Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA's Bogus Radio Witchhunt?

from the waste-of-resources dept

Earlier this year, MusicFirst, a lobbying group that is run by the RIAA and pushing for a special tax on radio stations for daring to promote songs, came out with its latest in a long list of bizarre claims, demanding that the FCC investigate the fact that radio stations were supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the Performance Royalty tax. There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was "a kind of piracy" for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.

So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it's piracy. If it doesn't play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.

Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell... well... pretty much every radio station around.

That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn't happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.

And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it's quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.

Based on all of this, you would hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition... but tragically, it's opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott). The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that's the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:11pm

    "But, if that's the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?"

    Because when you pay those in charge of the FCC money behind the scenes then they become your puppets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    "If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell... well... pretty much every radio station around. "

    The only conspiracy here is the fact that the FCC even listens to these RIAA morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    "Because when you pay those in charge of the FCC money behind the scenes then they become your puppets."

    Payolla 2.0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:17pm

    "First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was "a kind of piracy" for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax."

    Are you sure you have understood the word "hypocritical" ? (see here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:19pm

    "The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists."

    Extortion at its finest: You MUST play our music and you must pay us for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:29pm

    Re:

    Extortion at its finest: You MUST play our music and you must pay us for it.

    Looks like par for the course to me...

    YouTube MUST play our music videos and they must pay us for it.

    Google MUST link to our news articles and they must pay us for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:40pm

    Question

    Is there a list of the parent companies of MusicFirst and the RIAA somewhere? FYI, I can't get to the RIAA websites at work, but I'm going to check there later.

    Because my suspicion is that with the consolidation of entertainment/news/broadcast media that occurred over the past 50 years this is all a pointless academic question from the standpoint of the radio station anyway, since both sides of this issue are probably owned by the same corporations and/or banks.

    Which, as per usual, means that they're just finding ways of trading money back and forth with each other as a way to invent reasons to take even MORE money from the artist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re:

    If you haven't figured it out by now, that's the new business model. If you can't compete in the free market, resort to extortion. It's a very successful business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    DJ (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    yeah umm the use of the word hypocritical, here, wasn't completely correct; not wrong either, though.

    Here's my only problem with your post AC....

    WHO THE FUCK CARES

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:11pm

    Scam

    I really don't know why we don't go after these guys with farm implements & torches!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    DJ (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Scam

    International harvesters?????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    trontech2 (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:19pm

    Re:

    Yes, he does.
    Obviously you don't!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    inc (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:27pm

    Re:

    Seems to me as though the use is correct. Seeing as they are contradicting their stated beliefs. I believe the reference below is a bit more reputable.


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocritical

    * Main Entry: hyp·o·crit·i·cal
    * Pronunciation: ˌhi-pə-ˈkri-ti-kəl
    * Function: adjective
    * Date: 1561
    : characterized by hypocrisy; also : being a hypocrite

    * Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
    * Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
    * Function: noun
    * Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
    * Date: 13th century

    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Jake, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:56pm

    I have to disagree with you on this. No government agency can outright ignore a petition like this, however ludicrous; it can't even be seen to do so, because that just hands the petitioner a propaganda victory when they take their sob story to the media. Going through a proper public consultation arms the FCC with facts to hold up, and will hopefully enable them to bury the issue for good when MusicFirst are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be full of shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    kirillian (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Question

    We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.

    We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.

    Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    kirillian (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Question

    We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.

    We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.

    Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    kirillian (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Re: Question

    dang it...first time I got a double post...now i understand where this all comes from

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 11th, 2009 @ 4:18pm

    Cause they're getting paid

    The FCC is very responsive to bribes, just like the rest of the government. Any branch of the government can be bribed with the right incentives. It's just a question of how blatantly illegal/improper the government is willing to be for bribes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    bob, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 4:37pm

    Still Clueless After All These Years

    What can you say, they are the RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    joe, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 5:39pm

    the CC in FCC

    the CC in FCC stands for Clear Channel and all their ilk. Yuck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    MeFirst, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 6:43pm

    Me first is more like it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 2:58am

    Re: the CC in FCC

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    rwahrens (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 4:47am

    Jake is right

    Even if a case is obvious, the government will take it an investigate it, because that gets the case ON THE RECORD and sets a precedent.

