Radio May Have To Pay To Play

devjj writes "Ars Technica reports that Congress is considering two bills that will remove the exemption terrestrial radio broadcasters currently enjoy that allows them to broadcast music without compensating the artists or labels for it. In the current dispensation only songwriters get paid. The National Association of Broadcasters is furious at the RIAA, which is pushing repeal of the exemptions, and has responded by agreeing that artists need better compensation — and is asking Congress to investigate modern recording contracts. "

This is an old tune:

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you

Nobody knows where my moolah has gone
But total control left the same time
Why were they streaming these songs
Pay us or pay a big fine

It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you

Then all my records keep dancing all night
But leave me alone for a while
'Til money's dancing in my wallet
I've got no reason to smile

It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you

NAB and the listener just walked thru the door
Like a queen with her king
Oh what a birthday surprise
NAB's wearing his MP3 thing

It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you

Oh-oh-oh It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to.....

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Um, Congress is also considering a law for compensating the RIAA for writing the lyrics to the music too. Even as much as in parody. Buck up!

It's their Congress
They'll do what they want to
Do what they want to
But they'll never do it for you...

Re:This is an old tune:

[TubeSteak (669689)]

::knock knock:: :Hands smitty_one_each an envelope:
You now owe $3,750 to Mercury Records and 1/10 of a cent to the songwriter Lesley Gore.
You've been served.

Re:

[jedidiah (1196)]

Actually, the songwriter gets a pretty decent cut. If you only
write songs and don't have to produce albums it can be a pretty
cushy gig. You get income but you don't have to become indebted
to the labels for all of those recording costs.

Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance.

[siyavash (677724)]

This is good in my humble opinion, perhaps it is time for radio to stop playing RIAA's JUNK and start playing REAL music from REAL artists and compensate them directly without the MA****... er, I mean the record companies as middle hand..

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[vortigern00 (443602)]

And here is an example of what I always tell people about myself -- that my mind is open and I can change opinions the instant I see my old one is wrong.

When I first read this article my only thought was "goodbye college radio"... but your point is so very true. This will shoot the 'AAs squarely in the foot. Radio stations can't afford to pay for music. Even ClearChannel etc won't pony up for this. This may just clear the way to get the forest of unwanted garbage music out of our face so we can see the few trees of good music that are out there!

Sorry, I'll come up with a better metaphor after my coffee...

-Vort

Re:

[idobi (820896)]

You're confusing performance royalties with copyright royalties. All radio stations, Canadian and US, pay performance royalties - about 1.7% of revenue. College stations typically pay a flat fee of $450/year. RIAA wants stations to pay, in addition to performance royalties, copyright royalties of about 7.5% of revenue - with low income stations paying $5000/year.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[multisync (218450)]

You've got it backwards. All stations - Terrestrial and over-the-air - pay royalties to the copyright holder of the song itself. These royalties are paid to organizations like ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com], who then distribute the money to the songwriter. The royalties this article discusses are collected by SoundExchange [soundexchange.com] on behalf of the copyright holder of the "performance" of the song (ie the recording the radio station plays). This copyright is generally held by the record company.

Terrestrial stations have so far been exempt from paying the performance royalties, but it looks like that may change.

In-Studio Performances

[cappadocius (555740)]

This copyright [on performances] is generally held by the record company.

This is true for the radio single version of a song, but is not universally true. There will be some performances that are owned not by the record company but by the radio station. When an artist is on tour, drops by the local radio station to plug their album and performs an in-studio version of their song, that copyright can easily end up going to the radio station.

What passage of this bill might mean is that such recordings owned by the radio stations would become more important. You'd end up hearing more "exclusive tracks" and I can easily see radio stations deciding to play an artist or not based on their willingness to provide them with non-RIAA owned performances. And I can easily see radio stations in different markets setting up trade deals that would give them access to each other's in-studio performances.

At that point, I imagine the RIAA probably tries some sort of counter-shenanigans like stipulating in artists' contracts that they have to assign the copyright for all performances to their record company.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[kellyb9 (954229)]

Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[sm62704 (957197)]

doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?

Are you kidding? Who would buy that crap after actually hearing it?

No, they want you to pay and keep paying

[spun (1352)]

They want everyone to pay every time they listen to or even think of a song. Hookers and blow aren't cheap.

You can look forward to LOTS MORE

[crovira (10242)]

talk show programs (just like "unscripted reality shows" [Oh please, no]) filling the air waves.

