Radio News You Can't Use

Webcasting Royalty Drama Continues
Like the backstabbing villain in a bad soap opera, sneaky SoundExchange has continued offering deceptive, unhelpful, so-called concessions to webcasters after new webcasting royalty rates went into effect on July 15. As a prime example, the latest "deal" offered to webcasters contains a wee little clause requiring DRM on all streams (since when did a technological mandate have anything to do with royalties?). Thankfully, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is fed up with these dead-end negotiations, and is now focusing their substantial lobby power on passing the Internet Radio Equality Act. Some groups of indie musicians are opting out of the SoundExchange royalty scheme altogether, recognizing the value of the exposure they get on internet radio.

Meanwhile, Clear Channel and Last.fm have been requiring indie artists to waive their royalties as a condition for netplay. Artist advocacy groups FMC and A2IM were angered and eventually pressured Clear Channel to ditch their waiver. It's easy accuse Clear Channel of screwing indie artists (newsflash: they always have), but think about why these huge webcasters are now requiring waivers. It's the new webcasting rates, people! They are simply too high. I would be totally surprised if Clear Channel hasn't negotiated separate cut-rate webcasting agreements with the big 4 labels already.

Music Industry Gangsters Shake Down Broadcasters Next
Collecting ridiculous fees from webcasters isn't the record industry's only desperate solution to create "alternative streams of revenue" in these times of dwindling CD sales. The next victim in their royalty shakedown is broadcast radio. SoundExchange and the RIAA are both copping a new mantra, that airplay (or webplay) is not an effective promotional tool. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, ever ever purchases CDs, MP3s, or ringtones of songs they heard on the radio. Ever. As such, the RIAA claims (via a front called the Music First Coalition) that broadcasters should have to pay an additional performance royalty. The Music First Coalition believes so wholeheartedly that "corportate radio" is at fault for the decline in record sales that they went out of their way to fabricate a research study that claims so. Interestingly, this study has not motivated Music First Coalition members to discontinue servicing music to radio stations. This will likely turn into a battle of the lobbyists: RIAA vs. NAB. Unless, of course, someone bothers to brief our commander in chief. As an aside, foreign compadres of the RIAA have taken some cues from the good ol' US of A, and now Australian night clubs as well as Canadian dentists and hair salons are in danger of owing big, expensive royalties (thanks to Listener David for the links).

FCC Deals Out Obscene Call Letters
The blissfully ignorant owner of a TV broadcasting company with stations in Hawaii and Arizona requested and was awarded with two golden sets of call letters by the FCC: KUNT and KWTF. They're changing KUNT to something else (insert KTIT, KTWT, KDIK etc joke here). Damn.
 

Financial Crisis at WFHB
Community-run and listener-supported WFHB in Bloomington, IL is currently in a financial crunch. Just a few months before their fall fundraiser, the station has run out of money and overdue bills are piling up. Visit this page if you'd like to help out.

Media Ownership Issues Resurface
After a series of public hearings that examined media ownership issues (I attended the New York City hearing back in October of last year), the FCC has released 10 studies reviewing various aspects and consequences of consolidation. Consumer groups criticized the studies for being biased. The commission deadline for public comments is Oct. 1.

Comments

[Hell's Donut House]

I can't believe no one has requested KLOL yet.

[Jonny]

Regarding SoundExchange:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/08/listening_post_0806

It's rather funny to me that musicFIRST uses the anti-corporate language to attract people, well, like me. As far as I'm concerned, the corporate media behemoth has gone too far and must be stopped. But wouldn't charging royalties on music put the kibosh on low-power, small-budget stations and further consolidate the airwaves into the hands of those powerful enough to pay the tab?

[Brian]

Liz or anyone:

Do you know if the June Court of Appeals decision stopping the FCC from fining Fox TV for "fleeting expletives" applies to songs played on the radio with similar language? Or does the "live" nature of the comments at issue in the case make the decision inapplicable to playing records on which one knows there are cuss words? Or ???

[Derek in DC]

RIAA and NAB are just about across the street from each other in downtown DC. I'm imagining many awkward meetings at local lunchtime eateries.

My favorite call letters are still WJOK which belonged to the all comedy station that was in this area in the mid-80s.

[Liz B.]

Brian, unfortunately the Court of Appeals decision regarding fleeting expletives does not prevent the FCC from citing other TV or radio stations for the same type of slip (be it in a song or live commentary). The commission might be more wary of citing and fining a station over fleeting expletives in the future for fear of litigation, but the court's decision is merely a precedent and not a hard and fast rule.

The real problem is that under the current definition of indecency, context is everything. Although the court indicated that the FCC's indecency guidelines are unclear, they were not ordered to be re-written. Their decision did not change the law allowing the FCC to enforce their indecency statute, so as long as the FCC feels that a complaint they receive refers to a "patently offensive" broadcast, it's fair game for a fine.

Because there has yet to be a court case addressing the issue of fleeting expletives in recorded music in the wake of the FCC's new hard-line approach with TV, it is difficult to say whether they would be quick to fine a station. Based on previous statements released by each commissioner on the current FCC regarding the Fox cases and nipplegate, I can't imagine any of them having a change of heart regarding fleeting expletives. They might take a break from citing stations over indecent slips (ever investigated their backlog?), but I don't believe that this commission would ever dismiss a complaint against a station that aired a fleeting curse word.

Congress and the majority of those serving on the FCC feel very strongly that the Appeals Court made a bad decision, and they're already writing legislation that undermines the court's opinion. The fight is definitely not over yet.

[MistyD]

Downloaders, Internet radio... what's next? States?

RIAA To Sue Minnesota
http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=91200708004

[steve PMX]

My main point is not entirely having to do with DRM, CRB or any other aggravating acronym for Old White Guys in Suits Restricting Communications and Culture (OWGSRCC). I feel powerless to their bullshit, yet hopeful that they will never *really* be able to keep down all the internet broadcasters in this country with such attempts at draconian copyright legislation.

The KUNT story just reminded me of the funniest episode of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David is put in charge of submitting an obituary to the newspaper for his wife's recently deceased aunt. Newspaper comes out, the grieving family are gathered to read the obituary and find that the word "aunt" has somehow been replaced with the word "cunt."

"Devoted wife and beloved CUNT?!?!"

"LARRY!"

God Save HBO.