Tuesday
Mar102009
Musicians demand pay for radio play
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 1:38PM
Billy Corgan, vocalist and guitarist of the music group Smashing Pumpkins, spoke today before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of musicFIRST, a coalition of musicians pushing for compensation when their sound recordings are broadcasted. As the law stands, the song writer receives compensation when it is played on AM/FM radio, but the performer does not. Corgan argued, "The decision behind this long-held inequity stems back to 1909 when radio was in its infancy... the old-fashioned radio business has held onto this exemption for over 80 years -- a law made in a bygone era for a set of reasons long past. This landmark exemption however stripped performers of their right to a free market evaluation of the value of their recorded works."
The committee was split on the issue. Chairman Congressman John Conyers (D- MI) spoke strongly in support bill HR 848 which would legally mandate artist compensation for radio broadcasts. He pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China. This, he stated, is not something we should be proud of. He predicted that sooner or later, HR 848 will become a law, and "the sooner, the better."
However, dissenting views were expressed by other members of the committee. Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) pointed out how radio stations have seen steep decline in revenue during the current economic downturn, and the forecast is that the situation will only get worse. Goodlatte stated that it would be detrimental to apply another fee to small radio stations, in fact, this bill may be "the last straw" which causes small stations to close.
The core of the debate came down to which side receives unfair benefits in this situation; Whether musicians benefit from promotion due to radio play, or radio stations benefit in terms of listenership from playing music. Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R- TX) stated his proposition, "What I propose is that both parties agree to have a third-party entity conduct an objective study of the economic impact of royalty payments on performing artists and radio stations. Stakeholders would offer issues to be evaluated. And at least there will be some quantitative analysis to help mold legislation."
The committee was split on the issue. Chairman Congressman John Conyers (D- MI) spoke strongly in support bill HR 848 which would legally mandate artist compensation for radio broadcasts. He pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China. This, he stated, is not something we should be proud of. He predicted that sooner or later, HR 848 will become a law, and "the sooner, the better."
However, dissenting views were expressed by other members of the committee. Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) pointed out how radio stations have seen steep decline in revenue during the current economic downturn, and the forecast is that the situation will only get worse. Goodlatte stated that it would be detrimental to apply another fee to small radio stations, in fact, this bill may be "the last straw" which causes small stations to close.
The core of the debate came down to which side receives unfair benefits in this situation; Whether musicians benefit from promotion due to radio play, or radio stations benefit in terms of listenership from playing music. Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R- TX) stated his proposition, "What I propose is that both parties agree to have a third-party entity conduct an objective study of the economic impact of royalty payments on performing artists and radio stations. Stakeholders would offer issues to be evaluated. And at least there will be some quantitative analysis to help mold legislation."
Reader Comments (1)
If musicians want to charge for their music, then I believe radio stations should be allowed to charge artists for taking valuable air time to promote that music - a service those artists now get for free. After all, music may be a commercial item of value, but so is air time. If a radio station can charge $1,000 for a 30-second car commercial, then it would only be fair to charge an equivalent $5,000 for a 2.5 minute song (or "artist commercial") which will allow the artist to promote their music to tens or hundreds of thousands of listeners. The station would, of course, deduct the $.15 or so per song that the artist might reasonably expect to recieve in compensation for their work (more, I believe, than they currently recieve from their label when they sell the song on iTunes or a CD). That be more than fair. Stations could then fill the unpaid remainder of their on-air schedule with talk radio shows (which are pull more listeners than music anyway), and the work of artists who are willing to waive their $.15 of compensation in exchange for free on-air promotion.