Lopsided Case for Performers' Royalties Made by House Subcommittee

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

July 31, 2007, 10:29 PM

It was not a room where a professional broadcaster would have found the slightest bit of comfort. At a meeting of the House Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Tuesday morning, a jovial and outright jocular spirit of bipartisanship prevailed, where both Democrats and Republicans spoke at length of what they characterized as the historically unfair treatment of performance artists by broadcasters who refused to pay for the privilege of playing their works over the radio.

No less than Grammy award-winning folk artist Judy Collins literally sang "Amazing Grace" at one point, changing the words to include, "How sweet the free sound," as a parody of the long-standing exemption in US law for broadcasters having to pay performance royalties.

The great Sam "Soul Man" Moore of Sam & Dave told horrific stories of colleagues such as Billy Preston and Bo Diddley, forced to work into their 80s and 90s with amputated limbs and debilitative medical conditions - artists who would and perhaps should be healthy, retired multi-millionaires if only radio stations had the heart to pay them.

The whole affair could have become the groundswell for a down-home gospel revival were it not for the presence of one Charles A. Warfield, Jr. - the lone representative of the American radio broadcasting industry, the president and COO of New York-based radio station owner ICBC Broadcast Holding.

There he sat, literally -- not even figuratively -- being asked to account for eight decades of public policy that led to million-selling performers receiving unfair nursing home care. Even if you tend to side against the existing broadcast exemption, it was difficult not to feel some sympathy for the man who volunteered today to play the role of piñata.

Currently, terrestrial radio stations pay royalties that are collected by the recording industry and songwriters. But for eight decades, broadcasters maintained that playing music provided a service to performers that compelled listeners to buy music. That service benefits record labels, broadcasters have argued, which should then share some of its wealth with recording artists, besides their typical contractual arrangements.

From the look and feel of today's hearing, a novice to American politics might forget it was Congress who maintained that exemption for broadcasters since the 1920s.

"It's very important that we realize how unfair the system is to artists...under the current law," stated Rep. John Conyers (D - Mich.), who also chairs the parent House Judiciary Committee. "They're not compensated when their songs are played on broadcast radio...Satellite pays, Internet pays, broadcast still hasn't come around. There was a time when just being played on the radio would do it, that would make you. But those days - as everybody here knows - are not the same any more. We have so many different venues, and it's in this sense that songwriters who receive compensation regardless of which platform performs their songs. Artists are only paid when their songs are paid over the Internet, on satellite radio, or cable."

But Conyers did try to sound a warning, if gently: "I think we can work out some kind of compensation package without harming the songwriters. They've had to come through a long period of time for them to be compensated." He went on to say that increasing the fee for performance royalties could negatively impact what songwriters receive, implying that this impact could come by way of reduced airplay.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R - Calif.) spoke today as if the repeal of the exemption was already done. "In my seven years in Congress," Issa said, "this is the first time that, in a no ifs, ands, or buts way, it's been made clear that the status quo will no longer be acceptable...I think we all understand here today that broadcasters are on notice that we intend to look at a reorganization of this."

Joining the chorus, Rep. Steve Ira Cohen (D - Tenn.) noted that, as the technical ability of broadcasters to present high-definition music increases, the same clarity of signal listeners receive from satellite radio will soon emerge from ordinary radio. And digital recording devices will soon exist that are capable of preserving "a sound quality that...for most people's ears [will be] the equivalent of CDs.

"I also think that we in Congress have long ago lost our 'clean hands' on the concept that broadcasters are promoting," Cohen added. It's very clear that perhaps Judy Collins or Sam Moore, a few years ago, in the earlier part of their careers, might well have signed away for three, five, or ten years the rights to receive any royalties from their performance, in return for a guarantee that they would be promoted when their songs were not so...well regarded." Referring to an earlier-told story of the estate of Patsy Cline receiving zero royalties for "Crazy," Cohen said, "It is also clear that artists who are deceased, their estates today can't say, 'We're going to perform...go on the road.'

"It is very, very clear that we need to create a recognition that the performing artist has a right," he continued. "The broadcaster must show any offsets to that right."

While Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - Calif.) sided with her colleagues in principle, she did sound the clearest note of caution about ensuring that whatever performing artists do receive must be determined fairly - using the Internet streaming radio royalties debate as a negative example.

"As we look at this issue of equity among the platforms," Lofgren stated, "I think we need to look at not just who gets paid, but how much. We know that, in the Internet radio environment right now...there are small Internet radio [providers] that are going to be charged 300% of their revenue. That's not going to work for them. They're niche stations, 'Beethoven-all-the-time.' At some point, as we look at making sure artists get paid as they should, we need to figure out how we add equity across all platforms in all ways."

Representing the point of view of copyright law on today's panel was Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, who perhaps for the first time singled out the broadcast industry as not only unfair to recording artists, but as a genuine threat to their livelihood.

"Certainly the record industry has been a very profitable industry, making its money in the United States from distribution of copy," Peters testified. "That, coupled with the political clout of broadcasters - a clout that they have always enjoyed - has led to today's situation. Today, however, the recording industry is hemorrhaging because of the reproduction and distribution rights, which can no longer generate the revenues to support the industry. In part, that's due to the epidemic of online piracy that we have yet to come to grips with, and that we'll never be able to control completely. In part, it's due to technological advances that have allowed people to get copies for free.

"So broadcasting is clearly a threat as well as a benefit," Peters continued. "In this new environment, we can no longer afford the anomalous treatment that has been accorded to sound recordings. As works that are primarily enjoyed by means of performance, they should be subject to public performance rights that provide, at a minimum, compensation from those who financially benefit."

While congresspeople argued that the changing landscape of music distribution has removed the conditions under which the broadcast exemption would make sense, singer Judy Collins went so far as to argue she should be owed back royalties from radio dating back to the 1970s.

"I believe that musicians and artists, as well as songwriters, should be rewarded and awarded and paid properly for their talent and artistry," testified Collins. "For the most part, artists are treated equally. There's one glaring exception in today's music marketplace where musicians, artists, and sound recording copyright owners are left behind: Terrestrial radio stations do not compensate artists for our performances when they play our music over the air." As an example, she told a story of how in 1975, she put Stephen Sondheim's "Send In the Clowns" on the charts - the only one of his songs, she said, to be officially noted as popular. Sondheim wrote Collins a letter, thanking her for "giving me my first hit song." Apparently he was paid for it.

Next: One lone broadcaster's rebuttal

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (20 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By drumcat

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 5:53 PM

How about we look at paying for these songs once. If you're terrestrial, satellite, internet, whatever. Small stations buy their CDs, big stations have them given... ok, so they all pay $1000/year to run, per station. Or better, it's $10,000 if you have more than 10,000 concurrent listeners, $1 if you don't. Then internet stations can cap their listener totals, and you can wait to get a stream if it's busy.

Thanks, and Congress, you can just send me a check for solving your problems. I want ten toilets and four hammers, paid in cash.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 6:08 PM

I want ten toilets and four hammers, paid in cash.

*laughs*

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 3:33 PM

The problem with this whole scenario is the fact that the symbiosis between the record labels and the broadcasters makes things especially difficult, if not economically impossible to change.

With the current push for copyright holders to squeeze every single avenue they can in order to bring in revenue to sustain an archaic business model, while simultaneously using that failing business model as an *excuse* to point the finger at "internet file sharing" as the cause, they're in a position to reap the most benefit out of the deal.

What incentive would broadcasters have to play music if they have to PAY to do so, when the advertising dollars that they do get already probably wouldn't cover the licensing fees back to the labels for playing the music? You'd see stations dropping like flies or nothing but "out of copyright public domain oldies from the 20's and 30's" stations.

If the broadcasters are stuck with royalties, the record companies basically get PAID for someone else to hawk their product FOR them, advertising the same old corporate constructed crap music that's been coming out since the late 80's.

So, the current system, as it stands, is probably the best solution. Both sides will have to agree that the leech that is the record industry clinging to the neck of the broadcasters and artists is going to have to look elsewhere for opportunities to grow and change their business model in order to accomodate a changing society who isn't content with being hamstrung by archaic distribution methods.

