Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on air?


southsuburbs

What I Live By...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0826-radioaug26,0,310502.story

Now, a bill is making its way through Congress that would require stations to pay royalties to artists when their songs are played on the air.

While the Performance Rights Act, now in a congressional committee, would affect all artists as well as large radio companies, the legislation has caused hostilities within the African-American community, pitting black-oriented radio stations and their popular DJs against black politicians and artists who support the bill.

Radio personalities such as Tom Joyner, whose "Tom Joyner Morning Show" is owned by Radio One Inc., a black-owned conglomerate, oppose the bill, generating support from their vast listening audiences. Radio-backed campaigns targeting those who support the bill -- from members of Congress to outspoken entertainers such as Dionne Warwick -- have hit the airwaves in several cities.

There is also a division within the civil rights community. The NAACP recently passed a resolution supporting the bill, while activists Al Sharpton, whose radio show is syndicated by Radio One, and Jesse Jackson, whose show is syndicated by a subsidiary of Clear Channel Corp., oppose it.

"Any time you get into a debate about money, everybody pulls out the stops," said Earl Jones, president and market manager for Clear Channel Radio Chicago, which owns stations across the country, including six in Chicago, such as WGCI-FM 107.5, WVAZ-FM 102.7 (V-103), WGRB-AM 1390 and WNUA-FM 95.5.

"I won't go there, because I have a respect for both sides," Jones said. "Those people who go there don't have a definitive answer for why they are supporting their side." Jones said he opposes the bill largely because half the royalties would go to the record labels under the bill.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), and other supporters contend that it would help to right the wrongs of the past, particularly for African-American artists, many of whom were financially exploited by record companies early in their careers and are struggling financially in retirement.

Critics such as Cathy Hughes, founder of Radio One, which owns and/or operates 53 radio stations targeting black audiences in 16 markets, none of them in Illinois, have called the bill a "performance tax" that would lead to the demise of black-oriented radio stations that are barely staying afloat in this sagging economy.

The fees, however, would be charged to stations on a sliding scale, ranging from $500 a year for stations with annual gross revenues of less than $100,000 to $5,000 or more for stations with annual gross revenues of $500,000 or more.

Most talk-radio stations and those that broadcast religious services are exempt.

For a small station such as WBCP-AM 1580 in Champaign -- the only remaining independent black-owned R&B station in Illinois -- $500 a year would be devastating, according to J.W. Pirtle, the station's co-owner. The only other independent black-owned station, WVON-AM 1690 in Chicago, has a talk format.

"This is crazy," said Pirtle, who 20 years ago helped start WBCP, which plays old-school music and gospel. "Small minority-owned stations are about to starve to death, and now they want to take some more.

"If you really want to equal it out, why not just make those huge corporations that own 20 or more stations pay? They are the ones with the big bucks."

But Bruce Demps, a regional manager for Radio One, said everyone is experiencing a financial crunch, and adding another expense to radio, which pays royalties to the songwriters and publishers, would have an impact. If the bill passes, he said, some stations will stop playing artists they have to pay.

"We somehow will make programming decisions based on whether we have to pay fees or not," Demps said. "This is not the right way to try and correct the wrongs of 20 or 30 years ago. In some ways, it could hurt the artists who need the exposure."

Many of today's artists who write or co-write their music receive radio royalties. Others have agreements to share royalties with the writers, who own the material. But in the early days of R&B, it was not the case, said Jerry Butler, a major recording artist in the 1950s and 1960s.

"It's always difficult when you get to the table late. You find that all of the good meat has been eaten, and you wind up fighting over scraps," said Butler, a member of the Cook County Board and a supporter of the bill.

"When we came into the business back in 1958, there were very few artists who had their own publishing companies or recording companies," he said. "The record companies would take you to the back of the studio to record and maybe give you a car, but you never got paid. That's how it was done."

Leron Rogers, an Atlanta lawyer who represents artists, said the bill would close a loophole that has allowed terrestrial stations to make money off artists. It would be in line with the Sound Recordings Act passed in 1995, which requires satellite, cable and Internet radio to pay artists, he said.

"For 70 years, terrestrial radio has had this exemption and has been able to build their business without paying the performers," Rogers said. "There are 10,000 radio stations in the country, so this is not a whole lot of money per station.

"But in aggregate, it could be a substantial sum for the artists."

However, several critics have pointed to the fact that artists, backup singers and musicians would receive only 50 percent of the royalties, with the other half going to the content owner, which in most cases is the record label.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

na, I don't support it. Tell these bastids to put out some decent music...
 



Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

I support it because I'm tired of hearing Cathy Hughes on the radio talking negatively about it.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Honestly, I always thought they were getting paid.

Don't former actors/actresses on rerun TV sitcoms get paid? Keishia Knight Pulliam? Bill Cosby? etc.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Honestly, I always thought they were getting paid.

