Well it was only a matter of time -since radio networks (like ClearChannel) want to ban the broadcast of music over the net on the grounds that they don't pay.

I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

Forced Perspective: I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

You and I can't afford to buy elected officials.

reverse paola?

Forced Perspective: I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

If music doesn't get played on the radio, nobody's going to know about it. Think of radio as advertising for CDs and concerts rather than as entertainment. Radio stations shouldn't pay for the privilege of running an ad.

Huh ?

Here in Britain, radio stations have been paying for years

So...goodbye to a good percentage of small radio stations. Sigh.

Forced Perspective: I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

Used to be artists considered it a *privilege* to have their songs on the radio - essentially free advertising for their albums and concerts.

Maybe this will bring about the end of the Top 40 stations and give rise to more independent artists getting radio airplay.

Forced Perspective: I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

That's been one of the inequities between terrad and satellite radio. Both have to pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, and the other smaller licensing outfits, but XM and Sirius also have to pay royalties to the artists.

So I say, "Suck it, NAB!"

subby: Radio stations may have to start paying singers and bands RIAA for the songs they broadcast

FTFY

YAY MORE ADS!

Our product has been hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls' porch since Noon, yesterday. You can't find out what it is until after you pay for it.

I sure do love my zune/ipod/sansa/creative labs etc MP3 player.

I have a strange feeling that the so called 'artists' won't see a dime.

/Music industry execs need to diaf

wasn't this just on Fark the other day?

/deja vu, maybe?

Baumer: wasn't this just on Fark the other day?

/deja vu, maybe?

Um...yeah...same article and everything.

heh, radio

is it just me, or is the cd nostalgia setting in like it did for records?

/my dad told me i was an idiot for purchasing music these days.

Typical hour of crappy modern-alt rock radio
-random overplayed zeppelin song
-random ozzy/black sabbath song
-that stupid crazy biatch song by buckcherry
-a throwback to the mid 90s ('come as you are' or 'longview')
-an obscure throwback to the mid 90s ('cumbersome' or 'why im here')
-fill the rest of the time with commercials and bad djs

Repeat the above on a loop.
This is why I hate the radio.

solcofn: Um...yeah...same article and everything.

Hot Fark 93, playing the hottest links, with 50 minutes of uninterupted greenlights every hour

ASCAP or BMI ?

Radio stations pay royalties to those guys who are then supposed to disburse them to the artist. As far as I know they've always done that and still do. Usually a percentage or two of the station's gross revenue.

malcy: Here in Britain

Canada as well, thanks to the (comparatively) benign folks at SOCAN.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of BMI and ASCAP? Station plays a song, reports the plays to one of those two agencies... pays fees accordingly, and then the artist gets a check from BMI or ASCAP.

???

solcofn: Baumer: wasn't this just on Fark the other day?

/deja vu, maybe?


Um...yeah...same article and everything.

Man, the mods are really dropping the ball today.

They should have to pay Coca-Cola for playing one of their ads.

Man, those 5 bands are going to make a fortune.

solcofn: Um...yeah...same article and everything.

Doesn't matter. It just gives some farkers who don't know what the RIAA is a place to whine about the RIAA and the music industry. The same people that never buy anything talk about how the music industry rips musicians off. Uh huh.

The U.S. is the only Western free-market nation that does not require radio stations to pay artists and labels when they broadcast performances on the radio, so says these guys.

I don't see it happening here because it would shut down radio stations everywhere (or make them change to news and talk) and add more commercials to the others, probably make the already slim playlists even more slim.

I love my XM.

I'm 100% for the destruction of the music and radio industry as it exists today. They are stifling creativity and ripping you off.

Forced Perspective: I had no idea radio stations played the music for free. Seriously, WTF? I can't rip a CD for a friend, but they can broadcast and profit from music without paying? How the hell did that happen?

They're paying in advertising for the product. Like how a company will give you a free t-shirt with a giant copy of their logo on it, but on a much larger scale.

They can deduct the five cent royalty they owe from the hundred dollar payola it took to get the song played. If the record labels and sellout "artists" don't like the free promotion they are getting, I hope all radio switches to a talk format and tells them to DIAF.

Because People in power are Stupid: Well it was only a matter of time -since radio networks (like ClearChannel) want to ban the broadcast of music over the net on the grounds that they don't pay.

Whut? ClearChannel has some of the best put together sites and feeds, including stuff like videos on demand. I'm not normally a fan of ClearChannel, but their streaming sites are well done. Why would they not want to broadcast over the net and still go to all the trouble to do so?

Plenty of commercials, though.

Maybe a return to radio plays?

attaboy there riaa. you just keep on the course of sueing your fans, killing free advertising with drm, and declaring war on radio. you're well on your way into the ash heap of history.

turntable slave: correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of BMI and ASCAP? Station plays a song, reports the plays to one of those two agencies... pays fees accordingly, and then the artist gets a check from BMI or ASCAP.

