Do You Love Free Radio? DO SOMETHING NOW OR LOSE IT ALL

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Save Free Radio! Do you love your radio stations – the music, news and traffic? Do you love getting your music for FREE? It’s all in danger! Everything you love about your radio station could be a thing of the past! Unless you act NOW! There are bills before congress that threaten free music on the radio. The foreign owned record companies and misinformed artists want congress to establish a tax where stations would pay for the right to play music on the radio. This additional tax would change radio and put music radio stations in danger of going silent. Learn more…

Your radio station needs your help! By signing this petition and sending an e-mail to congress you are telling congress NOT to pass this tax on radio stations. Click below to sign the petition and save free radio! You also can make calls to your congressional leaders and email your friends.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION

http://www.saveyourradio.org/page.asp?content=startpage&g=saveradio

[davepc]

1. Radio Statios already pay fees to ASCAP

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. exactly, and more fees makes decent programming impossible...

I've spent my life working in radio and I can tell you it's not easy to make ends meet with current overhead. Congress is sold out to fat-cats, as usual. Term-limits might cure their attitudes.

[sharp_stick]

2. I think my radio stations are

all owned by clear channel and play the exact same lame playlist from coast to coast. I haven't listened to free or in other words advertiser sponsored radio in ages and don't plan to do it again anytime soon.

Now, if we actually had an independent radio station that would do something other than rehash the same crap endlessly looped on this conglomerate behemoth masked as free radio I might be interested.

[mwooldri]

39. Clear Channel stations have had this URL on the RDS display for some time. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. More ridiculous RIAA fascism

This is goddamned madness. The only time you should ever pay for a song is when you buy it in a physical medium, like a CD or vinyl - if you can find it. (or arguably an I tunes download, though I would never pay for a lossy file myself)

[onenote]

6. should you have to pay for concert tickets?

to go see a live performance? should live concerts be free for blind people because all they can do is hear the performance?

should television stations have to pay for the right to broadcast programs that they air or should they just be able to walk into a video store, buy a tape, and then air it (selling ads to those who want to reach the audience watching)?

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Yeah, within reason

Of course Ticketbastard and Clear Channel have fucked that all up. But a live performance involves booking a physical venue. The band performs, which means the roadies have to set up the stage, and the sound crew has to tune up all the instruments and sound system. All those people have to be paid in order for the show to take place.

There's no labor involved for a record company when a song is played on a goddamn radio station.

[onenote]

11. and what about television stations running a program

should tv stations have to pay for the rights (including residual rights that flow to the performers) to programs that they don't create themselves, such as a movie or a syndicated show?

after all, there is no labor for a movie studio when a movie is played on a goddamn television station.

And what about a free newspaper running copies of syndicated columns or comics without paying the syndicator or artist for them.

After all, there is no labor for a comic strip artist when a newspaper prints a comic in its pages or runs it on its website.

[Hugin]

14. So you approve of the Government collecting monies to be relinquished to private entities?

I don't.

That's called Corporatism.

[onenote]

18. huh? you don't know what you're talking about do you?

The royalty payments are not collected by the government. They're paid to non-profit organziations set up by the copyright owners for the purpose of collecting and then further distributing to individual rights holders the royalties that are collected. One of those entities is SoundExchange, which was created by the record industry. Other entities that receive the money (directly or from SoundExchange) include the American Federation of Musicians and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

Try educating yourself.

[Hugin]

22. No, that's why I have conflict-of-interest special-interest people around to ask.

Anyway, why does it need to be a law?

Also, why aren't these organizations out promoting their artists instead of finding an easy way to pick up a quick buck?

This uneducated person chooses to view radio play as a promotion of the artists... You must be a Shitalica fan.

[onenote]

29. Don't care for Metallica at all. And here's why there needs to be a law

Copyright is a creature of law. And while in virtually all instances, the law gives the owner of a copyrighted work the right to be compensated for the performance or display of that work, there is one notable exception -- the owners of the copyright in a sound recording do not have a public performance right with respect to the performance of their works by over the air radio. If their works are performed on XM/Sirius: they have a performance right. If their works are performed by an internet webcaster: they have a performance right. If their works are performed on an over the air radio station, no right. Making this all the more inequitable is the fact that the composer of the song does have a performance right, not only when they song they composed is performed on XM/Sirius and webcasts, but also on over the air radio.

So, when Jackson Browne's cover of "Stay" comes on the radio, Maurice Williams, who wrote the song, gets a royalty, as well he should. But Jackson Browne gets nada, even though its his particular performance of the song that is the more popular version today.

