This is news to me: A coalition of artists called musicFIRST is asserting that performers in the United States have digital performance rights when their music is played on satellite radio, internet radio and cable services, but NOT when it is broadcast via AM or FM radio. I don’t know much about this sort of thing, but that surprises me, and it seems ridiculous. Needless to say, musicFIRST is trying to change the status quo.
More tidbits from musicFIRST’s FAQs:
- “… a January 2007 study conducted by the University of Texas at Dallas stated that ‘Radio play does not have the positive impact on record sales normally attributed to it. Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a complement.’”
- “Currently, when American music is played in foreign countries, they withhold royalties to protest the fact that United States radio stations do not honor a performance right for foreign artists.”
Among musicFIRSTs’s Founding Artists are Aimee Mann, BB King, Brian Wilson, Don Henley, Dr. Dre, Dr. John, Jimmy Buffet, Keb’ Mo’, Pete Seeger, Placido Domingo, will.i.am, and, apparently in a naked attempt to add some heft to that list of musical lightweights, The Pussycat Dolls.
[TJH]
it's surprising to you because you're thinking of the chronology backwards. When the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) was created, this allowed the RIAA to change the rules for radio stations broadcasting digital music so that royalties were paid to BOTH the composer and performer of a song.
Terrestrial radio stations already had a copyright agreement in place which pays royalties to the composer of a song, not the performer. This was done because performers received compensation in other ways, record sales to a small degree but mostly from live appearances (i.e. gigs) and recording contracts, which gets back to the RIAA reaping some of the investment they make in signing a band.
Is it fair that terrestrial radio stations have a different set of rules for royalties? Probably not, but to whom is this unfair, the performers of songs or non-terrestrial radio? I'm both a musician and an Internet radio hobbyist and I'd rather get my music played and heard by someone who might attend my show than get the pittance paid in performance royalties.
I know listeners of my radio station have purchased CDs of musicians they "discovered" listening to my station. Do they buy more or fewer CDs because of radio? I don't know, but I do know musicians get exposure because of radio, and exposure is priceless.
It would be nice for this playing field to be level, but no one can agree on what that should be. For me, in general, whatever the RIAA is for, I'm against.
Posted by: radio gnome | July 25, 2007 at 11:33 AM