Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Registration opens for Future of Music Coalition's Annual Policy Summit



Registration is opening for the seventh annual Future of Music Policy Summit. The Policy Summit brings together an unprecedented mix of musicians, lawmakers, and technologists for cutting edge discussions on issues at the intersection of music, law, technology, and policy (http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit07/index.cfm).

This year’s event will include more than a dozen panel discussions on topics ranging from performance royalties to net neutrality, to discussions about the technologies that are bringing musicians and fans closer together. Past speakers and panelists include musician David Byrne, rapper Chuck D., Sen. Russ Feingold, RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser, producer Hank Shocklee, and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. A full list of this year’s speakers and panel topics will be released in the coming weeks.

As The Washington Post put it, the Future of Music Policy Summit has become "a kind of Geneva where all sides in any number of contentious music industry fights can get together and play nice for a few days." Even more importantly, the Policy Summits offer policymakers "a rare opportunity to hear musicians articulate their concerns in person instead of relying on competing lobbying groups that claim to espouse their interests," (Washington Post, May 6, 2004).

WHEN: Sept. 17-18, 2007 (Monday and Tuesday)

WHERE: George Washington University’ Betts Theatre in Washington, D.C.

HOW TO REGISTER: Summit attendees should register via the Summit web site at https://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit07/regform.cfm.

Tickets are $149 until Aug. 15. Registration will cost $199 starting August 16.

Members of the press can register for credentials at http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit07/press.cfm.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Clear Channel Responds to FMC’s complaint


Clear Channel responded Friday to FMC’s Request for a Declaratory Ruling, which we filed at the FCC over the chain’s attempts to strip indie artists of performance royalties in exchange for airplay.

Clear Channel officially announced it had revised the language on its licensing agreement (for a fuller discussion see this blog posting). In media reports, Clear Channel officials said, “FMC's allegations of a 'payola-like scheme' are irresponsible and totally false.”

Here is why we made the complaint and why it’s significant.

For many years, FMC and other partner organizations have made the case that it is next to impossible in a consolidated commercial radio industry for independent and local artists to receive significant airplay on broadcast radio stations. This is why we have persistently fought to roll back media consolidation, expand and protect community radio, and work to increase government oversight of payola. For the past five years, we've also talked about an insidious form of structural payola - not the traditional small time bribes that have been around for decades, but a sense that artists and labels had to "play the game" in order to even be considered for commercial airplay. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's asking bands to play concerts put on by radio stations, sometimes it's other favors. But what everyone in the industry knows is that consolidated radio used their enormous leverage to control what songs would be eligible for airplay.

When the FCC announced a consent decree that wrapped up their response to Eliot Spitzer's New York State investigation, the four major broadcast groups (including Clear Channel) committed not only to increased oversight and internal policing, they also signed the "Rules of Engagement"; a broad statement of principles that clarified the types of behavior in which they would not engage. The implication was clear; because the broadcasters would honor these rules, additional FCC action or increased legislative muscle would not be necessary. But as Senator Feingold alluded to recently in his letter to the broadcasters: “[…] now it seems that simply relying on good faith to end the pervasive practice of payola may not be enough. The major radio companies should reaffirm their commitment to making air play decisions based on artistic merit instead of on the musicians’ or labels’ willingness to provide thinly veiled bribes through payola.”

The entire episode with Clear Channel must be viewed through that lens. This is not an issue about new streaming services or other online applications - this is a question of what hoops Clear Channel would make artists go through in order to have their music even considered for broadcast. The implications could not be clearer: the listening public has a right to expect that Clear Channel (and other programmers) are scouring the music industry, searching out the hot new songs that their listeners would love to hear. Instead, Clear Channel (and the others) uses their extraordinary market power as leverage. They say in effect: “We might consider playing your song on our radio stations, but only if you give us something of value in return.” The fact this is partly in response to the payola settlement demonstrates to what a degree this anti-artist attitude is built into the company's DNA.