    That means that any future cases like it don't need a full investigation, but can then be dismissed simply through reference.

    A case may SEEM open and shut, but until it is examined in full, by people that know the subject, one never knows. A full and open investigation will expose any unusual aspects of the case, and will fully document it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 5:56am

    Part of this is a question of freedom of speech for the artists covered by the RIAA agreements: Effectively, is their right to the airwaves being blocked because of an affiliation?

    Ignoring the players for a second, would you consider it fair to block artists because they were gay, or black, or jewish, or "of color"?

    The very basics lie there: you cannot exclude a group because you don't like the group.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:41am

    Re:

    If you want the artists heard so much, do NOT expect the stations to pay to put them on there.
    If you want the stations to pay to have the artist's music on there, then shut the hell up and be happy about it when the stations cut them off.
    Otherwise you just look like the biggest tool ever.

    Ignoring groups in some areas would be bad yes. These radio stations though are not publicly funded. They have no obligation to air every single person who wants to be heard. If that was the case, then there would be no radio, it would be one permanent talk show.
    If MusicFirst wants their propaganda to be heard so much, maybe they should just start a radio station and promote their hypocritcal ideals? There are plenty of rights groups who do stuff along those lines. They get their voice heard and don't expect their opposition to freely promote their side of the argument.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:59am

    I really want the Performance Royalty tax to happen....

    Most people dont understand change only happens when people are pushed to far or money comes into play. That is one of the reasons we should support the Performance Royalty tax and what ever fees the labels come up with in the future. We cant change the way they do business, lobbying, hiring judges and prosecuters after cases, changing copyright law to support their business models and there by give them monopoly status.

    Lets give them the rope and support them. The faster we make this happen the more likely a large group of people will see the change. We all know people dont like change.


    Just a small list .....
    -- unconstitutional level of Fines for copyright infringement
    -- Monopoly through copyright
    -- Public performance fees (Playing music to horses ..LOL)
    -- DMCA with rules that conflict with past copyright laws
    -- Fees for Web radio
    -- Fees for Sat based radio
    -- 3 strikes policy (that violates due process)
    -- Performance Royalty tax
    -- Various attempts to make ISP's police their systems for infringers (major privacy issues here)

    Please feel free to reply to this with other addtions to my small list

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 8:26am

    Re:

    I'm a jazz musician getting discriminated against because of my affiliations! This no-good COUNTRY station refuses to play my songs! My freedom of speech is being violated!

    I really wonder if you guys even bother thinking through this stuff...

    Oh, by the way, if you fail to pass on this post to everyone you know, you're violating my right to word of mouth distribution. I can take you to court for that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    Re:

    The very basic lies here, YOU CAN NOT force someone to use your service and then force them to pay you. THAT'S EXTORTION. Simple as that.

    It's not an issue of, you're discriminating against the artists because of race. It's an issue of, I DON'T WANT TO BUY YOUR PRODUCT AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO FORCE ME. The artists VOLUNTARILY signed with the RIAA, they didn't have to, they could have gone independent and made their own music. We're discriminating against them based on the poor business decisions they make just like customers discriminate against a store that sells an inferior product at a higher price and they choose the store that sells a superior product at a lower price. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE, it has to do with free markets and the fact that no store is entitled to my money just like the RIAA and no artist is entitled to payment by radio stations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    kevin, Oct 17th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    fcc

    why don't we get rid of fcc. what do they do that is really helpful, nothing and we pay them all this money that could be better used.we pay them to not let us watch what we want. and all because a few housewifes want to bitch that their kid saw something on the tv well if they didn't use it as a babystitter their kids would have not saw that .fuck the fcc , fuck the fcc, fuck the fcc ,fuck the fcc!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re:

    "Part of this is a question of freedom of speech for the artists covered by the RIAA agreements: Effectively, is their right to the airwaves being blocked because of an affiliation?"

    So then what about all the artists who make Creative commons music? Where are their freedoms? I never hear any creative commons music on public airwaves, it's all copyright, and there is a plethora of CC licensed music that many artists would love to be on public airwaves.

    and what about me? I want to be able to talk or public radio too, it's my freedom of speech. So why do I need a license? Why can't I just buy broadcasting equipment and talk? What if the govt stopped me? If I petitioned the government, would they force broadcasters to allow me on public radio? Does every artist have a right to have their music heard on public stations?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This