Higher radio pay for artists urged

[CoolBreeze]

A group pushing legislation to make radio pay more money to artists held a town hall meeting.

Controversy in radio has usually involved payola -- when record labels pay radio to play their artists. But an alliance of record labels and musicians' groups is pressuring Congress to reverse the situation and pass legislation that would require radio to pay artists for playing their music.

Pop singer Jon Secada, Latin rocker Monte Rosa and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were among those who took part in a town hall meeting Monday at the Eden Roc Hotel to drum up support for the Performance Rights Act. The meeting was put on by the musicFIRST coalition, and coincided with the opening of the Billboard Latin Music Conference.

Graham is one of 39 sponsors for the legislation, which was introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate earlier this year. The bill would change what supporters argue is an unjust loophole in U.S. copyright law, which they say is out of line with international law and with U.S. rules regulating payments in other media, and hurting musicians at a time when decreasing sales and music piracy have cut deeply into their income.

''Radio needs to recognize that the music they play has value and artists need to be compensated,'' said Jennifer Bendall, executive director of musicFIRST.

Radio industry representatives were not at the town hall, but they say radio stations support artists by playing and exposing their music. The measure is opposed by the National Association of Broadcasters, which has dubbed the Performance Rights Act a ''performance tax'' that they say would further damage an industry already suffering from a recession-driven downturn in advertising.

THE LAW

Under federal law, radio stations pay fees to composers and music publishers when their songs are broadcast -- but not to the musicians who perform that music. Laws passed in 1995 and 1998 required that musicians who perform a song be paid when their songs are played on Internet stations, satellite radio and on cable television music channels. Broadcast radio was not included in that legislation.

More...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward ... 09396.html


Jack Ely, the singer whose 1963 version of Louie Louie still makes the rounds on oldies radio, lives with his wife in a mobile home on a horse ranch in Oregon. Ely says they share $30,000 a year from her teacher's pension and his Social Security checks. They are paying down a mortgage.

So sometimes it bothers Ely, 65, when he hears his voice singing Louie Louie on the radio or in sports arenas, knowing he's not getting paid.

"It gets played twice a day by every oldies radio station everywhere in the world. And I get nothing," said Ely, who recorded the song with The Kingsmen before getting drafted by the Army and leaving the band. "I got one check for $5,000. That's all I ever saw from the sale of Louie Louie. "

Since the advent of radio in the 1920s, songwriters have made a little money every time their tunes are played on stations in most industrialized countries. The six children of Louie Louie songwriter Richard Berry today share more than $100,000 in royalties every year.

But performers like Ely don't get a dime.

A bill moving through Congress aims to change that. It would let performers and the recording labels get a share of the ad revenue that radio stations collect from playing their songs. This pool of royalties could be hundreds of millions a year — which would be crucial for the record industry, as compact disc sales plummet and digital song sales aren't making up the difference.

It could also unlock an estimated $70 million to $100 million per year that is collected by radio stations abroad for U.S. artists, but never paid out because U.S. stations don't pay foreign artists in return. France, for example, takes the U.S. artists' portion and puts it into French cultural funds.

In the last two decades, recording companies have secured royalties from other formats: Internet radio, satellite radio and music channels on cable TV services. Mitch Bainwol, the chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, says he's prepared for a "multiyear" fight.

The bill has the support of the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and is set for final revisions this month before possibly being sent to the House floor for debate.

Radio stations say the renewed push couldn't have come at a worse time.

The recession has pushed ad revenue at radio stations down by double-digit percentages from a year ago, and thousands of jobs have been lost.

Randy Gravley, the co-owner of five small radio stations in northern Georgia, says he can't afford even the special rate of $5,000 per station per year allowed under the bill for stations with less than $1.25 million in annual revenue.

His 20 employees cover everything from high school basketball and football to the student of the week in the towns of Hiawassee, Jasper and Ellijay. Salespeople set up equipment in the field and some reporters double as live commentators at games.

Gravley says a $25,000 hit would mean one of three reporters would have to be let go or his stations would start to lose money. While more than half of his stations' air time is devoted to music — oldies, classic hits and southern gospel — he says can't afford to pay the performers who recorded the songs, at least not now.

"We're not trying to take away from anybody, but we're trying to stay in business," Gravley said.

More...
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news ... mers_N.htm

[lastone]

Poor Ely. He can't milk any money from a record company's contract he signed forty years ago. Pity. If this is whats pushing this "pay out" then it should be halted at once. This has nothing to do with radio stations.

Now, where's my check for all those commercials I did thirty years ago?

[AmpedNow]

It's coming, as sure as I'm typing here.

Radio should have stood with the webcasters against the RIAA and the DMCA act years ago. Instead, they pretty much applauded the power grab because the silencing of all those streams meant less competition for them at the time.

Even 2-3 years ago, with SoundEXchange coming after the webcasters again, radio sat by and did nothing to help. Radio has been warned for years that this day was eventually coming.

Welcome home, chickens.

With that said, it's not radio's fault that these artists were ripped off by shitty contracts. Also, the RIAA has endorsed this shitty system for years, as long as they were getting paid. The only reason they all at once support it now is so they can take their huge chunk before they pass the pittance on to the starving artists.

Part of this stems from losing the piracy war. They intend to make up the difference through licensing and performance fees everywhere they can stick them.

Radio is the largest target.

[genlock]

Quit playing music that will cost you.
News/Talk/Polka

[Bob Campbell]

And about 50% of the money would go to foreign record companies, not the artists. I don't think it will pass, opposition is building.
Lot more talk if it does.

[Hoosier Daddy]

It's coming, as sure as I'm typing here.

Radio should have stood with the webcasters against the RIAA and the DMCA act years ago. Instead, they pretty much applauded the power grab because the silencing of all those streams meant less competition for them at the time.

Even 2-3 years ago, with SoundEXchange coming after the webcasters again, radio sat by and did nothing to help. Radio has been warned for years that this day was eventually coming.

Welcome home, chickens.

With that said, it's not radio's fault that these artists were ripped off by shitty contracts. Also, the RIAA has endorsed this shitty system for years, as long as they were getting paid. The only reason they all at once support it now is so they can take their huge chunk before they pass the pittance on to the starving artists.

Part of this stems from losing the piracy war. They intend to make up the difference through licensing and performance fees everywhere they can stick them.

Radio is the largest target.

Bravo. Well stated.

[Mike]

Excellent argument. Yep, Radio was very short sighted in not fighting the webcaster royalties, because it made this inevitable.

Radio/webcast broadcasting should be covered under PERFORMANCE (and thus pay the ASCAP/BMI license fees) and not under reproduction. This is just more of a dying industry fighting to make everyone who doesn't buy their obsolete horse and buggies subsidize them, while at the same time producing a product no one wants. Music sales suck right now for a reason: the product sucks. There hasn't been a single innovation in rock or pop in decades, the same played out sounds still are produced over and over by the same cookie cutter methods.