RIAA at it again

[Billster]

Let's squeeze more royalties from broadcasters in exchange for the free airtime they give our records.

 

 

WASHINGTON

[veracohr]

 

"The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales," said RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol. "We clearly have a more difficult time tolerating gaps in revenues that should be there."

 

 

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 

Tell that to the people at http://www.dmusic.com

[doug osborne]

Boy, I hate to support the RIAA...but they're on to something here.

 

As the article hints-at, in Europe, an artist and primary performers can get a share of a royalty collected from a radio station. The music industry as it stands has to realize that it's called the world Wide Web, and we have to compete on a global basis (this impacts so much of the bassackwards entertainment industry, with staggered movie release times, regional coding on DVD, etc., when so much can happen instantaneously around the world).

 

This is what the RIAA is establishing Sound Exchange to do. As with everything the RIAA does, it is geared only toward the three giant companies that pay to keep the RIAA - nothing more than a lobbying organization that bribes politicians to do their bidding - in business. We do need someone other than the RIAA policing this.

 

But, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the download of a digital music file does not constitute a

[Cry Logic]

 

As the article hints-at, in Europe, an artist and primary performers can get a share of a royalty collected from a radio station.

 

 

Same here downunder......

 

APRA collects royalties via license agreements with radio stations.

 

I'm surprised this not the case in the good old USA.

 

Then again, many things are handled very differently Downunder.

 

It wasn't that long ago that consumers needed a license to own and

operate a radio &/or a TV!!!

[slight-return]

 

But, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the download of a digital music file does not constitute a

[Billster]

 

As with everything the RIAA does, it is geared only toward the three giant companies that pay to keep the RIAA - nothing more than a lobbying organization that bribes politicians to do their bidding - in business. We do need someone other than the RIAA policing this.

 

 

I think that's the bottom line.

 

I can see the point that "performance" would mean the performance committed to tape at the time a record is made, and the performer was compensated at the time of the recording.

 

Notice if you will, the shift towards recorded music also precipitated the shift towards performers who wrote their own songs. In the 1930's music was performed live on the radio, live in theaters, and the writers got their due, as did the performers. The shift to recorded music left the writers in the same position, but the performers in a different place.

 

So maybe there should be a policy shift. But is the RIAA (protecting the interests of three global conglomerates) the right entity to determine a new policy?

[doug osborne]

 

I think that's the bottom line. I can see the point that "performance" would mean the performance committed to tape at the time a record is made, and the performer was compensated at the time of the recording. Notice if you will, the shift towards recorded music also precipitated the shift towards performers who wrote their own songs. In the 1930's music was performed live on the radio, live in theaters, and the writers got their due, as did the performers. The shift to recorded music left the writers in the same position, but the performers in a different place. So maybe there should be a policy shift. But is the RIAA (protecting the interests of three global conglomerates) the right entity to determine a new policy?

 

 

The RIAA certainly isn't the right body for this. There are a lot of downsides - less music being played on radio, etc. Maybe the huge radio conglomerates will re-think their participation in what are essentially local businesses, and without the ravenous needs of the corporate executives, board members, and shareholders, these local stations might once again be able to prosper.

 

Performance, in copyright law established over the last century, has always meant a transmission. The industry and its lawyers have waffled over the years on this, most recently with the DMCA - which should be repealed in its entireity if we want the music industry to survive - which clearly defines an internet file trade or stream as a performance, and this court case ignorantly mis-understands.

[slight-return]

 

Yes, district court, but it will have to be decided higher.

 

 

OK you might was to go change that in the post so as not to confuse folks that there is a Supreme Court decision on that case - the post kind of reads like it's a supreme court decision

 

I mean, we still have Apellate courts to go through, but hey, we don't know if it'll be heard yet, how far up, or even if appeal has been filed - it could not be heard , a superior court could direct a lower court, etc

[franknputer]

No, I think I see what they're getting at. Simply downloading a file is the same as buying a CD - you don't pay a performance royalty for a CD sale. The performance royalty applies when the "download" involves actual listening, i.e. a stream.

[Billster]

 

No, I think I see what they're getting at. Simply downloading a file is the same as buying a CD - you don't pay a performance royalty for a CD sale. The performance royalty applies when the "download" involves actual listening, i.e. a stream.

 

 

Imagine the RIAA glee if they could apply performance royalties to a (non-streaming) download. Ruin iTunes pricing model, and bring people back to the CD!

 

Anyway, radio serves as a marketing tool for distributors of recorded music. Should they pay for the privilege?

[RobRoy]

How does limewire fit into all of this.

[brewgoodbeer]

A couple of things that are being overlooked in this issue. We are only talking about the performer getting a cut of the royalties. That has never been the case. If that happens, then every cover band is due a royalty for performing the music. The RIAA is shooting for way more than just radio revenue. What about TV? Every open and close to a show, every highlight reel on sportscenter would get hit up, and even the weather channel forecast on the 8's would cost more. I think that the current system would spawn creativity. The lesson is to write or "create" your own music so you get the royalty. The second thing is that the RIAA will never win the battle that airplay is not mission critical to getting record sales. If it wasn't the labels would not being paying millions of dollars in illegal payola to radio and tv to get the artists on the air. Not to mention the American Idol, et al reality series that are used to launch new artists. Finally, and even a bigger factor, is that the broadcast industry carries far more clout in Washington than the RIAA. Politicians need radio and tv. Without it, then they will lose their bids for re-election. This will cost radio and tv millions if not billions. This is also an election year prior to a presidential election. Everyone will pass on this. No need to get killed when the heat can be on the presidential candidates.

 

My 2 cents

[fantasticsound]

 

A couple of things that are being overlooked in this issue. We are only talking about the performer getting a cut of the royalties. That has never been the case. If that happens, then every cover band is due a royalty for performing the music. The RIAA is shooting for way more than just radio revenue. What about TV? Every open and close to a show, every highlight reel on sportscenter would get hit up, and even the weather channel forecast on the 8's would cost more. ... My 2 cents

 

 

This post encapsulates many of the misunderstood concepts in the current implementation of laws regarding performance rights and the royalties they generate.

 

First, to restate the operating principle behind the historic relationship of radio broadcasters and the record industry: Radio broadcasters provided free content to the public by selling advertisements or having companies sponsor complete "shows", some of which were original content, others that featured musical recordings. In order to get a hit record, radio airplay was of paramount importance. For this reason record companies provided free product to radio stations across the nation in exchange for oodles of free advertising for that product. That led to record companies and artist agents paying the radio stations in large and medium markets to play certain records.. Payola. Obviously the record companies believed radio airplay to be a necessary component of their advertising/sales strategy enough to pay for the results derived from a frequently played record. In the age of cable tv, satellite radio and the internet the playing field has completely changed.

 

One no longer needs radio alone to sell a hit record. And sattelite radio broadcasters are profiting from selling their service to subscribers.. no free radio there. Arguably, if radio is no longer, itself, a free broadcast, then record companies have an expectation for performance royalties just as they always have recouped for use of those performances on television, in commercials or shows and in movies. From that perspective, I understand the RIAA's self serving push to find new revenue from some broadcasters.

 

But I disagree that they should have any right to demand royalties for broadcast radio any more than they had a right to demand those royalties 20 or 40 years ago. Now that their market has significantly changed they're trying to change the rules to put the brunt of consequences of their ineffective reinvention of their businesses on the hand that feeds them. It's a farce. If they don't like the current relationship of radio and records then stop providing content for broadcast radio. See how well that goes over with consumers.

 

I believe the music industry is far from completing it's metamorphosis and it is going to be excruciatingly painful for those who continue to try to shape what the industry will look like based on what it has looked like for the past 60 or 70 years.

