6-25-14
Another hearing on Capitol Hill about performance royalties turned into another bad day for radio. Two weeks ago, during the first House Judiciary Committee hearing, there was a lot of ganging up on radio, with nobody present to defend the radio industry. Today there was also a lot of ganging up on radio, with Charles Warfield and Ed Christian there to respond on radio's behalf, but they really didn't get to say much. At one point Warfield even said, "We haven't had a chance to say a lot, but a lot has been said about us."
One Congressman was about to pose a question to Christian about why the existing model for radio should continue, why Congress should permit radio to build a business without having to pay artists. The problem was that the Congressman took all the allotted time to ask the question, and Christian was not allowed to respond. By the time Warfield and Christian did get a chance to speak, nobody was really buying what they were saying.
If all someone ever knew about performance royalties was what they saw in these two hearings, they might conclude that radio really is the bad guy in all of this. It was clear again Wednesday that not too many members of the House Judiciary Committee, or other players in the performance royalty issue, are buying radio's argument that radio provides mountains of promotion and marketing for artists and that's a fair trade-off for radio's playing their music for free. In fact, Roseanne Cash called it "insulting." She said, "I'm patted on the head and told it's promotional. It's good for you. They use my songs to sell ads and make billions of dollars. It's ludicrous and insulting."
Rep. Gerald Nadler of New York said he finds the argument of free airplay for free promotion "incredible." "All the arguments based on that are non-starters," he said. "It's not a balance, not a consideration. That should be the decision of the person being broadcast." Nadler compared the arrangement to a consumer's being able to walk into a store and decide the price of a product himself. SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe told the committee that artists are losing hundreds of millions of dollars here in the U.S. because radio is not paying to play artists' music.
After the hearing, NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith told Radio Ink, ?Broadcasters couldn?t have been better represented at today?s hearing than by Charles Warfield on behalf of the NAB and Ed Christian on behalf of the RMLC. The fact that more than half of the House of Representatives supports local radio stations on the performance fee issue puts us in strong position to preserve broadcast radio?s mutually beneficial relationship with artists and record labels. On the digital side, NAB is committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to create a vibrant business model that benefits artists, songwriters, and labels and encourages more radio stations to stream their programming.?
(6/27/2014 9:17:08 AM)
Re: "So explain to me again why we should pay THEM?"
1) Because all but 4 other countries in the world pay performance royalties.
2) Evidenced by short playlists, radio uses music to DRAW audience.
3) Following the money also leads to radio advertising sales revenue.
4) The new rules apply to all, and not necessarily on your terms.
5) This isn't "...the last fifty years..." anymore.
6) Radio's promotional value is diluted through multiple music sources - all of which pay.
All the evidence you need Ronald is to follow the money. And for the last fifty plus years, the money - legally and illegally - has been flowing TOWARDS this industry because of the value we provide. It still is to this very day. So explain to me again why we should pay THEM?
(6/26/2014 3:23:29 PM)
Seems reason and logic are taking a hiatus.
Since music stations are promoting The Hits - and gawd knows, that's about all they have - supplying that product while profiting from the airplay by attracting audience seems like there might be a cost involved.
Once again, Interest is prevailing over Evidence.
(6/26/2014 12:48:18 PM)
So basically, everyone BUT artist have to pay to promote? We pay them for their product, but they don't have to pay for ours. Without radio, Roseanne Cash would only be a pimple on her daddy's...
(6/26/2014 12:29:09 PM)
Always it is all about the money and unfortunately we who have loved this medium for our life time are now living when it is ending as we have known it. Independent stations are unsupportable already and when the artists finally get their pound of flesh it really will be over. Radio will continue, owned not by independent operators, but by the likes of Google and Amazon or clear channel. Remember it is all about profit.
Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend
