RIAA goes batshit.

[Eric P]

Recording Industry Decries AM-FM Broadcasting as 'A Form of Piracy'
By David Kravets EmailJune 23, 2008 | 4:56:44 PMCategories: Intellectual Property 

Radio The recording industry and U.S. radio companies have squared off for decades about whether AM and FM radio broadcasters should pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels.

But now the debate is getting meaner; there's more at stake as the recording industry seeks new income avenues in the wake of wanton peer-to-peer piracy and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod and satellite radio. A U.S. House subcommittee could vote as early as Thursday on a royalty measure.

On Monday, the recording industry sent the National Association of Broadcasters -- the trade group representing the $16 billion a year AM-FM broadcasting business -- a can of herring to underscore that it believes its arguments against paying royalties are a red herring. The NAB says its members should not pay royalties because AM-FM radio "promotes" the music industry.

The herring present followed another gift -- a dictionary, a bid by the recording industry to explain what it saw as the difference between fees and taxes. The NAB describes the latest royalty proposal as a tax.

And two weeks ago, the recording industry, under the umbrella group musicFIRST, sent the NAB four digital downloads: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Broadcasting music without payment is akin to piracy, the industry says.

"It's a form of piracy, if you will, but not in the classic sense as we think of it," said Martin Machowsky, a musicFirst spokesman. "Today we gifted them a can of herring, about their argument that they provide promotional value. We think that's a red herring. Nobody listens to the radio for the commercials."

The coalition includes the Recording Industry Association of America, Society of Singers, Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Recording Academy and others.

The argument boils down to this: Radio is making billions off the backs of recording artists and their labels; and the recording artists gain invaluable exposure because they're on the radio, so royalties should not have to be paid.

A House subcommittee is expected to approve a royalty bill perhaps as early as Thursday. The measure, HR 4789, sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, would move to the full House Judiciary Committee -- legislation that the National Association of Broadcasters said would cost the industry as much as $7 billion annually.

An identical proposal, S 2500, is in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rates under both proposals would be negotiated, although small and public stations would pay a flat $5,000 annually.

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 songs.

That would change under both the Senate and House proposals. Composers and songwriters, however, do get AM-FM royalties, which are set under a complicated and negotiated rate.

"If it wasn't for radio play, most of the performers wouldn't be known," said Dennis Wharton, a NAB vice president.

The group says that free airplay generates as much as $2.4 billion a year for the recording industry.

Photo russbrady2

[Eric P]

this is HILARIOUS because of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

Payola, in the American music industry, is the illegal practice of payment or other inducement by record companies for the broadcast of recordings on music radio, in which the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast. Under US law, 47 U.S.C. § 317, a radio station can play a specific song in exchange for money, but this must be disclosed on the air as being sponsored airtime, and that play of the song should not be counted as a "regular airplay." The term has come to refer to any secret payment made to cast a product in a positive light (such as obtaining positive reviews).

Some radio stations report spins of the newest and most popular songs to industry publications. The number of times the songs are played can influence the perceived popularity of a song.

[Eric P]

no

in fact, it's quite the opposite

Labels used to (some say it still happens with hip hop radio) bribe DJs to play certain songs in attempts to make the acts larger, or to give them a greater audience.

[Rman]

The RIAA is crazy.  They are really grasping at straws.  Historically, they remind me of the railroad companies of old.

[Tauntaun]

the article says:

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 songs.

looking at the description of the ASCAP and the BMI on wikipedia everything seems to imply that they DO collect royalties from radio stations in the usa - just like the copyright collectives in other countries.

how come this article states the opposite? is there something i'm missing here?

i also don't understand how this makes the RIAA "batshit" or "insane" considering that the practice of paying and collecting royalties from radio broadcasts is common all over the world.

This is America dude. 

[muckhole]

the article says:

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 songs.

how come this article states the opposite? is there something i'm missing here?

i also don't understand how this makes the RIAA "batshit" or "insane" considering that the practice of paying and collecting royalties from radio broadcasts is common all over the world.

Here in Canada, for what it's worth, the DJ's only take a "sample log" from the day and submit it, ususally based on 1 random hour. If you're a big, known band you tend to make those logs more frequently than if you are an up-and-coming band due to less airplay. At least that's how it used to be. I assume they want every single song logged and paid for.

