(crossposted from Green Mountain Daily)
(UPDATE: I always swore I'd never do this, but this time I'll make an exception. I appreciate the fact that, with health care and other stuff looming large, that the community sees this issue as important enough to elevate this diary to the reclist. Thanks very much.)
I talked to the person who does all the books for the radio stations today.
She was busy as a one legged man at a snake stomping contest.
Writing checks.
Apparently, the business model has changed, per our (rather eccentric) owner.
He has decided, for whatever reason, that we should pay our advertisers for the privilege of promoting their products....something about us owing a debt to them for improving the quality of life in our community.
And so, to every client that runs commercials on our radio station, we're writing a check. Car lots, restaurants, hair salons, outfitters.....we are now paying them instead of the other way around.
Insane?
You're damned right it is.
Jump.
Okay, now that I have gained your attention with an instructive reductio ad absurdum:
Local radio stations provide billions of dollars in promotional value to artists and record labels. In appreciation, the record labels bestow upon radio stations "gold" and "platinum" albums to show their gratitude.
So why do labels now want to "tax" radio for playing music – a practice that has put money in their pockets for more than 80 years?
AllAccess.com: (login required)
The Performance Fee bill, which will require broadcast stations to pay performers when their songs are played on the radio, will be heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee on AUGUST 4th......The Senate hearings will be presided over by Sen. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA). Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT.), the chairman of the committee, is the sponsor of the bill. FEINSTEIN is a co-sponsor along with Sen. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA), Sen. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.), Sen. BOB CORKER (R-TN), Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) and Sen. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN).
And musicFIRST, an ad-hoc PAC formed to push this crap, WHICH I HAVE BEEN TOLD IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WILL PROBABLY COST ME MY LIVELIHOOD IF IT PASSES, and working this issue on behalf of not the artists as it claims to, but rather for the benefit of the record labels, responds:
"We are grateful for the support and the leadership of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman PATRICK LEAHY and other members of the committee who believe in fair pay for airplay. AM and FM radio stations earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial."
Emphasis mine.
Without compensating
That, my friends, is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
On a number of levels.
1)We ALREADY pay royalties. We log music on a quarterly basis and send the logs to BMI, which collects an aggregated fee and distributes it to ASCAP and SESAC, and itself. That's been going on for a long, long time. Suddenly, it's not enough?
2)It is the LABELS that contract the artists, not the radio stations. THEY are responsible for compensating the poor, starving recording artists like Elton John, Garth Brooks, Faith Hill, Tim McGraw, and Bruce Springsteen. Not the radio stations.
Oh and, speaking of the poor, starving artists, here's Dennis Wharton, Executive VP, National Association of Broadcasters:
Nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels. Record label abuse of artists from COUNT BASIE to PRINCE is well-documented, as evidenced by scores of lawsuits filed by musicians cheated out of royalties. Moving forward, the fundamental question is this: If the debate is about "fairness to artists," why should the record labels get one penny from a performance tax on radio stations?
Emphasis mine.
Why do you think Prince became 0(+> and ran around with "SLAVE" written on his cheek for like a year?
I have a personal story, too. I'll come back to this.
3)Ever think maybe the airplay itself is compensation? I can remember situations and times where the labels paid US, albeit less-that-legally, for airplay.
I hate to side with Clear Channel, but when they're right, they're right.
Clear Channel Responds To musicFIRST
YESTERDAY NET NEWS 7/30, the musicFIRST COALITION singled out CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS -- complaining the radio giant wouldn't air a commercial featuring MOTOWN legend DUKE FAKIR of THE FOUR TOPS.
The spot is, of course, supporting performance fee legislation -- which the NAB and all radio companies are fighting.
The text of the commercial read:
DUKE FAKIR: Broadcasters earn billions every year playing THE FOUR TOPS and other artists.
ANNOUNCER: DUKE FAKIR helped define the MOTOWN sound with THE FOUR TOPS.
DUKE FAKIR: But artists don't make a penny when our music is played on radio.
ANNOUNCER: DUKE's right, thanks to a legal loophole AM and FM radio gets a free ride while satellite and Internet radio pay artists and musicians to play their music. A bill before Congress, the Performance Rights Act, will correct this injustice
DUKE FAKIR: All we ask is fair pay for airplay.
(emphasis mine - k9k)
ANNOUNCER: Tell Congress to support the Performance Rights Act. Paid for by THE MUSIC FIRST COALITION.
A 'Desperate' Attempt?
CLEAR CHANNEL EVP/Chief Legal Officer ANDY LEVIN released this statement to ALL ACCESS:
"Of course we rejected the ads. We wouldn't take ads from SIRIUS XM either. Why would we air ads designed to put us out of business? This is not about the ads, it's a publicity stunt designed to malign our business and the character or our employees. If musicFIRST is concerned about getting its message out, there is an abundance of other media outlets that would jump at the chance to take their money, especially in this economy.