The money train's coming to the end of the tracks boys. (No more snorting blow out of a naked hooker's navel.)

It may suck to be us for a little while, but Mullah Omar may be getting his wish after all: "A world without music."

The advertisers who are stuck paying for it all won't mind in the least. (Hell. Truck and beer and during a show about trucks and beer. What a winner!)

The audiences who are stuck with listening to it all won't mind in the least.

Look for the sale of hands-free headsets to go up so "Tucker Tom" can talk back to the radio because they'll have made room to the "Trucker Tom"s of the world.

The price we're stuck with for the **AAs is about to come crashing down because the broadcasters don't have to broadcast music.

Once the broadcasters are on the program, the audiences will realize that instead of wanting them just for their ears and their wallets, the broadcasters will want them for what the audience can contribute.

But the price structure will still be in place, like a bottle of foul tasting hangover remedy, to remind us all of the period in time when billions of pennies were siphoned from all of our pockets and drained into the vast bulging pockets of a very few.

We'll just have to call the music by some other name. (Its happened before, English didn't exist except as utterances spoken by Shakespeare and 'groked' by the audiences to his plays.)

No to sound apocalyptic, but its all coming to an end because its all going 'round again.

Re:

[flitty (981864)]

What about a compromise? Why must it be all or nothing? How about this:

Drop the yearly fee from say $5,000 down to $2,500. New artists/indie artists get played for free, since the radio doesn't want to pay for a band that could flop when they are expected to suceed (Like Zwan, or Flyleaf, or Paramore, etc). Then any band that goes platinum on a single record (or 750,000 of 2 albums, or some scale like that), then you can charge $.05 for each play. That builds-in a $2,500 allowance, or about 50,000 p

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[Shakrai (717556)]

perhaps it is time for radio to stop playing RIAA's JUNK

Ya know, I hear this theme every single time there is a story related to the recording industry/file sharing/copyright/etc. RIAA music sucks! It's all pop crap! Listen to indie artists!

Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members. In fact I'm hard pressed to think of a genre of music that doesn't have at least one or two prominent bands/artists signed to RIAA members.

Point being that it's kind of stupid to say that all RIAA music sucks just because we find their business practices abhorrent and unethical. I do my best to avoid giving RIAA money (I never buy CDs or directly pay for music) but they doubtless still make some off me (Pandora pays them royalties). I hope that more artists follow a direct to the customer model (Radiohead is giving it a try) and I think that overtime the big labels will become less relevant. In the meantime though I'm not going to avoid music that I like.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[The Yuckinator (898499)]

Sorry, but artists just like NICKLEBACK are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[vistic (556838)]

I consider myself a music lover, and I think most of the artists I like are signed to Metropolis Records [industrial-music.com]. I e-mailed them once about their RIAA affiliation and they promptly replied to inform me that they are in no way a part of the RIAA.

Avoiding the RIAA is an option, and it's one I apparently started to take even before I was aware of it.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[qortra (591818)]

I think you're right that RIAA endorsed labels do have many respectable bands signed, unfortunately. However - and I don't mean to insult your taste here - You should be aware that Nickelback is almost certainly the kind of [RIAA crap] band that the grandparent was talking about. Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity, at least in the circles in which I run. There was the Digg story a while back that pointed to this interesting site: evidence of similarities between Nickelback songs [thewebshite.net]. Regardless of whether you like them or not, they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio. Anyway keep up the good analysis; just use better examples like Radiohead (which you also used). They are distributing In Rainbows under a label associated with the RIAA according to RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com].

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[sootman (158191)]

Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity... they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio

Someday, there will be a thread about the RIAA without all this elitist bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH POP? I like meatloaf, bubblegum, McDonald's hamburgers, pizza, Mountain Dew, and pop music. Music is not the center of my life, nor is it the apex of the arts. It's enjoyable noise that makes my commute more pleasant. You don't like pop? Fine. The rest of the world does. Not because it's what's been forced down their throats, but because they didn't study enough to learn that they're not supposed to like it--whatever the fuck that means.

Go find a classical music snob and ask him what he thinks about the music you like. ("Radiohead? HA!") While you're at it, ask a chef what he thinks of your dinner selection, a car enthusiast what he thinks of your ride, and the unwashed masses of Slashdot about your operating environment and text editor of choice. Maybe send these folks [typepad.com] a picture of what you're wearing right now. There is no dispute concerning taste. [google.com] (And I refer to the Latin form of that phrase not because I'm a language snob but to make the point that this idea has been around for a long, long time.) And while you're out gathering all these opinions (as if they matter), I highly recommend hitting a bookstore (NOT a video store) and checking out High Fidelity. [wikipedia.org]

Note that this doesn't mean I like the RIAA's tactics, but that's unrelated to what they happen to sell. They could sell bottled water, or own baseball teams, or make operating systems and office suites--they'd behave the same way and they'd still be assholes for doing it.

