Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
Maybe this was the change that Obama was referring to? On Tuesday afternoon, the White House recommended a number of
changes related to online piracy, counterfeiting, and on-air broadcasting. That includes support for on-air performance royalties, a major development for labels. And, it also potentially includes felonies for illegal streaming of content, depending on how some very vague definitions sort out.
White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel (pictured) made the formal recommendations. The proposed royalty requirement predictably drew the ire of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which criticized the "jobs-killing fee on America's hometown radio stations."
The RIAA begged to differ. "We appreciate the Administration's recommendation that Congress enact a performance right which would finally close a longstanding and unfair loophole in copyright law," RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol said.
That was just one part of a series of anti-piracy recommendations, and other assets like film, pharmaceuticals, military equiment, and even trade secrets were part of the discussion. "We are aware that members of Congress share our goal of reducing online infringement and are considering measures to increase law enforcement authority to combat websites that are used to distribute or provide access to infringing products," Espinel asserted.
That would include felonies where appropriate, and Espinel wanted to enact penalties regardless of distribution method. By that logic, streaming is now part of the discussion, though the impact on music-related rogues remains unclear at the moment. "To ensure that federal copyright law keeps pace with infringers, and to ensure that DOJ and US law enforcement agencies are able to effectively combat infringement involving new technology, the Administration recommends that Congress clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
Comments Closed
@The_Jenius Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Jenny
Not the change I wanted!!
@kibbe Tuesday, March 15, 2011
[stephanie] kibbe
Say whaaaattt
An Indie Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Today's formal recommendations from the White House are part of the fruit borne from the arrogant positions taken by those who profit from the use of creative content without compensating the creators.
Where once it may have been true that major labels and musicians - because this DOES affect the musicians you purport to love so much - were guilty of being arrogant to the point that a major Earth change occurred under their feet, the same is now poised to happen to those who steadfastly choose to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the very people who create and deliver the music that they use to build their own audiences.
We've all read repeatedly from the digerati that it's tough sh*t for artists and labels because NOTHING is going to stop them from downloading music without paying for it. Any effort to curb infringing behavior is met with over the top hysterical cries of stomping on individual rights from tortured wanna-be Constitutional experts.
Well, today was part of a reminder that NOTHING is permanent. Things change and in particular they change when things move too far to one side over the other. The music business has been smacked around for quite a while now and instead of engaging and letting us up off of our knees the technology and radio reps continued to flog away while wrapping themselves in over-used cliches calling musicians and labels "greedy" and worse. Time to turn the page and find a way to fairly compensate creators for the content that drives all of these platforms.
Radio, for one, should play on the same playing field that non-terrestrial broadcasters like Sirius and Pandora do (and terrestrial radio stations across the globe do).
guy mccreery Wednesday, March 16, 2011
very true. now it's time for a rapprochement between the warring parties.
@Magnotron Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Christopher Davis
A White House staffer recommends terrestrial radio performance royalties—
@JulienPhilippe_ Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Julien Philippe
Les droits voisins débarquent aux US !
Bad Idea Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Performance royalties for radio will destroy what's left of music being broadcast via AM and FM.
The conglomerates overpaid for ma and pa stations nationwide after 1996, never could monetize them. They upped the commercials and made the music oldies and lowest common denominator. They laid off staff.
This will just push more commerical stations to switch formats. Hello more talk radio. Hello more sports.
Goodbye college stations, although they're being pushed by colleges and universities onto the internet in order to sell the licenses while they're still money to be made.
And who gets the money from radio performance royalties? ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. To give to whom? Estates?
Not a good idea, long term, if this goes through. Good for Pandora and satellite radio, I suspect.
An Indie Tuesday, March 15, 2011
@Bad Idea
Your post is incorrect.
1) The money would be paid to performing artists - not songwriters - so therefore no Ascap, BMI, Sesac.
