No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery

from the want-to-try-that-again? dept

Every couple of years, like clockwork, the RIAA gets its friends in Congress to introduce some form of a performance rights bill, that would require radio stations to pay compulsory licenses to performers of the music they play on the radio. Every year it goes nowhere because the radio owners' big lobbying group, the NAB, is about equal in power to the RIAA. So the two sides fight it out, donate a lot of money to Congress, and nothing changes. There's generally a lot of FUD thrown up in the process, along with some crap about "fairness" when that's not what they're really pushing for at all. It's all about more revenue for the record labels and that's it. If you're unaware, playing music on the radio already requires payments to songwriters/publishers, but not to performers. The reason being that being on the radio acts as promotion, allowing the musicians to make it up elsewhere. We know that this happens because of the widespread practice of payola, in which the labels pay the radio stations to play their music. If it wasn't worth it to get on the radio, the labels wouldn't regularly get involved in payola scandals. And yet, they do, because radio play (even today) remains great advertising for music.

We thought things had reached a new low four years ago when Rep. John Conyers sponsored one of these bills and insisted that radio stations playing musicians' music was the equivalent of slavery. Apparently, the RIAA liked that line so much it fed it to a different Congressional Rep. this year. RIAA darlings Jerry Nadler, Marsha Blackburn and Ted Deutch have joined Conyers in releasing the latest version of a performance rights act, this time called the "Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015" and the RIAA's spin doctors somehow decided that having Rep. Nadler use the slavery line was a good idea:
Previously, radio complained about the economy, asserting that they simply couldn’t afford to pay performers. But as far as the radio industry is concerned, “it's never the right time,” Nadler said. “What other industry says, ' We can’t afford to pay our workers; We want them to work for free,'” he cracked. “We got rid of that argument here in the U.S. in 1865," referencing the abolition of slavery legislated by the 13th Amendment.
I'm sorry, but in no possible way is promoting someone's music on the radio the equivalent of slavery. To say so is not just insulting and offensive, but it's ridiculous. You can argue about the appropriateness of royalties, compulsory rates or anything else -- but to argue that getting played on the radio without direct compensation (despite all the indirect compensation) to slavery is just flat out ridiculous. Nadler doesn't get paid each time he goes on TV to talk about whatever bill he's supporting, does he? Is that slavery? No, it's promotional, just like music being played on the radio.

Just the fact that Nadler has to resort to this silly and tired argument again, despite it flopping five years ago, should tell you all you need to know about this weak attempt by the RIAA to squeeze out more money without doing anything different.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 6:29am

    If Only

    Imagine if the radio stations agreed to this...

    "ok. we'll pay you when we play your music"

    "we haven't gotten your check"

    "we haven't played any of YOUR music. We banned all *AA music from our network. We only play independent and our audience is growing again. Thank you."

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

    • identicon
      Rich, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:49am

      Re: If Only

      That argument came up last time they pushed for royalties, and the RIAA complaint that was wrong, too!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:54am

        Re: Re: If Only

        You mean as in 'if it isn't ours, it isn't music!', or 'if you don't pay us, we will find a way to charge you with an illegal public performance'?

        Wait...is there a difference?

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:51am

      Re: If Only

      We can but dream.

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

    • identicon
      David, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:08am

      Re: If Only

      The German RIAA equivalent "Gema" cashes in for radio performances. The really creepy thing is that they managed to cash in from radios playing only independent music for music where the musician is pseudonymous, based on the theory that a pseudonymous musician must be one under contract by the Gema and trying to evade his contractual requirement to cash in via the Gema.

      That's the so-called "Gemavermutung", the Gema suspicion. If you cannot prove that an artist is not under contract by the Gema, they cash in anyway. And of course, since the identity of the artist is not known, they get to keep all of it.

