Source

Unlike many, I don’t believe that recording artists should be denied royalties for their performances. Somewhere along the way, artists never received payments from their songs that were played on Radio. Then again, Radio has made those same artists — and their record labels — more money than royalties ever could. Until MTV came along, Radio was the only mass-distribution medium for music in America, and it enjoyed a very stable quid pro quo relationship with the recording industry. It remains the primary music exposure vehicle as MTV becomes more about youth culture and less about music. Artists still are dying to have their music played on the Radio, because Radio creates an interest in artists, and it sells product.

So why is the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) so hell-bent on destroying online Radio, both terrestrial and Internet-only? Its strong objection to downloading songs from the web for free is obvious: That’s outright theft. But there is a clear distinction between downloading songs and listening to songs that a station streams online. Even while the Copyright Arbitration Royalties Panel has levied a lower payment structure for Radio stations streaming their signals on the web, compared with web-only services, there’s a deep-rooted illogical play here, suggesting deeper RIAA motives.

Why is the RIAA pushing such unreasonable fees for streaming music on the Internet? Despite the appearance of cooperation, I sense a behind-the-scenes push by very powerful record companies to get payback for missing out on Radio royalties. If the RIAA intended to have a spirit of cooperation, that spirit would include supporting the Radio stations, with which it already has an established and quantifiably healthy promotional relationship, as well as entrepreneurial Internet Radio companies. Do these record executives not understand — after decades of seeing Radio deliver record buyers — that online listening promises more of the same?

Instead, the RIAA threatens to destroy the second generation of the goose that delivered billions of dollars in golden eggs last year. The CARP ruling will force terrestrial stations and web-only services to stop streaming music by imposing not only usurious fees, but restrictions and reporting requirements that are unreasonable, practically impossible, potentially in violation of privacy laws, and ultimately not good for business.

The RIAA knows that it’s impossible to get money from non-existent businesses; and that means, therefore, that the RIAA is out to kill the online Radio industry. After all, things were better in the good old days when margins were high, people only purchased CDs, and the labels were the only game in town. I’m convinced the RIAA’s public face of cooperation and the labels’ participation in download sites (with minimal recordings) are a ruse to ward off anti-trust claims.

Radio needs the record industry to provide entertainment to its listeners, just as the music business needs Radio as a promotional vehicle. What would happen if Radio — for just one week — refused to play any music? Sure, Radio’s ratings and cash flow would take a substantial hit, but imagine the bottom line of the folks who tell the RIAA what to do.
Better, yet — imagine what would happen if Radio insisted on charging a fee.

Radio: If these people are unwilling to compromise and offer a reasonable plan for conducting business, use the big hammer. You have access to 99 percent of consumers every week. You influence airplay. You influence CD purchases. You are the sleeping dragon that could swat the RIAA with its tail. Do not for a moment think that the record industry can live without Radio.

" downloading songs from the web for free is obvious: That’s outright theft. But there is a clear distinction between downloading songs and listening to songs that a station streams online. "

No it's not.
Full of crap you are
Downloading free like recording to tape
from radio be.
Their lies you must resist or as stupid
as them will you be.

" downloading songs from the web for free is obvious: That’s outright theft..."

Uh, no....Its (at worst) copyright infringement. It can't be theft unless the masters and all it's copies are stolen depriving them of their "Product".

Won't internet radio simply move to a country with friendlier statutes? Vanuatu perhaps? Or how about an allofmp3 radio in Russia?

"Despite the appearance of cooperation, I sense a behind-the-scenes push by very powerful record companies to get payback for missing out on Radio royalties."

Appearance of cooperation? Where? What?

Payback for missing out on radio royalties? You mean while they were writing payola checks?

-------

Problem one is this guy capitalizing "radio" every time it appears. He's trying to give it an importance it doesn't deserve.

"What would happen if Radio — for just one week — refused to play any music?"

I wouldn't notice.

"Better, yet — imagine what would happen if Radio insisted on charging a fee."

Then we plug the iPod into the casr stereo.

But this is the funniest part...

"You [radio] have access to 99 percent of consumers every week."

99 percent of consumers? Delusional.

"You influence airplay."
Apparently, once the payola checks stopped rolling in, radio has to be reminded that they have a choice again.

"You influence CD purchases."

Finally, someone takes responsibility for ruining the music business' sales.

"You are the sleeping dragon that could swat the RIAA with its tail."

Radio is the sleeping dragon? Then what is the sleeping giant? And what will it do if it wakes up? "...swat the RIAA with its tail."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Seems like a pretty lame non-threat.

