When monopolies collide.
May 21, 2007 3:16 PM Subscribe
The RIAA wants the radio performance royalties exemption repealed. For decades, radio stations have gotten a free pass for spins of records due to the fact such play sells records. While decreasing in importance, and taking note of the myriad payola scandals in the past, terrestrial radio is still the single largest factor in promotions for the record industry and one of the few remaining things in the industry that still seems to work.
So... essentially the RIAA wants to screw over as many people as possible.
posted by edgeways at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by edgeways at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2007
If a label calls itself "indie" but is a member of the RIAA, I would contend that they are misusing the term.
They have willingly affiliated themselves with a organization whose raison d'etre is simply racketeering. They may not be a major, but indie they are not.
"Going indie" will help. You just have to get past the ones who are members of the RIAA and call themselves "indie" for the cred.
posted by chimaera at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2007
They have willingly affiliated themselves with a organization whose raison d'etre is simply racketeering. They may not be a major, but indie they are not.
"Going indie" will help. You just have to get past the ones who are members of the RIAA and call themselves "indie" for the cred.
posted by chimaera at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2007
See also: Fuck it, We're Going With Five Blades
posted by pokeydonut at 3:27 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by pokeydonut at 3:27 PM on May 21, 2007
"and one of the few remaining things in the industry that still seems to work." Indeed, the ability of the RIAA to continually move backwards make both a) the people who believe in Intelligent Design and b) Microsoft seem damn near revolutionary in comparison... quite a feat, that. Next thing you know, maybe they'll start penalizing fans for putting up fansites or some such madness. Nothing would surprise me any more.
posted by rmm at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by rmm at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2007
Man, it's like they want to go out of business faster.
I've been very scrupulous about not pirating music, even to the point of buying some CDs I've lost several times over. Several artists I've learned of, not through illlegal downloading, but through internet radio -- the same internet radio the RIAA is forcing out of business.
But since the RIAA insists on making life difficult for me -- someone who hasn't pirated and doesn't want to --, and insists on screwing with my country, as with Abu Gonzales proposal to lock people up for attempting to violate copyright, well, frankly, I'm just going to buy from AllOfMP3 or similar.
Because I'll feel like a chump if I continue to play by rules that the RIAA insists it can arbitrarily change. So screw the RIAA.
posted by orthogonality at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
I've been very scrupulous about not pirating music, even to the point of buying some CDs I've lost several times over. Several artists I've learned of, not through illlegal downloading, but through internet radio -- the same internet radio the RIAA is forcing out of business.
But since the RIAA insists on making life difficult for me -- someone who hasn't pirated and doesn't want to --, and insists on screwing with my country, as with Abu Gonzales proposal to lock people up for attempting to violate copyright, well, frankly, I'm just going to buy from AllOfMP3 or similar.
Because I'll feel like a chump if I continue to play by rules that the RIAA insists it can arbitrarily change. So screw the RIAA.
posted by orthogonality at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
payola still happens. you have to pay to get on a (Clear Channel) radio station playlist- "$1,000 on average for an "add" at a Top 40 or rock station"
i don't think the RIAA was thought of as evil until they started suing the music fans. the bigger problem is the whole music industry is dying and they are going to flail around a lot until they are truly dead.
the labels really only exist now to prevent you getting free music. they've outlived their purpose of supplying us with recordings.
it's all moving towards bands giving away their recordings and living off performance.
posted by bhnyc at 3:38 PM on May 21, 2007
i don't think the RIAA was thought of as evil until they started suing the music fans. the bigger problem is the whole music industry is dying and they are going to flail around a lot until they are truly dead.
the labels really only exist now to prevent you getting free music. they've outlived their purpose of supplying us with recordings.
it's all moving towards bands giving away their recordings and living off performance.
posted by bhnyc at 3:38 PM on May 21, 2007
It's scary.
Everything the RIAA does recently seems to stem from an almost pathological hatred for music fans. If they go through with this, the labels will lose revenue, no question. But, oddly, that doesn't really seem to be the issue.
posted by roll truck roll at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2007
Everything the RIAA does recently seems to stem from an almost pathological hatred for music fans. If they go through with this, the labels will lose revenue, no question. But, oddly, that doesn't really seem to be the issue.
posted by roll truck roll at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2007
I'm not sure I'm totally against the RIAA on this one. Maybe not the nicest thing to do, maybe a longterm bad thing for the business, and for radio, but the thing the RIAA is trying to address here is not so much that "radio historically has been running away with our money", but that there is a loophole that is created by the fact that radio stations have the luxury of playing music for free but are now exploring new, digital ways to transmit their signal, and they are exploiting that loophole. Record companies, are on the other hand, are not about to let this boat sail them by; and why should they, there is a major paradigm shift in the way music is distributed. See slightly related ASCAP news - is a digital download considered a performance?
Totally unrelated, but did you know that there is no performance royalty paid for music that is included in a movie, when it is played in a movie theater? An archaic detail, but one that could have increasing relevance in the future, and for what it's worth, I think this is what the RIAA is actually good for. This is certainly not working backwards, and in deciding the question of who gets paid what in the digital future, the RIAA will become an increasingly important form of representation for the music industry. This article doesn't even mention until the last paragraph that satellite radio stations already pay this performance royalty. Why should terrestrial radio stations be exempt?
