The NAB is promising that when the election is over it is in a good position to prevent the music royalty tax exemption from being eliminated.
Of course, the record industry through its eager beavers MusicFIRST is saying it's ready to go "toe-to-toe with corporate radio and we will win". (God, the thought of doing anything so intimate as toe-to-toe with the guys I know who run radio groups turns my stomach, but nonetheless...).
Congress -- no matter what its political makeup -- scares me.
They need lobby groups to help them think (wink/wink). And there is a growing sentiment that terrestrial radio should not be exempt from paying additional taxes to a dying music industry. Forget that radio is dying just as fast.
The folks from MusicFIRST brag that they've made more progress in the past 18 months than in the previous 80 years.
Let the pissing match continue -- just what these two farcical industries need while kids are robbing the labels blind and leaving radio behind.
An old fashion pissing match that I promise you will lead to no good.
The labels want a two-tiered approach that may win some friends on Capitol Hill. One level of punishment for small market, public radio and don't forget religious broadcasters. And a bigger penalty for Clear Channel, CBS, Citadel and the rest of the fat cats. (Is it right to refer to radio groups as fat cats when their stocks are worth under $1?)
Sit down for this.
MusicFIRST, who I refer to as MusicHEARST -- as in transporting dead bodies -- was quoted in Inside Radio Monday as saying "We will close the corporate radio loophole and the music community and radio will have a bright future together."
My God, I feel like I'm back at Woodstock.
Peace.
Love.
Nudity.
Royalties.
Okay, three out of four ain't bad.
Where is Jimi Hendrix when we need him?
Look, I have a decided bias here in favor of the radio industry. Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are in the record business -- if you know what I mean.
It's not about deserving more. Not about helping those poor starving artists (after the labels help themselves). Not about -- what's fair for everyone else is also fair for radio. I'm telling you that's not my issue here.
What's eating at me is that for those 80 years (using MusicFIRST's math), the arrangement was good enough for the labels to swallow their tongues. Now, all of a sudden --when the labels can't figure out the digital future -- they want radio to pay up for all the free promotion their artists still get.
I'll give you that radio has lost a lot of its influence among the record buying public -- whatever that is. It's like the labels know that radio is losing it anyway so now's the time to hit them up for additional fees on the music they play.
In past pieces I've argued that radio stations should consider playing only artists that have no license agreements. My mail runs negative every time I say it. Some are afraid that would ruin radio. What? How could you ruin radio any more than playing the labels' same few songs over and over again?
As they say in kindergarten -- let's take a time out.
If I'm radio right now, I'm pouring my money into defending Internet streamers in their pissing match with the labels. That's radio's future business.
See, if radio is getting screwed after 80 years, Internet streamers are getting screwed after eight years. How fair is that?
If I'm radio, I'm coming up with a plan to use non-licensed music on-the-air -- listeners will eat it up as scary as it sounds. And for those of you who ask what should oldies stations do -- my answer is, something different. If you want oldies, get an iPod -- at least until the labels are brought to their knees. Oldies are 99 cents on iTunes -- the royalties are built into the price.
Of course, smart young people go to bit torrent sites and get their music for free -- what are you going to do about that, MusicFIRST?
Both sides can argue the merits of their arguments until the Congressmen come home, but the real issues in the debate are:
1) Why was the royalty tax exemption just fine for radio for 80 years -- not a peep out of the labels? Now they've got an urgent need to close the corporate radio loophole.
2) Why are Internet streamers being forced to pay outrageously high fees in a business that is just in its infancy?
Are you beginning to see the labels logic here?
I'm not.
But I see their motivation.
The record business is dying. Radio is dying. Why not stab your former hit making partner in the back while preventing your future online partner from getting started?
Makes sense in the record business.
Hey, remember -- these labels couldn't make a simple decision to buy Napster and nip it in the bud when it started the downloading revolution -- so what do you expect from them now?
If you think all of this doesn't make any sense -- welcome to the club.
Eventually a low royalty tax will be imposed on radio.
Stations will suck it up.
The labels will raise it.
Stations will complain but pay up again as they continue to go bankrupt.
The only way a tax on radio or the Internet is fair -- is if the labels have to pay the stations and streamers for the free exposure. Then, I'm open for your cockamamie tax.
But while radio and the Internet continue to promote the labels' music for free -- the royalty exemption that will be repealed soon - is not about being equitable. It's about biting the hand that feeds you.
Tell that to Congress. Let's go testify. Let's make a compelling case for what happens when you corner a dangerous animal and it strikes back.
Congress should keep in mind that further diminution of radio's ability to be a viable entity is not in the public interest and they should vote accordingly.
Now, let's vent our frustration.
All together now...
Go to Limewire and download some music for free.
For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.
Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.
