Breast Cancer Patient Allegedly Fired TWICE While Seeking…
Judy A. Smith: Ask Judy: 'I Didn't Go To School For This'
There is a civil war of sorts in the black community regarding the proposed Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848). The legislation, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Conyers, would require traditional radio stations to pay a royalty to artists as compensation for playing their music. (Satellite radio, internet radio, cable TV music stations and radio stations that stream their signal online already pay performance royalties.)
Opponents of the bill (most notably Kathy Hughes, president of Radio One) claim that it will bankrupt small and black-owned radio stations, which will not be able to afford the fees required by the legislation. Supporters say that it will fairly compensate artists for their work.
It is very difficult to get excited about supporting either side of this debate. The main spokesperson for the "save black radio" crowd is Kathy Hughes, founder of Radio One. Others speaking out against the Performance Rights Act are Rev. Al Sharpton, Tom Joyner, Dick Gregory and several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The key supporters of the Performance Right Act are Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Bobby Scott, Dionne Warwick and several other prominent artists. Clearly, both sides have self-serving motives in the positions that they hold, which in itself is not wrong. However, the way both sides are framing the issue is completely misleading.
The main beneficiary of the Performance Rights Act (if passed) would not be the recording artists whose music is being played; it would be the record labels, who would reap the benefits of most of the royalties collected, just as they receive the majority of the money from artists' album sales. Also, the main beneficiaries of the Performance Rights Act not passing would not be black radio; it would be large broadcast radio corporations, both black-owned and others, which would escape having to compensate artists for using their music.
Radio One, Clear Channel, and other broadcast radio corporations have been the main culprits in destroying black radio, so to hear them speak out against this act by proclaiming the need to "save black radio" is an absolute joke. These corporations have willingly participated in payola relationships with the record labels for years, playing whatever buffoonish, ignorant, sexist garbage the major record labels tell them to put on their playlists. They have also virtually eliminated local disc jockeys, local/independent artists and programs that discuss issues of local concern. Given that a great deal of black radio talent works for white-owned stations, Kathy Hughes would be more accurate to say that she wants you to "save her bank account."
This is yet another unfortunate instance of divide and conquer: Instead of attacking the entities (record labels) that are whoring them both, radio broadcasters and artists have chosen to go to war with each other. Ultimately, the only winner in this drama will be the record companies, who will continue to prosper (relatively speaking) in tough times, while those that should be waging war against them continue to foolishly attack each other.
Comments: (16)
Add a comment
By: Andre on 5/19/2010 6:59PM
I agree, this argument is foolish! Anyone who works (other than a volunteer) deserves to get paid for their work and musicians are no different. Furthermore, how is it fair that broadcast radio stations don't have to pay royalties, yet satellite, internet, and Cable TV radio stations must pay? It's not. Fair is fair. They need to start paying up and shut up about "saving Black radio." It sounds ignorant to suggest, once again, that black companies can't compete fairly.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: kingdavidlives on 5/21/2010 7:37PM
RE: how is it fair that broadcast radio stations don't have to pay royalties, yet satellite, internet, and Cable TV radio stations must pay? It's not.
I'm not sure, but, I believe the answer is that rules/laws were already in place for broadcast radio. As newer media came about, new rules had to be agreed upon for them, while the old rules remain in force for broadcast radio.
Report This
By: rasfanta on 5/19/2010 11:24PM
I am for anything John Conyers wants for us. He is for us (black people) and all people. He is one of the few men of integrity in the congress of this country. Maybe a sliding scale can be implemented so as not to hurt businesses that cannot not afford the full fees.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: neil on 5/20/2010 2:33AM
i'm all for the bill, radio one is upset, because they know the corporate business model of radio in this country is what makes them lose money, plus black radio is treated like a step child than non black radio and has always been that way, radio one is like why make it bad for us when we just trying to get our pie too. But it's about being fare, never was it ever written that radio help recording artists because they give them exposure by playing their work, that's a crock artists have rights to so pay them for their work, not just consuming their works, but by also when they are played on radio.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: dee on 5/22/2010 10:11AM
Radio promotes an artist and their music. If there music is not played on the radio, how are they getting promoted. It is only robbing the black artists again after they started the online download of music.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Mary on 5/20/2010 11:05AM
Young artist need to be paid for their Music. Its not a war against Black radio stations, Blacks are the only one crying about paying the young artist.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: cheryl on 5/20/2010 8:42PM
This is a big problem. I vote no. Kathy Hughes states that only the Record Companies who control the artists will get paid. That makes sense because the Artists are under contract. So if the Record Companies collect from the radio stations that is probably the money that they will pay the Artist with and if the Artists CDS are not doing well they probably will not get paid. Congress allowed the Satellite Companies to take over the airwaves in 2005.
2) The Record Companies charge us for all other forms of entertainment so if they take over they will charge us for listening to music on radio. They will also control our news and live radio chats. We have no black TV or news networks, no national black newspaper. White corporations control all black news and entertainment. Do not let them take free Radio music. They want to control all information via satellite.
We must not let them. Write your Congressmen and Conyers. I don't trust any politician. They need to know and do the will of AA taxpayers.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: musiclvr on 5/21/2010 11:54PM
I'm all for the artists getting paid for their work, but aren't the radios basically promoting their music anyway, you know, advertising? Why are stations having to pay royalties just for putting the music out there? It doesn't sound right. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have bought some of the music I have now if not for the station I had listened to. I wouldn't have known about it. I can see having to pay royalties to the artists when you sell their albums, or when you use their music in one of your own songs, kinda like a remix; but this whole act sounds illogical...like stations are being made to pay even they're helping artists become popular. It's weird.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: CarlaB on 5/20/2010 11:40PM
What has Black radio, really, done for the thousands of Black artists? The only people they care about are the 10 artists whose songs you hear continuously over and over and over again on each and every one of these radio stations.
As the owner of an Independent label, I was never able to get major airplay because of the Payola demanded ($60,000 for 2 songs) to get airplay. After marketing our songs to college radio, having our video played in all 5 boro's in the Tri State Area, going to numerous live shows...our song, "Holla back" was allegedly stolen by Fabolous/the Neptunes. Once we went to court, we proved that only 2 out of over 50 songs had numerous musical and lyrical similarities Holla'back & Young'N (Holla back), proved the deliverate attempts to disguise the taking, documented case law which preceded and were being tried at the same time which proved that our case should be allowed to be tried by a Jury of our peers; yet our case was thrown out on Summary Judgment without giving us our 7th Amendment right to a jury trial. This is despite the Court of Appeals admitting that the District Court made numerous legal errors in their analysis of the case; even using a court case that is prohibited (Knitwaves v. Lollytogs) to support his desperate desire to throw the case out.
Kathy Cox is truly looking out for self..what's my reality? The reality is that what goes around...comes around...the radio stations, the record companies etc. are simply getting a taste of their own medicine.
Look out for our documentary "InJustice for All: Summary MisJudgment" which will detail 5 cases of alleged theft in every genre of the entertainment industrty with all the details, similarities and laws that cleary prove that there is no JUSTICE FOR ALL!
WWW.HOLLABCK.ORG
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Ceoholla on 8/27/2011 7:09PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrZfozHE4
InJustice for All...Summary MisJudgment-Trailer
Report This