[T-Short]

the fun part is, that it's all done with sampling. Even though most UK stations have to submit their entire play list, random time slices would be used to determine who got what money. Some artists would get lucky and their shitty song would get played in a few samples and, despite being shite, they'd get a nice cut of the months royalties. Crazy systems agogo.

Well. The predominant distribution model for these organisations (the Swedish equivalent STIM, for instance) is not to compensate all the members (artists and songwriters) according to actual playtime on radio or in public places. Instead the distribution model is based on sales figures and cumulative airtime listings from radio. This model is then applied universally for both radio and broadcasting in public places, such as stores or restaurants. So, if you for instance own a small café where you like to play minimal techno mixes, you pay a license fee to STIM based on your public broadcast of music. But the major part of the monies will still go to the huge hit list artists and the established songwriters and publishers.

In 2007, STIM's income from license fees exceeded SEK 1 billion (US $165 million) for the first time. Still, out of the 21000 artists/songwriters compensated, 81% received less than SEK 5000 (US $826).

But hey, kids still want to be GEMA SCOUTS!!1!  

[Debaser]

the article says:

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 songs.

looking at the description of the ASCAP and the BMI on wikipedia everything seems to imply that they DO collect royalties from radio stations in the usa - just like the copyright collectives in other countries.

how come this article states the opposite? is there something i'm missing here?

Yes. In the next paragraph, it states that:

Composers and songwriters, however, do get AM-FM royalties, which are set under a complicated and negotiated rate.

That's what ASCAP and BMI are about--royalties for songwriters. The RIAA is mad because the labels/performers don't get a cut.

[Ganhyun]

thanks for pointing that out. i don't know how i missed that. i read the article several times looking for something like this 

i find it weird that they make the distinction between musicians/singers and composers. i don't remember it being like that with SUISA and GEMA. while singers and composers are listed seperately in their databases they all get a cut from the broadcasting royalties (if the form for registering a song is filled out accordingly at least). except for the label.

over here if they don't do it this way, the singers/composers/musicians dont ever really see that money. The RIAA/labels would take it all and give them pittance.

[Vizzys]

the article says:

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 songs.

looking at the description of the ASCAP and the BMI on wikipedia everything seems to imply that they DO collect royalties from radio stations in the usa - just like the copyright collectives in other countries.

how come this article states the opposite? is there something i'm missing here?

i also don't understand how this makes the RIAA "batshit" or "insane" considering that the practice of paying and collecting royalties from radio broadcasts is common all over the world.

This is America dude. 

beat me to it tauntaun

 

[Great Rumbler]

Regardless of the contents of the beef, the actual way they're going about this is clearly batshit. A tin of herring, a dictionary and four shitty digital downloads. WTF.

It's like Bizarro Christmas.

[Shuri]

does anyone have insight on how it work with djs? Like club dj doing sets? Do THEY have to pay or is its the issue for the club? How about touring djs? And how about djs who releases sets on the net for example.

[border]

looking at the description of the ASCAP and the BMI on wikipedia everything seems to imply that they DO collect royalties from radio stations in the usa - just like the copyright collectives in other countries.

I thought ASCAP was only for composers?

[T-Short]

does anyone have insight on how it work with djs? Like club dj doing sets? Do THEY have to pay or is its the issue for the club? How about touring djs? And how about djs who releases sets on the net for example.

In Sweden, the club has to pay. The compensation is distributed according to "statistically selected music reports from the area", which seems very vaguely defined, but used to consist of a few mainstream DJ:s sending in their playlists. STIM would then assume that the same tracks are played in all clubs   

[T-Short]

This is the actual info page for STIM (for composers). SAMI (for artists) didn't have an english page...

http://www.stim.se/stim/prod/stimv4eng.nsf/AllDocuments/CE2B0FBDFF4C51F8C12572E90029FC63

[Eric P]

yesterday i was going to post from the perspective of an American DJ, but my machine crashed

essentially, the dj doesn't keep any records.  the club just pays annually to riaa and composer one and then they're covered for whatever the DJs or Bands do for music.