MusicFIRST Coalition Launched

[SlyckTom]

In order to accomplish a great feat, one needs to organize. In this case, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is looking to tax terrestrial radio so that record companies (copyright holders) receive a cut of the royalties. In radio’s 70 plus year existence, broadcasters have not been required to send royalties to the record companies. The RIAA wants to change this. To do so, they have helped form a coalition – a coalition of the willing – and this coalition is known as the newly launched <a href=http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/ target=_blank>MusicFIRST</a> (Fairness in Radio Starting Today).

So what exactly are the goals of MusicFirst and its coalition of the willing? It’s simple really. The organization aims to mandate terrestrial radio broadcasters to pay performance royalties to record companies. This can’t be done, quite literally, without an act of Congress. Terrestrial radio broadcasters do currently pay some royalties, but only to music publishers and song writers. The copyright owners, such as Sony-BMG, Vivendi, EMI, and those represented by the RIAA don’t receive a dime. Zip. Zilch. Nada. But they do have Nada III.

It’s important to remember however, this rule only applies to analog broadcasts. When it comes to the digital world, such as iTunes or Napter, royalties must be paid to copyright holders. However, the digital concept didn’t exist way back in the year of mud, and terrestrial (analog) radio broadcasters have been able to skate by ever since.

"Of all the ways we listen to music, "Corporate Radio" is the only medium that refuses to pay performers even a fraction of a penny for their voice and creativity," said Mark Kadesh, executive director of musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today). "This campaign is about making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed fair treatment when their music is played."

It hardly appears that “Corporate Radio” is the only medium that refuses to pay – or doesn’t pay at all. This statement leaves out the very nemesis of the RIAA and music industry – free P2P. If we were to truly look at all the ways people listen to music, corporate radio is scarcely alone. And in essence they do pay royalties to songwriters and publishers. And it’s much better than the few pennies that go to ROMs.

From the NAB’s (National Association of Broadcasters) perspective, the RIAA and the music industry are little more than money grubbing scoundrels. They point out that this arrangement has been mutually beneficial, as it gives the music industry a free outlet to advertise their product and an avenue for up-and-coming artists to gain exposure. NAB was quick to fire back a <a href=http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases1&CONTENTID=9121&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm target=_blank>response</a> to MusicFIRST’s formation.

"NAB will aggressively fight RIAA's proposed performance tax on local radio stations," said NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton. "Congress has long recognized that radio airplay of music generates millions of dollars in revenue for record labels and artists. Were it not for radio's free promotional airplay of music on stations all over America, most successful recording artists would still be playing in a garage."

There’s a showdown brewing between the terrestrial radio broadcasters and the music industry. The music industry is still reeling from the effects of free music pilfering throughout the Internet. Cash isn’t flowing the way it once did, and digital music sales aren’t picking up the slack. So college students and terrestrial radio watch out, the music industry beg-a-thon is an equal opportunity enforcer.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Radio stations should happily agree to this, on the basis that they invoice the RIAA for promotional work, ie: the promotion of the music.

My bet is, the promotion of music by the radio stations is WAY more valueable then a small tax on play time, this will leave the RIAA with a bloody nose and fat bill. Commercial music is only a success because its errmm commerical, the radios stations and folks like mtv have a huge say in this, and could very easliy pull the rug from under the Riaa, lets say a couple of weeks of playing unsigned artists music ONLY and none of the Riaa's "big" commercial artists should be enough to end the Riaas foolishness.

[IceCube]

I remember a radio manager putting this VERY well - though this is in Canada where a blanket licensing fee is already paid.

He basically said that 'we pay a licensing fee to play music for a large area for free. If they start saying, 'Hey, now we want money for it!', we'd just laugh and hand them back their CD. You can't have your cake and eat it too.'

[CopyCounslr]

I mean did you read the response press release with the John Legend sound clip commercial?

This is way too funny. It is almost as funny as RAM being an electronic storage device, therefore admissable in court as evidence. (ie, torrentspy lawsuit)

-------

When will the fun end. Really folks, the entertainment industry is truely doing their job by entertaining the public with their best masterpiece yet. To bad it is costing a select few (we the public) and arm and a leg and a first born here and there...

