The RIAA’s bogus radio witchhunt
p2pnet news view Radio | RIAA:- Earlier in the year year, “MusicFirst, a lobbying group that is run by the RIAA and pushing for a special tax on radio stations for daring to promote songs, came out with its latest in a long list of bizarre claims, demanding that the FCC investigate the fact that radio stations were supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the Performance Royalty tax,” says Mike Masnick on TechDirt, continuing »»»
There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was “a kind of piracy” for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.
So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it’s piracy. If it doesn’t play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.
Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell… well… pretty much every radio station around.
That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn’t happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.
And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it’s quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.
Based on this, you’d, “hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition,” says Masnic, adding, “but tragically, it’s opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott).
“The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that’s the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?”
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
TechDirt – Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA’s Bogus Radio Witchhunt?, August 11, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
What was the punishment during witch-hunt times for those who falsely accused another of witchery?
Perhaps there is some modern, legal equivalent and it can be applied to MusicFirst?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Since when did radio stations NOT have the right to play whatever music they want?
August 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Here is another proof of how DEEP the corporate suckers want to mess up with our FREEDOM…
August 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
There is two ways radio could stop all this BS:
#1-Stop playing RIAA music altogether and just play the indies
#2- Start charging the RIAA and it’s member labels for promotion of their music just like they do for commercials
I know some industry experts say the latter would backfire on radio but I personally don’t think it would. and as far as just playing the indie music it would kill the classic rock/oldies stations but maybe if it did the public outcry would bring attention to these assholes.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
again a copyright group spewing nonsense and disinformation without any real evidence to back up what they accuse/demand.
musicfirst should be more upfront about their intentions and change their name to moneyfirst. i would love to know how these people who run these sham orgs. spend their free time at home when no one is looking. i never thought the 1st amendment would be torched due to copyright laws. should i be sad or should i be angry?
August 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
@deadboy
Be both, but not silently.
@Jon
OK – Where can I get a list of the Brainiacs behind this BS? If I am going to start kicking ass and taking names, I gotta start with the names. I will begin by sending polite but firm and informative letters to the appropriate department heads as well as the politically infulential and attempt to make a nuisance of myself until someone listens (ever see “The Shawshank Redemption”?)