The significance of the formal complaint is this: we assumed that once the details of the Clear Channel license were made public, they would quickly back down -- how could they not? But with partner organizations like A2IM in the midst of complicated negotiations about how to implement the other pieces of the payola settlement, we believed that it was important that the FCC clarify that asking artists to waive their royalties, as a condition of being considered for airplay is not kosher for any of the broadcasters to implement.

The fact that Clear Channel changed the language underscores how important it is for the FCC to give legal clarity on this issue. This type of clarity can only come from a regulatory agency that oversees airwaves. It’s obvious clarity is lacking because just two weeks ago, Clear Channel was defending its right to strip indie artists of their royalties.

“But now the FMC says it wants us to pay a royalty every time a listener samples new music from an unsigned artist. That's the surest way to kill this experiment and so I have to ask, Who's really on the side of the artists here?" – “Air Traffic Control,” Billboard, Todd Martens, July 7.

Commercial broadcasters have certain basic laws and regulations that they have to follow. These laws and regulations have been supplemented by the recent "Rules of Engagement". And the independent music community will not stand by idly without asking the Congress and FCC to perform their appropriate oversight duties.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Friday, July 20, 2007: This Week in News


Radio

The Great Spectrum Giveaway
The FCC is giving radio spectrum to community-based non-profit organizations in October. Radio for People, which includes Prometheus Radio, FMC, and Free Press, is assisting groups with the complicated application process, but many obstacles still exist to prevent community groups from breaking into a highly consolidated radio spectrum.
by Megan Tady, In These Times, July 18, 2007

RIAA to feds: Make XM-Sirius pay more, restrict listeners' recording
The RIAA has submitted comments to the FCC that urge the agency to approve the XM-Sirius merger only if the company agrees to create protections against the copyright infringing practice of "song trapping."
by Anne Broache, CNET, July 9, 2007

Webcasting

The Internet Radio Royalty Debate: Frequently Asked Questions
Digital Music News answers some of the most confusing questions about the ongoing internet radio royalty debate.
Digital Music News, July 15, 2007

FAQ: Net Radio's Mixed Signals
Amidst lots of talk in the blogosphere concerning July 15's increase in webcasting royalty rates, Anne Broache tries to answer some of the most common questions concerning the royalty hike.
by Anne Broache, CNET, July 13, 2007

Net radio negotiations hit snag over DRM
New debate emerged over whether webcasters should be required to cloak their streams in technologies designed to prevent "streamripping" as part of an agreement to cap the administrative fees they owe to SoundExchange.
by Anne Broache, CNET, July 18, 2007

DiMA and SoundExchange Trade Blows
Digital Media Association, a lobby group representing the internet's largest webcasters, and SoundExchange are engaged in arguments over webcaster royalty rate negotiations. DiMA claims SoundExchange has "backtracked" on its promises while SoundExchange maintains that DiMA has misunderstood their proposals.
by Eliot Van Buskirk, Wired.com, July 18, 2007

Public Radio: No Webcast Changes For Us Now
Public radio has reached a temporary agreement with SoundExchange that allows them to continue streaming music for the next three months. In the meantime, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has offered SoundExchange a payment for what they believe they will owe on July 15, and talks will continue between the two parties to negotiate a final agreement over fees.
by Anne Broache, CNET, July 14, 2007

Music Industry

The Digital Pre-Release Soft Launch and The More Of Less Strategy
The Canadian band Stars has decided to do a digital-only release of their new album 2 months before the street date. Glenn from Coolfer reports on the impact of this announcement.
Coolfer, July 18, 2007

New Format, Same Hope
The music industry has been criticized for holding onto a dead format, the CD. But CDs still make up 80% of album sales and are still preferred by many to digital downloads. Disney announced that they will now use the CDVU+ format, which is like a normal cd with video and photo extras.
Coolfer, July 19, 2007

Pirated Music Helps Radio Develop Playlists
Although the music industry is cracking down on piracy, it is also showing interest in what music illegal downloaders want. Clear Channel began collecting information on the most popular downloads from illegal file-sharing networks to help shape the playlists for their terrestrial radio stations.
by Sarah McBride, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2007

