Comments on: Radio's Right to Free Tunes Is on the Rocks

By: Brian’s Brain » Blog Archive » Pandora: Absolutely Amazing, Begorrah!

Thu, 27 May 2010 23:18:38 +0000

[...] as a promotional vehicle for new artists, I’m not surprised that the labels are striving to end radio’s longstanding performance royalty ‘free ride’. Conversely, I can’t comprehend why content rights owners are striving to put services like [...]

By: Linda A.

Linda A. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:26:37 +0000

BTW, I neglected to mention in my previous post, you can still get exposed to new music via the Internet and good ol’ CDs.

By: Linda A.

Linda A. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:18:13 +0000

Sounds to me like yet another case of the rich just trying to get richer. As John Mellencamp sang, “Ain’t that America…” Yes, it is, John. Yes, it is.

By: ASCAP music publisher

ASCAP music publisher — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:54:52 +0000

Radio stations have had to pay public performance royalties for decades , usually to organizations such as ASCAP and BMI which collect the royalties on behalf of the songwriter, music composer, and publisher.

Radio stations have never had the right to play music royalty free, not even indie produced music.

The bill that is being passed simply extends those royalties to the musicians and bands actually performing the music, whereas before the broadcasters only had to pay royalties to the songwriter, music composer, and publisher (copyright holders).

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:20:06 +0000

One way or the other the RIAA (who are the ones behind this) will destroy music as we know it. Over the past 50 years of their existence the RIAA has managed to make it so an artist only receives on average 50 cents out of 15.00 for a new CD. The member labels know this and are trying to extract every last cent it can from every source just to stay alive. Go ahead, charge royalties on the radio. Radio stops playing your music. Then go after places like MTV and they stop too. Guess where people will end up getting exposed to new music – NOWHERE.

Good job RIAA! You’re closer than ever to destroying your industry.

By: Radio might need to start paying for songs « All the dull stuff

Radio might need to start paying for songs « All the dull stuff — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:14:51 +0000

[...] March 15, 2009 Reports Gigaom. [...]

By: Friday Evening Links - | remove the labels | Gadgets and Life

Friday Evening Links - | remove the labels | Gadgets and Life — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:52:06 +0000

[...] on Phone Fund yahoo.com SureWest: Net loss, broadband-fueled revenue growth fiercetelecom.com Radio s Right to Free Tunes Is on the Rocks gigaom.com Telstra barred from Aussie National Broadband Network bids abc.net.au Mobile OS wars: [...]

By: TPile » Blog Archive » Friday Evening Links -

TPile » Blog Archive » Friday Evening Links - — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:00:36 +0000

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:36:27 +0000

You have it bass-ackwards. The government should not be involved in the obligations of the distributors of copyrighted content. That relationship should be completely private.

By: Lou Covey

Lou Covey — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:41:57 +0000

This could be great news for local indie bands. Radio stations would have to balance the cost of playing big-name groups’ music agains what would probably be a bargain from local groups that have no label. I remember when KSAN in SF used to play a lot of unknowns (like the Doobie Brothers, Tower of Power and Jefferson Airplane) before anyone every signed them to labels. Today we have huge broadcast conglomerates working hand in glove with recording companies and shutting out the indies. Local radio could have a competitive advantage by shifting over to local groups.

By: Rags

Rags — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:29:26 +0000

GreenTambourine,

That’s right! The labels have indeed paid in-cash and in-kind to get radio to play them. But the principle of paying for the commercial exploitation of intellectual property should still apply. The labels could always then choose to waive this (and effectively drive down the cost of their payola).

By: Sue Choppers-Wife

Sue Choppers-Wife — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:10:31 +0000

The other side of the coin….

http://www.fhhlaw.com/memo_clients/2009/00040941.pdf

Congress + Special Interest Groups = No more ‘Land of the Free’ (in all contexts of the word)

By: GreenTambourine

GreenTambourine — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:34:07 +0000

So let me get this straight: For decades the labels have thrown everything from Cadillacs to call-girls for radio dee-jays to play their music. Now all of the sudden, they want radio to pay them? I always love it when rich Hollywood moguls fly in to Washington in their private jets to ask Congress for more money.

By: Dilip

Dilip — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:57:21 +0000

Hey,
There is a fun talk at Stanford Grad School of Business on March 17th. MC Hammer and the manager of Death Cab for Cutie are going to be there among other distinguished panelists from Tapulous, Mozes…
Check it out…
http://www.vlab.org/article.html?aid=260

By: eas

eas — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:19:04 +0000

What’s even more absurd is that radio pays a royalty to the songwriters. It’s just the performers getting screwed. This may have made sense when selling concert tickets was more important than selling recordings, but it’s been the better part of a century since that was the case.

By: Should Traditional Radio Stations Pay Music Royalties? at The MTTLR Blog

Should Traditional Radio Stations Pay Music Royalties? at The MTTLR Blog — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:21:32 +0000

[...] hearings this week focused on whether or not traditional radio stations should have to pay royalties for the music they play. Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins, was among those who testified in support of H.R. 848, The [...]