Of course, I'm sidestepping the question of whether this is any good for the listener, and focus on making sense of the RIAA as a group of industry leaders that want to a. make as many millions as possible, and b. at the end of the day, keep their jobs. And if I were you, I'd be much more fearful of the continuing consolidation of the music publishing industry by private equity than anything else. By God, they're even fucking up Sir Richard Branson mojo.
posted by phaedon at 3:48 PM on May 21, 2007
Totally unrelated, but did you know that there is no performance royalty paid for music that is included in a movie, when it is played in a movie theater? An archaic detail, but one that could have increasing relevance in the future, and for what it's worth, I think this is what the RIAA is actually good for. This is certainly not working backwards, and in deciding the question of who gets paid what in the digital future, the RIAA will become an increasingly important form of representation for the music industry. This article doesn't even mention until the last paragraph that satellite radio stations already pay this performance royalty. Why should terrestrial radio stations be exempt?
Of course, I'm sidestepping the question of whether this is any good for the listener, and focus on making sense of the RIAA as a group of industry leaders that want to a. make as many millions as possible, and b. at the end of the day, keep their jobs. And if I were you, I'd be much more fearful of the continuing consolidation of the music publishing industry by private equity than anything else. By God, they're even fucking up Sir Richard Branson mojo.
posted by phaedon at 3:48 PM on May 21, 2007
So, not satisfied with killing internet radio, they're moving on to non-internet radio... Delightful.
What bugs me the most about the internet radio deal was the bit where it didn't matter which artists you played, the RIAA collected royalties even if the artist hadn't signed with them. How the hell is that legal? Wonder if they'll do something similar here.
posted by sotonohito at 3:49 PM on May 21, 2007
What bugs me the most about the internet radio deal was the bit where it didn't matter which artists you played, the RIAA collected royalties even if the artist hadn't signed with them. How the hell is that legal? Wonder if they'll do something similar here.
posted by sotonohito at 3:49 PM on May 21, 2007
Some helpful tips for assessing where you stand on issues involving the RIAA:
1) If the RIAA is for something, oppose it.
2) If the RIAA is against something, champion it.
3) See: points 1 and 2.
posted by basicchannel at 3:55 PM on May 21, 2007
1) If the RIAA is for something, oppose it.
2) If the RIAA is against something, champion it.
3) See: points 1 and 2.
posted by basicchannel at 3:55 PM on May 21, 2007
roll truck roll: I would argue that everything they do stems from an almost pathological fear of anything new coupled with a gross misunderstanding of, well, everything. And most of that is at the top, y'know, with all the fogies raking in beaucoup bucks who've been in the industry for decades and can't adjust to anything new.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:00 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by Captaintripps at 4:00 PM on May 21, 2007
It would be awesome to see ClearChannel decide they would boycott RIAA artists and promote non-RIAA artists in their stead. I wonder how long it would take for radio to manufacture a new generation of stars.
posted by mullingitover at 5:05 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by mullingitover at 5:05 PM on May 21, 2007
It would be awesome to see ClearChannel decide they would boycott RIAA artists and promote non-RIAA artists in their stead.
God, I hope not. If I have to get on Clear Channel's side, I'm afraid my head will asplode. (I will get on their side if they stick it to the RIAA, though.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:17 PM on May 21, 2007
God, I hope not. If I have to get on Clear Channel's side, I'm afraid my head will asplode. (I will get on their side if they stick it to the RIAA, though.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:17 PM on May 21, 2007
From the "Cobra Punchers" blog:
"The New Music Industry" - Part 1 - Part 2
"Music" and "industry" ... two words that never belonged together
posted by Twang at 5:19 PM on May 21, 2007
"The New Music Industry" - Part 1 - Part 2
"Music" and "industry" ... two words that never belonged together
posted by Twang at 5:19 PM on May 21, 2007
Clear Channel is a member of the RIAA, many other radio stations are not.
posted by drezdn at 5:20 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by drezdn at 5:20 PM on May 21, 2007
Also, playing non-RIAA artists won't work, as under the rules the RIAA collects the money regardless of membership, and then you have to join the RIAA to collect the money.
posted by drezdn at 5:22 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by drezdn at 5:22 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Mary Wilson has a point, though.
A lot of older artists, that didn't write the material they performed, don't sell that many records any more, but still get lots of airplay. If the guy that spent a few hours writing a song 30 years ago still gets paid every time his song gets played, it's only fair that the person who performed it gets paid too.
As someone pointed out, over here in Europe, broadcasters have always paid performance royalties, and it seems to work fine. In my country, the local equivilant of the RIAA charges 25% of what the composer's union charges. It's probably similar elsewhere. I doubt it's gonna bankrupt anyone.
I don't like the RIAA, and their tactics towards civilians, but what we're talking about here is not some new evil scheme. What they're talking about in this case is just catching up with legislature that the rest of the world allready has.
posted by svenni at 5:27 PM on May 21, 2007
A lot of older artists, that didn't write the material they performed, don't sell that many records any more, but still get lots of airplay. If the guy that spent a few hours writing a song 30 years ago still gets paid every time his song gets played, it's only fair that the person who performed it gets paid too.
As someone pointed out, over here in Europe, broadcasters have always paid performance royalties, and it seems to work fine. In my country, the local equivilant of the RIAA charges 25% of what the composer's union charges. It's probably similar elsewhere. I doubt it's gonna bankrupt anyone.
I don't like the RIAA, and their tactics towards civilians, but what we're talking about here is not some new evil scheme. What they're talking about in this case is just catching up with legislature that the rest of the world allready has.
posted by svenni at 5:27 PM on May 21, 2007
You think RIAA is suicidal, don't you ?
Think again. Apart from suining eleven years old (bad idea) ... I guess It's a control issue.
RIAA people know exactly well that they can't just start asking money to radio, because radio is a very important advertisement medium reaching millions..the day radio charges for being aired, many labels will just close shop or start their own radios.
So why ask money ? Simply to cut out people that want to run a radio , BUT doesn't want to agree with them. The backroom deal is easy : if you are a big enough radio or a radio I like, I label will NOT ask you for money..or I will and then compensate with some advertising, it's pure accounting exchange of money.
BUT if I don't like you..if I happen NOT to like your rotation..or that you are a little too much indipendant..well it's time you pay me real money. Maybe you will also be able to do that, but you will be forced to take a profit reduction or to raise advertisement rates.
A medium company can do this, but a company that can't move enough advertisement just can't ; it becomes a barrier to entry, artificially restricting the market to our old well know pals, infinitely threatened by the fact internet radios can be very specialized and have very little costs.
Yet of course, it's all in defense of the poor artists ! Why do you hate artists so much ? Actually it is ALSO in defense of artists, but marginally..it's the classic coverup that reasonate well with .......!
posted by elpapacito at 5:36 PM on May 21, 2007
Think again. Apart from suining eleven years old (bad idea) ... I guess It's a control issue.
RIAA people know exactly well that they can't just start asking money to radio, because radio is a very important advertisement medium reaching millions..the day radio charges for being aired, many labels will just close shop or start their own radios.
So why ask money ? Simply to cut out people that want to run a radio , BUT doesn't want to agree with them. The backroom deal is easy : if you are a big enough radio or a radio I like, I label will NOT ask you for money..or I will and then compensate with some advertising, it's pure accounting exchange of money.
BUT if I don't like you..if I happen NOT to like your rotation..or that you are a little too much indipendant..well it's time you pay me real money. Maybe you will also be able to do that, but you will be forced to take a profit reduction or to raise advertisement rates.
A medium company can do this, but a company that can't move enough advertisement just can't ; it becomes a barrier to entry, artificially restricting the market to our old well know pals, infinitely threatened by the fact internet radios can be very specialized and have very little costs.
Yet of course, it's all in defense of the poor artists ! Why do you hate artists so much ? Actually it is ALSO in defense of artists, but marginally..it's the classic coverup that reasonate well with .......!
posted by elpapacito at 5:36 PM on May 21, 2007
Does Europe have tiny little campus/community radio stations with all the wattage of a lightbulb? That's who I'd be worried about going under.
posted by joannemerriam at 5:38 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by joannemerriam at 5:38 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
This isn't the worst thing they're doing--the Dept of Justice is doing their bidding-- Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement--...* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. ...
* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. ...
* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.
* Allow computers to be seized more readily. ...
* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.
* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes....
* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:11 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. ...
* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.
* Allow computers to be seized more readily. ...
* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.
* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes....
* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:11 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
it's all moving towards bands giving away their recordings and living off performance.
posted by bhnyc at 6:38 PM on May 21
from most artists perspectives we are already there. The airplay and CD are mostly advertising for the shows and now the RIAA is killing off just a little bit more of that. This is a fuck the artist move. Although really I don't think they mean it. I think it is more of an opening salvo in the fight over internet radio royalties. Internet radio says "it's unfair that big radio pays nothing and poor little us has to pay big, wah." RIAA responds, "fine, make big radio pay too." It's just a bargaining position.
posted by caddis at 6:36 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by bhnyc at 6:38 PM on May 21
from most artists perspectives we are already there. The airplay and CD are mostly advertising for the shows and now the RIAA is killing off just a little bit more of that. This is a fuck the artist move. Although really I don't think they mean it. I think it is more of an opening salvo in the fight over internet radio royalties. Internet radio says "it's unfair that big radio pays nothing and poor little us has to pay big, wah." RIAA responds, "fine, make big radio pay too." It's just a bargaining position.
posted by caddis at 6:36 PM on May 21, 2007
Here's an interesting little blast from the past for you. I was cleaning out some old boxes in my Mom's basement and found some GQ magazines from the 80s. For some bizarre reason I started reading the Letters to the Editor section in one. Check out this quote, circa December 88, from a Congressman Bart Gordon (D - Tennessee):
I would like to clarify several misconceptions left by an article in your Sept issue on the marketing of DAT recorders in the United States. First and foremost, the RIAA and the recording industry in general have no interest in thwarting the introduction of new technology. However, much of the music we all enjoy will disappear if those who create it are not compensated for their work because of rampant musical pirating. This is the heart of the DAT controversy.... Congress cannot stand by while DAT recorders cause the destruction of one of our country's unique cultural resources.
Freakin DATs...and they are still singing the same tune almost 20 years later.
posted by spicynuts at 7:07 PM on May 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
I would like to clarify several misconceptions left by an article in your Sept issue on the marketing of DAT recorders in the United States. First and foremost, the RIAA and the recording industry in general have no interest in thwarting the introduction of new technology. However, much of the music we all enjoy will disappear if those who create it are not compensated for their work because of rampant musical pirating. This is the heart of the DAT controversy.... Congress cannot stand by while DAT recorders cause the destruction of one of our country's unique cultural resources.
Freakin DATs...and they are still singing the same tune almost 20 years later.
posted by spicynuts at 7:07 PM on May 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
Figuring out who to root for here is like picking your favorite terrorist.
posted by swell at 7:40 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by swell at 7:40 PM on May 21, 2007
There is. I don't have a scanner. Here's the full thing, it's not long:
I would like to clarify several misconceptions left by an article in your Sept issue on the marketing of DAT recorders in the United States. First and foremost, the RIAA and the recording industry in general have no interest in thwarting the introduction of new technology. However, much of the music we all enjoy will disappear if those who create it are not compensated for their work because of rampant musical pirating. This is the heart of the DAT controversy.
