Performance Fee, Taxing Thought to Radio Industry
|
|
"I know, I know."
Aficianados of film know those words as Joe Pesci's classic response to almost anything Danny Glover and Mel Gibson say in the Lethal Weapon movies. I know this because I've seen Lethal Weapon 2, at least 5 times. (I don't get out much.)
The image of Pesci holding up his hand and saying "I know, I know" with a large dose of "I'm not going to listen to what you say" attitude thrown in reflects the radio industry's response to the oncoming Performance Royalty fee working its way through the House and Senate.
Headlines are in each radio industry trade publication saying that the Senate Subcommittee has passed the Performance Rights Act on to the full Senate. Most are accompanied by additional headlines like these at Radio Ink, "Poll: Most Americans Oppose Performance Royalty For Radio."
You have to ask those who publish radio industry trades why they feel a need to reinforce the negatives of the issue with an industry-contrived rebuttal claiming Americans don't want this performance rate. (As if an NAB-commissioned survey will be quoted with anything less than what the NAB wants quoted.)
I especially love this line: "85 percent of those polled agreed with a statement that read, 'Songs played on the radio help drive music sales, generating record sales annually for performers.'" My guess is that you'd get a similar percentage of agreement if you polled the same group asking, "If people listen to radio because of the music it plays, should the artists who make that music be paid by the radio stations?"
I know, I know. Radio has the backing of the people because radio industry trade magazines continually remind us there are 256 House members and 26 Senators who have signed a non-binding resolution. All this means is that you can call this a Performance Royalty Fee, Performance Tax, Performance Pay, or many different things but it's not going to be called dead. Delayed, yes. "It won't make it for a vote this year" are the strongest words you can use.
This is a war of words, which the radio industry will lose in every battle with the labels. It's not about consumer desire, though that's what the radio industry seems to be banking its future on.
As Tim Westergren, Pandora's CEO, announced a few days ago in his email to Pandora users: "The radio royalty system as it stands today is fundamentally unfair both to Internet radio services like Pandora, which pay far higher royalties than other forms of radio and to performing musicians, who receive no compensation when their music is played on AM/FM radio."
The Performance Royalty debate has been turned into a parity issue. Labels now say it's parity, and they are joined by the parties who have already committed to pay, plus a long list of popular musicians.
Meanwhile, radio industry execs are saying that radio should be the only industry recognized as delivering a promotional benefit to musicians.
I know, I know. It sounds like an illogical argument to me, too, but NAB claims that the public backs its position. The evidence is in this Friday Morning Quarterback article, "NAB: 75% Of Americans Oppose Performance Royalty."
If it's reported by NAB, it has to be true. True?
|
|
|
About
Contact
Indie Artists
Radio Stations
Audience Data
Privacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
