Performance royalty debate gets loud, strikes local chord

Although radio singles might perk a few ears, they don’t necessarily make a performer’s pocket any heavier.

But over the last 50 years, there has been a push by artists and record labels to change this. Now, as the issue heads to the House and Senate floors, the debate surrounding it is causing increased radio chatter both on and off the air.

For as long as the partnership between artists and radio has existed, the arrangement has been one of “free play for free publicity.”

The songwriter and publisher receive royalty payments, but the performers themselves, as well as the labels, do not. Many artists have long been uncomfortable with this, and renewed interest in the debate has been sparked by a coalition of artists, labels and interest groups called MusicFIRST. Their aim is to change the laws through the Performance Rights Act.

The Judiciary Committees of both chambers have passed the Performance Rights Act, which would require broadcasters to pay the additional royalties.

“It would ensure that artists and musicians would be compensated for music that is played on the radio, just as they are compensated when their music is played on internet radio, satellite radio, cable television music channels, movies and TV shows,” said Marty Machowsky, a spokesman for MusicFIRST. “This is really a spotlight on this loophole that allows terrestrial radio to get away without paying anything.”

Some radio broadcasters, however, say the act’s passing could be the chiming of the death toll for small stations. An intense ad campaign encouraging public support against the bills has been launched by the National Association of Broadcasters. Re-christening the act as the “performance tax,” the NAB claims that the bills could bankrupt small stations.

Machowsky and MusicFIRST  disagree. “The bill has accommodations for small stations,” he said.

The accommodations include a flat $5,000 fee for stations making less than $1.25 million a year, and fees of even less for college and community stations. For any stations outside of these limits, the fee will be decided based on how much an artist is played.

Will Murphy, general manager of Bloomington’s community station WFHB, agrees the price is reasonable, but said he does not support the act.

“We’d probably be all right, but a lot of other stations wouldn’t be,” he said. “I think the practical effect is you would have a radical split in the market. On one hand you would have the big commercial stations, then you would have really small stations — college stations, non-commercial stations like us. Everything in between will probably evaporate.”

WFIU music director David Wood said he appreciates the sentiment behind the Performance Rights Act, but also does not support the act.

“As a person who has a performance background, I totally see where artists want to be compensated for their time and the labels for their effort,” Wood said. “But if you get to this point where stations are really concerned about what, how much and who they are playing, and how they have to monitor all of this, they may cut back on the number of artists they are playing.”

According to Machowsky, the Performance Rights Act would follow the same model as all other platforms. The distribution would be 45 percent to the main performer, five percent to session and background musicians, and 50 percent to the rights holder.

“That could be a major label,” Machowsky said. “But it could also be the artist or an indie label.”

Wood, however, said the Performance Rights Act might not be beneficial to smaller artists.

“Some of them are fighting against this,” Wood said. “They feel that in some ways they will have less representation and won’t get their fair cut against the Sonys and other folks like that.”

This sentiment is also echoed by some Bloomington musicians.

Christopher Reynolds, lead singer and songwriter of the band Strictly Off the Record, said while it is true some rights holders are the artists themselves, these musicians are usually independent and untested.

“Adding any additional fee for every song played is going to make stations unwilling to take risks on unproven artists,” Reynolds said.

Adam Turla, lead singer of the band Murder by Death, said he appreciated the idea of trying to compensate artists, but the act itself “seems kinda like a mess.”

“Radio isn’t a main source of income for mid-level or small level bands, nor would it be if this act passed,” Turla said. “To generate any reasonable amount of money from radio plays you need a single that gets played over and over all over the place.”

Despite the loud protest from the National Association of Broadcasters. and the act’s detractors, Machowsky said the industry and those who support radio performance royalties are closer than ever to seeing the idea become an actuality.

With bills approved by both the House and Senate judiciary committees, and ongoing discussions happening between the coalition and broadcasters, he might be right.

“There is a very minimal impact on college radio stations and if the college radio community has any concerns, we encourage them to reach out to us and talk about it,” Machowsky said. “We’re in those ongoing discussions with the radio broadcasters now, and we’re very confident if we sit down in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise, then we can do that.”