[onenote]

10. btw, here are some other "fascists" that support the performance rights royalty

Bono
will i am
Herbie Hancock
Emmy Lou Harris
Billy Corgan

the list goes on and on.

[Hugin]

15. Is there a link somewhere?

I can always use a laundry list of stuff to avoid.

[onenote]

24. sure. and enjoy the sounds of silence

artists: http://musicfirstcoalition.org/artists/

organizations: http://musicfirstcoalition.org/coalition/

I'd give you a list of the musicians and artists who don't support this legislation, but I can't find one. So you'll just have to console yourself with the thought that you're on the side of Clear, Citadel, and the other big radio conglomerates and not on the side of artists like Springsteen, and groups like the Future of Music Coalition, that oppose media consolidation.

[Hugin]

28. No, not as you say "on the side of radio conglomerates"... As, I've heard many many songs on free...

radio that I've gone on to purchase... I'm supporting the artists of my choice and I've excluded paying for those I dislike.

So, you see... As a music consumer. There's a little something in it for me.

But, if you're serious... You'll be the one in silence. Because, ultimately, what will happen is the radio stations will say... "Pay, eh? How's about you pay US to play your crap." See how the worm turns?

[onenote]

30. and I've bought DVDs of tv shows and books of Doonesbury cartoons

because I saw the show on tv or read the cartoon in the paper. Doesn't mean that the television station shouldn't pay the creator of the show or that the paper shouldn't be paying trudeau.

[Hugin]

35. Well, now you've made a valid point...

Except for "pay for content" has rendered Television a vast wasteland of garbage due to the gaping lack of any sort of consumer interest feedback loop...

Oh, and newspapers are dying left and right.

So, is the plan, ultimately to start charging on the Internet? Oh, wait... I just read about someone fined over a million dollars for doing that very thing.

Well, at least I know I won't be in silence... I've had a raging tinnitus and haven't heard a thing in a couple of years.

[armyowalgreens]

36. Technically any way you obtain music is obtaining it through a physical medium...

Because what you are trying to argue is that it utilizes resources when you purchase a CD or vinyl. But you just assume the same isn't true about digital transfer. Which is absurd. It may be less costly to sell digital files of music. But you still need infrastructure to do so. Which costs money.

[onenote]

4. oh, please. its not a tax. its royalty being paid to the artists and record companies

for the public performance of their copyrighted work.

Radio pays the composers of those works and has survived. Why should radio stations be able to take the works of artists and use them without paying and then make money by selling ads to those who want to reach the listeners attracted by the stations' use of those works?

If I published a free, ad-supported newspaper, it wouldn't be okay for me to take Doonesbury and other comic strips and print them without paying for the right to do so. Why is it okay for radio stations to do essentially the same thing?

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. lol nice try.

Yeah, they need your help. Sure. They have a golden microphone, gigawatts of power and they need your help. Yeah.

Except, it's really about the creators of music getting paid for their property being broadcast and used by radio stations to make money. It's not a tax, it's about royalty payments, which many radio stations are currently not paying. It allows for an annual flat fee INSTEAD of paying individual royalties, in order to allow smaller stations an easier option than either being illegal or paying the usual incremental fees.

Here's the summary of the Senate Bill:

Official Summary

2/4/2009--Introduced.

Performance Rights Act - Amends federal copyright law to:

(1) grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters; and
(2) modify the circumstances under which the public performance of a sound recording is subject to statutory licensing. Establishes a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for noncommercial, public broadcast stations. Grants:
(1) an exemption from royalty payments for broadcasts of religious services and for incidental uses of musical sound recordings; and
(2) terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings a per program license option. Prohibits anything in this Act from adversely affecting the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

[onenote]

8. +1

[mitchum]

41. +2

[Spazito]

48. + 3 n/t

[Richardo]

7. They should pay US to listen to the crappy music on commercial radio

God it sucks, and that means every classic rock, country, top40, light hits, smooth jazz, and whatever other godforsaken formats are out there.

Every station in the country could shut down and we'd all be better off, with college radio, Pacifica and NPR stations

Now you kids GET OFF MY LAWN!

[Jkid]

16. Oh, radio will still exist.

But they'll most likely abandon music formats for non-music formats.

[donheld]

12. How are they going to charge anybody to listen to the radio?

[TommyO]

17. Which radio company do you work for?

[TommyO]

19. Well, look at this

The folks behind "saveyourradio"

http://www.freeradioalliance.org/aboutMembers.asp

Hmm. CBS Radio, Clear Channel, the NAB, and plenty more. All loathe to pay performers for playing their music.

[DainBramaged]

20. I have XM because terra radio SUCKS

[stopbush]

21. Nope. I've never been a radio listener.

If it went away, I wouldn't know unless I read about it on the web.

