Is A Performance Fee An Inevitable Reality?
August 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM (PT)
ALL ACCESS reported YESTERDAY (NET NEWS 8/13) that GREATER MEDIA Pres./CEO PETER SMYTH may have made the first concession in writing regarding the ongoing Performance Royalty Fee war ongoing between radio and artists. In his monthly column, SMYTH wrote:
"Don’t get me wrong: I hate the idea of taxes, royalties, fees or whatever you want to call new payments that might go to record labels and artists. 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. And I for one think it would be a huge miscalculation if we do not at least continue a dialogue that might provide the regulatory certainty needed to re-open access to capital and provide long-term opportunities for growth."
SMYTH was referring to a proposal issued by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Board, after meetings last week in WASHINGTON, D.C. (NET NEWS 8/6).
musicFIRST spokesperson MARTY MACHOWSKY commented on SMYTH's blog to ALL ACCESS, "Well, it is certainly what musicFIRST is working for because everyone deserves to be paid for their work -- especially when others, in this case radio, use it as the foundation of their business. We look forward to Congress completing work in 2010 to create a performance right on radio that is fair to artists, musicians and rights holders -- and fair to radio."
ALL ACCESS has contacted the major radio groups for their comments, and a CLEAR CHANNEL spokesperson remarked, "We continue to work with the NAB to try to achieve an industry-wide acceptable compromise on a very complex issue. But we don't believe the proper forum for these negotiations is in the press or online."