deathofcheese
06-27-2008, 09:23
Wired Story (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/senate-committe.html)
!--
A house subcommittee approved legislation Thursday requiring AM-FM radio broadcasters to pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels, a proposal moving to the House Judiciary Committee and possibly soon to the U.S. House.
The measure (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawupdates.com%2Fpdf%2Fpostin gs%2Fcopyright%2FPerformance_Rights_Act.pdf&ei=fQlgSOfqOKCgeqz1nbwO&usg=AFQjCNE2XI_DwuW_5GeMe1QYlqHwkFdd8A&sig2=r7cD8C7tjq2CicdKo0EyHg), which broadcasters said could cost the radio broadcasting industry as much as $2.4 billion a year in royalties, is being pushed by the Recording Industry Association of America and other groups representing musical copyright holders.
For decades, the music business and broadcasters have lived in a symbiotic relationship when it came to compensating singers, musicians and labels. Royalties to them were not required by Congress because compensation was offset by the promotional value of radio. The music industry formerly believed radio play was so necessary that it paid broadcasters to play their music, a term known as payola (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501286.html).
But with the advent of widespread online music piracy, iTunes and internet and satellite radio, the music industry is looking to make money wherever it can -- while at the same time viewing free radio as less important to its business model.
In an interview (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/recording-indus.html) with Threat Level, an industry spokesman likened AM-FM broadcasters as pirates. For its part, the National Association of Broadcasters evoked a nationalistic sense of xenophobia -- the race card if you will (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/broadcasters-pl.html) -- by taking out an advertisement (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/performancetax.pdf) Thursday in D.C.-area publications blasting the royalties because they would go to overseas "foreign" recording companies.
Three of the Big Four recording companies are based outside of the United States.
"A loophole in the law lets AM and FM music radio stations earn $16 billion a year in advertising revenue without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial. It's not right. It's not fair and we are going to make sure it is changed," said Doyle Bartlett, executive director of the musicFIRST Coalition, which represents the RIAA and other intellectual property rights groups.
Dennis Wharton, a NAB vice president, said that, "Despite today's action, there remains broad bipartisan resistance to the RIAA tax from members of Congress who question whether a punitive fee on American's hometown radio stations should be used to bail out the failing business model of foreign-owned record labels."
As many as 219 House members have signed a non-binding resolution supporting the status quo.
Internet, cable and satellite broadcasters pay royalties to all participants involved. Singers, musicians and the labels get no royalties when AM-FM radio broadcasters air their performances.
Composers and songwriters, however, do get AM-FM royalties, which are set under a complicated and negotiated rate structure.
An identical AM-FM radio royalty measure (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2500) is pending in the Senate. Small and public stations would pay $5,000 annually, whereas larger stations would pay negotiated royalties under the proposals.
-->
While I appreciate both the notion of artists getting paid for use of their work and AM-FM stations being made to join their internet brethren (internet radio was made to pay royalties a couple years ago), I can't help but feel disgusted as it just sounds like RIAA-like groups demanding that they get their usual cut from someplace else. While it doesn't seem like this would break any FM radio stations (according to the article, radio stations get some $16 billion in advertising revenue while the royalties would only be from $5000 - for smaller and other independent stations - to negotiated fees - for much larger stations that have amazing advertising rackets), it just seems immensely greedy. If the industry groups want their money back, why not stop paying the stations payola (look it up or see the article above) and just let the stations gradually adopt music as it comes out?
It also seems to me that this would affect the pop, rap and more "current" stations than it would, say, classic rock stations, classic country, public radio, etc. There's not really much new stuff that comes out (except maybe on public radio and some of the "new music" shows that you can get on the classic stations), so does the concept of payola even make sense? Royalties still apply, sure, but I doubt that the music industry would be trying to pay to get certain music heard when that music was "new" many years ago.
How do you guys feel about this? What are your thoughts on royalties and the radio/intellectual property discussion?
!--
A house subcommittee approved legislation Thursday requiring AM-FM radio broadcasters to pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels, a proposal moving to the House Judiciary Committee and possibly soon to the U.S. House.
The measure (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawupdates.com%2Fpdf%2Fpostin gs%2Fcopyright%2FPerformance_Rights_Act.pdf&ei=fQlgSOfqOKCgeqz1nbwO&usg=AFQjCNE2XI_DwuW_5GeMe1QYlqHwkFdd8A&sig2=r7cD8C7tjq2CicdKo0EyHg), which broadcasters said could cost the radio broadcasting industry as much as $2.4 billion a year in royalties, is being pushed by the Recording Industry Association of America and other groups representing musical copyright holders.
For decades, the music business and broadcasters have lived in a symbiotic relationship when it came to compensating singers, musicians and labels. Royalties to them were not required by Congress because compensation was offset by the promotional value of radio. The music industry formerly believed radio play was so necessary that it paid broadcasters to play their music, a term known as payola (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501286.html).
But with the advent of widespread online music piracy, iTunes and internet and satellite radio, the music industry is looking to make money wherever it can -- while at the same time viewing free radio as less important to its business model.
In an interview (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/recording-indus.html) with Threat Level, an industry spokesman likened AM-FM broadcasters as pirates. For its part, the National Association of Broadcasters evoked a nationalistic sense of xenophobia -- the race card if you will (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/broadcasters-pl.html) -- by taking out an advertisement (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/performancetax.pdf) Thursday in D.C.-area publications blasting the royalties because they would go to overseas "foreign" recording companies.
Three of the Big Four recording companies are based outside of the United States.
"A loophole in the law lets AM and FM music radio stations earn $16 billion a year in advertising revenue without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial. It's not right. It's not fair and we are going to make sure it is changed," said Doyle Bartlett, executive director of the musicFIRST Coalition, which represents the RIAA and other intellectual property rights groups.
Dennis Wharton, a NAB vice president, said that, "Despite today's action, there remains broad bipartisan resistance to the RIAA tax from members of Congress who question whether a punitive fee on American's hometown radio stations should be used to bail out the failing business model of foreign-owned record labels."
As many as 219 House members have signed a non-binding resolution supporting the status quo.
Internet, cable and satellite broadcasters pay royalties to all participants involved. Singers, musicians and the labels get no royalties when AM-FM radio broadcasters air their performances.
Composers and songwriters, however, do get AM-FM royalties, which are set under a complicated and negotiated rate structure.
An identical AM-FM radio royalty measure (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2500) is pending in the Senate. Small and public stations would pay $5,000 annually, whereas larger stations would pay negotiated royalties under the proposals.
-->
While I appreciate both the notion of artists getting paid for use of their work and AM-FM stations being made to join their internet brethren (internet radio was made to pay royalties a couple years ago), I can't help but feel disgusted as it just sounds like RIAA-like groups demanding that they get their usual cut from someplace else. While it doesn't seem like this would break any FM radio stations (according to the article, radio stations get some $16 billion in advertising revenue while the royalties would only be from $5000 - for smaller and other independent stations - to negotiated fees - for much larger stations that have amazing advertising rackets), it just seems immensely greedy. If the industry groups want their money back, why not stop paying the stations payola (look it up or see the article above) and just let the stations gradually adopt music as it comes out?
It also seems to me that this would affect the pop, rap and more "current" stations than it would, say, classic rock stations, classic country, public radio, etc. There's not really much new stuff that comes out (except maybe on public radio and some of the "new music" shows that you can get on the classic stations), so does the concept of payola even make sense? Royalties still apply, sure, but I doubt that the music industry would be trying to pay to get certain music heard when that music was "new" many years ago.
How do you guys feel about this? What are your thoughts on royalties and the radio/intellectual property discussion?