US Musicians want radio royalties

[riceboy]

I thought this article was pretty interesting, where US artists want to receive royalties for their songs being played on the radio. Here is the beginning of the article:

In which countries - apart from the United States - do terrestrial radio stations NOT pay performers for their songs?

Iran, China, North Korea and Rwanda.

Not sure how to feel about this one. What do you guys think? Should artists be getting royalties for their song being played on the radio?

Artists want royalties for song being played on the radio

[bhd812]

i always thought they did, who does the radio stations pay?

[bhd812]

i always thought they did, who does the radio stations pay?

edit: no one huh>? maybe the writers?

its a fair deal for the artists now cause they make the money in concerts and selling the music..but mostly in the concerts. the radio is used to advertise their product for people to listen to and then like or dislike..which then affects the concert ticket sales and music sales. i seriously don't see how a radio station can pay every artist from the back up singers to the front men to the person who hits the cowbell in the song for every song and every time the radio station plays that said song...the radio stations don't make that much profit from commercials.

these artists better think twice about this, cause if it was not for free radio play then artists like Led Zeppelin would not of made the money from music sales and concert sales from the song "stairway to heaven" as it was never released as a single until it started getting radio play, or even "road house blues" from the doors which was meant as a B-side..and that's only two examples of how radio play can directly make a artist money by not being charged, just imagine how many other bands have had super hit songs discovered this way...if the bill gets passed would a radio station still play an unknown song from a band knowing they have to pay for it yet it might cost the radio station listeners if the people don't like it? probably not..

is it fair to the artists on how it is right now?

yes...they knew what they signed up for when they signed the contract with the label and recorded the song. its like coming into work and demanding more money for coming in on time yet it was always part of your job in the first place.

[bhd812]

fuck that..

i just wrote my rep Daniel Lipinski an email saying to vote it down..

damn i wrote my rep, shit i am getting old..and cranky

[justin]

i would think that the owners of the songs (record labels) get the royalties and then if any is distributed to the artists it would be based on their contracts?

[Dusty Chalk]

I think they should get paid for their work, yes. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[grawk]

Performers get paid for units sold, authors (or their rights holders) get paid for performance of their songs.

[morphsci]

I think they should get paid for their work, yes. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

So if someone samples from 10 songs to create a "new song", who gets paid?

[grawk]

It all depends on the songwriting credit.

I think the logic is this:

Music performances on the radio are advertisements for the artist, and music performances that are live are generally done for pay by the artist. The songwriter gets paid for these performances, because he/she isn't there to get paid otherwise.

When recordings are sold, the artist gets paid, because people are buying THAT performance of the song.

It works out pretty fairly, in practice. The unfairness in most recording contracts is that royalties aren't paid until "label production costs" are paid. Until a recording sells in the 100k units range, the artist isn't going to make a dime. The way around that is to spend less producing a record, or hold out for a better contract.

[morphsci]

It was mostly an example to illustrate that "cut and dry" is in the eye of the beholder if you are paying for a performance. I think the radio royalties to the songwriter make sense, the artist not so much, so I agree with that logic.

[Dusty Chalk]

So if someone samples from 10 songs to create a "new song", who gets paid?

I was talking about morality, not legality. Legality is never cut and dry.

So, in answer to your question, being a big fan of Negativland and MACOS and fair use, the "new" artist would be the one receiving the royalties, as they are the one who "wrote" the new song. Of course, if it's as unoriginal and crappy as "Ice Ice Baby", I'd work outside the system and insult and deride the artist until they stopped playing it.

[Dusty Chalk]

Music performances on the radio are advertisements for the artist...

What?!?!? No. The music performances are the end product, not the advertisement.

[grawk]

Nope, not in the eyes of the record business. Performances are advertising for the product that is the record.

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't care what the status quo is, it's not an advertisement.

And yes, I realize I just sided against Pandora. Fuck me.

[Currawong]

This kind of thing sounds like a rigged argument from the record labels so they can make more money. I remember reading the bio of a famous artist -- might have been MJ, I don't remember -- where it said he got the highest royalties of any artist on one of his albums, 2%!