This is just another desperate attempt to breathe life into a failing legislative effort that is clearly against the public interest."
"Fair play for airplay"?
Doesn’t radio already pay for music?
Radio compensates composers and songwriters to the tune of about $550 million annually. It’s widely understood that songwriters do not have the same name recognition to financially exploit themselves to make money. Performers can make money from touring and personal appearances, merchandise and other licensing and branding opportunities like perfume and clothing lines.
Radio stations also pay a royalty for streaming music over the internet, for reasons that include concerns that a perfect digital copy of the music could be captured by the end user.
Congress has continually recognized that local radio is different and should not be subject to such a fee. Local radio is free, so everyone, regardless of income, can have access to it. Local radio also has to fulfill certain "public service obligations" that other platforms do not. And importantly, the free music that radio plays provides free promotion to the record labels and artists – between $1.5 to $2.4 billion annually.
I have personally seen FedEx envelopes full of American Express travelers' checks show up on a programmer's desk, following which some marginal record got six spins a week on the overnights only. And probably got 12 reported to Radio and Records.....another casualty of an industry in a state of flux.
And then there was Kylie Minogue and how she got a number of PDs to add "The LocoMotion..." >;) heh. I don't wanna go there, so I won't.
So, instead of talking about Kylie, I'll talk for a second about Mary Wells.
I been doin' this shit a long time. Since I was 17, in fact. As one might expect, I've met a bunch of recording artists along the way.
The sweetest soul I ever met among that group of people was Mary Wells.
It was the mid 80s and I was working at KWG in Stockton, CA, doing (my first love) oldies.
Mary Wells played a concert at the Eagles Hall in Tracy with Bobby "Tossin' and Turnin'" Lewis opening for her. Here, you might take a sec to skim her wiki if you haven't already. That way I can cut to the chase here.
After the show in the cafeteria in back, somehow I ended up at a table with Mary. And there we sat for about 45 minutes while she kinda grilled me. She wanted to know how much education I had, was I gonna go back to school, and she kept asking me, over and over...because I couldn't answer it....if I couldn't do this, what would I do?
I get it now.
Read the wiki and tell me if some shit like this performance tax bullshit would have helped Mary or Berry fucking Gordy.
In the summer of 1992, Wells' cancer returned and she was rushed to the Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital in Los Angeles with pneumonia. With the effects of her unsuccessful treatments and a weakened immune system, Wells died on July 26, 1992 at the age of forty-nine. After her funeral, which included a eulogy given by her old friend and former collaborator Smokey Robinson, Wells was laid to rest. She is buried in Glendale's Forest Lawn Memorial Park.
Thank you for playing, Duke Faker.
Funny how the "artists" aren't speaking out against this...why do you think that is? Looks like Leahy and Conyers are looking out for the unions and the members of those unions who support the Democratic Party with millions in donations and fundraisers.
And what of the local radio jock getting minimum wage? Don't worry, they'll put up a fight to get you another 33 cents an hour some time after next session in congress...there's the change you were looking for...now all you need is some hope.
You think that "minimum wage" thing is a joke?
I'm here to tell you, it's not.
I recently got a raise for the extra hours I put in on alternate Sundays...when Vermont raised the minimum wage. A raise from minimum wage TO minimum wage.
I'm 44 years old. I got started in this business two weeks before my 18th birthday.
This whole thing is nothing but an attempted money-grab from the record companies.The labels (record companies) are going to try to switch payments by radio stations to artists (which is about 40% of the attempted money-grab) [50% they say, but then there's distribution costs] to compensate artists INSTEAD of record companies paying anything to the artists. Right now, the labels pay dog-doo to the artists. If this money-grab is a success, they'll not even pay that.
Just because 230+ House members have aligned with the broadcasters (in a NON-binding situation), doesn't mean it won't happen. Conyers (Mich) and Leahy (VT) are pushing hard. They, like the labels, must have a thing against radio, and a thing FOR sending a majority of domestically-made money from radio stations to foreign-owned labels. (The top 3 record labels, controlling about 60% of America's music are foreign owned!).
And if it does not succeed this year, they WILL be back for another try next year.
This is a case of GREED. It is the government's responsibility to halt corporate greed, the very thing that caused this entire recession. Apparently Conyers and Leahy are not all that bright.
Where does the money go?
In short, the money would flow out of your community and into the pockets of the record labels – the great majority of which are foreign-owned. The record labels would like for you to think this is all about compensating the artists, but in truth the record labels would get at least 50% of the proceeds from a tax on local radio.
How does this affect me?
If you’re one of the 235 million people who listen to radio each week, a tax could reduce the variety of music radio stations play, and all but eliminate the possibility of new artists breaking onto the scene. The tax could particularly affect smaller, minority-owned stations, some of which may have to switch to a talk-only format or shut down entirely.
