it's unfair for U.S. radio to be exempted from paying a performance royalty.

[FOZZIE BEAR]

On Tuesday morning, R&B LEGEND Sam Moore (along with Judy Collins) told a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing that it's unfair for U.S. radio to be exempted from paying a performance royalty.


Who the HELL are these TOOL? So, by their thinking... While radio is busy playing artist, making them SUCCESSFUL, they should also have to pay a FEE to these people for playing their music? Of course, the playing of the music is what helps greatly in THEM becoming successful artists.


Dont bother bringing in the clowns...because they are already here.

 

[newschoolrocker]

If you wanna get right down to it, Mr. Moore, then I'd say that artists owe me roughly $48,000 a day.

 

[-juan-]

They are rich and they still want moore money???
I hope he's on crack and not seious.

 

[musicsweep]

We alreadypay royalties... what the heck is ASCAP and BMI? We already pay to play.. and make them rich in doing so.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Sam Moore is the chief reason why "Sam and Dave" broke up in the late 70's. He has a Chuck Berry Mentality, in that everyone owes him,not that the fact he hould be beholden his records got played and made him famous. IF this lunacy prevails and radio must pay ,you have seen the last of music formated radio. BMI alone was set up specifically to address royality issues for recording artists being played on radio and T.V The "B" stands for Broadcast. So this "issue" is a non isssue" The real issue is mergers ,consolidation of labels, station etc have been steadily producing a poor product and a poor means of marketing. "They " (Corps and some artists)refuse to recognize this and want to tap another of source of revenue,rather than fixing it. The assembly line produce a hit ,copy that hit and over saturate that style and hit is dying. Marketing is especially deplorable. If radio and tv were force to play music per selection say good by to any concerts live or recorded .MTV2,FUSE,VH1-Classic and radio music formats. Ita dumb idea that has no legs only stubs.

 

[FOZZIE BEAR]

I had to send an email to these tools. I know my email was a waste of time. However, I had to at least attempt to let my voice be heard.



Sent to: [email protected]

I read the article regarding Sam Moore's and Judy Collin's testimony the other day. I am trying to understand why radio should have to pay artist for playing their music? I work in radio, we pay fees to BMI, ASCAP etc... These are the people/organizations that you should be getting your money from. Radio should not be DOUBLE TAXED for playing the music. What's going to happen is...you are going to rub radio the wrong way and they will in turn stop playing these artist that are complaining that they make no money. It has also been mentioned that this is for "up and coming artist", so that they can get paid while they are working their way up from nothing to successful artists. What's going to happen there is that RADIO is going to NOT give those "UP AND COMING ARTISTS" any air time. Radio is the vehicle that gives these people the chance at becoming STARS or whatever you want to call them. So, why should WE (RADIO) be TAXED AGAIN? That makes NO SENSE what so ever. What ever happened to working your ass off to become successful?

Take a band like METALLICA... they didn't get any radio time for the first 6 or 7 years of their career and now they are one of the biggest rock bands in the history of music. Now, they did eventually get massive air time but that wasn't until they made a commercial album. When they made the BLACK ALBUM they were a huge band from a FAN stand point and from a financial one as well, because they worked their butt's off touring and touring. However, when the BLACK ALBUM was released it was an album that entertained more than just metal heads. So, they were being played all over the freaking radio. Which made METALLICA a house hold name and made them MILLIONAIRES! So, once again... this argument that RADIO should have to pay MORE money to artists is absolutely insane to me and I imagine EVERYONE ELSE in radio.

Think of all of this...this way. When people speak of GUN CONTROL the first thing they SCREAM about is that WE NEED NEW LAWS regarding GUN CONTROL! No we don't. What we need are people who will INFORCE the LAWS we have. Not new ones. This is the same thing with this situation. BMI, ASCAP etc... are the ones that YOU should be asking for more money. Heres an idea... how about actually GETTING the money that they take from radio. You can speak with ANY ARTIST and they simply LAUGH when asked about BMI, ASCAP etc... BMI, ASCAP etc... are the ones you need to be threatening with more FEES!

Of course, BMI, ASCAP will probably bend over and pass along the TAX etc... to radio. So, really when it comes down to it... we (RADIO) are the ones who will get screwed if this moronic plan some how gets approved by law makers.

Also, when it comes to promoting these artist's... I can tell you it takes an act of god to get any kind of PRODUCT to use to promote artists. We try to do as much as possible for artist's. I would love to give out music from ALL the artists that are playing on our station. However, thats just not the case. So, now you want to TAX me on these SAME ARTIST'S? Ummmmmmmmmmm....ok.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Shepea]

Well said. Amen.

 

[thebroker]

On the Music FIRST Coalition website, you can find a list of the artists who are participating in this lunacy.

http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/#/about/founding-artists/

If we don't do something to combat this, though, it might just get slipped through. They are on Capitol Hill complaining and whining about the "big radio industry", while we are silent. Most of us who are small market broadcasters work a heck of a lot harder for a heck of a lot less money than most of these artists do, and we need to let the world hear our side of the story. Since the NAB doesn't seem to be taking a strong stance on this issue (they are much too preoccupied with winning a spitting contest with satellite radio), then we should do it ourselves. As broadcasters, we are going to have to grab the proverbial bull by the horns and address this. The solution is that we just need delete the participating artists from our playlists, then let them know we've done so. So far, I haven't heard any of these people say "radio should either pay another fee to us, or stop playing our music". These people need radio, and I have a feeling that most of them know it. However, it may be necessary to remind them by telling them that, diplomatically, that if they want to extort more money from broadcasters like us, we'll simply stop playing their music.