- Copy

[sunflower04]

why is it that if the riaa where truly feeling ripped off by radio stations, are they now just complaining about it?

cd sales are down of course.

while i do agree that radio stations make money playing music. the riaa also makes money off of radio stations playing music. people are more likely to go out and buy a cd, or a song off of itunes, etc. if they hear the song played on the radio, and like it.

if someone's music doesn't get played on the radio, consumers aren't going to be aware that it is out there. therefore the musician, and the riaa don't make money on that person's album sales.

so the riaa is making money off of sons played on the radio.

[carcassfan]

This can’t be done, quite literally, without an act of Congress.

Yes but we all know congress can be bought just as easily as a corner hustling crack whore. This really doesnt surprise me at all.

[Sweeper18]

Doesn't the name of this just scream irony?

[Your_Mentor]

Few things will happen.. Radio stations will have to fire their DJ's since its too costly with the new RIAA tax. Some radio stations will ban together to play INDEPENDENT NON RIAA music formats. Some will go out of business, and sell.. THe only one who is friends with the RIAA is clear channels.. There the whore who supports them in what ever they do. I doubt they can pay up for so long before they too go broke.

I honestly hope it works.. I would love to see them crumble by their own hands.

[IceCube]

Well, the thing with SoundExchange, though this is for internet radio, dunno if it affect FM radio too, is that even if you play non-RIAA music, you still are forced to pay royalties even if the artist specifically says (via CC) that royalties do not need to be paid.

What I don't get is, why fund a new coalition when lobbying power is so evident in Congress to begin with? Essentially, what's the point?

[Wham]

This has to be a joke. Why in the world would anyone want to ruin their own business? What are the dumb bastards in charge of the RIAA and Music Industry thinking. Are they crazy. Don't make any good business sence at all. First you sue your own customers and then you finish yourself off by trying to remove all exposeure of your product. It's like saying, I'm in business making this product but I don't need to advertize it. The whole lot of them should have been fired 10 years ago.

In spite of all the RIAA does do to try to kill themselves, Music will live on and survive because of people like yours truely and the many great people here at Slyck of who happen to love music.

[piXelatedEmpire]

Now tell me you honestly didn't see this coming? What a joke. Radio = free advertising. Now they want to charge the radio for advertising their product?!

I can't wait to listen to those new radio stations playing new non-RIAA music.

[IceCube]

In spite of all the RIAA does do to try to kill themselves, Music will live on and survive because of people like yours truely and the many great people here at Slyck of who happen to love music.

Indeed. Been playing non-RIAA music on the radio for months now. It's nice having artists thank me for playing music on the radio instead of demanding money. Outright boycot while promoting what will (hopefully) take over in the future of music - indipendent and half unsigned artists.

At this point, I'm considering the internet an endless supply of non-RIAA music. If I can't listen to it in a lifetime if I played it back-to-back without repeats, it's endless enough for me!

Lots of good stuff out there.

[Wham]

Ice, you are a very smart person in my opinion. Now if the RIAA had someone like you, things would be ducky! If the RIAA had anyone with just a little bit of leadership skill, they would get themselves out of trouble, but a great person like yourself, could lead them to new hights and might even get them forgiven by the consumer.

[IceCube]

That's probably the most flattering post I've read in a while. Thanks

One point though:

if the RIAA had someone like you, things would be ducky!

Unfortunately for the RIAA, people like me at least have a substandard or two.

Though people like me would get ignored at the board meetings and told to shut up by co-workers behind the scenes methinks. If I remember right, Cory Doctorow said he made an arguement to the RIAA once which went something like, 'You guys need to stop talking about morals because how can the people who brought us sex, drugs and rock and roll start preaching about morals and respect over music?'

But yeah, I personally try and make it a point in my show to promote the non-commercial music over the commercial stuff even though it's all indipendently produced. I play the commercial stuff still because there is still good stuff under independent labels, but mix it in with CC content. It's interesting how sometimes the commercial stuff is clearly better then the non-commercial, then the opposite becomes true a few shows later where it's the non-commercial stuff that was totally the highlights of the show. It totally makes my day when I get home and recieve e-mails from artists being completely extatic over the idea of being played on FM radio.