DAT or no DAT, the superstars of music undoubtedly will still make their recordings and make their money. But record companies hit with declining earnings due to DAT copying will drop their less profitable musicians - the hundreds of artists recording classical, jazz, reggae, rap, gospel and other music that doesn't make the Top 40 or sell an automatic million. In addition, who will take a chance on the unkown artist who might be the next superstar?
Happily, both the makers of DAT hardware and the music producers have a mutual interest in making sure that doesn't happen. And mutual interest breeds compromise and reasonable agreements that benefit the listening public. The Sonys and JVCs don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden musical eggs that make people want to buy stereo equipment in the first place. I understand that discussions are taking place to find a way to bring DAT technology into the American mass market while protecting the rights of the music makers. I believe a fair agreement between the affected industries would be much better than government intervention. But Congress cannot stand by while DAT recorders cause the destruction of one of our country's unique cultural resources.
How quaint. There's a response from the author of the piece referenced, Martin Porter:
DAT is no more of a threat than is the analog cassette. If anything, the analog version remains a much bigger threat due to the millions of analog cassette recorders/players already out on the market. So why stop DAT? Probably because it is too late for the record business to halt the production of the analog cassette in which the major labels have already invested so heavily. Then again, if the record companies feel that DAT is such a threat to "music that doesn't make the Top 40," I'll propose a compromise - I'll never write a good thing about DAT again if the major labels agree to record more "noncommercial" music than ever before. My guess is that I'll be writing about DAT for many years to come"
HA! Not!
posted by spicynuts at 7:42 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
I would like to clarify several misconceptions left by an article in your Sept issue on the marketing of DAT recorders in the United States. First and foremost, the RIAA and the recording industry in general have no interest in thwarting the introduction of new technology. However, much of the music we all enjoy will disappear if those who create it are not compensated for their work because of rampant musical pirating. This is the heart of the DAT controversy.
DAT or no DAT, the superstars of music undoubtedly will still make their recordings and make their money. But record companies hit with declining earnings due to DAT copying will drop their less profitable musicians - the hundreds of artists recording classical, jazz, reggae, rap, gospel and other music that doesn't make the Top 40 or sell an automatic million. In addition, who will take a chance on the unkown artist who might be the next superstar?
Happily, both the makers of DAT hardware and the music producers have a mutual interest in making sure that doesn't happen. And mutual interest breeds compromise and reasonable agreements that benefit the listening public. The Sonys and JVCs don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden musical eggs that make people want to buy stereo equipment in the first place. I understand that discussions are taking place to find a way to bring DAT technology into the American mass market while protecting the rights of the music makers. I believe a fair agreement between the affected industries would be much better than government intervention. But Congress cannot stand by while DAT recorders cause the destruction of one of our country's unique cultural resources.
How quaint. There's a response from the author of the piece referenced, Martin Porter:
DAT is no more of a threat than is the analog cassette. If anything, the analog version remains a much bigger threat due to the millions of analog cassette recorders/players already out on the market. So why stop DAT? Probably because it is too late for the record business to halt the production of the analog cassette in which the major labels have already invested so heavily. Then again, if the record companies feel that DAT is such a threat to "music that doesn't make the Top 40," I'll propose a compromise - I'll never write a good thing about DAT again if the major labels agree to record more "noncommercial" music than ever before. My guess is that I'll be writing about DAT for many years to come"
HA! Not!
posted by spicynuts at 7:42 PM on May 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
swell, imagine working for one of the terrorists...
posted by Captaintripps at 7:42 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by Captaintripps at 7:42 PM on May 21, 2007
Also, playing non-RIAA artists won't work, as under the rules the RIAA collects the money regardless of membership, and then you have to join the RIAA to collect the money.
posted by drezdn at 5:22 PM on May 21 [1 favorite +]
[!]
From the link:
The RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers all recorded music.
How the fuck is this legal?
posted by kosher_jenny at 7:49 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by drezdn at 5:22 PM on May 21 [1 favorite +]
[!]
From the link:
The RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers all recorded music.
How the fuck is this legal?
posted by kosher_jenny at 7:49 PM on May 21, 2007
I work at the National Association of Broadcasters. Obviously, we are opposed to this and will fight it.
I say "we", but all of that work will really be done by media and government relations; I'm a lowly data rat whose most important function is organizing distribution lists to make sure radio stations and radio groups know about call to action campaigns.
On another note, an individual "who supported local artists" called up to yell at me about this. I told him I would not be able to address his concerns fully as I did not know the full scope of the issue or even our exact position. He said "But you work there." I said "Yes, I work here. At the National Association of Broadcasters. We lobby for the interests of broadcasters, not musicians. We aren't against musicians, or anyone else specifically, except when their interests run counter to our membership, the people who pay our wages, the television and radio stations of the U.S."
He responded that poor musicians who were living hand to mouth off of money they earned at bars on Saturday's could use the money. I asked him which artists I may have heard on the radio have an income solely from playing bars on the weekend. He claimed we were trying to end the world (yes, those words).
I transfered his call to Media relations.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 8:04 PM on May 21, 2007
I say "we", but all of that work will really be done by media and government relations; I'm a lowly data rat whose most important function is organizing distribution lists to make sure radio stations and radio groups know about call to action campaigns.
On another note, an individual "who supported local artists" called up to yell at me about this. I told him I would not be able to address his concerns fully as I did not know the full scope of the issue or even our exact position. He said "But you work there." I said "Yes, I work here. At the National Association of Broadcasters. We lobby for the interests of broadcasters, not musicians. We aren't against musicians, or anyone else specifically, except when their interests run counter to our membership, the people who pay our wages, the television and radio stations of the U.S."
