
Ars Technica is reporting that the US National Association of Broadcasters and the RIAA are in talks to strike a compromise that could result in a Congressional mandate to include FM radios in phones and other portable electronics. Thanks, but no thanks?
Here’s the setup: Under the current, long-standing framework, FM radio broadcasters do not have to pay artists and record labels performance rights – a significant fee that satellite and web radio services must pay when they play a song on air. A bill currently winding its way through US Congress, the Performance Rights Act, would force FM radio stations to pay up too, though they think that they should be exempt, as they are essentially just promoting the artists to begin with.
But the two groups are flirting with a compromise that could lessen radio broadcasters’ fee (to the tune of a more manageable $US100 million a year) in exchange for a mandate from US Congress that all phones, PDAs and other portable electronics must contain FM radio chips. MusicFIRST, a lobbying group of which RIAA is a member, says that such a mandate would give customers more music choices. Hmm? Gary Shaprio, president of the Consumer Electronics Assocation, says “to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity.” Yes, that’s a bit more like it.
It’s clear that the music industry, as it exists currently, needs to change drastically. But this type of behaviour – essentially trying to stuff the most cutting-edge gadgets with guts for an increasingly outdated and outmoded broadcast platform – show that the lumbering recording industry giants are still thinking like lumbering giants. Maybe they’ll finally wisen up, or go extinct, next year. [Ars]
Image credit diloz



















Kalem
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 12:42 PMOh heaven forbid, fm radio paying royalties. This make me extremely jealous as logging all those APRA numbers just so we here at Aus stations have to pay is truly annoying. A pity too, as most artist get only a fraction of how much APRA actually receive.
matt
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 1:32 PMthis is a good idea, wtf is wrong with FM radio? oh, just because it doesn’t go through your precious internet where AT&T and everyone get to hold you by the balls. seriously, wtf is so good about the internet? when an FM broadcast is free. this is a GOOD idea that will encourage people to listen more to radio, certainly I have discovered many more emerging artists since I started listening to radio more. just because Apple don’t like it… because as they say, it will lead to more consumer choice.. and just because it came from the RIAA, who’s ideas thus far have been nauseatingly bad. does NOT mean that THIS is a bad idea.
I mean, all they are doing is forcing on you another avenue in which to get music. wtf is so bad about that?
X
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 2:20 PMRadio stations in the US don’t have to pay anything to play music? Damn. No wonder MTV kicked off back in the day.
Daniel Weaver-Koenigs
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 10:32 PMI completely support this, I’d love more devices to have FM radio on them.
Tim Miller
Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 8:54 AMhow odd that record lables used to PAY RADIO STATIONS to play songs, congress said that was illeagle, not they want to make them pay to advertize song and drive record sales.
and it is NOT true that radio staions don’t pay anything, they have always had to pay songwriting royalites. that is what the vampires at ASCAAP/BMI are for.
Tim Miller
Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 9:06 AMI really don’t think it is the goverment’s job to make laws saying that manufacturers have to add componets to products that they do not want to and that their customers may or may not want.
Safty devices are one thing but this is crazy. it would be like a law saying that all pizza resturants have to sell hot dogs.
Congress saying all cars have to have airbags is not a bad idea, but to say that they all have to have FM radios or sat nav or moon roofs or bike racks is overstepping and is probably unconstituional.