Normally, I don’t really care for all of the politics that go on in Washington, but even I can appreciate the irony of the NAB taking a swipe at the RIAA. You know things are getting crazy when big media starts to turn to cannibalism.
Apparently, the RIAA wants to start charging radio stations for access to music. I guess without payola going on, there isn’t as much of an incentive to give away content, plus it’s hard to argue that internet stations need to be paying crazy rates, when they are giving away the content to their terrestrial cousins.
Since the NAB would obviously suffer from having to actually pay for their music, they decided to take a cheap shot at the RIAA by going after where they are vulnerable. Instead of making the RIAA defend the price increase, they are instead raising the question of whether or not that money will end up going back to the artists. It obviously won’t because the studios have a well documented history of taking full advantage of the artists that they promote, but it still puts the RIAA on the defensive over the legislative issues that they are proposing. If the NAB is successful, you could even see the RIAA back away from this, before they would be willing to better compensate their artists. I’ve always hated politics, but I can still appreciate an evil stroke of genius when I see it.
Davis Freeberg is a technology enthusiast living in the Bay Area. He enjoys writing about movies, music, and the impact that digital technology is having on traditional media. Catch more his musings at www.davisfreeberg.com.
I have no problem with new fees not going back to the artists. . . as long as the contract the artist signed doesn’t specify that they are entitled to those fees. I find it difficult to feel sorry for the artists because no one made them sign the contract. They probably made more money by signing that they ever would have otherwise.
If music artists want to paid for their performances in music aired on radio; actors, cinematographers, set designers, special effects artists ought to be paid for there contributions to the visual images that appear on TV.
I think Carlton misses the point, the fees DONT go to the artist but the Record Companies get the fees. I would agree with Brian that everyone involved shpould get a cut but once again its NOT the Artist at all who would see ANY of these fees, ONLY the Record Company. In fact most artist are against the underhandedness of RIAA.