General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 06-26-2007, 01:21 PM

Royalties are set to go up July 15th for internet radio broadcasting - stations will have to pay more for the songs they play. This isn't just for one band, it's across the board, at least in the US.

In protest, a lot of stations are off-line today, broadcasting silence. They're trying to make the point that if they can't afford to pay royalties, they'll be forced out of business. On the other hand, the RIAA says we'll be listening to silence for life if we don't pay the musicians well.

Before I go further, what do you think about this?

My opinion is going to ruffle some feathers, I bet. Personally, I think artists have a right to be paid for their work, and to make something and charge a billion dollars if they want. And we have a right to not buy it, if we want. But I also think things are getting out of hand. Art is special, not just another product to consume. Thousands of bands rock out every day without being paid, but steel workers don't. People who are in it for the love of music instead of just for the money, tend to be better musicians.

The RIAA tells us there will be no music if musicians aren't well paid. But they forget they won't have any pay if we choose not to buy, maybe because we don't like the terms or the prices. One of the mods here runs Zemo Stock, which is open source art. Guy goes out, makes art, than puts it up for anyone to do anything they'd like with, without payment. That proves it's possible for there to be good art without money being involved. So I also think internet radio stations should be playing free music today, instead of silence.

**ADAM Web Design** · 06-26-2007, 01:37 PM

I think the idea's just plain silly.

They broadcast on offline radio, they broadcast on TV (music videos), and the rates for those media aren't going up. This is just another example of a large corporate monolith fearing and not understanding progress and how to work with it.

To the RIAA, I have but one thing to say: Don't Download This Song.

**Republikin** · 06-26-2007, 03:34 PM

Ironically if musicians stopped selling their work to giant labels who screw them there wouldn't be any RIAA either. Or at least its focus might actually be on the artists and not the labels.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/ I found this interesting website while searching for related topics in order to gather my thoughts. I generally agree with their premise, music labels are ruining the music industry, not file sharing. It would be interesting to apply the open source model to music and see who would offer up their garage band recordings for all to listen to without fear of consequences. Perhaps ZemoMusic is in order?

A good indicator of how much the labels have ruined music lately is the kind of crappy new music that comes out. Most of it is geared at youth and it's simply poor quality. The youth don't necessarily compare the quality of it with the stuff their parents listened too so they are generally clueless as to just how crappy their music is.

What ever happened to Led Zeppelin, Janis Joplin, Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash? Sure they were successful, and they deserved it, but they became successful because they were good, not because their label had so much saturation into the market that they knew they would sell it regardless.

**Vasity** · 06-26-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I think the idea's just plain silly.

They broadcast on offline radio, they broadcast on TV (music videos), and the rates for those media aren't going up. This is just another example of a large corporate monolith fearing and not understanding progress and how to work with it.

To the RIAA, I have but one thing to say: Don't Download This Song.

OMFG JESUS CHRIST....

I agree. Anything that people think they could raise prices they will try though, that is the ***** with inflation. Also, who needs internet radio. When there are so many sites you can download music from in the first place.

- Kazaa
-BearShare
-BitTorent Sites
-+MANY MORE

**Republikin** · 06-26-2007, 04:05 PM

OMFG JESUS CHRIST! Vasity, stop replying to Adam, period, anywhere in the forum. If I catch one more your getting a 7 day ban. Just pretend he doesn't exist and stop replying to him.

**Vasity** · 06-26-2007, 04:26 PM

Ok consider this done...o_o Don't want a 7 day ban x_x I will no longer talk /nor respond to Adam. Please inform him to do the same.

**Learning Newbie** · 06-26-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

This is just another example of a large corporate monolith fearing and not understanding progress and how to work with it.

Old media is right to fear new media. When they've been charging us $20 a CD for $20 years, and now I can buy 50 blanks for $20, it makes me want to burn all my old Beatles albums and give them away to all of my friends and coworkers. Not to make a profit, in fact that would cost me, but they've been overcharging me for years, and I'm not thrilled. I think it's the same frustration that pushed other people to run P2P sites.

