The RIAA has reached a new low

Started by The_DARK, Jun 30, 2008, 01:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

The DARK

Jun 30, 2008, 01:29 PM
In another time, in another place, in another face

Angry Ewok

#1
Jun 30, 2008, 01:33 PM
Recording Industry Calls Radio 'A Kind Of Piracy'
from the and-mocks-broadcasters dept

It would appear that the recording industry now likes to call any sort of business model it doesn't like "piracy." At least that's the only explanation I can come up with in its latest battle, where it has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "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.

Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.
--- and that's 2 real 4 u.

megalicious

#2
Jun 30, 2008, 02:16 PM
this is such bs. i heard about this bill passing in the house thursday, and have been pretty pissed about it since.

people still listen to radio, and they're exposed to new music--which they'll buy. we're already compensating the artists by givng them that exposure.

piracy my ass. i already pay an exorbitant amount to BMI and ASACAP for the rights to the songs we play on the air. so why should i have to pay the artists, too? sounds like the labels need to come up with a better business plan instead of biting the hand that feeds them.

this is so unfair, especially to small, independently-owned stations like mine.

please tell your senators to support the local radio freedom act instead!
all facts begin as dreams dreamt by the wizard

Angry Ewok

#3
Jun 30, 2008, 02:27 PM
If radio pays the record company for their properties... then shouldn't the record company be paying the artists their cut of the royalties?
--- and that's 2 real 4 u.

tomEisenbraun

#4
Jun 30, 2008, 08:50 PM
QuoteIf radio pays the record company for their properties... then shouldn't the record company be paying the artists their cut of the royalties?

Don't you bring that kind of logic in here, young man!
The river is moving. The blackbird must be flying.

Sticky Icky Green Stuff

#5
Jun 30, 2008, 10:10 PM
they should just give up now and save the lawyer fees.  

"ain't nobody care what's going on in your mind
but they got they eye on your prize..."
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions