Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers

[Shogun]

nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers | Digital Media - CNET News

 

[auditor0007]

Interesting article. He makes a good point. The only question is whether or not the end result would be that of shooting oneself in the foot. While there is no doubt that a benefit is derived for the radio station, there is also a very large benefit to the artist. Without the airplay, sales of their music would likely be much less.

 

[Shogun]

perhaps that might have been true decades past.. but, in this age of the internet, i'd say, radio is not the sole vector by which artists get their music played to the masses. In other words, terrestrial radio lost it's exclusive value as THE disseminating means for artists to get heard. Until now, radio has been able to sell ad space and lure listeners by virtue of no cost music. If, imo is correctly pointed out, net radio must pay then so too should the tit be snatched from terrestrial radio.

which, is another nail in the coffin of terrestrial radio in this age of the internet. Next stop: widespread use of net radio replacing radio stations.

 

[Goodfella]

So instead of hearing the same 15 songs on a radio station, we will start hearing the same 5 songs?

 

[Shogun]

adapt and go buy something that allows you to enjoy net radio. You know, radio took the same blow after television became popular too.

 

[auditor0007]

So instead of hearing the same 15 songs on a radio station, we will start hearing the same 5 songs?

No, we'd just get more talk radio.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers | Digital Media - CNET News

Then Billy Corgan needs to write a contract which requires stations that play it, compensation as he wants it.

That's how it works... whe he releases the product for sale, that release is based upon the terms and conditions of the contract.

I suggest that instead of playing the victim that he just re-write his contracts and from here on out, whatever he sells on those contracts will be controlled by those terms.

Under the current contracts he's obligated to the terms and conditions through which that work was released.

Now does that mean that certain feminized individuals will not lend credence to this fallacious whining and try to hold the broadcast industry to retroactive terms... but that's the nature of cultural subversives; OKA: Idiots.

 

[Peejay]

Billy is full of crap. As a writer and recording artist I can give you an idea of how this works. The notion that radio stations play "free music" is absurd. Royalties are collected by one of three agencies that represent the creators of the music: BMI, ASCAP or SESAC. Writers, composers and contributors join one of these agencies and the agency is contracted to protect the rights of the creators and collect the associated royalties. Radio stations submit a playlist monthly to these organizations, listing the music they broadcast. The organizations then compile the the information and distribute the royalties accordingly from the broadcast fees the radio stations pay. And it isn't only the radio stations paying. If you have elevator music, that is a "re broadcast". You pay for that. If you hire live performers, performing copyrighted and represented works, you pay. Any radio or TV used for anything other than personal use is a re broadcast. If you have televisions in your bar and grill, that's a re broadcast, you pay. There are tons of fees for using copyrighted music. If you have dancing, there is an additional fee for allowing that to occur during copyrighted broadcast. Have a juke box ? You pay.

The system is far from perfect and the formula for directing royalties is really, really, screwy. I get a minimal amount of air play and I should get paid 7.5 cents per play. But I usually don't. First you have to show up on enough playlist to amount to a certain level of play before you will enter the radio and television pool. The long and short of it is that a guy like myself can play 200 dates a year, at licensed, paying establishments, (they pay for the right to have me perform, per my BMI contract) and then Garth Brooks gets my money. It doesn't seem right at first and really isn't, but when you get a look at the sheer volume of works represented and the sheer number of plays of thousands and thousands of works EVERYDAY, you understand that the formula is about as fair as it can be. YOu can't afford to have a personal monitor to check every station and record every play of your music, especially when you get maybe 50 - 100 spins a month.

Anyway, as to Billy's gripe, he is asking that the radio stations pay royalties or performance fees to the PERFROMER, as well as the creators of the music. The problem is this: YOU ARE A PERFORMER. You get paid to perform. You want royalties, I suggest you learn to write. Writers already get the shaft when a song is a hit. The performer makes a ton of money and yes, the writer gets a share, but not anywhere near the performer. This is a problem. In essence, the performer wants to make money without creating the music AND without performing. They want to be paid for broadcast. It's whiny bullshit. What they can do is require private license agreements to broadcast their performance. Of course, if that was the norm, no one would even know who Billy is and the already ultra competetive market would tighten further on emerging artist. Yes, the same 5 songs instead of the same 15.

Go fuck yourself Billy.

 

[Shogun]

nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers | Digital Media - CNET News

Then Billy Corgan needs to write a contract which requires stations that play it, compensation as he wants it.