I don't have any right to tell the music industry what their profit model should be, but I have every right not to buy something if I don't like anything about it. And I get the feeling the RIAA is trying to make us think every single "lost sale" is because the customer downloaded the same thing illegally, instead of people who just don't want any part of that business anymore.

**tripy** · 06-26-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

Ironically if musicians stopped selling their work to giant labels who screw them there wouldn't be any RIAA either. Or at least its focus might actually be on the artists and not the labels.

if only it would be that simple....

Found on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224

Quote:

SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870

Quote:

SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

**Learning Newbie** · 06-26-2007, 06:36 PM

Trippy, can you explain the quotes you posted a little bit?

Let's pretend I had any amount of talent at all. Say I bought a piano, and got some friends to come over with drums and a guitar, and we all record a song together. As just a bunch of unsigned, talentless hacks. It sounds like we wouldn't be able to give our song to Internet radio stations?? Because of some royalty arrangement we had nothing to do with?

And what's the difference between regular being able to download a song for free, and Internet radio? Why would one be off limits and the other okay?

**tripy** · 06-26-2007, 07:27 PM

Well, what can I say !?

I tried to read the article, but didn't understood everything.
As living in Europe, I'm not particulary worried to have problems with the RIAA, but this looks like another lobbyed bill passed with the idea in mind that everything must be paid for.

I was under the imression that radio broadcasting stations where under a particular status in the US, that just felt, and that was related.
But frankly, I cannot give you much more insight on those articles that what's written in them.

**kingjacob** · 06-26-2007, 08:46 PM

I am strongly against the royalty hike, its ridiculous. It'd be fine if the RIAA was going to charge online radio the same as FM or even the same as XM, no they come up with a completely self-destructive per play per user model.

**Sczzy** · 06-26-2007, 10:16 PM

I might get a lot of flak for my opinion but here it goes… I think that it is a good thing for the economy. The reason that I do not like listening to radio is because of all the annoying ads. I don’t think that I am the only one out there that feels this way, which is why I think people buy music. When you are listening to music online you will pick a station that does not play any commercials. The reason that the artists are not making any money is because the companies that are promoting them can’t make any money off of them. Please do not get me wrong, I do believe in the free market. I think that people not buying CD’s or listening to the radio are sending a major message and that the industry finally understands because they are putting up a fight. I also think they are going about it the wrong way; cutting the internet streaming is only going to cause more people to get into pirating.

**angele803** · 06-27-2007, 04:42 PM

I think the radio is a way for artists to promote their work.
If I wanted to place a painting in an art gallery, I would probably have to pay the art gallery to put up my painting. In return, I would probably sell my painting. I seriously doubt the art gallery would pay me to put my work in their store so that they could stay in business. So, in turn, shouldn't the musician pay the radio stations for playing their music and therefore advertising their work?
...Just a new perspective...

**ForrestCroce** · 06-27-2007, 08:10 PM

That's an interesting take, Angele ... you're right that it's a new perspective!

But advertising is supposed to be a tease, to get peoples' attention and make them want to buy your product. If your entire product is fit into the ad, then a lot of people will be satisfied, and not buy. Sort of like the saying about buying a cow versus getting the milk free.

A few people have asked to put my photos up on the walls of their business, with the ultimate intent to sell them on consignment. The arrangement is usually that the business pays for the photos while they're on display, and gets a cut from the sale. That's pretty standard in photography; you have to print, mat, and frame the images - not cheap - and then the person is essentially renting o leasing decorations for their business.

On the other hand, photographers tend to be pretty tyrannical and immature in business, as a group. I might be enjoying the results of someone else's hissy fit. But how many 13x19" prints is my doctor going to sell from her office for me?

**EGS** · 06-29-2007, 12:22 AM

I was never a fan of internet radio. Now mp3 downloads...that's what I'm talkin' about.