Time to Bring Back Payola?
The BusinessWeek article "Radio Royalty Wars Heat Up Again" is good, but the reader comments are more interesting. Opinions are all over the place and many of them aren't based on any seeming logical explanation. One guy says to make Terrestrial Radio pay the additional royalties for streaming, but then goes on to berate Radio for adding more commercials per hour.
Um... exactly HOW do you think Radio is going to pay for those additional royalties??
If the RIAA wants to come back and double-dip on fees (I think a few of the commenters seem to think Radio is agetting a 'free ride' -- they're not.) Radio already pays royalty and licensing fees. These hearings have come about because the recording industry feels they should get additional fees if the station is streaming (the exact same broadcast!) over the internet.
I think one solution that these hearings need to consider is allowing Radio to charge the recording industry to play their music. I know in the past this has been outlawed by Payola rulings, but if the RIAA wants Radio to pay them for featuring their product, then Radio ought to have the same chance to profit from the recording industry. I think Payola laws were originally instituted to make sure the public had a fair chance to hear music from record labels that didn't have deep enough pockets to bribe a disc jockey to play their records. This was back when only a few radio stations were on the air and there were really no other ways to learn about new artists. With a plethora of other stations now on the air, the advent of internet radio, satellite radio, iTunes, indie music sites like GarageBand.com, and a myriad of ways to share music peer-to-peer -- the old reasons for outlawing Payola would seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur.
Grocery stores leverage shelf space and display location to receive better rates and discounts from their supliers -- why can't Radio be allowed to do the same?
Um... exactly HOW do you think Radio is going to pay for those additional royalties??
If the RIAA wants to come back and double-dip on fees (I think a few of the commenters seem to think Radio is agetting a 'free ride' -- they're not.) Radio already pays royalty and licensing fees. These hearings have come about because the recording industry feels they should get additional fees if the station is streaming (the exact same broadcast!) over the internet.
I think one solution that these hearings need to consider is allowing Radio to charge the recording industry to play their music. I know in the past this has been outlawed by Payola rulings, but if the RIAA wants Radio to pay them for featuring their product, then Radio ought to have the same chance to profit from the recording industry. I think Payola laws were originally instituted to make sure the public had a fair chance to hear music from record labels that didn't have deep enough pockets to bribe a disc jockey to play their records. This was back when only a few radio stations were on the air and there were really no other ways to learn about new artists. With a plethora of other stations now on the air, the advent of internet radio, satellite radio, iTunes, indie music sites like GarageBand.com, and a myriad of ways to share music peer-to-peer -- the old reasons for outlawing Payola would seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur.
Grocery stores leverage shelf space and display location to receive better rates and discounts from their supliers -- why can't Radio be allowed to do the same?
Labels: Fees, Industry, Rants, Record Labels, Streaming