[MrSlayer]

23. I don't love free radio, I love Sirius.

Commercial radio blows. The only commercial radio I listen to is sports talk and that sucks most of the time too.

[TommyO]

26. I'm in the Sirius listener camp as well

On the rare times that I listen to terrestrial radio, it's a painful experience, punctuated by painful commercials from the "savefreeradio" pushers.

Of course, they're not telling you that satellite and internet radio are already paying the royalties that terrestrial radio has been exempt from paying.

[rd_kent]

25. There is no such thing as free radio

One tunes in and hears the same 6 songs every hour, paid for by the recoding industry, then we are subjected to more commercials per hour than music.

[Ex Lurker]

27. "free" radio stations during Hurricane Rita

the extent of their coverage was to play the canned NWS warnings at the top of the hour, then back to their satellite programming from NY or LA or wherever it originated from. So much for operating in the public interest. Sirius has problems, not least of which is a business model which may never be profitable. But it gives you a diverse choice of formats, no matter where you live. And if it goes under, which it might, something else will take its place, probably internet based. Terrestrial radio is a dead technology, they just haven't buried the corpse yet.

[kirby]

31. Radio already plays too many commercials...

Screw em.

[Romulox]

32. Composition holders ALREADY get paid to be played on the radio. Why shouldn't performers?

Underneath the hyperbole, that's what the OP is referring to. There are two rights implicated in the songs played on the radio: 1) the rights owned by the composition holder; and 2) the rights held by the performers. Usually, the former is owned by the record company, and the latter by the artist.

Under the present system, record labels are paid a licensing fee to have songs they own played on the radio. Artists are not. Why shouldn't they be?

[onenote]

37. a slight correction

You are right in the logic of your argument: if the stations pay the composers, why not pay the performers?

However, your a bit off on your description of the rights and rightsholders involved.

The composers (the folks that write songs) are represented by ASCAP, BMI, etc. In reality, many composers sell their rights to large music publishing houses (not record companies).

In addition to the copyright in the composition, there is a separate copyright in the particular sound recording created of the composition. For example, Bob Dylan is the composer of the song All ALong the Watchtower (and, in theory, the owner of the copyright in that song). Various people have recorded that song. Dylan, Hendrix, etc. Each different recorded version is a separate copyrighted work, with the copyright typically owned by the record company, who contractually may have an obligation to share revenues from the sale or performance of that recording with the artists invovled in its creation.

The radio stations pay the composer when they perform the composer's work, no matter which version is being performed. The performers (and the record companies that typically own the rights to the recorded version) don't get anything when the performance is on 'over the air' radio. Which, among other things, puts other audio services, such as XM/Sirius and web-based music performance outlets, at a signfiicant disadvantage.

[Romulox]

40. I'm not seeing any correction here. Just a more verbose explanation.

(And a bit of confusion of your own!) For reasons I haven't gotten into, the rights to the composition end up belonging to the record labels almost without exception. It is not the case, however, that the record companies uniformly own the copyright in the recordings themselves, and it's not correct to make such a blanket statement.

For this discussion, it's enough to note that there are two rights implicated, that these rights may or may not be held by the same persons (but are frequently not) and that the holder of one of these rights (copyright in the composition,) is compensated when played over terrestrial radio, and the holder of the other right (copyright in the performance) is not.

To muddy the waters further, the DMCA, in requiring licensing fees be paid to the holders of both rights for music played over the internet or satellite, implicitly acknowledges that the previous system was unfair to the holders of performance rights (typically artists, not the record companies,) or that the economic arguments used to defend the previous regime no longer make sense, at least.

I do take umbrage at your mischaracterization of the rights of holders of copyrights in specific sound recordings as being "typically...the record company." That frames this debate as "record companies versus the listening public", which is the way the OP portrays it. In reality, the artists themselves often retain the rights in their sound recordings (but not their compositions,) and thus, this debate is really "media outlets versus artists" in many cases.

[onenote]

42. Sorry if you took umbrage,

Our differences are more semantic than substantive. Technically, the composition rights do not end up belonging to the record labels -- they end up being owned by music publishing companies. But to the extent that the largest of those companies are under common ownership with the major record companies, that may be a relatively meaningless distinction. Nonetheless, it reains true that many artists set up their own, independent publishing companies and that the composers/publishers (as represented by ASCAP and BMI) and the record companies (as represented by RIAA and Sound Exchange) often are adversaries who regularly fight against each other in Congress.

