Everybody is in a dither over whether the National Association of Broadcasters and the Recording Industry Association of America are going to cut a deal in which they both agree to the Performance Rights Act, if Congress mandates that all mobiles have to include FM radios.
I can’t see why lawmakers would want to do that (besides to make big content and big broadcasting happy). Besides, lots of handsets already have FM radios, including my neat Droid X.
Here’s a Youtube video describing the innards of the Droid FM app.
From the pages of Essence and the Huffington Post, Radio One’s Kathy Hughes and singer Dionne Warwick take potshots over the Performance Rights Act. African American station owner Hughes is decidedly con on the proposed law, which would require over-the-air radio signals to compensate performers as copyright law has them pay royalties to song copyright owners.
“We keep hearing that these entertainer[s] need to get paid,” declares Hughes. “Oh, so Chris Brown needs another Lamborghini to beat up a girl in? No! The artists who they are talking about like Martha Reeves and the Vandellas aren’t going to get a penny. Nobody is playing Dionne Warrick [sp]. When was the last time she had an album. That’s what’s stupid about this.”
Warwick, who supports the PRA, was quick to return the compliment.
“In defending her refusal to fairly compensate the artists on whose back she earns her living, Ms. Hughes now claims poverty, which is pretty amazing considering Radio One owns 54 radio stations and reaped $316 million last year alone,” the singer wrote on Huffpo. “She even paid her own son, Radio One CEO Alfred Liggins, a $10 million bonus. Far from a struggling company, Radio One sounds more like one of those Wall Street rip off firms where executives pay themselves big bonuses while they rip us off and throw their workers in the street.”
Good grief. When will this end? Every time I try to come up with a position on this issue, I go into an endless feedback loop.
Sure, it’s not fair that online stations like Pandora have to pay the performance tithe and over-the-air stations don’t. But there couldn’t be a worse time for this law. A huge percentage of terrestrial stations are on the financial cliff. Even the Government Accountability Office appears to have found credible broadcaster claims that if the PRA passes, some licenses could close or lay off staff.
And more and more audio entertainment is migrating online anyway. Arbitron’s latest survey of formats finds 96 “adult urban contemporary” Internet stations, a number competitive with FM’s 144. In the case of the “urban contemporary” category the ratio is 81 to 126.
On the other hand, it’s sometimes hard to take broadcaster poverty claims seriously when they’re still getting busted for payola.
One thing is for sure, this strikes me as a real zero sum battle, and not a civil one either. That’s why every time the debate flares up, I want to take the advice of one of Warwick’s hit songs and just “walk on by.”
Responding to a Congressional request for negotiations over the Performance Rights Act, the National Association of Broadcasters says it’s ready to chat, sort of.
“NAB is of course willing to talk with members of Congress on this issue and any issue that could negatively impact the ability of free and local hometown radio stations to serve our listeners,” declared NAB Vice President Dennis Wharton. “We would hope that any discussions would also include some of the nearly 300 members of Congress who oppose the RIAA-backed bill.”
That’s the acronym for the Recording Industry Association of America, of course, which wants Congress to require radio stations to pay royalties to the performers of songs that they broadcast. The NAB, and the rest of broadcasting, are ardently opposed to this proposal. Wharton’s comment roughly translates into: “We’d be happy to talk about what a dog of an idea this is with anybody.” But to be fair, surely the RIAA takes the opposite obstinate stance. (more…)
A Texas radio station manager has told the Federal Communications Commission that even though he’s boycotting musicians who support the Performance Rights Act, he’ll play PRA advocate MusicFIRST’s public service announcements over his station.
George Chambers of KXIT
“I have removed all songs of artists that are part of musicFirst and will not play their songs for now,” KXIT owner George Chambers told the FCC. But: “I have made contact with musicFirst to reverse my decision not to accept ads by musicFirst regarding the PRA and will now accept paid ads on the issue.”
Classic hits station KXIT FM 94.5 describes itself as “the most powerful radio station north of Amarillo operating with 100,000 watts of power.”
If enacted by Congress and signed by the President, the Performance Rights Act would require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to musicians for their songs. As we’ve reported, MusicFIRST, a coalition of musicians groups, the Recording Industry Association of America, and SoundExchange, have petitioned the FCC to investigate the alleged refusal of radio stations to air pro-PRA ads, and allegations that some stations won’t play the music of PRA supporting artists.
It’s unclear how many station owners are engaged in the latter practice. But Chambers has made it clear that he’s one of them. Here’s his letter: (more…)
If you listen to Pandora internet radio, you probably got a message yesterday from the service’s founder Tim Westergren, asking subscribers to support the Performance Rights Act. That’s the proposed law that would require terrestrial radio stations to pay performance royalty fees to the artists whose music they broadcast.
“The system as it stands today is fundamentally unfair both to Internet radio services like Pandora,” Westergren wrote to subscribers, “which pay higher royalties than other forms of radio, and to musical artists, who receive no compensation at all when their music is played on AM/FM radio.”
