This Is a Simple Issue of Fairness
     
print  rss 

Jennifer Bendall

MusicFirst and its member organizations care deeply about music. We are amazed by the lack of respect the National Association of Broadcasters pays to the artists, musicians and rights holders who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial.

We are also amazed by how dismissive they are of Radio World's suggestion that music and radio work together to create a fair performance right on radio.

We could easily object to Radio World's June 3 editorial ("Time for a Cease-Fire") as the NAB did, but we saw it as an invitation to a new, open dialog on the issue.

Let's talk

Like the NAB, we share a passion for music and we care deeply about its future.

The musicFirst coalition is a genuine coalition with equal leadership representing artists, musicians and rights holders. We are and have always been willing to wipe the slate clean, just as Radio World suggests. We have also been willing to come to the table and negotiate. Always have.

But the NAB refuses to do any such thing. They have constantly refused our overtures to sit down and talk. They have said no to members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who have encouraged them to negotiate with us. Instead, the NAB continues to run a disingenuous campaign against the Performance Rights Act, spreading lies and misinformation to the general public and challenging the character and integrity of members of Congress who support it.

What the NAB must acknowledge is that the Performance Rights Act is not about fixing a failed business model — nor does it come down too heavily on radio.

Artists and musicians have been fighting for a fair performance right on radio for more than 70 years, since it was denied them by a 1939 federal court decision. The Performance Rights Act is about fairness to artists, musicians and rights holders, fairness to other radio platforms and fairness to AM and FM music radio.

This is not a "new" fight brought on by the record labels, as NAB would like to claim. This is a simple issue of fairness. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work, especially when others use it to make billions.

The NAB claims "not the time, not the issue." But when will the time be right? Artists, musicians and rights holders have been waiting decades to get paid for their musical creations — creations that allow radio to sell billions of dollars in advertising revenue each year.

And let's not forget that our leaders in Congress have worked diligently to make sure that the Performance Rights Act includes special accommodations for nearly 75 percent of music radio stations in the country. Small stations will pay $5,000 a year or less to clear the rights for all the music they use. Some will pay as little as $500. Noncommercial and NPR stations will pay $1,000 or less. And most stations will not have to pay anything until three years after the bill is signed into law.

We have always been prepared to roll up our sleeves and get to work for a fair solution. The NAB has acknowledged that they are not. We will continue to work with our champions in Congress to pass the Performance Rights Act; we will not unilaterally disarm. But we are ready to work with NAB and craft the solution as partners, partners that respect each other's important contribution to music radio.

The author is executive director of the musicFirst Coalition.

print  rss 

Rating People: 2   Average Rating:     
Comment List:

Know what? Jennifer Bendall's employer, Eris Group LLC, got $370,000 in funds from SoundExchange in 2009. Now do you think this is " ... equal leadership representing artists, musicians and rights holders..."?
By Anonymous on 1/25/2010
Radio stations can not give into MusicFirst. These people want to destroy local radio. The problem is Blubster, and other places where people can post things, and let other people have it for free.
By Anonymous on 9/4/2009
What nonsense! If Musicfirst wants to represent all rights holders, that's fine. We're all for that if all that it does is abolishes BMI, ASCAP, SESAC and SoundExchange and provides a one-stop source for royalty payments, without changing the fee structure. On the other hand, wanting to add yet another layer of royalties to broaders to increase the wealth of britney spears (among hundreds of other already wealthy artists), would be laughable if it were not so serious. These people have forgotten that radio is the horse that brought them to the party and is now the economic engine that allows them to continue building wealth. Let's pour some sand into that engine and see how it runs. Without radio, they'd be sweeping the shop floor somewhere. Artists of the past 100 years knew they had a good deal that worked for everyone. Many's the artist that went across country, records in hand, to every radio station that they could find trying to get airplay. That's because they knew that they needed radio. Now we have a new generation of artists that have forgotten that lesson and these new kids have a scheme whereby the incredibly rich get richer. No thanks! Does anyone think that unpopular artists are going to make anything from these new fees? How about if all of the money earned from performance fees goes to a fund to help struggling musicians and independant record labels instead of into the pockets of artists that are already well paid? Would Musicfirst agree to that? Given the absolute rape of American Internet Broading by SoundExchange, I cannot see any need to ravish our broading industry, too. Even if additional fees were justified, which they are not, why does the US broader have to foot the bill for the rest of the world? The whole system is rigged against US broaders. Musicfirst, go away and come back when you really represent everyone. Then we'll talk about how you can split up the pie, but don't come with some lie ab
By Anonymous on 9/4/2009
This is a ridiculous argument; do you really expect radio stations to pay performers for the privilege of promoting the same performers work while the record labels rake in 80 to 85 percent of the proceeds?? I have been a licensed broader since 1974 when all radio personal were required to be licensed in order to work in radio. I am also a musician since the late 60's, having dealt with both sides of the "coin" I can say that the performance royalties proposed by MusicFirst is yet another scam against radio and against the artists both. The only people making any money toady are the labels and the "performance rights agents". My son’s band is labeled by a record company in LA. His band plays an average of 275 shows per year, they sell hundreds of thousands of cd's, dvd's and other merchandise items yet when they are not on the road actually playing, they each have to get menial jobs just to survive, (food, rent, power etc). The record company is not doing without anything. The musicians, at least all of the one's I know, understand that radio is what brings our fans to the show, it promotes our products and creates the demand that musicians need to survive. Expecting radio broader to pay for the privilege of promoting a product is ridiculous. MusicFirst is primarily interested in the percentage of the proceeds that they can line their own pockets with at the expense of the broader, not the artist. - MG Noblot
By Anonymous on 9/6/2009
This is an article? More like an op-ed piece. At what point did Radio World get in bed with the RIAA? The only reason "[a]rtists, musicians and rights holders have been waiting decades to get paid for their musical creations" is because of the record labels denying payment to the very artists and musicians who will remain unpaid once the rights holders (record labels) apply their unique brand of accounting to this new income stream. At least when the mob shook you down you dealt with your local friendly street enforcer. The RIAA wants Congress to do their dirty work.
By Anonymous on 9/4/2009

Post your comment

Your Name: Required
Your Mail:    Email is used only to display Gravatar
Your Site:   
Comment Info:         

Posts are reviewed before publication, typically the next business morning. Radio World encourages multiple viewpoints, though a post will be blocked if it contains abusive language, or is repetitive or spam. Thank you for commenting!