It's Time to Get the Real Story On the Performance Tax
Tuesday, 28. April 2009, 16:17:30
In the USA the NAB have begun their campaign against the proposal that they, like radio stations over the rest of the world, should pay the artists who make the records a commision for playing them. On their website there's an article with the same title as this blog (No, I'm not paying them commision for it). It reads:-
Olympians aren’t the only ones who bring home the gold…
Local radio stations provide billions of dollars in promotional value to artists and record labels. In appreciation, the record labels bestow upon radio stations "gold" and "platinum" albums to show their gratitude.
So why do labels now want to "tax" radio for playing music – a practice that has put money in their pockets for more than 80 years?
I would venture to say that the reason is because the rich b@$#@£ds who run the record companies are thanking the rich b@$#@£ds for... let's not call it 'payola', let's call it 'services rendered', and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the artists get paid their dues.
Since it will never see the light of day, here's the letter I've sent to the NAB today:-
I can't help thinking you're being more than a little frugal with the facts about performance tax, known to me and my brother as 'royalties'. The fact is that when a US artist gets played on the radio almost anywhere in the world, even Cuba, they get paid performance royalties, but when a foreign artist gets played on US radio they get nothing. The US is one of just five countries in the entire world that don't pay performer's royalties, and the other four are 3rd world nations.
To say you offer free publicity is nothing short of dishonest. When scores of US radio stations were chasing the Beatles around the globe they weren't doing it because they wanted The Beatles to be big stars, they were doing it because The Beatles were making big money for them, and in the majority of markets that's still the situation, from everything I've heard of US radio over the internet over 90% of the material they broadcast is from already successful recordings.
As far as I'm concerned if radio stations in the richest nation in the world can't afford to pay me and my brother our miserable pittance then there is something majorly wrong with the way those radio stations are being run, and I would suggest that the guys at the top take a wage cut immediately for manifestly failing in their jobs.
Maybe I should put my mouth where my money is and get Boss Radio onto the air...
Just to show 'them' that it can be done of course.
Olympians aren’t the only ones who bring home the gold…
Local radio stations provide billions of dollars in promotional value to artists and record labels. In appreciation, the record labels bestow upon radio stations "gold" and "platinum" albums to show their gratitude.
So why do labels now want to "tax" radio for playing music – a practice that has put money in their pockets for more than 80 years?
I would venture to say that the reason is because the rich b@$#@£ds who run the record companies are thanking the rich b@$#@£ds for... let's not call it 'payola', let's call it 'services rendered', and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the artists get paid their dues.
Since it will never see the light of day, here's the letter I've sent to the NAB today:-
I can't help thinking you're being more than a little frugal with the facts about performance tax, known to me and my brother as 'royalties'. The fact is that when a US artist gets played on the radio almost anywhere in the world, even Cuba, they get paid performance royalties, but when a foreign artist gets played on US radio they get nothing. The US is one of just five countries in the entire world that don't pay performer's royalties, and the other four are 3rd world nations.
To say you offer free publicity is nothing short of dishonest. When scores of US radio stations were chasing the Beatles around the globe they weren't doing it because they wanted The Beatles to be big stars, they were doing it because The Beatles were making big money for them, and in the majority of markets that's still the situation, from everything I've heard of US radio over the internet over 90% of the material they broadcast is from already successful recordings.
As far as I'm concerned if radio stations in the richest nation in the world can't afford to pay me and my brother our miserable pittance then there is something majorly wrong with the way those radio stations are being run, and I would suggest that the guys at the top take a wage cut immediately for manifestly failing in their jobs.
Maybe I should put my mouth where my money is and get Boss Radio onto the air...
Just to show 'them' that it can be done of course.
WIDGETIZE