The value of airplay
p2pnet news view Radio | Music:- “Should broadcasters pay to play music over the air, or is the promotional value of playing the music over the air compensation enough? The NAB, RIAA and others locked horns in a session of the House Judiciary Committee over the issue.” – asks RBR.com, saying the upshot will probably be something everyone needs – another third party study.
Smashing Pumpkin frontman Billy Corgan believes performers, “deserve to be compensated, and pointed out how difficult it is to make a living in music, particularly below the star level,” says the story, goong on:
“He repeated the point that he in no way considers radio to be the enemy – and that radio is incredibly valuable as a promotional tool.
“At the same time, he said he is no fan of the labels, and has had his run-ins with them over the years. He said that it took three albums to get his own band established, and nowadays it seems bands get one try and if it doesn’t hit, that’s it – which would seem to be a label problem, not a radio problem.”
RIAA spinster-in-chief Mitch Bainwol, “still felt that the fee should be put in place, saying that new delivery platforms such as the internet have decreased the value of airplay – and that alternative media do pay royalties.
Not only but also, entertainment industry enthusiasts John Conyers and Hollywood Howard Berman, “led the charge in support of H.R. 848,” although, “many other legislators took a more measured approach to the issue, some of the calling for a third party study to, “determine just what the value of airplay promotion is, to determine where the line is as to what broadcasters could conceivably pay without going into further distress, and other issues,” adds RBR.com
Here’s entertaint lawyer Fred Wilhelms, of whom CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh said, “If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief’ ” »»»
H.R. 848, the Terrestrial Radio Performance Royalty bill currently under consideration was the subject of a hearing Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee. The testimony, from Billy Corgan and others, was pretty much the same as we’ve heard before. Artists need money from radio. Radio shouldn’t have to pay because they promote the sale of music.
Not so strangely, there wasn’t one witness at all from the group that the legislation will really help the most, the record labels.
They continue to hide behind the artists that the bill will screw over, and they lack the conscience to admit it.
Despite promises that corrective amendments would be made, the current language still ensures that all fees from non-statutory licenses negotiated between broadcasters and labels will go directly to the labels, who then promise to pay their artists according to their recording contracts.
Only fees from statutory licenses are required to be split with 50% going to the labels, 45% to the featured artists and 5% into a fund for backup singers and session musicians. (Of course, the statutory fees go to SoundExchange, so the majority of artists will never see that money, but that’s a different problem).
On those negotiated licenses, artists will be lucky to see 1% of what everyone testifies they deserve.
Despite all the highminded statements entered into the record by the sponsors of the bill and the other members of the Judiciary Committee regarding the need to protect the interests of artists, this bill does nothing for them, and testimony by Corgan and other label mouthpieces in support of the current bill are nothing short of betrayal of all artists.
Wilhelms is based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]
[Pic - Wikipedia - Billy Corgan, Konzert Live Music Hall Köln, 11. Jun. 2005 | Fotograf: Benutzer:Blankpage, 11. 06. 2005 | Originaly uploaded to de.wikipedia by Benutzer:Blankpage]
RBR.com – Hill showdown over performance royalties, March10 , 2009
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.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“deserve to be compensated, and pointed out how difficult it is to make a living in music, particularly below the star level,”
That is the theory of the government help (some call them handouts) to the poor.
But artists who are poor because they are not successful do not deserve help like the poor. Certainly no more than a bartender or a teacher. These, when not successful as artists or whatever it is that they do, usually change to another line of work, something they would not do if they got all the compensation they “deserve”.
Sure, there are many artists that do not earn what they deserve and many get far more than they deserve. These results are due to the frequently one sided agreements the artists made with whoever pays them and if those agreements are complied with. Usually they are not complied with on the part of the payee, something made common by the very expensive and very slow legal system that favors corporations (the payees) and their money and lawyers. But that is the system that the majority idiot voters continue to support.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
As a 36 year radio vet(10 years as a Disk Jockey and 29 as a Engineer) I can tell you radio does promote the artist sure the net has changed a lot of that but for the most part thats where the most people hear the music.I’m sure there is a lot here that will disagree with me but it’s a fact.But you know what? let em go ahead and push for this it may end up another nail in the RIAA’s casket.The radio group that I work for is considering dropping all RIAA music(much to my delight) and are in talks with several other labels and distr of music, the RIAA is not the only one.The average person on the street just hears music when they turn their radio’s on they don’t know if it’s RIAA music or not.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
err make that 26 as an Engineer