RIAA Declares AM-FM Radio a form of piracy

[AlphaMale]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ing-indus.html


The recording industry and U.S. radio companies have squared off for decades about whether AM and FM radio broadcasters should pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels.

But now the debate is getting meaner; there's more at stake as the recording industry seeks new income avenues in the wake of wanton peer-to-peer piracy and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod and satellite radio. A U.S. House subcommittee could vote as early as Thursday on a royalty measure.


Mods: I hope this doesn't cross the line too much into politics like my last thread. Please know, I'm not trying to stir up anyone, and I'm sorry if you have to take this down.

[wilser]

OMG, if this passes it could very well mean the end of Radio, at least for music ...much if it is talk-talk-talk nowadays anyway.

[Visirale]

Originally Posted by wilser

OMG, if this passes it could very well mean the end of Radio, at least for music ...much if it is talk-talk-talk nowadays anyway.

Or the advancement of (the already booming) satellite radio industry...

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by wilser

OMG, if this passes it could very well mean the end of Radio, at least for music ...much if it is talk-talk-talk nowadays anyway.

It could be the end of radio and the rebirth of real music.

[doctorjazz]

I swear, the RIAA is so obnoxious they actually make me WANT to steal music just to spite them.

[jady]

The RIAA just want more money. Radio stations already pay for the rights to the music they play through ASCAP and BMI. Those royalties go straight to the artists/writers and not the labels IIRC.

The record industry is fighting a losing battle for money, this is just another play to survive when they aren't really needed anymore.

That article is full of wrong info as well, the radio stations do not make money off the labels, they make money from advertising. Also the idea that there are no royalties being paid is an outright lie. The royalties go through ASCAP so the record companies do not see any of it.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

The recording industry and U.S. radio companies have squared off for decades about whether AM and FM radio broadcasters should pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels.

But now the debate is getting meaner; there's more at stake as the recording industry seeks new income avenues in the wake of wanton peer-to-peer piracy and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod and satellite radio. A U.S. House subcommittee could vote as early as Thursday on a royalty measure.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Terrestrial radio has for a long time served as one of the most effective marketing & promotional mediums available for the record industry - worth every dime of payola they could muster. But it seems the RIAA is interested only in cash on the barrel - and has few qualms about slaughtering the goose that laid the golden egg...

Internet radio dodged this particular bullet - temporarily - only a little earlier this year, as the RIAA and its industry allies engineered a HUGE proposed increase in mechanical royalty payments that would have put the vast majority of webcasters out of business overnight - thus constricting the flow of new (read: noncommercial) streaming music to a trickle. Only a handful of corporate-backed streamers would have remained - effectively turning the Internet into another Top 40 virtual ghost town.

MM

[Woodchuck]

Originally Posted by jady

Also the idea that there are no royalties being paid is an outright lie.

Not true. The labels are constantly screwing the artists!
Like I said before, the artists that the RIAA claims to be fighting for, said that they have yet to see the money.

[ubado]

Originally Posted by jady

The RIAA just want more money. Radio stations already pay for the rights to the music they play through ASCAP and BMI. Those royalties go straight to the artists/writers and not the labels IIRC.

The record industry is fighting a losing battle for money, this is just another play to survive when they aren't really needed anymore.

That article is full of wrong info as well, the radio stations do not make money off the labels, they make money from advertising. Also the idea that there are no royalties being paid is an outright lie. The royalties go through ASCAP so the record companies do not see any of it.

+1

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you.

Hello .... how else are they gonna get as much widespread listeners as radio to promote their artists/albums? .... MTV? (nowadays it's just shows) .... Satellite Radio? (not everyone has one) .... Youtube? (they'll just get lost in all the other artists .... many with more talent).

Maybe, just maybe ... CD sales are declining due to the lack of "good" CD's. IMO .... Only a handfull of "mainstream" CD's released have more than one or two hits .... the remaining tracks are junk/filler. This is why iPod's are gaining such popularity. Instead of having to buy a CD, when you only like one or two songs on it, one just buys the songs they like. Maybe record companies should try harder to find more "real talent" and less "what's hot now."

