It's still Payola
In the past, the radio industry was plagued by payola scandals: Stations took money from record companies in exchange for airplay. Now, a group representing recording artists is seeking to turn the pay-for-play strategy on its head: It wants radio stations to pay artists and their record labels when the stations play their music.What they don't mention is that record labels who want to promote artists will be able to waive these royalty fees if stations agree to feature their artists and releases. Suddenly, we have a legal form of Payola available again.
While I agree that it's only fair for broadcasters to pay reasonable royalties for the sound recording of the music they use, I don't think that exemptions should be allowed on a track by track basis.
With BMI, ASCAP and SESAC (who license the underlying composition of the song) you can't "opt out" of paying the royalty; you have to pay it no matter what. It should be the exact same way with the sound recording royalty.
Labels: copyright, legislation, musicfirst, payola, royaties, terestrial radio
posted by Rusty Hodge at
Sunday, December 02, 2007
4 Comments:
If my Internet radio station allows a "direct license" from an independent artist, is that considered to be equivalent to payola?
Legally, the concept of Payola does not exist for internet stations; it only applies to FCC-licensed stations (which have much different rules for their operation).
Recently, John Simson of SoundExchange stated that he believed the capacity to make direct deals would be a boon to new artists because they could go to broadcasters and say "play my music for free for 90 days."
Yep. That's exactly what happened when the major labels stopped giving MTV all those free videos. MTV immediately started playing all those still-free indie videos, right?
Of course, Simson is the guy who said he thought artists would be better served if there were fewer Internet stations, so this latest incident of mindlessness shouldn't come as a surprise.
Pay-for-play is pay-for-play, however you look at it.
How far is Simson's dream from ClearChannel saying "we'll only play your music if you give it to us for free?"
And how far is that scenario from some major saying "we'll give you the new [insert hot band name] single for free if you give us 50 plays each on these other bands?"
The really sad thing is that all of these gimmicks, including Simson's own, won't put a penny in the artist's pocket from this new royalty, even though Simson swears that's why they're doing this.
I love the idea of a performance royalty because I think the artists have earned one. If they've earned it, they should get it and not let it be diverted. If there is going to be one enacted, there should be no exceptions, no exclusions, no gimmicks (and please, no SoundExchange).
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home