backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by yak8998.. on May 26 at 11:08 PM
The air waves may no longer be free

Recent studies show that sales of music have actually increased over the last several years despite arguments from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) that online MP3 sharing negatively impact sales. Thus, the RIAA has been desperately trying to seek out a new source of revenue and it believes its found one: public radio.

The RIAA says that radio has been given free play time for too many years, and when compared to other sources of revenue, is unfair. Yet, it's not only the RIAA that thinks the new royalty program is justified. Mary Wilson, one of the original members of the Supremes agrees too.

"After so many years of not being compensated, it would be nice to now at this late date to at least start. They've gotten 50-some years of free play. Now maybe it's time to pay up," says Wilson. According to Wilson, the exemption given to public radio was unfair and forced many musicans to continually go on tour for money.

RIAA chief executive Mitch Bainwol indicates that music creation is suffering a decline in sales, attributing most the loss to gaps in revenue. "We clearly have a more difficult time tolerating gaps in revenues that should be there," says Bainwol.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) disagrees with the RIAA, claiming that public radio benefits all parties. "The existing system actually provides the epitome of fairness for all parties: free music for free promotion," says NAB president David Rehr. Public radio stations agree too, that having a royalty "tax" would cause serious financial harm to radio stations.

Unfortunately for public radio, the music industry appears to be lobbying its stance in a very strong manner. SoundExchange, the group that collects and distributes Internet and satellite radio music royalties, feels that royalties have now become a necessity. SoundExchange already forces webcasters to pay royalties for music played.

"The time comes that we really have to do this," says John Simson, executive director for SoundExchange.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The rise of independents
By tdawg on 5/25/2007 1:49:23 AM , Rating: 5
You know, I hope they do get this through and all our radio stations have to pay royalties (I think this is just for public radio, like NPR, but I'll go along as if this hits every radio station). Imagine what'll happen; radio stations want to avoid these royalties so they stop playing "radio singles" and look to alternatives (read: independent music labels and independent artists) that don't whine for royalties everywhere they look. Now independent/self produced artists and independent labels take off (some of the best music anyway, in my opinion), record companies lose millions because nobody knows about new music/artists/cds and thus stop buying them. With no money to back them, the RIAA disappears. And to top it off, American Idol finally dies; the sun shines brighter and everybody is happy.

I'm rooting for the RIAA to lobby their way right out of existence.




RE: The rise of independents
By danskmacabre on 5/25/2007 2:05:44 AM , Rating: 3
Halelujah!

Can't agree more (as to whether that will actually happen, I dunno).


RE: The rise of independents
By 16nm on 5/25/2007 8:52:01 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know... That sounds a little crazy to me. I think if the RIAA is going to pull a stunt like this then radio needs to stop freely promoting their artists. Start charging the RIAA. They can start paying more for the artists that they want to see with the most airtime. Britany Speers and Christine Angulara every other minute. Yippee! I would hope that this at least means we will be having shorter commercial breaks.


RE: The rise of independents
By tpb3470 on 5/25/2007 9:15:55 AM , Rating: 3
Radio Stations (all of them) should charge the RIAA for every song they play. They have expenses too. Kinda like Payola in full circle!


RE: The rise of independents
By h0kiez on 5/25/2007 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 4
While I like the assertion that this would bring about more diversity in what they play, I think the assumption that radio stations play Britney Spears 24/7 because they want to shove it down our throats is wrong. People love that crap...maybe you don't, and I don't, but tons of screaming little girls do. It's that whole "lowest common denominator" thing. If you want some variety, get Satellite.

And while I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, they should have the right to charge whatever they want to the stations to be able to play their music...just as the stations have the right to not play any of that music and tell the RIAA to go to hell. Then we'd see who really has the power, and who's benefiting who. That's business.


RE: The rise of independents
By HotFoot on 5/25/2007 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 5
I think the reason the radio stations play the same "crap" constantly is because the radio stations are 70% owned by a single company. I think the name is ClearChannel, but I might have mixed that up.

Anyway, it's bit of both. People do tune in more to the Pop music. That sells more adds. But it also makes more sense for the RIAA because promoting the hell out of a few mega-stars is a lot more cost effective than promoting a larger variety.

I don't get the RIAA's move to charge for radio broadcasts. The relationship they've had over the past several decades has been mutually beneficial. I wouldn't have gotten into many the artists I like now if I hadn't heard them on the radio a few times.

I too hope that this move will result in a lot more indie music on the airwaves. That would be the best thing for variety, and society at large would probably discover that there's a lot more to music than the corporate version.


RE: The rise of independents
By Oregonian2 on 5/25/2007 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I was going to say. The radio stations will then start to charge the RIAA advertising fees for each of their songs played. Perhaps defined as 110% of the RIAA fees, so unless RIAA charges zero, it comes out net in the station's favor.


RE: The rise of independents
By bldckstark on 5/25/2007 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 3
Regular radio stations already pay to play the music they air. This will only affect the public radio stations.

The following from http://radio.about.com/od/miscellaneous/a/aa122904...

quote:
BMI and ASCAP go to each radio station and make a proposition: "We have the rights to millions of songs that you want to play. For a flat fee of $X, you can play all of our songs." In this way, by buying a license from BMI and ASCAP, radio stations can play 95% of all the music ever written.
So, the fact of the matter is, radio stations pay licensing rights to broadcast music and report the music they play to the licensing organization which, in turn, distributes royalties to the artists affiliated with it based on the percentage of play their songs receive.


