Print  RSS 
Aug 12

Written by:
8/12/2010 12:49 PM 


Paul McLane is editor in chief/U.S. of Radio World.

Kudos to the cooler heads who seem to be prevailing these days at NAB and among the nation's most influential broadcasters on the topic of a performance royalty.

I'll tell you, it was getting pretty lonely there for a while. It's not easy to be excoriated for one's opinions, even in my job, where I kind of expect it. And when a radio broadcaster tells me I'm "anti-radio," it gets my attention. I've spent every week of my professional life since 1979 in and around radio. But that was the tenor of some of the reaction over the last couple of years, whenever I questioned the scorched-earth tactics radio was using to fight labels and performers over this "tax." (I criticized the labels too, but that was often overlooked.)

Apparently some folks feel it is treasonous to write, as I did, that radio broadcasters were fighting a battle they were bound to lose, given how society has come to think about content rights. No editor of a radio trade publication should be allowed (it seemed) to argue that the cost of this fight could actually be self-defeating; I was foolish, it appeared, to feel that radio could eventually help itself more by shaping the outcome in a collaborative way rather than resisting it so fiercely. One would have thought I had hung the American flag upside down while I stood atop NAB headquarters listening to a Sirius XM boombox.

Don't misunderstand me. The question hasn't been settled. But it is gratifying to hear broadcast leaders (not just the NAB or the largest broadcasters, but other voices) saying things like "if we negotiate in good faith..." and "It would be a huge miscalculation if we do not at least continue a dialogue..." and "We cannot forget that it is artists who sing the songs." All of these recent statements are from career radio people, and echo what I'd heard from quieter voices earlier in the process.

Peter Smyth, head of Greater Media and no limp-kneed RIAA patsie, wrote this week: “I don’t want our company to pay a 1% net revenue fee for the ‘privilege’ of promoting artists and their music. But when you move beyond the rhetoric and look closely at the proposed terms that are under discussion, it seems clear: The conceptual framework provided by NAB’s leadership team is something that the leaders and owners in this great business should seriously consider.” Otherwise the day could come, he said, when Congress could stick radio with a much higher bill.

Hmm. A pragmatic request for serious consideration on a difficult question, rather than simple, quick-slam negativity. Where have I heard that before?

Categories:
Location: Blogs Parent Separator Rwonline Blog
Aug 12


8/12/2010 4:49:14 PM 


Paul McLane is editor in chief/U.S. of Radio World.

Kudos to the cooler heads who seem to be prevailing these days at NAB and among the nation's most influential broadcasters on the topic of a performance royalty.

I'll tell you, it was getting pretty lonely there for a while. It's not easy to be excoriated for one's opinions, even in my job, where I kind of expect it. And when a radio broadcaster tells me I'm "anti-radio," it gets my attention. I've spent every week of my professional life since 1979 in and around radio. But that was the tenor of some of the reaction over the last couple of years, whenever I questioned the scorched-earth tactics radio was using to fight labels and performers over this "tax." (I criticized the labels too, but that was often overlooked.)

Apparently some folks feel it is treasonous to write, as I did, that radio broadcasters were fighting a battle they were bound to lose, given how society has come to think about content rights. No editor of a radio trade publication should be allowed (it seemed) to argue that the cost of this fight could actually be self-defeating; I was foolish, it appeared, to feel that radio could eventually help itself more by shaping the outcome in a collaborative way rather than resisting it so fiercely. One would have thought I had hung the American flag upside down while I stood atop NAB headquarters listening to a Sirius XM boombox.

Don't misunderstand me. The question hasn't been settled. But it is gratifying to hear broadcast leaders (not just the NAB or the largest broadcasters, but other voices) saying things like "if we negotiate in good faith..." and "It would be a huge miscalculation if we do not at least continue a dialogue..." and "We cannot forget that it is artists who sing the songs." All of these recent statements are from career radio people, and echo what I'd heard from quieter voices earlier in the process.

Peter Smyth, head of Greater Media and no limp-kneed RIAA patsie, wrote this week: “I don’t want our company to pay a 1% net revenue fee for the ‘privilege’ of promoting artists and their music. But when you move beyond the rhetoric and look closely at the proposed terms that are under discussion, it seems clear: The conceptual framework provided by NAB’s leadership team is something that the leaders and owners in this great business should seriously consider.” Otherwise the day could come, he said, when Congress could stick radio with a much higher bill.

Hmm. A pragmatic request for serious consideration on a difficult question, rather than simple, quick-slam negativity. Where have I heard that before?

Comments

Thank you for your comment. Please note that posts are reviewed for suitability and may not appear until the next business day.

Archive

July 2016 (4)
June 2016 (3)
May 2016 (4)
April 2016 (3)
March 2016 (6)
February 2016 (4)
January 2016 (6)
December 2015 (7)
November 2015 (6)
October 2015 (11)
September 2015 (7)
August 2015 (8)
July 2015 (10)
June 2015 (14)
May 2015 (5)
April 2015 (6)
March 2015 (6)
February 2015 (4)
January 2015 (5)
December 2014 (7)
November 2014 (6)
October 2014 (10)
September 2014 (11)
August 2014 (14)
July 2014 (4)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (5)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (6)
February 2014 (7)
January 2014 (8)
December 2013 (9)
November 2013 (11)
October 2013 (9)
September 2013 (6)
August 2013 (5)
July 2013 (1)
June 2013 (4)
May 2013 (3)
April 2013 (2)
March 2013 (8)
February 2013 (8)
January 2013 (7)
December 2012 (3)
November 2012 (4)
October 2012 (7)
September 2012 (10)
August 2012 (4)
July 2012 (7)
June 2012 (4)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (10)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (6)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (5)
October 2011 (8)
September 2011 (9)
August 2011 (10)
July 2011 (6)
June 2011 (5)
May 2011 (7)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (9)
February 2011 (6)
January 2011 (7)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (3)
October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (10)
August 2010 (8)
July 2010 (7)
June 2010 (5)
May 2010 (5)
April 2010 (11)
March 2010 (7)
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (4)
December 2009 (2)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (5)
September 2009 (6)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (3)
June 2009 (15)
May 2009 (8)
April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (2)
February 2009 (2)
January 2009 (1)
December 2008 (5)