Comments on: RIAA bailout radio tax approved

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:38:04 +0000

“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 â it just got upped to 29 cents a few months ago)”

This is why I no longer buy CD. I steal them.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:26:12 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:36:13 +0000

“You donât have to pay every time you play one of your CDâs 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.

By: Rabbit80

Rabbit80 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:54:37 +0000

@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…)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:20:34 +0000

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.

By: Thomas Koltai

Thomas Koltai — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:47 +0000

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.

By: Gr8oldies

Gr8oldies — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:30:31 +0000

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 radioâs royalties are arbitrated using the âwilling buyer, willing sellerâ model. Both the Senate and House versions of the Performance Rights Act leave out the fourth component of 801(b), âthe factor that looks at the royalties to determine if theyâ¦will preserve the stability of the industries involved.â Feinstein said record labels objected to the inclusion of this component

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:43:44 +0000

“Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have to pay these fees but local broadcasters DONâT.”

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.

By: EE

EE — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:17:36 +0000

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.

By: EE

EE — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:10:46 +0000

“Donât 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.

By: TimC

TimC — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:19:53 +0000

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.

By: RadialSkid

RadialSkid — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:28:49 +0000

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.

By: NO1UNO

NO1UNO — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:17:14 +0000

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!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:14:04 +0000

1% for, 99% against.

Count me in, I am FOR, if this backfires and radio plays less of RIAA music.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:58:19 +0000

“The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this one.”

Yep.
And the government is supplying the ammo.

By: Irate Pirate

Irate Pirate — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:52:15 +0000

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.

By: Jack Sprat

Jack Sprat — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:34:40 +0000

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.