p2pnet - rss feed: SoundExchange: ‘get the locals enraged’
p2pnet news view Radio | RIAA News:- Yesterday, RAIN ran a link to an op-ed piece written by or for SoundExchange’s John Simson (right) on the need for a terrestrial radio performance royalty.
The piece ran in the San Jose Mercury-News and was clearly intended to get the locals enraged about terrestrial radio cheating artists so they’d write to their Congressional representative, Zoe Lofgren, and tell her to support HR 4789, the bill that would create the royalty.
Among other things, Simson declares »»»
Having been a member of the music community for over 30 years, I understand the years of hard work, dedication and creativity required for artists to get even one song played on the radio. And only a lucky few go on to lead successful music careers.
But what makes it more difficult is the injustice of radio using artists’ music for free, a pattern that has existed for over 50 years and that adversely affects artists across the nation.
There are 19 sentences in the piece and Simson averages more than one reference per sentence to these wonderful people who have created fortunes for “corporate radio.”
Clearly, the terrestrial performance royalty is all about the deserving artists.
In taking his passion for the well-being of artists directly to the public, Mr Simson apparently doesn’t feel it’s necessary to let the public know at least 50% of the revenues from a terrestrial performance royalty will go to the labels,and 90% of that money (based on current estimates of terrestrial radio playlists) will go to the four RIAA labels.
I say “at least 50%” because the same loophole that allows Internet webcasters to negotiate direct performer licenses , and pay the labels directly, exists in the proposed legislation Mr Simson is touting.
Saying this legislation is all about starving artists without admitting where at least half the money goes is just dishonest.
Think of the poor artists, Mr Simson cries, but don’t think of the entities primarily responsible for their poverty in the first place.
We’re at the gates of the Emerald City, and Mr Simson doesn’t want us to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
How stupid does he think everyone is?
There are good reasons for having a terrestrial radio performance royalty. And here are good reasons why there shouldn’t be one.
The debate is an important one.
The op-ed doesn’t move the discussion one inch forward (and not only because SoundExchange doesn’t really engage in actual discussion on matters like this), and shows nothing but the now all-too-common disdain in which SoundExchange holds public discourse, and the public itself.
It’s a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion by sleight-of-hand.
The issue deserves better.
Fred Wilhelms - p2pnet
[If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief,’ wrote CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh. Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]
.
.Stumble It!
New York Times - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, August xx, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Jon, I guess it is your piece since I don’t see Fred mentioned.
Or did you just forgot to indicate him as the author?
August 8th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Thanks, A_F.
Nope, It was Fred’s: I’d neglected to include his by-line.
Sorry, Fred.
Cheers!
August 9th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Radio….its there so the artist can be heard….royalties…..crap….Its free advertising for the artist….Wouldn’t it be funny if radio says…if you want us to play your stuff…you pay us…no more free ads for any of you.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:06 am
” Wouldn’t it be funny if radio says…if you want us to play your stuff…you pay us…no more free ads for any of you. ”
Heh .. that’s been happening for years.
The majors pay stations to keep certain stuff high on the rotation.
It’s called Payola.
Unsigned, independent artists can’t afford to pay a radio station to be heard, so
the are left out in the cold.
The most popular form of payola works like this …..
You hear the DJ announce prominently the Name of the artist and the song that is just starting.
By doing that, the song can be considered a paid ‘advertisement’.
This loopholes through existing payola laws.
The main point is, if Radio charges to play songs, ONLY the major labels will be able to afford it.
That’s kindof what the majors want.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Quote:”The main point is, if Radio charges to play songs, ONLY the major labels will be able to afford it.
That’s kindof what the majors want.”
Isn’t that they way it is now? I mean when was the last time you tuned in to your local radio station and heard a local band (unless they have signed with a major label) I spent 10 years in radio in the 70’s & 80’s payola was the norm,That’s whats so confusing to me now.I think the record cartel is shooting theirselves in the foot on this one. Radio is the RIAA’s Best friend The whole thing is absurd. Also I might add the average american is not fallin’ for this. It’s really hard to watch Music First complain about how much they are hurting when you can switch to Mtv and see these same artist showing off their elaborate homes and fleet of exotic cars when most of us have to bust our bunns to make ends meet.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Mr Simson apparently doesn’t feel it’s necessary to let the public know at least 50% of the revenues from a terrestrial performance royalty will go to the labels,and 90% of that money (based on current estimates of terrestrial radio playlists) will go to the four RIAA labels.
Radio performance payments are for using songs that have owners and are not in public domain. the reason that 50 percent pf the money is for the labels is because the labels own the songs (in addition to the recordings). They get to be owners of the songs because if you are a songwriter and want your music recorded you have to give your songs to a label’s publishing arm.
But don’t think for a moment that the other 50 percent goes to the songwriters. Of that share of the gold pot, 90 percent goes to the publishers who own the songs, obtained by way of a scam, where the songwriter gives up his/her rights to the songs in exchange for about 5 percent of collected - many times nothing - royalties. The exceptions are the few “display” songwriters that make a reasonable amount of money because they are to be displayed - on the board of the so called “composer” performance societies - or because they have smart lawyers and accountants working for them.
I dont recall when I got my last royalty check worth going to the bank for depositing. I was scammed too.