      How's that for absurdity?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:21am

        Re: Re: If Only

        Gema is not exactly the "German RIAA equivalent." Gema is a collection agency. The RIAA isn't. The RIAA is more of an industry association that does more lobbying than anything else. They don't actually try to the collect money. ASCAP does that part.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re: If Only

          To be clear, there several American collection agencies that handle different aspects of the business. ASCAP collects primarily for songwriters and music publishers rather than recording companies. BMI and SoundExchange handle collecting for other aspects.

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

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 6:59am

    Hey now, be nice Techdirt. If the movie industry can relate copying movies to that of the Boston Strangler's victim, then the RIAA has every right to say not paying royalty rights is slavery.

    It's not like anyone would ever take this statement as honest, except maybe for Lars Ulrich and Prince.

    Too bad Mitch Glazier's sneaky little attempt failed. None of this would be an issue today because it would have taken approximately 0.2 seconds for musicians to have abandoned the music industry and form a new one, where ASCAP (et al) would have collapsed.

    It's also too bad Sony won its case, too. Just think where the entertainment industry would be today if Universal had won.

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

  • icon
    Rich Fiscus (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:36am

    Pot, meet kettle

    “What other industry says, ' We can’t afford to pay our workers; We want them to work for free,'”


    As a musician, the first one that comes to mind is the recording industry - at least the part the RIAA represents.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:51am

      Re: Pot, meet kettle

      Well, the contract that the big labels want most artists to sign is as close to indentured servitude as they can get away with.

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

      • icon
        Rich Fiscus (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:11am

        Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle

        It's exactly what you'd expect from an industry whose business model was developed (literally) by the Mafia. It's intentionally designed to obscure the real financials.

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

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:45am

          Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle

          Literally developed by the Mafia? Hmm... do you have a citation on that? It would be interesting to look into...

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle

            Research '3 track recording' and frank sinatra. well, just frank should provide the reference you need.

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

          • icon
            Rich Fiscus (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot, meet kettle

            I don't have a specific cite, just a lot of information about the history of the music business in America. During Prohibition, the Mafia basically took over huge swaths of the live music business because they were the ones running most of the speakeasies. They also spread into much smaller markets in order to maximize the booze trade. If you wanted to play in a mob owned club, you went through a mob connected manager. He owned you and they owned him.

            In fairness to the Mafia, their part was almost entirely on the live music side of things. Others developed the worst recording industry practices, and were already doing so before that. Having said that, the manager's role as uncritical mouthpiece for the label, whom he knows is screwing his purported client, is a direct extension of the Mafia's model.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:37am

    Serious question...

    Would the radio stations play some of the music they do if they weren't being paid (payola)?

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

  • identicon
    Anon, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:53am

    Sorry, but...

    The problem is simple - in the good old days of Big Band and lounge singers, the song was more important than who was singing it. Any band could imitate any other band.

    However, starting somewhere with rock and roll, the specific recording and its uniqueness, the vocal performance of a specific star and their interpretation, is as important as the song itself. We identify a song as much by the single specific recording session that became the "hit" as much as by the music and lyrics.

    So it only stands to reason that the recording artist should share in the wealth generated by the song. Their performance as much as the published music sheet "makes" the song. of course, IMHO that means the radio people should pay the same, and the music publishers should split their revenue and take less.

    After all, in every debate, the RIAA insists it's all about the artists (which IMHO includes the performers along with the writers). Maybe they, not the middlemen, should end up with the biggest share of the pie.

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

    • identicon
      jackn, 14 Apr 2015 @ 8:59am

      Re: Sorry, but...

      or, go back to a payola system. I think the times have changed enough that payola now makes sense. The labels should pay the broadcasters to play one of their works.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:04am

        Re: Re: Sorry, but...

        On one hand they should pay for each and every playing, on the other, they will just charge that cost to the artist/writers accounts along with other 'promotional' activities.

        Who wins then, the radio station?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

          you're coming from the assumption that the radio station should pay anything at all.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

            yeah, maybe the labels should come up with their own distribution model. They keep wanting to ride on the backs of successful business', but then the RIAA isn't willing to pay the network a commission. Fucking welcome to the real world, RIAA. Pay you commissions cause without the distribution, you've got nothing.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:08am

      Re: Sorry, but...

      If you believe the RIAA actually cares about paying artists, performers, etc.. I have a bridge for sale.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: Sorry, but...

        "If you believe Masnick and his funders at Google actually care about paying artists, performers, etc.. I have a bridge for sale."

        FTFY

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

          If you believe that google in mike's funder, I have a bridge for sale.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

          You _again_? Don't you have someone to shake down for committing thought-crime or something?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

          Even if Masnick was being funded by Google, why would artists being paid be any of his business? Would Masnick or Google getting paid be the business of artists? Why would it make sense the other way round?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but...

          You realize the tech industry is larger than Google right? We understand the AA's believe Google somehow magically controls all the internetz.. But this simply highlights how prehistoric the MPAA/RIAA has become..

          The fans of artists/performers care about the artists/performers making money.. Nobody really sympathizes with the multi-billion dollar studios who have done more damage to the distribution of creative arts than anything Le Google has not done..

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:29am

      Re: Sorry, but...

      The problem is simple - in the good old days of Big Band and lounge singers, the song was more important than who was singing it.

      In the days before the recording industry got going, having multiple bands play your songs was the only way that they could reach a wide audience. That also allowed many performers to make a living from their art. Since the recording industry got going, the labels have repeatedly manipulated the market via buying laws, so that they can make a fortune while supporting as few artists as possible, and with as little payout to them as possible.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:06am

    And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

    To say that is just stupid and insulting to readers.

    >>> payola scandals. And yet, they do, because radio play (even today) remains great advertising for music.

    That's due to limited outlets. Bet your last yuan that Apple and Spotify are being paid behind the scenes TOO.

    Masnick DOES want creators to work for free. That's why he still supports Megaupload: unlimited copying effectively FORCES them to work for FREE.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:15am

      Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

      "unlimited copying effectively FORCES them to work for FREE"

      Go home, you're drunk. Computing technology is built on the premise of copying "bits" - your statement is about as ludicrous as saying everytime you use Office you are asking Microsoft developers to work for free.

      It's in digital format on a technology built for copying.. This isn't Megaupload's fault for creating a platform which utilizes said technology. Blaming Megaupload for the RIAA/MPAA short sightedness is like getting mad at Ford bcz their vehicle was used in a bank robbery and the vehicle was drive-able.

      For every obstacle the RIAA/MPAA tries to create someone will come up with new technology to disrupt it. It's a losing battle and the sooner they realize this the sooner they can start looking towards innovating for the future rather than attempting to retain control on outdated thinking.

      zomg, techdirt is hosted on a webserver and everytime you access an article those bits are transmitted to your PC.. you must just want all these journalists to work for free.. You're such a terrible person - that's equivalent to cannibalism!

      ^see how stupid this line of thinking is?

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:24am

      Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

      "unlimited copying effectively FORCES them to work for FREE."

      Baloney. I have been producing commercial software for decades (without ever using copy protection schemes). Most of my software has been widely distributed amongst the pirate community. And yet, I've managed to make a very good living anyway. I can personally demonstrate that unlimited copying hasn't forced me to work for free. If it hasn't forced me, then how can it force anybody else?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:45am

        Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

        And yet the likes of the AA's, Antidirt and pro copyrightists etc. will keep on insisting that copyright as an absolute must as without it all artists, creationists etc. will starve and become bankrupt etc.

        My hat is off to you sir for showing that you can survive and make a living despite the BS propaganda the copyrightists come out with. Well done.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Accumulator, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:00am

        Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

        Wow. It's the old "my homemade stuff that cost near nothing proves copyright isn't needed for movies that cost $100 million dollars" argument.

        Sheesh. If you had to get millions in funding BEFORE even typing the first byte, you'd know why copyright is important.

