 Fred Wilhelms on Simson's Mercury News editorial ·Aug 11, 10:30 AM Last week, RAIN ran a link to an op-ed piece (here) written by or for John Simson on the need for a terrestrial radio performance Some words were used repeatedly by the author: musician – 5 artist – 11 performer – 3 singer – 1 band – 1 There are 19 sentences in the piece. Simson averages more than one reference per sentence to these wonderful people who have created fortunes for “corporate radio.” Clearly, the terrestrial performance royalty is all about the deserving artists. There is another telling word tally: label – 0 In taking his passion for the well being of artists directly to the public, Mr. Simson apparently doesn’t feel it is necessary to let the public know that at least 50% of the revenues from a terrestrial performance royalty will go to the labels, and 90% of that money (based on current estimates of terrestrial radio playlists) will go to the four RIAA labels. I say “at least 50%” because the same loophole that allows Internet webcasters to negotiate direct performer licenses, and pay the labels directly, exists in the proposed legislation Mr. Simson is touting. Saying this legislation is all about starving artists without admitting where at least half the money goes is just dishonest. Think of the poor artists, Mr. Simson cries, but don’t think of the entities primarily responsible for their poverty in the first place. We are at the gates of the Emerald City, and Mr. Simson does not want us to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. How stupid must he think everyone is? There are good reasons for having a terrestrial radio performance royalty. There are good reasons why there shouldn’t be one. The debate is an important one. The op-ed doesn’t move the discussion one inch forward (and not only because SoundExchange doesn’t really engage in actual discussion on matters like this), and shows nothing but the now all-too-common disdain in which SoundExchange holds public discourse, and the public itself. It’s a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion by sleight-of-hand. The issue deserves better. -Fred Wilhelms share: del.icio.us.  Reddit  Digg  Yahoo  Wink  Windows  Google  Newsvine 
Comment Other stories RAIN 9/2: Apple makes iTunes experience more social, more "radio-like" RAIN 9/1: FilterMusic.net excels at helping you discover new streams RAIN 8/31: Pandora's Les Hollander to speak at RAIN Summit East RAIN 8/30: Former Forrester analyst to deliver second keynote of RAIN Summit East RAIN 8/27: Radio vet Bill Gamble to consult AccuRadio's country stations RAIN 8/26: Clear Channel's digital chief Evan Harrison to leave at end of year RAIN 8/25: Pandora spotlights improved "genre-based" listening options RAIN 8/24: NAB presents details of proposed royalty settlement to members RAIN 8/23: Mobile media growth will even outpace Internet, predicts Nielsen RAIN 8/20: New deadline for Internet Radio Awards is August 31 |
royalty (
Fred Wilhelms is right on—and how few people actually know this is amazing. Thank you for some much needed honesty.
— Jean Bayou · Aug 11, 03:26 PM · #
Thanks for the great counter punch Fred. As to your question relating to Mr. Simson’s grasp on reality—stupid as stupid does. Along with the innumerable ignorant there’s plenty of stupidity on this issue—-especially on the court benches and in Congress.
It’s pretty clear that Simson’s mission in life is to exploit every last one of them. Question is…where’s Glenda the good witch when you need her?—-oh yeah…might that be you? :wink:
— David · Aug 11, 06:26 PM · #
Simpson is no great oz just another fake behind the curtain. Now if we click our heels can we all get back to coming up with a solution or we’ll never get out of oz alive.
— Arty LaVigne · Aug 12, 01:20 PM · #
Sure would be nice to see the Mercury News run this article as a counter op-ed, you know?
— bhance · Aug 13, 11:51 AM · #