That's how it works... whe he releases the product for sale, that release is based upon the terms and conditions of the contract.

I suggest that instead of playing the victim that he just re-write his contracts and from here on out, whatever he sells on those contracts will be controlled by those terms.

Under the current contracts he's obligated to the terms and conditions through which that work was released.

Now does that mean that certain feminized individuals will not lend credence to this fallacious whining and try to hold the broadcast industry to retroactive terms... but that's the nature of cultural subversives; OKA: Idiots.

hehehe.. you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, do you.

Even bars have to pay to play songs in their juke boxes. WOW, dude.. just. WOW.

 

[Shogun]

Anyway, as to Billy's gripe, he is asking that the radio stations pay royalties or performance fees to the PERFROMER, as well as the creators of the music. The problem is this: YOU ARE A PERFORMER. You get paid to perform. You want royalties, I suggest you learn to write. Writers already get the shaft when a song is a hit. The performer makes a ton of money and yes, the writer gets a share, but not anywhere near the performer. This is a problem. In essence, the performer wants to make money without creating the music AND without performing. They want to be paid for broadcast. It's whiny bullshit. What they can do is require private license agreements to broadcast their performance. Of course, if that was the norm, no one would even know who Billy is and the already ultra competetive market would tighten further on emerging artist. Yes, the same 5 songs instead of the same 15.

Go fuck yourself Billy.
Reply With Quote


um, who, EXACTLY, do you think wrote songs for The Smashing Pumpkins? Willie Nelson?

 

[Peejay]

Anyway, as to Billy's gripe, he is asking that the radio stations pay royalties or performance fees to the PERFROMER, as well as the creators of the music. The problem is this: YOU ARE A PERFORMER. You get paid to perform. You want royalties, I suggest you learn to write. Writers already get the shaft when a song is a hit. The performer makes a ton of money and yes, the writer gets a share, but not anywhere near the performer. This is a problem. In essence, the performer wants to make money without creating the music AND without performing. They want to be paid for broadcast. It's whiny bullshit. What they can do is require private license agreements to broadcast their performance. Of course, if that was the norm, no one would even know who Billy is and the already ultra competetive market would tighten further on emerging artist. Yes, the same 5 songs instead of the same 15.

Go fuck yourself Billy.
Reply With Quote




um, who, EXACTLY, do you think wrote songs for The Smashing Pumpkins? Willie Nelson?

Evidently, Billy is asking for other fees. I am not familiar with his catalouge but whatever he wrote he is ALREADY getting paid for when it is broadcast. If he isn't, he should be taking that up with BMI, SESAC or ASCAP. They collect the fees for what he wrote. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. It looks like Billy wants royalties for broadcast of others works, performed by him. All you get for that is whatever fee or record sales you generate from the recording or performance. He can arrange for private licensing of his performance in addition to the BMI, ASCAP and SESAC licensing but the market for that will very limited and as I said, would limit emerging work as few would be willing to pay those fees for untested performers.

 

[Peejay]

Did a little more looking into this thing with Corgan and it stinks. He doesn't want to perform much anymore. He says he won't tour and won't play the large venues anymore, electing to go small. Much of his recording is of other artist and much of the stuff he did with the Smashing Pumpkins was co authored. An example is that he co wrote 5 out of 12 songs on a particular album.

Sounds like he wants to make a ridiculous change in performance broadcast rights. The only reason for this is that he wants to continue collecting money for songs he didn't write, the records are no longer selling, he doesn't want to perform the old songs at shows but wants to collect money from radio that continue to play the old songs that he didn't write, that he doesn't want to do live.

Go fuck yourself Billy.

 

[Shogun]

First... if the system you describe already pays publishers and writers then there would be no reason to differentiate payment according to format of broadcast (terrestrial versus internet).

Second, did you miss the following from the Op?

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.


NOT paying record labels or artists for the use of a song is precisely what he's talking about. Sure, Willie Nelson gets paid when radio plays Crazy instead of Patsy Kline... But, given which version of the song they tend to play it makes no sense to ONLY pay Willie and not Patsy (if she were alive).

Billy isn't asking for more fees so much as fairness regarding the broadcast medium. If internet radio stations have to pay artists and record companies AND publishers and writers then so, too, should terrestrial radio stations.

The real threat to terrestrial radio isn't paying artists for the songs they play so much as it is the reality of their listeners moving to internet based stations.