        And yet again, YOU are free to NOT worry about copyright on your own products.

        But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:09am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          The good old we need copyright so we get paid for whatever junk we care to put out argument. try raising the money via crowd funding before making the film, and then it has been paid for. Do not be surprised when people start making better films for less money using modern technology and co-operation practices.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          ...my homemade stuff that cost near nothing...


          How insulting. You insinuate that John's hard work is insignificant.

          You should apologize for being an asshole, Blue.

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

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          If they can't make $100 million on a movie, then why are they spending $100 million. Nobody's forcing them to make it, and we all know movies can be made for a lot less.

          Really, after 10 years of movie piracy, the industry is now bigger, stronger, and making more expensive films than ever.

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

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:36am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          For the record, I'm not talking about "homemade" stuff. I'm talking about a a real, serious business with significant investment and return. With employees and everything.

          Nice try at an ad-hom, though.

          "If you had to get millions in funding BEFORE even typing the first byte, you'd know why copyright is important."

          If you have to have millions in funding before type the first byte (or playing the first not, as the case may be) then you are doing it completely wrong. Regardless, you aren't making an argument here. You're just repeating an unsupported assertion -- one that I stand as a counterexample to.

          "But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others."

          I never said that I did. I was simply saying that to claim that unlimited copying forces people to work for free is complete bullshit.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 12:19am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          "movies that cost $100 million dollars"

          Since, I don't recognise the handle, I'll bite. Why do you people always pick this as your go to figure? Why do movies that cost far less than that not count? Yes, that includes studio productions ($50 million or less for a movie isn't actually that rare unless you're trying to make a CGI wankfest).

          But, it's a handy indication that you don't give a shit about anyone other than major corporations, so we can safely assume you have no real facts to back up your arguments...

          "But you do not have the right to dispose of the works of others."

          ...as indicated by your idiot assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with the current copyright system is a pirate. Yawn. Get some new material, you're a new name to me but your arguments are stale and weak.

          What the hell does "dispose of" mean in this context. I threw away some cheap DVDs that had no resale value recently. A couple of them were of movies that had budgets in the range of $100 million. Was that wrong of me somehow? Or, are you the kind of mental midget that thinks that every interaction without payment is a lost sale?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2015 @ 1:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            For future reference, this is out_of_the_blue.

            After shaking his fist angrily (though impotently) while twirling his evil mustache made of rare Arabian yak hair and disappearing off the site the last time, he returned, swearing to never use the nickname he heavily tarnished himself.

            But it's the same jackass. Telltale hints include writing an annoying, insinuating tagline in the post Subject, capitalizing random words to sound condescending, repetitive usage of words like "piratey", "Masnicking" and "$100 million movies".

            His new shtick is to claim that he's being blocked - even though in his very first post for the year, he's claimed that no one "ran him off the site" - which "forces" him to switch IP addresses every time he makes a post via TOR. Yeah, the same program out_of_the_blue and other idiots insist that pirates use to hide their identities. His handles nowadays switch between some horrible word that has TOR inside (torpedo, gladiator, etc).

            And the best part, he actually either thinks no one can tell, or that he's so clever for trying to run circles around a non-existent block. It's pathetic.

            It might also be worth pointing out that Whatever/Just Sayin'/horse with no name had the same victim gambit of screaming "censorship" before disappearing, then out_of_the_blue reappeared. Whatever also threatened to use TOR to make 50 different IP addresses so they could all downvote anyone he disagreed with, so... yeah.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 5:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hey, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I prefer to assume that this is a group of people that have been fooled by the disinformation campaigns and communities that actually block discussion of opposing facts, rather than just one sad individual who has somehow escaped psychological treatment for this long.

              Another name to add to the list, at least...

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

            • icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 9:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow, sounds like nagging TechDirt is his full time job. What a life.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

        Yes, your obscure claims eliminate facts shown by software providers much larger than you. OK.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          Yes, your obscure claims eliminate facts shown by software providers much larger than you. OK.

