Dardis: This is Not a Tax

2

(by Ken Dardis) Please Say This With Me: It is not a tax that Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced to Congress this week (H.R 1914 – PROMOTE – “Performance Royalty Owners of Music Opportunity To Earn Act.). We got the the immediate, and expected, disapproval  from the radio industry. ‘It promotes artists.’ ‘Radio should charge for advertising the song.’ ‘Lost jobs.’ ‘Our station will go all talk.’

Meanwhile iHeartMedia and Cumulus are signing deals with labels. Who’s the chump in this picture? Per normal, brought to defense is the NAB’s “Local Radio Freedom Act,” a resolution, nothing more. It’s non-binding, so even stating a proximity to the required 218 House members’ backing its value is moot.

That the radio industry changes the word which defines the performance royalty to “tax” shows a need to alter the picture, which today is clear: The United States is one of only five countries in the world not paying performance royalties to ARTISTS. That last word is very important because it is this group which see no money from radio’s payments to ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, etc. Parity is the word to define now.

When a station uses something that’s created by someone else to build a revenue stream, that station should pay the people who make “whatever.” All music-based companies are required to play by this rule, called a performance royalty (not tax), except broadcast radio. To claim promotional value in today’s diverse audio distributive system is speaking with an eye closed.

H.R. 1914 gives artists permission to say, we don’t believe you’re paying enough so don’t play our songs. A station that’s using a promotional overtone to defend its stance should be able to live with that. If not, stop playing music. See how long the station survives.

I don’t believe all artists should be paid. Those on the lower rungs, seeking exposure, certainly not. But for stations running a 30 song playlist we know why it’s wound so tight; those are the songs that draw your audience. Performance royalty payments are made by the majority of broadcasters, globally. Artists are asking that they be given this same respect in the United States of America Radio is on the same plane of consumption as other audio sources.

Nothing more.

Ken Dardis spent 20 years in radio, from on-air to GM. He now runs Audio Graphics which he launched as a radio and television advertising production company in 1991. He can be reached at [email protected]. Check out his website HERE.

2 COMMENTS

  1. The United States is also the ONLY country that makes it a FEDERAL crime for money to change hands between record labels and broadcast radio. Payola laws ONLY apply to broadcasting, not satellite or internet. Why that exception? If the goal of these new laws is for fairness, less them first repeal the antiquated payola laws. Then we can start to talk about fair pay.

    You bring up the iHeart deal. That is a good deal. The NAB offered the exact same deal to the RIAA in 2008, and they refused to sign. Had they accepted the deal, they would have had 9 years of revenue. Instead they’re back to begging Congress for some kind of “right.” Good luck there. Once again, this bill won’t get out of committee. Not radio’s problem.

  2. When someone like Ken starts suggesting fair and equitable treatment for the participants, ridicule and disdain can be expected.
    Radio’s ideology of elitism, entitlement and non-compliance with the rest of world is so pervasive as to be considered “normal”.
    I am reminded of the massive attacks on “Medicare for everybody” as an example of ideology trumping (so to speak) the evidence, facts and results that surround the issues. It’s fear-based, laced with propaganda and fact-free.
    “Fundamental Fairness”. Is that such a bizarre concept

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here