Ask yourself this: pick any band you like. Imagine they get picked up by the RIAA. Does that make their music bad? Imagine they become unexpectedly, insanely popular and spawn a whole new world of music, Sprite ads, flannel-based fashion, and extreme sports. [wikipedia.org] Does that make their music bad?

If your reflex is to tell me "Nirvana really sucked, Pearl Jam and Soundagarden were the real geniuses" then you're missing my point--ignore the band I chose as an example. Just imagine any band you like in their place.

PS: I'm not picking on you in particular. I could have replied to any of a dozen posts in this thread.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[elrous0 (869638)]

the bands that I like (Nickelback)

I hate you.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[The Ultimate Fartkno (756456)]

> Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap.

Heresy.

All popular music is worthless. If anyone with a clean shirt and a decent haircut has heard of a band, then they're over-processed sellout pop shit for teenagers. It's a scientifically proven fact that the worth of a band is inversely proportional to the number of records they've sold. That's why The Beatles are the worst band in history and quality music peaked when G.G. Allin shoved a Sennheiser up his ass after a baked bean dinner.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[by Anonymous Coward]

Worst. Example. Ever.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[Hatta (162192)]

Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members.

Hey, has anyone mentioned that Nickleback sucks? No? Well then, FYI, Nickleback sucks.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[badasscat (563442)]

And that is the way it should be. Bands should be propped up for any reason. They should get by on talent alone.

Ah, I remember when I was 20 and an idealist...

How is a band intended to "get by on talent alone" when nobody can hear your music? There are about 50,000 bands in every state in the US. Why should any given person listen to any one of them over any other? It would take you years just to sit through the cruft to get to a single band worth following.

I give you Bjork as a prefect example of propped shit.

Bjork was part of one of these non-RIAA bands that people like you espouse. I'm sure if it was 1985 you'd be on here talking about how we should all be buying Sugarcubes albums and boycotting the RIAA. That's the problem with idealism; reality has a different dogma. She signed to a major label as soon as she was able to, and her fans continued to follow her regardless. Nothing much about the music changed that couldn't be attributed to 20 years worth of age. Only the label changed.

So when your favorite current indie band signs to a major, will you call them "artificially propped up"? Will their music suddenly suck? Will they suddenly be really boring live? No-talent hacks...

It's pretty ridiculous to indict an entire range of artists simply because of the record label they're signed to. Talk about blind stereotyping... that's supposedly what music idealists like yourself are so against.

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[sacrilicious (316896)]

Point being that it's kind of stupid to say that all RIAA music sucks just because we find their business practices abhorrent and unethical.

Nobody asserts that the RIAA music sucks because their business practices are abhorrent/repugnant/unethical. Instead, the general assertion is that

• (a) the fact that the majority of RIAA music sucks, and
• (b) the fact that many find the RIAA's biz practices repellent

are not causal of each other in either direction, but are both symptomatic of (i.e. caused by)

• (c) The RIAA's biz practices are emergent from and driven by blind greed, the soulessness of which is -- functionally speaking -- a terrible fit for the goal of producing artistic works of value, due to some of the intrinsic properties of artistry itself

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[betterunixthanunix (980855)]

We should compensate artists, but there is a problem with that: when the artist starts getting big, somebody has to step in and help, and they have to get paid. The existence of a record company is understandable; what is not understandable is a record company making more money than the artist they are publishing. Of course, that can all change with the existence of the Internet, CD burners, and digital music players, since distribution does not have to cost millions of dollars anymore. Unfortunately, as with so many cases, trying to sweep away a large, established industry that makes their money from out-of-date technology ("technology" in the economic sense), is almost impossible.

With all our modern technology, though, musicians could make money with only one or two guys helping them with distribution, even worldwide distribution, and take home a much larger percentage of the profit. As long as a quiet place to record the music can be located, even someone with almost no financial backing could potentially sell a lot of music. If only there weren't people fighting such ideas...

Re:

[innerweb (721995)]

when the artist starts getting big, somebody has to step in and help, and they have to get paid.

How about when the artists start getting big, they have to pay somebody else. Then the money flows from the artist to the support (distribution, marketing, etc) and the artist gets paid if there is any left over from an employer's standpoint. This will actually help keep things much more honest, and force artists to use the system that works (for distribution) instead of the broken ones.

This arrangement w

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[StarvingSE (875139)]

Does it not seem like the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this? I always thought one of the main points of playing tunes on the radio was advertising for the artists, enticing people to buy the whole album.

If people stop hearing new songs on the radio, then the RIAA will really see a dip in CD sales. This is just more proof that the RIAA is way out of touch with how the market works.

I had the same initial reaction, but then...

[BenEnglishAtHome (449670)]

...I read TFA. It says the payments are to be in the form of a flat fee, per station, per year. That means that if a radio station wants to be able to ever play any RIAA-artist music, even just once a year, they have to pay the same fee as a station that plays the stuff all the time. Given that circumstance, there's no special motivation to seek out non-RIAA artists.

Of course, the article is short. The actual text of the bill may include a pay-per-play option that would encourage stations to drop most RIAA-artist music while still retaining the ability to play a bit of it, on occasion. I don't know because I haven't read the bill so, as always, the devil's in the details.

Somehow, I doubt an RIAA-backed bill would include a sensible measure like this, though. Even they aren't stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that. Are they?

Anybody got a link to the actual bill text?

Re:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[ByOhTek (1181381)]

Yes, but not in the way you think.

They'll start charging more per-play for the top 40 stuff because they can.
That top 40 stuff will loose air time for the cheaper stuff
The cheaper stuff, with more air time, will become more popular, raising it's price to play...
rinse-repeat

Over all, I think this will ad variety to music played on the radio, as the companies are force, due to expenses, to play more obscure music.

This could actually help a little

[elrous0 (869638)]

Finally, we have someone with a little actual power fighting the RIAA. Sadly, the RIAA will probably just back down in the end. But it would be nice if the broadcasters used this case to encourage Congress to take a good hard look at the heavy-handed tactics used by the RIAA in general in recent years.

Sadly, this is a no-win case in Congress either way. With Republicans in the hands of big business and Democrats in the hands of Hollywood, the possibility of anyone looking out for the consumer is pretty much nil. Calls for reform usually only end up with even more onerous legislation [news.com].

Big Labels committing suicide?

[SengirV (203400)]

I thought I've seen it by now with the music industry. I realize I am not the target audience for them anymore because I'm an old fart, but I can't imagine where potential buyers are going to hear music they want to buy. MTV doesn't play videos, they'll come after you if you have the music on Myspace, etc... This is turning into pure comedy gold. Glad I have my set list of music I'm working at filling out, because I have no idea where I'd even begin to look to listen to anything new if this goes through.

Not seeing the forest for the trees...

[Nigel_Powers (880000)]

Has the entire industry gone insane? Maybe it's a generational thing, but with today's one-hit wonders, there's very little in the current marketplace that I'm interested in buying. The ONLY advertisement the industry can count on is radio air-play. If broadcasters are charged, then we'll be forced to listen to more adverts, which in turn will prompt me to discontinue radio as an entertainment medium.

If only

[navygeek (1044768)]

A small part of me wants RIAA to succeed in this - heresy I know. The notion is that if they win, terrestrial radio broadcasters will all but stop putting the mainstream music on the air and cater more towards local or indie artists, since they would be most likely to trade profit for exposure. Not only would this give those artists the chance they could desperately be wanting, but in a perfect world, would force the studios and labels to see 'the error of their ways'. It's a pipedream, but as most dreams are, it's a happy one.

Re:

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

No. They wouldn't. This would be a HORRIBLE thing for indie and local acts. If radio stations are required to pay a flat fee to SoundExchange (*), then they will make certain that all music airtime is from artists covered by their payment. Signed to an indie label? Unsigned local act? Sorry - you're not worth the airtime that we're required to pay for. This would be outrageously BAD for independent and local acts, imho.

* "The current draft sets up a scheme where commercial broadcasters pay a flat yearly f

It doesn't matter at all

[daemonenwind (178848)]

Payola still exists today; it is the practice of recording companies paying radio stations under the table to play their music. Rather than paying radio stations directly, they just funnel it through advisory companies. Ever wonder why Ashlee Simpson's music didn't disappear from the radio after her SNL lip-synching exposure? The RIAA invested enough in her that they needed to reinforce her career with payola. Otherwise, she would have fallen off the radio like Milli Vanilli.

See The New Yorker [newyorker.com] for more information.

All the RIAA is going to do is find a way to pay the radio stations what they pay in royalties, and then charge that cost back to the artists via some "promotional fee" or other such garbage.

The only solution to getting artists paid is the death of the RIAA and its component companies.

Finally...

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

Honestly, I hope this passes. If it does, it will be the end of music radio as we know it and finally the record companies will understand they've slit their own throats. Clear Channel and the like won't like the music industry cutting so heavily into their profits and they'll do whatever they can to defeat this. Two heads of the same monster fighting can't be that bad, right?

I can hear the new song coming...

[garylian (870843)]

"RIAA killed the radio star..."

Coming soon to a radio station near you! Oh, wait...

Does anyone still listen?

[PHAEDRU5 (213667)]

Once you get satellite radio, you never go back.

I think the bigger story here is how terrestrial radio broadcasters utterly squandered a franchise.

More commercials = lame

[stewbacca (1033764)]

Great. So now instead of 25 minutes of commercials every hour, we'll get 45 minutes of commercials every hour. And all radio stations will switch to Pop/Country format, because those are the only profitable segments to advertise in. Stupid artists complaining about not being rich enough... If these idiots couldn't figure out how to live the rest of their lives in relative comfort after ONE radio hit, then they really don't deserve any more money. I know the guys in a band that had ONE hit, and all three of them can live in BIG houses with NICE cars and stuff for the rest of their lives. They don't care to be compensated 20 years from now if somebody plays their song on an "oldies" station, because they aren't greedy SOB's like most of the industry.

I thought the purpose of (music) radio

[night_flyer (453866)]

was to advertise musicians songs so they would sell albums...

RIAA is very shrewd.

[russotto (537200)]

This proposal does many things which are good for them

* It's a strike against attempts to relieve webcasters of RIAA payment.
* If it is enacted, the RIAA (SoundSource) ends up collecting all the royalties
* Which means they can screw non-members out, furthering their stranglehold.
* They'll still pay for radio pay, it's just that part of the payment will be an exemption
    from royalties, reducing their direct costs.
* Which will further increase the cost of non-RIAA music compared to RIAA music
* Particularly since the exempt music will still be counted in whatever formula they use to
    distribute collected royalties, thus screwing non-RIAA artists more.

Re:

[DrWho520 (655973)]

That is if it works out for them. The NAB may have turned this strategy directly against the RIAA.
In a gutsy move, the NAB agrees. Artists do deserve better compensation, and so the NAB respectfully suggests that Congress examine the notorious world of major label contracts. Should the committee not know where to begin, NAB President David Rehr offers seven helpful suggestions.
"Over the years, how much did the various record labels benefit financially from the sales of the performer witnesses at the Ju

this is wonderful

[circletimessquare (444983)]

it shows the extent that the old power structure is eroding under the stress of the influence of the web on music

the eventual nirvana, of course, is completely free digital music

artists get paid for concerts, and advertising deals, no more. and this represents no decrease in filthy lucre for the artists, since in today's paradigm they don't get that much for recordings anyway: the music cartels screw them for pennies

the internet simply represents where people find new bands (rather than the radio, which is controlled, the internet is free), and also represents where they will get their free recordings, which artists will distribute themselves

the music companies?

sorry, no room for them in such a world

as if this were somehow a bad thing, in any way

you do not cry for the jobs of chimney sweeps, horseshoe blacksmiths, and cabin boys that progress has rendered obsolete

you certainly don't have to cry for the historical ireelevancy and extinction of music conglomerates

like any dying dinosaur, they flail about like a great horrible wounded beast, lashing out at everyone and everything they can

lay low, wait, and in due time their coffers will be dry, and they will dead, and not threaten our culture any more with their insane need to preserve a defunct business model based on distributing CDs and tapes, in a world of tcp/ip

old media dead

[fermion (181285)]

Honestly, old media is dead. This is why it matters little if the foxie nazis own the WSJ, or if every commercial radio station is owned by a few large corps. Local news can be had through, god help us, bloggers. Music can be downloaded or rented or whatever. And television, well the writers strike tells all. Back in the late 80's when the writers went on strike, everyone cared. All the shows at the time were the center of the universe for many people, and the viewers were furious. it was in the major newspapers every day. No new episodes of Moonlighting. No Bruce Willis. No Cybill Shephard. Now, there are no talks, and the biggest news is that Letterman is going to cross the picket line. People just don't depend on the old media as they used to, or if they do it Jackass type unscripted shows where we see exactly what a prostitute will do for the chance to win money.

So does it matter that radio will have to pay? Not to the listener. The reason is that old media exists to provide filler content between ads. The filler content sole purpose is to attract the consumer. So, sports are ideal as it soap operas for boys watch, and it is usually watched live. Radio is ideal because most people have radios in their car where the people are a captive audience, and radio provides a unique ability to meet local markets. Newspaper have a unique ability and infrastructure to develop, design, print, and deliver ad campaigns. The sophisticated abilities of old media just do not yet exist on the internet.

The danger with the pay to play is that will increase costs so that advertising cannot support the media. This is no danger to most consumers. If local radio commercial fails, it just means that those who want that kind radio will have to pay for satellite service. This is likely the end game that many are hoping for, as satellite radio can probably bear the payments more easily. This means that many frequencies will be be free to transmit idie content from small radio stations. Certainly no one here thinks that is a bad thing.

Re:

[smchris (464899)]

No kidding. How the scales have shifted. My favorite quotes (paraphrasing from memory):

Harry Shearer eulogizing on the "genius" of the departed Sonny Bono (a promoter as well as a performer) after his skiing into a tree: "How much 'genius' does it take to meet on Monday morning to decide how to spread the payola around?"

Randi Rhodes: "Being a disk jockey, you know the _really_ cool promos -- one ones that came with the little packet of cocaine."

Re:

[mea37 (1201159)]

It kind of looks like junior took over the "family business" and never really learned the ropes. He doesn't understand why the old man did the things the old ways, so figures now that he's in charge he doesn't have to play by those rules. Probably thinks it's brilliant business. But of course, as he makes a string of bad decisions and revenues drop, he has to find someone to blame. Couldn't be his own fault...

Ok, seriously... the radio exemption is sound marketing and worked as such for years. (Hint --

Re:Paying others to advertise for them?

[Metasquares (555685)]

Radio is a bit different, however. With all of the other forms of advertising you mentioned, the consumer is making a deliberate choice to attend a specific concert or buy a specific CD. The consumer already has an idea of the music he or she wishes to buy. With radio, this is not necessarily the case - radio is nonspecific, and therefore is likely the medium in which the first exposure to new music will occur.

Now, different arguments can be made as to what a consumer buys when he purchases a CD. The music itself, certainly - but he can already listen to that for free by waiting for it to appear on the radio. In my opinion, what the consumer buys when he buys a CD is choice - the choice to listen to a particular song whenever he wishes rather than waiting for it to appear whenever a radio station plays it. The radio then becomes the advertisement for this purchase.

Re:Paying others to advertise for them?

[zentinal (602572)]

Sorry, but you're displaying a fundamental lack of understanding about how radio works (from a financial point of view), along with a lack of knowledge of radio history. Understandable, because no one knows this stuff anymore except for telecom geeks.

Playing music over the radio has, since it's inception, been about advertising to promote sales of music (records, sheet music), advertising to promote attendance at live events, and to provide programming to attract listeners for, of course, advertising other goods and services. In the last case, think of how flowers use nectar to attract bees. Giving away nectar is just a cost of doing business if you want to be polinated.

Of course, it isn't a perfect analogy, because unlike flowers, radio stations aren't producing what they're giving away.

What radio explicitely hasn't been is a revenue source for song performers. Song writers, absolutely. I'll leave it up to you to look up the ASCAP / BMI controversy of 1939/1940.

In fact, what is amazing about this is that, were the RIAA's proposal to be adopted, it would end up setting up a system exactly the opposite of the Payola scandal, where record producers paid / bribed radio station employees and execs to play records [history-of-rock.com].

I also have to wondeder what ASCAP and BMI will think of this. If this proposal results in a drop in radio play, then payments to songwriters (as opposed to song performers) will fall.

Oh, and this could definitely blow up in the RIAA's face. Clear Channel, Infinity and the like are notorious for being very, very tough business people. If this proposal goes through, and if they aren't able to negotiate a miniscule enough rate per play, I wouldn't put it past them to start buying up the larger RIAA members, just to get their music catalogs. Would there be anti-trust implications? Sure. Would it be worth a few tens of millions here or there to try. Absolutely.

Re:IMO listenning to music is overrated anyway

[j.sanchez1 (1030764)]

It's a personal preference - I like Vanilla Ice cream...

Wow. You had me worried, then I saw "cream" at the end of that.