The LA Times reports that the RIAA is looking for new revenue streams by getting radio stations to pay royalties on the songs they play. Traditionally radio stations have paid royalties to composers and publishers for playing their songs, but not directly to performers and record labels thanks to a federal exemption. The argument goes that the airplay alone is payment enough, in that it helps to sell records. But now, with CD sales in free-fall, and digital sales not picking up the slack, artists and labels are pressing to get that exemption repealed. According to the Times, the RIAA, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and the American Federation of Musicians are all preparing to pressure Congress on the issue.
But despite the widespread support from within the industry, new royalties are far from a sure thing. Broadcasters are (naturally) against having to pay the RIAA or artists one more cent. They've beat off similar efforts to extend royalties in the past, and, according to the Times, they already have their knives out for this battle. And then there's this:
Yet if successful, it also could have wider implications beyond merely costing over the air radio stations additional bucks. If FM radio was forced to pay performance royalties, it would strike a body blow one of the arguments that Save Net Radio has been making in its fight to ward off impending royalty increases that would effectively kill Internet radio. Critics of the new rates for Internet radio have argued that they would be forced to pay royalties that traditional broadcasters are not. (For the back story on the Internet radio fight, see Eliot Van Buskirk's excellent reporting for Wired News. He's been all over it.) If over the air broadcasters do have to pay those fees, it could be very, very bad for the Internet radio movement.