          Care to share these so-called "facts"?

          If you bring up Microsoft, I'll have a good laugh. Their world market share is due in part to illegal sharing. Didn't they also purchase Minecraft? A product made phenomenally popular because of Notch's policy of not getting all upset about pirated copies?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

            The tech industry created the free-to-play business model.. Why should anyone offer you a citation for information that can be Googled? Oh, I forget.. you AA cronies think Google is evil so refuse to find readily available information through it.. Unless it's fake DMCA takedowns..

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

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          First, what facts do you think my claim eliminates? All I was saying was that unlimited copying does not force anyone to work for free. I'm am unaware of any software provider that says otherwise.

          In the larger sense, though, my viewpoint regarding software piracy is pretty mainstream in the industry. That there may exist larger software companies who may disagree with me on various points means nothing.

          ...unless you are saying that a company must be right or represent the majority view simply because it's big. I hope not, because that's nonsense.

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

      • icon
        MrTroy (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:13pm

        Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

        Hang on... you're saying that when I copy... err that is a friend copies one of your programs, you're not forced to sit back down at a computer and rewrite all those bits that I took?

        Mind. Blown.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:26am

      Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

      A brilliant parody of a troll. Well done! But you need more cowbell...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:27am

      Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

      The seizing of domains has been a problem due to not blocking just the infringing domain but 10k other sites using the domain. Depending on the hosting will depend on the how it is removed. Don't burn the bookshelf just to destroy one book.

      With the megauploads. Content creators data was also lost due to the seizure. How much money did they lose due to RIAAs and US government ham fisted actions. Sure, there was a lot of illegal stuff on megauploads. I bet you could also find illegal files on Drive, Dropbox, and any other cloud storage services. But what I think is worse than illegal files is that the some independent artist just lost all of their work due to illegal seizure and deletion of evidence. It may have been crap or it could have been something amazing but it was all deleted without any ability to recover it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:32am

        Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

        What kind of idiot would store irreplaceable files on a pirate site like Megaupload? Darwin strikes again.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:39am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          What kind of idiot thinks the only thing a service like MegaUpload is good for is piracy?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          Independent Artists, who thought Megaupload's offer of profit sharing was worthwhile.

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

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 6:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          "Darwin strikes again."

          Sorry, who died?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          What kind of idiots think they can stop the advancement of technology and protect outdated business models by going after legitimate services?

          Oh, thas right.. Everyone working for the MPAA/RIAA.. Darwin does strike.. Can you feel the clock ticking away?

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 12:24am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          So... People are stupid to use a site for legitimate purposes, because some other people use it for illicit purposes? That's what you're going with? Anyone at any time should expect to lose their personal and business data because someone in an unrelated industry claims it's a "pirate site".?

          Just admit that the actions of the twats you support have real harm on innocent law-abiding citizens. It's got to be easier than making up random excuses that don't pass any kind of internal logical test. No wonder you people are insane - the fantasy world you try to exist within doesn't make any kind of sense.

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

        • identicon
          Just Another Anonymous Troll, 15 Apr 2015 @ 5:00am

          Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!

          What kind of idiot would store irreplaceable files on a perfectly legitimate site that was used for piracy like Megaupload? Darwin strikes again.
          And she had it coming for wearing a short skirt and low-cut top.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:25am

    Promotion

    To tell the truth so is Bitorrent.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:33am

      Re: Promotion

      "To tell the truth so is Bitorrent."

      Well said!

      As evident by HBO's own admission.. Game of Thrones being the most popular TV show amongst the pirating community and ALSO being one of the most popular shows of ALL time is no coincidence..

      Anybody else notice HBO isn't raising kane over the first episodes of season 5 being leaked online?

      They recognized the promotional value early on and in the end are still making butt loads of money in merchandising and new subscribers. Not everyone in the entertainment industry is as blind as the MPAA/RIAA.

