The Performance Royalty Debate

I'm going to miss this as we'll be setting up for the Bay Area Takeover day party at SXSW, but if you care about the state of radio royalties, go check out this panel.

south by southwest festivals + conferences: "The Performance Royalty Debate
Room 12AB
Thursday, March 13th
11:45 am - 1:00 pm


The United States is the only territory in which terrestrial radio is exempt from paying performance royalties to performers. A coalition of groups is seeking to reverse this anomaly and bring US policy in line with the rest of the world. This legislation faces strong opposition from the broadcast lobby. What are the issues at stake, and what are the chances that Congress will make it law?"

It's still Payola

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

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.

The Promotional Value argument

There is a valid argument that todays corporate radio operations (e.g. CBS, Clear Channel) is not providing adequate promotional benefit to record companies to justify their exemption from a performance right royalty (much like internet radio already pays).

But the argument that there is no promotional value for radio is a weak one, and an argument that I wish MusicFirst (the association backed by SoundExchange, RIAA and many independent record labels) would stop using.

In the testimony from Alice Peacock (a singer/songwriter) she said something that bothers me because of the context she uses it in:

Frankly, the promotion argument sounds a little silly. Last week I bought a pair of Nike shoes. I wear them everywhere—well, except to Senate hearings. With the Nike logo on my feet, I am probably promoting their brand wherever I go. Can you imagine if I decided not to pay for the shoes on the grounds that my promoting Nike should excuse me from payment? My refusal to pay would be called "shoplifting." But radio's refusal to pay artists is called "business as usual."

Wearing shoes with a logo around town may not be significant promotional value; but once she brings those logos on stage in front of a large audience, it's a different matter!

You don't think the popular performing artists wearing clothes with the big designer labels are buying all that stuff themselves? No, the designers give them to them to get the promotional publicity for seeing their brand worn by a star.

It's also common for performing musicians to get lots of gear and other goodies in exchange for promotional consideration. Guitars, drums, cymbals, keyboards are commonly given to popular musicians to use, so that aspiring musicians will see them and want to buy that brand as well. Why do you think so many drummers have their drum brand in huge letters on their drums? And it's been going on that way for decades.

Radio has a tremendous amount of promotional value. However, the way many stations do things in this new media-consolidated world detract a lot of value from that promotion. How often do you hear a radio DJ play a new song, and mention the album name or the label it's on?

The other argument against promotional value (the one that no one seems to like to talk about) is that while radio can promote songs, that promotion doesn't always turn into a purchase. This is something that radio needs to help fix: right now, many people hear something on the radio and then go out and download a free copy of it. Promotional value only has value if it brings in money.

What I've done at SomaFM is made sure that we have links to where people can buy CDs and legal downloads when they hear something on our station. It's not a perfect solution yet because we play a lot of stuff that's not available for legal download; or it's out of print or otherwise hard to obtain a copy of.

Another problem that is really a record industry problem and not a radio problem is the fact that there are so many "for promotion only" CDs ending up on Amazon, Half.com and brick and mortar stores like Amoeba Records. If you go to buy a CD and can get a used FPO copy for half the price, you'll buy it - who cares if there is a hole punched in the UPC. This is a case when the value of radio promotion goes to the wrong person - the used CD store and not the sound recording rights holder.

Labels: you need to do some work on this as well. Meet broadcasters halfway. Make sure that when people go to obtain your recordings that they can do it legally and quickly. And broadcasters should be telling people how to buy the music they're playing as well. Then everyone benefits.

musicFIRST makes some proposals for over-the-air royalties

Radio Ink: According to the document obtained by Radio Ink, the coalition is proposing changes to the law that would do away with broadcasters' royalties exemption and have small commercial stations -- "small" is not defined -- pay a flat royalty rate of $5,000 per year, while noncoms and college stations pay $1,000 a year.

Inside Radio has an op/ed piece by John Simson that has a lot of the usual rhetoric we hear from SoundExchange, but this part was very interesting:

Most over-the-air radio is owned by big conglomerates that centralize playlists. They build multi-billion dollar businesses around artists’ music. People who create that music should receive a fair portion of those revenues.

We want to be fair to smaller radio stations, too. For some this payment may be the difference between being profitable and having to struggle. This is why we are in favor of accommodations for smaller radio stations, college stations, talk radio and religious broadcasters. Small radio stations may not be able to pay like the big conglomerates, and we want to accommodate them. We hear them. We hope they hear us.

I'm happy to see SoundExchange is realizing that the diversity of independent radio is valuable. While Simson doesn't say that directly, by making a jab at large conglomerates with centralized playlists he's giving a nod to the independent programmers and station operators out there who are exposing listeners to new and interesting music, not just playing the same old proven hits that everyone knows already.

John goes on to say:

Sometimes Washington, D.C. rhetoric trumps the truth; the musicFIRST Coalition isn’t trying to put radio out of business like the NAB would have you believe. We want us all to march to the same drumbeat, one that won’t be easy to achieve, but that we hope is going to be fair.

One thing John doesn't mention is the international reciprocal rights that this would give US sound recording copyright holders. Currently, US rightsholders don't receive any money for airplay in non-US countries (that do charge broadcasters a royalty for sound recording performances). So while non-US stations are paying these royalties, even if they only play US recordings, all their royalty money goes to the pool of non-US rightsholders.

