|
|
RIAA Wants to 'Help Musicians Get Their Fair Share'by George Ziemann -- March 13, 2010 While all of the record labels have a long, storied history of not paying artists fairly (if at all -- is Sony ever going to pay the Bay City Rollers?), the RIAA suddenly is concerned with the responsibility to pay the artists. Not their responsibility, of course. This has nothing to do with cleaning up their infamous accounting systems, which has a four or five-year waiting list of artists asking for an audit. What they want is performance royalties for radio airplay, something which has never existed in the United States. The RIAA is going to take half of the "fair share" for themselves. Then they will "help musicians" by stashing their cut in SoundExchange (which is loaded with RIAA officials), who won't make any effort to contact the artists and will keep it if not claimed in a specified time (5 years?). Using the percentages that were assigned to web royalties, here's how the money breaks out. For every $1,000 a songs earns, the record label gets $500; the featured artist gets $450, leaving $50 for everyone else to split (background singers, studio musicians, percussionists, for instance). Remember Motown? Then you've heard the Funk Brothers, which backed almost every Motown single in the 60s. So, every time a Motown song gets played (under the new royalty plan), whoever owns Motown now gets $500 of our theoretical $1,000 income every time. Stevie Wonder would get $450 for one of his songs. The Funk Brothers get $50. With various configurations, you could go from a simple piano-backed vocal to a X-piece band, with X standing for whatever you want it to be. Bass, drums, guitars, piano, Hammond, trumpets, saxes, string sections, percussionists, violins, you name it. The band members used to get paid $50 a day during the recording sessions and that was it. No royalties were ever earned no matter how many hits they delivered. At least they got $50 each back then. Back to our scenario...
50 years later, "having played on more number-one hits than The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys combined" (opening titles, Standing in the Shadows of Motown. Paul Justman, director) and these guys (along with the West Coast's Wrecking Crew) are still gonna get fucked. Unless... I'm wondering what happens to the extra 5 percent when there are no additional performers? Like, say, a U2 album. U2 would get their $450, but then there's an extra $50 that goes, uh, I don't know where it goes or what happens in that situation. The point is simply that the definition of a "fair share" is going to vary widely, but if a record label minimized a musician, they're going to do the same to that player's fair share. That's the first thing wrong with this idea. Let me point out that I'm all in favor of artists getting performance royalties. Radio has been eating itself for at least 15 years, stopped being kind to unsigned artists in the 70s, and is now just as responsible as the record labels for the industry's demise. So there's no sorrow necessary for them. If what was printed a week ago in the New York Times is accurate (Link), it's a good example of a deeper problem, which is that the RIAA and its minions can never seem to discuss anything without lying. Said minions include the MusicFirst Coalition, "a group that includes the record companies and hundreds of artists," with Marty Machowsky acting as spokesman in the NYTimes interview.
The broadcasters pay billions of dollars a year to the songwriters and publishers, under an arrangement that's about 70 years old. The performers are generally paid for their actual performances, and many of them make a handsome living doing it. There is a law concerning the songwriter/publisher royalties and establishing the rates. There is no such law concerning performance royalties for the artists. So statements like the one above are as disingenuous as the "downloading is theft" bullshit and are certainly the lead-in to calling the radio owners thieves and pirates. Again. Radio is stealing their stuff, although they are following the law. It's a lie. No, they're not paying the artists because Congress has never told them that they have to. Currently, Congress has given this some though, but sent "supporters and opponents of the bills a letter asking them to negotiate a resolution." "We've had talks. We don't call them negotiations," said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the broadcasters association. Meanwhile, MusicFirst started a new website called piggyradio.com. So the "negotiate a resolution" thing can be filed under "Fat Chance," meaning this will be a whining topic for another 15 years or so, using the "history repeating itself" timetable. There is one rational argument provided in favor of the royalty:
Some people will get their hackles up and argue that we don't have to do things just because the U.K. or Australia does. Or even worse, France. I kind of agree with that, but as I stated earlier, I think the artists should get paid. But what other countries do is their business, what we do is ours. It shouldn't be a consideration. What have we got so far?
The Big Lie There is one factor still undiscussed and which will most assuredly remain undiscussed when either side is lobbying to Congress. The Times article walked up to it and carefully avoided it. My regular readers are dismissed, as they've seen this several times before. Payola. For decades (all the way back to vaudeville, actually) cash flow has determined what becomes "popular" music. Both the recording industry and the broadcasters will deny it happens, but they got busted for it as recently as five years ago. As one researcher pointed out recently (can't find the link right now), it's easy to spot payola-initiated airplay. When a song becomes popular naturally, it starts in a localized area, slowly spreads via major cities or tours, one station playtlist at a time, and provides a sustainable momentum. When payola is pushing a song, especially from a new artist, who appears out of nowhere, suddenly is everywhere at once and is getting played on high rotation from the day the station gets its hands on it. But the days of a Loretta Lynn going from station to station to give them a copy of her record are over unless accompanied by an envelope of cash, hookers, weed, coke, booze, concert tickets, some other gift, or any combination thereof. The broadcasters are accurately pointing out that airplay is free promotion for the musicians, their albums and songs. After all, the labels have been paying them for it forever. Naively assuming that 2005's bust ended payola completely, the RIAA and the artists are already saving what they used to pay and the radio stations have already lost that chunk of under-the-table income. However, every time the payola investigation happens both sides settle without admitting guilt. So even though the broadcasters can say that airplay is free promotion, they can't bring up the fact that the RIAA has been paying for it until now to substantiate their position, even though it is the the truth. Now the RIAA wants to flip the table and make radio pay them because now radio is stealing their stuff. I think this is the specific reason the royalties should be denied. It is almost certain, however, that it will not be given a speck of consideration as this legislation is considered. Too bad there's not a way to pay the artists and undercut the record labels for their past behavior, hypocracy and selling their position with lies and distorted facts. Isn't it illegal to lie to Congress? I've been watching the RIAA for 9 years now and they always lie to Congress. And they're doing it again. |
|