Why Web radio faces another crisis
Why Web radio faces another crisis | Digital Media - CNET News

 

[Peejay]

So then, if you hold a patent to a machine and you collect fees for the right to produce it, you won't mind if the guy that operates your machine begins to demand a share of the revenue from your idea ?

Think about what this will mean for intellectual property rights. The reward for creativity will be damaged, if not nearly lost. No need to create, just collect from what already exist by redoing the old stuff. Jesus Christ, there's enough of that without adding greater rewards for repeating someone else's work.

 

[Shogun]

So then, if you hold a patent to a machine and you collect fees for the right to produce it, you won't mind if the guy that operates your machine begins to demand a share of the revenue from your idea ?

Think about what this will mean for intellectual property rights. The reward for creativity will be damaged, if not nearly lost. No need to create, just collect from what already exist by redoing the old stuff. Jesus Christ, there's enough of that without adding greater rewards for repeating someone else's work.

Is it the case that only the manufacturer of forklifts get paid when they are put to use? Of course not. Those who use the machine for the benefit of a contracted company ALSO gets paid. Who said anything about fees collected for the sake of artists being taken from fees going to pay publishers and songwriters? by all means, point that out if I have missed it.


do you really think people will STOP writing songs if artists get paid to play their music? Especially when, by default, the publisher and songwriter gets paid when the artist gets paid as well? I'll toss the Patsy Kline example at you again.. do you REALLY think that ONLY Willie Nelson should be paid when HER HIT VERSION of HIS SONG gets played? Hell no. Which version do you think has had MORE AIR PLAY? Willie's version or Patsy's? To the benefit of WHOM? Under the current system, not Patsy. Which is ridiculous given who made the song famous in the first place.
'

I assure you.. people will still write songs long after terrestrial radio is forced to play the same game as internet radio. Hell, you might even find that it's nice to get paid for your work after the carcass of terrestrial radio is put down.

 

[Peejay]

Shogun, absolutely the forklift operator gets paid. Absolutely the performer gets paid, when he is performing. No one is arguing that. But let's say that the forklift operator not only wants his paycheck, but residuals paid to him by the same company that already pays you for your design. He didn't design it and he is currently sitting at home watching TV but he wants to collect licensing fees regardless. They aren't going to pay twice. The performer already gets ticket sales, merchandising, all the stuff that comes along with the fame afforded them by a good song that someone wrote. There is only so much revenue to go around and if they get a share, it will be taken from the same pool of money that njow pays the people that actually wrote the stuff.

Come to think of it, it could very well bite the performers in the ass. The people who write and perform their own work could push out the "fluff" and finally get to work their own material. Which of course, goes to the heart of Billy's argument, he wants to be paid for the stuff that he didn't write. He already gets paid to do it in his shows but now he's got a typical rock star attitude, doesn't want to do the old stuff anymore, the new stuff isn't working so let's see if we can get paid for the old stuff again. It's already showing who this would benefit: the guys who don't cut it anymore.

 

[Shogun]

a recording of a performance is still a performance. Do we not pay actors once their image gets on film? If Brad Pitt stars in a summer blockbuster does he not get paid based on points of success of the film? Should an artist expect ONLY to get paid at galleries and sold art and NOT from copied prints of their work? Hell yes, Patsy Kline should have been paid EVERY TIME HER recording of a Willie Nelson song was played for the benefit of the radio. I don't care if she were eating bon bons and smoking crack while accumulating this payment. The fact remains that it would have been HER talent in the recording process that created a product that radio uses to draw listeners; not Willie's.


Now, don't assume that there is no flexibility in the cost of using music. It's not like radio isn't owned by rich people making money on what amounts to free media cost. The assumption that there is only so much money to go around sure as hell didn't ring true back in the payola days so I find it a bit melodramatic here. Terrestial radio has a choice.. pay to play or don't use the music to hock ad space. Pretty simple, really. It's not as if radio has aright to use anything it wants anyway. If KSUK is too cheap to pay artists to use their otherwise copyright protected material then let them play bumpers and sound effects all day until they lose their station frequency.



I don't think he wants to be paid for stuff he didn't write at all.. However, and this point drives home the fallibility of your position, when Jimi Hendrix played All Along The Watchtower the product was a whole different beast than any Dylan recording of the same song. If you don't see the intrinsic value created by the Jimi's performance despite Dylan's authorship of the song then I just don't know what to tell you.