It seems that today's "popular" music is going back to the days of the "45 singles" .... a couple of "hit songs/singles" making the artist a star and the record company money. Long gone are the days that "album sales" made the record company money. They've just gotta get themselves out of that type of thinking .... it's so 10yrs. ago.

[Valerus]

Originally Posted by ubado

+1

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you.

Maybe, just maybe ... CD sales are declining due to the lack of "good" CD's. IMO .... Only a handfull of "mainstream" artists CD's released have more than one or two hits .... the remaining tracks are junk/filler. This is why iPod's are gaining such popularity. Instead of having to buy a CD, when you only like one or two songs on it, one just buys the songs you like. Maybe record companies should try harder to find more "real talent" and less "what's hot now."

It seems that today's "popular" music is going back to the days of the "45 singles" .... a couple of "hit" songs making the artist a star and the record company money.

I can see that. Mainstream albums focus on a single or two and the rest of the cd is crap. Why pay $8-9 more for crap?

But alas, I buy music that doesn't suck and that focuses on albums, not singles.

[jady]

Originally Posted by Woodchuck

Not true. The labels are constantly screwing the artists!
Like I said before, the artists that the RIAA claims to be fighting for, said that they have yet to see the money.

I was speaking of the royalties that ASCAP and BMI pays not the labels. The RIAA is fighting for itself not the artists.

[Calebmundy]

This is a joke, right? Performing rights organizations already track radio play and pay to the publishers/writers. ASCAP BMI SEASAC, anyone? Am I way off base?

[Calebmundy]

Oh, I see now that I read back through some posts. Stupid labels, I wish the whole thing would just go ahead and go down one way or another, which of course is a ridiculous wish. The market has to move, that is almost always glacial.

[ksandvik]

Record labels are desperately trying to find new revenue streams due to their business model being totally out-of-whack in today's digital world.

--Kent

[Calebmundy]

[quote=jady;5901445]The RIAA just want more money. Radio stations already pay for the rights to the music they play through ASCAP and BMI. Those royalties go straight to the artists/writers and not the labels IIRC.

QUOTE]

Close, the PRO's (ASCAP BMI SESAC) don't pay aritists, only writers.

[warnergt]

Originally Posted by Calebmundy

This is a joke, right? Performing rights organizations already track radio play and pay to the publishers/writers. ASCAP BMI SEASAC, anyone? Am I way off base?

Exactly. Radio stations already pay royalties. What are they talking about?

[Calebmundy]

Originally Posted by warnergt

Exactly. Radio stations already pay royalties. What are they talking about?

After re-reading what's going on. It looks like Record Companies and maybe some artists are trying to get their piece of the radio pie, which would be a whole new thing; the PRO's only cover creative license, not uhhh "preformance/production" license, despite what is implied by the name "preforming right's organization".

[jady]

Originally Posted by Calebmundy

Close, the PRO's (ASCAP BMI SESAC) don't pay aritists, only writers.

A lot of times they are one and the same. However, if you perform someone elses work you are not entitled to royalties on the work itself, only on the sales of your specific recording.

[jady]

Originally Posted by Calebmundy

After re-reading what's going on. It looks like Record Companies and maybe some artists are trying to get their piece of the radio pie, which would be a whole new thing; the PRO's only cover creative license, not uhhh "preformance/production" license, despite what is implied by the name "preforming right's organization".

If I am understanding this correctly, royalties were designed for writers who create original intellectual property. If I did a recording of a song how do I own the song? I would actually have to get permission from the writer to even make money off of it.

[ksandvik]

Originally Posted by jady

If I am understanding this correctly, royalties were designed for writers who create original intellectual property. If I did a recording of a song how do I own the song? I would actually have to get permission from the writer to even make money off of it.

You sign up at BMI, ASCAP, SECAM and similar royalty groups (note you could only belong to one of them) in case you have written songs that are commercially available. It's free, and that's how then other agencies track your material and send payments via the royalty groups.

If you perform someone else's song, they have the rights to get payment for usage, especially with records but even in live situations. However, for live it is the establishment that should pay for the royalty, not the band/artist. And we all know how well or badly that is done in real life... --Kent