He responded that poor musicians who were living hand to mouth off of money they earned at bars on Saturday's could use the money. I asked him which artists I may have heard on the radio have an income solely from playing bars on the weekend. He claimed we were trying to end the world (yes, those words).
I transfered his call to Media relations.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 8:04 PM on May 21, 2007
For those of you that were wondering, then, yes, that whole royalty rate hike for streaming radio 'performances' was indeed a test case. Elpapacito's got the general gist of it, re: squeezing anyone who isn't a big player out of the picture. Straight-up planned evil.
posted by bhance at 8:12 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by bhance at 8:12 PM on May 21, 2007
swell typed "Figuring out who to root for here is like picking your favorite terrorist."
You're listening to the wrong radio stations.
posted by roll truck roll at 8:17 PM on May 21, 2007
You're listening to the wrong radio stations.
posted by roll truck roll at 8:17 PM on May 21, 2007
If the RIAA goes about this wrong (and when haven't they), this could lead to a dramatic increase in non-music radio (talk, sports, maybe comedy, hell maybe even radio drama).
Sort of like a more insidious version of how a writers strike led to an increase in reality shows on TV.
posted by drezdn at 8:27 PM on May 21, 2007
Sort of like a more insidious version of how a writers strike led to an increase in reality shows on TV.
posted by drezdn at 8:27 PM on May 21, 2007
I saw an ad for the blog PopDecay looking for writers, and so I skimmed their content. I decided I couldn't apply when they had a breathless press release from the RIAA about how those evil webcasters and their allies in congress were trying to roll back the compulsory licensing rates to starve artists.
Fuck the RIAA. They can die in a fire.
posted by klangklangston at 9:07 PM on May 21, 2007
Fuck the RIAA. They can die in a fire.
posted by klangklangston at 9:07 PM on May 21, 2007
RIAA about how those evil webcasters and their allies in congress were trying to roll back the compulsory licensing rates to starve artists.
Well, it's true. If the RIAA didn't rake in tons of cash through CD's and such, they would have to collect large percentages of the money from live performances too, under the indentured servitude type contracts they give to the artists. Then where would they get money?
posted by IronLizard at 9:30 PM on May 21, 2007
Well, it's true. If the RIAA didn't rake in tons of cash through CD's and such, they would have to collect large percentages of the money from live performances too, under the indentured servitude type contracts they give to the artists. Then where would they get money?
posted by IronLizard at 9:30 PM on May 21, 2007
it's actually been tried before ... the results?
The advent of radio in the 1920s brought an important new source of income for ASCAP. Radio stations originally only broadcast performers live, the performers working for free. Later, performers wanted to be paid and recorded performances became more prevalent. Many composers didn't want their music performed or played for free, but some radio broadcasters grew reluctant to honor ASCAP license fees, and in 1940, during negotiations with ASCAP over rates, radio broadcasters formed Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) in an effort to drive down licensing fees. Eventually, public demand forced the radio broadcasters to agree to new rates. Today, over 11,500 local commercial radio stations and 2000 non-commercial radio broadcasters are ASCAP licensees.
bmi was significant ... A nonprofit entity, BMI was the first performing rights organization in the United States to represent songwriters of blues, country, jazz, rhythm & blues, gospel, folk, Latin, and ultimately, rock & roll.
as it stands right now, the riaa has a monopoly on radio and internet performance royalties ... but, as broadcasters have as much congressional influence and as many lawyers as the riaa does, if not more, their goal is clear ... get congress to kill the clause where one organization only gets to control the licenses and then come up with an alternative organization that will represent indie artists and others ... drop riaa music from the airwaves and play the alternative organization's music and watch the war begin
in spite of what the first wikipedia article said, this actually did work ... the rates were reduced, there was now competition and new kinds of music were being played on the radio for keeps, eventually becoming rock and roll
so that's what the broadcasters need to do ... lobby congress to change the law and take a page from history
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 PM on May 21, 2007
The advent of radio in the 1920s brought an important new source of income for ASCAP. Radio stations originally only broadcast performers live, the performers working for free. Later, performers wanted to be paid and recorded performances became more prevalent. Many composers didn't want their music performed or played for free, but some radio broadcasters grew reluctant to honor ASCAP license fees, and in 1940, during negotiations with ASCAP over rates, radio broadcasters formed Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) in an effort to drive down licensing fees. Eventually, public demand forced the radio broadcasters to agree to new rates. Today, over 11,500 local commercial radio stations and 2000 non-commercial radio broadcasters are ASCAP licensees.
bmi was significant ... A nonprofit entity, BMI was the first performing rights organization in the United States to represent songwriters of blues, country, jazz, rhythm & blues, gospel, folk, Latin, and ultimately, rock & roll.
as it stands right now, the riaa has a monopoly on radio and internet performance royalties ... but, as broadcasters have as much congressional influence and as many lawyers as the riaa does, if not more, their goal is clear ... get congress to kill the clause where one organization only gets to control the licenses and then come up with an alternative organization that will represent indie artists and others ... drop riaa music from the airwaves and play the alternative organization's music and watch the war begin
in spite of what the first wikipedia article said, this actually did work ... the rates were reduced, there was now competition and new kinds of music were being played on the radio for keeps, eventually becoming rock and roll
so that's what the broadcasters need to do ... lobby congress to change the law and take a page from history
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 PM on May 21, 2007
He responded that poor musicians who were living hand to mouth off of money they earned at bars on Saturday's [sic] could use the money. I asked him which artists I may have heard on the radio have an income solely from playing bars on the weekend. He claimed we were trying to end the world (yes, those words). I transfered his call to Media relations.
This is how just the lowliest of their pissants think. In their world, there's no place for a band to start out organically (fuck scrubby bar bands like the Beatles or U2.)
