John Conyers, HR 848

[georgechambers]

That dude needs to retire!

His loud mouth wife (40 years younger) recently pled gulity to bribery while on Detroit City council.

Anybody thinking what I'm thinking?

PS Go GEORGE@KXIT!!!


This is a letter sent to several Reps and the only reply was from the the AFM,
Take a moment to read and please respond.
Thanks very much
George Chambers
KXIT Radio
806-249-4747
kxit at xit.net


georgechambers
rimember


Re: REP JOHN CONYERS A TRUE BONE HEAD!!!!
« Reply #2 on: Today at 07:09:44 pm » Quote Modify

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiophile,

Thanks for the good word. I sent a letter to AFM, Conyers and Issa. These two are the sponsors of HR 848. I got a reply from the president of AFM. Thomas F Lee

""Dear Mr. Chambers,

Thank you for your thoughts. I don’t believe you’ve been given correct information on this matter. First, a tax is something that is levied by the government that when collected is used by the government to provide services for the people. This is not a tax and it is improper to characterize it as such.

So what we are talking about is a royalty payment similar to what radio stations pay songwriters when their songs are broadcast to listeners. Radio stations use the intellectual property of the artists, musicians and songwriters to sell ads which keeps the money flowing to the station owners. In this case, it is the musicians, artists, and copyright holders that actually take those words of the songwriter and give it value by creating a work of art. Again, radio stations don’t sell recordings--they sell ads by using recorded performances and broadcasting them to thousands and millions of listeners. While there may be an initial boost in sales of new recorded products when played on the radio, most radio stations are using recordings that are more than 2 ½ years old. Their potential for creating sales revenue is long passed and yet the radio stations continue to exploit these older recordings because they have huge value in selling ads and making it possible for the stations to stay in business.

The cost for a small station will be much less than for a large radio station for the very purpose of which you are concerned. We want the small radio stations to succeed and the law will provide for a minimal payment from them. But the law also will recognize that if the recorded products are played over and over on radio stations all over the US long after their retail value is gone, then there is value in this intellectual property and the radio station owners should not get it for free. So car companies, insurance companies, beer companies, soft drink companies all use the power of music and buy ads year after year to sell more of their products on the backs of musicians, artists and copyright holders who receive nothing for the use of their recordings after their initial release.

If you invented a new product I doubt if you would give it to millions of people everyday to exploit for free. Yet that is exactly what radio stations have been doing for years with recordings. It is time for US radio stations to get in line with every major European country in the world and recognize the value of recordings in their businesses and pay a modest sum for that exploitation.

I’d be pleased to speak with you and your listeners on this topic.

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Lee

President, AFM"
_____________________________________________________________
What are all your thoughts. Thanks very much
George Chambers KXIT radio kxit at xit.net 806-249-4747

 

[TheBigA]

Radio stations use the intellectual property of the artists, musicians and songwriters to sell ads which keeps the money flowing to the station owners.

This is the most fundamental mistake in this argument. Not one single radio station I know uses music to sell ads. They really can't. Radio stations don't own the music, so they can't use it to sell advertising. If they did, the artists could sue.

Again, radio stations don’t sell recordings--they sell ads by using recorded performances and broadcasting them to thousands and millions of listeners.

Wrong again. If I use a recorded performance in an ad, the artist must be compensated.

While there may be an initial boost in sales of new recorded products when played on the radio, most radio stations are using recordings that are more than 2 ½ years old. Their potential for creating sales revenue is long passed and yet the radio stations continue to exploit these older recordings because they have huge value in selling ads and making it possible for the stations to stay in business.

Wrong again. Radio airplay of Michael Jackson music caused a huge rush to retail stores to buy collections of his music. Every few years, Capitol Records releases another Beatles collection, and their music continues to sell 40 years after their break-up. The value of old music catalogues have appreciated in value thanks to radio airplay. Recently SONY purchased the BMG catalogue for $1 billion. How much of that money was shared with artists and musicians? Not one cent. The only reason more older music isn’t purchased is because the music retail system in this country has collapsed. The music industry hasn’t invested any money in retail, and instead is devoting its time to taking money from broadcasters, including internet and satellite radio. Radio stations playing older music recognize that there’s an audience for that music. The music retail industry doesn’t share that view. THAT is where the problem is.

The cost for a small station will be much less than for a large radio station for the very purpose of which you are concerned. We want the small radio stations to succeed and the law will provide for a minimal payment from them.

Once again, not true. If the music industry wanted small stations to succeed, they would provide music service and promotion to small radio stations. But they don’t. Most small radio stations must obtain music from outside suppliers like TM Studios Hitdiscs or CDX, which they pay for. These are licensed recordings, and the labels are compensated for them.

Record labels and artists only care about the largest and most popular radio stations. They are the ones they provide free music, free concert tickets, and other promotional devices.

So car companies, insurance companies, beer companies, soft drink companies all use the power of music and buy ads year after year to sell more of their products on the backs of musicians, artists and copyright holders who receive nothing for the use of their recordings after their initial release.

