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. "

Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance.

[siyavash]

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..

Big Labels committing suicide?

[SengirV]

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]

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]

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:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[Shakrai]

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:If only

[whisper_jeff]

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 fee (set by the government) to a group like SoundExchange, which would distribute the money to artists and labels. Small commercial stations would only pay $5,000 a year, and nonprofit stations like NPR would pay only $1,000 a year."

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

[StarvingSE]

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.

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

[The Yuckinator]

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

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

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...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?

Business as usual

[Garrick68]

I've read a few comments here stating if this comes to pass how radio stations will start playing indie content. I don't think that will happen. Radio will continue as it was the only difference being the cost of doing business will have gone up. The price of advertising on radio will go up and in some small way that cost will trickle down to the average consumer.

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

[qortra]

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:IMO listenning to music is overrated anyway

[JasonWM]

For many of us, collecting and listening to music is a hobby. My wife and I very rarely watch television, and have no interest in what the opinions of talk radio people. We have music playing at our desks at work and in our house for about 18 hours a day. It is our preferred form of entertainment. So it's not "over rated" it's a lifestyle choice.

Re:Paying others to advertise for them?

[Metasquares]

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.

More commercials = lame

[stewbacca]

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

People who like Nickelback are not qualified to talk about good music.
You are part of the problem. Good day.

I thought the purpose of (music) radio

[night_flyer]

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

this is wonderful

[circletimessquare]

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

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

[kellyb9]

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

[flitty]

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 plays of "top artists" that are essentially free for the radio station, which is about 104 days worth of music (if you played only songs that you paid for with no commercials or breaks, average 3 minute songs). Then, the $.05 also goes to record companies for the first, say, 5 years, and after that, the $.05 goes ONLY TO THE ARTIST (since the record company isn't pimping that album anymore, i can guarantee it).

This style will allow new, different radio stations to pop up (by decreasing the yearly fee) and allow those new stations to play smaller new music for free (still), but those "commercial" radio stations can still play the top hits for about a hundred days for free (no additional cost to what they are paying now), and then if they want to flog all the most popular music, they can pay to do so.

Re:IMO listenning to music is overrated anyway

[Hatta]

At least when you listen to music you're not assaulted by the utter stupidity from the kinds of people who call into talk radio. The kind of utterly brain-dead retardation that goes on on those programs is good for a laugh, for a while. Then it just makes me sad, very sad about the state of the world.

With music there's a little rhythm to put a kick in your step, and some melodies to put a smile on your face.

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

[sacrilicious]

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

[sm62704]

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?

Re:Paying others to advertise for them?

[smackt4rd]

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.

Well, that only applies to the stations that don't play the same 10 songs over and over and over and over and over again. :)

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

[apt142]

How did this get modded up? Nickleback sucks is insightful? I'm not sure if I agree with whether they are a good band or not, but a guy (or gal) is entitled to their opinion.

Secondly, Nickleback is distributed under a RIAA label. The problem that I think this community has with this is not that Nickleback (or Justin T or whomever) sucks or not, but that these bands get propped up artificially. They get publicity, promotion and notoriety that they wouldn't have if they were attempting to make it on merit alone.

There's a lot of Indie Artists that register much higher on the sucks-o-meter than Nickleback. The reason that Slashdot doesn't seem to drag them out to the proverbial whipping post is because those bands tend to remain obscure for a reason. However, if somebody said that they liked one of those bands, I don't think some smart ass would be harassing him about it.

No, they want you to pay and keep paying

[spun]

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

Radio is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

The availability of Wifi and other wireless networks (EV-DO, HSDPA, etc) is killing radio.

Think about it? Why would anyone listen to possibily hear the same music--only time compressed--that they can download almost instantly on their phone or iPod or subnotebook or other device? For the commercials?

Radio as a broadcast form is losing out to on demand media. With my even my now older than ancient 700wx I can download musics or stream them from my home media center for free and hear what I want when I want pretty much wherever I want. I have access to thousands of songs that I already own and millions more that I could easily own all without the hassle of the radio and its shit. Fuck, I almost forgot, I can do it with my PS3 and my PSP. WiFi is pretty much everywhere now. I have EV-DO access when I do not have the WiFi. Why do I need radio? I do not. I listen to stuff occasionally, but not much (pretty much just the O&A).

Now kids are growing up in a situation where they get their first iPod at 4 and their first phone at 6. I do not think most American childrens even know what a radio is, much less how to use them.

The spectrum will be freed up for something else. The only real use for radio will be for emergencies and weather and that type of information. Entertainment? Forget it. There are other system that work better.

The issue would come to being important regarding rights in the future. Radio is fucked. But charging listeners for plays might be an idea. It is easy enough to track. The brick-line Zune does it as part of its social experience. Fix that system and charge people for plays. That is the way to go. There is money there, and personal music is not going the way of the wheeled barrow or typewriter.

Enforcement

[arigram]

Considering the history of the organization with enforcing their control, how far will they go this time? Forgive me for not paying attention in regards to enforcing the law to satelite and interent radio but I have some thoughts that maybe you can clarify:

- Will they actively crack down on pirate radios with police and legal forces?
- Will possession of radio or any broadcast equipment become illegal?
- ...how about tools and/or plans for building them?
- Will they cross borders and seas to get broadcasters not on US soil (that reach the US via their broadcasts)?
- Does such laws apply to other broadcast devices such as portable players with wireless connections (like phones with bluetooth, wireless home music systems, wifi capable laptops, etc)?
- Is there some sort of reaction from the rest of the world to this? Do they follow suit or object?

My view is that restrictions are not just a blow to the ideas of freedom and sharing, but to culture itself. Culture is based upon the free circulation of ideas and art and is not a payed commodity, especially popular culture. But I am an optimist: the further they pull the chains, the closer they get to the demise of their system: Monolithic control system will collapse and artists will be free.

You can look forward to LOTS MORE

[crovira]

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:Good, maybe REAL artists will now have a chance

[badasscat]

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.