Rock and roll was never supposed to support this sort of dreary civil servant mentality.
Please, die faster, You're beginning to bore us.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 9:56 PM on May 21, 2007
This is how just the lowliest of their pissants think. In their world, there's no place for a band to start out organically (fuck scrubby bar bands like the Beatles or U2.)
Rock and roll was never supposed to support this sort of dreary civil servant mentality.
Please, die faster, You're beginning to bore us.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 9:56 PM on May 21, 2007
so that's what the broadcasters need to do ... lobby congress to change the law and take a page from history
Only problem is, the bigger broadcasters are now in bed with them. They won't really pay a dime, while driving the (smaller) competition into the ground.
posted by IronLizard at 10:05 PM on May 21, 2007
Only problem is, the bigger broadcasters are now in bed with them. They won't really pay a dime, while driving the (smaller) competition into the ground.
posted by IronLizard at 10:05 PM on May 21, 2007
I guess I'm getting more radical as I get older, but I'm thinking more of putting a PCI-based fm transmitter into my linuxbox and becoming a pirate radio station.
I could be really evil and broadcast a soon-to-be illegal webstation. Or a random set of soon-to-be illegal webstations. Wow. I guess this is how Dr. Doom feels.
posted by eclectist at 10:06 PM on May 21, 2007
I could be really evil and broadcast a soon-to-be illegal webstation. Or a random set of soon-to-be illegal webstations. Wow. I guess this is how Dr. Doom feels.
posted by eclectist at 10:06 PM on May 21, 2007
Why does everyone make this so damn difficult? It's simple.
1. Stop buying CDs unless you're buying it from the artist himself or herself. Like after a gig at the local bar.
2. Stop shopping in malls. That's how "they" gitcha!
3. Bang your head against a wall until you hear ringing in your ears and listen to that for awhile. It's at least as good as anything Backstreet Boys ever put out.
4. Quit turning on your radio. For that matter, wear foil on your head to deaden the signals that you're bathing in right now.
Roll Truck Roll: "You're listening to the wrong radio stations."
If you're listening to a radio station, you're listening to the wrong radio station, with the possible exception of national public radio but they're too liberal for my blood, when they're not pretending to be moderate or kissing a conservative's tit in a vain attempt to appear objective - oh fuckit. Even public radio. If you're radio is turned on and making noise, you're a part of the problem.
If your radio is turned off, those signals are still constantly in the air. *insert Twilight Zone music* Harmless of course, or so they say... but don't you find it creepy that even when it's off, the signals from all those radio stations are still there..? Creeps me out.
JeremiahBritt: "On another note, an individual "who supported local artists" called up to yell at me about this... I transfered his call to Media relations."
That was you?! You bloody bastard! I was on hold for twenty minutes listening to what sounded like John Denver and the Muppets singing Put The Lime In The Coconut. I damn near threw myself out a bleeding window! Then I found out I wasn't on hold. Media Relations was having a staff meeting and left the phone off the hook!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:24 PM on May 21, 2007
1. Stop buying CDs unless you're buying it from the artist himself or herself. Like after a gig at the local bar.
2. Stop shopping in malls. That's how "they" gitcha!
3. Bang your head against a wall until you hear ringing in your ears and listen to that for awhile. It's at least as good as anything Backstreet Boys ever put out.
4. Quit turning on your radio. For that matter, wear foil on your head to deaden the signals that you're bathing in right now.
Roll Truck Roll: "You're listening to the wrong radio stations."
If you're listening to a radio station, you're listening to the wrong radio station, with the possible exception of national public radio but they're too liberal for my blood, when they're not pretending to be moderate or kissing a conservative's tit in a vain attempt to appear objective - oh fuckit. Even public radio. If you're radio is turned on and making noise, you're a part of the problem.
If your radio is turned off, those signals are still constantly in the air. *insert Twilight Zone music* Harmless of course, or so they say... but don't you find it creepy that even when it's off, the signals from all those radio stations are still there..? Creeps me out.
JeremiahBritt: "On another note, an individual "who supported local artists" called up to yell at me about this... I transfered his call to Media relations."
That was you?! You bloody bastard! I was on hold for twenty minutes listening to what sounded like John Denver and the Muppets singing Put The Lime In The Coconut. I damn near threw myself out a bleeding window! Then I found out I wasn't on hold. Media Relations was having a staff meeting and left the phone off the hook!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:24 PM on May 21, 2007
"I guess I'm getting more radical as I get older, but I'm thinking more of putting a PCI-based fm transmitter into my linuxbox and becoming a pirate radio station."
When I was little I used to listen to Wolf Man Jack on a powerful AM radio station that beamed across much of the US from Mexico in the evenings.
It was not just a pirate radio station, but it was ground breaking original radio station that helped define rock-and-roll for a generation of kids.
posted by eye of newt at 10:45 PM on May 21, 2007
When I was little I used to listen to Wolf Man Jack on a powerful AM radio station that beamed across much of the US from Mexico in the evenings.
It was not just a pirate radio station, but it was ground breaking original radio station that helped define rock-and-roll for a generation of kids.
posted by eye of newt at 10:45 PM on May 21, 2007
My band has been played on (college) radio that was also streamed over the internet. Does this mean that SoundExchange would be collecting royalties from it? How the fuck do they have the right to collect money for my work with a (not even indie, we don't even have a proper CD for fuck's sake) band?
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:03 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:03 PM on May 21, 2007
For all their talk of royalties and supporting the artist, just remember that SoundExchange gets 50% of all the royalties it collects, right off the top. The remaining 50% are divided among the artist, any sessionists who performed on the recording, the copyright holder, and whatever they're contractually obliged to hand over to the RIAA (like maybe all of it).
