| COMMENTS (5) | | Anonymous - 01/25/2010 | | Know what? Jennifer Bendall's employer, Eris Group LLC, got $370,000 in funds from SoundExchange in 2009.
Now do you think this is " ... equal leadership representing artists, musicians and rights holders..."? |
| | Anonymous - 09/06/2009 | | This is a ridiculous argument; do you really expect radio stations to pay performers for the privilege of promoting the same performers work while the record labels rake in 80 to 85 percent of the proceeds?? I have been a licensed broader since 1974 when all radio personal were required to be licensed in order to work in radio. I am also a musician since the late 60's, having dealt with both sides of the "coin" I can say that the performance royalties proposed by MusicFirst is yet another scam against radio and against the artists both. The only people making any money toady are the labels and the "performance rights agents". My son’s band is labeled by a record company in LA. His band plays an average of 275 shows per year, they sell hundreds of thousands of cd's, dvd's and other merchandise items yet when they are not on the road actually playing, they each have to get menial jobs just to survive, (food, rent, power etc). The record company is not doing without anything. The musicians, at least all of the one's I know, understand that radio is what brings our fans to the show, it promotes our products and creates the demand that musicians need to survive. Expecting radio broader to pay for the privilege of promoting a product is ridiculous. MusicFirst is primarily interested in the percentage of the proceeds that they can line their own pockets with at the expense of the broader, not the artist. - MG Noblot |
| | Anonymous - 09/04/2009 | | This is an article? More like an op-ed piece. At what point did Radio World get in bed with the RIAA?
The only reason "[a]rtists, musicians and rights holders have been waiting decades to get paid for their musical creations" is because of the record labels denying payment to the very artists and musicians who will remain unpaid once the rights holders (record labels) apply their unique brand of accounting to this new income stream.
At least when the mob shook you down you dealt with your local friendly street enforcer. The RIAA wants Congress to do their dirty work. |
| | Anonymous - 09/04/2009 | | Radio stations can not give into MusicFirst. These people want to destroy local radio. The problem is Blubster, and other places where people can post things, and let other people have it for free. |
| | Anonymous - 09/04/2009 | | What nonsense! If Musicfirst wants to represent all rights holders, that's fine. We're all for that if all that it does is abolishes BMI, ASCAP, SESAC and SoundExchange and provides a one-stop source for royalty payments, without changing the fee structure. On the other hand, wanting to add yet another layer of royalties to broaders to increase the wealth of britney spears (among hundreds of other already wealthy artists), would be laughable if it were not so serious. These people have forgotten that radio is the horse that brought them to the party and is now the economic engine that allows them to continue building wealth. Let's pour some sand into that engine and see how it runs. Without radio, they'd be sweeping the shop floor somewhere. Artists of the past 100 years knew they had a good deal that worked for everyone. Many's the artist that went across country, records in hand, to every radio station that they could find trying to get airplay. That's because they knew that they needed radio. Now we have a new generation of artists that have forgotten that lesson and these new kids have a scheme whereby the incredibly rich get richer. No thanks! Does anyone think that unpopular artists are going to make anything from these new fees? How about if all of the money earned from performance fees goes to a fund to help struggling musicians and independant record labels instead of into the pockets of artists that are already well paid? Would Musicfirst agree to that?
Given the absolute rape of American Internet Broading by SoundExchange, I cannot see any need to ravish our broading industry, too. Even if additional fees were justified, which they are not, why does the US broader have to foot the bill for the rest of the world? The whole system is rigged against US broaders.
Musicfirst, go away and come back when you really represent everyone. Then we'll talk about how you can split up the pie, but don't come with some lie ab |
|
|