[lowbasslowbass]

I wonder if Last Fm (http://www.last.fm) is paying royalties to the artists/labels.

[brewgoodbeer]

 

For this reason record companies provided free product to radio stations across the nation in exchange for oodles of free advertising for that product.

 

 

This stopped in markets outside of the top 100 in around 1980. Those stations had to purchase music either from record services or programming companies. Therfore the music for airtime trade was not in play. However ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC enforced the royalty laws. The thing that made payola illegal was that it is off the books. Most of the money goes to a DJ or the program director under the table. If the record companies were really concerned about this, they could have easily put everything above the table and then pay the station legally for the service.

 

I totally get all the issues and the politics. I completely agree that the composer owns the rights to a song and has the right to be paid for the use of the material. However I am sure that most artist would rather give up the royalties to radio than not have their music played. Don't think for a second that talk radio wasn't pushed by radio execs. It saved big market stations hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalty money. While it did not cut it completely, they could drop the blanket license and go to a per program or use fee. This was huge.

 

As for the new media market argument, Muzak has been in the subscription music business for years. It just wasn't satellite delivered. It was terrestially broadcast on the SCA channels of FM station across the country.

 

Again I get everything, and I think that there is no clear cut answer. I think that before the RIAA makes, what IMHO are, ridiculous requests, they need to define who is entitled to royalties, and then stick to that. Creativity never had anything to do with royalites.

[Billster]

 

Creativity never had anything to do with royalites.

 

 

Right. The RIAA is posturing as a defender of the arts, when they really work hardest to benefit the money people. Nobody is going to have sympathy for Vivendi or Sony making less money than they used to.

[Uma Floresta]

In order to pay for that, radio stations would have to play an hour of commercials for every song. And then who is going to listen, anyway?

[doug osborne]

 

... We are only talking about the performer getting a cut of the royalties. That has never been the case. ...

 

 

Wrong.

 

This is how it happens to some degree in most of the rest of the world.

 

And there is precedent in how TV actors, for example, collect residuals.

[brewgoodbeer]

 

Wrong. This is how it happens to some degree in most of the rest of the world.

 

 

This issue is only a USA issue at the moment. The rest of the world does not factor in. For TV it didn't use to be that way. It took a strike by the actors in the late 70's to bring this about. If the artist think they are strong enough to pull all their work from radio to make this happen, then they should go for it. That is what the actors did. Today, in the age of reality tv, that could be a gamble. Back then, not so much, but still a risk. I don't think that radio would buckle to that. I still go back to the original thread stating that because there are no royalties to a performer, creativity is being diminished. Performers do not create. They take someone elses work and embelish and make it their own. Yes I know there is some creativity involved there, but no on the creative level as the composer. Money never plays a part in creativity. That is even more so today with DAW recording. In the 70's you had to have cash to get recorded in a studio. Equipment was expensive. Today for a couple hundred dollars you can make your demo. All apple computers come with garage band. Keeping royalties to the composers only promotes creativity. If performers want royalties, then they can create their own material.

 

This is a simple business matter to me. I don't want the RIAA to screw up my life fighting for something that will hurt how I make a living. I want my stuff on the radio. I write my own stuff so I get the royalty. If I cover somebody else's material are it works for me, then I am making them money, but still getting the notoriety out of the deal. That works for me.

[Cry Logic]

 

Imagine the RIAA glee if they could apply performance royalties to a (non-streaming) download. Ruin iTunes pricing model, and bring people back to the CD!

 

 

That's the strangest aspect of all this for me.

Why are they so intent on keeping the CD as

the medium for distributing music?

 

One would think it would be far more profitable to distribute

music electronically without the need for a physical medium.

 

Is it because they need to recoup the massive investment in

manufacturing CDs and CD players etc etc ?

[franknputer]

Because they can have some measure of control, theoretically, over a physical medium.