit from 5 years ago or a classic rock song from 30) that does not get much of a promotional bump from airplay, seems to indicate that often times the value derived from a music in the favor of broadcasters. The performance royalty is a way to balance this relationship. This might mean that newer songs, which would benefit more from airplay promotion, would cost broadcasters less than established songs.
More fundmentally, the whole promotion value argument the broadcasters make is innacurate. Broadcasters say they give artists artists free promotion and that this is the artists’ compensation–and that the broadcasters are compensated by ad revenue.
This is incomplete. A more complete version would be this: Broadcasters give artists promotion, in turn broadcasters make money from ad revenue generated by playing records, and IN ADDITION broadcasters use the music and the artists to promote themselves–“Listen to your favorite artists (insert mash up of the top hit songs) on KISS FM!” In a way, broadcasters are double-dipping. This is why TV networks pay to broadcast sports games. Promotion goes both ways.
Re: Re:
No one has ever claimed that airing a football game on TV or radio helps promote that team and helps them sell more tickets. You cannot use the fees paid for airing sports competitions as a fair comparison to playing songs on the radio. The two are not even close.
A TV viewer cannot see a football game, become excited about it, then go buy that football game at their local K-Mart so they can watch it over and over. A radio listener, however, CAN do the same thing with music, new and old.
On another subject, do you, James, actually disagree with the great Clive Davis? After all he is an undisputed expert on the music business.