Radio stations and musicians have a uniquely codependent relationship. Like any long-term couple, they need each other in order to thrive, but inevitably, one starts to think the other is taking them for granted. Then the arguing begins.
Record companies and artists have taken their beef to Congress, demanding to get paid more for the content they provide. Radio stations, not surprisingly, are digging in their heels, saying the exposure they give musicians is more than enough compensation. The outcome of the heated battle, which may come as early as this week, could have a significant impact on the way we listen to music in years to come.
In one corner of the ring, we have big names like Bono - no stranger to fighting against perceived injustice - and others like Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan, who are speaking out about the fact that radio stations (not including Internet, satellite, or cable stations) don't have to compensate recording artists when they play their music. A group called musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition, a collection of music industry organizations including the Recording Industry Association of America, has their back. They're lobbying for a bill before Congress known as the Performance Rights Act. It proposes that everyone who performs on a record - session players, background singers, and so on - be paid for the use of their work. Under current law, only songwriters are paid a royalty fee when their works are played publicly.
The National Association of Broadcasters isn't taking this lying down, of course. It's introduced a resolution known as the Local Radio Freedom Act, cosponsored by Representative Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), which states that "Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge" for radio stations. "For decades, performers have received what is essentially free advertising from radio broadcasters in exchange for the right to play their music," Capuano says. "Now is not the time to subject radio stations to additional tax burdens."
Ken Irwin and Marian Leighton-Levy, cofounders of Burlington-based Rounder Records, think the proposed fee is just, and they went to Washington recently to lobby on behalf of the musicians. Leighton-Levy compares the current situation to a beef stew company that sells and makes a profit off beef stew without having to pay for the ingredients: "In this case the radio stations making the beef stew - what it is you're listening to - don't actually have to pay for the beef."
A royalty is paid to both songwriters and performers, however, when their recordings are played on Internet, satellite, and cable radio stations.
To further thicken the already convoluted plot, other countries refuse to pay American artists performance royalties under their own laws because of the lack of reciprocity. Irwin estimates that American artists could be getting between $70 million and $100 million a year in royalties from overseas airplay. "It's like getting kicked when you're down," he says.
The National Association of Broadcasters sees the bill as a last-ditch attempt by struggling record companies to squeeze a few more dollars out of their catalogs. "This issue wouldn't be around if it weren't for the record labels trying to make up for their failing business," says spokesman Dennis Wharton.
"Nobody denies that radio airplay generates enormous revenue for labels," he says. "Ask an artist if they want to have their song on the radio, and the answer will be yes. They know it will help bring fans to their music."
The "performance tax," as Wharton calls it, could have grave effects in an already dismal economic climate, possibly forcing some radio stations to stop playing music altogether.
Rounder's Leighton-Levy is skeptical about the idea of a music radio Armageddon. All the bill is proposing, she says, is that radio stations pay the same rate to musicians that they pay to songwriters through performance rights groups like ASCAP and BMI. In other words, "a few dimes" per play, she says.
According to musicFIRST, the Performance Rights Act will not impose major costs on small radio stations. "They will pay $5,000 or less a year to clear the rights to all the music they use," says spokesman Martin Machowsky. "Public and college radio stations will pay only $1,000 a year. Talk radio, radio stations that carry religious services, and other stations that make only incidental use of music will pay nothing."
"It's definitely not going to be to anyone's advantage to put radio stations out of business," says Leighton-Levy.
Successful Boston stations like WBOS-FM (92.9) and WMJX-FM (106.7) may not go under, but the bill will have a negative economic impact, according to Peter Smythe, chairman and CEO of Greater Media, which owns those stations and others in the Boston area. "A lot of people will lose their jobs through this kind of stuff," he says. "The radio station has to stay somewhat profitable, we have to make our bills. So we'll cut down on music programming; it will just be too costly."
That could mean more syndicated talk radio, or something far worse. "When Rush Limbaugh is on every station in America," Smythe says, "well, you made me do it."
Boston Globe