 Wilhelms: SX's 'redistribution of wealth' logic is bogus ·Dec 5, 05:05 AM From P2P.net, by attorney Fred Wilhelms: “‘This is about redistributing the wealth from corporate radio.’ “So sayeth SoundExchange head honcho and unabashed RIAA beard John Simson, explaining why a terrestrial radio performance royalty is a good thing in an interview [RAIN coverage here]… “Unfortunately, Simson is unable to come up with a better reason than ‘radio stations have a lot of “Simson peers into his crystal ball and forsees a day when labels will sit down with stations and say, ‘We’d love you to play this record, so we’ll give you break on performance rates for the first 90 days [the record’s] out …’ “Several months ago, Simson was adamant about radio having no promotional value, so this is something of a turn about,… So when he thinks that labels and artists will gladly give away almost every benefit the artist would see from a terrestrial royalty, artists should be paying attention… “…[W]ho, in John Simson’s world, wouldn’t need to give a radio station a financial incentive to play a particular recording? Well, if you give it some rational thought, you might come up with an artist who already has an established name, and all those classic cuts that fill radio playlists from oldies to Jack to AAA. “And who do those established artists record for, and who owns all those classic tracks? Simson’s big “Take this ‘redistribution of wealth’ argument. As far as I can determine, he means that because radio makes a profit, they should pay a royalty. That’s the only reason he gives in that interview: radio has money and the mere ability to pay is enough reason that they should pay. “Now, truth be told, I believe there should be a terrestrial radio performance royalty that should go, at least in part, to the recording artists… “And, just to be clear, I don’t think the royalty is a good idea because it makes up a little for decades of the labels screwing over artists on royalties from record sales. That’s a different issue. The terrestrial radio performance royalty is a good idea because it makes sense standing on its own for artists. “The problem is that the royalty is being looked at as the financial savior for an industry that can’t seem to make an honest dime on its own these days… “And we also know how deeply ingrained the idea of ‘redistribution of wealth’ is in the record industry. I mean, when Terra Firma paid nearly $5 billion for EMI, we know that EMI turned around and paid the artists a substantial share of that windfall. Didn’t they?” Read the entire article at P2P.net. share: del.icio.us.  Reddit  Digg  Yahoo  Wink  Windows  Google  Newsvine 
Comment Other stories RAIN 09/05: DiMA's Potter disputes SoundEx's "lack of webcaster monetization" argument RAIN 09/04: "Mission accomplished" for HD Radio Alliance RAIN 09/03: Brian Parsons joins Triton Media RAIN 9/2: Broadcasters should be on "as many wireless devices as possible," says Greater Media VP RAIN 08/29: BBC PLANS MASSIVE MUSIC STREAMING SERVICE RAIN 8/28: RIAA lobbying for radio royalties at political conventions RAIN 8/27: Analyst warns investors away from "long-term loser" music industry RAIN 8/26: In heavyweight online radio battle, CC readies "I Heart Music" to take on CBS RAIN 8/25: Chrysler's in-car Internet launches RAIN 8/22: Pandora's fight is radio's fight, says industry research expert |
money’ to justify the royalty…
buddies at the 
