|
|
The |
|
(The Latest Word provides Sandy's latest observations about folk music and other topics. The main Latest Word page contains a list of additional installments.) ON BITING THE HAND... It's been over a year now since my first op-ed piece on Napster, and things have certainly changed. That maverick Web service, which for better or worse drastically altered the not only how the world obtains its music but also the relationship between consumer and music provider, is now a shadow of its former self. The online music-download sites that the record industry first sought to crush and then to acquire have proven themselves to be something less than surefire cash cows. Other rogue free-music-sharing sites and software programs have sprung up and withered away faster than Jonah's gourd. Meanwhile, I've put some of my songs up for streaming play and will soon be making a few of them available for download as well; the past year or so has caused me to rethink both the consumer advantages and perceived artist disadvantages of online music distribution. One online resource that has proven invaluable has been the rise of Internet radio. When Ghosts and Angels was released, Internet radio was the main airplay outlet for it, both Stateside and abroad. Though most of my airplay today is broadcast, I still hold Internet radio dear to my heart: The deejays and owners of these sites are true pioneers, the vast majority of whom are in it for the sheer joy of discovering and disseminating new and independent music. Most of the Webcasters I know are not only engaging in a labor of love, but a highly unprofitable one at that. And for many artists just starting out, Internet radio is their only source of airplay. Imagine the joy of being able to announce your or your songs' appearance on a show that anyone with a computer and a Net connection anywhere in the world can receive! That joy is no longer imaginary: It's a reality...for now. If the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA, the organization that effectively slew Napster) has its way, most Internet radio stations will soon cease to exist. That may not be the RIAA's stated aim, but it is most certainly its agenda. Just as the Big Five labels took over the major online music download sites, they plan to take over Internet radio—and to some extent, they've already begun to do so, by way of large media conglomerates (comprising labels, radio, and TV stations, and even concert promoters) that simulcast over the Web as well as over the airwaves. Until now, although writers and publishers have always (in theory) received royalties from both broadcast and online airplay, the record labels and their performing artists have never insisted on payment from radio for the right to broadcast their music—the promotional and publicity value of airplay is what drives fan demand and sales. The major labels were satisfied with this so long as they were the only game in town: If you wanted to hear music, you had to listen to the biggest stars on broadcast radio and purchase their recordings in hardcopy form. The rise of do-it-yourself ("DIY") recording, producing, sales, and airing of music has liberated those of us outside the boundaries of conventional marketability—but it has awakened the sleeping Big Five beehive. Suddenly, it was possible to hear and buy quality music without any major-label and major-market commercial radio involvement at all; and the corporate music industry has discovered it has lost its monopoly. So what's a poor megacorporation to do? Set out to reestablish and reinforce that monopoly, that's what. The opening salvo was the simulcasting of broadcast and Internet radio. While on its face beneficial to global fans as the perfect way of making one's radio programming immediately available worldwide, it has become the first step in winning back the megacorporate music monopoly. But jumping into the Internet pool was only the industry's first step. Equal territory wasn't enough—the upstart competition had to be eliminated.as well. But how? By a direct blow to the indies' wallets. Suddenly, the RIAA decided that free publicity and advertising of its product was no longer enough. A new group of music users had emerged, one that the industry felt had to be milked, mainly because it was there (with apologies to Sir Edmund Hillary). Suddenly, the RIAA expressed outrage that Internet radiocasters were using music without having to pay the labels, and providing one more way for people to listen to music without having to buy CDs or listen to scads of commercials. Now, mind you, these deejays still have to buy the equipment, Internet access, and in many cases even the CDs and records that they play. Most webcasters play a mix of unsigned artists (who supply product for free) and familiar, major label artists (who—or whose labels—have never bothered to send promo copies to any outlets other than conventional broadcast stations). And let me repeat that not only do broadcast stations get all their discs for free, they don't pay the artists or labels the way they must pay the writers (via performing rights organizations such as ASCAP or BMI). Moreover, Webcasters (except for the kid next door playing deejay in his bedroom) do pay the performing rights organizations. This situation, the RIAA contended, could not be allowed to continue. So they lobbied Congress to impose a statutory royalty rate to be paid the labels by Internet radio. The amount they proposed was .07 cents per song. That's per play of each song. Furthermore, they "graciously" suggested a rate of half that for Internet simulcasts by broadcast radio stations—but nothing for broadcast airplay itself. Naturally, the Internet-only radio community took umbrage at this and protested that any fee was too high in light of broadcast radio's free ride. A negotiating body previously created