You have to pay them to play their stuff?

SomaFM listener Robert hits the radio royalty thing on the head:

Beginning with iTunes and through that my intro to your excellent station, I was not listening to music at all. For me was impossible to listen too on a lot of levels. So you introduced me to electronica, remix jazz and the like. Well now I am looking at my purchased iTunes library with  1700 + songs. I was thinking; "You have to pay them to play their stuff?", they should be paying you for bringing them customers like me , where else am I or anybody else going to hear this. Personally I like listening to music again, Thank You!

Most of the indie artists we play feel this way, and many of the independent labels feel this way too. For the most part, it's the big labels with lots of back-catalog that don't see the value in radio play.

If the royalties we pay were much lower (in line with what is proposed for terrestrial radio), this wouldn't be a big issue. But considering that SoundExchange is now pushing for higher and higher rates, there isn't much hope of our getting a royalty rate on par with what the terrestrial guys will likely get.

Looks like our ultimate solution will be directly licensing tracks from artists and indie labels, and play less and less music from the big labels. (We already play less than 20% of our music from big labels, so that won't be too hard.)

Rusty speaking at SXSW on DMCA issues

I'm speaking at SXSWi on "Rewriting the DMCA: How to Improve Section 114":

``This panel will discuss the ugly bits of the Section 114 compulsory license for digital/internet music usage, and what parts are in it for historic reasons that don't apply in todays world; as well as changes that both users of the licenses (webcasters) and content providers (artists, labels) would agree to.``

Tuesday, March 17th; 11:30 am - 12:30 pm Room Hilton E

David Byrne on Net Radio

David Byrne and Danielle Spencer wrote a good article on the importance of internet radio.

I do want to clarify something that Danielle Spencer wrote:

While traditional terrestrial radio does pay songwriter/publishing royalties for the musical work itself, in the U.S. they don’t pay performance royalties for the sound recording under the rationale that airplay promotes the songs, which benefits the copyright holders. (This determination was mostly due to the radio industry lobbying congress not to collect these royalties.)

This is not historically accurate - this is the version of history that the RIAA likes to propagate! When the original copyright laws were written, Congress realized it was granting a legal monopoly to the copyright holder. So in order to balance out that government-given monopoly it also added provisions for fair use and public rights, such as copying for personal use, exemptions for libraries, and exemptions for radio broadcasters. Fair Use is These public rights are an important part of the American way. We are one of the few countries in the world that have it fair use and other public rights defined in our law. Like freedom of the speech, it is a foundation of our culture. But the RIAA wants to change this, and they're doing it by chipping away at the law.

Can you imaging the outrage if over-the-air radio suddenly was forced to pay huge amounts of money to play music? Music radio would go away, and become all talk radio. Payola would return in a new form: the only music you would hear on the radio is music that the record labels granted permission for broadcasters to play. The labels would then control the music that got played over the air to the public - which is something they have always wanted to do anyway.

Many people, including myself, think that this is all about control and not money. The labels want to control what music the public hear- they want radio to only be an extension of their marketing efforts. So if they can't bribe stations to play the music they want them to play, they went for legislation that says stations have to pay for everything other than the music the labels want them to play.