NYT and blog posts relevant to the royalty issue

[radioskeptic]

Anyone concerned with the RIAA performance royalty assault on radio should be keeping up with whatever appears in the mainstream media on the general issue of copyright. In the past week, the New York Times has published two articles with diametrically opposed views of copyright.

This op-ed, attributed to three authors, appeared in last Tuesday’s NYT:
“Would the Bard Have Survived the Web?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/opinion/15turow.html?scp=1&sq=Turow&st=cse

The incredible sophistries and inanities of that one were analyzed first by HuffPo’s Jason Linkins...
“Argument For Copyright Protection Undermined By Half-Baked Metaphor About Shakespeare”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/argument-for-copyright-shakespeare_n_823820.html

...and then by Mathew Yglesias (who is, incidentally, the son of novelist and screenwriter Rafael Yglesias) on his Think Progress blog:
“Shakespeare and Copyright”
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/shakespeare-and-copyright/

But the best refutation made no mention of that tortured op-ed. It was written by Randy Cohen, and appeared as “The Ethicist” (a weekly column) in today’s New York Times Magazine:
“Hollywood Property Values”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/magazine/20FOB-Ethicist-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

I think these are worth a look for anybody who is trying to make radio’s case on the performance royalty issue.

 

[TheBigA]

Copyright only exists in a world of law. There is no inherent "right" to copyright. The internet is outside of that world. Thus music and all content is fair game on the net. My lawyer once described putting content on the internet as the equivalent to leaving one of your valued possessions in the middle of Times Square, trusting passers by to leave it alone and not steal it. If you are concerned about retaining control of your content, don't put it on the internet. There is no protection for you there. Content placed on the internet is accessible by all, even if you try to put it behind a pay wall. The internet is the greatest marketing tool ever invented, but it is also the greatest thief. So everyone will have access to your content, but no one will pay for it. The only reliable system for making money is selling clicks to advertisers. That puts value on attracting traffic, not on quality or reliability of content.

So where is the RIAA Performance Royality in all of this? The RIAA is attempting to charge broadcasters for content that users can get for free. If music fans are unwilling to pay for it, then it devalues it for radio. So charging radio is placing the burden in the wrong place. Broadcasters aren't allowing users to steal music. The internet is. So it's right and fair that internet broadcasters should pay a royalty, in that they are directly involved in selling music at a price to consumers. Same with satellite music channels. Radio doesn't sell the music. It sells clicks. It sells traffic. That traffic could be attracted by many things, not just music. So it's unfair for radio to pay royalty for music, especially at the rates assessed internet stations, because there is more involved in running an OTA station than an internet station.

 

[local oscillator]

BigA, we don't always agree, but I think your observations on the internet and copyright are well-presented and spot on. The "valued possessions in the middle of Times Square" analogy is one I definitely will have to remember. Too many folks believe that the internet is far more than what it actually is: connectivity - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Lee Rust]

Getting the anonymous and incorporeal inhabitants of the internet to pay for online intellectual property is hard work. Just ask the New York Times.

In the absence of significant physical record sales, the easiest way for the RIAA to try to compensate for all those missing mechanical royalties is to charge performance fees to broadcasters. They know where we live. They've got our number. Besides, the path to our door has already been well beaten by the songwriters, who've been paid for airplay for more than half a century. What's the big deal about another one percent of revenue for performers and producers?

"But it's too late baby, now it's too late" (Lyrics © 1971 by Toni Stern & Carole King)

"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'" (Lyrics © 1974 by Billy Preston & Bruce Fisher)

"Once I built a tower, now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?" (Lyrics © 1931 by Yip Harburg)

 

[TomT]

We don't have that 1%. Just got done paying off the credit card I put the "1%" FCC regulatory "fee" on back in August.

And the numbers that have been bandied around are considerably more than 1%--plus no guarantee or mechanism to reign in future rate increases.

 

[TheBigA]

What's the big deal about another one percent of revenue for performers and producers?

They walked away from that deal. Because we insisted they could only collect it if FM was mandated on cell phones.

So now it's back to 15%.

 

[Lee Rust]

"So now it's back to 15%."


Is that true? I guess I missed that development. Very funny. Ha Ha.

15 percent of nothin' isn't any more than one percent of nothin'.

 

[TheBigA]

"So now it's back to 15%."


Is that true? I guess I missed that development. Very funny. Ha Ha.

15 percent of nothin' isn't any more than one percent of nothin'.

It's back to whatever the Copyright Royalty Board says it is. Which most expect will be 15%.

 

[TomT]

Only if they can find enough suicidal Congressmen.