At present streaming services do have to pay performance royalty fees. This week, Sound Exchange, the non-profit that sets the fee rates, released new terms that most observers say will be less onerous on streamers.
“We, along with the artists whose music we play, strongly support the establishment of a level playing field, a truly fair system,” Westergren’s subscriber letter concludes.
Most commercial broadcasters strongly oppose the PRA, as do college radio stations. At present the bill is reported out of the House Committee on the Judiciary. A parallel law is still in committee in the Senate. Over-the-air broadcasters are pushing a counter resolution in the House that would prohibit imposing performance fees on their stations.
In his excellent post yesterday, Matthew talked about the latest news on the Performance Rights Act. Just as an addendum to that, I wanted to point out some of the specific concerns that college radio stations have over this proposed legislation. An article yesterday on WKOWTV.com, “Radio Stations Threaten to Switch to Talk, Shut Down,” discusses the Wisconsin radio landscape and specifically covers the concerns that one college radio station has expressed. According to the piece:
The folks in the DJ booths don’t have much sympathy. Commercial and college radio stations across Wisconsin say the bill could severely damage their businesses.
“The real problem is the recording industry. They are greedy, rapacious people,” said Dave Black, general manager of WSUM, the UW student radio station.
Black says many college stations in Wisconsin could close if Congress imposes the fees on them. He says WSUM receives enough funding to stay open.
As College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) has argued, not only are the fees of concern to small broadcasters and college radio stations, but the related record keeping requirements could also be more labor-intensive than many student stations can handle. CBI is working to try to stop this bill with a letter writing campaign among other strategies. As a part of that effort, a few weeks back a letter was sent to Congress that was signed by more than 80 student stations who are opposed to the proposed legislation.
It’s sad to think that stations might be so adversely effected by the bill that they’d consider shutting down or going “all talk.” But, it wouldn’t surprise me. A lot of scary things are happening in the non-commercial sector in our current economy. One college’s administration even gave the excuse of fear over potential FCC fines as a one of the reasons for shutting down their FM signal (but I bet the prospect of getting a big influx of cash from possible suitors like public radio and religious groups had the school salivating even more). It’s too bad that not all universities appreciate college radio’s important role in the community and the power of free, terrestrial broadcasts.
The National Association of Broadcasters is happy today because five more members of the House of Representatives have announced their opposition to the Performance Rights Act, which would require over-the-air radio stations to pay musicians for broadcasting their recorded tunes. They’re now signators to the NAB backed Local Radio Freedom Act, a resolution that opposes “any new performance fee, tax, royalty or other charge” on radio stations.
The NAB presently has 237 reps signed onto the counter-bill. The PRA, sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI), got a green light from the House Judiciary Committee early last month. There’s a senate version that’s still sitting in the Judiciary Committee. This week the combat on the blogosphere is over whether PRA supporters are opposed to black radio.
Let’s not go there, but it seems like an appropriate time to go back about 70 years and take a look at the court case that, had it gone otherwise, would have made all the combat we’re seeing today unnecessary. I refer to the great battle between the early big band sheiks and RCA over radio royalty payments for performance artists, eventually resolved—at least at the time—by the great jurist Learned Hand.
Not licensed for radio broadcast
Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians (source: boomtownwebworks.com)
It was a pleasant spring evening in 1935, and big band leader Fred Waring sat at Lindy’s restaurant in New York City holding court with friends and reporters. Despite the Depression, times were good for Waring and his Pennsylvanians, a meticulous 70 member dance ensemble with chorus. The conductor/arranger reported earnings of about $10,000 a week by 1932, a huge sum of money in those grim days. Waring in turn paid his fortunate musicians union scale wages when many bands could barely afford train fare. “Fred Waring, Inc.,” Time magazine called his operation. (more…)
Here’s an interesting skirmish that has already gotten lost in all the growling over the Performance Rights Act. This month the Federal Communications Commission received a Petition for Declaratory Relief (PDR) from the MusicFIRST Coalition. The charges that it levels are pretty serious. MusicFIRST says that broadcast radio stations are pressuring artists to oppose or keep quiet about the bill, which would require stations to pay royalties to artists whose music they air.
“The Commission should investigate the actions described in this petition and declare them contrary to the public interest,” the filing says.
Like a lot of people, I’m deadlocked over the PRA, which pits two groups I love against each other —radio stations and musicians. But possible intimidation and/or suppression of artists should be taken seriously, even if the charges come from a biased source.
“We are dropping his record”
Let’s deal with that last reality from the get go. MusicFIRST is backed by SoundExchange and the Recording Industry Association of America. The accuser in the PDR is Jennifer. L. Bendall, MusicFirst’s executive director and a registered lobbyist for Sound Exchange, Viviendi Universal, Metropolitan Life, and eBay. And the attorney filing with the FCC is none other than Sam Feder, until recently the agency’s general counsel.