2) The conglomates DID overpay for the local sticks but radio revenues in the U.S. are up after a 1 year advertising dip at the bottom of our recession. So, is it the fault of artists that Clear Channel overpaid for the radio stations they ate up and then began programming centrally thereby removing localism in radio, shortening and homogenizing playlists?
3) Less music? Why, because the talk performers and sports programming is free? It's not. It's WAY more expensive than music will be even after a PRA is enacted. Over 75% of the FM commercial stations in the U.S. would pay $5000 or less annually for a performance right. The majority of college and community radio stations would pay between $500 and $1000 per year FOR ALL THE MUSIC THEY WANT TO PLAY.
I urge you to visit www.musicFIRSTcoalition.org and read about the PRA. This site is backed by thousands of artists, music managers, indie and major labels and provides very transparent and factual support for the PRA.
(sorry for the back to back long comments, DMN readers...I've worked in radio, promoted records to radio, and worked at indie labels and I KNOW radio is pushing BS with all this "hometown radio" and "we promote artists" stuff...it's a corporate racket!)
new york Wednesday, March 16, 2011
@ an indie.
Well put.
@kaviscope Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Kavi Halemane
$$$ cha-ching! now let's see it happen
billeeto Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Here’s some data to keep in mind in this debate:
Broadcast radio revenue increased 6% in 2010 (over 2009), to over $17 billion... beating projections.
Radio was a growth industry in previous decades but in recent years ad revenue has been in decline.
Here are the trends according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.
2004 +2%
2005 flat
2006 flat
2007 -3%
2008 -10%
2009 -20%
The decreases in 2008/9 were largely due to economic conditions, as advertising is hurt heavily during recessions. With economy "improving" in 2010, radio saw this in its 6% rebound over 2009.
$17 billion is still a very healthy amount of advertising - and significantly higher than 5+ years ago.
Early projections for 2011 are calling for another growth year of 2-3% in total radio advertising revenue.
The problem that broadcast companies are having are largely due to their eagerness to grow... (think Cumulus acquiring Citadel) adding more and more radio stations to their portfolio, at outrageous multiples -- causing them to leverage the heck out of their companies.
Regardless, the industry is cyclical... it hit bottom and is now climbing back up.
@Objazz_ Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tell u later
That's cool
av Wednesday, March 16, 2011
I agree that terrestrial radio performances should be royalty bearing for recordings. Old logic was that radio promotes album sales. No longer applicable as album sales get phased out by our new, connected world by on-demand streaming and "smart" radio (e.g. Pandora). SoundExchange should collect on FM/AM just as they do on Sirius/XM, webcasting, etc.. No differentiating factor exists in the modern context to merit royalty-free FM/AM vs. royalty-bearing digital performance.
@ thecjb Thursday, March 17, 2011
TheChristianJukebox
For all internet Broadcaster this is a need to read,and for the artists this is why we need you all support-
@johndefaria Thursday, March 17, 2011
John DeFaria
This makes sense..
@mrfrizo Thursday, March 17, 2011
Mr. Frizo
Hell yah Obama!!!
drewwhy Thursday, March 17, 2011
Maybe, just maybe, if it does force the radio conglomerates to lose a TINY fraction of money then perhaps they will sell the stations back to the mom and pops and radio would potentially be good again. Either way, enacting the PRA is a great thing and would allow us to join the rest of the world in copyright protection for sound recording owners and performers. Heck yes!
@WeezeMcCheese Thursday, March 17, 2011
Louise McCormick
GOBAMA
@magicpiemusic Thursday, March 17, 2011
Magic Pie
Good work Barack
wallow-T Friday, March 18, 2011
As this proposal for terrestrial radio performance royalties comes from the office of the IP ENFORCEMENT coordinator, one wonders which of the following statements are true:
Today's radio industry is an infringer in violation of IP laws.
Today's radio listeners are infringers in violation of IP laws.
If neither of these statements are true, then Espinel is meddling in affairs which are not her matter. Adjusting the obligations between the radio industry and the recording industry is NOT in her charter; this proposal suggests strongly that her job is as Copyright Industry Shill, nothing more.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us