"Do not for a moment think that the record industry can live without Radio."

But Music certainly can survive and thrive without either of them.

"Its strong objection to downloading songs from the web for free is obvious: That’s outright theft. "

This statement here shows this moron doesn't know what he's talking about. How is downloading music THEFT??? Did I deprieve the original owner of something... NO. Did I get the same quality item I could have bought... NO.

Some people are just plain stupid.

In all honesty, I know VERY few people that listen TO the radio these days, and even less that watch MTV, mind you here in Canada we have Muchmusic which ACTUALLY plays music! But I do have to agree with a free people here, downloading music is not theft, it's copyright infringement, BUT it DOES take away from the artist! By you just downloading the music for free, it takes any money they would've made off that song and ultimately does hurt the artist, in more than just a financial sense. There are PLENTY of legal download sites you can go to where you can download songs quite cheaply!! Just recently here in Canada, it became illegal to download music for free.
If radio were to cough out for a day, I think the only people that would notice is anyone over 30! Us younger people wouldn't really care, we have our MP3 players, our massive collection of music on our computers, or a shit load of CDs (god know hos many I have). But sure RIAA may get affected, but no one would notice if radio died anymore.

Some people have said, you're Canadian, why do you care? BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS AMERICA WILL IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER AFFECT CANADA AS WELL!!!

the original poster had an excellent point here. let's ignore the controversial "downloading from the internet is outright theft" statement for a moment here.

radio IS an excellent median to publicize most artists' works. for ppl who are more computer literate like us (i would assume in the 10s ~ 20s) but for most ppl who are in the working class (30s~40s), or even older (50~60s?) radio is the primary mean of listening to music. what RIAA's doing is basically trading the large sum of money

now, onto a more touchier subject: the internet downloading.

first of all, i want to assert that, while i personally believe in internet downloading, please don't use it as an excuse to explain your "50 songs a day" action.

second of all, i believe internet sharing is actually a new way of spreading artists' work. ppl listen to the music, they like it, and they buy it. according to the fact presented on this site, record sales has increased 8~10% after Napster has been established. it shows that while ppl download songs from the internet, or via P2P software, they DO go out and buy albums if they think its worth their money. personally, i would buy the album if i think the artist had done substantial work in their music, and i like their music.

Chiyokokai

~~Just recently here in Canada, it became illegal to download music for free.???~~

Have I missed something?
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp

"By you just downloading the music for free, it takes any money they would've made off that song and ultimately does hurt the artist, in more than just a financial sense. "

Ummm... since I wasn't going to buy anything I downloaded for free anyways... no it doesn't take away the money they would have earned. Especially since the RECORD LABELS make most of the money made from any CD or download sale. The artist hardly sees anything. Not to mention that an MP3 file of a song is an INFERIOR sounding version of the song to begin with and should be priced accordingly.

How is anyone supposed to get familiar with music and WANT to buy it? Certainly not by listening to the radio. It is far more difficult to get new music played on the radio than ever before. MTV doesn't even play videos except from 2am-5am anymore, so exactly how is anyone going to get familiar with new music without downloading it for free??

The music industry KILLED the single, an inexpensive way to get a single song instead of buying a whole CD filled with one great song and 9 to 11 others that suck. At least it USED to be inexpensive. The industry decided to jump the price, and kill the single, thus eliminating options. That's how file sharing got started in the first place.

No downloading music doesn't take away anything from an artist. It actually may make them more popular and allow them to earn a living touring, since most make very little on CDs. Sure the record labels might lose out some. Why do you think they are suing 12-year-old girls, dead grandmas, disabled moms and lizzards for listening to music?

"Problem one is this guy capitalizing "radio" every time it appears. He's trying to give it an importance it doesn't deserve."

Perhaps the author isn't talking about the radios in our cars and homes, but rather the movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

"What would happen if Radio — for just one week — refused to play any music?"

That's unlikely to happen. Number one, what would the the stations do for that entire week? Air endless repeats of the John Boy and Billy program (or whatever morning program they carry)? That might keep the morning listeners attention, but the listeners for the rest of the day would just stop listening, causing the stations to lose vast amounts of money.

"Its strong objection to downloading songs from the web for free is obvious: That’s outright theft."

Really? I always thought "theft" was depriving someone of property, like if someone stole the radio out of my car.

Also, when you download a song, you're not claiming that you had anything to do with the song, which would be true theft. You're merely transferring a series of 1s and 0s from one computer to another.

