... Please look to our site "Save Internet Radio"
to see how webcasters are fighting to save their industry. Want
to help? Find out what you can do at SaveInternetRadio.org. ...
The following is an excerpt fromThe Network Magazine's
interview with RIAA president Hilary Rosen,
from their Page6.net website.
(The Network Magazine is the Clear Channel Entertainment-owned group
of radio trade publications such as Album Network, Urban
Network, and Network 40.)
The interview dealt with Rosen's reactions to issues facing
the recording industry like file-sharing and artists' rights, as
well as webcasting royalties.
NM: "There are already artist managers who believe that
the rates their artists get from being 'played' on the labels' pay
services, Pressplay
and MusicNet, are little
more than pennies on the dollar. If that's true, won't that discrepancy
deteriorate your relationship with the artists even further?"
HR: "All of those issues are between the individual
artists and labels, but the one thing that everybody should remember
is that these services are just getting off the ground. The
key thing is to first establish these businesses and grow them.
However, for someone to take the attitude that there's no point
in supporting a legitimate business model against piracy is shortsighted.
Again, we're in the infant stages here."
NM: "Isn't that the same line of reasoning Internet
and terrestrial radio stations use in claiming that they can't afford
to exist if they have to pay the proposed copyright fee?"
HR: "There's a significant difference. The people who
have spent money and invested the means to create the music are
entitled to a return on their investment. The [copyright] issue
affects people and parties who are building their own businesses
using the music created and produced by
others. It's very different if a record company or artists
want to sell their own stuff -- or even give it away for a promotion
if they want to -- but the whole point is someone else shouldn't
be making that decision for them."
NM: "I take it the RIAA's
pretty satisfied with the C.A.R.P. [Copyright Arbitration Royalty
Panel] proposal."
HR: "Nobody's quite satisfied with the ruling. That's
what arbitration does. We've tried to settle it with Webcasters
for two years and have been unable to come up with a viable agreement.
The fact that they're complaining now is not much comfort to anybody,
because [the proposed rate] might have been different had there
been more discussions. There have been settlements, but I am still
confident that these businesses have the opportunity to
make money to sell new services. Even if they can't see a revenue
side for them this year or next year, at least it has set an important
precedent for artists and record companies in the future."
NM: "So it wouldn't bother you if, as predicted, a
great majority of terrestrial and Internet outlets do go out of
the Webcasting business, depriving the labels of any revenue whatsoever?"
HR: "I find that to be an empty threat. Radio stations,
in particular, would only be in business if they see money in it.
There's no reason that artists and record companies should offer
their product for this business unless they see money in it as well.
Now should I feel guilty that they won't have the business they
hoped for because we're not willing to give them product for free?
No."
NM: "Several radio interests assert that a percentage-of-revenues
solution would provide a better way for both parties to maximize
profits."
HR: "Actually, that's not true. We offered several alternatives
and private settlements with rates more dependent on growth and
a percentage of revenues. They rejected
all of those, then we went to arbitration."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
From Wired News: "Canadians may soon be smuggling blank
CDs across the border in an effort to avoid the high taxes that
have been proposed for any recordable media that can be used to
store music.
"The tax, called the Private Copying Tariff and backed
by the Copyright Board of
Canada, is intended to compensate
musicians for income lost when consumers copy music onto digital
storage media.
"The proposed tax would be collected from the products'
manufacturers, but industry groups said they believe the costs would
be passed to consumers and would result in higher prices for all
digital storage media and devices...
"If approved, the new tax would levy an additional fee
of 59 cents (Canadian) on blank CDs. Memory cards, such as those
used in handheld computers or digital cameras, would be taxed at
0.8 cents per megabyte of storage space. Manufacturers of blank
DVD discs would pay an extra $2.27 per disk.
"Hardware manufacturers would also be affected. Makers
of MP3 players would pay $21 in fees for each gigabyte of memory
available on their devices, raising the cost of devices like Apple's
iPod by more than $100.
"'Products are already painfully expensive in Canada due
to the poor exchange rate on our dollar,' [corporate law attorney
Joseph] McCormick said. 'Adding more fees on top of those prices
will stifle business or turn people into criminals. Mark my words:
They will start smuggling blank CDs across the border.'"
"Believing
they own anything that can be digitized..."
Per the Village Voice "Rough Trade" article (RAIN's
coverage here):
The article's author, Doug Wolk , and his "Little Johnny" example,
hurt all people
who derive their living from labels and selling recorded music. The
article states their desire to access digitally recorded entertainment
(music, movies, books, games) on MP3, which they acknowledge will
always be accessible for FREE! The article even implies that if you
can hear a song you can record it into MP3, even streams.
I hope the Village Voice did not pay Mr. Wolk for this
written damage because "Little Johnny" wants that digital discourse
to be FREE also. And I want full-page ads in the Village Voice
for FREE too. Not OK with The Voice or Mr. Wolk? Just because
"Little Johnnys" want digital entertainment for FREE (MP3) does not
really make it OK either!
I will gladly pay for music and never support "Little Johnnys"
who steal via peer-to-peer (most of whom are overpaid in the Tech
industry, not poor students as the article infers).
Please stop your editorial support also. The CARP issue is
about how much to pay copyright owners for streaming other people's
music; the V.V. article is about continuing the MP3 format
and how they can always be stolen.
The arrogance and prejudice of the Tech industry in believing
they own anything that can be digitized is unmatched at record labels,
and I have been in the executive suites of both industries. Thank
you.
David Bean
former VP Musicmatch.com
Mr. Bean's experience also includes stints as director of Onradio.com,
and president of both CTI Records and Pacific Arts Records.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ed.
reply:
Mr. Bean makes some excellent points here. Looking
back at the analysis that followed the article, I wish I had
made it clearer that I agree with David that theft is wrong,
and that creators and owners of creative works should be compensated
for their efforts.
Record labels have the right and duty to defend their
business and protect what is theirs. But the way they are
going about it really reminded me of the webcasting royalty
situation, thus our treatment of the article.
I really think the recording industry hurts itself
when, by trying to address problems like piracy and copyright
theft, it alienates those who could potentially help the industry.
I can't pretend I have the solution to rampant file-copying,
but I have to believe that lashing out at everyone who's tried
a file-sharing service, and eliminating consumers' "fair
use" rights (through the industry's support of the Hollings
bill) isn't it.
(Seth Godin wrote a really nice "blog" on
this topic on his site. It's the March 18th entry here.
Thanks to RAIN reader Aaron Siler for pointing it out.)
Now while the positive aspects of file sharing for
the labels are debatable, webcasting it would seem has nothing
but upside. They get free promotion of both mainstream and
niche artists, and they will get paid for it! Its positive
impact won't be huge yet, but it has potential. How can labels
lose by encouraging webcasting?
Yet the royalty rate the recording industry demanded
before CARP (much higher than what the arbitrators came up
with) seems to indicate the thinking that if Internet radio
can't be a cash cow for them, the major labels would rather
crush it.
In other words, this is where I have to disagree with
Mr. Bean. The CARP issue is not simply about how much
to pay for the use of copyrights. It's about an industry so
caught up in their problems they are trying to stomp out something
that could actually help them.
-- PM
"Industry
should be fostered..."
As an independent record label owner, and BMI publisher, I
agree with the premise that the artist and record company should be
paid.
I am also a fledgling web-broadcaster. This industry should
be fostered and allowed to grow, rather than be legislated out of
existence by big league record companies with shortsighted scope.
In the long run Internet radio could be a "promotional tool" to help
sell more eclectic artists, and niche markets.
Please don't destroy the future of this potentially creative,
and unique medium.
David Floodstrand, President
Criterion Records
Kitty Dog Music Publishing
Oviforum Radio.
"Why
indict MP3?.."
I must say that I disagree with this statement in your otherwise
thoughtful and insightful letter to Congress:
"It's no doubt true that record company revenues are at risk in
this 'digital millennium,' but that's due to the phenomenon of MP3
file sharing (e.g., Napster) and the growing popularity of the 'CD
burners' which allow consumers to make unlimited perfect copies of
CDs." (See RAIN story here).
Why indict MP3 as your sentence seems to do? The really brilliant
aspect of CD burning is the ability to make compilations privately
for oneself and to have the capability to use these technologies in
creative educational ways. I think we should celebrate and advocate
that aspect -- so I must object to your statement stating that there
is no doubt that the technology is inherently a "rip off" technology.
I think just the opposite is the case.
Randal Baier
"What
are they going to do when IBOC becomes a reality?.."
If
the RIAA fears the loss of sales from the Internet because somebody
might download a song from a webcaster, what are they going to do
when IBOC (In Band On Channel) digital radio becomes a reality?
Listeners have been recording music off of radio for years.
We're heading for the day when what we play and what they record is
as good as the original. "Hey dudes.. It's an all request weekend..."