And, like I keep saying.. this isn't about Billy's bank account so much as being about terrestrial radio trying real hard to kill net radio before it makes FM the new AM radio.

Sirius XM Radio planning to stream to iPhone, iPod
Yahoo! News - Sirius XM Radio planning to stream to iPhone, iPod by AP: Yahoo! Tech

How To: Stream Your Music Library to Any Computer
How To: Stream Your Music Library to Any Computer | Maximum PC

 

[William Joyce]

LOVE the Pumpkins' lullaby stuff. Don't know this issue, but at least we've got some honest self-interest at work here, unlike celebrities stumping for Darfur.

 

[Peejay]

I don't think he wants to be paid for stuff he didn't write at all.

You understand that Billy already gets paid for what he wrote, by radio ? Right ? He has the copyrights to his own material and everytime he gets a play for his work, he gets paid. When it's someone else's work, they get paid. What do you imagine his motivation is, considering he is already paid for what he wrote ? HE WANTS TO BE PAID FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S WORKS. He already makes a ton with live shows, videos and merchandise. Can the writers (who are also generally performers too) keep enough to make a living ? Please ? This will drive more good writers out and God knows they get the friggin crumbs already.

Tell you what, considering that radio stations are for profit, perhaps they should charge Billy for advertising his work. They charge any other business for the exposure. Right ?

Radio is still the heart of the music business. It has lost a giant share though, to other media. This will kill it. The hype already hides the talent in such a large swath of the market. Now the hype wants more, and it will mean less for the talent. Not knocking Billy's talent but if he gets it, then every jack ass that rips off someone else's tune does too. I think Garth Brooks and Celine do just fine with profiting from other writers work without driving the knife deeper.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think he wants to be paid for stuff he didn't write at all.

You understand that Billy already gets paid for what he wrote, by radio ? Right ? He has the copyrights to his own material and everytime he gets a play for his work, he gets paid. When it's someone else's work, they get paid. What do you imagine his motivation is, considering he is already paid for what he wrote ? HE WANTS TO BE PAID FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S WORKS. He already makes a ton with live shows, videos and merchandise. Can the writers (who are also generally performers too) keep enough to make a living ? Please ? This will drive more good writers out and God knows they get the friggin crumbs already.

Tell you what, considering that radio stations are for profit, perhaps they should charge Billy for advertising his work. They charge any other business for the exposure. Right ?

Radio is still the heart of the music business. It has lost a giant share though, to other media. This will kill it. The hype already hides the talent in such a large swath of the market. Now the hype wants more, and it will mean less for the talent. Not knocking Billy's talent but if he gets it, then every jack ass that rips off someone else's tune does too. I think Garth Brooks and Celine do just fine with profiting from other writers work without driving the knife deeper.

The motivation, as i've already pointed out, is to conform terrestrial radio to the same rules as net radio. You are making this a personal jab against Billy Corgan instead of commenting on the situation he is bringing to light. If you don't like Corgan.. well.. good for you. But, if you can't tell me why Jimi Hendrix and Patsy Cline have a reason to be paid for the airing of THEIR rendition of songs by Nelson and Dylan then there really is nothing more to add to this thread. The whole Sky is falling bullshit really doesn't impress me. People have written music for years without the guarantee of gold record pay outs and you think all of a sudden music will stop being written when an artist like Hendrex reworks a Dylan tune and gets PAID for each airing by radio stations who are, essentially, enjoying a free product? I call shennanigans.


By all means.. CHARGE artists for their work. Enjoy all that dead air space and listeners hemorrhage to mp3 players and net radio. Jingles and bumpers don't sell ad space.


Again, if you want to avoid examples of artists taking original songs and making them their own then so be it. Radio is not the heart of America's music industry anymore anyway. This isn't wolfman jacks 1950 world. I'm not clapping for the wolfman just so he'll rate my record high. Hell, again, there is enough money in radio to have caused the payola scandal and aftermath so the idea that radio will go extint if they *gasp* have to pay for the music they use to lure ad money is a pretty weak chicken little excuse. If anything, this change in the radio media format will allow it to become a better product instead of remaining a vehicle to pump out all the candykid bullshit that is played today.

It's pretty much summed up in one band: Nickleback. Terrestrial radio must play by the same rules as net radio. If not, well... I have some black and white tvs I can sell you.