So whenever you hear tries to talk to you about royalties and "the artist", do kindly laugh in their faces, won't you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:04 PM on May 21, 2007
So whenever you hear tries to talk to you about royalties and "the artist", do kindly laugh in their faces, won't you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:04 PM on May 21, 2007
Angry.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:06 PM on May 21, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:06 PM on May 21, 2007
bhnyc, Performances need not be the only way a band can make money. Just place your music online in a video format, with some cute video, and banner ads in the video.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:42 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by jeffburdges at 2:42 AM on May 22, 2007
I'm not at all happy with the idea that the only way a musical artist can no make money is with live performances and T-shirts.
I'm not one of those people who wants to lock down the IntarWebs (remember Sony's "we will block you at the router?"), but at some point, they'll just start pirating the T-shirt designs and punching out threads on the 3d fab printer everyone will have in ten years, and who goes to concerts anymore? One guy gets a cell phone in and will be recording everything in 5.1 audio and full HD.
I hate to sound like one of those damned middle ground people, but not all bands are touring bands. Are we going to kill them off and reduce everyone else to Mr. Bojangles, who will earn our dimes based on their performance? If so, we're looking at highly-choreographed stage shows, mostly set to "aggressively cheerful music sung by people chosen for their ability to dance."
What's the answer? I don't know, but I'm not liking the alternatives I've seen thus far.
posted by adipocere at 5:11 AM on May 22, 2007
I'm not one of those people who wants to lock down the IntarWebs (remember Sony's "we will block you at the router?"), but at some point, they'll just start pirating the T-shirt designs and punching out threads on the 3d fab printer everyone will have in ten years, and who goes to concerts anymore? One guy gets a cell phone in and will be recording everything in 5.1 audio and full HD.
I hate to sound like one of those damned middle ground people, but not all bands are touring bands. Are we going to kill them off and reduce everyone else to Mr. Bojangles, who will earn our dimes based on their performance? If so, we're looking at highly-choreographed stage shows, mostly set to "aggressively cheerful music sung by people chosen for their ability to dance."
What's the answer? I don't know, but I'm not liking the alternatives I've seen thus far.
posted by adipocere at 5:11 AM on May 22, 2007
How the fuck do they have the right to collect money for my work with a ... band?
Easy! The RIAA previously argued to the same Copyright Royalty Board that they were the best ones to do so, and then spun off the 'independent' SoundExchange to do it for them. (And staffed it with their people, natch.)
If you want an illustrated guide to the mess artists are in, run your band's name through the SoundExchange PLAYS database and try to collect your royalties. Please, do so, and document the process somewhere for the rest of us.
If you really want to ruin your day, attempt to determine how your royalty numbers were calculated.
And, if you'd like to ruin your week, check out what happens to your royalties if you don't go through this process. (I'll give you a hint ... they keep it.)
posted by bhance at 5:51 AM on May 22, 2007
Easy! The RIAA previously argued to the same Copyright Royalty Board that they were the best ones to do so, and then spun off the 'independent' SoundExchange to do it for them. (And staffed it with their people, natch.)
If you want an illustrated guide to the mess artists are in, run your band's name through the SoundExchange PLAYS database and try to collect your royalties. Please, do so, and document the process somewhere for the rest of us.
If you really want to ruin your day, attempt to determine how your royalty numbers were calculated.
And, if you'd like to ruin your week, check out what happens to your royalties if you don't go through this process. (I'll give you a hint ... they keep it.)
posted by bhance at 5:51 AM on May 22, 2007
If another labels and musicians committed to it, would it be possible to form a competing service to Soundexchange?
posted by drezdn at 6:02 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by drezdn at 6:02 AM on May 22, 2007
Very angry. Went to three shows last week - didn't buy CDs at any of them (already had them), but did buy t-shirts at two of the shows. (If you're wondering, we saw Kristin Hersh, the Be Good Tanyas, and the Knitters - they were all fantastic.) I barely listen to commercial radio anymore, since I can't seem to find a station that plays anything I can stand, with the exception of the "classic rock" station here, and even that makes me feel kinda "kids today! call that music?" But radio was a huge part of my childhood/young adulthood - I grew up in Boston, which had (has?) so many college radio stations that one could be sure of finding something...interesting at any hour of the day.
When some lawyers wake up, will someone explain how the RIAA can collect money "on behalf" of artists who aren't even members? And is there a test case somewhere that's wending its way to the Supremes - and do we even want that?
posted by rtha at 6:15 AM on May 22, 2007
When some lawyers wake up, will someone explain how the RIAA can collect money "on behalf" of artists who aren't even members? And is there a test case somewhere that's wending its way to the Supremes - and do we even want that?
posted by rtha at 6:15 AM on May 22, 2007
would it be possible to form a competing service to Soundexchange
Only if you could get that entity tapped by the CRB as also having/sharing the official responsibility for royalty collection and disbursement.
Others have brought this single-entity problem up again and again - back in 2001 when SE was tapped in the first place, and again during the recent CRB rate hike talks. You can read some of how this played out in the final determination (search for 'Royalty Logic').
The CRB response was something like "while multiple entities for this could be beneficial, you haven't proven it would be beneficial, so we're keeping SE as the one agency to do this."
posted by bhance at 6:36 AM on May 22, 2007
Only if you could get that entity tapped by the CRB as also having/sharing the official responsibility for royalty collection and disbursement.
Others have brought this single-entity problem up again and again - back in 2001 when SE was tapped in the first place, and again during the recent CRB rate hike talks. You can read some of how this played out in the final determination (search for 'Royalty Logic').