Unfortunately, the situation is different in Canada. Radio here is facing Tarriff 22 which demands royalty payments that would force indie radio off the air pretty much accross Canada due to retroactive fee's. I'm told that hte fee's would go WELL into the 5 figure numbers. Kinda steep for non-profit radio.

[Ne007]

Yeh...Their name SHOULD be MoneyFIRST!

They must have called up George Dubya and his buddies for tips.

[forbuyfor]

Been playing non-RIAA music on the radio for months now. It's nice having artists thank me for playing music on the radio instead of demanding money.

Lets not forget that it's the RIAA trying to squeeze FM radio to top up their coffers, not the artists. I'm sure, as with DRM the artists have nothing to do with it or even want it.
Also if it does go through, I'd bet that artists will not see dime one of the money collected allthough the RIAA will undoubtedly spin it as "fairness for artists".

[anonymity22]

but hey you guys forgot that now that p2p brings more awareness of their product than AM/FM does, they should make money off of radio now because it isn't promotional, it's profit.


The RIAA simply failed to grasp the mp3 as the product to replace conventional product and while failing to act on it in the decade since napster, they lost the foothold on their own market. The RIAA was to caught up in licensing agreements in commercial and entertainment markets to worry about it back then. It was the slippery slope of delusion. Failing to produce business growth, does not give you the right to scream foul 10 years down the road because you "didn't know" and turn your customers into criminals.

Microsoft has the number one pirated product on this planet, yet strangely, they are richer then us all. Bill Gates may not be the best programmer, but he is a marketing business man who understands technology.

Believe it or not, I'd rather see microsoft, shit even apple (with many joint ventures) at the healm of the entertainment industry than the current bunch of old guys who probably still listen to all of their music on cd's on their Bose Wave Radios. (no offense to any bose owners)

[Your_Mentor]

It might actually increase their sales. Imagine, no one hearing the same damn song for the three whole months.. Maybe people will buy the album because their not burnt out on it. I have to many favorite bands to try and bookmark their site so i can find out when an album may appear. I usually see what comes out by the scene on p2p.

[ftdn2006]

The copyright owners, such as Sony-BMG, Vivendi, EMI, and those represented by the RIAA don’t receive a dime. Zip. Zilch. Nada. But they do have Nada III.

Freakin Hilarious...took me a while to get it, but funny

[dhuman]

Just found this forum, and want to jump into this conversation <place target on back here>. I do independent promotion and licensing for independent labels and artists, based outside New York. I've worked with independent labels, and artists, my entire music career, which goes back twenty years. I don't work for the RIAA, and I'm not a fan of any commercial radio that doesn't play independent music (shout-outs to WOXY, KEXP, the Canadian-radio poster below who plays independent music, all of whom are friends of mine, etc.)

That said, I hate to be the one who breaks the news that independent artists and labels ALSO need to be fairly paid for their work, not just RIAA artists. I think it's really convenient to make the assertion that this is all about the RIAA - an evil, faceless entity - instead of about your neighborhood musician who is struggling to buy their next dinner (I managed many of these musicians for ten years, while trying to find my next dinner, I know what I'm talking about) and sees a very changing landscape with little certainty on where things are going.

Little checks here and there buy little things - and those are extremely important to artists (and to their support networks, managers, etc.). Supporting artists at gigs is one way to do that, but so is supporting artists who are trying to get a broadcast right when the US is the only major country in the world that doesn't provide one. Why? If there's a bigger, more powerful lobby than the RIAA, it's initials are NAB (National Association of Broadcasters).

I don't know how many on this board realize the extent the rest of the world looks to the US to see what develops over here in terms of paying for music. Continuing the US precedent of not paying the sound recording owner just devalues that right around the world. That's great for the big corporations who fund the NAB (yes, there are major corporations on the other side too).

