The RIAA Hates The Consumer

Sigur Ros is the greatest living band. Discuss.

The RIAA Hates The Consumer

Postby St. Alphonzo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:24 pm

It looks as though the RIAA stooges are doing their best to kill off internet radio, and as a result, any kind of diversity in what you can hear.

The Copyright Royalty Board has decreed that web-based broadcasters have to pay .08 cents per listener per song, retroactive to 2006. That rate increases to .19 cents in 2010. Also, there's a $500 per station fee as well. Thankfully NPR (and others) are fighting it. If this thing comes to pass, it's hard to believe that many stations could remain in business. Check the NYT article:

Fee Increase for Internet Radio

Kill off internet radio and what's left? Where I live, it'd be '70s AOR and a station that bills itself as "alternative" and plays Fountains of Wayne and Velvet Revolver. I can't tell you how many CDs I've purchased because of music I heard over the internet, and it pains me to think that those greedheads will make good music harder to find. What do y'all think about all this? Am I worrying for no good reason?
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown

Postby Nordling on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:26 pm

Fuck the RIAA. My last vestige of guilt for dl'ing music is now gone.

I've bought more CDs lately because of internet radio and word of mouth. I guess all that's left id if someone talks about a new band the RIAA will charge them 8 cents whenever they talk about it.
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby St. Alphonzo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Nordling wrote:Fuck the RIAA. My last vestige of guilt for dl'ing music is now gone.

I've bought more CDs lately because of internet radio and word of mouth. I guess all that's left id if someone talks about a new band the RIAA will charge them 8 cents whenever they talk about it.


Actually, it's .08 of a cent, but it's per listener per song, so it adds up. The $500 fee is actually the killer. For companies that have multiple stations (AccuRadio has, like 300+), that'd be a death-blow.
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown

Postby papalazeru on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 pm

...and this all suprises you because...?

Lets face it the RIAA and MPAA are desperate to secure monopolies for their investors.

Fuck 'em all with a barbed chainsaw.

Its all about the monopoly pal...and we get fucked.

If people are too stupid to act, this is what you get. If you don't act now....air will cost.

We're already seeing plans for the blocking of sunlight...so how much will that cost?
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11474
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Postby St. Alphonzo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 pm

Let's do the math:

4 minutes per song, 1440 minutes in a day.. that's 360 songs. Let's assume 200 people are listening at a time. That's .08 X 360 X 200

That's about $57.6 dollars per day. That station is looking at over $20k per year just to cover the cost of the music. Imagine a station like Radio Paradise that probably averages 10 times the number of listeners. And it'll double in three years.

The day of the living-room radio station is over.
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown

Postby Nordling on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:46 pm

They're desperate. It's only a matter of time before a well-regarded band decides to eschew the studio completely and release music online exclusively. Then they tour on it and the money is all theirs.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Brocktune on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:56 pm

it wouldnt be so bad if the artists themselves actually saw this money.

but they wont.

but you can bet your sweet bippy that simon cowell will be able to buy yet another multi-million dollar estate at the top of mt. everest.l
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:57 pm

Brocktune wrote:it wouldnt be so bad if the artists themselves actually saw this money.

but they wont.

but you can bet your sweet bippy that simon cowell will be able to buy yet another multi-million dollar estate at the top of mt. everest.l


That's going to be prime fuckin' real estate in 50 years, man.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby instant_karma on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:01 pm

Brocktune wrote:it wouldnt be so bad if the artists themselves actually saw this money.

but they wont.

but you can bet your sweet bippy that simon cowell will be able to buy yet another multi-million dollar estate at the top of mt. everest.l


It it would mean that he lived there full time, then perhaps this law isn't such a bad thing...
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby Brocktune on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:03 pm

instant_karma wrote:
Brocktune wrote:it wouldnt be so bad if the artists themselves actually saw this money.

but they wont.

but you can bet your sweet bippy that simon cowell will be able to buy yet another multi-million dollar estate at the top of mt. everest.l


It it would mean that he lived there full time, then perhaps this law isn't such a bad thing...


not true.

he has one in dubai, in addition to his others, and yet at least 3 of 7 nights a week, there he is.
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby Flumm on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:07 pm

Simon Cowell Sneered/ wrote:
CBS) This year about 30 million Americans are tuning in to every episode of "American Idol," on FOX. By any measure the numbers are impressive, but it's not just pop star wannabes that keep people watching — it's also the judges, in particular 47-year-old Simon Cowell.

