Well, this is rather disappointing. Just days after caving in and agreeing to new webcaster rates that will harm pretty much everyone, Pandora has gotten right into bed with the RIAA/SoundExchange in supporting the Performance Right Act (the RIAA Bailout Act) to extend a similar unnecessary tax on radio. Pandora's reasoning is no surprise: basically it's saying that if it has to pay such a silly tax to help promote musicians, it's unfair that radio stations get away without paying something similar. But, still, it's disappointing. Rather than looking at adding value to the overall market, Pandora has basically decided that it's "enemy's enemy is a friend" and is supporting such a law simply because it will harm radio stations. This makes me think significantly less of Pandora.

It appears that the big record labels and their lobbyists aren't content with just suing and shaking down students across the country -- now they want to threaten them for taking a political stand as well. Earlier this week, musicFIRST, the big time lobbying group put together by the RIAA to push for the highly questionable Performance Rights tax on radio stations, did a neat little publicity stunt where it asked the FCC to investigate radio stations that apparently were "boycotting" musicians who supported the Performance Rights tax, claiming that it was an abuse of the airwaves. Remember, this is the same group that just recently called radio "a kind of piracy."

So, wait, which is it? If it's a kind of piracy to play songs on the radio, shouldn't musicFIRST and the RIAA be thrilled that radio stations aren't playing their music? Or do they recognize the free promotional benefits radio provides for artists? They can't have it both ways, can they? First they're upset that the music is being "pirated" and now they're upset that it's not being "pirated"? Please explain!

Now, as for those nasty nasty radio stations "boycotting" certain artists, well who are they? Turns out one of the main culprits is a tiny 100-watt high school radio station who has explained, in great detail the reasons behind their political stance. They are making a political choice by purposely boycotting musicians who support the view that playing their songs on the radio is "a kind of piracy." You would think that would make musicFIRST, the RIAA and those musicians happy. But, more to the point, that music "boycott" was a temporary thing, and lasted for one month, from mid-June 2007 until mid-July of that same year. Yes. It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago. And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation? Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not "pirating" materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?

We've already discussed how silly the Performance Rights Act is -- and how it's basically an attempt by the record labels to get their own bailout courtesy of radio stations. There are all sorts of problems with it, and Jess Walker does an amazing job explaining just how ridiculous the Performance Rights Act is. In doing so, he highlights one point that is quite a common trick in the RIAA's bag of tricks, but which doesn't get enough attention: how it changes the story to flip things around to its advantage over and over and over again. Case in point: the RIAA is arguing that it needs to get royalties to performers for radio air play to "even out" the situation, since radio is the "only" platform where performers don't get royalties. For example, they point to internet radio and satellite radio, where artist do get paid.

So, the RIAA claims, this is unfair... after all, why should they get paid for all of those, but not radio?

Except, the RIAA conveniently wants us all to forget history. That's because it was the RIAA who argued that satellite radio, internet radio and other forms of broadcasting were different from terrestrial radio, and therefore required different royalty structures. In other words, the only reason why this "unfair" dichotomy exists in the first place is because the RIAA lobbied for it by claiming that satellite radio and internet radio were different.

Now it wants everyone to forget that and pretend that it's some weird "anomaly" that terrestrial radio doesn't include performance royalties? Don't buy it. This is the sort of thing the industry has pulled off for years -- pushing one country to extend copyright laws, and then moving to other countries and working up a lobbyist campaign about how that country isn't keeping up with other, more reasonable countries, concerning copyright laws. Have you noticed what's happening in Canada these days? That's a direct example of this sort of thing.

Walker also takes on other points to show how silly and dangerous the Performance Rights Act would be. It benefits no one but the record labels. It harms radio stations. It harms independent musicians. It harms big musicians as well (since most of the money doesn't go to them, but to the record labels). Who does it help? The RIAA, of course:

And for what? Imagine, as a thought experiment, that this bill were passed and, simultaneously, payola were made fully legal. Does anyone doubt that more money would flow toward the radio stations than away? Radio remains the primary means by which the music industry promotes its product. By pushing for this fee, the labels are essentially asking their advertisers to pay them for the service of selling their stuff.

