| |
News: Obama wants radio to start paying for its music
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Obama wants radio to start paying for its music
 Maybe radio will have to stop playing the same songs every hour and turn more to indie and other cheap artists.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-its-music.ars
The recording industry scored a significant victory today with news that the Obama administration will provide its "strong support" for the Performance Rights Act. The bill would force over-the-air radio stations to start coughing up cash for the music they play; right now, the stations pay songwriters, but not the actual recording artists.
This has been a dream of the recording industry for decades, but it has taken on new importance as the revenues from recorded music have plummeted over the last decade. The broadcasters refer to the idea as a new "tax" that will largely benefit foreign record companies such as Universal (France), Sony (Japan), and EMI (UK).
Today, a letter from the Commerce Department's general counsel, Cameron Kerry, makes clear which side has the administration's support: the recording industry. (We double-checked with Kerry's office; this is no April Fools' joke.)
"The Department has long endorsed amending the US copyright law to provide for an exclusive right of public performance of sound recordings," says the letter. It pledges "strong support" for the current bill and approves the idea that radio's payment exemption is nothing more than "an historical anomaly that does not have a strong policy justification."
A copy of the letter was sent to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the letter, Kerry says that making radio pay for music is really a matter of fairness—not just to artists, but to Internet webcasters and satellite radio, too.
That's because both webcasters and the satellite radio folks currently do have to pay a public performance right on the music they play; the exclusion granted to over-the-air broadcasters thus distorts the market and makes it difficult for new technologies to gain traction. "It would also provide a level playing field for all broadcasters to compete in the current environment of rapid technological change, including the Internet, satellite, and terrestrial broadcasters," says the letter.
In addition to rationalizing the performance rights scheme in the US, Commerce points out that the US is the only major industrialized country to have such an exemption for over-the-air radio. Making a change isn't just a case of bowing to peer pressure; real money is at stake, since many artists are unable to collect the public performance money due them in other countries because of "the lack of reciprocal protection under US copyright law."
The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents radio, hasn't yet responded to the letter—but its position is clear. "This new performance tax could financially cripple local radio stations, stifle new artists trying to break into the recording business, and harm the listening public who rely on local radio," it says, and the NAB has managed to round up 260 House members in support of a resolution called "The Local Radio Freedom Act."
In addition, the NAB (correctly) points out that it has been the broadcasters who repeatedly engaged in "payola" over the years; not only has radio paid nothing to the recording industry, but the industry has gone to the trouble of paying extra to radio, just for the privilege of promoting particular songs.
However the issue is decided, some major corporations are going to benefit. If radio keeps its exemption, it's a win for big broadcasters like Clear Channel. If radio's exemption gets the axe, much of the money being paid will flow into recording industry coffers. But, as the Commerce filing points out, the current system is ridiculous; it needs to be decided in one way or another. Requiring some broadcasters to pay for music while others get a free ride, based simply on a difference in delivery mechanism, is no way to run a system, and it's no way to encourage innovation.
Congress has already tried locking both sides in a room to solve the issue; at some point soon, it will just have to vote.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/5/2009
Posts: 137,162
|
Interesting.
But why is this important? Obama needs to focus on other stuff.
I don't even listen or care about politics, but my teacher always complains about Obama not doing anything right & that she is scared for the economy, etc.. while I'm sitting here thinking Obama is doing "OK" even when I don't know any of the facts.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
But doesn't they already pay Copyrights?
Actually, this should have been done years ago. Anyway, playing song on the radio will now cost like buying a song on iTunes.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2010
Posts: 27,892
|
God. I wish our president would concentrate on things that are actually IMPORTANT. This would simply increase the COMMERICIALS that radios would have to play too, no?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/16/2009
Posts: 6,231
|
the government wants more money 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/31/2009
Posts: 3,465
|
I don't see why some people are upset, this is actually a very good thing. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/23/2009
Posts: 26,796
|
I don't want stations to have to shell out more money, it pretty much means that the variety of music will decrease AND smaller, more community driven stations might die out since they cannot keep up with the higher fees. =[
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/27/2006
Posts: 51,546
|
People, Obama just got the Health bill passed after 8 years of Bush doing absolutely nothing but pushing us into debt. He is doing what is important. This is focusing on tax, which would be one of the positive benefits to the economy, as it would be growth in money.  If you don't know anything, then keep quiet because it looks ignorant to be attacking the President and not have any knowledge.
Now, on the actual topic this will be a good idea. I doubt the tax/payment would be high, first of all. Then, some are saying it will make radio decrease in play, while it could at the same diversify radio.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/31/2009
Posts: 3,465
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rico Shameless v2
People, Obama just got the Health bill passed after 8 years of Bush doing absolutely nothing but pushing us into debt. He is doing what is important. This is focusing on tax, which would be one of the positive benefits to the economy, as it would be growth in money. If you don't know anything, then keep quiet because it looks ignorant to be attacking the President and not have any knowledge.
