Variety has published a really good summary of the politics and substance of the proposed royalty for artists and labels on terrestrial radio airplay. It says the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to take the issue up this week. (Does this mean they solved health care?) The policy would be the most significant revision of the relationship between radio and record companies perhaps ever, remedying an inequity (songwriters get paid for airplay; artists don't) that goes back to a time when the recording industry couldn't have been more different than it was today.
And there's a more pressing, modern-day inequity that needs to be remedied in that internet radio licensing was approached from the get-go with the assumption that both songwriters and artists would get paid for performances. If the new radio has to pay both parties, then legacy radio should have to as well. The traditional broadcasters, it seems to me, have gotten everything they could ever have wanted over the past century, including billions shaken out of the record business for all that invaluable promotional play and of course, thanks to Bill Clinton, virtually unlimited corporate behemoth-ism since 1996. The new artist royalty, if it passes, would probably only serve to make wealthy artists wealthier since new artists hungry for airplay will likely waive their royalty. But the status quo has made broadcasters far too influential over who gets heard and promoted and made song copyrights more valuable than the music itself.
The "inequity" involves more than just this one very narrow issue. That's all the RIAA wants to focus on. But there are lots of laws that relate to music and radio that are unique to this country, including payola laws. The pity about this fight is it only attempts to change the one item that could benefit labels, without offering ANY give-backs or opportunities for broadcasters to pay for it. That is why it's seen by broadcasters as a land-grab, and why it will probably fail, at least in its current form, in Congress.
The one comment I've read by broadcasters is if this royalty gets approved, it's only fair that payola laws be repealed. As we know, the payola laws only apply to broadcast media, not digital. I'd add that if it's approved, that an independant commission be formed to oversee the setting of royalty rates, because it's obvious that the CRB is very inconsistent in the way it sets rates, and SoundExchange is acting as a monopoly. The commission would act like a Public Utilities Commission in the setting of gas, water, and electric rates.
Posted by: George | August 18, 2009 at 08:37 PM
Interesting George. Thanks. I'd be all for repealing payola laws, as long as pay-for-play transactions are disclosed like lobbying reports (they are public airwaves after all). Then some radio stations could advertise that their playlists are payola free, and young people would run faster and faster to filters (on the dial and on-line) they know are built around musical integrity rather than purchased shelf-space. That would be a very interesting world indeed.
Posted by: stringtheorymedia | August 20, 2009 at 08:38 AM
If the goal is to make US law more like laws in the rest of the world, then there whould be no disclosure. Airplay of music is advertising. No other advertisers are treated this way. Payola isn't illegal in digital media, and doesn't get disclosed. MusicFirst wants fairness, with the same rules applied in all media. When it's all about the money, and that's what this royalty is about, then integrity doesn't matter any more. Everybody gets paid, and the public gets what it gets.
Posted by: George | August 20, 2009 at 09:13 AM