Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers
Billy Corgan, founder of the band Smashing Pumpkins, speaks before Congress.
(Credit: Smashingpumpkins.com)
Update 3:29 p.m. PDT: Added quotes from the National Association of Broadcasters.
Internet 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."
Web radio stations have complained for a long time that they are made to pay performance fees, when traditional broadcasters pay nothing. It should be noted that online services have said they believe in compensating music performers.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
The Smashing Pumpkins are godly, by the way.
on the other hand, if this went into effect it would probably do the music scene some good, since unsigned bands could offer their music for free and get the exposure they want. then djs could actually pick the music again and find good music that isn't commercialized. Not that all commercial music is bad, it would just diversify the music scene more.
Billy you're bald and creepy but you make sense. Chicago FTW!
as Billy says it's a question of fairness and moral - of course you have to pay the performers on whose backs you make your bucks - of course if the artist chooses to NOT get paid in favour of promotion, then that's their choice - new technologies allow for accurate and almost instant reporting (also for terrestrial radios). There really isn't any excuse anymore. Besides Radiohead also get paid millions in performance royalties via stations across Europe, which is one reason why they can afford to give their album away, which btw also still sold millions.
Lastly the number of artists able to make a living through CD sales is declining rapidly - soon it'll only be about getting money from controlling access to their music for artists and not from selling a product like a CD.
I suppose Billy will be a lot happier when radio disappears like newspapers. It's retarded to price both radio and Internet broadcast out of the market with those fees, the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Radio already pays a dozen fees just to play the music; to be allowed to by law we have to pay licensing fees. Billy should be going after his masters in the distribution system, I guarantee he's getting a penny on the dollar out of the music licensing fees the radio industry already pays.
Musicians work VERY hard to create the music they do. Hours in the studio and weeks and months touring. They deserve to get paid for what they produce same as a farmer, factory worker or any other entrepreneur.
And BTW - other countries collect royalties for radio play so why should the US be any different. There are still plenty of radio stations running in the black in Canada.
There is money going out to each artist of the labels that participate in the system - which is all of them. If the artists feel abused, then the licensing needs to be re-worked, not another set of fees tacked on to what is already being paid out.
If radios are required to pay royalties, smaller radios will go bust, Clear Channel's monopoly will be reinforced, and it will just increase the placement fees they extort from the labels to make up for the increased costs, and then some.
Then again, radios should just do listeners a favor and drop that talentless hack's band from the airwaves. No play, no fees, it's as simple as that.
Does Corgan deserve money for recorded work that is being played in order to advance sales of his album? Sure, to a point.
What are artists getting today from internet radio play? Pennies per play? I'm honestly not sure. Why not look at those pennies per play as "advertising" for their latest album. I think, overall, that Corgan is kicking himself in the ass by not seeing the overall money being paid to him. Maybe it's more than I think, but I'd rather get free advertising on radio, than sit there and whine about how I can't sit at home so I can dream up a new 15 tracks over the next 10 years. Make 1 good song, and people will buy or download your album for actual money. Make 15 crappy songs, and people will still buy it, so long as one is popular SOMEWHERE! Internet radio, airwaves, digital tv, on and on and on. BTW, didn't the Pumpkins break up? Who was waiting for this dude to whine into a microphone again? Music itself is good, vocals are terrible.
What a load of crap. If he wants the radio stations to pay the actual performers, maybe that money should go to all the local musicians who are out of work because of the lopsided nature of the recording industry. And I mean the recording industry, not the music industry. The music industry would include all of us local musicians. The recording industry only includes the musicians who are willing to kiss the corp. exec's collective *****.
He should just go smash some pumpkins and be happy with that.
The whole "catalogue" system is broken too, by the way. If you don't pay the record companies enough money, they won't license much music to you - and that's why you hear the same songs every day on commercial radio. The stations that barely pay anything to the labels are generally the same ones that play the same songs every few hours.
It should be a case of: The radio stations buy whatever they want to play from the iTunes Music Store, once a day. They can play whatever they d*** well want as long as they buy a copy every time they play it.
- by ofdust March 12, 2009 1:29 PM PDT
- You guys thinking Corgan is standing up for internet radio are not paying attention to the story. He clearly states that he, the artist, feels he should be compensated for writing a song that the radio is profitting from. He is not sticking up for Internet Radio paying an unfair tax, he's asking that the tax be spread to terrestial radio so he may further line his pockets.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (33 Comments)Anyone remember when Universal got busted for BRIBING radio stations to play Ashlee Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, & Nick Lachey? They paid $12 mil in settlements. The difference now is they've been allowed to abuse the internet (and the people on it) to promote their music, so they're spitting at the Radio Stations that they BEGGED for airplay in previous years. The simple fact is, this hypocrisy and disloyalty is the main reason these labels are going under. These people are abusive to their very own customers, and they wonder why illegal downloading is still going strong?