Now, on the actual topic this will be a good idea. I doubt the tax/payment would be high, first of all. Then, some are saying it will make radio decrease in play, while it could at the same diversify radio. |
I second this.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 5/3/2009
Posts: 349
|
LOL! It's not OBAMA that wants it! The white house just supports it! The congress has been discussing this for maaaanyyy years! Arists and labels want it...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/23/2009
Posts: 26,796
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rico Shameless v2
People, Obama just got the Health bill passed after 8 years of Bush doing absolutely nothing but pushing us into debt. He is doing what is important. This is focusing on tax, which would be one of the positive benefits to the economy, as it would be growth in money. If you don't know anything, then keep quiet because it looks ignorant to be attacking the President and not have any knowledge.
Now, on the actual topic this will be a good idea. I doubt the tax/payment would be high, first of all. Then, some are saying it will make radio decrease in play, while it could at the same diversify radio. |
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-spending.html
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/
Without getting too much into politics, and what not...Obama has basically spent more money in one year than Bush has....and Bush had two wars. XD That link doesnt even factor the health care bill that just passed.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/26/2009
Posts: 51
|
This is not good people..this tax might sound like a good idea but if passed this is going to destroy the jobs of all the people in the radio industry. Do we seriously need more jobs lost..If this is past then you can say goodbye to music on the radio and hello to other crap put in it's place to pay the bills at the radio stations..
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2008
Posts: 14,823
|
But some radio stations are barely scarping by as it is. 
This means that in order to pay all the "fines" of playing a song, they will have to either make jobs cuts or hand out smaller wages. And people in the radio industry don't get payed very much as it is, unless they're top executives.
It will be the death of radio, mark my words.
Think about this, too. If smaller market stations are not able to meet the demands of the record label/artist, then they have to shut down. Which means, less people are hearing music on the radio. This might not seem bad to some of you who are thinking "small markets... pft," but honestly, there are WAY more small markets than large markets. And in fact, if you combine the populations of all the small markets, it's about the same as 1.5 times the New York market, which is the largest market. So, basically, you're loosing about 27,000,000 people. That means 27,000,000 people won't download a song they didn't hear, won't go buy an album they didn't hear singles from, and 27,000,000 people will not get to hear new music unless they are Internet users, which not all of them are.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
^ Or they'll start playing more commercials = Less songs.
And also, they'll prefer to play short songs, so songs that will pass the 4 minute mark probably won't get played at all.
Anyhow, how much does Radio pay on every played song these days? 1$?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/7/2010
Posts: 847
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ifyouseekLEM
|
The difference is that Obama is actually trying to fix things, he isn't just sitting back and doing nothing like Bush which is what that poster said. You can't expect things to change if you're not actively doing things that will promote it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tcatron565
Think about this, too. If smaller market stations are not able to meet the demands of the record label/artist, then they have to shut down. Which means, less people are hearing music on the radio. This might not seem bad to some of you who are thinking "small markets... pft," but honestly, there are WAY more small markets than large markets. And in fact, if you combine the populations of all the small markets, it's about the same as 1.5 times the New York market, which is the largest market. So, basically, you're loosing about 27,000,000 people. That means 27,000,000 people won't download a song they didn't hear, won't go buy an album they didn't hear singles from, and 27,000,000 people will not get to hear new music unless they are Internet users, which not all of them are.
|
I don't see why these people just won't search for a new station?
Not necessarily local one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2008
Posts: 14,823
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RudeBoy
^ Or they'll start playing more commercials = Less songs.
And also, they'll prefer to play short songs, so songs that will pass the 4 minute mark probably won't get played at all.
Anyhow, how much does Radio pay on every played song these days? 1$?
|
That is a very good possibility. I never even thought of that. Lord knows radio plays too many commercials as it is. (Especially in the morning.)
I'm not sure how much they pay right now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2008
Posts: 14,823
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RudeBoy
I don't see why these people just won't search for a new station?
Not necessarily local one.
|
You can't pick up non-local stations on your radio. You have to be in the vicinity of another radio station to hear it. Like for instance, where I live, I get all radio stations from a small market. If the entire radio industry in this market (or even just pop stations) were to go under, then I wouldn't be able to listen to one unless I got on the Internet or drive to Springfield, Kansas City, or St. Louis (the three big markets in my state).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/5/2009
Posts: 5,253
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2010
Posts: 21,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tcatron565
You can't pick up non-local stations on your radio. You have to be in the vicinity of another radio station to hear it. Like for instance, where I live, I get all radio stations from a small market. If the entire radio industry in this market (or even just pop stations) were to go under, then I wouldn't be able to listen to one unless I got on the Internet or drive to Springfield, Kansas City, or St. Louis (the three big markets in my state).
|
Or suddenly thousand of local pirated station will start popping up..
Actually, I thought about it again. If they only pay to the songwriters, then this will encourage new (and not new) artists to write their own songs. Honestly, I think, every artists needs to write his own songs or atleast co-write them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