Ah, you say, but what about the independent artists who don't get big promotional pushes from the major music labels? Surely they'd benefit from a new revenue stream? Actually, they'll be even worse off. The economic mission of most commercial radio stations is to deliver audiences to the sponsors whose spots are aired between tunes. So programmers have a built-in preference for music whose mass appeal has already been proven. If you increase the cost of playing a record, that just intensifies the incentive: The more you pay to play a song, the more conservative you'll be about which songs you play. The marginal cost of playing each track is the same, but the commercial payoff is greater for established artists.

Generally speaking, the more it costs to run a station, the more risk-averse it will be. That's one reason low-power and Web outlets are more experimental: They don't have as much money on the line. But those stations--the ones that go out of their way to play diverse and unfamiliar material--are precisely the ones that have the hardest time paying the song tax. The proposed law acknowledges the problem by introducing a sliding scale, with the least profitable outfits paying $500 a year. But while that may be chump change for a big broadcaster, it's a pretty big piece of the operating budget for a low-power, volunteer-run community or student station.

Nor is it the only cost the law will impose. "The record labels are completely out of touch as to how college radio stations operate," Warren Kozireski, president of College Broadcasters Inc., recently complained on his organization's website. "The extensive record keeping requirements that will be required by the Copyright Royalty Board alone will add hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to the true cost of a performance fee." It's relatively easy to do that book-keeping if you have a narrow playlist and rarely deviate from it, as is the case with most large commercial radio stations. But if you have a library of thousands of albums and 45s, many of which were never reissued on CD, and if you allow your DJs to choose which ones they play--or even to bring in still more music from their personal collections of rare soul or jazz or bluegrass or electronica obscurities--then tracking the data suddenly becomes a full-time job.

Worse yet: Though the rhetoric around the proposal focuses on the benefits to musicians, much of the money won't make it to the artists in the first place. In part that reflects the fact that the fees go not just to the performers but to the copyright owner, which frequently means the record company. But it also reflects the corruption in the industry, which legislation like this has probably abetted.

As we've seen time and time again, if the RIAA supports it, it's not good for consumers. It's not good for musicians. It's not good for anyone but a small selection of record labels. Hopefully, Congress recognizes this for the pure money grab it is and shuts it down.

Over at the New York Times, Saul Hansell has written a post about online music based around an interview with the CEO of Tivoli Audio, which has been building radios that can connect over WiFi to internet radio stations. Hansell contends that internet radio will be the dominant form of digital music, ahead of downloads and "lots of other ways" to listen. It's an interesting argument, particularly when it's juxtaposed against the backdrop of a floundering terrestrial radio business and the struggles of satellite radio. It's also one that's likely to create a lot of pushback from download devotees, such as Hansell's first commenter, who chimes in with "keep your hands off my music." Sure, the freedom from restrictive playlists that do-it-yourself digital music offers is powerful, and terrestrial radio may not be particularly satisfying for many people, but it's important to realize that the term "radio" takes on a much broader meaning online than it does in the terrestrial broadcast context. There's still a lot of room for curated musical experiences -- which used to solely be the domain of broadcast DJs -- whether it's in the form of human-programmed streams, algorithmically or genre-based channels, podcasts, MP3 blogs or even social-network recommendations. And, as Hansell points out, there's a real convenience factor at play as well. What online radio offers is the ability to take many of traditional radio's good aspects, like convenience and exposure to new music, while doing away with the aspects that turn off so many listeners, whether it's annoying DJs, too many ads, or the wrong choice of music. It then takes these aspects, puts them in different formats, and expands them across tens of thousands of different kinds of music. So while the traditional idea of "radio" may be struggling a bit, its online evolution will keep going strong.

At the Tech Policy Summit yesterday, David Carson, the General Counsel of the US Copyright Office spent a bit of time at the beginning of his talk explaining why the Performance Rights Act made sense. This is the bill that would make radio stations pay musicians (rather than just songwriters as it is now) for every song they play on the radio. The recording industry insists that it's somehow unfair that radio stations have been promoting their music for free, and Carson seems to believe their explanation 100% (which is, unfortunately, quite typical of the Copyright Office). He argued, unconvincingly, that while radio used to promote artists (the reason that stations don't need to pay musicians), it no longer does so. That makes no sense. While there are alternatives out there for promoting artists, and radio may not have the impact it once had, that hardly means that the stations aren't promoting the music.