It also affects your community. Radio stations are major contributors to public service – generating $6 billion in public service annually and providing vital news and community information and free airtime to help local charities. If a tax were imposed, stations’ critical public and community service efforts could be reduced.
And worst of all, if you’re one of the 106,000 Americans employed by local radio your job could be in jeopardy. In these troubling economic times, the last thing local radio needs is to be hit with a tax that some analysts estimate could be $2-7 billion annually.
Fortunately, opposition to this misguided, wrongheaded scheme is growing on the Hill.
There are currently two bills pending in Congress that would levy a performance tax on local radio – H.R. 848, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (MI-14) and S. 379, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT). Your members of Congress need to hear that you strongly oppose these bills.
I have made the calls to the offices of Leahy, Sanders, and Welch. Will you?
But wait...there's more:
Anti-performance tax resolutions have been introduced in the House and Senate in support of local radio. In the Senate, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (AR) and John Barrasso (WY) introduced S. Con. Res. 14, and in the House, Reps. Gene Green (TX-29) and Mike Conaway (TX-11) introduced H. Con. Res. 49. Both are known as the "Local Radio Freedom Act." Encourage your senators and representative to cosponsor these resolutions.
WASHINGTON, DC -- Four additional House members and three more U.S. Senators have added their support to the Local Radio Freedom Act, a bipartisan resolution opposing the record label-led effort to levy a performance tax on local radio stations for music aired free to listeners. The Local Radio Freedom Act is now supported by a bipartisan group of 244 House members and 23 U.S. Senators.
The key word is "bipartisan." Tell Congress enough is enough with corporate welfare. because that is exactly what this is.
Help save my livelihood - and my industry.
Make those calls.
I will not support any politician who moves to kill my livelihood.
Can you blame me?
UPDATED in original GMD post
According to Bobby Brown's ex-aunt-in-law, it's a race thing! Who knew:
Better women than Ms. Hughes have spent a lifetime toiling to ensure equal rights and economic opportunity for black Americans. There is nothing "stupid" about insisting that African American workers are paid for their labor. The Civil Rights for Musicians Act is about economic justice for African American artists. It's about what's right. And it's about time.
Dionne: Tell. The. LABELS.
Cinnamonape I'm a Fan of Cinnamonape I'm a fan of this user permalink
I'm puzzled by this bill...isn't ASCAP, BMI And SESAC supposed to be compensating performers for radio airplay? Isn't that what the licensees pay "blanket licenses" for? If the performers feel they are being unfairly compensated maybe they should sue the "licensing societies" for appropriate royalties?
I see ASCAP/BMI thugs coming in all the time to small cafes with a tiny radio playing, shaking down the owner for $thousans under threat of lawsuits and vaster fines. I've seen venues holding twenty people strong-armed into paying fees when the only music performed is the musicians OWN WORK. Even public domain songs are "charged" by the Music Mafia, if the "arrangement" is similar to one by "their artist".
Musicians that aren't superstars get nothing for radio airplay b/c these agencies never bother to survey the stations or places they are played...none-the-less small community stations, cafes, and hole-in-the-wall clubs end up paying millions of dollars to ASCAP/BMI.
Now the big superstar artistes want to create yet another shake-down agency that will never give a cent to the small artists out there? That will put non-profit community broadcasters, non-commercial college radio stations and most non-network radio stations that operate at a loss or razor edge of profit to go dark? And watcha want to bet that many mega-networks (Clear Channel, Entercom, etc.) will go to talk-radio and sports formats just to avoid this.
heyjacent I'm a Fan of heyjacent I'm a fan of this user permalink
Broadcast radio in the U.S. currently pays music fees for songwriters (Read: BMI ASCAP) Artists are compensated for airplay of their work. Let's stop pretending they are not.
The problem is that performing musicians who did not write their music do not get airplay compensation from broadcast radio. They DO in Europe, which is the main pillar in Ms. Warwick's argument.
They have a lot of things in Europe. Universal health care comes to mind. They also have heavily-regulated, heavily-subsidized radio. It's not really a fair comparison. Taxpayers basically pay performance fees in those countries.
I understandably have some bias here. I work for an independent commercial broadcaster. Read: not a corporate chain. It's minority-owned, no less, though I don't believe that really has any bearing in this debate. Ms. Warwick does herself a disservice by interjecting race into a debate that is much more complicated than that.
It's about basic fairness. I feel bad that so many artists have been swindled by so many in their own industry that a radio bailout is necessary. Even if this royalty structure is put in place, the bulk of that money will go to truly giant multinational music corporations who won't be inclined to share.
I know that it will put some of my friends' jobs on the line if it's passed. That's not fair, either. I suppose all politics are personal, so until a better solution comes along, I'm personally against this. That's what friends are for.