RIAA going after radio stations now. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 05-22-2007, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Artists and labels seek royalties from radio
By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
May 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — With CD sales tumbling, record companies and musicians are looking at a new potential pot of money: royalties from broadcast radio stations.

For years, stations have paid royalties to composers and publishers when they played their songs. But they enjoy a federal exemption when paying the performers and record labels because, they argue, the airplay sells music.

Now, the Recording Industry Assn. of America and several artists' groups are getting ready to push Congress to repeal the exemption, a move that could generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually in new royalties.

Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills.

"After so many years of not being compensated, it would be nice now at this late date to at least start," the 63-year-old Las Vegas resident said in Milwaukee, where she was performing at the Potawatomi Bingo Casino. "They've gotten 50-some years of free play. Now maybe it's time to pay up."

The decision to take on the volatile performance royalty issue again highlights the rough times the music industry is facing as listeners abandon compact discs for digital downloads, often listening to music shared with friends or obtained from file-sharing sites.

"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."

It's not the first attempt to kill the exemption. In the past, politically powerful broadcasters beat back those efforts.

But with satellite and Internet radio forced to pay "public performance royalties" and Web broadcasters up in arms about a recent federal decision to boost their performance royalty rate, the record companies and musicians have a strong hand.

Broadcasters are already girding for the fight, expected to last more than a year. In a letter to lawmakers this month, the National Assn. of Broadcasters dubbed the royalties a "performance tax" that would upend the 70-year "mutually beneficial relationship" between radio stations and the recording industry.

"The existing system actually provides the epitome of fairness for all parties: free music for free promotion," wrote NAB President David Rehr.

Performance royalties are collected from traditional radio stations in nearly all major industrialized countries, but U.S. musicians and record companies can't because there is no similar royalty on the books here.

"The time comes that we really have to do this," said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, a group created by the recording industry to collect and distribute Internet and satellite music royalties.

For record labels and musicians, addressing the issue now is crucial because digital radio, now being rolled out, allows broadcasters to split a signal into several digital channels and play even more music exempt from performance royalties.

Groups preparing to push Congress to change the law include the RIAA, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, the American Federation of Musicians and other organizations. The U.S. Copyright Office has long supported removing the exemption.

The groups have a major ally in Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village), who now chairs the House subcommittee dealing with intellectual property law. Berman is "actively contemplating" leading a legislative push to end the exemption.

"Given the many different ways to promote music now that didn't exist as effectively when this original exemption was made," he said, "the logic of that I think is more dubious."

Congress granted composers and publishers of music copyright protection in 1909. But the recording and radio industries were in their infancy, and the actual musical recordings were not covered. Congress extended limited copyright protection to musical performances in the 1970s to guard against an earlier form of piracy: the copying of records and tapes.

But by then, broadcasters were influential enough to snuff out any talk of making them pay musicians and recording companies for playing their music.

"The old saying is the reason broadcasters don't pay a performance royalty is there's a radio station in every congressional district and a record company in three," said Chris Castle, a music industry lawyer.

Broadcasters even successfully fought a group of singers and musicians led by Frank Sinatra in the late 1980s who tried to pressure Congress into changing the law. Broadcasters also prevailed in 1995, when Congress exempted them from new fees for digital recordings that everyone else had to pay.

"Congress has always recognized that broadcasters generate enormous sums of revenue to record companies and artists in terms of airplay," said NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton. Radio stations also have public-interest obligations that satellite and Internet broadcasters don't have to worry about, he said.

Satellite radio, Internet broadcasters and cable television companies offering digital music channels now pay performance royalties. The recording industry and musician groups say it's time for traditional radio stations to pony up.

"Most of the artists in the world are kind of middle-class cats, trying to piece together a living," said Jonatha Brooke, a singer-songwriter who is part of the Recording Artists Coalition advocacy group. "It's important to be recognized and paid for our work."

Thanks to the consumerist I stumbled on this article. I find it amazing that when they need the radio industry they can use them. Like the article says they already pay the composer and the publisher, but not the performer and record label. I am curious how much more those payments would be, also how this could affect the non-digital radio if it was to happen.

ratbastid · 05-22-2007, 04:05 AM

Oh, man.... This is exactly what we need to put the damn RIAA in its place--a good solid legal bitch-slap from Clear Channel. Not that I'm much of a Clear Channel fan either, but they're a much bigger outfit.

Two monopolists colliding like this... it's like icebergs grinding against each other.

pig · 05-22-2007, 05:05 AM

to some extent, it was only a matter of time before something like this went down; if they want to keep the legal logic consistent between their stance on the internet sharing and dissemination over the airwaves, that is. i'd personally like to see copyright law overhauled a bit in the realm of creative intangible works, and for the artists to receive bigger cuts of the revenue they generate. i would hazard a guess that regardless of how this plays out, the artist will get screwed and clear channel and the riaa will cut a backdoor deal to ensure they both get their $$$.

dirtyrascal7 · 05-22-2007, 08:15 AM

Someday, the RIAA will start suing the artist themselves for not paying royalties to the record companies whenever they practice one of their own songs. And they'll form a SWAT team to take down bands playing copywrited music in their garages.

Jinn · 05-22-2007, 08:30 AM

Cover bands will be next.

FUCK THE RIAA

soccerchamp76 · 05-22-2007, 02:35 PM

I find it amazing that anyone who works for the RIAA is able to sleep at night.

roachboy · 05-22-2007, 02:39 PM

fuck the riaa.

