Getting Artists Paid for AM/FM Plays

It’s pretty weird when you think about it: when you hear “I Will Always Love You” performed by Whitney Houston on AM/FM radio in the US, neither the Houston estate nor her label get paid. But songwriter Dolly Parton does receive compensation, along with her publisher. We love Dolly a ton, but this seems unfair. That’s because it is.
Things look much different in the rest of the world, where performers, labels, songwriters and publishers ALL get paid for radio play. Consider how certain genres of music—like jazz and r&b—are powered by performances. “Respect,” belted out by Aretha Franklin. “My Favorite Things” as interpreted by the great John Coltrane. Yet due to a weird loophole in US law that exempts radio stations from paying performers or labels, countless American artists have been unable to collect money owed to them for airplay here and abroad. The problem is particularly acute for performers who aren’t in a position to tour, such as older, so-called “legacy” artists. When it comes down to it, the lack of a public performance right for over-the-air broadcasting amounts to the government giving away music to the rest of the world for free.
And that’s how the big radio conglomerates want it. For years, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has successfully thwarted attempts by Congress to close this loophole once and for all. We’re not sure why it doesn’t bother the radio giants that, by not paying performers, America is keeping company with North Korea and Iran. But it bothers us. And we’re not alone.
Currently, there’s a growing movement to establish a US public performance right for AM/FM radio. We’ve been part of this push for 15 years, along with the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS), the MusicFIRST Coalition and new advocacy voices like Content Creators Coalition and #irespectmusic. Trust us, it’s gonna get done.
Many digital services would like to see AM/FM radio pay a performance right, too. The fact that webcasters and satellite radio pay performers and labels as well as songwriters and publishers amounts to a competitive disadvantage for newer forms of radio. Basically, the American federal government is giving giant commercial broadcasters a subsidy—one that’s gone on for nearly a century. It’s high time to put an end to it.
You can help.
MusicFIRST has an online tool to help you make clear to your representatives that the current system is broken and distorts the global marketplace for music. Worse, it leaves countless of deserving artists without a way to earn money from their performances. We encourage you to support any and all efforts to close this loophole once and for all.
There’s a lot of stuff to figure out on the road to a more functional music ecosystem—from royalty rate-setting to rights management. But until this fundamental disparity is addressed, it will be difficult to achieve progress in other areas. Sometimes in the music industry there are differences of opinion based on history market position and other factors. But this is something that most folks can agree on. Now let’s make it happen.
Comments
4 comments postedPlease clarify if this
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on February 19, 2015 - 12:59am.Please clarify if this current version of the legislation includes a cap or other protections for non-profit, community and college radio stations. Non-commercial stations are already struggling to remain on our public airwaves.
There isn't legislation on
Submitted by kevin on February 24, 2015 - 4:51pm.There isn't legislation on the table yet, but we will definitely be looking to ensure that any proposal have the appropriate measures for noncomm stations.
Regarding the differentiation
Submitted by Jerry Drawhorn (not verified) on February 19, 2015 - 2:34pm.Regarding the differentiation between the payment of royalties to performers in the US vs. abroad…could this be because most foreign radio stations are government entities, while those in the US are private and commercial. Thus, the decision making process in the US was that airplay was akin to an "advertisement" for the band/musician to spur record sales. If you had charged for the performance the station would have simply played someone else's music that was cheaper. In fact, airplay was so important for fame and exposure that the record labels and agents paid "payola" to get airplay.
I'm wondering what might be the down the road consequences of changing the system. Will radio stations that are unable to afford the rights payments shut down, or go all talk, or pare their playlists (more DJ jabber)? Will this cause the college non-commercial stations that spawned whole breakthrough genres (punk, hip-hop, alternative) and act as the sole repository of jazz, blues and world music to shutter? Will the rich bands simply get richer, while the bands that are trying to build a reputation get further shut out?
I've never seen a very good cost-benefit analysis that shows how this will help the diversity of airplay, give more opportunities for non-established artists (the vast majority of musicians, bands out there), and improve the economics of all but the wealthiest of artists.
There's nothing to suggest
Submitted by kevin on February 24, 2015 - 4:54pm.There's nothing to suggest that appropriate measures won't be taken to make sure that college and other non-comm stations aren't saddled with big fees.
Post new comment