Don't former actors/actresses on rerun TV sitcoms get paid? Keishia Knight Pulliam? Bill Cosby? etc.

Yeah TV gets paid, but not all singers.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

people subscribe to cable... networks buy television shows... that is a difference...
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

I thought they did too...BMI...ASCAP?
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

I can see both sides of this issue, but I would more inclined to support it for the artists' sake.

From what I have read concerning the bill, part of the principle is to pay artists for spins just as songwriters and producers are paid. I think this was designed to benefit older artists since a good chunk of them did not write or produce their own material.

Most of us these days know that the writers and producers make the real money, but yesterday's artists weren't hip to that. Although I would venture to guess that some older artists still do shows because they love what they do, I would also venture to guess that some are also still doing shows because they aren't really seeing royalties from their old hits.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

I thought they did too...BMI...ASCAP?

That deals with songwriting and publishing. That doesn't really come into play if you weren't a writer or producer on the song.

With the exception of a few artists (Smokey Robinson and Stevie Wonder, for example), most singers in the 60's and 70's didn't write their own material. Most Motown hits were written by writers like Smokey, Holland-Dozier-Holland, or Norman Whitfield just as most Philadelphia International hits were written by Gamble and Huff or McFadden and Whitehead. That is one of the main reasons why artists from both yesterday and today tend to stay on tour; if you didn't write or produce the song, your show money may be all that you have to depend on.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

na, I don't support it. Tell these bastids to put out some decent music...

Don't support it either. What about guys who do make decent music and can't get their music played on any radio stations? Like a Lupe, Mos Def and others who are being ignored in many markets for horrible music that is being played now?

What about those who charge too much? Why would I play them when I can play guys that are asking for less? Or guys offering discounts to play artist from a certain label versus others?

I can see this getting too dirty and a lot of artsist get left out and radio stations closing shop or sticking to local talent. hard to sellout a concert when one has heard your music (if they don't have the internet).
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

they not selling records because they not making quality music...
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Quality of the music doesn't matter here. Radio plays what listeners want to hear (mostly via requests). If they don't play what their listeners want, they don't have as much advertising power. The quality of music is on the people who listen and request it.

I really don't see how $500/year would break a radio station.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

The fees, however, would be charged to stations on a sliding scale, ranging from $500 a year for stations with annual gross revenues of less than $100,000 to $5,000 or more for stations with annual gross revenues of $500,000 or more.
Most talk-radio stations and those that broadcast religious services are exempt.



To be honest that is chump change for radio stations considering what they charge sponsors for advertising. At first I was all gung ho against this bill until I found out the small fee radio stations have to pay. True the talent level and most of the quality of music is sh!t..there is no other word for it,but the same standard should be applied to radio artist as they are in the TV industry. There are some crappy REALITY SHOWS on TV and cable i.e.I LUV New York..where NY gets paid a nice salary. Also local TV stations pay from anywhere $16,000 to $45,000 per show or more depending on the popularity of the show in syndication and the performers of the show say like Law&Order get paid five figures or more A MONTH up to 9 to 10 months. I think the recording artist should get paid also...regardless of their talent level..somebody is listening to it for the radio station to get ratings and revenue. If somebody is making money off you..you should get paid also.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Hmmmm, do yall think if this passes that we might see a slight upswing in the quality of music being played? Or is this amount actually so menial that it won't even hurt them or make them reconsider what they play? Those numbers look like it won't even hurt them that much.

Peace and Practice
 



Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Honestly, I always thought they were getting paid.

Don't former actors/actresses on rerun TV sitcoms get paid? Keishia Knight Pulliam? Bill Cosby? etc.

I thought they got paid already also. I've been hearing about this issue for some months now. I think the record companies are greedy. They shoud start putting out more quality music.
 
Re: Perfromance Rights Act; should radio stations pay $$ artists when song played on

Hmmmm, do yall think if this passes that we might see a slight upswing in the quality of music being played? Or is this amount actually so menial that it won't even hurt them or make them reconsider what they play? Those numbers look like it won't even hurt them that much.

Peace and Practice


Yes IMO... at least for a while... someone mentioned before that call-in requests are the main reasons songs get played... not true. Thats a very small part of it... call-in requests are much more beneficial for someone like myself whose independent act is trying to get broke in a big market like Memphis... that means that if the independent cat gets out and grinds hard enough, then the stations dont have a choice BUT to play it... NOW do you you think someone like Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lil Wayne or Kanye really have to worry about gettin played? Payola (as well as gonad holding in a lot of cases) is why the quality of music is so down now...

As to why I said YES initially, I think it would benefit independent acts a lot more than it would big acts... a good indy act would not nearly cost as much to get played as someone like Bey, Jay, etc
 
Back
Top