backtop

Print 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.


RE: The rise of independents
By AntiM on 5/25/2007 9:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The only saving grace for music lovers is the internet. There are plenty of amateur musicians posting their own creations on various sites and a lot of it is actually very good. They don't do it for compensation, they do it just because they want other people to hear their music.
It seems to me that the RIAA is doing everything it can to prevent people from listening to music. Their own greed will be their downfall. With the internet, we don't have to be spoon fed their crap.


RE: The rise of independents
By sprockkets on 5/25/2007 9:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
According to arstechnica, even if you own the music you stream on the internet, you still have to pay Sound Exchange, just to get your own royalties back. Funny how compulsory licensing is there to put control of the music in their favor, who do not even own the music, but doing it for mp3 or digital sales is out of the question.


RE: The rise of independents
By retrospooty on 5/25/2007 10:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
well said. Lets hope their greed does them in.


RE: The rise of independents
By greylica on 5/25/2007 10:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
Good One, let them make it, they deserve the oblivion.


RE: The rise of independents
By Armorize on 5/25/2007 2:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY. this is just insane, but its not like you couldnt see it comming, how often have things worked out for the RIAA? The RIAA doesnt give a crap at all about the artists only the people who produce their music. Just like how radio stations promote concerts all the time, that money goes to the artists. This is all a vicious circle thats going nowhere. Honestly how often does anyone actually listen to the radio anymore? Maybe here and there to find new music to download =P or if you really like the band you may actually go out and buy it(or if you really know how the cash flow goes you buy their music at a concert and it goes to the artists and not the store selling it and the label behind the artist). sorry if this all just seems like a bunch of garbled comments but seriously....money hungry aholes...


RE: The rise of independents
By RjBass on 5/25/2007 3:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Won't work. Your idea is a good one, and has already been brought up in the war over internet radio royalty rates. Some stations said they would then only start playing independent music while others claimed that they already were.

SoundExchange charged back saying that the stations still have to pay the royalty rates and that if the artist wish to collect the funds then they need to register with the RIAA thus killing them as an independent artist.

So in other words if an independent music producer like myself wants to have my music played ANYWHERE it can be but for a cost.

The RIAA has basically said it owns ALL MUSIC regardless of where it is played and how. They collect money on the artist behalf and hold onto that money until the artist registers with the RIAA. Registration with the RIAA can cost thousands of dollars while the pay back from royalties collected could be a couple hundred at best.

In order to pay less royalties the radio stations will then only play music where the artist is a registered member of RIAA. For somebody like me who loathes the RIAA, I'm left with no public media outlet in which to play my music.

The same thing also applies to FM and Satellite radio.


RE: The rise of independents
By Fritzr on 5/26/2007 12:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
If you own the copyright to the recording being broadcast then you can have it played anywhere you want without paying RIAA. However they make it very difficult to avoid the automatic royalties.

You need to sign an agreement with each INDIVIDUAL broadcaster to pay you directly and also, send a copy of the agreement to SoundExchange so that they are 'properly' notified that you have arranged to collect your own royalties from that single broadcaster without their assistance.

By default SoundExchange requires that you pay them for service you do not want them to provide. There's now a place for a new group of middlemen. These will work out the basic contracts, know the right people to contact and help artists avoid the RIAA royalty scam.

Of course you will need to pay these new assistants or else spend your time finding the contacts, drawing up the contracts and going through the hassle of not hiring SoundExchange to collect royalties that they refuse to pay to non-members whose royalties they are pocketing (in trust of course, since you need to pay for the services rendered before you can receive the money they owe you) ... Gonna be several millions in those trust accounts that likely will never be claimed due to cost of membership. Wonder who will pocket these "unclaimed" royalties? :P


The RIAA is a joke
By cocoviper on 5/25/2007 1:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously...does anyone even care about what the RIAA says anymore?

They remind me of RAMBUS back in 2000...so lawsuit happy just trying to get their profits via lawyers instead of actually making anything. Everyone just starts rolling their eyes the second they say they are entitled to anything.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/b... This entire thing screams RIAA




RE: The RIAA is a joke
By NagoyaX on 5/25/2007 1:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. The RIAA doesn't care about anything but making money.

I mean seriously now, people buy a lot of online music and again studies have shown that music sales have gone up. I think they need to stop trying to find every little cash grab possible.

Whats next? I have to pay a royalties if my friend listens to my CD in the car?

I live in Canada and their Canadian counter part is not any better. We get charged an audio levy for every CD we buy. This levy is suppose to compensate the artists for people who d/l music and to this date I don't think any artist has received a cent from them.

