I detest the notion that terrestrial radio has been "playing music for free". Really?!? Do you guys have any idea how huge the bills are from ascrap, bmi, and sesacks?! If the money isn't making it to the performers, then it's because the structure is unfairly set up in favor of the composers. That's not radio's fault. Redistribute the tax money as you wish. Just don't tax us more. We have already paid a huge ransom to play music. It's not our fault the system within the music industry is screwed up. Don't blame us or expect more. We already gave too much. And, Internet and sat guys actually have percentage of listener-wise given even more than over-the-air. The music industry has issues. Quit being whine-bags and go produce something worth a crap to sell. I have another thing that really bugs me about the music industry. Why can music that's 50 some years old still keep a copywright yet a life-saving invention someone spent tons of money on for R and D etc only gets 20 some years? This is a true crime, no rape of the American public by the record labels.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
SoundExchange illegally lobbying Congress
- Thread starter RadioMan203
- Start date
There is no federal copyright protection for any music recorded prior to 2/15/72. Any royalties that the Sound Exchange/RIAA collects for this music, they are collecting with no legal validity. Just using 1955-1971 music as an example, about 33% of the artists are dead so for these royalties that they are questionably collecting, they pocket the money because the artists are dead. There are some estates for some of these artists but, many of these artists had no estates.
OKCRadioGuy said:
IMHO this is the crux of the issue. (albeit rather seriously understated
) A large sector of the industry -- the part that works to distribute physical copies of music recordings -- has been obsoleted by Internet distribution. And the industry fought it for too long.
The industry made a LOT of money schlepping around physical CDs, and before that, vinyl records. That sector is largely gone.
Any business, faced with the loss of a profitable business line, could be expected to try to develop a different, profitable line. Decades ago, radio saw the sponsored half-hour drama business coming to an end, and developed spot advertising. Ford saw declining demand for huge gas guzzlers, and developed a line of compact, hybrid, and electric vehicles. I suppose we should have expected to see the music industry try to develop alternative sources of revenue.
But then, the law of supply and demand steps in. Demand is elastic, to varying degrees. Charge more, and people buy less. When the price of gas goes up 40%, people try to find ways to use less gas. Sales of hybrids (and bus passes) increase. Run up the price of music rights, and stations stop playing music. (we had a bit of a band opening this morning, I noticed two of the Memphis FMs coming in had flipped to news/talk formats since last time I'd heard them... and obviously this is not a Memphis-only phenomenon)
Really, terrestrial radio *shouldn't* be playing music for free. Pool and Spa Depot is willing to pay a local radio station hundreds of dollars for two minutes of airtime promoting their products -- but ASCAP expects the station to pay them??
Name ten music acts, currently active, that aren't being played on radio. I'd imagine most of us can't. The fact is, the music industry is getting millions of dollars of free airtime advertising their acts.
_________________________________________________
I'm in TV, not radio. It's really not my battle. I certainly don't condone the illegal file-sharing networks. At the same time, trying to make up that revenue by dragging down an industry that's trying to help you seems like a way to bury yourself even deeper.
w9wi said:
I just thought it was interesting that when the Black Eyed Peas accepted their Billboard award a couple of weeks ago, Wil I. Am went out of his way to thank the internet for all it's done for music. I had to laugh and think...yep, it devalued the music industry to products people want for free. Say what you will about OTA radio, with its short playlists and its constraining formats. Taping music off the radio is no longer a serious problem. Certainly isn't the issue that illegal downloading has become.
The other point is the charts that Billboard uses to give its awards don't really measure internet airplay or file sharing. So the internet wasn't really a factor in the Black Eyed Peas award.
I don't know the specifics, but my understanding is the labels get a percentage of the ad revenue on the page. I don't know if that is equal to the amount they'd normally get from a typical station. Probably not. But they get exposure, which is worth something.
I believe Warner Brothers isn't part of the YouTube deal, and so Google blocks Warner songs.
Also not sure that you can "download" songs in the traditional sense from You Tube. I know that I just use it as a streaming site.
I believe Warner Brothers isn't part of the YouTube deal, and so Google blocks Warner songs.
Also not sure that you can "download" songs in the traditional sense from You Tube. I know that I just use it as a streaming site.
When it comes to the musicians, they get paid whether the song is a hit or not, whether the song gets played or not. They are union players, and the union ensures the get paid for their work. So you're right...in that way, they should not get paid a royalty in addition to a session fee.
THEIR justification is they are part of the creative process, and therefore entitled to a creative royalty, just as the songwriter. This will come down to defining who is the creator of the content, and how deep into the pool of people involved should get a performers royalty. How about the engineer? How about the producer? How about the best boy? How about the guy who plugs in the mics? Someone has to rule on that before it can be accepted. So far, no one really has.
THEIR justification is they are part of the creative process, and therefore entitled to a creative royalty, just as the songwriter. This will come down to defining who is the creator of the content, and how deep into the pool of people involved should get a performers royalty. How about the engineer? How about the producer? How about the best boy? How about the guy who plugs in the mics? Someone has to rule on that before it can be accepted. So far, no one really has.
N1WVQ said:
That's easy. The more a song is played, the more someone is making money from it. By what perverse logic would you exclude the original artist?
Every time a building is leased out, whether it be by the floor or office, the architect doesn't get any residuals from that. It's the same thing: the musicians recorded the song ONCE. Not 100 times. Once. If they want to get paid for multiple performances of the same song, then they can go to the radio station & play it multiple times. It's robbing the stations if the musicians keep getting paid under the false pretense of doing a performance when in reality the only thing that's happening is the same recording is being played on air. Plus, the radio stations (and by this I take to mean internet stations as well which I think should enjoy the same airplay rights that R.F. radio has) are giving a song airplay which IS promoting the song/musician.listener-in said:
N1WVQ said:
Exactly. This is the opinion the courts put forth when the Musicians Union sued a radio station back in the 1930s.
Simply put, airplay is not a performance. The current digital performance law, as well as the RIAA proposal for OTA radio, ignores that decision. Which is why it should be ruled invalid.
From first hand experience on the Royalty Payments...
First off, they are EXTREMELY high.
$500 just for SoundExchange
There is no way in hell a small webcaster can afford that
And I'm positive most of that does NOT go to the Band.
I'm all for the Bands getting payed, but come on this is ridiculous.
So they want to triple it? $1500 a YEAR?!
I'd throw in the towel and just go back to strictly AM/FM.
First off, they are EXTREMELY high.
$500 just for SoundExchange
There is no way in hell a small webcaster can afford that
And I'm positive most of that does NOT go to the Band.
I'm all for the Bands getting payed, but come on this is ridiculous.
So they want to triple it? $1500 a YEAR?!
I'd throw in the towel and just go back to strictly AM/FM.
LibertyNT said:
If it's the same split as the OTA proposal, 50% goes to the label, 49% goes to the artist, and 1% goes to the musicians.
The problem with this royalty from the recipient perspective is that a lot of them were told this was going to be a windfall. For almost all of them, it's not. Because it's connected to airplay. So if the music isn't getting airplay or it's being used on a site that doesn't get much traffic, you end up getting a few pennies. So they're angry and want SoundExchange to increase the royalty.
So SE has gone to the CRB and asked for cost of living increases. They're doing this at a time when the US government has told Social Security and military pension recipients that there will be no cost of living increase. To put it in context, they believe recording artists should receive something we won't give military veterans.
TheBigA said:
Perhaps I should have used the word performers. My point still stands.
Even the costs for an Internet broadcasting station to play music is ridiculous. Based on my station's current revenue, they want $750 semi-annually. Way to rape and plunder the small businessman!
- Status