FMQB: Radio Industry News, Music Industry Updates, Arbitron Ratings, Music News and more!

As reported in FMQB: "the musicFIRST Coalition filed a formal request with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking them to investigate and take action against radio stations over reports that some of them are refusing to air music from artists who support the Performance Royalty. "

Specifically, they're targeting WMPH, a high school radio station in Wilmington, DE that mostly plays dance and electronic music. WMPH decided to boycott those artists that were promoting Music First. And this likely didn't affect their playlists at all, as most dance/electronic artists that get airplay on non-commercial radio are not affiliated with the Big 4 labels that are behind MusicFirst.

While I'm not opposed removing terrestrial radio's exemption that allows them to play any publicly-released sound recording without royalties, I also think that royalty should be reasonable. And I also think that stations that make licensing deals with the labels they play- labels that still want the promotional exposure- shouldn't be forced to pay a licensing fee for using recordings they don't use.

John Simpson at SoundExchange has repeatedly encouraged direct licensing in response to the CRB rates, including this quote from 2007: "they always have the outlet of going in direct licensing" (Royalty Week PDF)

So why is MusicFirst (of which SoundExchange is a supporting member and financial backer of) getting so upset when a broadcaster says it won't play material from artists who are proponents of this royalty?

You can't force broadcasters to play your music and then charge them for it.

Perhaps once more broadcasters start following the lead of WMPH, we'll start to hear more innovative music on the airwaves, and not just the same old derivative stuff that the big labels try to foist off on the public all the time.

And then maybe them, the labels will start to acknowledge the promotional value that radio exposure can give.