Sharing 1s and 0s from one computer to another is the tranferring of data, in this case music files. I'm wondering, though, how saying that adds any impetus to an otherwise reasonable argument that no physical theft has occurred during this process.

I mean, scammers (who actually commit fraud online) cannot benefit their defense by saying that all they did was cause some transfer of 1s and 0s between computers. You see what I'm getting at?
(But, if my line of reasoning here is off track, I'm sure somebody will let me know how!)

My personal thoughts are that the RIAA and Clear Channel want to kill anything that may be competition. Clear Channel generally tries to buy up theirs and the RIAA sues them. This way, everyone will be not so gently "guided" towards listening and buying and watching what THEY want us to. How else can you explain the popularity of the Simpson sisters for example. No talent running in that family. Whoever makes the decisions for these people could certainly be doing a better job. On the other hand, they have greased the right political palms and seem to be able to do whatever they wish.

"My personal thoughts are that the RIAA and Clear Channel want to kill anything that may be competition. "

Hmmmmmmm, if I remember my High School and College education properly, that is illegal. It's called the Sherman Antitrust Act. That's what broke up AT&T years ago. Their business practices were such that they ELIMINATED COMPETITION. Doing so IS ILLEGAL. So why isn't anyone like the Justice Department suing the RIAA??

"I mean, scammers (who actually commit fraud online) cannot benefit their defense by saying that all they did was cause some transfer of 1s and 0s between computers. You see what I'm getting at?"

Well, the difference there is, the 1s and 0s that scammers transfer amount to identity theft, actually depriving people of their money and good names.

When you transfer a file, whether audio or audiovisual, you're not depriving people, in this case the artist, of the actual credit. You're not claiming to have created, filmed and produced 'Independence Day' and you're not claiming to be Will Smith.

Granted, some amount of money is being deprived of the creators when you download a file, and there are people who just don't give a damn. However, there are people who will go out and buy the movie or CD. The industry has to realize, though, that everyone doesn't have the money to buy a movie or CD at the precise moment they want it. It could be weeks before they can buy it, but that shouldn't disallow someone from seeing or listening to something in the interim.

" Granted, some amount of money is being deprived of the creators when you download a file, "

As has been pointed out before, this is
a fallacy. There is no evidence whatsoever that
someone downloading something ever
would have bought it in the first place.
The only ones depriving the creators
of any money are the labels themselves.

I'm going to take the devil's advocate train of thought a little longer and make you think further.

As as I have been able to determine, it's almost exclusively those making music files available for others to download who are being sued. Frankly, the RIAA has gone out on a limb to estimate that, on average, an uploaded file can be expected to be downloaded ten times during the full period that it is actively available for sharing (downloading). For example, if a P2P user has music files in a Shared folder, they may shut their P2P connection down from time to time or on certain days, but when they do re-connect, there are those files again available for downloading.

Even if it were a much smaller number than that ten-to-one ratio, say a modest one download from each upload, a person having several hundred songs in an uploaded state (available for downloading) could conceivably make a difference (resulting in lost sales).
And then multiply that by as many other uploaders as you can reasonably project, and . . . well, you get the drift. That's how the argument goes.

As you guys have mentioned, I realize many downloaders wouldn't have purchased anyhow, and some who download might buy the song through legitimate channels, but it's a hard case to make that file sharing doesn't represent a certain degree of losses. I just want to make that point and have it stick for a moment before I take things to the next stage.
So, if inclined, take your best shot against what I've written thus far.
Talk to you later.

" So, if inclined, take your best shot against what I've written thus far.
Talk to you later. "

naaah ..

The oberholz/strumpf studies ( two of them now ) do a much better job of explaining this than I ever could.

Okay, I've taken the time to read the full report of the so-called oberholz/strumpf studies (.pdf file produced in June 2005).
BTW, is there another one dated more recently than 2005?

Anyway, a summarizing excerpt from the FTC report had this to say:

V. Conclusion

"With repect to the competitive issues, workshop participants explored the economic impact of P2P file sharing. These discussions revealed conflicting views on the extent of economic impact, particularly in the context of impact on the music industry."

Actually, I would have been surprised if the worst that could be said about the opinions on this issue had NOT been diverse -- there were diverse panelists participating, were there not?
In other words, I guess I'll still be waiting for something substantial that could repudiate the points I have made above.

(One of my main points was: It's a hard case to make that file sharing doesn't represent a certain degree of losses.)

Okay, your turn again.