Anyone on this board knows that music is more and more often experienced online and digitally, either via p2p or via a performance (such as a webcast). Now it's one thing if you're a brand new artist, and you choose to make your music available free, in the name of promotion. More power to you, and going back to my days of management, I'd love to have access to the multitude of free promotional tools that are available on the 'net for new acts I was working with. It's entirely another if you're an established act - indie or otherwise - and you *don't* choose to do that, and the majority of established artists (through their labels) don't.

There were approx. 78,000 releases last year - labels (independents and otherwise) act as useful filters for finding what you like. If labels are not able to monetize the transition from sales of physical CDs (which are down 20% this year alone, and not just the majors), many will go out of business. Is that any less fair than a webcaster who goes out of business? Like it or not, labels make it possible for many artists to exist and prosper. Yes, it's a new world out there, and there are new opportunities galore - but there are also 78,000 other releases to compete against, and many artists I know would like to do a bit better than simply scrape by.

Just picking up on a few other points...

- most independents provide promotional mp3s, I can think of barely a handful who don't, and they've been doing this for years

- the claim that most artists don't want to see income from radio and that this is the RIAA talking, is like saying you don't really want to get paid for cutting that lawn - it's all about goodwill and advertising your services. At the end of the day, music has to be paid for in one way or another, whether it's through (a finite supply of) advertising, or directly by the consumer.

- sure radio sells records, I buy records from hearing them on radio (among other places) - but radio also earns a healthy income off ad sales that are all about listenership created by a good music selection, and builds brands that often become very valuable. Why should independent artists and labels not share in some form of direct payment from radio, when artists and labels around the world do? Should we really be so black and white - free music for free promotion? What if the two don't equal out?

- Soundexchange isn't the obstacle to artists who want to provide their music free to online radio - Congress sets collection rates, via the CRB proceeding. Soundexchange can only change collection rules for its own members from what the CRB determines, and the CRB has determined that every artist deserves to be paid. Various webcasting groups were well represented at the most recent CRB hearing.

- this isn't a new fight that's "about cd sales" only, sure sales are down, but if you review your history you'll see that labels have been fighting for a sound recording payment from radio going back to the 60's.

In my opinion, it's time the independents stand up for their rights, but also stand up for their partners in internet radio, even when those positions don't mesh 100% with those of the larger labels. There's a fair balance, and that's what the independent and artist members of Soundexchange, and other organizations that represent independents, are trying to achieve, despite appearances to the contrary.

Music - and the use of music - is not an entitlement.

[piXelatedEmpire]

First off, welcome to Slyck dhuman, hope you stick around

terrific first post.

sure radio sells records, I buy records from hearing them on radio (among other places) - but radio also earns a healthy income off ad sales that are all about listenership created by a good music selection, and builds brands that often become very valuable. Why should independent artists and labels not share in some form of direct payment from radio, when artists and labels around the world do? Should we really be so black and white - free music for free promotion? What if the two don't equal out?

A question: you said that there's approx 78,000 releases a year for artists to compete with - that's quite a bit of competition (althought not necessarily direct ie differing genres etc). Of all the methods for advertising music, what would you suggest is the most successful, that reaches the most potential customers? I'd suggest that radio would be that avenue. So suggesting that radio stations pay for the right to advertise a musicians work doesn't add up to me.

Secondly, radio listenership isn't just about a good music selection. Your forgetting the many radio personalities that draw listeners to their stations. I for one am more likely to listen to a station if I enjoy listening to the person/s hosting a segment as opposed to the music they play.

[IceCube]

Indeed, welcome to Slyck.

sure radio sells records, I buy records from hearing them on radio (among other places) - but radio also earns a healthy income off ad sales that are all about listenership created by a good music selection, and builds brands that often become very valuable. Why should independent artists and labels not share in some form of direct payment from radio, when artists and labels around the world do? Should we really be so black and white - free music for free promotion? What if the two don't equal out?

Technically, radio already does pay royalties and it's suppose to be up to the collective to re-distribute the money back to the artists. Unfortunately, the money usually ends up going to the record company (I'm referring to the RIAA record companies, not the indiependent ones that keep an honest relationship with their artists) who ends up pocketting that extra money for their corporate interests.

