Bailing Out The RIAA?

[SoulManX]

from the there-we-go... dept

At the Tech Policy Summit yesterday, David Carson, the General Counsel of the US Copyright Office spent a bit of time at the beginning of his talk explaining why the Performance Rights Act made sense. This is the bill that would make radio stations pay musicians (rather than just songwriters as it is now) for every song they play on the radio. The recording industry insists that it's somehow unfair that radio stations have been promoting their music for free, and Carson seems to believe their explanation 100% (which is, unfortunately, quite typical of the Copyright Office). He argued, unconvincingly, that while radio used to promote artists (the reason that stations don't need to pay musicians), it no longer does so. That makes no sense. While there are alternatives out there for promoting artists, and radio may not have the impact it once had, that hardly means that the stations aren't promoting the music.

And, of course, the most damning argument against the recording industry's demand for money here is the fact that, for decades, the industry has (illegally) had the money go in the other direction. The system of payola has shown, quite clearly, how much the recording industry values airtime, in that it's willing to pay radio stations to play its music.

So, can anyone explain why it's illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it's okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.

Yet, with a nice push from the Copyright Office, the bill is moving forward, and will face a full House vote. During the Committee debate over the bill, Rep. Daniel Lungren made a perfectly reasonable suggestion: why not wait until the GAO had a chance to do an economic analysis of how the bill would impact radio stations. Considering that the bill is effectively a tax on those radio stations, this seems like a perfectly reasonable idea... but it resulted in Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood, always) accusing Lungren of trying to kill the bill. Isn't it great when simply waiting to find out what kind of impact the bill might have gets you accused of trying to kill it. Apparently in Congress, it's all about shooting first and asking questions later.

That said, Peter Kafka, over at AllThingsD, has made the best point: most people don't care about this bill because they don't realize that it's really a bill to bail out the RIAA by creating a radio station tax that goes straight into the recording industry's bank accounts. So, rather than call it the Performance Rights Act, it should more accurately be called the Britney Bailout Bill.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/0218574881.shtml

 

[Addendum]

I'd laugh if this bill passes and kills commercial radio.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i would actually love it if this bill passed, just so commercial radio can die. radio wont want to pay the fee to play these big bands, so they'll end up playing smaller "underground" bands who would require less to no pay. that'd be fantastic.

 

[Addendum]

Commercial broadcast radio is simply a dinosaur. Almost every person I know either listens to the CDs they've bought, music they've put on their mp3 player, or they have a subscription to Sirius.

 

[Ghostvirus]

So the RIAA knows no bounds at how greedy they are.

I do agree with everyone this would be a blessing for radio, because they can once again play what they want.

 

[Addendum]

I never said it's a blessing for radio. Commercial broadcast radio has been dying for several years. During my college years (96-01), it was dead to my friends and me. We'd always pop in a CD and listen to that whenever we drove around town, or when we'd all drive back home for break. I'm sure there were and are others who still listen to CDs in their car.

Then the ipod and other mp3 players came along. That's another chunk out of radio's audience.

Then satellite radio grew from a fringe market to a big mover, when they acquired coverage of pro sports and college, and drew some big names from broadcast radio. Most of their audience followed as well. The latter can be highlighted by Howard Stern. When he was with CBS Radio, their ratings were solid. After he left, the station's ratings went into the basement. As did the ratings for other stations that carried his show. Plus, while the Stern fans still listen to show, they also start listening to the other station on satellite, and their regular radio goes unused. So that's another chunk of broadcast radio's audience.

So essentially, broadcast radio is not the only game in town. This line from the article, "While there are alternatives out there for promoting artists, and radio may not have the impact it once had, that hardly means that the stations aren't promoting the music" is entirely true. Broadcast radio is still promoting the music. But if no one is listening to broadcast radio, it's meaningless.

Go ahead. Have radio stations pay the musicians for the ability to play their music. But don't be surprised if over the music you hear the final nail being hammered in place.

 

[Shaolin Kenobi]

Broadcast radio is probably on it's way out anyway.
The is some 20th century tech...

 

[Manic]

Broadcast TV survived cable. Why wouldn't broadcast radio survive satellite?

 

[Addendum]

When satellite radio offers more music choices than broadcast radio, without censoring the music and no commercial breaks, with better reception?

 

[Manic]

When satellite radio offers more music choices than broadcast radio, without censoring the music and no commercial breaks, with better reception?

You could use the same comparison with cable/satellite TV. More network choices, less censoring, limited or no commercial breaks on some networks, and better reception.

 

[Shaolin Kenobi]

Broadcast TV survived cable. Why wouldn't broadcast radio survive satellite?

point taken but I think in the long haul even satellite will fall to the wayside. it seems as if everything is pointing to a single device. some sort of internet connected system. as the distinction between phones and portable media players bur and online connectivity expands... it seems a logical progression that you would plug such a device into your dash and go.

 

[Warhammer]

I'm going to have to agree with Manic on this one.

 

[Ghostvirus]

F a bail out. I say let the empire fall. It as an old ass empire. With old ideas. Let is fall so that it may be rebuilt.

 

[Manic]

I'm going to have to agree with Manic on this one.

Thank you.


I tried majoring in broadcasting for a while, and I took a class that went over the history of the industry. Whenever there's a new innovation, the people still using the current/old technology fear that they'll fade away completely. When the television came around, radio broadcasters feared the radio would die. It didn't. Television took all of the plays, dramas, serials, soap operas, and sitcoms, and radio learned to adapt with news & music. When cable TV came around, broadcast TV feared it would die, but broadcast TV still gets the higher ratings per network, and cable has simply cornered niche audiences. Radio feared MTV, but radio basically won that battle in the end.

Satellite radio won't spell the end of broadcast radio so long as people like getting their music for free. I can't predict how the Performance Rights Act will affect radio, however. I actually hope Motown Marvel is right, and this whole thing allows underground acts and new artists to get more radio time, though god knows I'd never want to listen to a rap station in the South when that day came.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

As for the CD, MP3 Player, Satellite argument. Has radio been facing these challenges since the '70s, when cars had 8-track players or in the '80s with tape decks. It was basically the same technology, but somehow radio survived.