I think they need to give it a rest


RE: The RIAA is a joke
By redbone75 on 5/25/2007 6:55:22 AM , Rating: 4
That's the one thing about Canadian law I hope never becomes part of U.S. law: the audio levy. Their pretty much saying, "We know you're going to steal, so we're going to make everyone pay for it, even the people that have no interest or access to downloading illegal music." Goes against that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Besides, the RIAA and all their international counterparts contend that the artists are being ripped off when song's are downloaded illegally, but it's not the artists that suffer. Back when the whole Napster trial was going on, Alanis Morrisette and several other artists went on record saying that they make the bulk of their money off of touring, not cd sales, so they didn't care about music being downloaded.

The simple fact of the matter is that the RIAA has an established business model that is becoming increasingly archaic in its current form. They fail to realize that if they simply formed their own digital music store and made the prices competitive with the likes of iTunes and such, they might solve all the "money" problems they're having. The problem is that idea would never be embraced by the RIAA because it would cut out so many of their own middle men. It's always been adapt or die in the business world, and I hope the RIAA doesn't learn this little lesson soon enough.


RE: The RIAA is a joke
By BMFPitt on 5/25/2007 9:03:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whats next? I have to pay a royalties if my friend listens to my CD in the car?
I'm sure they have some lawyer in an office right now figuring out how to do that.


What happened to creating music
By osalcido on 5/25/2007 2:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
because you love music?




RE: What happened to creating music
By FITCamaro on 5/25/2007 7:08:23 AM , Rating: 1
The RIAA itself doesn't create shit. It just sits and feasts off the creativity of others. Granted I use the word creativity loosely with the crap people are calling music these days. Rap isn't music. Techno isn't music. I created a techno song in 15 minutes with Acid Pro 4.0 that managed to fool a friend of mine who's a techno fan that it was from an up and coming group with some stupid name I made up.


RE: What happened to creating music
By EnzoFX on 5/25/2007 9:14:09 AM , Rating: 1
lol @ techno comment


By NoSoftwarePatents on 5/26/2007 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 1
Opera/Rock/Metal/Classic/Country/Christian Rock isn't music. I created a Opera/Rock/Metal/Classic/Country/Christian Rock song in 15 minutes with whatever that managed to fool a friend of mine who's a Opera/Rock/Metal/Classic/Country/Christian Rock fan that it was from an up and coming group with some stupid name I made up.


RE: What happened to creating music
By Scorpion on 5/26/2007 1:35:41 PM , Rating: 3
What is this nonsense? You lost absolutely all respect from me. What gross overgeneralizations from a completely ignorant fool. This should be modded down to a -2 for your complete ignorance.

Creativity and talent is not limited to a narrow focus of your prescribed medium. Obviously just open your eyes and ears if you can and realize this truth. I'm sure it was people like you who criticized Picaso in his time.

quote:
I created a techno song in 15 minutes with Acid Pro 4.0 that managed to fool a friend of mine who's a techno fan that it was from an up and coming group with some stupid name I made up.


Yeah I'm sure you did. And I'm sure your "friend" knows as much about music as you obviously do. Go ahead and email me your song if you dare and let me critique it for you.


RE: What happened to creating music
By yak8998 on 5/26/2007 10:25:39 PM , Rating: 1
That'd be hilarious if he does, and you found out he accidentally discovered that he has a penchant for making badass techno music


RE: What happened to creating music
By yak8998 on 5/26/2007 11:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be hilarious if he does, and you found out he accidentally discovered that he has a penchant for making badass techno music


music sells because of radios
By Nyu on 5/25/2007 1:37:21 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah right.. it should be the other way around, radios being paid. Most music that people buy at the stores is because they heard it at the radio. They wouldn't sell s**t otherwise.




RE: music sells because of radios
By oTAL on 5/25/2007 6:19:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
it should be the other way around, radios being paid.


Actually that's happened before and it is now illegal, unless clearly disclosed.

Check out payola:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola


Public Radio Royalties
By Milliamp on 5/25/2007 1:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
For some reason I was under the impression that radio stations were already paying royalties.

I thought royalties were the reason so many stations played such crappy music all the time, but I guess the reality is they all just had really bad DJ's?




RE: Public Radio Royalties
By elpresidente2075 on 5/25/2007 1:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
I believe by "public radio" they mean stations like NPR and the like, the PBS of radio. I'm not entirely sure, but that is how I read it.


