Heather's Music Careers Blog
By Heather McDonald, About.com Guide to Music Careers
Performance Rights Act Redux
Since writing about the Performance Rights Act a few days ago, I seem to be tripping over more news about it every time I turn around. I've been nothing short of dismayed at the way some wealthy, powerful figures in radio have commandeered this issue and cynically (and erroneously) made it about everything from racial equality to protecting indie music. This bill is about one thing and one thing ONLY - paying musicians a (less than) fair rate for the work they do. It is about giving them an incredibly small piece of the earnings generated by the content they create for radio stations. You are entitled to your opinion on the issue, but you really owe it to yourself to make up your mind based on the facts rather than the scaremongering of a bunch of rich guys who are already raking in tons of cash for their radio work and their appearance fees and so on. In other words - Michael Baisden doesn't want you to be paid for the content you create for the radio, musicians. Do you want him to be paid for the content he creates for the radio? Because he is. Handsomely. And he's using his platform to make sure you don't get your cut. But enough of me picking on Michael Baisden. He's far from the only offender. Instead, I give you my bullet point rant about the Performance Rights Act, and I look forward to hearing what you think about the issue:
Under the bill, most radio stations would pay a maximum of $5,000 annually. Sure, if you're Clear Channel, that adds up. But if you're Clear Channel, you're making billions. And delivering a user experience that is turning many people away from radio, but that's another story. The point is, that licensing fee is extremely modest when you consider that radio stations play music around the clock, 365.
Noncommercial stations and college stations would pay a maximum of $1,000. Religious broadcasters and talk radio stations would pay nothing.
I work in indie music. I know how prohibitive even the smallest of costs can be. I know what it is like to have to walk several miles to the business meeting because there isn't enough money for the bus, and so on. I would NEVER underestimate the burden even a $1,000 per year fee could be for some radio stations. However, paying for your content is not an unreasonable request to me. Of course, independent radio stations and college radio stations are not really the ones stomping their feet about this bill. It's the Clear Channels of the world that are upset, and the toll these huge radio monsters take on community radio is far greater than this proposed fee. Let's address THAT.
Erm, again, how does it work that you shouldn't have to pay for your content? That's like Pizza Hut saying they should get free cheese and pepperoni because they would go out of business if they had to pay for it.
While we're talking about the burden this bill could place on some radio stations, could we talk about the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of musicians who have lost millions in earnings because they haven't been adequately compensated for their work? Ever wonder why someone who plays on a platinum album goes broke? Is it starting to make more sense?
The idea that radio pays these musicians in exposure is silly. Not all radio plays are created equal. Very few artists get the kind of radio play that really moves a significant amount of records. All artists are ripped off equally, though. Besides, radio stations make hoards of cash selling advertising because of the music they're playing. The radio stations are being more than adequately compensated for their "exposure". Pay up.
Save Iran and North Korea, radio stations in nearly every other country in the world manages to pay these very kind of royalities - though often at a higher rate - and they manage to survive and thrive. It can be done.
Seriously, are you really going to let radio conglomerates and highly paid talk radio hosts (and highly paid radio guests) convince you that they are campaigning for the good of community and local radio? Are you going to let them convince you that musicians shouldn't be paid for their work? I know you're not.
Musicians deserve to be paid for their work. End of story. If you have managed to build a successful business on the basis of not paying people for their services, that doesn't make it right. It is certainly not a justification for continued exploitation.
So, that's how I see it. And you?
No comments:
Post a Comment