???

The creatives get paid (songwriters/composers) already, always have, via their BMI/ASCAP listing. This decision pays the studio musician and label, for whom the music is not intellectual property, but merely a product being advertised. I disagree strongly with this idea. I'm a big fan of the creator getting paid, but the rest of them are just marketing tools, and marketing pays for advertisement, not the other way around.

factoryconnection:
???

The creatives get paid (songwriters/composers) already, always have, via their BMI/ASCAP listing. This decision pays the studio musician and label, for whom the music is not intellectual property, but merely a product being advertised. I disagree strongly with this idea. I'm a big fan of the creator getting paid, but the rest of them are just marketing tools, and marketing pays for advertisement, not the other way around.

THIS

So THAT'S what I'm doing wrong. I've been trying to get new, original stuff with funny headlines greenlit. I should start submitting the same articles over and over. That should work.

Did anyone else notice how slanted this article is? It only covers one side of the issue, as if the reporter attended an RIAA junket and decided that the other side wasn't worth talking to.

There has GOT to be a better way to handle intellectual property in the future. This entitlement attitude that the RIAA has really bugs me. I understand that the purpose of business is to maximize profits, but if it's at the expense of goodwill to your customers, that's not necessarily a smart thing to do.

idiotpoliceSo THAT'S what I'm doing wrong. I've been trying to get new, original stuff with funny headlines greenlit. I should start submitting the same articles over and over. That should work.

Yep. Also, it helps to get a greenlight if the video that you post is neither interesting or funny in any way whatsoever.

Just a helpful hint.

Anybody up to speed on where that suit against RIAA by the artists is at?
Is it true that RIAA has naver paid the artists anything after decades of "collecting" due to all monies oxidizing within RIAA money factory by operaying costs?

turntable slave: corect me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of BMI and ASCAP? Station plays a song, reports the plays to one of those two agencies... pays fees accordingly, and then the artist gets a check from BMI or ASCAP.

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC collect money to be distributed to the rights-holder of the songs (which is usually the song writer). What the RIAA is pushing for is the performance royality - this bill would give the performer(s) of the song royalities from radio stations along with the rights holder of the song. Radio was exempted from paying performance royalities back in the 1930's (I believe) as a way for radio stations to give free advertising to the racord companies. Airplay = sales.

It's essentially a money-grab by the RIAA (big shock, right?). They don't view terrestial radio airplay as the main driving force behind album sales, and they would rather take the short-term cash grab from radio (you don't think all of that money would go to the artists, do you?) than continuing to view radio as a partner.

I'm not defending radio here, but but if the industry is forced to hand over more money to the RIAA to play music, the more stations you'll see go either (a) talk or (b) off the air.

poconojoe: I'm not defending radio here, but but if the industry is forced to hand over more money to the RIAA to play music, the more stations you'll see go either (a) talk or (b) off the air.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I always thought that artists/bands already got paid everytime their song is on the radio... like 5 cents per time or something...

guess i'm wrong.

but where did i get that from?

have the radio stations not been paying the artists for the songs they play ALL THIS TIME?!?!!?!?!

LessO2: poconojoe: I'm not defending radio here, but but if the industry is forced to hand over more money to the RIAA to play music, the more stations you'll see go either (a) talk or (b) off the air.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, that was a thoughtful and well written rebuttal.

TheSheik: ASCAP or BMI ?

Radio stations pay royalties to those guys who are then supposed to disburse them to the artist. As far as I know they've always done that and still do. Usually a percentage or two of the station's gross revenue.

That's different. Royalties are paid per play, while the ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/etc license fee is a blanket fee. Plus, royalties go to the performing artist, while licensing fees go to the composer.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what this will do to the "independent promoter" system, and how much of an affect that particular set of expenses had on the push for this decision?

Because although it's illegal, and although the article mentions it as if it were a long gone policy, record labels have essentially been paying to have their songs broadcast all along.

Since I know almost nothing about the radio as a business (but have a good firsthand grasp of the way the business of recording and live music works), I feel I'm not really qualified to guess, but I would be interested in knowing.

Was the asinine tag too busy downloading music and porn to be bothered to show up, subby?

Meh, it's not getting much beyond this stage - the votes aren't there.

"-that stupid crazy biatch song by buckcherry"

Thank you for telling me who it was. Now I can add them to the list of bands that will NEVER get me to even steal their musiv.

/mp3 player FTW.

I work in radio so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Snicker. I've always wanted to use that one.

Seriously. If the $5000 fee proposed for small stations forces them off the air.. then indeed -- they were doing it wrong - big time.

Radio station = License to print money.

Always has been. Always will be .