http://azoz.com/newsarchive/2008dash06/radioPiracy.html

RIAA Claims Radio is Piracy

by George Ziemann -- June 23, 2008

Once again failing to acknowledge any legal decisions which they do not agree with, the RIAA has decided to bring up the failed argument from 1922 that broadcasting music is piracy.

Wired has a story (link at right) which attempts to make it look like Congress is ready to take action on this, but it's just another of Howard Berman's (D-ongle, California) frequent attempts to let the RIAA write copyright law. Don't panic. At this point, it's much closer to being a fantasy than a law.

The other problem with the story is that it misses the obvious, apparently for the simple reason that neither side mentioned it.

Wired's report says: "The argument boils down to this: Radio is making billions off the backs of recording artists and their labels; and the recording artists gain invaluable exposure because they're on the radio, so royalties should not have to be paid."

The missed obvious part? Payola.

Neither side is going to talk about it because they settled without admitting guilt. The broadcasters' best argument against royalties is that the RIAA was paying radio millions to play their music and if Elliot Spitzer hadn't nailed them all, it would still be going on today. But that would be admitting guilt. So they can't bring it up and the RIAA knows this.

The guy at Wired ought to know this, too, and should have pointed out the hypocrisy. Why didn't they? It's the same kind of award-winning journalism trend that couldn't possibly have suggested that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- because "no one raised that issue."

---------

As for the issue itself, I have no problem with paying royalties to the performing artists, although it's rather disengenuous of the RIAA to bring their stale, phony concern for the artists into any conversation, when their intention is to take half of it.

What I do have a problem with is trying to enact legislation on the basis of false pretenses. Ending payola let the RIAA keep those millions that they would have spent on promotion five years ago. Apparently, this was not enough, so now they want to see checks rolling the opposite direction. The RIAA's ability to sell this new royalty is dependent on everyone pretending payola never happened. Otherwise, the broadcasters would have numbers to illustrate how valuable the labels thought airplay was and how much they were willing to pay for it when they could get away with it.

Unlike peer-to-peer, radio has been through this all before. The first time around, the broadcasters simply found something else to play. It would be even easier to do the same thing today.

Gee, since the RIAA paid radio stations to play their music in the past (as mentioned often above in the form of Payola), isn't this a complete FARCE!!! Now they want the radio to pay THEM??? What a Joke!!!

"As for the issue itself, I have no problem with paying royalties to the performing artists, although it's rather disengenuous of the RIAA to bring their stale, phony concern for the artists into any conversation, when their intention is to take half of it."

The RIAA has NEVER cared for artists. They can't even find many of them to pay the royalties they owe. Why? So they get to keep the royalties for themselves.

Any Congressman that finds it necessary to even PROPOSE legislation to help this dying industry (the RIAA) needs to be immediately removed from office for being a dumbass. Vote them out.

"As for the issue itself, I have no problem with paying royalties to the performing artists, although it's rather disengenuous of the RIAA to bring their stale, phony concern for the artists into any conversation, when their intention is to take half of it."

Half? Since when do they only take half?

"The first time around, the broadcasters simply found something else to play. It would be even easier to do the same thing today."

Sounds good. When do they start?

This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard! What idiots. They can't sell without radio so they buy it off. Now they can't do that so they go after them. I worked in radio. They are not making billions. Every station I worked in, and as far as I can tell most of the ones today, has trouble being profitable. That is on the local station level. Someone may be getting rich, but it isn't at the station. They are in an ivory tower.

Half? Since when do they only take half?

That's the set-up for webcasting royalties, which is the only example of US artist performance royalties from which to draw a conclusion.

I wrote the following letter to David Kravets, the author of the Wired article:

I'm amazed that you can cover this story and ignore payola, which clearly illustrates how much value the RIAA placed in radio airplay when they could buy it.

It is the one fact that, if taken into consideration, exposes the hypocrisy
of the RIAA's stance on this issue.

There is no reason for the RIAA to mention it because it negates their argument. The broadcasters settled without admitting guilt, so they can't bring it up.

That's your job. You're not doing it.

His response:
Thanks man.
Take it easy.

Thanks, George, for taking time to make an impact. What you wrote to Wired was important (and well written).

I would be remiss in not pointing out that Mr. Kravetz corrected his omission in
today's follow-up.

I sent a similar message to the House Judiciary Committee.

Good stuff!