Printable View
Any thoughts on John Conyers' HR 848 bill which proposes record labels and performers receive a share of ad revenue that radio stations collect from playing their songs. Cathy Hughes [[Radio One) has aired a segment in protest of the bill, and suggests Radio One listeners contact Conyers' office to express opposition of the bill. There are valid points from both sides.
I've been hearing about this and have not had an opportunity to examine the bill closely. But I'm confused. Record labels and performers have historically complained when their music wasn't played. They have begged stations to play their music, complained bitterly when they felt they were being snubbed and even illegally paid them to play their music. Why would the stations now have to pay them to give their music publicity and air time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
Here's an article in favor of the bill [[Eurweb)...
Jack Ely, the singer whose 1963 version of "Louie Louie" still makes the rounds on oldies radio, lives with his wife in a mobile home on a horse ranch in Oregon. Ely says they share $30,000 a year from her teacher's pension and his Social Security checks. They are paying down a mortgage. So sometimes it bothers Ely, 65, when he hears his voice singing "Louie Louie" on the radio or in sports arenas, knowing he's not getting paid. "It gets played twice a day by every oldies radio station everywhere in the world. And I get nothing," said Ely, who recorded the song with The Kingsmen before getting drafted by the Army and leaving the band. "I got one check for $5,000. That's all I ever saw from the sale of 'Louie Louie.'"
Since the advent of radio in the 1920s, songwriters have made a little money every time their tunes are played on stations in most industrialized countries. The six children of "Louie Louie" songwriter Richard Berry today share more than $100,000 in royalties every year. But performers like Ely don't get a dime.
A bill moving through Congress aims to change that. It would let performers and the recording labels get a share of the ad revenue that radio stations collect from playing their songs. This pool of royalties could be hundreds of millions a year - which would be crucial for the record industry, as compact disc sales plummet and digital song sales aren't making up the difference. It could also unlock an estimated $70 million to $100 million per year that is collected by radio stations abroad for U.S. artists, but never paid out because U.S. stations don't pay foreign artists in return. France, for example, takes the U.S. artists' portion and puts it into French cultural funds. There have been more than half a dozen attempts since the 1970s to enact a performers' royalty on Capitol Hill. All have faltered to a powerful radio station lobby headed by the National Association of Broadcasters. The association says performers and record labels are already compensated - they sell songs and concert tickets because of the radio airplay they get. The NAB says the long history of record labels paying disc jockeys for extra rotations helps prove the point..."
that's cool. I was hoping Radio would find some reason to play even more commercials. Now they are going to have to bump up the number of commercial breaks so they can afford the additional money to pay all these royalties. That's wicked awesome...
Has Martha Reeves offered her opinion on this subject?
I suspect this is the main reason for the bill; record companies still desperately trying to make a few extra bucks while they're still at least partially relevant. No doubt they'll find a million creative ways to avoid paying any of the additional revenue out to the actual artists, just like they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikki Pooh
I'm conflicted. I guess I can see both points of view. The songwriter, who holds one type of copyright, gets royalties. The record label and performer, who hold a "performance" copyright, get royalties from other sources [[satellite radio, internet, etc.) but not from AM/FM radio stations.They don't want the radios stations to be exempt anymore.
I don't see the direct link they are trying to draw between advertising dollars radio stations get and the music they play. The ads are there because of the listening audience, not the songs themselves.The songs are there to attract the listening audience.
Already my head is hurting.:[[
I don't see why anyone other than the songwriter should make money off the performance of a song over the airwaves unless it is being used directly in an attempt to generate money - in other words, the song is a part of the ad.
Are ice cream trucks going to have to start paying royalties next?
I heard on the radio that City Council voted on whether or not to draft something to send to Conyers regarding this. Martha Reeves voted "No" because she is in support of the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by LodgeDodger
She supports it. They tried to pass some sort motion yesterday but it went down due to a 4-4 tie vote since Monica didn't bother to show up for work.Quote:
Originally Posted by LodgeDodger
A little late to the game congress... Radio is dead.
Well, the bill has passed the House Judiciary Committee. Stations making less than 1.25 million will pay on a sliding scale of $500 to $5000 dollars. Stations making over 1.25 million will negotiate fees with the performers. That has all the makings of a nightmare. Separate negotiations with the performers [[background singers included) for every record you want to play.
