RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work

from the hard-day's-work? dept

The RIAA has been touting this for a little while already, but the AFL-CIO has officially signed on to support the RIAA’s highly questionable performance tax. This is a bogus attempt to boost RIAA revenue by taxing radio stations for promoting their music. The RIAA has been going around claiming that radio promoting its music is a “kind of piracy”, while at the same time claiming it’s somehow illegal for radio stations not to play RIAA music. Yeah. Logic is not the RIAA’s strong suit. Even worse, of course, is that the RIAA has blatantly demonstrated that it knows there’s tremendous value in getting its music on the air. It’s been involved in payola scams for decades. To basically get the government to mandate reverse payola is the height of obnoxiousness.

Of course, what does the AFL-CIO have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. It’s pure politicking on the part of the RIAA and its offshoot lobbying group musicFIRST. The main point is to get more Congressional folks on board with the tax by saying “the unions support it!” Somewhere down the line, I’m sure the RIAA will come to the support of the AFL-CIO on some other random bill as well.

But what’s really ridiculous is the statement made by the AFL-CIO explaining why they support this:

“The labor movement was founded on the principle that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. That’s the principle at stake in the fight for the Performance Rights Act.”

But that’s not even close to true. The Performance Rights Act is about the opposite of a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. It’s about getting paid over and over and over and over and over again for a bit of work done years ago. And, it’s not a “fair day’s pay” either. A fair day’s pay is a contractually agreed upon wage between two parties. This is about the gov’t forcing a totally unnecessary and nonsensical tax on radio stations for promoting RIAA music. In what world is it fair to tax someone who helps promote your work?

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: afl-cio, musicfirst, riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
29 Comments
Hulser (profile) says:

Squeezing blood from a turnip

The RIAA has been going around claiming that radio promoting its music is a “kind of piracy”, while at the same time claiming it’s somehow illegal for radio stations not to play RIAA music.

Besides the fact that the RIAA pushing a performance tax is hypocritical — see above — it seems like a rather bad business move. The last time I checked, the radio business wasn’t doing so great. They don’t have a lot of extra money to pay to the RIAA. But maybe the RIAA knows this and are just trying to grab as much money as they can before the whole system collapses.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I almost stopped listening to music when this went away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy

I had discovered more new music in such a short time span that my interest in music, which was waning at the time, began to grow again. Then it went away and was replaced by, what, nothing?

I know that the recording industry is not the music industry but once the recording industry started suing people for copyright infringement then I stopped listening to music, all together. I stopped caring about music.

Lost a customer there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2010/04/29/sales-week-ending-42510/

What kind of crazy fucked up world do we live in where the number one album doesn’t even sell a hundred thousand copies? One where music has lost its perch atop the entertainment food chain. It’s like music is the sideshow at the entertainment circus. You don’t want to stay too long, the stink might stick.

Used to be artists spoke from the heart, we waited to hear what they had to say with bated breath, we quoted them. Now we feel superior to them, as the blogs make fun of their antics. And then there are those so indie that the mainstream doesn’t care. Used to be you started outside the mainstream and then the mainstream came to you. Now, it’s like these acts are on the other side of the Continental Divide, and their music has never got a chance with the general public, the twain shall never meet. And you wonder why? It’s just not vital enough. Hell, there’s more honesty on a Facebook page than there is in music. And a dying media is complicit with the dying labels. They’re in cahoots hyping tripe to the point where most people just don’t give a fuck. This is a business?

Every day people forward you links. Telling you to check out great shit. How often is it a record? And, if it is music, do you even bother to listen?

Music is the land of losers. The “New York Times” piece on Irving Azoff was more riveting than any album on this chart. This is a guy who did it his way, who gave the middle finger to the man and won. Isn’t that what the musicians used to do? Now they want to cozy up to the man. Don’t you think there’s a problem with that?

Charles W - T Consaul (profile) says:

Re: Re: Used to have music on Audiogalaxy

The RIAA bullied Audiogalaxy into taking my original material off of it’s website because it claimed that I had a right to protection whether I wanted it or not. I found a new home at Soundclick.com and so far they have stood up to those reprobates. If the AFL-CIO are representing the RIAA, I am going to have to change Unions however. I do not want to be any part of a goon squad. I used to think it was pretty cool to be a certified teacher and still be a member of the same Union my father belonged to, but if they are going to be part of the organization that trampled my First Amendment Rights, I don’t need to be a part of it!

Anonymous Coward says:

you always confuse work with the cost of use. the work to build a hotel only takes months, but they charge for the use of the room every night for years. in your world that would be perpetual payment for little work. one day you will realize that nobody is paying for the initial work (construction or creation) they are paying for the usage. your economics professors would be very disappointed at your basic misrepresentation of how things work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

well, if you didnt pay them up front (and you dont pay for music up front, paying the musician a salary to write the song) then here has to be some way for money to be made. lets say the bricks are going to last 20 years, perhaps you could pay 1/10 of the labor every year for the next 20 years to make up for it?

