The RIAA needs to get a F**king clue (August '08 edition)

Seriously, if anybody can think of an industry that is more backward-thinking, let me know. Good God, they're hopeless.

Normally, I don't mind when companies or even industries have their head up their ass, since I can simple choose to ignore their products. GM made foolish pension choices and worse design schedules? No biggie, I'm not wedded to big blue (oops, sorry boys, IBM took that).

But in this case, the RIAA is stifling creativity and thereby limiting the music that I get to hear. Always quick to shoot themselves in the foot, they have now used their power/influence to set a per-song performance royalty rate that will double the current fees that Web radio stations must pay to recording companies (of which a fraction of a percent will actually to go the artists themselves). I mean, when an entity freely promotes and introduces new music to potential buyers of said material, it surely harms the industry in horrible and catastrophic ways.

The upshot is this means that Pandora is T-O-A-S-T toast.

More philosophically, it's frustrating because it is ever more clear that the RIAA, run by big recording labels, has no interest in actual music or artists, just in promoting their own pre-selected, crappy, untalented popstars.

Matt Nathanson, a singer-songwriter who has recorded for both major and independent record labels, said he is worried that the demands placed on Internet radio could "choke" the industry before it gets its footing.

"Net radio is good for musicians like me, and I think most musicians are like me," he said. "The promotion it provides is far more important than the revenue."

"Traditional" radio companies pay nothing in performance royalties.
Satellite radio pays 6 or 7 percent of revenue.
But since the internet is such a scary place full of bad people waiting to do bad things, webcasters pay per song, per listener.