We also are only in partial disagreement about sound recording rights. Sound recording rights are indeed almost always held by a record label. An example of an exception is Bruce Springsteen, who individually retains his sound recording rights (because he has the leverage to do so). In most instances, however, a record label holds the copyright in the sound recording. It may be a big record company, like Warner or Sony or Universal (or one of their many subsidiaries) or it may be an independent label, including an independent label started by one of the artists whose recordings appear on the label. For example, John Prine started an indpendent label, Oh Boy Records, that holds the sound recording copyright in his recordings as well as in the recordings of certain other artists who have signed with that label. Prine's compositions are copyrighted in the name of Prine's publishing company -- Tommy Jack Music. When Prine co-writes with someone, more than one publishing company is listed as the owner of the composition copyright. For instance, on the CD Fair and Square, the song "Crazy as a Loon" is identified as being copyrighted by Tommy Jack Music and Corn Country Music.

Thus, I think our disagreement is really so much a disagreement as a difference in emphasis. THe big record companies and publishers do own the composition and sound recording rights of most of the music that is performed on radio. Even where they don't directly own the sound recording rights, they may have a licensing agreement with the owner that would give them a significant financial stake in any performance royalties that are paid.

As i noted in my original post, I am in agreement with you it is not fair that the owner of the copyright in the composition is compensated for radio play (through ASCAP, BMI etc), while the holder of the copyright in the sound recording is not.

A couple of other points: you cite the DMCA as requiring licensing fees be paid to the holders of both the sound recording copyright and the composition copyright for performances made over satellite or the internet, implicitly recognizing that denying performance rights to sound recording rights holders was unfair. To be more precise, this recognition goes back even earlier than the DMCA. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (which I helped write) amended section 106 of the Copyright Act to recognize, for the first time, a performance right in sound recordings, albeit one that is limited to performances by means of digital audio transmission (thus necessitating a further amendment if over the air radio is going to be covered). It also created section 114 of the Act, to establish a statutory licensing mechanism for the payment of royalties for certain categories of transmissions. The DMCA built on this foundation by amending section 114 to create additional categories of transmission services that are covered by the statutory license.

Finally, it was not my intent in any way to frame the debate as being between the record companies on the one hand and the listening public on the other. I disagee strongly with the OP's position, as is clear from my posts on this thread. The correct characterization of the debate over the Performance Rights Act is between the broadcast radio industry on one side and the record companies and musical artists on the other.

[Romulox]

43. I think we are in a "show who can recite more on the subject" mode

It doesn't take 8 or 9 paragraphs to substantially agree. You might spend more time correcting people with severe misapprehensions as to this subject on this thread, rather than quibble over whether the record companies "own" the composition rights, or merely "profit exclusively" from them. It's not an interesting question, and seems designed to muddy the waters.

As I mentioned before, it is enough to say that there are two rights implicated, and that one is compensated, and the other is not...

[onenote]

44. I have spent "more time correcting people with severe misapprehensions" on the subject

If you check the thread, you'll see that, apart from the two posts I had discussing the finer points of the issue with you (and expressing my agreement with your position on the big issue in both), I have posted a half dozen other times to rebut the OP and those who think that we should be supporting the radio stations on this issue when, in fact, that is, imo, the wrong position.

For example, post #4:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6347502&mesg_id=6347570

Anyway, enough of this. I'm glad to have your back and glad that you have mine in trying to straighten out those who think that because the record companies support something, it must be bad.

[Romulox]

46. OK. Fair enough. Peace. nt

[onenote]

47. Thanks and same in return.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[fishnfla]

34. Hell NO and NO FUCKING WAY

sign for something that sucks out loud? never

[mwooldri]

38. AFAIK it's actually bringing the US in line with the rest of the world.

Radio stations worldwide usually pay two or three kinds of royalties to the artists and writers who create the music and perform the music. They should get paid.

Plus it's not a tax, it's a royalty that's being considered. Yes it will add to radio stations' costs. Small stations may have to find an extra $500-$1000 a year - increasing their ad rate about 1 cent a spot would cover that easily, provided they're running about 15 30 second spots an hour - that brings in $1296 a year for a $0.01 increase in ad rates, and for these small stations spot rates are pretty darned low anyway. Big conglomerates especially like Clear Channel will be able to negotiate a discounted rate. There would be negotiations for non-commercial stations. Stations that have music shows but where they are predominantly talk can reduce further by submitting a log of all played songs and pay per song played.

Also this site IMO is astroturf - if you have RDS in your car and tuned to a lot of the Clear Channel stations, the RDS display has been plugging the heck out of this URL. Whilst Clear Channel may be sympathetic to this cause, I don't think the corporates would pull their RDS displays across all the group stations and show this www.saveyourradio.org URL instead.

[walldude]

45. Save Clear Channel?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: