I read the headline in today's R-I news from Jeff Smulyan's speech about song tagging on OTA radio, and I believe this could be a compromise for performance royalties.
First of all, the concept of giving artists, musicians, background vocalists, and labels a percentage (as much as 15%) of revenues is highway robbery. Especially when songwriters only get 1%. But it also devalues the radio station, and means radio stations are actually working for the labels. Bad idea.
Allowing listeners the ability to tag and buy songs from the air is a logical way for labels and artists to share in radio revenues without an actual exchange of money. Thus, no potential for payola. Which is why the labels won't like it. Now their music has to be good enough for people to buy, and we already know the answer there.
But it also puts pressure on copyright holders to make their music available at retail. The labels argue that a lot of music that is played on the radio isn't commercially available. Who's fault is that? Mainly retail, but also the labels. Someone owns the copyright on every song. The problem is that not every copyright holder has their full catalog in print. That's leaving money on the table. If a song is getting airplay, there is potential for a listener to buy it, regardless of age.
The other issue here is paying musicians and background vocalists. The labels don't want to do this. They want the money to come from radio. Bad idea. No other country forces radio to pay musicians and background vocalists. That money should come from labels.
Will this tagging money equal the 15% royalty the labels want? Of course not. My point is that music doesn't warrant a 15% royalty in the first place. But this is a way to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and answer the demand from labels that they get money for airplay.
First of all, the concept of giving artists, musicians, background vocalists, and labels a percentage (as much as 15%) of revenues is highway robbery. Especially when songwriters only get 1%. But it also devalues the radio station, and means radio stations are actually working for the labels. Bad idea.
Allowing listeners the ability to tag and buy songs from the air is a logical way for labels and artists to share in radio revenues without an actual exchange of money. Thus, no potential for payola. Which is why the labels won't like it. Now their music has to be good enough for people to buy, and we already know the answer there.
But it also puts pressure on copyright holders to make their music available at retail. The labels argue that a lot of music that is played on the radio isn't commercially available. Who's fault is that? Mainly retail, but also the labels. Someone owns the copyright on every song. The problem is that not every copyright holder has their full catalog in print. That's leaving money on the table. If a song is getting airplay, there is potential for a listener to buy it, regardless of age.
The other issue here is paying musicians and background vocalists. The labels don't want to do this. They want the money to come from radio. Bad idea. No other country forces radio to pay musicians and background vocalists. That money should come from labels.
Will this tagging money equal the 15% royalty the labels want? Of course not. My point is that music doesn't warrant a 15% royalty in the first place. But this is a way to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and answer the demand from labels that they get money for airplay.