Sion · 05-22-2007, 02:50 PM

the royalties should go to the composer and the musicians, not to the publishers or the RIAA.

that being said, however, I kinda take issue with this comment:

"Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills."

waaaaaah...you mean you have to keep working instead of sitting on your fat ass and resting on what you did decades ago? gee, I wish I could get me a deal like that. Hell, I'll be lucky to be able to retire by the time I'm 70. And I just about guarantee that Mary Wilson made more in the 5 to 10 years of the Supremes heyday than I will in my entire life, despite that being some 40 years ago.

smooth · 05-23-2007, 11:45 AM

what are you talking about? it's ok for someone to take your work and make money off it but it's not ok for you to get a piece of their pie? that doesn't make any sense to me

as for the riaa et al, this is one instance I'm slightly supportive of. at least the artists are in on it, too. it's not just the industry...but I have less sympathy for them than the artists.

I wonder what it will do for radio, though. probably more commercials...lots more, longer, more stupid commercials.

soccerchamp76 · 05-23-2007, 11:53 AM

The same radio stations that by playing their music, get people who may not have previously heard their music, to buy their records. That is how and why the radio stations are exempt. Nobody puts tapes in their cars and records their favorite songs.

If anything, the RIAA should pay the radio stations to promote their music. What would happen to their precious record sales if no radio station played their music???

Sion · 05-23-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soccerchamp76

If anything, the RIAA should pay the radio stations to promote their music.

that used to happen...it was called Payola and people went to jail over it.

Willravel · 05-23-2007, 02:46 PM

I hope clear channel refuses to play their shitty music, and I not only hope that the RIAA breaks down, but there are laws passed to prevent it in the future. I'm pro union, but they have gone WAY too far.

Willravel · 05-24-2007, 03:30 PM

Are there any real, legal ways to break up the RIAA for good?

FoolThemAll · 05-24-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Are there any real, legal ways to break up the RIAA for good?

I'd ask first if there are any ethical ways of breaking up the RIAA for good. It annoys me that they're going after companies and individuals that, in at least some cases, have actually contributed a net positive to their profits through exposure. But annoying me is not against the law. (Thank your lucky stars, Mencia.) Has the RIAA actually done anything that warrants a government-enforced termination?

Willravel · 05-24-2007, 03:41 PM

I'm not talking about government-enforced termination. I'm talking about people fed up with the clear harm that the RIAA does, wanting to be able to stop something this big.

FoolThemAll · 05-24-2007, 03:45 PM

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

The first feeble idea that comes to mind is boycott. Massive boycott.

I'm an indie bastard, so it'd be easy enough for me.

05-22-2007, 05:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	to some extent, it was only a matter of time before something like this went down; if they want to keep the legal logic consistent between their stance on the internet sharing and dissemination over the airwaves, that is. i'd personally like to see copyright law overhauled a bit in the realm of creative intangible works, and for the artists to receive bigger cuts of the revenue they generate. i would hazard a guess that regardless of how this plays out, the artist will get screwed and clear channel and the riaa will cut a backdoor deal to ensure they both get their $$$. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-22-2007, 08:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
dirtyrascal7 That's what she said	Someday, the RIAA will start suing the artist themselves for not paying royalties to the record companies whenever they practice one of their own songs. And they'll form a SWAT team to take down bands playing copywrited music in their garages. __________________ "Tie yourself to your limitless potential, rather than your limiting past." "Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him."

05-22-2007, 08:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Cover bands will be next. FUCK THE RIAA __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

05-22-2007, 02:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	I find it amazing that anyone who works for the RIAA is able to sleep at night. __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

05-22-2007, 02:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fuck the riaa. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-22-2007, 04:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Oh, man.... This is exactly what we need to put the damn RIAA in its place--a good solid legal bitch-slap from Clear Channel. Not that I'm much of a Clear Channel fan either, but they're a much bigger outfit. Two monopolists colliding like this... it's like icebergs grinding against each other.

05-22-2007, 02:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	the royalties should go to the composer and the musicians, not to the publishers or the RIAA. that being said, however, I kinda take issue with this comment: "Mary Wilson, who with Diana Ross and Florence Ballard formed the original Supremes, said the exemption was unfair and forced older musicians to continue touring to pay their bills." waaaaaah...you mean you have to keep working instead of sitting on your fat ass and resting on what you did decades ago? gee, I wish I could get me a deal like that. Hell, I'll be lucky to be able to retire by the time I'm 70. And I just about guarantee that Mary Wilson made more in the 5 to 10 years of the Supremes heyday than I will in my entire life, despite that being some 40 years ago. __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

05-23-2007, 11:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	what are you talking about? it's ok for someone to take your work and make money off it but it's not ok for you to get a piece of their pie? that doesn't make any sense to me as for the riaa et al, this is one instance I'm slightly supportive of. at least the artists are in on it, too. it's not just the industry...but I have less sympathy for them than the artists. I wonder what it will do for radio, though. probably more commercials...lots more, longer, more stupid commercials. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-23-2007, 11:53 AM	#10 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	The same radio stations that by playing their music, get people who may not have previously heard their music, to buy their records. That is how and why the radio stations are exempt. Nobody puts tapes in their cars and records their favorite songs. If anything, the RIAA should pay the radio stations to promote their music. What would happen to their precious record sales if no radio station played their music??? __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

05-23-2007, 02:46 PM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I hope clear channel refuses to play their shitty music, and I not only hope that the RIAA breaks down, but there are laws passed to prevent it in the future. I'm pro union, but they have gone WAY too far.

05-24-2007, 03:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Are there any real, legal ways to break up the RIAA for good?

05-24-2007, 03:41 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm not talking about government-enforced termination. I'm talking about people fed up with the clear harm that the RIAA does, wanting to be able to stop something this big.

05-24-2007, 03:45 PM	#16 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. The first feeble idea that comes to mind is boycott. Massive boycott. I'm an indie bastard, so it'd be easy enough for me. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.