His verbal assaults on the contestants are often downright cruel, but the TV audience seems to love them. FOX reportedly pays him more than $30 million a year and he gets another $38 million annually to be a judge on a similar show in England. What most viewers probably don't realize however is that Simon Cowell isn't just a high-paid judge.

As CNN anchor and 60 Minutes contributor Anderson Cooper reports, he's now one of the most successful music figures in the world — though he admits he has no musical ability at all.

He doesn't sing, read music or produce albums, and he says he plays the guitar "very badly." So what does Cowell do? With a laugh, he tells Cooper, "[I] guess what's gonna be popular. Literally that."

Photos: Simon Says
Photos: The Hate List
Photos: The Road To "American Idol"

So does he ever feel like a fraud at times?

"Well, no, because I think 99 percent of the people who watch the show are in the same position as me. They know when somebody's good or not," Cowell says. "And for me, it's been a help not knowing too much. So I can rely on my instincts.

Instincts are what Cowell credits for his success, but it's how he displays those instincts that have made him a household name. And there's no shortage of people who want to take him on.

"American Idol" is in its sixth season and is more popular than ever. Tens of thousands show up to audition. There are a talented few, but an untalented many — and that's where Cowell comes in.

"Thank you, Nicholas. What the bloody hell was that?" Cowell said to one recent "Idol" hopeful.

Photos: Sixth Time For "Idol"
Photos: "Idol" Worship
Photos: The Original "Idol"

So aren't some of those hopefuls there just to get on TV?

"We've got a lot of people in the auditions who had — who were going to sing badly on purpose and we never show them. The people we show are the people who genuinely believe they're gonna win. And that's what's fascinating," he says.

"Every one of those people, no matter how bad they are, they really think they have talent?" asks Cooper.

"Every single one," answers Cowell. "Every single one."

Cowell is ruthless to them, critiquing not just their performance but, in some cases, their physical appearance.

"You look like one of those creatures who live in the jungle with those massive eyes. What are they called? Bush Babies?" he told another during "Idol" auditions.

Cowell says the conflict makes for good TV and he's not about to apologize for it — quite the contrary.

"Some people have equated it to a medieval stoning — that it's the same kind of motivation which people watch it," Cooper says.

"It's an interesting thought for a show where we actually could do that," he says.

But would Cowell really consider it?

"Why not?" he laughs. "I can see a similarity to a point. But it's human nature. You know, we are fascinated with that."

Does he think everything should be shown on TV? Yes. Even public executions?

"I think people should be given the choice to watch them, I guess. Yeah, why not?" he says.

"With commercials?" asks Cooper.

"Sponsorship," Cowell responds with more laughter. "Yeah, sponsorship."


(CBS)

Cowell may be only partially kidding. His critics say if there's money in it, he'll try it.

He splits his time between tony homes in London and Beverly Hills, running businesses simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic.

In America, in addition to "Idol," he currently has at least four other TV shows in development. In England, he created another hit music competition show called "The X-Factor," with Cowell as the caustic judge, alongside Sharon Osbourne and record executive Louie Walsh.

But TV star is just his night job. In his day job, he's a record executive for Sony BMG. He's the guy who created and cast Il Divo, a good looking group of male opera singers who in just three years have sold 18 million records around the world.

Il Divo is classic Cowell — a group with a gimmick designed to gain attention and make money. It's a formula he figured out 15 years ago as young music executive in London. Cowell bet there was music money to be made in a most unlikely place, the world of professional wrestling

"So you saw these American wrestlers come to London, sell out a stadium. You said why not give them a record contract?" asks Cooper.

"Completely," he says. "Yeah, and we sold a million, million and a half records."

Cowell says it did not matter that they couldn't sing. At the time, Radio One called him the anti-Christ of the music industry.

"Yeah. I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less. It's a business," he says.

"Some people might want their tombstone to say more than 'Simon Cowell. Gave the people what they want, made a lot of money,'" Cooper says.

"I'm sure in the same way a three-star Michelin chef was looking at the people who make McDonald's hamburgers and saying, you know, 'These people are terrible.' But I'd rather be McDonald's than the three-star Michelin chef," Cowell says. "Genuinely. I would."

And if Cowell wants to be McDonald's, "Idol" is his Big Mac.


