@Lampbane: You are splitting an incredibly thin hair. The US is very much like other Western countries in one regard: it has a large number of privately owned, for-profit radio stations. Those stations are able to thrive in other countries despite the fact that they actually have to compensate the artists whose music they profit from. Who knew?

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples to oranges. The United States is not like other Western countries when it comes to radio and television. For starters, we don’t have government-owned public broadcasting.

It’s gonna go something like this:

Record Company Promo Guy: “Hey I’ve got music from a new band that I’d really like you to add into rotation. They’re great kids, we hope for big things, and we sure could use your support”

Radio Music Director: “I dunno, Promo Guy. Our playlist is pretty tight and I’ve never heard of this band – why shsould I give them a shot?”

RCPG: “Please, man – I’m gonna get fired if I don’t get the single on the air”

RMD: “OK fine. I’ll help support your baby band, alienate my listeners who wanna hear music they’re familiar with and help you keep your gig in the meantime. They seem like good kids and the single IS pretty good. I’ll give in and be a champion of this new artist.”

RCPG: “GREAT! So…where can we send an invoice?”

– seriously, though, who would be the agency responsible for collection of these royalties? ASCAP? BMI? Those ‘non-profits’ are more corrupt than the labels!!

Dig this: the 45% that goes to the performer DOES NOT go to the label to be held against recoupables. This would amount to a pretty big victory for artists, who are often subject to some pretty bad deals with their labels.

We can all agree that commercial radio sucks, but this is more due to consolidation in station ownership than broadcasters’ exemption from the performance royalty.

Another thing to think about: every industrialized nation on Earth has a performance right, which leaves the US in the company of Iraq, China and North Korea. It’s a whole new axis! (The lack of a reciprocal right also leaves millions of dollars of uncollected dollars on the table for international play of US artists.)

And keep in mind that satellite radio and webcasters already pay this royalty. What makes the NAB so special? The broadcasters claim that it’s all about promotional value, but with the fastest growing segments of commercial radio being ’80s and ’90s retro and classic rock, the argument doesn’t really hold.

It’s a question of parity really, and whether or not you think it’s fair that songwriters and publishers are compensated but performing artists are not.

More info on the legislation, its supporters and detractors:
[futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com]

Would this lead to stations that choose to play music that actually is decent!?

No, no, you’re right. Sorry to get excited.

By the way, do I owe someone somewhere royalties for typing the song title?