Vivvo CMS 4.1 http://www.rbr.com/ ©2010 Spoonlabs d.o.o. http://www.rbr.com/files.php?file=rss_logo1_757997737.jpg http://www.rbr.com/ http://www.rbr.com/radio/15093.html Radio News Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:14:00 -0400 RIAA-backed musicFIRST says radio stations are preventing it from buying advertising to promote the Performance Rights Act, intimidating artists http://www.kcalfm.com Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:20:55 -0400 In related news, Burger King is suing McDonald's due to Ronald's refusal to use tray liners reading, "Whoppers whip *** on Big Macs", and John McCain is asking the FEC to investigate the Obama campaign's refusal to post "McCain For President" banners at Mile High Stadium during Obama's DNC acceptance speech. Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:24:20 -0400 Why isn't the NAB willing to say, "Yeah, stations are not playing artists who support the performance tax, so what?" The NAB has been doing a good job so far, but why not be upfront about the present situation? What do we have to lose?As mentioned in the RBR observation, apparently these artist don't really benefit from radio airplay, so why should they care if we choose not to play their songs? If we were to believe what the RIAA is telling congress, radio is actually not helping musicians at all, the RIAA has publicly declared that radio is stealing from these artists. Therefore, all these radio stations have done is stopped "stealing" the intellectual property of the artists who feel they should be compensated for the use of their work. You've gotten exactly what you've asked for RIAA. Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:21:36 -0400 Note to RIAA: greed kills. Now stop your whining, return to your corner and try to rework your business plan. Because we've seen all of this before, and this ain't working any longer. Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:36:28 -0400 The RIAA got greedy and killed most every webcaster online. Now, they are extorting more money from terrestrial broadcasters and proclaiming to the public that radio is to blame for artists not being fairly compensated. Why doesn't somebody tell the government that the RIAA and their alleged "administrative costs" is the reason why artists are compensated so poorly while these greedy thugs grease the palms of those in office with their political lobbying. It's time the government wake up and investigate the RIAA. Until this happens the corrupt RIAA and their crony organizations will attempt to screw everybody in their path Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:59:36 -0400 What RIAA administrative costs? Do you even know what the f*** you're talking about? Radio News Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:41:33 -0400 This is for “Radio Veteran”. Apparently you sustain the idea of not playing songs from artists who support the performance tax because they don't really benefit from radio airplay, right?Wrong!The elemental purpose of radio is TO SERVE, … to serve our communities, to serve the clients, to serve the audience and only the audience decide if they don’t want to hear a particular artist, especially if this artist is in number one!RIIA reacted too late when technology invented a process to compress music and make it a computer file. Here is when they should react and have the attitude that they have nowadays. “Rapid Listener” is right, they need to stop whining, return to their corner and try to rebuild their business plan. I can’t comprehend why they were so greedy and brainless with the on line radio stations who were giving certain amount every year. Due to its attitude, several on line radio station disappeared and they’re no longer providing this money, so ……… ?RIAA, go back to Business 101!! Radio News Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:12:26 -0400 Emilio, Although it would be nice if they took your advice, the RIAA is not going to go back to Business 101. Therefore what are we to do? We do serve our audience, better than any stations in our market. Letting the RIAA dictate our playlist is not serving our audience. Radio News Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:24:22 -0400 "Reasonable" Admin CostsThe RIAA is entitled under law to take a percentage of the royalties for administrative costs. The law specifies that they must be "reasonable," but that term is oblique. Because the administrative percentage affects the bottom line that goes to copyright holders and ultimately to the artists who are supposed to get a cut of the royalties, there is concern that the percentage is fair. The RIAA would like to take 16-20% of the total for administrative expenses, according to Simson. "Our goals is to keep [expenses] in line with other performing rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI,"