by the Copyright Office and Library of Congress, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP, like the dead fish it resembles), was assigned to hammer out a rate recommendation. Not surprisingly (since it was advised mostly by RIAA representatives), the rate it came up with was a staggering .14 cents. And it insisted no listener requests be accommodated during live Webcasts (a restriction not imposed on broadcast radio). Now I know what you must be asking: "Fourteen hundredths of a cent? That's cheap!" But multiply that per song played and per play of each song...and even the most modest, semi-amateur 24/7 Webcaster would incur an expense of $9,000 per month, irrespective of any revenue the station might receive. (The fees would equal roughly twice the monthly revenue of the average for-profit Webcaster.) Onerous, you say? Wait, there's more. For every play of every song—whether in real time or on-demand—the Webcaster would be required to log and report the following: song, artist, label, running time; and (this is the doozie) the name (if given) and IP address of every listener! This information would then be made available to the RIAA to use or sell it as it wishes.The time demands alone would be staggering; the potential invasion of listener privacy, outrageous. You might be asking at this point, "So the artists finally get paid for the music that most of the downloading public has been stealing for the past couple of years. What's so unfair about that?" Nothing, if the rate were affordable and applied uniformly across the board, and the money got back to the artists. But remember, Internet-only radio would pay full-freight, broadcast radio simulcasting on the web half-fare, and broadcast radio alone would get a free ride. And who would actually receive the royalties? The labels. You might think this would also include independent and self-released labels; but that would make collection unwieldy. So, just as performing rights organizations collect and distribute writer royalties, a representative body would have to do so for the labels. You guessed it: That body would be the RIAA. And which labels does the RIAA represent? Right again: the major labels and their subsidiaries. What do the actual recording artists get? Well, surprise, surprise: Unless their recording contracts say otherwise (as likely as George W. Bush being honored by Greenpeace), nothing. Zip. Zilch. It all goes to the labels. And again, absent artists' contract provisions to the contrary (see above), that is truly "found" money, which the labels can keep in addition to profits and recoupment of advances paid to the artists. If the creative accounting practices currently employed to minimize artist revenue and maximize label profits would make Arthur Andersen salivate, this additional windfall would have them positively drowning in drool. Who can afford this? Not the average college or independent Webcaster. Many operate their stations using strictly their own funds, with no ad revenue to offset expenses. Even those who Webcast for profit would be paying over $100,000 per year, or roughly twice their revenues. And this would make it utterly impossible for the kid next door to realize his dream of becoming a disk jockey without working for a broadcast outlet: The radio equivalent of the garage band would cease to exist. So, again, who could afford to comply with the CARP fees and requirements? Once again: major broadcast radio. This alone would be outrageous, as it would squeeze Internet-only radio out of the competitive arena in the same way the major radio conglomerates are increasingly strangling independent broadcasters. But these media conglomerates are not merely confined to broadcasting: They own a huge share (if not 100 percent) of the labels and even the concert promoters and ticket sales agencies of the artists whose music they broadcast. Thus they already control what you hear, where you hear it, where you can see it live, and where you buy the tickets. If you think that independent radio and the indie artists and their labels are an endangered species, you're right; and that would suit the RIAA just fine. The RIAA disingenuously shrugs off these arguments by saying there's no such thing as a free lunch and that it is an outrage for labels not to be paid for the use of their product. Never mind that they'd never raised the subject until the proliferation of Internet radio and that they are already getting paid every time a CD is sold. Their argument also implies to the public that they are representing the artists' right to be paid; but as you have just seen, this is simply untrue. (The same argument has been advanced by ASCAP and BMI in defense to protests over their demanding payment from even the smallest mom-and-pop coffeehouses and house concerts, and the same dichotomy of interests results: The venues that feature the independent songwriters pay the money, but the revenues are distributed only to those writers whose works are played on the outlets surveyed once every quarter—which, not surprisingly are major-market commercial radio and large concert venues. Once again, the "grunts" subsidize the stars—the rich get richer.) So what can the fans, creators, and disseminators of independent music do about this? Write your congressional representative—and quickly! The corporate music industry has relentlessly lobbied the government, in some cases even using stars on their rosters who apparently don't realize the difference between artists' and labels' rights (or are deliberately being misled). We must speak out before it's too late. The RIAA might say that in doing so we would be biting the hand that feeds us. I say it beats kissing the ass that starves us. Main Page • Additional Installments • Contact Sandy Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, Sandy Andina, All Rights Reserved |
|
