Under fire from various groups, Clear Channel has revised its online contract for Indie artists and labels who want to submit their music to be considered for broadcast and digital downloading.
The Future of Music Coalition (FMC) has been relentlessly fighting a public war against Clear Channel condemning the license. FMC even filed a petition with the FCC on the issue earlier this week.
FMC claimed that Clear Channel was in violation of a settlement agreement reached after an investigation of alleged payola, and that the agreement itself was a form of payola.
If a radio station plays a song because it has accepted some type of payment (whether it be money, a gift or "valuable consideration"), then it needs to announced who has sponsored the song. Otherwise, it's considered payola.
To give a quick bit of background:
Earlier this year, the FCC and the four major radio broadcasters settled the payola investigation by agreeing to pay $12.5 million in fines. As part of a side deal, the broadcasters also agreed to air 4,200 hours of local and indie music. Now the contract in question asked Indie artists to waive their digital performance rights, effectively "replacing one form of a payola with another" as the FMC claimed on its blog.
The Future of Music Coalition isn't the only one fighting the good fight. Clear Channel had been contacted directly by the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) and the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC), sources told Billboard.biz. Both A2IM and RAC have been working with Clear Channel on acceptable, revised contract language, according to a letter being sent by the three parties to the FCC and obtained by Billboard.biz.
The hooplah prompted Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), to send a letter to Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom, questioning their commitment to ending payola in radio.
And now Clear Channel has revised the agreement, stating very clearly that "Clear Channel shall be subject to and pay for all applicable current and future statutory royalties as well as public performance royalties."
[Billboard.biz & FMQB]
"If a radio station plays a song because it has accepted some type of payment (whether it be money, a gift or "valuable consideration"), then it needs to announced who has sponsored the song. Otherwise, it's considered payola."
Absolutely correct, Ryan. The way they "tell" you that they've accepted money to play something without, you know, actually TELLING you in in simple English is to use the term "promotional consideration."
If you hear that, you've just been informed that money (sometimes in the form of prizes for the station to give away) has changed hands.