RIAA unleashes Operation Footbullet (again)

[SirFozzie]

Jeez, the body's starting to thrash in its death throes..

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...ck=3&cset=true

WASHINGTON — With CD sales tumbling, record companies and musicians are looking at a new potential pot of money: royalties from broadcast radio stations.

For years, stations have paid royalties to composers and publishers when they played their songs. But they enjoy a federal exemption when paying the performers and record labels because, they argue, the airplay sells music.

Now, the Recording Industry Assn. of America and several artists' groups are getting ready to push Congress to repeal the exemption, a move that could generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually in new royalties.

and kill off radio and engender even MORE bad will with the buying public.

[SirFozzie]

oh.. the best quote.

"The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales," said RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol. "We clearly have a more difficult time tolerating gaps in revenues that should be there."

Let me translate that from Corporate to English.

"WAAAAAHHH!! We have a god given right to profit no matter how stupid we are! Pay us if you buy our stuff, and we'll sue you if you don't buy our stuff because you're obviously an evil piiiiiiiiirate.. Pay Us! Pay Us! PAAYYYYYY US!!!!!'

[SackAttack]

There is absolutely no way that this move could ever possibly lead to an increase in piracy. /snark

Although maybe that's what they want, since they get much more money from any one lawsuit than from the CD purchases the target of that lawsuit might make.

Force them to steal, sue the pants off of them, wear hats made out of money?

[Critch]

Spot the difference:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27696

RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music

October 2, 2002 | Issue 38•36

LOS ANGELES—The Recording Industry Association of America filed a $7.1 billion lawsuit against the nation's radio stations Monday, accusing them of freely distributing copyrighted music.

[albionmoonlight]

Killing off an industry is sometimes the best way to save it.

Look at airlines. Having done some work in that area, I could give you 10 reasons off the top of my head why airlines are in trouble--and 8 of them are the direct fault of the large carriers.

However, all you need is one external cause at which to point (9/11) and lots of red ink, and then Congress will write your industry blank checks.

So, let's say that this passes and the record labels get short term profits but pretty much kill their long term profitability.

All they need to do it find one external cause on which to blame the problems (Napster), show Congress the red ink, and they will get blank checks written to them.

Why make good decisions when that will ultimately require having to work for your money? So much easier to get some lobbyists and wait for the bailouts.

[st.cronin]

Its certainly possible that they have a point, though. The industry HAS changed in the time since the exemption was passed. So, its certainly reasonable to revisit it.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, I'm not sure why radio stations shouldn't pay, to be honest.

[BrianD]

If the radio stations can survive, this could be good for music fans. If radio stations have to pay for the music they play, they might be more likely to play something decent and not just the current crappy flavor of the month.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If the radio stations can survive, this could be good for music fans. If radio stations have to pay for the music they play, they might be more likely to play something decent and not just the current crappy flavor of the month.

Or alternatively, niche radio stations disappear under royalty demands, and the currently crappy flavor of the month sticks around, because it's the only thing that makes enough money to pay.. (remember, they see HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars PER year from this)

[path12]

I think the other affect would be a big rise in payola by record companies to make sure their artists get played -- for instance, under the table payoffs to offset royalty payments.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by path12

I think the other affect would be a big rise in payola by record companies to make sure their artists get played -- for instance, under the table payoffs to offset royalty payments.

It doesn't even need to be under the table, they can just purchase airtime (commercials) at high rates.

So you could basically end up with stations that play almost nothing but stuff from one label or another.

[Solecismic]

This is absolutely fascinating. Music is intensely personal, and isn't really suited to a mass-market approach. We're exposed to only a fraction of what is out there because of the way the RIAA runs things.

This may force radio stations to form groups to produce their own music - find large quantities of decent bands willing to sign cheaply without a presence in music stores or exposure on MTV, or a million-dollar tour.

I've always thought the music industry was run in a very strange manner. Even a talent like Kelly Clarkson can't get heard until she dyes her hair, loses a few pounds and shows off her boobies.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is absolutely fascinating. Music is intensely personal, and isn't really suited to a mass-market approach. We're exposed to only a fraction of what is out there because of the way the RIAA runs things.

This may force radio stations to form groups to produce their own music - find large quantities of decent bands willing to sign cheaply without a presence in music stores or exposure on MTV, or a million-dollar tour.

I've always thought the music industry was run in a very strange manner. Even a talent like Kelly Clarkson can't get heard until she dyes her hair, loses a few pounds and shows off her boobies.