The CRB response was something like "while multiple entities for this could be beneficial, you haven't proven it would be beneficial, so we're keeping SE as the one agency to do this."
posted by bhance at 6:36 AM on May 22, 2007
The best part about SoundExchange is that if they can't find the musicians to pay them, they get to keep the money.
It's a fucking mafia.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:50 AM on May 22, 2007
It's a fucking mafia.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:50 AM on May 22, 2007
After getting something like a good night's sleep and thinking more about this, I'm more and more committed to the idea that organizations like this are made up of evil bastards with no respect for musicians or their art form. I'm sick of reading about how threatening illegal downloading is when the real piracy is being perpetrated by those crying the loudest. I know that as an individual (without money, influence, or celebrity) I am essentially powerless, but I am going to start writing my elected representatives from the state level up, if only to stir things up a little. I don't pretend that some hippie state legislators are going to be able to change things, but I want to at least try to bring this issue more to the forefront for politicians and public alike. For me, it's very telling that I only heard about SoundExchange and its racket last night, when it is an entity that directly effects me. While I'm not a hugely successful performer, and don't stand to lose a lot because of this right now, I still hold on to some hope that I will make it big some day, and to think that a conglomerate like this might be profiting from me against my will is sickening. People need to know about this - not just the relatively few who actively pay attention, but everyone. Someone needs to put pressure on the RIAA and its affiliates, or things will never change.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:26 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:26 AM on May 22, 2007
Boycott the RIAA by not buying their music. Not sure if a recording is made by an RIAA member? Use RIAA Radar.
It's true, we need legislation to fight the RIAA's atrocious practices, but have no illusions about how virtually impossible this will be, given the amount of lobbying money the RIAA has. The only real, tangible way you can have an affect is to not buy ANYTHING produced by an RIAA member label. Tell everyone you know about the atrocious things this industry does. Tell them not to buy RIAA-produced recordings and make them feel guilty if they do. The recording industry is dying, you say? Not if people keep buying their products they aren't!
posted by ChestnutMonkey at 11:29 AM on May 22, 2007
It's true, we need legislation to fight the RIAA's atrocious practices, but have no illusions about how virtually impossible this will be, given the amount of lobbying money the RIAA has. The only real, tangible way you can have an affect is to not buy ANYTHING produced by an RIAA member label. Tell everyone you know about the atrocious things this industry does. Tell them not to buy RIAA-produced recordings and make them feel guilty if they do. The recording industry is dying, you say? Not if people keep buying their products they aren't!
posted by ChestnutMonkey at 11:29 AM on May 22, 2007
Commercial radio used to serve these functions for me:
1. Introducing me to new music
2. Providing entertainment at home + work
3. Providing entertainment on the go
It does none of those things now. Instead I've turned to new sources:
1. Finding new music: MySpace and music blogs
2. Listening at home + work: My CD and MP3 collection, and (soon to be dead?) internet radio
3. Listening on the go: My MP3 player, loaded with music from my CDs, iTunes, and music blogs
Commercial radio and the RIAA can destroy each other, for all I care.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2007
1. Introducing me to new music
2. Providing entertainment at home + work
3. Providing entertainment on the go
It does none of those things now. Instead I've turned to new sources:
1. Finding new music: MySpace and music blogs
2. Listening at home + work: My CD and MP3 collection, and (soon to be dead?) internet radio
3. Listening on the go: My MP3 player, loaded with music from my CDs, iTunes, and music blogs
Commercial radio and the RIAA can destroy each other, for all I care.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2007
P.S. Everyone knows about The Hype Machine, right?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2007
adipocere typed "I hate to sound like one of those damned middle ground people, but not all bands are touring bands. Are we going to kill them off and reduce everyone else to Mr. Bojangles, who will earn our dimes based on their performance? If so, we're looking at highly-choreographed stage shows, mostly set to 'aggressively cheerful music sung by people chosen for their ability to dance.'"
I'm sort of a middle ground person on this issue too, but you seem to have it backwards. The Jessicas and the K-Feds and the Xtinas are the only artists benefiting primarily from music sales and residuals. And then there are people like Paris Hilton and whoever who don't perform at all because, well, it's not really them singing.
The good, interesting musical acts out there are touring several months of the year by choice.
Do you really think that bad musicians put on better concerts than good musicians? Nobody in the world ever became an N Sync fan or a Britney Spears fan because of a live show. Everyone who shelled out the 50 bucks to see them is already lost. But lots of people become Dengue Fever or The Clutters fans because of live shows.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:57 PM on May 23, 2007
I'm sort of a middle ground person on this issue too, but you seem to have it backwards. The Jessicas and the K-Feds and the Xtinas are the only artists benefiting primarily from music sales and residuals. And then there are people like Paris Hilton and whoever who don't perform at all because, well, it's not really them singing.
The good, interesting musical acts out there are touring several months of the year by choice.
Do you really think that bad musicians put on better concerts than good musicians? Nobody in the world ever became an N Sync fan or a Britney Spears fan because of a live show. Everyone who shelled out the 50 bucks to see them is already lost. But lots of people become Dengue Fever or The Clutters fans because of live shows.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:57 PM on May 23, 2007
« Older Supreme Court Alters 12(b)(6) Standards | Are We Really Real? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
1. Don't assume going indie is going to help anyone. The RIAA is dominated by the majors, but a lot of independent labels are in the RIAA.
2. European terrestrial radio has paid performance royalties for decades. Radio is still there.
3. This will definitely hurt the conglomerates as well as the independent stations.
posted by Captaintripps at 3:17 PM on May 21, 2007