      Pirates are nothing more than FANS (not criminals) responding to a lack of innovation by the labels/studios. Time and time again we can see that people will use innovative and legitimate alternatives to consume media. If you as an industry don't wish to offer legitimate alternatives you cannot get upset when a developer creates technology that delivers the experience consumers want.

      This is the fabric of a capitalist society - if you don't want to appease your audience then someone else will.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:58am

        Re: Re: Promotion

        And even if you don't want to consider it promotion, it's a highly valuable source of market information.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:03am

        Re: Re: Promotion

        And traditionally HBO has been a pretty aggressive warrior against file sharing although they mostly go after the centralized hosting sources rather than individual sharers and are usually content with getting the content taken down even if it's only for a period of time.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:35am

        Re: Re: Promotion

        "Game of Thrones being the most popular TV show amongst the pirating community and ALSO being one of the most popular shows of ALL time is no coincidence."

        Wrong. GOT is simply very popular. There is one large fanbase. It's just that some douches steal it.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re: Promotion

          Wrong. GOT is simply very popular. There is one large fanbase. It's just that some douches steal it.


          The show's director and Time Warner's CEO state that they "benefited" from the piracy of GOT:
          Observers, including series director David Petrarca and Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said illegal downloads did not hurt the series' prospects, as it benefited from the resulting "buzz" and social commentary, while the high rates of piracy did not significantly translate to lost subscriptions.
          Source

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Promotion

          The old 'piracy' is stealing argument.. So every time a digital copy is made the original disappears right? Remind me again.. How many oh so poor studios have had to shut down because of piracy?

          None? Wait, you mean they're making more money today than ever before? Funny how that works aint it?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:29am

    If you're unaware, playing music on the radio already requires payments to songwriters/publishers, but not to performers.


    OK, I'm totally confused. Do stations not need permission to play songs, and does that apply in all cases or just certain cases? Is the "publisher" mentioned the same one that the performer contracts with? If so, then how can they argue that the performer isn't getting paid?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:46am

      Next up ...

      ... the MPAA will propose a bill that requires movie theatres to send payments to actors.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:53am

        Re: Next up ...

        What, and give up keeping all the profits by ensuring that a movie never makes a profit, and therefore the actors are due no more money.

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

        • icon
          beltorak (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 9:32pm

          Re: Re: Next up ...

          That would be far too inefficient. They'll just create a Collections Department, and the theaters will only have to pay MPAA, and the MPAA will find the appropriate actors and disburse the money accordingly. Just like GEMA. It works really really well, I mean, GEMA is rolling in it!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 9:38am

    So if someone released their music under a license that allowed radio stations to freely play it and the radio stations wanted to freely play it they would still be forced to pay someone to play it? That's the very antithesis of free market capitalism. Who is the RIAA to pass a law that intervenes with my ability to strike a license agreement between myself and a radio broadcaster. Who are they to tell me what's in my best interest. That's for me to decide. It's absolutely none of their business and they don't need to use laws to force what they want in between every agreement that doesn't involve them.

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

  • identicon
    Paul Clark, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:12am

    Someone Should Submit a Counter Bill

    The radio stations lobbying association should get their favourite congressperson to submit a bill requiring record labels and artists to pay radio stations for promoting their music.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:23am

    Tech douches talking about the music business. Funny.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:56am

      Re:

      You crack me up sir! I swear, watching you scampering about trying so hard to make any kind of impression just brings a smile!!

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:09am

      Re:

      Tech douches talking about the music business. Funny.


      Make you a deal: we'll stop talking about the music business when you stop pretending that you understand how tech and the online ad industry works? Because, seriously, if you think we don't get the music biz, your total misunderstanding of tech is much worse.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re:

        Tech, math, history... all failures. Is there one subject that you can speak coherently on?

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:27pm

        Re: Re:

        Go fuck yourself, Masnick.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think that's a logical fallacy. At Any rate, It Sure Brings Me Pleasure To See Your pain.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hilarious! You're better than watching a monkey at the zoo sir!