Once the US establishes a performance right, those collected overseas royalties will be distributed to the appropriate US-based rightsholders.

That's really the big issue here, and I'm convinced that it makes sense.

As long as those performance royalties are reasonable, of course!

Notes from the Platform Equality hearing

Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, held a hearing on "Platform Equality", which would end the decades long royalty exemption for terrestrial broadcasts.

Howard Coble (R-NC), Steve Cohen, (D-TN), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) were among those voicing support for the proposal to end the terrestrial broadcast sound recording performance royalty exemption.

The three main arguments for this according to Berman:

The exemption was never justified under copyright law

Calbe, Satellite and Internet have to pay these royalties. There should be no discrimination based on platform.

US us the only major country that doesn't have a sound recording performance right.

Terrestrial broadcasters currently only pay royalties to the composers of the music; the "musical work". They do not pay for the use of the sound recording. In 2005, broadcasters paid $450 million in muscical work performance royalties.

Issa stated that congress is preparing to reorganize section 114 of the copyright act. (This is the sections that covers royalties for internet, satellite and cable services and provides exemptions for some other uses, such as use of music in business environments.)

Issa spoke a lot about HD radio, and the threat it makes to sale of CDs. He is under the impression that the 64kb or lower compressed digital audio sounds as good as CD. HD does not stand for High Definition. It stands for "Hybrid Digital". Unlike HDTV, which improved the signal quality delivered to consumers, HD radio is not a marked improvement. Signal to noise ratios are improved, but there are audible compression artifacts in the audio.

Issa also talked about a flood of HD radio recording devices that automatically split tracks coming out soon. (I think he's extremely wrong on this, there is so little uptake on HD hardware, there are only 2 or 3 HD radios on the market right now, and they're selling very poorly. I've heard a statistic several times that say an American is more likely to be run over by a bus than they are to listen to HD radio in the last year.)

Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis, TN,

San Jose, CA representative Zoe Lofgren was the only rep to speak out on the importance of small, independent internet (and non-internet) braodcasters. While she's not necessarily opposing the rate, she wants a rate that won't hurt small and non-commercial broadcasters.

(more later)

Music First: Radio does not sell records

According to a study by Stan Liebowitz for the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation linked (but apparently now removed) from the Music First coalition website's FAQ states:

Radio does not have the positive impact on record sales normally attributed to it. Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a compliment.

A more detailed abstract of the study:

This paper undertakes an econometric investigation of the impact of radio play on sales of sound recordings using a sample of American cities. The results indicate that radio play appears to have an economically important negative economic impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a complement. This research exposes an important fallacy of composition in applying to the entire market a conclusion based upon the positive relationship between radio broadcasts of particular sound recordings and the sales of those particular sound recordings. This finding imposes a more complete view of the implications of economic suggestions to allow the radio/record market to function unhindered by government regulations.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to read the full study before they took it down. (Maybe they took it down because they didn't have the proper copyright clearances to publish it on their site, oh the irony.) But radio Consultant Mark Ramsey, who did read the whole thing, makes this comment:

Even if we accept the conclusion that some radio listeners don't buy music and further accept that radio satisfies whatever need they have, the author of the study doesn't acknowledge the tangible difference between the stealing of music via P2P and the fact that radio stations do indeed already pay considerable license fees to play the music industry's content on the public airwaves. This notion that radio is getting something for nothing is downright offensive.

After a bit of searching, I tracked down an online preliminary version of this report (PDF) if you want to read it yourself.

Stan Liebowitz has flip-flopped about similar issues in the past, writing a paper for the CATO institute that said MP3s were killing music, then saying in 2002 the decline in music sales was in sync with the overall decline in the economy, but then in 2003 blaming MP3s for declining music sales again, based on data supplied by the RIAA.

I guess I'm just curious about how the record industry thinks people find out about new music, if it's not over the radio, or from file sharing, or what. How many people are going to want to buy something they haven't heard about?

Non-comm WMPH Boycotts Music First Coalition Artists

The Music First Coalition is a lobbying organization created by SoundExchange and the RIAA to get get copyright law changed so that over-the-air broadcasters will have to pay additional royalties for broadcasting music much like internet and satellite radio service do.

This boycott sure didn't take long to happen:

The National Association of Broadcasters is fighting efforts by musicFirst, a new coalition of recording artists, including Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, and Natasha Bedingfield, demanding performance royalties from radio stations. "Congress has long recognized that radio airplay of music generates millions of dollars in revenue for record labels and artists," said Dennis Wharton, NAB spokesman. "Were it not for radio's free promotional airplay of music on stations all over America, most successful recording artists would still be playing in a garage."

WMPH and many other stations across the country are saying NO to this insatiable greed. The musicFirst coalition of artists is attempting to hurt the radio stations, disc jockeys, and fans that have always been their greatest ally. Radio has done so much to promote their careers by playing their music frequently, interviewing them, and mentioning their concerts and events on the air. Artists make their money by record sales and performing at concerts. Without radio's free publicity for over 60 years, most artists would likely be neither rich nor famous.

I wonder how long it will be before Clear Channel and CBS do the same?