Quote:

---

It would appear that the recording industry now likes to call any sort of business model it doesn't like "piracy." At least that's the only explanation I can come up with in its latest battle, where it has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.

---

Quote:

---

They've already gone the Gestapo route tracking down people who download songs off of file trading sites like napster and limewire.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They've already gone the Gestapo route tracking down people who download songs off of file trading sites like napster and limewire.

---

I don't see anything wrong with that (it is theft, after all), but the people they really want to be cracking the whip on are the people who rip and upload the copyrighted material in the first place. Nobody can download if nobody has first uploaded something.

---

Quote:

---

It's been really disappointing watching how Prince has squandered what had been seen as a enlightened view of how music works in this day and age. Instead of continuing to embrace that, and use it to his advantage, Prince has become fantastically anti-fan, and day-by-day seems to be destroying his reputation. It started with threatening fan sites, quickly followed up by lawsuits against YouTube, eBay and the Pirate Bay, and more recently has involved a bizarre and ill-advised strategy of taking down YouTube videos that he probably had no right to take down.

The latest case involves fifty Norwegian musicians, who teamed up with a Norwegian record label to create what they thought was a nice 50th birthday present for Prince: a "tribute" album with 81 covers of Prince songs. They figured that it would be a nice gesture to send Prince a copy, and contacted his representatives to figure out where to send a copy. What they didn't expect was for Prince, instead, to turn around and sue the label and all fifty musicians. He's also demanding that all copies of the album be destroyed.

There is a question of compulsory licenses here -- as Norway requires about $0.10/song, and with 81 songs, that's about $8 per album. The label (potentially incorrectly) believed that since it wasn't making any money on the album, it didn't need to pay. Even if the album ran afoul of copyright laws, this response from Prince is just dumb. Here are a group of musicians who are paying tribute to him, and he sues them. What better way to piss off a group of truly devoted fans?

---