I can’t believe the amount of crap this guy writes. Any time any commercial enterprise uses music to sell its products, the musicians, artists, and copyright holders are paid. That is why artists like Moby work so hard to license their music for commercial purposes. One can retire on the amount of money one can make from a single car or beer commercial. And many have. So to say these people don’t get compensated is the world’s biggest lie.

If you invented a new product I doubt if you would give it to millions of people everyday to exploit for free.

This guy has obviously never heard of the internet. That is exactly what millions of people do there every day. Companies like Microsoft and Firefox give away their browser for free. Unsigned artists go on YouTube and MySpace and give away their music for free. Everything on the internet is for free. Including music.

It is time for US radio stations to get in line with every major European country in the world and recognize the value of recordings in their businesses and pay a modest sum for that exploitation.

But the RIAA doesn’t want to give US radio stations the same right to the use of those recordings that European radio stations get. The RIAA only wants to change one part of the law: The part that benefits them. Any other similarities to the European system would not apply. Plus the US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws, preventing radio from charging record labels for airplay. The RIAA doesn’t want that to change either.

 

[Kent]

Wrong again. Radio airplay of Michael Jackson music caused a huge rush to retail stores to buy collections of his music. Every few years, Capitol Records releases another Beatles collection, and their music continues to sell 40 years after their break-up. The value of old music catalogues have appreciated in value thanks to radio airplay. Recently SONY purchased the BMG catalogue for $1 billion. How much of that money was shared with artists and musicians? Not one cent. The only reason more older music isn’t purchased is because the music retail system in this country has collapsed. The music industry hasn’t invested any money in retail, and instead is devoting its time to taking money from broadcasters, including internet and satellite radio. Radio stations playing older music recognize that there’s an audience for that music. The music retail industry doesn’t share that view. THAT is where the problem is.

Not to mention that this, to me, seems like simply taking your lottery money upfront. If you could make $1 million off of radio play when a song first hits the charts, why shouldn't that be enough compensation? If I got $1 million cash tomorrow, I'd never have to work another day in my life, and I'm only in my mid-30's. Also, would you rather have a decent shot at the $1 million, or would you rather not? While not everyone who gets radio play has the success other artists do, they wouldn't have a chance at it without radio play, nor would most benefit from this royalty as most flashes in the pan never get radio play once they become oldies.

This guy has obviously never heard of the internet. That is exactly what millions of people do there every day. Companies like Microsoft and Firefox give away their browser for free. Unsigned artists go on YouTube and MySpace and give away their music for free. Everything on the internet is for free. Including music.

He's also apparently never heard of promotional copies. The labels can simply stop promoting their product to radio stations if they truly feel radio is taking advantage of them. I don't know of a single programmer who wants to play anyone who sincerely doesn't want their music to be heard on the radio. I also can't imagine anyone with much of a brain considers what they're doing "giving" their product to the radio station. After all, when I worked in radio, a single minute of airtime could cost as much as $250, and this was in a small market. So, realistically, the radio station is swapping $1,000 of airtime for a four minute song for not having to go to the record store and buy it. That even seems like a lopsided swap in favor of the labels to me! I know, they say the airtime wouldn't be worth $250/minute if it weren't for the music, but, in many markets, talk stations outbill the leading music stations. How do radio stations pay for this talk product? The vast majority of it is barter! This is no different from what they're doing with the labels and artists when you think about it!

But the RIAA doesn’t want to give US radio stations the same right to the use of those recordings that European radio stations get. The RIAA only wants to change one part of the law: The part that benefits them. Any other similarities to the European system would not apply. Plus the US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws, preventing radio from charging record labels for airplay. The RIAA doesn’t want that to change either.

This is probably my biggest beef with H.R. 848. I wouldn't have much of a, if any, problem with it if it also made payola legal. If one party's exemption from fees is removed, the other one's exemption needs to go, too. That's true fairness, and it's true parity between internet and satellite radio, neither of which are governed under payola laws. I understand part of the reason we have the system we do here is that it was decided that money shouldn't flow in either direction if it shouldn't flow in one. In other words, since it was wrong for record labels to pay radio stations and disc jockeys to play their songs, it was also wrong for the radio stations to play the labels. If it's no longer wrong to make radio stations pay the labels and artists, I don't see how it can still be wrong for radio stations to charge for airtime.

 

[georgechambers]

RE HR 848 The NEW TAX-ROYALTY

These blind mice have been fed junk by the artist and record companies. These mice are so little to even reply to those that want to address them on this issue.
These guys are in the pockets of NON US record companies and the NAACP.
No one responds on this issue. These cowards ignore the public, these are our elected officials?
Small market stations do not get record service and must buy product, does the artist get paid?
Please contact these puppets and remind them who they work for.

John Conyers Michigan Rep 313-961-5670 313-226-2085 (Fax)

Darrel Issa California Rep 202-225-3906 202-225-3303 (Fax)

Jim Cooper Tennessee Rep 615-736-5295 615-736-7479 (Fax)

Thank you

George Chambers
KXIT/KIXK Radio

 

[The Atrium]

Hopefully this bill just goes away.

 

[Cary Pall]

How Michiganders keep electing such boneheads is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Maybe the government should tell truckers that they have to pay for the privilege of delivering parcels from here to there, too. That's about as logical.

http://www.carypall.com/openletter.htm