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“well, if you didnt pay them up front (and you dont pay for music up front, paying the musician a salary to write the song)”

How is a salary not ‘up front?’

More the point, the analogy is flawed. If it was going to be equivalent, you’d have to be able to instantly replicate any building that suited your fancy.

It’s a different world, and all metaphors fail.

Hulser (profile) says:

Re: Re:

you always confuse work with the cost of use. the work to build a hotel only takes months, but they charge for the use of the room every night for years.

The owners of the hotel are charging you for all of the services which go along with using the room, not some abstract concept of “use of the room”. The owners pay people every day to run the hotel, just like they paid people to build the hotel. Through their employees, the hotel owners are providing a service every day in return for payment. How does this relate to an artist receiving payment, in near-perpentuity, for work they did years ago?

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Understanding of infinite vs finite fail.
Space is a limited item.
People pay for the luxury of a place to stay that isn’t their home and for the roof over their heads with a bed to lay down on. There are also other things that help draw in the customers like pools. Paying for access is actually one of the things Mike advocates that musicians can do to make money. Charge for their time. Time is limited. Anything digital is not.
Any econ professor knows that from econ 101 that as supply increases price drops. Infinite supply because it can be infinitely copied means price will drop to zero. You can try to fight it but it is inevitable. However, it still has value, so you can tie it to other things that do still have a price and use it to help sell them.
I went through college for computers but passed through an econ 101 class along my time there and that concept seemed pretty damn simple to me.

Anonymous Coward says:

“you always confuse work with the cost of use. the work to build a hotel only takes months, but they charge for the use of the room every night for years. in your world that would be perpetual payment for little work”

Another example of someone that has no clue.
Somebody paid for the hotel: The hotel owners. And with no assurance they will recap their investment by providing a service: Renting rooms.

Jupiter (profile) says:

Unfortunately the people who still listen to radio are the people most in the palm of the RIAA’s publicity machine. They only listen to what is popular, and the RIAA determines what’s popular. Radio stations will pay up because their audience will want to hear their popular RIAA music. Radio does not make the megastars anymore – television does.

Don E says:

Easy way to offset the tax

Radio and television charge advertisers for airtime which is used for their commercials. Air time is not free. It costs in the form of electricity, hardware, etc. Charge the record labels the same rates the do the advertisers for playing thier music. A song is merely a 3-5 minute long commercial for the artist, so charge accordingly.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

“But that’s not even close to true. The Performance Rights Act is about the opposite of a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. It’s about getting paid over and over and over and over and over again for a bit of work done years ago. “

Mine was better

… “this isnt about a hard days work or a fair days pay, its about getting paid everyday for the rest of your life for one days work.

gorehound (profile) says:

Performance Rights Act is a piece of shit.It is one thing that really has me pissed off.I AM A MUSICIAN !!! I have played in bands since 1972.All my music is given away freely or you can purchase it.My band/main website is at
http://www.bigmeathammer.com I am the founder and vocalist for the oldest punk band in Maine “Big Meat Hammer”.

I just wanted you to know this musician is very glad for the free promotion I have been given by being on the radio.The 1st time I was on a radio was in 1978 with my 1st punk band.I have never asked for nor wanted money for being on a radio.
This law is disgusting.Please boycott all corporate artists and labels.do not support these assholes.There are 10’s of thousands of artists like me who have a great appreciation for what radio has done for us.And we never ask for a dime.
Kiss My ASS RIAA !!Q!!

Mitch D (profile) says:

Paying for performance on radio is good

my god, i just don’t get this. Performers getting a radio royalty is a great thing. other countries around the world offer this performance royalty, which gets paid by radio stations. Artists from canada, EU and Asia get paid. but american artists dont get paid from around the world.

sorry, but here i think the evil is the NAB, which has successfully prevented artists getting a matching performance royalty to what songwriters get. This is only a good thing. helps artists earn a living when say someone like SAM MOORE can’t tour to get an income.

this is just and right, can’t believe so many people are embittered against it, this has nothing to do with big or small record labels. this is about artists rights, and it is only good for artists. if passed, small and large artists to get income for their work. not tons, but a lil. and when all these p2p network or websites are out there making it hard to get income from record sales, this radio income is important

John says:

Re: Paying for performance on radio is good

I could say for sure YOU don’t work at a radio station or have a any idea of how it works. Radio Stations PAY royalties for the music they play to ASCAP and/or BMI

http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx

http://www.bmi.com/

I think is time for radio stations to charge a PAY FOR PLAY to RIAA music. You want me to give you “air time” to play your music??? PAY!!

Imagen Pizza Hut sending a boy to a street light or a corner to supply people their flyers of Pizza offers and then charge the boy for the flyers he gave away? would you do it? would you be that boy??? Without radio people dont get to know about new music. Another example, can I ask the Mailman to pay ME a tax because he got paid for delivering MY MAIL???? Next time I send a letter I’ll try to charge the Mailman for my mail.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...