What sound exchange has proposed from what I've read is a system where additional royalties have to be paid by radio (which won't be a problem for mainstream commercial radio, but would be the death knell of any indipendent radio that actually has the capability of increasing variety for the listeners in the first place) This sounds like a great idea, but the devil is in the details.

They are asking that no matter who is being played, the radio station has to pay thse royalty fee's. Essentially, this takes one right away from artists which is a right to decide whether they want to get paid or not.

This may seem like something that will only hurt small radio stations, but that's just scratching the surface. It gets a lot worse. The money doesn't get put into the hands of artists, so where does the money go? The money goes to this royalty collective whome then redistributes the money. Sounds OK, right? Well, the collective says that artists who want to collect the royalties, or labels who want to collect the royalties on their behalf, must pay a fee to the collective to get the money back out. So essentially, you have to get played a number of times first by whatever system this collective (which, btw, is set up by the RIAA so they will have a system that will benefit them and not the rest of the artists - that much is a give-in) before it is financially worth it to pay into the collective in the first place to get the money back out of the system. Thereby not only removing the right for an artist to choose whether or not he or she wants royalties for their music, but also locking them out of reach from that money at the same time. That's why I, as an artist, do not like this plan one bit and I'm not even going to be affected by it since I'm not even in the country to begin with!

Why I'm worried is if the country I'm in will start modelling the US for a similar system.

A question: you said that there's approx 78,000 releases a year for artists to compete with - that's quite a bit of competition (althought not necessarily direct ie differing genres etc). Of all the methods for advertising music, what would you suggest is the most successful, that reaches the most potential customers? I'd suggest that radio would be that avenue. So suggesting that radio stations pay for the right to advertise a musicians work doesn't add up to me.

Just to add to that comment, the internet serves as a more efficient way of advertising anyway. More people will turn to the internet as the populace in general becomes more tech savvy. One of my managers was telling me how he was not believing it when people in the radio industry kept demanding that we keep cable radio despite it being a dead medium when clearly the future of radio is within internet radio instead.

There may be 78,000 releases by record label's that wind up in Brick's and Mortar stores throughout the world, but I'm willing to bet that the number instantly goes well into the 6 figures when you factor in the independent artists and record labels who have deals with sites like AudioJelly, BeatPort, AudioLunchbox, etc. etc. not to mention the 7 figure song archives of SoundClick and Dmusic. Argueably, there are only two things that are slow to move to the internet, the mainstream incumbant industries and the audience that persist to live and breathe off of their products. Believe me, the indie music industry is pretty much already on the internet and establishing some very smart business models at this point.

Secondly, radio listenership isn't just about a good music selection. Your forgetting the many radio personalities that draw listeners to their stations. I for one am more likely to listen to a station if I enjoy listening to the person/s hosting a segment as opposed to the music they play.

That's a very interesting comment because when I started in radio, the key thing I was taught was that it was all about the music. My DJing personality skills are merely something that comes along with the shows produced, but the music would be the biggest selling point of the show.

To add to that, I've listened to competing radio stations and some of them have incredibly good DJ personalities, but the music is horrible. I personally wouldn't listen to their stations on a regular basis had it not been for the fact that during the morning hours, my station features talkshows (I can't wake up to talking honestly, even if the music is horrible, I can wake up to it in the morning)

[Wham]

Great comments dhuman,Pix,and Ice and very interesting to me. I wish, a person like myself could grasp all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the music business.

I personally don't have a problem purchasing songs to support the artists whether they be Ind or RIAA associated, I could care less. I have a huge collection that I have purchased. What I don't understand is why, even after it has been pointed out to me, (I guess I'm dense), do the artists or RIAA or whomever want a cut from radio? To a dummy like myself, the artists/labels are getting free advertisement, which is worth big bucks.

For a dummy like myself, I must hear a tune before I am likely to purchase it. The way I look at it, even if the tune is by a favorite artist of mine, I just ain't going to purchase the tune unless I like it, which means I must here it. EXPOSURE is everything where music is concerned in my opinion.

I would have purchased many more tunes, if it weren't for the fact that, to soak the consumer they came out with albums, in which you are stuck with unwanted tunes, for a hefty price. Oh sure there are great albums, but very few and far between.

