Comments on: Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay performers

Smashing Pumpkins founder tells Congress that broadcast radio stations should share the money they're making on songs with performers. Internet radio already has to.

[gkeramidas]

he needs to figure out he's getting free advertising. radio doesm't play his records and he won't sell any.

[Dylan_Wisor]

That applies to internet radio as well. He's saying that both or neither should pay for performance rights. So is this him advocating fairness for services like Pandora and Last.fm or just wanting to squeeze a few more pennies out of broadcasters?

The Smashing Pumpkins are godly, by the way.

[ducttape36]

so... reverse payola? don't see stations agreeing to that ever. or how about instead of making terrestrial stations pay, they just make internet radio stations not have to.

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.

Except this wouldn't be for just his records. This would be for all music, and yes they would pay. Either that or there will be no more music radio. Just like Internet radio and satellite radio have to pay now. As the article said, the only reason terrestrial radio isn't paying now is because of a loophole in the law.

[Perno13]

@ ducttape36 - I don't agree with having to pay tolls but I do it because it's the law. This is completely common sense, not sure why this didn't happen sooner. RIAA should stop going after grandmas and start having Clear Channel, Cox, et al. pay their fair share.

Billy you're bald and creepy but you make sense. Chicago FTW!

[ussilov]

oh really? corgan not sell? whats next, nin? or how about that obscure unknown band, radiohead?thats almost as outdated a point of view as the ones that say artists put out RECORDS instead of CD's. :P

[ducttape36]

i doubt it will be for all music. if the artist doesnt want to get paid for his music, then i dont think he should have to. radiohead gave their last album away for free, that was their choice since they were no longer on a label. and radio stations will be more willing to play that artist's music since they wont have to pay. sure if they are on a label and have a contract and are part of ASCAP or whatever then they will probably have to get paid, but for some average joe making music in his basement and has complete ownership of his music, then they can do whatever they'd like with it, including giving it away to radio stations for free for exposure.

[lumberjack79]

terrestrial radio and TV stations across Europe have been paying for performance since the dawn of time (jokers, don't take that literally of course) - they still make a decent living.

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.

[dontheideaguy]

...and I want Billy Corgan to pay me back for his last couple of crappy CDs.

[infinitely]

This doesn't have anything to do with Billy Corgan or his crappy band. He is totally right, if internet radio has to pay, so should real radio. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the forcing of internet radio was actually an attempt to shut it down for various reasons.

[Dylan_Wisor]

You must not have been paying attention. I said they're godly, did I not?

[mediocrates--2008]

This actually makes good sense. For all producers of intellectual property, the old business models are failing and are no longer viable. They can no longer draw revenue directly from the end-consumer. They need to shift the payment burden to elsewhere in the food chain.

[dontheideaguy]

Asking Radio to pay ANOTHER royalty fee is ridiculous. It's an attempt by a poorly run, dying industry to get some cash (ANY cash!) from another poorly run and dying industry. It's bad enough they double-dip on royalties from Radio stations who webstream (one royalty for using their music on the air, and another for using it on the web) and now they want MORE from an industry earning LESS -- and has been legally blocked from taking promotional monies from the same industry that wants to pick their pocket.

[aka_tripleB]

There is no performance (practically ever), so no one should get paid. If artists or bands are actually preforming live on the air, then they should get paid for being on the air. Otherwise, it's just a licensing issue on how you get to play the music, and internet radio shouldn't be forced by law to have the licensing agreement force down its throat when it had little influence on what the law said.

[jonathan0766]

I own three radio stations. The margins are not good, the economy is in the tank, and the advertising market is getting ripped apart by both the economy and the Internet (ask newspapers how things are going).

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.

[goonburke]

Why is it everyone thinks that it's OK for radio to use performers work for free and earn billions and somehow the musicians should get nothing. If you worked 12-14 hours a day to create something and someone else came along and sold it - giving you nothing in return would you say that was a fair system?

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.

[vhase]

The point is - radio has always been promotional tool - You play the music, the people hear it, and they go buy it. Music producers have been jamming tunes down the pipe for airplay since the inception of music programming. Suddenly the economy is crap, the nasty old internet shares our files, and - wait! Radio just PLAYS our music? I need compensation! That's what licensing fees are for - its a monetary pool that allows artists to be compensated for their work - and the right for stations to promote their music. Key phrase: Promote their music. Without the promotion, there is no music industry.

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.

[fazalmajid]

In the relationship between radios and labels, it's the radios that have the upper hand. Just see in which direction money flows between Clear Channel and the majors.

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.

[SebRoa]

This is the stupidiest thing ever, first is true, is one dying industry trying to squeazy pennies out of another dying industry, and if radios were to pay they would only pay for very few songs, so forget about hearing any other song that is not estrictly today's hit, other than that is not worth to pay.

[xim1970]

Well, I see it as a 60-40 argument...
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.

[olpunk]

Corgan is the whine-est, tinniest singer ever. His vocals ruined SP. Whatsamatta Billy, don't have enough millions yet? Start a club with Garth Brooks (remember "artist royalties" for selling USED cds? The airwaves give crap corporate artists a lot more that they give back. Go back to indulgent obscurity. Let hungry fresh voices be heard.

[Pete Bardo]

Billy needs to get a clue. The "Performance Rights" belong to the copyright holder and the publisher. It has nothing to do with performance! If he wants to share his revenue with the other "performers", he needs to include them as the writers and copyright holders. But does he want to share his money with the rest of the band? Hell no. He wants the radio stations to pay more for the performers, the advertisers to pay more to the radio stations, and all of pay more for whatever we buy after putting up with the ads in the first place..

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.

[gggg sssss]

keep this up and radio will demand that artists pay radio. Worked once, would work again. Weed out a lot of teh crapayola

[unknown unknown]

It wasn't that long ago that labels were paying radio stations to play their stuff, and three of the big four got busted for it (Sony BMG Music Entertainment in July 2005, Warner Music Group in November 2005 and Universal Music Group in May 2006) by none other than disgraced former New York AG and Mayor Eliot Spitzer.

[fondy]

It sounds like he's upset about internet radio having to pay royalty/licensing fees that terrestrial radio doesn't have to pay. Are there royalty/licensing fees terrestrial stations have to pay that internet stations are exempt from? What about satellite radio? Sounds like we're not getting the whole story.

[bemenaker]

Here's a better one Billy, how about we repeal the unfair tax on Internet radio, that only exist because terrestrial Radio is going down the same hole as the rest of the music industry.

[janthony451]

Lol. What you are witnessing is the last disparate act of cannibalism of an industry that is almost dead. American corporate music, RIP. And stay dead.

[karinstone]

it's nice to see billy fighting for something he believes in!

[3rdalbum]

Some advice for readers: Before replying, please note that radio stations ALREADY have to pay the record labels in order to play music. If the labels aren't passing any of this money on to performers, then this is something Billy Corgan should take up with his label.

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.

[ofdust]

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.

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?