RE: Public Radio Royalties
By killerroach on 5/25/2007 1:50:02 AM , Rating: 3
No, that's not correct... they're referring to terrestrial radio broadcasts over public spectra (AM and FM). These stations currently pay royalties, but only to ASCAP and BMI, so the songwriters get compensated, but not the artists or their labels. That's how the system currently works.


So wait...they have to...work?
By PurdueRy on 5/25/2007 1:34:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
According to Wilson, the exemption given to public radio was unfair and forced many musicans to continually go on tour for money.


Boohoo where is the wha-mbulance?

You mean some artist might actually have to get up off their asses to make their millions? I for one will not stand for this!




RE: So wait...they have to...work?
By dgouldin on 5/25/2007 9:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY my sentiment ... and I'm a musician.


Driven for profits at what cost?
By Emryse on 5/25/2007 1:37:01 AM , Rating: 5
This is an incredibly interesting issue and I am going to be very interested to read the comments of others. I preface my comments with the acknowledgement that I make some very broad and generalized statements; although there are (and I'm sure someone will address) exceptions to these statements - I am making arguments that capture "on the whole" what is taking place, and in no way am I referring to any specific group, station, business, organization, entity, etc.

As for myself, I believe our society has driven itself into a mentality of profit creation that in many ways is (or can be) potentially harmful to the future success of business. (That's a general statement.)

Specifically in regards to "radio and royalties"; I think it's completely ludicrous that now these organizations want to simply throw away years of presidence for the sake of defraying rising costs and lowered profits in their "actual" sales model, which up until now was "album" sales and "concert" tours.

Perhaps if they looked at their business model, and considered that maybe people just aren't as interested in purchasing music as they used to be (which is clearly the case) because it's easier to access in alternative formats and more segmented costs (legally or illegally), then they would realize that such a move as they propose will have seriously detramental effects for the entire entertainment and promotions industry. Advertising is a 4-way relationship between the product, producer/advertiser, radio station, and consumer/listener; this will do nothing but increase costs involved to ALL parties involved.

There's also a question that is rhetorical in nature, but I just can't help but asking: "When is it ever enough? When have you made (and spent) enough money?"

Quite frankly, this has been a problem because as we've moved along the years of music entertainment, and particularly starting in the '80s and '90s - people just lost common sense and financial responsibility. (Another generalized statement.) The musician quoted in this article essentially admits this when stating that she [and other musicians] have been forced to do concert tours in order to afford [what I interpret to mean] their "lifestyle".

Bottom line: wealth is not a matter of how much money you make - it's a matter of how much money you spend vs. how much you keep. Whether you make $10 and spend $10 or you make $1 M and spend $1 M, you are still "poor". As I see it, the entertainment industry is continuing to suffer the consequences of promoting, encouraging, and committing to a "lifestyle" of "spend, spend, spend more" - and now they (and we all) will pay more for it, because they will find a way to charge more for it (whether it's through royalties or some other "gap" in their determined profits).

Sad state of affairs; the day that radio stations are forced to pay royalties for music on the public airwaves is the day I turn my radio "OFF".




By Screwballl on 5/25/2007 2:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
I have already turned mine off. I listen to nothing but music CDs and mp3s ripped under the fair use statutes (at least 98% of it legally). The only time I keep it on is during emergency times such as hurricane on the way or just passed.


Public Radio Royalties
By stannous on 5/25/2007 1:35:00 AM , Rating: 3
I would have thought it obvious that you should pay for promoting someone else`s product,my only real concern is that people can tune in for free.
Surely Mitch and co can find a lawyer who`ll argue it`s a form of download and save the music industry as we know it.




RE: Public Radio Royalties
By KHysiek on 5/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Public Radio Royalties
By stannous on 5/25/2007 5:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry,should have put a sarcasm warning on there


Reminds me of a song...
By SpaceRanger on 5/25/2007 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
"RIAA killed the Radio Star..."

(Let's see how many pick up on the reference)




RE: Reminds me of a song...
By Screwballl on 5/25/2007 10:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
MTV.... turns out that music videos on TV helped promote songs and I doubt that MTV had to pay the artist to play the song, more like the labels payed MTV for more air time of their songs so people would buy the record/cassette/CD...
if RIAA was the same cash cow then as it is now, they would have killed MTV/VH1 by forcing them to pay to play the music.


aybody surprised?
By Xeeros on 5/25/2007 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
I knew this would come eventually and with the internet radio royalty moving forward this has opened a door for them to go after broadcast and any other form of public listening since after all they need the money.




