RIAA getting out of control

^^OK. I could have asked the question better, as to ask if the possibility could exist.  I type the way I talk, sometimes forgetting there may be a slight language barrier.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: StyLaZyn wrote:   So you are saying that the RIAA has a motive to shut down FM radio?  As I understand it, regular FM radio stations struggle to survive as it is.   Don't put words in my mouth, I never said they have reasons to shut down AM, FM or INTERNET radio, the law is with the radios, RIAA is asking the Congress to change a law to their convenience.

Yeah, I remember when local radio stations were important in helping break bands regionally then nationally. Your local station could add a song that was getting requested a lot, without waiting for Head Office to program it. You get enough stations lined up & who knows, you get a national break & so on. But that was when radio made a difference. With the advent of CD players in cars, MP3 players, Ipods an all, the only ones listening to radio are the ones who are really music buyers.
The ones who do so are out looking for stations that play to the niche, whether it be college stations, independants & god help us all, Public Radio. Here in Canada, on CBC radio, their schedule is filled with alternative, indie, jazz, avant-garde shows. They may be on later at night, but once you find one that gives you those treasures, you'll never bother with regular radio. Internet radio has so much promise, let's hope that the new royalties deal doesn't kill the goose before it starts laying golden eggs.

GoldenSpiral wrote: The problem is FM radio as a whole doesn't have a powerful lobby like the RIAA has.  I might expect the large corporate stations, such as the ones owned by Clear Channel or Sinclair Media to survive (in fact, i've heard rumors that this royalty fee might be waived for such stations if they cooperate...), but smaller media companies, and the independent stations (the only good ones IMO) will go under immediately.

I wonder if this will only yield more consolidation by ClearChannel, etc.

As long as I can still have NPR, jazz, and classical...about the only thing FM is good for nowadays, at least in the Philly area.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: debrewguy wrote: So you're expecting RIAA to act reasonably ?   No I expect RIAA to act with intelligence.   If you are going to start a fight in a pub, you will choose a guy your size and weight and if you're a bully a smaller one. but you are not going to fight with a proffesional boxer.   RIAA can bully the final user who is like the small guy in my example, but suing the Media is like fighting with Mike Tyson.   They want to survive, wiythout radios there's no music airplay, without music airplay, new artists don't have a chance to sell and without sales, there's no RIAA.   Iván

debrewguy wrote: So you're expecting RIAA to act reasonably ?

Thnk of something, RIAA has won until now most of their claims because they targeted their attacks towards the weak final user, Napster, Audio Galaxy, etc, settled with them for a minimum payment after expensive trials for both parts.

1. New artists won't make money without radio, so they will have to form their own association and settle with the radios.
2. Radios won't play the music of artists who are members of RIAA.
3. The music industry would have to make their Grammy Awards for the people in the audience because no TV and Radio Station or newspaper will talk about them.
4. No member of the RIAA will receive propaganda for their concerts
5. No new artist will accept to sign with the RIAA and the importanyt ones will leave them.

This would be the ruin of RIAA and some new Association will rise, only the old artists that nobody cares about will remain in the RIAA because NEW ARTISTS NEED RADIO.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 23 2007 at 01:07

The RIAA is a total caricature and have been for many years.

Ghandi 2 wrote: They've already gone after internet radio. I saw an article a while ago about it. Apparently they are claiming they have the right to collect royalties for songs played even for artists that are not signed with them and want their songs to be broadcast for free... StyLaZyn wrote: ^^ Do you think ProgArchives might need to pay royalties eventually for the MP3 streaming? Well what they're doing is on a very fine legal line, I think. Tony R wrote: Many,many of the Mp3s are sent to us by the artists themselves or are available on their website. And many are not. Did The Residents ask you to host half of one of their albums on here? Did Mogwai ask you to host their entire My Father, My King EP? I don't have a problem with it (and My Father, My King is out of print anyway) because I have no doubt it ultimately increases sales, but we are on shaky legal ground, I think. Which is why I think they stopped allowing downloading and switched to streaming because that is a bit firmer ground. Or maybe I am entirely wrong. I am using they and we for PA interchangably because I am tired and too lazy to fix it.

too true, but in the case of The Residents, I don't think they care at all.  But Frank Zappa's family estate does, because they're only in it for the money!

Two comments
Labels actually pay artists royalties ?
Two big lobby groups going head to head over $$$. This should be fun.
I'm sure Bo Diddley is in the most expensive hospital room. After all, with all the royalties  his labels have surely paid him over the years, he must be swimming in cash (sarcasm intended, sad reality deplored).