Soon! The coming Talk Radio tsunami...

[adma]

It is not the fault of consumers that corporations lack the common sense or foresight,or even hindsight, to realize they built an empire of crap.

Though there's also an inverse argument that they cynically *knew*, or believed, it was "crap" decades ago, but didn't have the foresight to realize how that inane teenage rock'n'roll racket might actually evolve into a cultural juggernaut that transcended such crappitude. Thus a system that had been the embodiment of hip stylishness devolved into the embodiment of clueless, tasteless lowbrow squaredom...

 

[Silkie]

It is not the fault of consumers that corporations lack the common sense or foresight,or even hindsight, to realize they built an empire of crap.

Though there's also an inverse argument that they cynically *knew*, or believed, it was "crap" decades ago, but didn't have the foresight to realize how that inane teenage rock'n'roll racket might actually evolve into a cultural juggernaut that transcended such crappitude. Thus a system that had been the embodiment of hip stylishness devolved into the embodiment of clueless, tasteless lowbrow squaredom...

You are invited to my dance party, which is another thread in Off The Air.

 

[TheBigA]

Though there's also an inverse argument that they cynically *knew*, or believed, it was "crap" decades ago...

I agree with that. Especially when we know that the artists who redefined music, like The Beatles or Garth Brooks, were turned down multiple times by major labels.

The RIAA claims that the US is the only civilized country where artists aren't compensated for airplay. It's also the only country where all artists go to get their records played. Ask any artist (those who are free from the pressure of their label) which they prefer: Free airplay or royalty money, and they will all tell you the airplay is worth more. Because it drives people to their shows. But the labels aren't interested in that. Even artists from the 60s who haven't released records in 40 years will tell you that the reason people will come and see their shows is because of free airplay. It's what creates the value for the catalogue for copyright owners. Think how many times Atlantic Records has been sold, each time for more money, and the reason is that the catalogue still receives airplay. Once a catalogue stops receiving airplay, as is the case now with music from the 30s and 40s, the value goes down. And that value isn't based on a performance royalty, but on the actual sales of the music. Mo Ostin knows that. Ahmet Ertegun knew that. Berry Gordy knows that. Clive Davis knows that. But the labels are now owned by foreign companies who don't have that experience. They're interested in short term profits, not long term value.

So what's the future? Holland Cooke thinks that if there's a performance royalty, a lot of radio stations will switch to talk. He's probably right. I have lots of theories. But I think the future will be based on those who create original content they own. In the 20s and 30s, record labels like RCA and Columbia were owned by media companies. The connection between media and music is unbeatable. Ask the folks at Disney. No other record label has that connection. CBS has revived their old CBS Records label. I believe you'll see other major media companies looking to start music companies to avoid the royalty. Imagine if Fox had retained the rights to the performances on American Idol and used that show as the basis for a record label.

Let's talk about the math. John Simson of SoundExchange estimates that a performance royalty could mean as much as $2 billion a year for copyright owners. Last year, Sony bought BMG's share of SonyBMG, the part that contained RCA and Arista, for less than $1 billion. Why rent when you can own? Why would an industry like broadcasting pay a royalty for music when it is responsible for the marketable value in that music?

 

[cabradio]

I threw in my 2 cents on my own blog here.

Essentially I think music stations just need to purge their libraries of music from labels, and start playing music from unsigned artists. Let the audience tell you what they like and don't like through social media! It's really crazy how easy this can be done today with the use of the Internet. But no...make a rash decision and replace your music with talk and drive MORE listeners away from terrestrial radio.

Don't get me wrong, I like talk radio! I'm a Talk Host myself. But don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of musicians that would love an opportunity to get their royalty free music played on your station! Just ask your listeners where to find them! Oh what a concept! Play what the listeners want instead of what the labels tell you to play! WOW! Revolutionary, I know...will stations do it? Probably not, they'll roll over and play dead...Get on the Radio HORN

 

[TheBigA]

But don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of musicians that would love an opportunity to get their royalty free music played on your station!

Keep in mind that the language of the Performance Royalty law would still require a station to pay royalties on that music even if it's performed by an unsigned band. The artist must sign a waiver to bypass the royalty, and the Musicians Union opposes such waivers, and will take radio stations to court if you attempt to get an artist to sign one in exchange for airplay. They claim it is a form of payola.

Also, stations currently pay songwriting royalties. If a station airs live performances of published songs, they are still subject to royalty. And original material would need to be published before it could be performed on the radio. So if this is your goal, be sure to consult with your station lawyer.

 

[cabradio]

Keep in mind that the language of the Performance Royalty law would still require a station to pay royalties on that music even if it's performed by an unsigned band. The artist must sign a waiver to bypass the royalty, and the Musicians Union opposes such waivers, and will take radio stations to court if you attempt to get an artist to sign one in exchange for airplay. They claim it is a form of payola.

Also, stations currently pay songwriting royalties. If a station airs live performances of published songs, they are still subject to royalty. And original material would need to be published before it could be performed on the radio. So if this is your goal, be sure to consult with your station lawyer.

That's like saying you can't make and sell your own car without consulting the UAW. Ridiculous. If I write and record a song, no one can interfere with me selling it on my own, and giving it to radio stations to play FOR FREE. If they do interfere, then that is a law suit waiting to happen. And if an independent artist were to find out the RIAA blocked a radio station, airwaves owned by the general public, from playing their song I think that artist would live a comfortable retirement. I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion that is essentially blackmail.

 

[gr8oldies]

I don't know how far you'd get as a radio station playing all unfamiliar music from unsigned artists. it would be a big problem for stations that play catalogh music, as there are no new oldies.

 

[Silkie]

I don't know how far you'd get as a radio station playing all unfamiliar music from unsigned artists. it would be a big problem for stations that play catalogh music, as there are no new oldies.

No, but the old oldies are still as good as ever, especially those that got so little airplay.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion that is essentially blackmail.

That may be, but it worked. Several years ago, Clear Channel offered free online airplay to unsigned artists. They had to sign a release for airplay and in it was aclause that absolved CC of any royalties. The Musicians Union and the Future of Music Coalition raised a huge stink, threatened legal action, and CC ultimately backed down and removed the clause. But that's why they don't promote local bands any more.

Independent artists and labels are at odds with the RIAA on this royalty, and many have testified in Congress against it. But if it becomes law, it will create a legal nightmare for radio stations that is currently a reality for anyone who has the misfortune of working in digital media. The music industry says that satellite and internet radio pay a performance royalty. But they are also in far worse financial shape than terrestrial radio. This is a side of this royalty that should be discussed in front of Congress, because they clearly aren't getting the full story.

By the way, talk to people who work at auto plants in the south, where the the big 3 went to avoid union contracts in Detroit. They will tell you that the UAW cried foul and screamed for laws that required the car companies to bring the unions in. If you make a car, and it becomes successful, I promise you that the UAW will be knocking on your door, and will get the government to require you to let them pitch your employees.

 

[cabradio]

I don't know how far you'd get as a radio station playing all unfamiliar music from unsigned artists. it would be a big problem for stations that play catalogh music, as there are no new oldies.

Every song is unfamiliar the first time it is played! After a while, the more you play it, it becomes familiar. Today's audience is different from years past and people have access to new music faster and easier than in years past. If you include your listening audience to provide you with the "unsigned" music they want to hear, it is familiar to them.

Radio needs to start thinking OUT OF THE BOX.

 

[Silkie]

I don't know how far you'd get as a radio station playing all unfamiliar music from unsigned artists. it would be a big problem for stations that play catalogh music, as there are no new oldies.

Every song is unfamiliar the first time it is played! After a while, the more you play it, it becomes familiar. Today's audience is different from years past and people have access to new music faster and easier than in years past. If you include your listening audience to provide you with the "unsigned" music they want to hear, it is familiar to them.

Radio needs to start thinking OUT OF THE BOX.

And when radio starts thinking outside of the box somebody needs to sue the RIAA for interfering in private contracts, as the artists may eventually make even more without them.

 

[cabradio]

That may be, but it worked. Several years ago, Clear Channel offered free online airplay to unsigned artists. They had to sign a release for airplay and in it was aclause that absolved CC of any royalties. The Musicians Union and the Future of Music Coalition raised a huge stink, threatened legal action, and CC ultimately backed down and removed the clause. But that's why they don't promote local bands any more.

Independent artists and labels are at odds with the RIAA on this royalty, and many have testified in Congress against it. But if it becomes law, it will create a legal nightmare for radio stations that is currently a reality for anyone who has the misfortune of working in digital media. The music industry says that satellite and internet radio pay a performance royalty. But they are also in far worse financial shape than terrestrial radio. This is a side of this royalty that should be discussed in front of Congress, because they clearly aren't getting the full story.

By the way, talk to people who work at auto plants in the south, where the the big 3 went to avoid union contracts in Detroit. They will tell you that the UAW cried foul and screamed for laws that required the car companies to bring the unions in. If you make a car, and it becomes successful, I promise you that the UAW will be knocking on your door, and will get the government to require you to let them pitch your employees.