She did what now?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is absolutely fascinating. Music is intensely personal, and isn't really suited to a mass-market approach. We're exposed to only a fraction of what is out there because of the way the RIAA runs things.

This may force radio stations to form groups to produce their own music - find large quantities of decent bands willing to sign cheaply without a presence in music stores or exposure on MTV, or a million-dollar tour.

I've always thought the music industry was run in a very strange manner. Even a talent like Kelly Clarkson can't get heard until she dyes her hair, loses a few pounds and shows off her boobies.

I think this is what the RIAA doesn't get. If this does get overturned it means radio stations have to adapt and find a new way to operate or they shut down.

The RIAA is looking for some way to make up for the money they feel is lost to piracy and radio seems to be their target now.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've always thought the music industry was run in a very strange manner. Even a talent like Kelly Clarkson can't get heard until she dyes her hair, loses a few pounds and shows off her boobies.

Seen recent picks of her? She's putting them back on with interest.

[Ksyrup]

Same thing's going on with internet airplay. There are some artists who would prefer to give up the royalties for online play because they benefit from the exposure they get.

All of this has the feel of a sports league's labor negotiations, doesn't it? The "league" purportedly acting in the best interests of the entertainers, when in reality they're only benefiting themselves and the most successful, well-off of the entertainers and the rank-and-file are disserved.

[RendeR]

Perhaps someone should go to congress with the realities of the situation and lobby to have the RIAA and the recording industry shut down altogether and rebuilt in a workable manner.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This is absolutely fascinating. Music is intensely personal, and isn't really suited to a mass-market approach. We're exposed to only a fraction of what is out there because of the way the RIAA runs things.

This may force radio stations to form groups to produce their own music - find large quantities of decent bands willing to sign cheaply without a presence in music stores or exposure on MTV, or a million-dollar tour.

I've always thought the music industry was run in a very strange manner. Even a talent like Kelly Clarkson can't get heard until she dyes her hair, loses a few pounds and shows off her boobies.

She's a what now?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by mckerney

She's a what now?

A talent. I think it's silly to say otherwise even if you don't like her style of music.

[Maple Leafs]

So just curious, what exactly do all the RIAA-bashers want them to do? I thought we all agreed that we wanted them to stop going after broke college students, so now they're going after the big corporations that own all the radio stations and we're still mad?

[SirFozzie]

We want them to admit their business model needs change and being stupid does not allow you to sue everything in site for "lost revenue". either that or die in peace like the dinosaurs did

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So just curious, what exactly do all the RIAA-bashers want them to do? I thought we all agreed that we wanted them to stop going after broke college students, so now they're going after the big corporations that own all the radio stations and we're still mad?

Now that iTunes and similar things are available to download individual songs, I have no problem with them going after people that are illegally downloading music. The excuse of being forced to buy an entire album to listen to a song or two that you like doesn't float anymore.

Attacking radio makes no sense, though. This would result in radio stations shutting down or less music actually being played by the stations that would stay in operation (if they don't get creative as Jim alluded to).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This would result in radio stations shutting down or less music actually being played by the stations that would stay in operation (if they don't get creative as Jim alluded to).

I'm curious how you know that for a fact.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm curious how you know that for a fact.

The companies that own radio stations aren't going to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars without making cuts somewhere. This means the smaller stations are going to get cut. That means less music played which means its harder for non-mainstream artists to get their music out there.

If you think this won't put stations out of business you're delusional.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm curious how you know that for a fact.

It's easily inferred.

1) Radio Advertising market is at best, flat, at worst, crash diving
2) Sattelite, HD radio eating into their market
3) RIAA wants HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars from radiostations per year

So how does a non "Flavor of the month" station survive?

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's an interesting proposition, but as the article noted, it certainly isn't a new idea. I had forgotten all about the Sinatra-led attempt to overturn the exemption back in the 80's (possibly because it gained little traction as I vaguely recall now).

One of the more interesting notes in the article (once I finally found a link that didn't require me to register to read it) was that "Performance royalties are collected from traditional radio stations in nearly all major industrialized countries" but not in the U.S., mostly because there's nothing that required it.
Also of note was that this isn't just an RIAA thing, along with NARAS another supporter is the U.S. Copyright Office which "has long supported removing the exemption."

