It’s not all peaches and roses in Washington, DC. Yesterday we reported about the firing up of the new Local Radio Freedom Act the NAB is pushing. It didn’t take long for the musicFIRST coalition to punch back.
On Wednesday, musicFIRST warned Congress that lobbyists for radio “are attempting to mislead them into supporting a scheme to deny artists and labels fair pay when their music is played on FM/AM radio.”
The National Association of Broadcasters is consistently lobbying lawmakers to fight against any new tax being imposed on radio. And, many of those lawmakers rely on their hometown radio stations for interview airtime, both when they are home on break from crafting legislation, and also when they are running for election.
musicFIRST claims the “Dear Colleague” letter written by Rep. Kathy Castor was crafted by the National Association of Broadcasters.
The NAB fired right back after hearing about that claim. “MusicFirst’s criticism of members of Congress for authoring a Dear Colleague letter is beyond the pale and an insult to the numerous lawmakers in the House and Senate who have voiced their bipartisan support for preserving the economic viability of broadcast radio for the millions of listeners who rely on free and local radio.”
musicFIRST has always claimed radio should be paying to play music on its radio stations. Radio has always responded that the promotion artists get on free radio is worth the trade off. And, time after time, artists thank radio for playing their music. Or, they are in tears when they first hear their songs played on free radio.
musicFIRST went on to say that with every new Congress the NAB engages in a clever trick to deny justice for artists and labels seeking to be paid when their music is played on FM/AM radio. “They circulate what appears to be a harmless resolution that says radio stations shouldn’t have to pay creators for their work. In doing so, broadcasters try to convince lawmakers to sign on by making false and misleading claims about traditional radio and how artists are discovered. The NAB hopes that members of Congress won’t find out that these claims are inaccurate — but musicFIRST isn’t going to let them get away with it.”
There is much misinformation here, such as who gets money that broadcasting pays and any “promotion” an artists gets.
Long ago radio stopped being a promotional vehicle and became a “let’s play the songs people want to hear” media. The shortened playlists is reason why Juan can ask “why do record promo people still beg stations to play their music?” There are so few slots available one has to “beg” to get on the air today – or pay.
The BigA is wrong with “Radio stations paid performance royalties as required by law. Those royalties are paid to Performance Rights Organizations.” No. Publishing and writing royalties were paid to those organizations, but nothing was paid to artists through BMI, SESAC, ASCAP, etc.
What the The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) meant to do, as outlined in its rulings, was to distribute this royalty to Artists.
BigA’s “The issue is how that money is distributed.” does not come into play in the CARP rulings from 2005 and beyond. (The split is 50% to labels, 45% to main artist, 5% divided between the remaining artists.) Broadcast has never paid these monies. This is what broadcasting is contesting today.
“nothing was paid to artists through BMI, SESAC, ASCAP, etc.”
Yes I know. Because it’s not in the law. Artists & labels screwed this up 90 years ago, and never fixed it. But the courts ruled that radio can play the music anyway.
“BigA’s “The issue is how that money is distributed.” does not come into play in the CARP rulings from 2005 and beyond.”
That only applies to digital media. Not over the air. Broadcast has never paid because it’s not in the law. However they do pay for streaming because it’s digital. That’s the difference.
If this is such an issue for music creators, then why do record promo people still beg stations to play their music? Then airplay must still have value for artist/song exposure. Maybe the value isn’t as huge as it used to be but radio is still a significant partner in exposure, promotion and hit making.
There is a long history to the complaints from musicfirst. Back in the 1930s, they sued radio stations that played music. Back then, the intent wasn’t to get paid, but to prevent recorded music from getting played. Playing recorded music was bad for live musicians. Every time they sued, they lost. The courts agreed that radio stations were in their rights to play recorded music. Radio stations paid performance royalties as required by law. Those royalties are paid to Performance Rights Organizations. The issue is how that money is distributed. This is not a radio problem.
We just bought an AM/translator combo, changing format to oldies (60’s~70’s); many of those artists are long gone.
Let’s get real. Whether it is Janis Joplin or Buddy Holly, or, for that matter, Brittany Spears or Maroon Five–many of these artists sold their right a long time ago to the likes of Bertelsman or Sony. Spare us the whining about “poor musicians.”