REEK BROCK
MR. LAST WORD
Here's an article I read. What's your take on it.
"When the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) isn't busy suing kids for piracy, it's out looking for ways to make up for quarter after quarter of sickly CD sales.
Its new plan is to collect more copyright royalties from radio. Already this year, the RIAA was instrumental in getting dramatically higher royalty rates for Internet radio stations passed by the Copyright Royalty Board. Now it's going after the old-school terrestrial radio stations. The RIAA will try to change the law so that traditional broadcast radio stations pay performance royalties for the songs they play, the LA Times reports.
Broadcast radio stations have long enjoyed a federal exemption from paying the fees, based on the common belief that radio helps sell records. The RIAA is now saying, in effect, that it doesn't believe in the promotional power of radio. It just wants the money.
This move touches directly the struggle of Net radio stations against their new royalty rates increase, which is set to go into effect July 15. One of Net Radio's main arguments in Washington has been that webcasters are forced to pay performance royalties while traditional broadcast stations do not. So much for that.
Who knows if the RIAA will have the lobbying chops to get the terrestrial radio stations' royalties exemption lifted. They'll have to square off against the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents both TV and radio broadcasters, and has an equally strong lobby in the Capital.
Of course the RIAA's mantra remains that it's only acting on behalf of artists. It chooses its public-facing spokespeople accordingly. This time it's even drug out an old Supreme, Mary Wilson, to cry (baby blue make-up running under boom lights) about having to keep on playing Indian bingo palaces at 63 because she never gets a taste of the those sweet radio royalties.
"The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales," moans RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol in the LA Times piece.
It's true that the RIAA's SoundExchange does collect royalties for artist-copyright owners. But c'mon. If you've had any direct dealings with record labels (as I have), you know that recording contracts are set up so that the artists are usually the last ones to get paid. Sometimes the artist ends up owing money to the label. So give me a break with that "we represent artists" stuff.
The reason the RIAA set up SoundExchange in the first place was to collect revenues for its member labels. And the labels, not the artists, are certainly behind this new (desperate) tactic, too."
What would happen if they charge radio to play songs? hmmm.....
"When the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) isn't busy suing kids for piracy, it's out looking for ways to make up for quarter after quarter of sickly CD sales.
Its new plan is to collect more copyright royalties from radio. Already this year, the RIAA was instrumental in getting dramatically higher royalty rates for Internet radio stations passed by the Copyright Royalty Board. Now it's going after the old-school terrestrial radio stations. The RIAA will try to change the law so that traditional broadcast radio stations pay performance royalties for the songs they play, the LA Times reports.
Broadcast radio stations have long enjoyed a federal exemption from paying the fees, based on the common belief that radio helps sell records. The RIAA is now saying, in effect, that it doesn't believe in the promotional power of radio. It just wants the money.
This move touches directly the struggle of Net radio stations against their new royalty rates increase, which is set to go into effect July 15. One of Net Radio's main arguments in Washington has been that webcasters are forced to pay performance royalties while traditional broadcast stations do not. So much for that.
Who knows if the RIAA will have the lobbying chops to get the terrestrial radio stations' royalties exemption lifted. They'll have to square off against the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents both TV and radio broadcasters, and has an equally strong lobby in the Capital.
Of course the RIAA's mantra remains that it's only acting on behalf of artists. It chooses its public-facing spokespeople accordingly. This time it's even drug out an old Supreme, Mary Wilson, to cry (baby blue make-up running under boom lights) about having to keep on playing Indian bingo palaces at 63 because she never gets a taste of the those sweet radio royalties.
"The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales," moans RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol in the LA Times piece.
It's true that the RIAA's SoundExchange does collect royalties for artist-copyright owners. But c'mon. If you've had any direct dealings with record labels (as I have), you know that recording contracts are set up so that the artists are usually the last ones to get paid. Sometimes the artist ends up owing money to the label. So give me a break with that "we represent artists" stuff.
The reason the RIAA set up SoundExchange in the first place was to collect revenues for its member labels. And the labels, not the artists, are certainly behind this new (desperate) tactic, too."
What would happen if they charge radio to play songs? hmmm.....