Honestly, I think removing the exemption is the right thing to do from a legal standpoint. It's a huge competitive advantage to broadcast radio at this point & really shouldn't exist. Thing is, it seems incredibly short-sighted on the part of the various groups who think this will make them more money. It might, over the short term, but if it follows the 'net radio fee schedule, it'll darned near kill the biggest promotional tool the industry has ever had.
I would expect small stations to steadily drop like flies as a lot of them are already only marginally profitable as it is and for even the biggest, the phrase "more music, less talk" will probably mean something on the order of 6 songs an hour or whatever the bare minimum focus groups tell them they can get away would be. On the other hand, In A Gadda Da Vida will probably see an unprecedented increase in airplay

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

It's easily inferred.

1) Radio Advertising market is at best, flat, at worst, crash diving
2) Sattelite, HD radio eating into their market
3) RIAA wants HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars from radiostations per year

So how does a non "Flavor of the month" station survive?

Well, then perhaps radio stations should admit their business model needs change. Either that or die in peace like the dinosaurs did.

[SirFozzie]

They're next. Especially if this goes through.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That means less music played which means its harder for non-mainstream artists to get their music out there.

I thought non-maintstream artists didn't need the RIAA or big radio any more, because they could "get their music out there" online? Remember, all the p2p networks were great for the lesser-known artists, and the RIAA screwed those guys anyways, so it didn't really matter if a handful of really successful artists lost a few sales along the way?

Or was that just one of the things everyone says but doesn't mean, so we can justify all the music theft that goes on?

Also, am I using too many rhetorical questions in my posts? Is that a sign of lazy writing?

[st.cronin]

Yeah, it seems to me music format radio is pretty much a dying industry anyway.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I thought non-maintstream artists didn't need the RIAA or big radio any more, because they could "get their music out there" online? Remember, all the p2p networks were great for the lesser-known artists, and the RIAA screwed those guys anyways, so it didn't really matter if a handful of really successful artists lost a few sales along the way?

Or was that just one of the things everyone says but doesn't mean, so we can justify all the music theft that goes on?

Also, am I using too many rhetorical questions in my posts? Is that a sign of lazy writing?

No, the rest of your post does that quite well for you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The companies that own radio stations aren't going to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars without making cuts somewhere. This means the smaller stations are going to get cut. That means less music played which means its harder for non-mainstream artists to get their music out there.

I think it's probably worthwhile to better define "smaller stations" here. I don't believe the vast majority of the "small stations" I think of when I hear that phrase are playing anything other than very mainstream playlists. For every 1560 AM or 92.5 FM rimshot station in the exurban fringer that plays some sort of eclectic iPod shuffle format or whatever, there's 25 that are already getting their entire day's programming from one of the various satellite formats (that's satellite as in how it's delivered to them, not as in XM/Sirius).

I think where the hit in terms of variety of music would be seen is mostly with lower-rated or even mid-tier stations in medium & large markets. They're (relatively) small in terms of ratings & sales impact, but they really aren't what I would call "small stations" either.

Just a minor quibble from a guy who cut his teeth (and damaged his liver) while working at several of those truly small stations

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think it's probably worthwhile to better define "smaller stations" here. I don't believe the vast majority of the "small stations" I think of when I hear that phrase are playing anything other than very mainstream playlists. For every 1560 AM or 92.5 FM rimshot station in the exurban fringer that plays some sort of eclectic iPod shuffle format or whatever, there's 25 that are already getting their entire day's programming from one of the various satellite formats (that's satellite as in how it's delivered to them, not as in XM/Sirius).

I think where the hit in terms of variety of music would be seen is mostly with lower-rated or even mid-tier stations in medium & large markets. They're (relatively) small in terms of ratings & sales impact, but they really aren't what I would call "small stations" either.

Just a minor quibble from a guy who cut his teeth (and damaged his liver) while working at several of those truly small stations

Agreed, but I thought the MIKE FM method was the hot thing in the cities. Scrimp on DJ Costs (since most MIKE stations don't need/use em), and the whole thing is pretty much automated.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

We want them to admit their business model needs change and being stupid does not allow you to sue everything in site for "lost revenue". either that or die in peace like the dinosaurs did

Ding Ding Ding. Winner of the thread. . .

[st.cronin]

Using the airline analogy, isn't the status quo pretty much like if the oil companies were forced to give free oil to the airlines? I do understand the anti-RIAA feelings in GENERAL, but I just don't see what the big deal is here. It seems to me 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yeah, it seems to me music format radio is pretty much a dying industry anyway.

Careful not to get too carried away with that prediction. It's not what it used to be, but music formats still account for about 82% of all radio listening, give or take talk-oriented mornings on otherwise music stations & non-music religious programming, etc. That's down from about 84% eight years ago.
http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/fmttrends2.asp

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think where the hit in terms of variety of music would be seen is mostly with lower-rated or even mid-tier stations in medium & large markets. They're (relatively) small in terms of ratings & sales impact, but they really aren't what I would call "small stations" either.

