RIAA bailout radio tax approved
p2pnet news view Radio | P2P | Politics:- The RIAA comes across as an honest trade organisation representing thousands of separate US recording industry companies.
It’s responsible for producing statistics, ‘certifying’ attaboy awards for contracted performers who’ve made lots of money for the labels, arranging soirées so politicians can mix with, and be influenced by, vested interests. And so on.
RIAA is short for Recording Industry Association of America. But to all reasonable intents and purposes, it’s the official US mouthpiece and pseudo-police enforcement unit for three foreign companies, and one ostensibly American firm owned by investors headed up by a Canadian.
They are, in order of size »»»
- Vivendi Universal (France)
- Sony (Japan)
- EMI (Britain)
- Warner Music (US)
“RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States,” it boasts.
This may have been so when it was written back in the dark ages of the corporate recording business, but in the digital 21st century, it’s no longer true, or anywhere near it. And every day, the Big 4 haemorrhage more and more ‘consumers’ of corporate ‘product’.
Now, “Because the federal government apparently hasn’t helped the RIAA enough in the past century — despite repeatedly changing copyright laws to favor the industry again and again and again (and again) — the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the Performance Rights Act, which effectively serves to tax radio stations for promoting music,” says Mike Masnick on TechDirt, going on »»»
It’s quite obvious to anyone who actually understands radio economics that this makes no sense. After all, the history of radio has always been about payola — having the labels pay the radio stations to play certain works. That’s because the record labels know quite well that airtime leads to more money in terms of promoting an artist and building a business model around music, concert and merchandise sales. To the labels, airplay has always been the equivalent of advertising. That’s why they pay for it.
But now they want the radio stations to pay them to advertise the labels’ music? Isn’t that getting the equation backwards?
This is nothing more than a federal bailout of the RIAA, who still refuses to embrace new business models. Instead, they have to squeeze others and get the government to force them to hand over money. A real business model doesn’t involve changing the law. It involves giving others a reason to buy. Apparently, that’s too difficult for the RIAA.
As for the claims that a performance license will somehow help musicians, that’s bogus as well. First, ask the RIAA’s SoundExchange about all the money it keeps for itself and about all the musicians it “can’t find.” Besides, all this will do is harm up-and-coming musicians. Because radio stations will now need to pay more for playing music, they’ll play less music, and if they’re playing less music, they’ll focus just on the big name acts.
“Smaller up-and-coming artists should be furious with the RIAA for giving radio stations less incentive to play their works,” says Masnick, adding:
“Remember, this is the opposite of payola. While payola got new records on the air, this will make sure fewer get on the air. But it will sure put a bunch more money in the pockets of the major record labels …”
63 Comments | Leave a Comment.. 
Follow p2pnet on Twitter.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
TechDirt – Senate Judiciary Committee Approves RIAA Bailout Radio Tax, October 16, 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.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
We need to give the radio stations free music made by real people, not those plastic fill in the blank hip-hop tune artists that only want money. Then the RIAA will see the mistake they have made, because stations won’t pay to play chosen artists when there are thousands of people out there who would be willing to give them their creations for free. DJ’s would get back to being DJ’s where they chose the music that is played not the music industry. The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this one.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I truly hope that this totally backfires on the RIAA. After all, you can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before the blood loss kills you.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this one.”
Yep.
And the government is supplying the ammo.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
1% for, 99% against.
Count me in, I am FOR, if this backfires and radio plays less of RIAA music.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
dunno what if any good washingtonwatch.com can do about this but I did vote, and left comment on the bill.
somebody somewhere has got to stop stupid shit like this from making it into law!!
October 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I agree with RW above. I’m fundamentally against it, but I think if it comes to fruition, the stations turning to music from self-releasing or small-label bands can only be good.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Hello EVERYONE BUT AM/FM radio stations has to pay for performance rights. Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have to pay these fees but local broadcasters DON’T. This just brings the fees inline with what everyone is else is paying. You do know the NUMBER ONE opponent of this law is CLEAR CHANNEL aka the destroyers of local unique interesting radio stations. Don’t cry any tears for the massive radio conglomerates like CC, CBS Radio, Radio One,etc.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:10 am
“Don’t cry any tears for the massive radio conglomerates like CC, CBS Radio, Radio One,etc.”
I don’t necessarily have any interest in helping any of those corporations. However, they haven’t pissed me off as the RIAA has.
I guess this venomous public opinion is the price they pay for suing their customers.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend…. and all that cr*p.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Also…. the title of this article is misleading. It hasn’t been approved. It was introduced in the Senate. To be approved, it would have to passed by the House of Representatives, The Senate, and either signed into law by the president or 2/3 of congress would have to over ride a presidential veto.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:43 am
“Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have to pay these fees but local broadcasters DON’T.”
The explanation for that is simple:
The new generation of radio got shafted from the get-go. And, now, they want to use that scenario as part of the justification to shaft the business that got the ball rolling in the first place.
Sounds like classic backward logic to me.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:30 am
I work in Radio and I also have a stream and if Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have to pay these fees then broadcast radio should also.It’s just the way i feel about it.
But there may be a silver lining:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) gave hope to webcasters looking for royalty parity by suggesting that the Performance Rights Act, which passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, include a single standard to set royalties for all music services.
The Performance Rights Act would use the 801(b) standard to set royalty rates for broadcasters. Currently, Internet radio’s royalties are arbitrated using the “willing buyer, willing seller” model. Both the Senate and House versions of the Performance Rights Act leave out the fourth component of 801(b), “the factor that looks at the royalties to determine if they…will preserve the stability of the industries involved.” Feinstein said record labels objected to the inclusion of this component
October 19th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Guys, I really don’t understand what you are all crowing about.
I am pleased that Government are about to give the RIAA what they requested.
I do hope it passes the senate.
Although, I am minded of an old old saying,
Be careful of what you ask for, in case you get it.
You all know what to do – write to your senators etc….
Dear Member,
We think it is terrible that Radio stations get to play all that music for free.
We urge you to pass the bill.
I have to buy all my CD’s why shouldnt the radio stations?
Signed an ardent radio listener.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Read the fine print. This bill is nothing less than a Trojan Horse. Promoted as just compensation for starving artists, but in reality the record companies get the whole pie.
“SEC. 6. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ROYALTIES.
“(A) A featured recording artist who performs on a sound recording that has been licensed for public performance by means of an audio transmission shall be entitled to receive payments from the copyright owner of the sound recording in accordance with the terms of the artist’s contract.”
So the artists’ share of this “broadcast tax” will be whatever (if anything) the record label decides to give them.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am
@Thomas
You don’t have to pay every time you play one of your CD’s though… once you buy them you can play them as many times as you like without ever paying again (unless CD players become obsolete, or damaged, or exposed to sunlight for too long etc…)
October 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“You don’t have to pay every time you play one of your CD’s though”
Not always true.
According to SOCAN and the Copyright Board, if you use music as part of your business or functions
you must pay for a licence even if you don’t play Canadian music.
When you buy a CD at a record store, you have not paid the owners for the right to use their music in public. Only a SOCAN licence allows you to perform that CD in public.
If you purchase a CD for private use (e.g., playing it in your car) a licence is not required.
Also, if your CD gets damaged, and you purchase a blank CD-R to get a copy of what you already paid for, you are subject to a tariff of 21 cents (oops – it just got upped to 29 cents a few months ago) which goes to the Canadian Private Copying Collective.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Radios should boycott the RIAA just as we do. It will improve their rating because the air will no longer be polluted by all this shit.
If they make this tax mandatory we will have no choice but to get ride of the RIAA companies once and for all.
I dob’t understand why the RIAA companies should receive money while radios play my songs and not their crap.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Also, if your CD gets damaged, and you purchase a blank CD-R to get a copy of what you already paid for, you are subject to a tariff of 21 cents (oops – it just got upped to 29 cents a few months ago)”
This is why I no longer buy CD. I steal them.