Radio stations use the intellectual property of the artists, musicians and songwriters to sell ads which keeps the money flowing to the station owners.
This is the most fundamental mistake in this argument. Not one single radio station I know uses music to sell ads. They really can't. Radio stations don't own the music, so they can't use it to sell advertising. If they did, the artists could sue.
Again, radio stations don’t sell recordings--they sell ads by using recorded performances and broadcasting them to thousands and millions of listeners.
Wrong again. If I use a recorded performance in an ad, the artist must be compensated.
While there may be an initial boost in sales of new recorded products when played on the radio, most radio stations are using recordings that are more than 2 ½ years old. Their potential for creating sales revenue is long passed and yet the radio stations continue to exploit these older recordings because they have huge value in selling ads and making it possible for the stations to stay in business.
Wrong again. Radio airplay of Michael Jackson music caused a huge rush to retail stores to buy collections of his music. Every few years, Capitol Records releases another Beatles collection, and their music continues to sell 40 years after their break-up. The value of old music catalogues have appreciated in value thanks to radio airplay. Recently SONY purchased the BMG catalogue for $1 billion. How much of that money was shared with artists and musicians? Not one cent. The only reason more older music isn’t purchased is because the music retail system in this country has collapsed. The music industry hasn’t invested any money in retail, and instead is devoting its time to taking money from broadcasters, including internet and satellite radio. Radio stations playing older music recognize that there’s an audience for that music. The music retail industry doesn’t share that view. THAT is where the problem is.
The cost for a small station will be much less than for a large radio station for the very purpose of which you are concerned. We want the small radio stations to succeed and the law will provide for a minimal payment from them.
Once again, not true. If the music industry wanted small stations to succeed, they would provide music service and promotion to small radio stations. But they don’t. Most small radio stations must obtain music from outside suppliers like TM Studios Hitdiscs or CDX, which they pay for. These are licensed recordings, and the labels are compensated for them.
Record labels and artists only care about the largest and most popular radio stations. They are the ones they provide free music, free concert tickets, and other promotional devices.
So car companies, insurance companies, beer companies, soft drink companies all use the power of music and buy ads year after year to sell more of their products on the backs of musicians, artists and copyright holders who receive nothing for the use of their recordings after their initial release.
I can’t believe the amount of crap this guy writes. Any time any commercial enterprise uses music to sell its products, the musicians, artists, and copyright holders are paid. That is why artists like Moby work so hard to license their music for commercial purposes. One can retire on the amount of money one can make from a single car or beer commercial. And many have. So to say these people don’t get compensated is the world’s biggest lie.
If you invented a new product I doubt if you would give it to millions of people everyday to exploit for free.
This guy has obviously never heard of the internet. That is exactly what millions of people do there every day. Companies like Microsoft and Firefox give away their browser for free. Unsigned artists go on YouTube and MySpace and give away their music for free. Everything on the internet is for free. Including music.
It is time for US radio stations to get in line with every major European country in the world and recognize the value of recordings in their businesses and pay a modest sum for that exploitation.
But the RIAA doesn’t want to give US radio stations the same right to the use of those recordings that European radio stations get. The RIAA only wants to change one part of the law: The part that benefits them. Any other similarities to the European system would not apply. Plus the US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws, preventing radio from charging record labels for airplay. The RIAA doesn’t want that to change either.
