For decades, record companies have been begging radio stations to play their music. Sometimes they do more than beg: Few sorts of scandal reappear as reliably in the music business as a payola scandal, in which agents of the labels are caught bribing broadcasters to air their wares. In the Internet age, the AM and FM dials aren’t as important to promoting music as they used to be, but they continue to play the preeminent role in the process. As Clive Davis, a dominant figure in the record industry since the ’60s, told USA Today just this month, “Radio is still the leading force of determining what songs and artists break through.”
This isn’t the small tribute the stations have long paid to songwriters. The money will go instead to the performers and copyright owners. (Those are sometimes, but not always, the same thing.) It would essentially be an extension of a fee already paid by Internet, satellite, and cable radio stations—indeed, the industry’s basic argument for the measure is that it will close a “loophole” that has allowed traditional outlets to escape the payment. The musicFIRST Coalition, a lobby created two years ago to push for such a bill, has accused broadcasters opposed to the legislation of believing that “AM and FM music radio stations should continue to get special treatment, that AM and FM music radio stations do not have to play by the rules, and that AM and FM music radio stations should enjoy a competitive advantage over other music platforms.”
But it’s not as though this is an inexplicable inconsistency in the law. The disparity didn’t exist until 1995, when Congress passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act at the behest of the very forces that now decry the separate-and-unequal system that bill created. W. Jonathan Cardi, an assistant professor of law at the University of Kentucky, summarized the record industry’s argument for the act in a 2007 article for the Iowa Law Review:
without some ability to control the digital performance of their recordings, they would be less able to prevent infringements of their existing reproduction, distribution, and derivative work rights. The labels maintained, for example, that if online services could freely transmit recordings in any manner they pleased, such performances would facilitate the creation of infringing reproductions on users’ computer hard drives.
Click here to read the rest of this article…..
Courtesy of Reasononline/Jesse Walker
You think the children of today are bad? Take away our radio and see how much worse they get. For most of the youth who don’t get into trouble(that I know), music is what they turn to instead of marijuana and joy rides. Dance groups are emerging everywhere because it is a better alternative to the streets. If the radio has to pay more that means more commercials and less music. I can only speak for the ones I know, but if there’s a commercial on, the station gets changed AUTOMATICALLY. Nothing on the other station? We ride in silence until I think the commercials are over. How about instead of pretty much shutting down the radio… what if we shut down bear share, and limewire, and all of those kinds of sites. Make people pay for their downloads. It’s gonna suck to not have those mixed cd’s anymore but hey, I’d rather pay $.99 a song than not have good radio
Nice post — this really hits home for me.
Ms. Hughes, you are a force to be reckoned with! I fully respect your accomplishments as a woman, much less a woman of ethnicity in the male-dominated world of business. Your business acumen is beyond question and your dedication to what you believe in is to be readily admired. Having said that, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the Congressional bill on which you so compassionately speak on your radio and television stations. What I do know is that “black” radio needs help. Since you and others have all too willingly decided to point the finger at members of the elite power club, who is to blame for the nonsense being played on the radio? R&B and Classic Soul stations, hip-hop stations, every radio station that plays almost exclusively “black” music is just about terrible. I am aware of the concept of “playlists” and how artists are guaranteed so many spins a day or an hour or whatever. Based on what? Do they pay you to get their record played? And if so, it would seem that the only reason to fight so hard to save the ailing institution that is “black” radio, beyond the fact that it’s your baby, would be to insure the payola keeps on coming in. Business as usual has lost you an umpteenth number of listeners because you don’t play good music. Radio stations are supposed to be the intermediary between good music of substance and quality and the people who need to know what the hot sound is. In effect, it’s on you and your DJs to tell us what’s hot. We’re the consumer and we’ll continue to consume whether we’re being feed protein or poison. I hope everything works out for you, Ms. Hughes. You always get respect. Please remember what the people need and by all means, give it to us.
If it wasn’t for free radio, many of the artists we hear today wouldn’t be recognized. I feel that the performance tax is a rip off for record labels to “pad their pockets”. Ms Hughes,thank you for giving us information regarding the performance tax. You have my full support.
Thank you Mrs. Hughes
for this information and yes i will supprot you and my family will also. We all listen to the black radio stations and enjoy it.free radio (yes)we have to pay for tv these days just to get the blacke shows. even the new box to watch the regular channels in our city .
Nava`Jo
This is not fair and it will hurt our young people who depend on listening to free music and can’t afford to pay for it. I hope this does not go through. If so let’s get together and boycott.