That being said, the royalties for internet broadcasters and XM/Sirius should be lessened also, because IMHO the medium by which the broadcast is done is irrelevant. Why should the terrestrial broadcasters recieve a break on royalties that the others don't get simply because their broadcast medium is wireless FM/AM? They're still doing the exact same thing, are they not? They're promoting products for the record companies.

I think that if the Terrestrial broadcasters were charged royalties just like everyone else, a new market dynamic would emerge from this:

All of a sudden you'll find radio stations sending notices to all of the record companies stating that unless there is an exclusive agreement waiving the fees, they will simply not play artists from their particular labels. You'll start seeing one rock station playing AC/DC while another won't touch them because of the particular label they belong to. This will do nothing but alienate the listening public.

Score: 0

By 86proof

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 10:46 AM

Why is it up to the radio stations to negotiate and pay another fee to play music? I would think that would be negotiated when they pay for the rights to play the songs period.

If the performers are not getting paid for the songs they produce it should be up to them to renegotiate the contracts.

Since when is it Congresses job to ensure someone gets paid for something?

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 9:43 AM

THIS IS JUST MORE PROPAGANDA FROM THE MUSIC INDUSTRY.........

It will open the door to more Bureaucracy. We will now have music police in coffe shops making sure they are payng the proper fee to the music industry for 25 people listining to music.....

ahhhh its allready happining so who cares .....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 9:19 AM

both Democrats and Republicans spoke at length of what they characterized as the historically unfair treatment of performance artists by broadcasters who refused to pay for the privilege of playing their works over the radio.

Let's see how well the artists do when the radio stations simply stop playing their crap. Today's popular artists *exist* because of radio.

I'd love to see how quickly they'd be begging for airtime. Bring back widespread "payola". Make *them* pay to be played. See how they like the tables turned. This is a dangerous game they are playing, and I do not believe the terrestrial stations are going to have any of it.

Score: 0

By rsx508

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 10:21 PM

I agree with you. However, I don't think terr. radio has a good hand to play in this round. The problem is that they need listeners to solicit advertisers for revenue. If they play this game, it could be a while before they had any funds to pay their staff and stay on the air. They need to increase listeners, not lose them. The other side knows that and is playing it to their favor. I would love to see the radio stations opt to play unsigned/unknown artists and give RIAA the finger. Couldn't be much worse content than the heavy rotation shlock we're stuck with already.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 7:49 AM

The stupidity is just mind-numbing! Record companies have been screwing artists for decades and still the idiots don't get it. Forget how dumb Congress is, we all knew that; it's the artists and songwriters who are showing just what suckers they are. Instead of Judy Collins, Congress should talk to some of the many artists who have been conned and ripped off by the recording industry.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 5:07 AM

Can not wait till all these kids that have been sued become politicans and throw that back in the MPAA RIAA faces.

You said all 50 million of us were criminals, now we run the country. Lets see how long that game lasts. The only reason they get away with treating voters like this is cause they pay a ton of money to make sure no one in government cares. Eventually those old Idiots will either die out or be voted out (lets hope soon) Then The RIAA will learn what it feels like to be terrorized and intimidated into submission.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 2:35 AM

OK, so artists are blaming radio stations for things like unfair nursing home care? What a bunch of idiots. This isn't the fault of the radio stations. It's the fault of the record companies. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that radio stations should have to pay more money to anyone.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 7:54 AM

Record Companies? You have no understanding of copyright law obviously. Let's say you invent something and want to sell it. By your reasoning I can steal your idea and make a million bucks and that's ok is it? Radio stations make money from advertising because for some reason people want to listen to their broadcasts. These are not charitable organizations, they generate large amounts of revenue by playing musical content that people want to hear. I guess someone who writes a song that gets played on the aforementioned radio station doesn't deserve any renumeration at all. All these complaining people stuck in the muso's nursing home should just shut up and be glad that they got some unpaid airplay, after all it's great publicity. Maybe one day they can stage a comeback in their wheelchairs and walkers.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 9:24 AM

I guess someone who writes a song that gets played on the aforementioned radio station doesn't deserve any renumeration at all.