Just a minor quibble from a guy who cut his teeth (and damaged his liver) while working at several of those truly small stations

These are actually what I, as someone that has never worked in radio or anything close to it, would consider a small station.

Anyways, these are the stations I see shutting down. There are ramifications when you try to get "hundreds of millions of dollars" out of a company and it almost always means cuts somewhere. If this happens there is absolutely no way in hell radio continues as is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Agreed, but I thought the MIKE FM method was the hot thing in the cities. Scrimp on DJ Costs (since most MIKE stations don't need/use em), and the whole thing is pretty much automated.

It is, and it isn't.

Voicetracking is pretty commonplace at this point, but there's only one station in Atlanta that's running purely jockless (and that's just in the morning right now). Most markets I'm familiar with are pretty similar, with only one station I can think of off-hand that's succeeded over several years consistently with that approach (WXRC "The Ride" in Charlotte). While Mike/Jack/Jill/Bob/etc format has been the hot thing, but the earliest adopters have shown a pretty consistent pattern overall - hot for about 6 months, erosion for the next 6 months, then flat with no real signs of improvement on the horizon. It'll usually land a station somewhere in the middle to upper-middle of the pack (depending on market & music mix), which is (coincidentally?) about where these stations often were when they adopted the format in the first place.

On a tangent, I think most people would be really surprised to know just how "automated" radio has become over the past several years, regardless of whether there's anybody sitting in the control room or not. You & some of the more savvy FOFC'ers might not be surprised, but I'd bet a nickel that Joe/Jane Average would be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

These are actually what I, as someone that has never worked in radio or anything close to it, would consider a small station.

That's cool, it just has a really different meaning to me (and I imagine it would to most people who've spent time living in really small markets/totally unrated markets).

Anyways, these are the stations I see shutting down. There are ramifications when you try to get "hundreds of millions of dollars" out of a company and it almost always means cuts somewhere. If this happens there is absolutely no way in hell radio continues as is.

I tend to doubt they would be completely shut down, since there's other options that could still generate revenue. Something like this would certainly be a boon for news/talk/sports on FM, to the extent that I doubt any decent sized market would have a stand-alone AM left. You'd see simulcasting all over the place, either within ownership groups or quite possibly through new LMA agreements (basically means I get to own the station but you take over the operations & pay me for the opportunity). Religious stations that have "teaching/preaching" formats would probably pick up some stray partners from something like this as well, as would non-music non-English language formats as well (like ESPN Desportes for example).

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On a tangent, I think most people would be really surprised to know just how "automated" radio has become over the past several years, regardless of whether there's anybody sitting in the control room or not. You & some of the more savvy FOFC'ers might not be surprised, but I'd bet a nickel that Joe/Jane Average would be.

When I worked at WDIS-Norfolk, MA, that was the epitome of a reduced work force station. We had six people on staff and me, a paid-under-the-table $100/week intern. The morning show host was also the news department director, and lead sports caster, and sold advertising on the side.

The Afternoon guy was the advertising director, and station engineer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

When I worked at WDIS-Norfolk, MA, that was the epitome of a reduced work force station. We had six people on staff and me, a paid-under-the-table $100/week intern. The morning show host was also the news department director, and lead sports caster, and sold advertising on the side.

The Afternoon guy was the advertising director, and station engineer.

Hell Foz, that sounds like nearly every station I worked at but one

(winking smiley aside, it really isn't much different. 1st station had 3-4 FT employees but we were live 6a-10p 7 days a week, and that was early/mid 80's with no automation)

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I thought non-maintstream artists didn't need the RIAA or big radio any more, because they could "get their music out there" online?

Many new musicians can get their music out to a decent audience online, but if they ever want to expand their fanbase or even break into the mainstream they will need radioplay to allow the people who don't frequent places like myspace to hear their music.

Plenty of bands (in the UK at least) have gotten their break on the radio after being "discovered" online.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You & some of the more savvy FOFC'ers might not be surprised, but I'd bet a nickel that Joe/Jane Average would be.

I couldn't agree more. I know several people who cannot believe that the DJ isn't picking his/her own songs to play. I haven't been in radio since the late eighties, but playlists were pretty set in stone then (at least at the stations I worked at) -- I can't imagine it's gotten any better since.

