In a two-part post, Raghav Gupta (VP of Consumer Services & Partnerships, Brightcove) writes:
... I've long advocated a level playing field when it comes to royalty rates and this is the most glaring example of the field not being level. Performing artists should get compensated for their work regardless of the medium in which it is performed. The argument of the promotional value of radio making up for the lack of a royalty doesn't hold water for me -- if it is indeed promotional, then the copyright holders should be willing to waive their royalty in exchange for greater airplay and promotion. ...
Link: Rags's Soapbox.
And, from part 2:
... Satellite radio pays about 7% of its revenues to the labels and artists, while internet radio webcasters pays anywhere from 12% to many times this rate depending on how you're counting. What does terrestrial radio pay? Zip. Nada. Through a historical accident, terrestrial radio has paid royalties to songwriters and publishers, but not the labels and performing artists. The LA Times has a good rundown of this, and mentions how it may be easier this time around given the troubles of the record industry and the fact that satellite and internet radio have to pay such royalties (as does most of the rest of the world's terrestrial radio stations). The labels have tried to claim this performance right in the past but have found themselves outmatched politically by the powerful broadcasters. ...
Link: Rags's Soapbox.
A more complete discussion of this should include the fact that broadcasters do provide value to labels and artists by providing discovery and promotion services for their music. In fact, this value has been so powerful that we've had to legislate against payola. That is, record companies paying broadcasters for air play, not the other way around. I'm all for making the playing field level, but let's recognize that the value chain is a lot more complicated. --Dennis (disclosure: a broadcaster since 1969)