It's called "buying the CD" or "buying the online track". It wasn't all that long ago that labels would pay radio stations large sums of money to get a certain artist or track airtime. Why? Because without it, there is no artist. There is no track. The radio stations promote them. The radio stations get us out there buying this crap.

Forcing the radio stations to play only unsigned, non-affiliated bands, would kill off the Big Media labels and RIAA faster than any of us could dream possible.

Hey, on that thought, maybe this whole thing is a *good* idea.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 6:33 PM

It's not about "buying the CD or the track", that's a given. What this is about is "performance royalties". Do you realize that every time somebody uses a copyrighted piece of music they are obligated to pay the artist a fee for the use of that music? If you write an original music track, you are entitled to collect royalties for the airplay of said track for at least 70 years after you wrote it, if you live that long. Elevators, supermarkets, on hold music, and of course radio airplay, it's all subject to copyright fees, like or not. The only way to change that is to deny people the ability to collect copyright monies for their work. Is that what you want? Yes we all know about payola, but that's not the issue.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 2, 2007 - 8:58 AM

I'm all for the musicians making money, and I understand the concept of copyright and royalties, trust me.

The main issue here revolves around the fact that this is a public medium that was originally created by the Music Industry to get their music out there so people would buy. It still exists for the most part, for that same purpose.

Had there been a major change in format, or some relevant loss in sales and other royalties due to this medium, the discussion, IMO, would then be valid.

As I said above, they can do this, and that's their prerogative, but I firmly believe that if they do, it will be the end of the Music Industry as we know it. The radio stations will not kowtow to this and will change their formats accordingly.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Aug 2, 2007 - 11:00 AM

They already have. Talk radio anyone? The music industry can go hell as far as I'm concerned. I'm no fan of their monopolistic practises, and while we're at it, "sir" Elton John can take a hike as well.
Someone should shut him down.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 2, 2007 - 11:09 AM

While talk radio exists, this isn't the market they are after. Such fringe stations have always existed. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

As for Sir Elton John, and Music Industry, and a certain warm locale, it can all be fixed. No need to start sending these folks to LA (aka Hell), they seem to like it there anyway.

All we need is a few simple (which pretty much means impossible) changes to our copyright laws. No extensions, no transfer, and a system of community license which will stop market tampering and ensure a fair market for both consumers and producers.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 11:35 PM

It's really, really hard to believe that anyone is for such a double-standard. This will end up a compromise of terrestrial radio paying less than all other forms of radio -- even though they have the largest audience.

And frankly, did anyone actually believe that Congressmen would actually understand these things? They have no interest in how things work. Their job is very simple; get re-elected. Why stay up on technology? It's just the committee that gets all the toys from the lobbyists - no need to work. Duh.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 11:51 PM

You're right — politicians only know what lobbyists tell them, assuming the info comes with large and frequent campaign donations. It's stunning. Most every amerikan politician is a millionaire and it stunning to see how disconnected they are to everyday life.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 1, 2007 - 9:31 AM

what's more interesting, and leads me to believe they know full well what they are doing, is the fact that most of these politicians were around during the "payola" scandals where the labels paid the radio stations to give certain artists and tracks more airtime (yes, I'm pretty sure it's still going on, just not as publicly).

It all happened because, at that time, they *knew* what made their products popular. They *knew* airtime=sales. I highly doubt all of them have forgotten this...

The more I look at this, the more I see the RIAA and Big Music digging it's own grave. They've had *way* too much control in our govt' for way too long.

I know it's early and I haven't quite finished my coffee yet, but it's possible the representatives know this and see this as a way to finally get that rather large and obnoxious monkey off their backs, and at the monkey's request, even.

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Aug 1, 2007 - 8:31 PM

Interesting thought, although it assumes a level of intelligence on the part of Congress that is a little hard to imagine.

I agree there seems to have been some harkening back to bygone times, but I got the impression that most of those in attendance were just reliving past fantasies of bedding Judy Collins.

Score: 0