How have people ever heard these musicians, outside of Jukeboxes? Care to answer?
On the radio, of course. That's my point; the radio can replace purchases in some cases. It's not a popular theory, but some would say that casual music consumers might listen to the radio instead of buying albums.
What the hell does that have to do with radio? NOTHING.
Actually, it does. If people listen to radio, then rip songs online, there is no point where the RIAA can make money from the radio play. Good for consumers, bad for the RIAA. The changes in the systems of distribution have plenty to do with the radio, but if we're reacting to Rep. Conyers outlandish statements - best to think where they might be based. In this case, I would guess that the RIAA's lobbying on behalf of its dwindling profit margins are responsible. That's what it has to do with radio.
Care to spell out some areas where your POV is not a mouthpiece for RIAA talking points?
Certainly. From my POV, the performance royalty, while certainly benefiting the RIAA, can also benefit musicians.I think that benefit is almost entirely by accident on the part of the RIAA, but it exists.
The RIAA asserts itself as an advocate for musicians, and I would never buy that line from them. They are interested in profits only; RIAA companies have historically exploited and abused musicians terribly.
From my POV the royalty legislation itself can benefit some musicians, because it adds a revenue stream where none existed before - performance royalties from terrestrial radio play for featured artists. Now, do I believe that the RIAA wants this law passed because they love musicians? No. They love money, and they are in it for the benefit to their business only. But even as an afterthought, the possibility for a benefit to musicians exists.
I actually agree with everything you said. My comment was an intentional dig at the RIAA and Congress, not at musicians. That's why I said the benefit to musicians was "an afterthought to record label profits."
I know that musicians bust their asses to get their music out, and it's AWESOME that they don't need greedy buggers like the RIAA anymore.
The reason why I said it wouldn't be on Congress' radio without the RIAA is because of lobbying dollars, not because musicians don't vote or don't care. I know they do.
To say they "have never earned a cent" from radio is wrong. They earn tremendous valuable promotion that gets them listeners and fans.
I misspoke before - I meant to say that musicians have never earned a cent from terrestrial radio royalties before. I should also qualify that by saying that songwriters do get a royalty, so the added benefit of a performance royalty would go to featured recording artists who are not songwriters.
However, the benefit of free promotion is not a settled issue. Some would argue that many music consumers listen to radio instead of buying music. Plus, now that millions of fans download for free, the entire distribution system has changed.
Let's be clear here. MusicFirst is not "an advocacy group working for musicians." It's a lobbying group funded by the RIAA.
I honestly didn't know that. I had them mixed up with the Future of Music Coalition.
I'm not fan of the RIAA (who is?), and as much as I believe the performance royalty is good for musicians, I'm convinced that it would have no presence in Congress if not for the RIAA. The RIAA's push to pass performance royalty legislation might only benefit musicians as an afterthought to record label profits, but it would benefit them nonetheless.
Here's the thing - songwriters and record companies that own masters already get a royalty. The performance royalty will go to the artists featured on the song.
Without addressing Conyers or the corrupt/greedy label issue - this royalty will pay recording artists that have never earned a cent from radio.
If you want to know more, visit Music First, it's an advocacy group that has fought hard for years to get this royalty to working musicians. copy/paste this link: http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/