While there are some bigger names on the list of artists who are participating, there are quite a few obscure ones, too. Let's face it, the average person in the United States isn't going to go out looking for a Martha Reeves album unless said average person hears one of her cuts on the radio and remembers her.

The very last thing radio needs is ANOTHER fee. We already pay a fortune to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. The trough can only accomodate a certain number of hogs before we run out of slop, proverbially speaking, and we need to make sure we don't let another hog in the sty.

 

[captex]

maybe this is a wake-up call for pd's to program the music better and have the best dj's on the radio, for too long radio has been a waste of time to listen to. the owner probably don't care about the music, because owned alot of stations are some that are around the bottom ten. where there should be tied with other stations in the top ten and few radio owners owning too many stations. where i don't support the record companies money grabbed on radio stations, internet radio and internet video sharing sites.

 

[JIBGUY]

Took a look at the artists who support 'Music First'. Are they morons? Do they actually think that they'll get any significant royalties after the record companies collect $$$? Historically, the record companies have screwed the artists. If the artists want more money, then they should get it from the record/CD sales, not from terrestrial radio. Do they really think that AM adult standards stations hould pay royalties? Artists played on those stations should be happy that someone is still playing their music. Are the record companies afraid that the elderly are going to download music from an AM signal? - This is just a case of typical American Corporate greed; one industry group thrying to legally take money from another industry group.

To support the foremost group against Music First, go to www.freeradioalliance.org

 

[actioncentral]

I believe there's in-fighting within the ranks of the pro-performance royalty people. It's my understanding
the royalty would be split between the artist and the holder of the copyright of the recording (whoever is
listed after the (P) copyright notice.) BUT, I believe session musicians and singers and arrangers also want
a piece of the pie.
action central

 

[4dude]

This is getting way outta hand.

PRETTY SOON WE WONT BE ABLE TO TURN ON AN AM/FM RADIO!!

 

[captex]

i do believe they will be ruining the broadcast business and the internet , making some of the broadcast owners to change to all talk or sports or something that is not music. it's time for common sense to happen to the music industry before they destroy themselves.

 

[genius]

On
While there are some bigger names on the list of artists who are participating, there are quite a few obscure ones, too. Let's face it, the average person in the United States isn't going to go out looking for a Martha Reeves album unless said average person hears one of her cuts on the radio and remembers her.

Ah but that may be the source of their (greedy) motivation to sign up. Yes while there are big name stars the majority have not a hit in years. Some how I don't think the Dixie Chicks are going to benefit from radio royalties.

 

[TheRover]

There was a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Radio Performance Royalty and Platform Parity for Webcaster Royalties on August 4, 2009, before the Senate went on Vacation.

It's a Global Music Economy Now . . .

Supporters of the royalty constantly made the argument that broadcasters were using their "property" without compensation, or agreement.

Supporters of the royalty argued that most industrialized nations had the royalty, and that US artists were not getting their share of royalties when US music was played in overseas markets. Performing rights organizations in those countries do not pay US artists for the performance of their works since the US will not pay foreign artists for the performance of their works on over-the-air radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Supporters of the royalty argued that most industrialized nations had the royalty, and that US artists were not getting their share of royalties when US music was played in overseas markets. Performing rights organizations in those countries do not pay US artists for the performance of their works since the US will not pay foreign artists for the performance of their works on over-the-air radio.

The problem is that radio does not pay the artists even inplaces where there is a performance royalty. Radio pays an association representing the record labels. Very little, if any, of the royalty payments get to the artists, anywhere.

 

[TheBigA]

The US government isn't doing what it should to protect US copyright and collect proper royalties in foreign countries, and even in the US.

But that is not a radio problem. That is a US gov't problem, and should be addressed that way.

There are lots of laws regarding the relationship between radio and records that are unique to the US. The recording industry only wants to change one of those laws...the one that benefits itself financially. This is not a matter of fairness. If it was, the recording industry would be seeking to change ALL US laws regarding radio & records, not just the one that benefits the recording industry. This is a land grab, pure and simple. It should be obvious to everyone.

American and foreign artists are getting performance royalties in the US from digital media. Is there international compensation for US artists who get played on digital media?

Most industrialized nations have a prime minister. Should the US now have a prime minister? Why should the US change its laws and its way of life to those of foreign countries? But if you believe we should, then why just change this one law, and not others?

 

[davideduardo]

The US government isn't doing what it should to protect US copyright and collect proper royalties in foreign countries, and even in the US.

US copyright is not enforced anywhere except in the US. For something to be copyright in another country, it has to be registered in that country (directly or via a treaty of reciprocity) and enforced in that country.

But that is not a radio problem. That is a US gov't problem, and should be addressed that way.

The US Government can not enforce US laws outside the US and its territories.

American and foreign artists are getting performance royalties in the US from digital media. Is there international compensation for US artists who get played on digital media?

Each country has its own regulations, but in general artists are not getting performance royalties... the labels are.

 

[TheBigA]

Each country has its own regulations, but in general artists are not getting performance royalties... the labels are.

So assuming the MusicFirst claim is correct, how would US artists get its share of foreign royalties if the US had a performance royalty?

 

[radioray]

"So assuming the MusicFirst claim is correct, how would US artists get its share of foreign royalties if the US had a performance royalty?"

They already get them from abroad, they now want radio stations to pay them in the USA which till now has not been done. German, French, Brazillian etc radio stations have been paying the labels (so called neighboring rights or performance rights) for years.