(CBS)

In 2001, Cowell was part of team that created "Pop Idol" in England. It was an instant hit. But when they brought it to America, it wasn't an easy sell.

"We pitched it as the American dream — the person who's likely to win will be a cocktail waitress, can't get a deal, talented and within 20 weeks will become the most famous person in this country," Cowell says. "It was a very good pitch, I thought. But not good enough, because everyone threw us out of their offices."

Even FOX didn't jump on it. But the daughter of Rupert Murdoch, CEO and chairman of News Corporation, FOX's parent company, loved the English version of "Idol," and convinced her dad to buy the show.

What most viewers probably don't realize is that Cowell isn't just a high-paid judge, he gets a piece of the action. Local versions are now seen in more than 30 countries.

"What we need to do is credit them with the reason it's going to go to No. 1, that's all there is to it," Cowell says.

Cowell and Sony BMG control the recording rights to every "Idol" artist worldwide. That means every time an "Idol" artist sells a song, Simon Cowell makes more money.

"A lot of people who know of you probably think you wanted to be on 'American Idol,' and you started 'American Idol' because you wanted to be on TV. But, in fact, that had nothing to do with it," notes Cooper.

"My only interest was 'Idol' was a vehicle to launch records," he says. "That was the only thing I was thinking about. But, what we actually did, interestingly by doing 'Idol,' was I signed the biggest artist on the planet, and it's called 'Idol,' because every single 'Idol' winner is now signed through Sony BMG. And, this applies to all the countries we sell 'Idol' to, which is over 30 countries. So, there's probably now 75 to 100 artists all signed through this one center thing."

Among those artists are some major stars. Both Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood are multiple Grammy winners and together have sold almost 20 million CDs. Put in perspective, Cowell makes more money for Sony BMG than most of their biggest artists.

Take Bruce Springsteen, for example. Sony BMG has a deal with Springsteen reported to be about $100 million.

Is Simon Cowell as important to Sony BMG as Springsteen?

"In terms of selling records, yes," Cowell says. "I sell more records than Bruce Springsteen, sure. Yeah. I mean, in the last five years I've probably sold over 100 million records. If he got 100, I should have got 500. But, I mean, you know, a $100 million deal is — that's a great deal, for him. For him, it's a good deal."
User avatar
Flumm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Yesteryonder

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:09 pm

Brocktune wrote:
not true.

he has one in dubai, in addition to his others, and yet at least 3 of 7 nights a week, there he is.


Maybe he and Paula can hit this place.

Hopefully he'll run into Venom.

Back on topic, the RIAA sucks!!!
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby papalazeru on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:14 pm

Simon Cowell is sickening.

All he cares about is money. Hmmm...hold on. Thats a bit like the Hollywood film industry no?

It was obvious that as soon as you post an RIAA or MPAA article is was bound to get a hell of alot of hatred.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11474
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Paula Abdul on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:16 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Brocktune wrote:
not true.

he has one in dubai, in addition to his others, and yet at least 3 of 7 nights a week, there he is.


Maybe he and Paula can hit this place.




Ohhhhh.

I like to go up and down.

Bouncy! Bouncy!
User avatar
Paula Abdul
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Stuck between Simon and Randy.

Postby St. Alphonzo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:19 pm

Somehow, I knew she was gonna show up.
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown

Postby Nordling on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:30 pm

It's different for film. Making a movie is much more collaborative. That's why I'm really against dl'ing movies. You really are taking away money from a lot more people. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, sure. But songwriting and musicmaking isn't nearly as collaborative.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Seppuku on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:50 pm

Nordling wrote:It's different for film. Making a movie is much more collaborative. That's why I'm really against dl'ing movies. You really are taking away money from a lot more people. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, sure. But songwriting and musicmaking isn't nearly as collaborative.


Depends if you're downloading a Polyphonic Spree album or not.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby St. Alphonzo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:52 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Nordling wrote:It's different for film. Making a movie is much more collaborative. That's why I'm really against dl'ing movies. You really are taking away money from a lot more people. It's wrong no matter how you slice it, sure. But songwriting and musicmaking isn't nearly as collaborative.


Depends if you're downloading a Polyphonic Spree album or not.


ICULTILASH!!
ImageImage
User avatar
St. Alphonzo
Patron Saint
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Stumptown


Return to Music

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron