Most people don’t know that musicians don’t get paid when their songs are played on the radio unless those musicians are the songwriters and retain control over the rights. Musicians are now pushing congress to change that and get AM and FM land radio to enter into the same sort of agreement hashed out for Satellite radio, Internet radio and cable TV music channels that already pay fees to performers and musicians, along with songwriter royalties.
“People deserve to be paid when somebody else uses their property,” Herbie Hancock said at a press conference given by musicFIRST Coalition, which represents the musicians’ interests in this fight.
The National Association of Broadcasters opposes, naturally.
“NAB welcomes an honest debate over whether radio stations or the record labels have historically been a ‘better friend’ to musicians,” Dennis Wharton, the organization’s executive vice president, said in a written statement.
What do you think?
I think Herbie Hancock doesn’t understand the legal concept of property.
I think Herbie doesn’t understand most musicians would pay to have their song on the radio
I think Herbie done gone bananas.
I actually think it’s a fair claim, but good luck with that, Herbie. Don’t see it happening.
A distinction should be made: if you were a hired gun and paid for your work on an album, that should be the end of your monetary compensation in that regard.
However, non-writing musicians in bands have been getting the short end of the stick for years: recording contracts were generally set up so that songwriters got paid from record sale number one, whereas the non-writing members had to wait until the album recouped to see penny one. (Which is why Noel Gallagher made a boatload more money from those early, big-selling Oasis records than Liam and co.)