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

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I was making a legitimate request to you, since you pretend to know oh so much about the tech industry. What are you afraid of?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I can answer that for you: Sunlight. They are all afraid of being exposed for what they are. Fraudsters running a scam that preys on artists and consumers a like. At one point they actually served a necessary purpose, yet in today's day and age, that purpose is becoming less and less necessary as other, cheaper means replace them.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not afraid of anything. You're a shill for tech companies, many of whom either don't turn a profit, or make their money on advertising. And you lie about it. I'll tell you to fuck off every day and twice on Sundays.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ooh, someone needs a nap! Duzzums want his blanky?

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

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ...many of whom either don't turn a profit, or make their money on advertising.


              Wait. How are those "bad" things?

              Thousands of musicians never turn a profit either, are they "bad" too? Thousands of musicians license their music for TV and radio ads, are they "bad" also?

              Just trying to figure out your logic here.

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

            • icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX all made their money on advertising for decades - far longer than any "tech company." What's so horrible about that?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 4:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Interesting choice of venue for complaining about tech companies. Just curious why didn't you send your comments via snail mail on over to one of the remaining, nostalgic, dead tree, blackened up, with what was going on yesterday, doorstep delivery services? They use ad revenue too.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ladies and gentlemen, presenting to you average_joe/antidirt at his most coherent, intelligent and honest.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 12:30am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                This is also the best counter-argument anyone presents in these kinds of threads, too. Pretty sad, when a once-mighty industry now has a toddler throwing a tantrum as their best defender for their actions.

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

            • icon
              JMT (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 6:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Go fuck yourself, Masnick."

              < \/>"I'll tell you to fuck off every day and twice on Sundays."

              This is the attitude of the music industry that wants us to give them money! This is a "representative" of artists who claims to be working in their best interests, while crudely insulting anyone who disagrees with them from the safely of anonymity. Is it any wonder there is so little public respect or support for these people.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2015 @ 12:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "make their money on advertising"

              ...and this is a bad thing because...?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 10:57pm

      Re:

      Because those of us who understand tech cannot fathom something as basic as how record labels operate?

      Did I miss when music industry insiders have shown anything that resembles intelligence? I must have blinked.

      We can create the technology that makes the world go round but can't wrap our heads around greedy interest attempting to cripple innovation.. I guess we "tech douches" should just quit altogether since we're incapable of grasping the complexities of simpletons..

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

  • identicon
    Roque, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:25am

    It's about 'access'...

    Here's another take that local bands and performers should understand....the NAB and the RIAA are not out for YOU. To tour and play your tunes and get enough audience from a given town you are pass through needs a level of access. They are out for themselves and if they were really serious about ALL performers and musicians it would get together and allow better 'access' cause it's all about 'access' to resources that should benefit indies and upstarts and make them play with hungry performers...Advertising and radio play....internet is nice but it's not 'all encompassing' like these mediums for promotion. 91% of people still listen to the radio by the latest survey. If only the field to entry was reduced and the radio market was put back to it's pre-2000 percentage per given market to 35 vice 75 now....but alas it never will unless there is a strong and sustained 'will' by the underground and the indies. This is not be-all-end-all but it's a start. I think a previous commenter said it with less words...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:43am

    There,s 1000,s of bands who would love to be played on the radio,
    its advertising ,promotion,
    like youtube lets play videos ,of video games being played .
    Many people over 20 will not buy any cds or digital songs itunes downloads,unless they hear that singer,band on the radio .
    when you get paid on the local top 40 pop radio station,
    you know you are successful .
    ie you are in the charts,you have a hit .

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:56am

    Enjoy your freedom

    I can't help but smile thinking about the screams if the radio stations responded to this by simply refusing to play *AA affiliated music, and making it known why they were doing so.