Now stations should be allowed to charge a fee for the advertising they give to artists by playing their new releases. No playing of new releases unless you pay the advertising fee. But that's called "payola".
the heavily corporate-owned radio stations can pay the money, no problem.. it's ironic that cathy hughes owns Radio One, dozens of stations, but portrays the network as a struggling 'black owned' outfit..
the modern Payola scams need to be out the door..
Local artists deserve bigger attention on local radio outlets, and they're not getting it..
veteran recording artists rarely get airplay when they put out new albums.. especially in soul/hip-hop..
when run dmc got in the rock n roll hall of fame, there was barely any mention.. when prominent artists die like luther vandross, ray charles, barry white, etc., there's a fleeting 'tribute' song-- played maybe once-- and that's it.. not even an hour-long block tribute to the artist..
Well now artists have no legitimate reason to complain when they don't get airplay. Stations can simply say they have to be even more discriminating about what they play since they have to pay for it. Little known and local artists might have an even harder time unless they are willing to negotiate "no fee" for having their music played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
When Ray Charles, Luther Vandross and Barry White died, I remember lengthy tributes on stations that play that kind of music.
Martha stated at the council meeting on Tuesday that she approves of this bill as she wants to get paid. Kenyatta was looking for support to get this bill turned down.Quote:
Originally Posted by LodgeDodger
Anyone here wonder why John Conyers is so interested in this bill?
I think he honestly felt he was doing some of the "old-timers" in the music business a favor and righting some "wrongs". Many of the older artists did not negotiate good deals and got "cheated" out of royalties. I think this is a way to correct that, in his eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RayStar
Locke09 ok I can agree to that but the radio stations are not the ones to go after for their money. I think the record companies stiffed the artists.
Gone is the day where radio actually played good music, let alone new, and God forbid, local music...
Now we get to hear the likes of syndicated neo-con mouth pieces, on the AM, and whoever corporate radio deems is the "top 40 artists" on the FM.
Me suspects we're in for more of Britney, and her ilk, since that is what corporate media deems we should hear.
Oh well, folks like Bats will be happy that the free market decided what we should listen to, screw the struggling musitians...
When Luther died, I knew it before they said a word because 3 in a row by Luther had played.
If music radio wasn't pretty much dead already this would kill it dead, dead, dead.
If the guy who sang Louie Louie or Martha think they'll get the money, they better own the publishing rights. My bet is that he'll still be in his trailer, just bitching now that either they don't play his song any longer or that some idiot in an office is collecting a bigger check for five minutes of his time half a century ago. Yes, artists & everybody should get paid, but isn't this already covered by ascap & bmi?
I'm gonna need a bigger ipod.
Only songwriters get money from ASCAP and BMI, which collects royalties for them from the U.S. AM and FM stations. The performers get nothing.
In Europe, both the songwriters and performers get royalties from radio.
This is insanity..
Do ya 'spose Mr. Conyers would be interested in going to bat for me? Thirty years ago, I was busting my hump in my first part-time job, making the measly five bucks an hour I'd contracted with my employer for..do ya think maybe John would renegotiate that contract and get me some retroactive back pay?
It doesn't make any less sense than all the other retroactive government renegotiation of contracts made in good faith between private citizens these days..
:rolleyes:
The joke here is that the record companies loved this system when it was to their advantage. They ripped off artists ridiculously by, amongst other things, often screwing them out of their writing credits. In the old days musicians were paid for playing the recording session and that was all they got. The record companies payed the radio stations to pay their songs in order to hype record sales, and then often got payments from them on the other side for bogus writers' royalties.
But now the recording companies are desperate for any revenue stream, so they're using the same artists they happily ripped off before as a sympathetic public smokescreen in order to try to extract some money, any money, from somebody. Of course, the joke's really on them, since radio itself is dying a slow death and something like this will only hasten its demise, and will certainly lessen the amount of music played on it.
RIP Terrestrial radio
duke fakir of the four tops has his say---
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...ers-Duke-Fakir
Good information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
Of course, they'll pass this on to the advertisers and the advertisers will pass it on to consumers, even those like me who rarely listen to music on radio nowadays.
I'm all for the artists who performed the music, that we had the benefit of, receiving their well-deserved compensation. It's always been a shortcoming of the music biz that the royalties only went to the writer and publisher of a song but none for the artist who made the song's significance a reality. For the black radio stations to claim some form of racial targeting reveals their compliance in short changing those black artists whose work goes unrewarded and try to avoid paying the benefits they reaped. Shame on them!.