"U.S Broadcast radio has never paid performance royalies to copyright holders or artist for music played over the air, but a newly formed coalition thigns it's time that changed. The musicFIRST Coatlition launched with more then 100 artists signed on as founding members and with the supporting organizations including the RIAA, the Recording Academy, SoundExchange and AFTRA.
The coalition's efforts include a Web site (http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/) that focuses on the "special treatment" afforded to over-the-air radio compared with Internet radio, satellite radio and cable music services, all of which pay performance royalties.
In response, NAB executive VP Dennis Wharton says the NAB "will aggreessively fight RIAA's proposed performance tax on local radio stations," adding, "Were it not for radio's free promotional airplay of music on stations all over America, most successful recording artists would still be playing in the garage." But musicFIRST is dismissive of the claim that airplay sells records, saying, "Studies show that in most formats, radio is actually substitutional, not promotional. Many consumers will not buy records because they can hear the music for free over the air." -Brida Connolly."
First off does anybody know why sat radio companies pay royalties for broadcasting artist's music?
How does it make any sense to charge the stations that broadcast the music and thus sell records? Obviously we have all heard the arguement that when it comes to downloading music and burning to CD that people don't then buy the actual records.
Didn't record companies complain that with the advent of recordable cassettes that then listeners could record music off the radio without paying for it? Honestly who listens exclusively to radio for their music fix and refuses to buy albums?
This just does not make any sense to me at all. I already severly disaprove of how record companies run shop but this is like newspapers charging fees to paper boys because people might buy one issue of the newspaper instead of a subscription.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
RIAA delenda est.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First off does anybody know why sat radio companies pay royalties for broadcasting artist's music?
Because, absent an exception, a copyright holder may exclude others from publicly performing the copyrighted work. In other words, satellite radio is following the same rules everyone but terrestrial radio follows. The exception is terrestrial radio, not satellite radio.
Edit: There's also a specific protection of digital audio performances that does not apply to analog radio. It's a terribly complicated aspect of the Copyright code.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:First off does anybody know why sat radio companies pay royalties for broadcasting artist's music?
Because, absent an exception, a copyright holder may exclude others from publicly performing the copyrighted work. In other words, satellite radio is following the same rules everyone but terrestrial radio follows. The exception is terrestrial radio, not satellite radio.
Yes I understand that, I guess it just does not make sense in that terrestrial came before satellite radio, so why was precedent not followed in sat radio's instance?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In part because satellite charges a subscription fee.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In part because satellite charges a subscription fee.
Ah! I completely spaced on that point.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Today is "A National Day of Silence" for internet radio protesting a rate hike that will likely put most out of business:
I don't undersand where these dudes are coming from. Ever since the Composers strike in the late 40's, Radio Stations pay fees through their ASCAP licensing for the the copyrighted music that they play.