    Being played on radio is slavery? Congrats, you're free, enjoy it. Meanwhile, smaller, independent bands are now quite enjoying their 'slavery', and would like to thank you for making it possible.

    Assuming the radio stations stuck to their guns, watching the major labels go to the radio stations begging to be allowed to don their 'chains and collars' again would be downright hilarious.

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

    • identicon
      David, 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Enjoy your freedom

      Yes, but now they can't don their 'chains and collar's' because payola is illegal. So, maybe they can advertise on YouTube or something.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:17pm

      Re: Enjoy your freedom

      The part that is confusing is that 'radio' stations only have about 10 or 12 song in their rotation. In fact, I think payola is happening right now. Why else would all the stations in the us play these same 10 or 12 songs.

      Well, radio is dead anyway, so who cares who pays who. I guess as long as some sucker advertisers can be found, they can find something to play.

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

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:45pm

        Re: Re: Enjoy your freedom

        "Why else would all the stations in the us play these same 10 or 12 songs."

        While payola is probably happening (especially since it was legalized), the more probably explanation for this is that almost no radio programming is done by the local radio station anymore. Most of it comes from a tiny number of companies who provide the exact same programming to hundred of stations across the nation.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: Enjoy your freedom

          I think the local stations still handle their programming but they are under tremendous pressure to follow the formula set forth by the parent conglomerate. Deviating from that formula too much by a station manager would be a very risky proposition at best that unless it happened to generate a huge ratings bump for the station would likely result in the manager's replacement.

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

  • icon
    terry (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 12:27pm

    The musical artists singing on the radio are performing live handcuffed to a microphone and whipped every once in a while for good measure. who knew?

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

  • icon
    radarmonkey (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 1:29pm

    *scene up at end of press conference*

    *reporter stands up and raises hand*

    "Congressman?! Congressman?! You and your colleagues have been equating radio stations not paying artists as the artists being slaves; a position the RIAA has publicly taken as well. Given the similarities of that argument and you're presentation of it today, are you (and by extension, your colleagues) being paid by the RIAA or are you slaves to the RIAA? Congressman?! Where are you going, Congressman?!"

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

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:06pm

    I can look at my CD collection and count a number of them that I would never have bought if I hadn't heard a song that I liked on the radio. It is advertising for them and the demands for payment could be justifiably from the stations and not the other way around. Payola didn't end because of the scandals in the 50's Read the Wikipedia article about it. The record industry has continued to use loopholes in the law to pay stations to promote what they want. It just doesn't seem logical. They are willing to pay to play and at the same time demanding payment for what amounts to advertising for them.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:56pm

      Entitlement, (noun), See: RIAA/MPAA

      I believe the term is 'having your cake and eating it too'. They want to get the increased sales from the promotional value that radio adds, but at the same time they also want to be paid, by the radio stations, for that same promotional value that they are adding.

      It's basically like a company calling up a newspaper, one that had been running ads for that company, leading to a significant increase in sales, and demanding that the newspaper pay for the 'privilege' of doing so(so you know, just like various EU newspapers/sites have done with Google).

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2015 @ 11:06pm

      Re:

      The RIAA/MPAA doesn't believe in logic. They want a fairy land of magic and rainbows where everybody just pays them however much they want for whatever crap they decide to put out through mediums they alone control..

      Oh and they want everyone in tech to work for them alone and not offer any alternatives that people would actually.. you know.. enjoy

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

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 14 Apr 2015 @ 6:39pm

    Nadler doesn't get paid each time he goes on TV to talk about whatever bill he's supporting, does he?

    Is that a trick question?

    The top two industries contributing to Jerrold Nadler's Campaign Committee and Leadership PAC for Campaign Cycle 2014:

    1. Lawyers/Law Firms
    Individuals: $100,494
    PACs: $31,350
    Total: $131,844

    2. TV/Movies/Music
    Individuals: $38,350
    PACs: $59,500
    Total: $97,850

    (From opensecrets.org)

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.