RE: The rise of independents
By Screwballl on 5/25/2007 2:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
If they get their way then this is exactly what will happen. The people that make music for the love of music will get the air time and not for money or fame. The Britneys and Cristinas and all the other crap spewers that are screwing with our kids minds will be gone and we will get real music by real talent.
As soon as the industry gets ahold of them (musicians), they turn into cash cows where all stay fat and happy and rich.

As NPR really doesn't play much real music, it would have to be the top40 or top100 stations that would get nailed with this. This means the talk radio and sports stations that don't play much music would become talk-only stations.

Classic music shouldn't be affected as music royalties pass after a certain amount of time so (I think) after 20 years its all free and clear.


RE: The rise of independents
By ET on 5/25/2007 7:53:08 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, in the US the copyright term is 70 years after death of the artist, or 95 for corporate work. (See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_P...


RE: The rise of independents
By rudy on 5/25/2007 2:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe they just DIE. Everywhere I look it seems like mp3 players with their ability to hold thousands of songs have really only hurt one group. The radio stations, I have been under the impression they are headed for rough times. And the last thing they are going to be able to handle is another added cost when they already have a hard time getting enough advertising money competing with the internet. When internet access starts hitting cars it is really going to get bad for them.


RE: The rise of independents
By BladeVenom on 5/25/2007 2:55:36 AM , Rating: 3
Nice theory. I wish it was possible, but I doubt it will work. Just read about Sound Exchange works. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870


RE: The rise of independents
By Proteusza on 5/25/2007 4:46:44 AM , Rating: 5
Sound Exchange is actually the worst part of it. The RIAA has been planning this for years.

How bad is this - they are essentially a corporate body, with corporate interests at heart, yet legally everyone is obliged to pay them royalties. How did this beccome law? How is that fair? It stifles competition, it doesnt encourage it.

I would say I pity you americans and the RIAA, but in truth we need to do something about this because it affects us all, no matter where we are.


RE: The rise of independents
By Fritzr on 5/25/2007 3:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
Most of what Public Broadcasting carries now is Indie or produced by a Public Radio station's staff.

The law that gave SoundExchange the authority to collect royalties says that SE will collect royalties for ALL music played regardless of ownership or source unless the owner of the copyright has signed an agreement with the individual broadcaster and SoundExchange has been notified of the agreement.

To add insult to injury copyright owners who are not RIAA members will need to pay for a SoundExchange membership before SE will pay the royalties collected to the owners of the copyright. This includes the folk artists and garage bands who may only get a few minutes a year of airplay on 1 or 2 small Public Broadcast stations. Gonna be a lot of screaming when the cost of getting SoundExchange to pay the artist is more than the stations paid in :D

The theory used to be that radio air time was so valuable as advertising that the recording companies paid the stations to play albums. Times they are a changin'

Gonna be interesting to see how many NPR and independent Public Broadcasting stations drop music programming due to lack of money.

As for who's targeted ... they may go after NPR first, but if they succeed here it'll be any broadcaster using any broadcast method. After that it'll be the live performances of copyrighted music that is not covered by BMI/ASCAP. Given their track record they'll probably try to force BMI & ASCAP to pay for the privilege of allowing SE to collect for them also :P

Just wonder how much more of this will be tolerated before RIAA is blown out of the water :)


RE: The rise of independents
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/25/2007 3:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
And how much do you want to bet SE cuts a deal with Clear Channel, so that the thousands of top40 stations won't have to pay royalties -- just the stations that *don't* forcefeed you the same drivel will get affected.

Oh, then put your tinfoil hat on, the non-CC stations go under, and Clear Channel buys whatever is left over from the radio industry.

It's a good thing it takes years for the nearest stars to hear our radio broadcast. Hopefully our galactic neighbors find out we're sentient beings before the radio waves from 1995-onward reach them.


RE: The rise of independents
By FITCamaro on 5/25/2007 6:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
I used to live in Orlando and now live in Charleston. The station I listened to there and the one I listen to here are both Clear Channel stations. Both are excellent and have the best DJs in the area. The one in Orlando was a newer rock station and they were a big player of independent music and local bands, granted mostly in the evening hours. The one here is a classic rock station that has tons of comedians on their morning show. I rate a music station by if I like their music and if they have funny DJs who do a good morning show to make me laugh on my way to work. Both were/are excellent.


RE: The rise of independents
By sprockkets on 5/25/2007 9:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
If you are referring to O ROCK, they made WJRR turn into "the new rock alternative", in other words, start playing wussier music. During 1997-99 years, that station played so much cool stuff. Now? Aside from playing some good music hits from the early 90s, they play the same crap all the time.


RE: The rise of independents
By ZeeStorm on 5/25/2007 8:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
Wait wait. Did I read this right? SE gets paid for doing nothing but being a corporation that's "involved" with music? I'm not too fond of where the music industry is heading, but this is the first time I've ever heard about SE.


RE: The rise of independents
By AlexWade on 5/25/2007 7:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
So, when Sony Music, BMG, and other big labels pay the stations to play their music, they will get it right back in the form of royalties. Brilliant. This has stupid corporate written all over it. And who will see this money that was for pay-for-play but is now back in Big Label's hands? I promise you, not the artists.

One day, artists are going to break the shackles of slavery of the RIAA.


RE: The rise of independents
By Chadder007 on 5/25/2007 8:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
You sir, get a "Worth Reading". The RIAA is nuts and are going overboard on every turn they make.