Shouldnt record labels pay radio stations?

Question

For the free promotion instead of vice versa?

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM: The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is asking Congress to establish a performance royalty on free radio, despite the unparalleled promotional value the record labels and artists receive from radio airplay. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy (D-VT) and House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Chairman Berman (D-CA) have both introduced legislation (S. 2500 and H.R. 4789) that would mandate broadcasters pay to play and promote music. The impact would be catastrophic - for free radio and the local communities who rely on us for their news and information, forcing dramatic cuts both in personnel and content.

Greed strikes again.

Answer 1

Yes

Answer 2

Blue I am a member of live 365. The fight we present is as

long as the music is not downloadable. No harm no foul.

As long as it can't be reproduced for personal gain, I have

no problem. What is wrong is the artist or performer has all

the right in the world to protect his intellectual property, So

I think it is wise for all sides to sit down and try and rectify

this nasty looming problem.

Answer 3

Radio and records for years had enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. We'd play those songs we thought fit our station and had potential. Those songs would become hits (or not - it always was in in the grooves).

The artists and labels would benefit from the incredible exposure the records would get with airplay, sometimes in multiple formats, as their songs sold. If an album was strong enough to sell several singles, people would buy the entire album and gain more exposure to the artist and label.

Because times are tough and the entire paradigm of the record business has changed, with artists becoming successful on their own through the internet, downloads, sharing and the like, labels are hurting. Beause of the paring of ad budgets radio stations are hurting.

The labels have asked their representative organization the RIAA to find a way to get stations to pay for airplay. After all they say ACAP, BMI and SESAC collect royalties for the witers and publishers, why shouldn't we get a piece of that? Well, because writers and publishers don't press, distribute, promote and sell records in stores - labels do.

So radio says, fine, if they want to pay three times the average rate for a 60" commercial each time their 3' song is played (and it's not payola if you announce it's paid), we'll do that. So there's a bit of a bladder-emptying competition right now between the two.

Those who previously were happy to work together to promote good music got greedy. A top-selling album, even with all the free downloads will still make a lot of money if it's in the grooves - if the "sound is there."

Couple that with the additional revenue and exposure the concerts and other paid appearances bring and we think the labels and perforners are doing just fine.

And we'll go buy our own records if they complain about providing promo copy - this, however would lead to very little newer music played, especially in the bigger markets. And don't look for anymore free publicity for a few measly tickets and T-shirts in return for thousands of dollars in airtime and the priviledge of saying we're "presenting" the show.

More and more artists are coming direcly to web sites and radio stations wthout labels, becuase you are in virtual slavery for the first few albums. Like everyone else, get used to a different world and find other ways generate incremental revenue.

Adapt or die (or something like that)

---Darwin

A guy named duh

Answer 4

I Think They Do.

Answer 5

As was said in other places, Since they are loosing out because of file sharing, they want to hurt the one group they know they can rape.. and that's radio...

So does this mean that TV will also have to pay these rights to the record companies instead of the free plug at the end of the show?

Radio and record companies wash each others backs pretty much with radio pushing good and no so good artists for the record companies right now for what a few tickets, and a few free promotional items (as well as mp3s and a few cds of the music to air (and those are the stations that are lucky to get the free samplers instead of some I've heard actually turning) to file ripping sites to get songs to go on air!!!!!?

The cut is way too much as it would kill mom and pops.. I may agree if it was a market size based fee for artists themselves only like tv (who's actors belong to a guild who takes care of them..most artists don't have good health coverages until they get bigger for instance) is, but record companies want the cash revenue it had in the 1960s and 1970s and won't enjoy it anymore...

But Personally it wouldn't cut personel as it would cut content  (with repeats and VT becoming more pronounced with more talk coming in place of music) and illegal file sharing and independent artist free of the record companies would profit more on this than anything.

But if the record companies would be smart, they would shut up before it becomes payola in reverse... how much will you NOT charge me to play this cut......

It's coming... bet your horse.... If it passes, payola in reverse will happen real soon (instead of record companies paying money to get songs played, it's how much of a discount to get a trashy song played)