Recording Industry Decries AM-FM Broadcasting as Piracy

[Siji]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... indus.html

Recording Industry Decries AM-FM Broadcasting as 'A Form of Piracy'

The recording industry and U.S. radio companies have squared off for decades about whether AM and FM radio broadcasters should pay royalties to singers, musicians and their labels.

But now the debate is getting meaner; there's more at stake as the recording industry seeks new income avenues in the wake of wanton peer-to-peer piracy and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod and satellite radio. A U.S. House subcommittee could vote as early as Thursday on a royalty measure.

On Monday, the recording industry sent the National Association of Broadcasters -- the trade group representing the $16 billion a year AM-FM broadcasting business -- a can of herring to underscore that it believes its arguments against paying royalties are a red herring. The NAB says its members should not pay royalties because AM-FM radio "promotes" the music industry.

The herring present followed another gift -- a dictionary, a bid by the recording industry to explain what it saw as the difference between fees and taxes. The NAB describes the latest royalty proposal as a tax.

And two weeks ago, the recording industry, under the umbrella group musicFIRST, sent the NAB four digital downloads: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Broadcasting music without payment is akin to piracy, the industry says.

"It's a form of piracy, if you will, but not in the classic sense as we think of it," said Martin Machowsky, a musicFirst spokesman. "Today we gifted them a can of herring, about their argument that they provide promotional value. We think that's a red herring. Nobody listens to the radio for the commercials."

The coalition includes the Recording Industry Association of America, Society of Singers, Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Recording Academy and others.

The argument boils down to this: Radio is making billions off the backs of recording artists and their labels; and the recording artists gain invaluable exposure because they're on the radio, so royalties should not have to be paid.

A House subcommittee is expected to approve a royalty bill perhaps as early as Thursday. The measure, HR 4789, sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, would move to the full House Judiciary Committee -- legislation that the National Association of Broadcasters said would cost the industry as much as $7 billion annually.

An identical proposal, S 2500, is in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rates under both proposals would be negotiated, although small and public stations would pay a flat $5,000 annually.

Internet, cable and satellite broadcasters pay royalties to all participants involved. Singers, musicians and the labels get no royalties when AM-FM radio broadcasters air their songs.

That would change under both the Senate and House proposals. Composers and songwriters, however, do get AM-FM royalties, which are set under a complicated and negotiated rate.

"If it wasn't for radio play, most of the performers wouldn't be known," said Dennis Wharton, a NAB vice president.

The group says that free airplay generates as much as $2.4 billion a year for the recording industry.

[Zaelath]

These guys are fucking insane....

[Fairweather Pure]

It's really amazing to watch the downfall of the music industry. As that business model comes ever closer to it's end, the old guard act more and more like wounded tigers that strike out at everyone and everything they can. The above claim is just...wow. A new low in a sea of low!

[Fash]

Holy fucking shit.

This is what our representatives waste their time on.... Disgusting!

Fuck the RIAA!!

[Drinsic Darkwood]

What a colossal fucking joke.

[Funkmasterr]

This is seriously pathetic.

The music industry as we know it needs to just die already so we can be spared this absolute nonsensical bullshit.

[Kaldaur]

On a slight side point, now is the time to start investing in new ways to distribute and create music. With the imminent death of the RIAA, there are going to be new forms needed to promote artists and give them exposure to national markets.

[Xouqoa]

On one hand, the RIAA has a valid point. (As much as it pains me to say it.)

On the other hand, both the RIAA and Corporate FM Radio wouldn't exist without the current symbiotic relationship they both are engaged in with each other. They feed off each other, and if you start forcing the stations to pay huge royalties to the RIAA they are going to find other music to play most likely. That will gradually result in less RIAA label music getting played, and since most people are so hooked on "mainstream" music, less revenue for both the RIAA and FM radio stations.

I hope for a death match of epic proportions with the result being more options for bands to distribute their works however they desire. This could be a huge boon for independent and small label bands if the RIAA insists on pursuing this course of action.

[Spang]

Good news for satellite radio, eh?

[Funkmasterr]

On one hand, the RIAA has a valid point. (As much as it pains me to say it.)

On the other hand, both the RIAA and Corporate FM Radio wouldn't exist without the current symbiotic relationship they both are engaged in with each other. They feed off each other, and if you start forcing the stations to pay huge royalties to the RIAA they are going to find other music to play most likely. That will gradually result in less RIAA label music getting played, and since most people are so hooked on "mainstream" music, less revenue for both the RIAA and FM radio stations.

I hope for a death match of epic proportions with the result being more options for bands to distribute their works however they desire. This could be a huge boon for independent and small label bands if the RIAA insists on pursuing this course of action.

Pretty much.

The death of the music industry as we know it would be great for us all for a number of (mostly obvious) reasons.
1- cheaper music for us
2- more $ into artists pockets
3- If the focus of the industry goes away from major record labels - gimmicky "flavor of the week" trendy bullshit music will be a lot less frequent, so the quality of music will go back up. No more soulja boy = win.

[noel]

The one thing I am SO fucking sick of reading is:

...and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod...

So let me get this straight. Even though a large portion of their consumers have moved on to purchasing their product in a manner that better suits their needs, they still expect these same consumers to be purchasing the CDs as well? Not everyone with a fucking iPod is pirating music. I pay for all of my music, if they don't like the way I'm able to pay for it, that's their own fucking fault.

I know for a fact that nationwide, there are a lot more people than me buying their music on the iTunes store. The iTunes store has been the number one music store in the country (surpassing that shithole Wal-Mart) for some time.

[Funkmasterr]

The one thing I am SO fucking sick of reading is:

...and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod...

So let me get this straight. Even though a large portion of their consumers have moved on to purchasing their product in a manner that better suits their needs, they still expect these same consumers to be purchasing the CDs as well? Not everyone with a fucking iPod is pirating music. I pay for all of my music, if they don't like the way I'm able to pay for it, that's their own fucking fault.

I know for a fact that nationwide, there are a lot more people than me buying their music on the iTunes store. The iTunes store has been the number one music store in the country (surpassing that shithole Wal-Mart) for some time.

Of course dude, selling the cd gives them an excuse to charge you how much they do. Unfortunately for them, anyone that's not a retard would know how cheap the jewel case and pamphlet are and would realize they should have jack shit of an influence on the price of a cd.

[Wulfran]

The one thing I am SO fucking sick of reading is:

...and declining CD sales in part due to the iPod...

So let me get this straight. Even though a large portion of their consumers have moved on to purchasing their product in a manner that better suits their needs, they still expect these same consumers to be purchasing the CDs as well? Not everyone with a fucking iPod is pirating music. I pay for all of my music, if they don't like the way I'm able to pay for it, that's their own fucking fault.

I know for a fact that nationwide, there are a lot more people than me buying their music on the iTunes store. The iTunes store has been the number one music store in the country (surpassing that shithole Wal-Mart) for some time.

Part of the "problem" is they made a fuckton of money off of CD sales because a lot of people bought so many CDs to replace cassettes and LPs when they started to become more of a mainstream item. Some people literally duplicated their previous music libraries in the quest for a better quality sound (even if Neil Young still hates em ). Now we have a new format again, but instead of encouraging more sales, like the CD emergence did, it actually discourages them. The end result is the companies got used to massive "redundant purchases", both in terms of library duplication for older artists and the ability to sell 10 songs vs 1 or 2 for all artists, that don't exist anymore. And we all know how investors are: if your profits aren't enlarging, your stock value is shrinking... and all the sudden some music execs that haven't been able to make the transition (i.e. most of them) are feeling the heat as their companies feel the heat from investors and its passed on throughout the organizations.

[noel]

Kind of a funny tangental point:

CDs have three things going for them that can't be matched in any of the online stores:
* significantly better audio quality than most online music stores
* the full album, every new song from your favorite artist
* a physical product you can hold in your hand

So where's the funny?

The music industry hasn't fostered an environment where the bulk of their consumers gives a shit about the audio quality. Certainly there are people out there that care a great deal, but they're a small minority.

The music industry was so concerned with making a buck that they were shooting out shitty albums with 2-3 highly produced songs and 7 pieces of filler like skeet. Consumers now have the option to buy or not buy the filler crap and are making that choice.

In the past, the thought of buying something that you couldn't physically hold in your hand would have been crazy talk. Now it's seen as an advantage. The number one use of petroleum products is to make plastics. How many fewer plastics are being created if people don't need a fucking CD/CD case wasting space somewhere in a rack or shelving unit.

[Funkmasterr]

Kind of a funny tangental point:

CDs have three things going for them that can't be matched in any of the online stores:
* significantly better audio quality than most online music stores
* the full album, every new song from your favorite artist
* a physical product you can hold in your hand

So where's the funny?

The music industry hasn't fostered an environment where the bulk of their consumers gives a shit about the audio quality. Certainly there are people out there that care a great deal, but they're a small minority.

The music industry was so concerned with making a buck that they were shooting out shitty albums with 2-3 highly produced songs and 7 pieces of filler like skeet. Consumers now have the option to buy or not buy the filler crap and are making that choice.

In the past, the thought of buying something that you couldn't physically hold in your hand would have been crazy talk. Now it's seen as an advantage. The number one use of petroleum products is to make plastics. How many fewer plastics are being created if people don't need a fucking CD/CD case wasting space somewhere in a rack or shelving unit.

Good point indeed.

This is the one topic that most everyone here can pretty much agree about, it's kind of refreshing

[Boogahz]

Kind of a funny tangental point:

CDs have three things going for them that can't be matched in any of the online stores:
* significantly better audio quality than most online music stores
* the full album, every new song from your favorite artist
* a physical product you can hold in your hand

So where's the funny?

The music industry hasn't fostered an environment where the bulk of their consumers gives a shit about the audio quality. Certainly there are people out there that care a great deal, but they're a small minority.

The music industry was so concerned with making a buck that they were shooting out shitty albums with 2-3 highly produced songs and 7 pieces of filler like skeet. Consumers now have the option to buy or not buy the filler crap and are making that choice.

In the past, the thought of buying something that you couldn't physically hold in your hand would have been crazy talk. Now it's seen as an advantage. The number one use of petroleum products is to make plastics. How many fewer plastics are being created if people don't need a fucking CD/CD case wasting space somewhere in a rack or shelving unit.

You left out the price fixing on CD sales. Once the class action suit was settled, and price fixing was "fixed," they lost out on the revenues they never should have received!

[noel]

The prices were never really 'fixed' though. It's been $16.00 for a standard retail (non-sale price) CD since I was 11 years old. That's going on 23 years. ><

[Boogahz]

The prices were never really 'fixed' though. It's been $16.00 for a standard retail (non-sale price) CD since I was 11 years old. That's going on 23 years. ><

The pricing is supposedly led by the retailers now though. I buy my sale priced CD's for 7.99 - 9.99, and regular price is generally 11.99 - 13.99 for most recent releases.