And, of course, the most damning argument against the recording industry's demand for money here is the fact that, for decades, the industry has (illegally) had the money go in the other direction. The system of payola has shown, quite clearly, how much the recording industry values airtime, in that it's willing to pay radio stations to play its music.

So, can anyone explain why it's illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it's okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.

Yet, with a nice push from the Copyright Office, the bill is moving forward, and will face a full House vote. During the Committee debate over the bill, Rep. Daniel Lungren made a perfectly reasonable suggestion: why not wait until the GAO had a chance to do an economic analysis of how the bill would impact radio stations. Considering that the bill is effectively a tax on those radio stations, this seems like a perfectly reasonable idea... but it resulted in Rep. Howard Berman (who represents Hollywood, always) accusing Lungren of trying to kill the bill. Isn't it great when simply waiting to find out what kind of impact the bill might have gets you accused of trying to kill it. Apparently in Congress, it's all about shooting first and asking questions later.

That said, Peter Kafka, over at AllThingsD, has made the best point: most people don't care about this bill because they don't realize that it's really a bill to bail out the RIAA by creating a radio station tax that goes straight into the recording industry's bank accounts. So, rather than call it the Performance Rights Act, it should more accurately be called the Britney Bailout Bill.

The UK-based musicians lobbying group Featured Artists Coalition has apparently released a report noting that very little independent music gets played on the radio. I imagine this should surprise... well... none of you. The report appears to suggest that the issue is payola -- the practice of record labels paying radio stations to get certain music aired. The FCC had cracked down on payola (for the umpteenth time) in 2007, but the report says the mix of indie vs. major label music on radio stations has barely budged.

I'm sure that's true, but I'm not at all sure it has anything to do with payola. I'd bet it has a lot more to do with two things: basic economics and the rise of alternatives such as the internet and satellite radio. Based on these things, and the limited number of radio stations out there in a given region, it only makes sense that those stations would gravitate towards music and formats that bring in the largest, most mainstream audience. That's just basic economics. Playing just indie music attracts a smaller audience, and it's tough enough to survive as is.

That said, it's not clear this is really a problem. Those of us who tend to like indie music more had already moved away from terrestrial radio long ago -- and thanks to the internet, podcasts, MP3 players and other alternatives, have no problem hearing the music we like. Yes, there are still a lot of people who listen to terrestrial radio, and those stations do still have some influence on what's popular, but it's hardly the cultural juggernaut it was not so long ago.

When I was in the UK recently, I was surprised to hear just how much most folks hate PRS -- the collections society in charge of getting various businesses to pay for playing music. PRS is also the group that has caused music videos to be pulled from YouTube after demanding much more money than was economically feasible. But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance."

The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

Obviously, this is not a case of random excessive attempts by PRS to squeeze more money out of people. It's become systematic. The group seems to believe that playing music in almost any situation now constitutes a public performance and requires a licensing fee. You just know they're salivating over the opportunity to go after people playing music in their cars with the windows down.

MusicFIRST, a recording industry lobbying group that already has some controversy surrounding it due to contributions from groups not allowed to be involved in lobbying, is continuing to push forward with its campaign to claim that radio is a kind of piracy and demanding legislation that forces radio stations to pay extra to play music. For most of the history of radio, radio stations have paid songwriters and publishers royalties for playing music on the radio, but they didn't pay the musicians (really: the record labels). In fact, the money often (illegally) went in the other direction, with the labels paying the radio stations to play certain artists to help promote them.

However, these days, with the recording industry unable to adapt to the changing marketplace, they've taken to demanding that others (individuals, ISPs, video games, Apple, webcasters, etc...) simply give them money instead. Their latest target, of course, is radio stations. It started with that silly claim that radio is a form of piracy -- then advanced to a bill, being introduced by a Congressional Rep, John Conyers (whose last campaign was heavily funded by those connected to the labels and this lobbying group), to force radio stations to pay the record labels as well.

MusicFIRST's latest effort was to drag its dog and pony show to Congress, where it paraded a bunch of musicians in front of Congresscritters to whine about how unfair it was that radio stations helped promote their music without paying them. Of course, it looks like MusicFIRST should have talked to the musicians a bit more carefully first. One of the musicians they trotted out, Matt Maher, less than 24 hours before going before Congress, noted on his Twitter account how such royalties could hurt radio stations and worried that it would cause some stations to shut down. Apparently, someone went a bit off the reservation and made exactly the opposite point that MusicFIRST wanted him to make....

While the big radio stations, represented by the NAB seem to have worked out a deadline deal on webcasting rates, it appears that internet-only webcasters have had their talks break down. This is bad news, of course. The whole situation is something of a farce. Rather than letting the market work the issue out directly, the Copyright Royalty Board (basically some internet-illiterate judges) basically gave the recording industry everything it wanted when it declared what the rates should be -- and made them quite high. Many online radio stations noted that the rates were so high that they would shut down. And, of course, the whole process would make RIAA-spinoff SoundExchange tons of money in administrative fees while separately benefiting the major labels that make up the RIAA by driving the smaller indie webcasters (who play less RIAA music) out of business. A win-win! And, of course, protesting by playing non-RIAA music wouldn't help. SoundExchange gets to collect for that music as well.

About the only reasonable thing was (despite the CRB's refusal to stay the ruling) that SoundExchange agreed to hold off new royalties while the parties negotiated. Time to work out a deal was supposed to end last fall, and despite SoundExchange and many webcasters asking for more time, the NAB lobbied hard to deny that extra time. Luckily they got it anyway, but even the extended period of time has ended. NAB and its big radio stations are fine with their deal, but internet-only webcasters still don't see anything reasonable. On top of that, SoundExchange made a separate offer to "small" webcasters, but most have found that to be way too onerous as well -- especially the part where if they ever get acquired by a larger player, they'll have to go back later and pay the higher rates even for the time when they were small and independent.

And, no one has yet explained why webcasters should need to pay so much money for helping to promote new acts in the first place. Radio, streaming online or over the air, is a great way for people to learn about new acts, giving them reasons to go out and buy products and merchandise or see those acts live. By forcing the very people who want to promote the music to pay ridiculous fees, all the industry is doing is shooting itself in the foot. Again.

For pretty much the entire history of radio, everyone has known that getting your songs played on the radio was promotional. It helps sell albums. It helps sell concert tickets. There is no better way to prove this than to just look at the history of "payola" whereby record labels would pay radio stations to get their music heard. Obviously, the recording industry put tremendous value into being on the radio and was willing to pay for the privilege (even if it was illegal). In the US, radio stations have to pay royalties to composers and publishers -- but not performance rights to the musicians. That's because Congress also recognized that radio was a benefit to those artists.

Yet, in the last few years, with the recording industry execs desperate for more cash and unwilling to embrace business models that actually take some work, they've been running to Congress demanding that radio stations now pay performance rights to the labels. They even came up with a silly study that attempted to prove that radio play decreases sales. Late last year, it got so silly that one of the recording industry's many lobbying groups, called musicFIRST, claimed that radio is a "form of piracy." musicFIRST has been hiring big name lobbyists, like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey to push this view, and (of course) some politicians have obliged.

Rep. John Conyers has once again introduced a performance rights bill which is mistakenly described as creating "parity." It's only "parity" if you think that doubling the tax on playing music on the radio is "parity." This is, once again, nothing more than the recording industry trying to get the government to force others to hand over money, because the labels are too lazy (or clueless) to learn how to embrace some of the new business models that are earning musicians plenty of money. And Congress has no problem helping to prop them up.

It's worth noting, of course, that among the top contributors to Rep. Conyers recent re-election was the American Intellectual Property Law Association as well as DLA Piper, the big law firm that (oh look!) Dick Armey has been working for... It's also worth pointing out that Conyers, as head of the House Judiciary Committee, just so happened to have recently abolished the subcommittee on intellectual property -- which (hmm...) would have almost certainly been chaired by Rep. Rick Boucher, one of the few folks in Congress who actually has been known to fight for the rights of consumers, and against the RIAA, when it comes to copyright. This gave Conyers, rather than Boucher, control over new IP related legislation.