I actually can't think of many music personalities at all other than drive anymore, and that's usually talk/entertainment rather than music.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On a tangent, I think most people would be really surprised to know just how "automated" radio has become over the past several years, regardless of whether there's anybody sitting in the control room or not. You & some of the more savvy FOFC'ers might not be surprised, but I'd bet a nickel that Joe/Jane Average would be.

I was on college radio in the mid '90s...and absolutely nothing was automated. Even when I sat in at a top 40 station in Tucson, we were still shuffling CD stacks and popping in carts for commercials and promos. What is a real station like now?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly, I think removing the exemption is the right thing to do from a legal standpoint...

I would expect small stations to steadily drop like flies as a lot of them are already only marginally profitable as it is and for even the biggest, the phrase "more music, less talk" will probably mean something on the order of 6 songs an hour or whatever the bare minimum focus groups tell them they can get away would be. On the other hand, In A Gadda Da Vida will probably see an unprecedented increase in airplay

Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Copyright law derives from the Congress' power to promote the arts. So if you agree that it will ultimately hurt nearly everyone involved, then you can't agree that from a legal standpoint it should be repealed. The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the consumer through increasing the amount and quality of arts available, not to make sure people get paid (Disney is the worst offender at this...they made billions by taking from the copyright-expired works of others, now want their own copyright extended forever to protect their profits). Having artists get paid for their work is a means to an end, not an end itself.

If someone can show me a decrease in the quality and selection of music due to P2P sharing or having radio stations, enough to more than balance out the social benefits of free music on demand or radio stations, then I'd be all for these laws.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by path12

I couldn't agree more. I know several people who cannot believe that the DJ isn't picking his/her own songs to play. I haven't been in radio since the late eighties, but playlists were pretty set in stone then (at least at the stations I worked at) -- I can't imagine it's gotten any better since.

I actually can't think of many music personalities at all other than drive anymore, and that's usually talk/entertainment rather than music.

I can still remember my last substantive contact with radio listening. It was in 1996 (almost exactly 11 years ago, actually), before new music was so freely available/previewable on the web, and the new King's X CD was set to come out. They had sent the first single out to a number of stations, including one in Tallahassee. So on a Saturday morning, I called in around 9am and spoke with the weekend morning chick about playing the single so I could hear it (remember those days, when we actually had to wait to hear new stuff?). She had no idea what I was talking about, couldn't get the name straight even after I spelled it for her, and was generally clueless. Next guy comes in around noon, I go through the same thing and at least he has a clue, but doesn't know where the song is, etc. I try him a few hours later, same shit.

Afternoon/evening guy comes in, and he's cool. He knows the band, wants to play the song, knows where it is, promises he'll play it. Hours go by, nothing. I call back, and he finally tells me that his playlist is pretty much set and he usually can squeeze in 1 request a shift and he'll do his best to get to mine. At some point around 10pm, he finally plays it. At this point, I had been listening to the radio (or at least had it on in my general vicinity) for over 12 hours, just to hear 1 fucking song. And he happened to play it as Al Leiter was finishing his no-hitter, so I ended up missing the crowd reaction to that so I could listen to the song.

That was the last time I seriously paid attention to radio.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing is, it seems incredibly short-sighted on the part of the various groups who think this will make them more money. It might, over the short term, but if it follows the 'net radio fee schedule, it'll darned near kill the biggest promotional tool the industry has ever had.

It seams to me the RIAA has turned on it's self and is literally cannibalizing it's advertising arm. The music industry and radio have been in a symbiotic relation for over 50 years with both prospering because of it. Are they really that greedy and short sighted or just desperate.

[Bonegavel]

RIAA pisses me off the same as others, but I believe in letting the market work out it's own issues. Get rid of the exemption and let the radio stations come up with a new model.

I think in the end they would be stronger for it.

I personally feel that the RIAA should work on a model of releasing the music non-drm'd, charge for it (itunes, napster, whatever) and "put up" with the piracy that will occur but make up for it with live performances. You can't steal a live performance in the way you steal an MP3.

I feel, as with software, that DRM only hurts legit users. The hackers out there will crack your shit in 10 minutes and not pay for it regardless. But I as a paying user is the one that gets shafted. I get the root kits on my pc, or can't play a game because the software thinks my CD key (for which I paid upwards of $50) is invalid.

Don't DRM and then go after the pirates with reckless abandon.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I can still remember my last substantive contact with radio listening . . .

Some people just can't hide that they are lawyers

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Some people just can't hide that they are lawyers

I was about to make a thinly-veiled threat and tell you to govern yourself accordingly, but then I might just be proving your point.