Now RIAA considers AM and FM radio piracy...

[Texsox]

Two words

 

Government.Bailout.

 

Any idea how many people they employ? It has to be a dwindling number, which, along with national security, drives many bailouts.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And I still believe looking around at companies (not individuals) who are making millions off of your products without paying a fee, seems like a logical step that an industry group would take.

 

If I was in charge, the forst logical step would be to blow up the existing entity and then reform as a non-profit industry advocacy group.

 

The next step would be for RIAA and every non-artist to publicly concede that we are all eunuchs at the orgy, and that we have jobs and the industry exists solely because of the talents and creativity of the artists.

 

Then we go from there.

 

[mreye]

If I was in charge, the forst logical step would be to blow up the existing entity and then reform as a non-profit industry advocacy group.

 

The next step would be for RIAA and every non-artist to publicly concede that we are all eunuchs at the orgy, and that we have jobs and the industry exists solely because of the talents and creativity of the artists.

 

Then we go from there.

 

Ha ha, Jim. Like that would ever happen. In any industry.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Ha ha, Jim. Like that would ever happen. In any industry.

 

I guess that's why I'm not calling the shots.

[Texsox]

I guess that's why I'm not calling the shots.

 

I think you have it backwards. The industry has to form the group. Industry groups do not usually form then find someone to represent. I think they are smart in realizing that they are no longer manufacturers, or at the minimum it is a shrinking portion of the industry. They get downloads, legal and illegal, will ultimately make commercial manufacturing as a boutique item. People will download into their devices.

 

How people compensate the artists for their efforts is the issue. Free sharing will virtually stop consumers from actually paying the artists via sales. It is too difficult to police millions of users. So where will artists earn a living? It would seem logical for companies who make money using the artists songs to be paying the artists. So radio stations, would be the logical target. And will radio stations negotiate with thousands of artists or will they negotiate through record companies and/or an organization representing record companies? Seems like the simplest and most logical is an umbrella group that can negotiate a consistent program for a lot of members. What the companies will then be doing is aggressively marketing their artists to the record companies to earn income for them and their artists. I just do not see individual bands remaining independent outlets like iTunes and Amazon negotiating with every kid in a band for distribution.

 

It might not be the RIAA, it may be artists direct, but down the lines, radio stations, like TV shows, Advertisers, movies, etc. will be paying someone for the songs they play. When CSI plays a Who song, they pay. Why shouldn't a radio station? When a movie uses a song, they pay, why not a radio station?

[BobDylan]

That's what I was thinking when I read the article. It does seem fair to me. Jim's post makes a lot of sense until you start to think about people making millions off your work and you getting zero, that just doesn't make sense to me either. If the industry allows the free broadcast ~and~ the free downloading and sharing, how are the artist making a living?

 

They make money from live gigs. Very few artists hit it big from their record sales. The biggest tell of this was when "Oink" got shut down. You had artists come out and admit they were members of the site, then scream bulls***. Most bands/artists are lucky to make enough out of album royalties to pay their light bill. Most of the bands complaining about piracy already have stuffed pockets, and they just want more. And yet, there are a number of bands that do make good money from album sales, not supporting the RIAA. Radiohead gave their last album away for free, for instance. The RIAA knows they have a lot to lose, and they do, but music doesn't.

Edited June 27, 2008 by BobDylan

[BobDylan]

 When CSI plays a Who song, they pay. Why shouldn't a radio station? When a movie uses a song, they pay, why not a radio station?

 

Not always true. A specific example I can bring up is the OC played a Kings of Convenience song, then put it on their soundtrack in record stores, and didn't as little as let the band members of the Kings of Convenience know. They were outraged, but they didn't get compensated. 

[Texsox]

Not always true. A specific example I can bring up is the OC played a Kings of Convenience song, then put it on their soundtrack in record stores, and didn't as little as let the band members of the Kings of Convenience know. They were outraged, but they didn't get compensated.

Link? Are you saying that OC could just take any song and make a soundtrack without compensating the artist?

[bmags]

They make money from live gigs. Very few artists hit it big from their record sales. The biggest tell of this was when "Oink" got shut down. You had artists come out and admit they were members of the site, then scream bulls***. Most bands/artists are lucky to make enough out of album royalties to pay their light bill. Most of the bands complaining about piracy already have stuffed pockets, and they just want more. And yet, there are a number of bands that do make good money from album sales, not supporting the RIAA. Radiohead gave their last album away for free, for instance. The RIAA knows they have a lot to lose, and they do, but music doesn't.

 

not for free, for whatever you wished to pay... so for me...$1.80

 

but I also bought the album in stores.

 

I payed $5.00 for girl talk.

[juddling]

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, 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.

 

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 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 -- by taking out an advertisement 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 is pending in the Senate. Small and public stations would pay $5,000 annually, whereas larger stations would pay negotiated royalties under the proposals.

 

 

link

[BobDylan]

Link? Are you saying that OC could just take any song and make a soundtrack without compensating the artist?

It was never printed by news outlets that I'm aware of, but I can go digging through their message board to find the post if you'd like. (They're somewhat active posters there.)

 

 

 

[Texsox]

It was never printed by news outlets that I'm aware of, but I can go digging through their message board to find the post if you'd like. (They're somewhat active posters there.)

 

Let me see if I understand what happened. The OC just snagged one of KoC songs and used it without prior permission? Just out of nowhere? That seems illegal.