RE: aybody surprised?
By MatthewAC on 5/25/2007 7:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm outraged the RIAA would do this, wait a minute*recalls last tme I used a fm radio*.
Nevermind I don't care........


democrats are to blame
By rika13 on 5/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: democrats are to blame
By Oudeis on 5/25/2007 4:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ummmm...yeah... Blame it on the democrats. Good one.


RE: democrats are to blame
By sevenrain on 5/25/2007 5:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, they want our guns too!


Ehh..
By RyuDeshi on 5/25/2007 1:34:19 AM , Rating: 3
Like someone else said, I thought Radio Stations already payed royalties.. But either way, wouldn't this sorta backfire on the record industry considering most people hear new music on the radio?

Whenever a new album or song comes out I hear about it on the radio first. If Radio stations have to pay royalties they may not play those songs as much.

Just my thoughts.




Are these dudes crazy???
By qball101 on 5/25/2007 3:09:49 AM , Rating: 3
Right, ok, let me see if I've got this straight...

They want to charge radio stations for providing them with free advertising?!? Are these guys mental? I think I may adopt this policy in my everyday life. Here's the sort of thing I could say if I acted like the RIAA:

'cheers mate, here's that 10 bucks i borrowed from you, now you owe ME a favour'




Charge RIAA for idiocy
By Archmaille on 5/25/2007 2:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
Forget RIAA if they want to screw with everyone why not just screw right back. I think the record industries have had it good for way too long! They have been getting free advertising via public radio for way too long (some 50+ years) and it's time that they pay up. Radio stations need to start charging the record industry an advertising fee for playing new songs. Most nationwide radio stations charge something like $50k for a 30second time slot of advertisement... so for a full song to play that would be... well let's just say it would cover the royalty fees. Just like everybody else I'm so sick of RIAA being retarded about everything and not realizing that everything they are trying to stop is HELPING THEM!!!!




I'm still wondering
By shraz on 5/25/2007 5:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the RIAA somewhat a monopoly?




They can't be serious
By Gnoad on 5/25/2007 6:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
By far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard come out of the RIAA's mouth, and thats pretty bad considering their track record.

Seriously, can we just abolish this damn company already?




All the wrong reasons?
By pnyffeler on 5/25/2007 6:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Wilson, the exemption given to public radio was unfair and forced many musicans to continually go on tour for money


I always thought that the reason musicians went on tour was because their contracts gave most of the copyright profits to the record companies. Touring was the only way for them to make their own money.

quote:
RIAA chief executive Mitch Bainwol indicates that music creation is suffering a decline in sales, attributing most the loss to gaps in revenue.


Perhaps the reason revenue is falling is because they can't put out better music. Call me old fashion, but this isn't the 80's. We need a new Thriller!




By Etsp on 5/25/2007 8:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone hear about the massive rate hike on online radio? A lot of people think that it's going to kill the entire industry... and looking at the math, they aren't wrong... check out

http://www.savenetradio.org/ for more details...




Echoes and Hearts of Space
By zornundo on 5/25/2007 12:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
Two excellent public radio programs. 'nuff said.




Greedy RIAA!
By sevenrain on 5/25/2007 5:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
I am so sick of the greedy ass RIAA trying to get money by any means they can. I used to buy new cd's often, but i have changed my way of buying cd's, I now only buy used cds so the RIAA cant make money off of them and recently have been buying used cd's in bulk, so I can sell them cheap to friends and family. The RIAA can go F**K themselves they will never get another penny out of me and I have made it a point to pirate and give away as much of their shit as possible. Why should you pay 20 bucks in your local mall for a cheaply made cd that scratches easily and deteriorates after 10 years or so, we have technology to make scratch resistant eyeglasses but cds oh no. They want people to buy the same cds over and over, plus half the crap that is being produced these days sucks anyway.
The RIAA needs to be put in their place.




Yeah right...
By sxr7171 on 5/26/2007 10:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
If these guys could find a way to bill you for the air you breathe, they would.




Sorry Mary, but,
By mindless1 on 5/26/2007 2:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
We could pretty much expect this kind of greed from RIAA, they're chasing anything they can and using deceit all the while. It is not a good thing to give artists more than their due though, if they aren't continually producing new art deemed valuable enough for continued support.

Mary Wilson enters into an agreement years ago and what's done is done. Years later she thinks that tiny little bit of work and luck should be supporting her forever? Mary Wilson if this really matters to you at all, you should have gotten up off your tush and found a normal job to support yourself like everyone else, a way to further contribute towards society. If that further contribution wasn't more music we valued, didn't allow you to live like a pop star, guess what? Most people don't live like pop stars.




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki