Radio Royalty Legislation Described As 'RIAA Bailout' 272
An anonymous reader tips an article at TechDirt about draft legislation from Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that would dramatically increase the music royalty fees for cable and satellite radio to put them at the same level as internet radio streaming. TechDirt calls this the 'RIAA Bailout Act of 2012' and says the RIAA has been pursuing similar legislation to increase royalty rates for terrestrial radio as well.
"As it stands now, the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable. Yes, never. Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started. That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income. Also, the idea that any particular Congressional Rep. should be (effectively) determining what the "fair" price is for anything is, well, horrifying. "
Re:Don't Understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I'd say it is closer to...the RIAA would rather destroy the entire recording industry than modify their business model from that which made them all filthy rich until the last decade or so.
They've fucking lost it. They have absolutly no comprehension or understanding that they don't mean shit anymore. Nobody NEEDS the RIAA or the major labels anymore. Anyone with a few thousand can create a damned good recording studio, cut an album, release it online independently (and to streaming sites), thereby cutting the RIAA entirely out of the equation.
But at the heart, you are correct...the RIAA says a song has a value of x. The world says the same song has a value of x/50. THe RIAA has decided that if they can't get x, they don't want anything.
Re:Don't Understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. There's a lot of companies like that. The RIAA, MPAA, Harmony Gold, etc don't like customers, they just want to sue people. It helps that they plan on making laws to force you to pay anyway, regardless of whether or not you listen to music
Never is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearance; promotion (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone with a few thousand can create a damned good recording studio, cut an album
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
release it online independently (and to streaming sites)
How should they promote it to listeners who aren't already streaming music in their vehicles? These listeners use FM radio because they don't already have a sufficiently expensive data plan or they aren't aware of the streaming sites.
Experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be fascinating if someone were to start an IndieGoGo fundraiser to "Buy a Senator"
Buy a senator and have him introduce a bill - something good, like forcing the cablecos to share their lines with competitors at cost, or legalizing marijuana for adults.
How much money would it take? $5 million? $10M, $20M before a senator publicly announces, "Okay, I'll do it. What law do you want introduced and give the cash to my campaign manager so he can get to work on spinning this"
Promotion (Score:5, Interesting)
The artists compose and perform the music, the distributors (radio stations, iTunes, Google Play, Pandora and P2P etc) distribute that music to the masses. What is RIAA's role in this ecosystem?
Originally, the RIAA was formed to establish the "New Orthophonic" emphasis curve for vinyl records. Now, it boils down to promoting the music.
The Best Alternative Is No Massive Powerful Group (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it possible to set up an alternative RIAA? Trade group monopoly must be broken.
Well, I'm not in the business but used to gig. After seeing people that should have some minor record deal being signed to littler labels like Afternoon Records or Asthmatic Kitty, it's my opinion that the best replacement for the RIAA is no replacement at all. The RIAA is restricting their member labels and being destructive "in the interests of their members" ... sometimes this is helpful but in the instance of online radio, it's quite the opposite. Meanwhile a lot of the smaller labels affiliated with the RIAA suffer while the top executives make millions [techdirt.com]. The way I see it, by setting up an alternative RIAA, you'll inevitably fall prey to that sort of bullshit. Like the best capitalistic systems, the music industry would be healthier if the labels competed with each other and actually desired exposure (which they do) like online radio and no single entity was acting as a self-appointed policeman to how that system worked. Then and only then would you see.
Here's an example, I just purchased Headlight's latest album on vinyl [polyvinylrecords.com] and minutes later I had downloaded the MP3s. I can list tons of non-RIAA labels that do this and you can go on Bandcamp and see a third party system doing this for labels and selfpublished artists (for example, here's the album I just bought [bandcamp.com]). Now, from the RIAA point of view this is super bad. I just got TWO copies of an album for one price and on top of that you can stream that album right there for free, possibly forever. Oh my god, copyright violations! Now, if you were the RIAA or a replacement for the RIAA you would find yourself in the position of making a decision about this sort of sales tactic. And that's bad whether you weigh in one way or another. Fine, let Metallica or whoever else I don't care about put up a picture of their album and ask for $20 from their fans for it before even hearing it. They can do what they want. But you'll find that if you throw your lot in with RIAA, you won't be able to upload live videos of your own concerts to YouTube, you might have ads on your music videos and you'll be restricted by this umbrella. Furthermore, no matter how forgiving you are of your fan's misdeeds, the RIAA is not. And I think a replacement is a bad thing.
Frankly put the advent of the internet and digital distribution means that artists shouldn't have to depend on the RIAA or an RIAA replacement. They should exist in hundreds of different labels acting, innovating and competing on their own terms (diversity is a good thing).
Right now it feels like an exacerbated Pareto Law inside the music industry and it doesn't have to be that way. Your attention, your ears, your money and your support should be spread around and free of restricted influence by some massive entity.
Right now, there's music out there that you like that somebody somewhere is making. But if they're not on a label that's part of the RIAA, you're most likely never going to hear it. That's why internet radio stations are so important to upending the RIAA, self-published groups from Portland can be heard by Brooklynites and vice versa. That's why I think the RIAA is trying to impose arcane radio royalty fees.
commercial radio should die (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Don't Understand (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I hope they get what they are asking for. The sooner they drive themselves out of business, the sooner we can actually fix the music industry.