MusicFIRST has proposed a flat performance royalty rate for small terrestrial radio stations, non-commercial stations, and college stations, according to Radio Ink.
The radio trade publication obtained a document supposedly being circulated on Capitol Hill by musicFIRST. According to the document, small commercial AM/FM stations would pay a flat royalty rate of $5,000 per year, while non-commercial stations and college stations would pay $1,000 a year.
Formed by SoundExchange to lobby for performance royalties, musicFIRST has been fighting to change terrestrial radio's 80-year old exemption from having to pay royalties to performance artists. Meanwhile, Internet Radio and Satellite Radio have been paying performance royalties to these artists all along.
Reportedly the proposal states that stations that "make only incidental uses of music" (i.e., Talk radio) would not pay at all for music. Stations that use some music but are not primarily music formats would be offered a "per program license option so that they pay only for the music they use."
Religious services that are broadcast on radio would be completely exempt.
MusicFIRST spokesman Tod Donhauser told Radio Ink, "We are advocating for a long-overdue performance royalty that would be fair to both performers and broadcasters, therefore we are recommending an accommodation be made for small broadcasters, college stations, nonprofits, and religious programming."
"AM and FM radio should compensate artists for their hard work, talent, and dedication, and not least of all, for the content that drives their listeners and advertising revenue," he concluded.
The two most hated organizations in America lining up against each other: RIAA and NAB.
This ought to be fun to watch as satellite radio commits suicide with the merger.
Stations not Starions.....your only human Ryan
So does that mean a christian rock station would not have to pay royalties to christian rock bands? That's really hypocritical of them. The only organization that is free to steal, the church.
this is why congress should step in and mandate a rate so small for each spin then force all to pay it, level the field while lowering the rate equally for all..
then go take the riaa and its red headed step cousin apart along with some of the other groups that keep the artist funds just because the sun came up today again...
If we're going to be technical, XMFAN, then you it's "you're" not "your" (I'm in that kind of mood today, forgive me).
@xmfan: Ugh, "starions"... I stink. :)
So does that mean a christian rock station would not have to pay royalties to christian rock bands? That's really hypocritical of them. The only organization that is free to steal, the church.
=======================================================================
Does that mean metal stations will be playing alot more Stryper? Ugh
On a side note... Just out of high school I installed HVAC equipment. I want Royalties on the cool air in all those homes.
If any of you out there worked really hard at some project at work and then the project was finished ... now the customer is making money with it... do you deserve royalties?
I feel for the artists, but
no tour and no new music... No money.
Just like Me, no new project... No Job... No money.
My interpretation of the "religious music" exemption is that stations which broadcast Catholic Mass or religious services wouldn't have to pay royalties for the music played. I know a lot of Protestant denominations work Christian pop into their services, and I guess it would be free in that context (especially since it's the congregation singing the song, not the performer) but in general a station that played Christian hits like a Top 40 station would have to pay royalties.
Right, I think Andy's got it. According to Radio Ink, the proposal only refers to religious "services," not to religious broadcasters or formats.
@jeff: I understand what you mean, but think of the music as a product, not a service. And it's not like AM/FM is the underdog here. Terrestrial radio as an industry is making nearly TWICE the amount of revenue as the entire music industry is. And for the past 80 years, they haven't had to pay a DIME to the artists who perform the core product they're playing.
Think about it - the song writers and the studios get paid - but the guy playing the guitar, or singing, or hammering away on the drums gets nothing.
Why should terrestrial radio get a free ride, while ALL of its competitors have to pay? Internet radio pays. Satellite radio pays. But terrestrial gets a free ride, all the while crying that they're being unfairly challenged by other media. C'mon.
And for some reason, the U.S. is unique to all this.... 75 other countries have their terrestrial radio stations paying a performance royalty to artists.
Hopefully they don't apply the discount to 'Christian' stations that are mostly music. Our local 'Christian' station plays quite a bit of music that has no religious meaning whatsoever (mostly pop stuff) and manages to clear something like $120,000 during their two day 'pledge' drive each year, about five times what the NPR station manages to rake up in a full week. They have the most modern and studios in town and do more advertising than any commercial station.
I get the impression that Christian or other religious stations would only qualify for the flat rate if they were truly non-commercial. So yes, they would be playing Christian music, but if they played actual commercials (not underwriting) then they would have to pay the higher rate just like a secular station. On the other hand, if they stuck to only underwriting and listener contributions, they could qualify for the flat rate.
Why college stations??