A dummy, like myself, can now purchase a tune on something like iTunes and only pay for the one song but now you have DRM on that song. As far as I am concerned they can take their DRM and shove it. So there we have it. What we have is a standoff. I ain't going to purchase albums, singles or any other music that has DRM on it. Basically, I am SOL and so isn't the artist that depends on me buying his tune. What about P2P? P2P has degraded to a point where, I don't want to use it anymore. Again I am SOL.

[rkrause]

As appeared in the news article:
"Of all the ways we listen to music, "Corporate Radio" is the only medium that refuses to pay performers even a fraction of a penny for their voice and creativity," said Mark Kadesh, executive director of musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today). "This campaign is about making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed fair treatment when their music is played."

That is one the most misguided statements I've seen published by an RIAA-spokesperson in a long time.

Last I checked, dance clubs, skating rinks, mobile DJs, and numerous other businesses are built entirely upon the use of recorded music. Yet they remain free to exploit sound recordings without remunerating SRCOs or recording artists.

Meanwhile other industrialized nations like Australia and the United Kingdom recognize a broad performance right in sound recordings -- a concept which is far too esoteric for the Recording Industry Association of America and the National Association of Broadcasters to grasp.

Clearly, the motives of this new coalition are extremely suspect. How is it "fair treatment" that only terrestrial radio broadcasts should ssudenly implicate the performance right in sound recordings while performing the exact same sound recordings in a public location should once again constitute an exemption?

Randall Krause
Executive Director
Small Webcaster Community Initiative

[dhuman]

OK, sorry for the delay getting back (unfortunately I have a business to run too) - I appreciate the good questions and the willingness to engage on this.

Let me add, in the interest of full disclosure - I'm on the board of Soundexchange <repost target on back here>. I hold the "small independent" seat on that board, and I'm posting because, while not every decision goes exactly the way I might want it to, the Soundexchange board is bigger than just RIAA members and it's frustrating for me to see the board painted as an RIAA shill (for the record, it's composed of 9 label reps, including three independents, and 9 artists). Big labels and monolithic organizations make much more inviting targets than small labels and artists, and much effort has been made to paint the MusicFirst initiative as something that will only benefit large labels.

Code: Select all

A question: you said that there's approx 78,000 releases a year for artists to compete with - that's quite a bit of competition (althought not necessarily direct ie differing genres etc). Of all the methods for advertising music, what would you suggest is the most successful, that reaches the most potential customers? I'd suggest that radio would be that avenue. So suggesting that radio stations pay for the right to advertise a musicians work doesn't add up to me.

This is a good question, but I think the key issue is "what is advertising"? To the extent you consider music on radio "advertising" only, I think what I'd say to this is that no one (except the station owner!) would miss no advertising, but everyone would miss no music. Right? So it strikes me that the inherent value of music is far greater than that of advertising, and consequently (and this goes back to my previous post) it's not a 50-50 deal (radio provides the platform, music provides the entertainment). Agreeing on this number is why there's a CRB - no one can agree what the number is. Given that anything other than talk radio couldn't exist without music (but music could exist without radio, albeit at a much smaller sales volume) you see why rights owners can't just rubber stamp the promotional argument.

I wouldn't personally dispute that radio provides a very large soapbox (although let's not forget about blogs, social networks, music-related websites, online and offline press, online and offline music stores, and p2p networks as elements of the promotional mix that brings consumers to the music table).

Code: Select all

Secondly, radio listenership isn't just about a good music selection. Your forgetting the many radio personalities that draw listeners to their stations. I for one am more likely to listen to a station if I enjoy listening to the person/s hosting a segment as opposed to the music they play.

I think I'd take the same position here - sure, talk radio exists, but without the music it's a different animal, both in terms of the revenue it's able to attract to the station owner, and the likely audience. Personalities are important - lotsa people purchased Sirius because of Howard Stern - but those same numbers of people wouldn't likely be paying $9.99 a month (or whatever it is) without a music component to the service (unless you're one of those people who can listen to HS 24 hours a day, I'm not).