WorkshopLive TV and Radio Podcasts

Licks and Tricks

On The Road!

The Universal Language

RSS Feeds

« Best flatpicking | Main | So, Eric, what's your take on global warming? »


radio gnome

it's surprising to you because you're thinking of the chronology backwards. When the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) was created, this allowed the RIAA to change the rules for radio stations broadcasting digital music so that royalties were paid to BOTH the composer and performer of a song.

Terrestrial radio stations already had a copyright agreement in place which pays royalties to the composer of a song, not the performer. This was done because performers received compensation in other ways, record sales to a small degree but mostly from live appearances (i.e. gigs) and recording contracts, which gets back to the RIAA reaping some of the investment they make in signing a band.

Is it fair that terrestrial radio stations have a different set of rules for royalties? Probably not, but to whom is this unfair, the performers of songs or non-terrestrial radio? I'm both a musician and an Internet radio hobbyist and I'd rather get my music played and heard by someone who might attend my show than get the pittance paid in performance royalties.

I know listeners of my radio station have purchased CDs of musicians they "discovered" listening to my station. Do they buy more or fewer CDs because of radio? I don't know, but I do know musicians get exposure because of radio, and exposure is priceless.

It would be nice for this playing field to be level, but no one can agree on what that should be. For me, in general, whatever the RIAA is for, I'm against.

The comments to this entry are closed.

WL Radio

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Newsvine Music News

Gear Manufacturers

Contact The Practice Room

  • editor(at)

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2005