Well that is what you get if you roll over and play dead. What the RIAA et al need to understand is that people don't have to listen to the radio to listen to music. People can easily search out artists and get their music directly from them and there will be NOTHING the RIAA or labels can do. What is important is to let you opinions be known. I don't think most of radio listeners even know about the royalty fees. Radio should start running their own PSAs about the issue to inform their listeners. But radio is so threatened by Internet and Satellite Radio it would rather be suffocated rather than collaborate and fight for what is right. Again, just my humble opinion.

 

[TheBigA]

Well that is what you get if you roll over and play dead.

How much time and money do you have to fight this in court?

That is why broadcasters don't want this to become law. Once it's a law, there's no choice, as the digital folks now know. If you play music, you must pay. If you want to fight it, expect to lose everything, as the RIAA has demonstrated in its suits against single moms and college students.

I don't think most of radio listeners even know about the royalty fees. Radio should start running their own PSAs about the issue to inform their listeners.

Just last week, the NAB started buying ads on stations in DC. I imagine those ads are available as PSAs. But the public has already formed its opinions about radio, and see them as greedy conglomerates. So don't look for sympathy from the public.

 

[TheBigA]

somebody needs to sue the RIAA for interfering in private contracts, as the artists may eventually make even more without them.

I believe that the RIAA and SoundExchange are operating as a cartel in this issue. If you read the court decision in 1940 that allowed radio to play recorded music, you'll see there is legal precident against the monopoly tactics of the recording industry. But so far, no one has brought this up, either in Congress or at the NAB. Perhaps they're not aware of this decision.

 

[Silkie]

How much time and money do you have to fight this in court?

My guess is that the right artist has nothing but time, and the right attorney will wait patiently for his money. The last time I heard an organization ask that question was when they were so **** sure of themselves of sufficiency and efficiency in organization that they lost a case in the Supreme Court and then had to go back to court to fight having to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and lost that too.

 

[cabradio]

I believe that the RIAA and SoundExchange are operating as a cartel in this issue. If you read the court decision in 1940 that allowed radio to play recorded music, you'll see there is legal precident against the monopoly tactics of the recording industry. But so far, no one has brought this up, either in Congress or at the NAB. Perhaps they're not aware of this decision.

Well, I think we are all on the same page here! lol...If the big "O" can fool so many people, imagine what the truth can do! It all a matter of getting people excited about it. There isn't much exciting about digital rights and music licensing fees. But if a campaign is put together properly, it can generate interest. Look at the TEA Parties last week.

Also, why on Earth would a station charge to air PSAs to inform the public about something that will hurt radio if it isn't stopped? It is in radio's best interest, and over-all health to get the word out! Looks like greed is on both sides of the aisle here and all it will do is hurt the consumer.

 

[TheBigA]

Also, why on Earth would a station charge to air PSAs to inform the public about something that will hurt radio if it isn't stopped?

The particular stations airing the spots are news/talk stations (WTOP and WMAL), not music stations. Why? Because the spots are aimed at legislators and decision makers.

It is ironic that even the NAB must pay for access to the airwaves. The ONLY exception is the recording industry, who is pointing out that US terrestrial radio is the only exception to the performance royalty.

 

[adma]

Well, I think we are all on the same page here! lol...If the big "O" can fool so many people, imagine what the truth can do! It all a matter of getting people excited about it. There isn't much exciting about digital rights and music licensing fees. But if a campaign is put together properly, it can generate interest. Look at the TEA Parties last week.

If you're going to use TEA Parties as a benchmark, you're only affirming radio's position at an ugly cultural-jig-is-up wrong side of everything these days...

 

[cabradio]

If you're going to use TEA Parties as a benchmark, you're only affirming radio's position at an ugly cultural-jig-is-up wrong side of everything these days...

Uh, no. The "benchmark" is that you can get people excited and get them to participate when you make the reason exciting and give them the tools and support.

 

[adma]

If you're going to use TEA Parties as a benchmark, you're only affirming radio's position at an ugly cultural-jig-is-up wrong side of everything these days...

Uh, no. The "benchmark" is that you can get people excited and get them to participate when you make the reason exciting and give them the tools and support.

Yes, but consider the reference point. TEA Parties?!?

Now, if you want a more stylish example of "get[ting] people excited and get[ting] them to participate when you make the reason exciting and give them the tools and support", just look at the Obama presidential campaign, "HOPE" posters and all.

Yet, it's TEA Parties you choose to reference.

That's exactly what I mean by an "ugly cultural-jig-is-up wrong side of everything these days".