Accused of Payola (Again), Clear Channel Scuttles Waiver Clause
Following FMC's attacks on Clear Channel's payola scheme, Clear Channel has "quietly dropped a licensing agreement that requires independent artists to waive royalties to be considered for airplay on the chain's more than 1,100 stations."
by Robert Wilonsky, Dallas Observer, July 19, 2007

Zune Pay-To-Share Rumors Floated Again
ZuneScene, a fansite dedicated to Microsoft's Zune, is reporting that Microsoft is patenting a Pay-To-Share system. With Pay-To-Share, users would share songs with expiration dates. If users then buy the song for themselves, the sharer would receive a commission in the form of music points or other currency.
by Matt Rosoff, CNET, July 13, 2007

Net Neutrality

The Players Vying for Spectrum
The Washington Post breaks down potential bidders in the upcoming 700Mhz
Auction for spectrum.
Washington Post, July 13, 2007

Indie artists and labels win major victory


We won.

Nearly two weeks ago, the Future of Music Coalition sent you an email announcing a new campaign to end a sneaky move by Clear Channel to not pay indie artists’ royalties. We are pleased to announce Clear Channel has capitulated – in just 10 days.

Here’s the background: As part of a settlement to end an FCC investigation into allegations of payola at some of their stations, Clear Channel and other broadcasters agreed to play 4,200 hours of local and indie music. Clear Channel set up a web page attached to each of its stations’ web sites that allowed local and indie artists to submit their music for consideration, but the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) found some troubling language in the license agreement: artists had to check a licensing agreement that said that the artist granted “Clear Channel the royalty-free non-exclusive right and license, in perpetuity […] to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform […]” the content submitted via their website.

Clear Channel was asking artists to waive their performance royalties as a consideration for airplay. In other words, Clear Channel had responded to allegations of payola with a pay-for-play scheme aimed at indie artists.

This was an unconscionable action. As we shift from a physical to a digital music marketplace -- especially one in which fans will increasingly pay for access to music via subscription services -- performance royalties will become a more significant portion of artists’ revenue. It is critical that precedents are not established that require artists to relinquish royalties as a condition of airplay.

Last Monday, July 9, FMC launched a week’s worth of daily blog posts devoted to the topic, while A2IM continued direct negotiations on behalf of its independent label members with Clear Channel. Then, Congress got involved. On Thursday, July 12, Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis., sent a letter to each of the major radio station groups, questioning their intent to honor the conditions of the payola consent decree. Feingold referenced the Clear Channel royalty issue in the letter, saying that the “required royalty waiver seems to violate the April commitment not to barter access to music programmers. I encourage you all, and Clear Channel in particular, to clarify this issue.”

If you remember, we also promised you a surprise at the end of the week. On Friday, July 13, we filed a Request for a Declaratory Ruling at the FCC over Clear Channel’s actions.

It was clear by the end of last week Clear Channel had had enough.

As of Monday, July 16, Clear Channel had revised the language in the licensing agreement. The new language removed the words “royalty-free” from the agreement, which ensures that artists can keep their rights to their public performance royalties. One of the nation’s smallest music non-profits beat back the nation’s most powerful broadcasters.

We want to thank the independent label group A2IM for all their hard work negotiating directly with Clear Channel on the revised language over the last two weeks. The victory is great for all musicians. It proves that we can take on the most powerful forces in the radio industry and win. It also shows a more equitable music business is possible if we band together to make a concerted effort.

You can continue this work by taking one or more of the following actions:

1. Get five artist/musician friends to sign up to receive the FMC newsletter http://www.futureofmusic.org/subscribe.cfm

2. Join the Rock the Net campaign, which brings together artists, labels and music fans to support net neutrality
http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthnet/

3. Donate money to FMC
https://www.futureofmusic.org/donate.cfm

4. Support the fight for Low Power FM Radio, which will help break the corporate control of the airwaves http://prometheusradio.org/take_action/lpfm_in_congress/#why_cant_i_get

5. Attend our 7th annual Future of Music Policy Summit, September 17-18, 2007 in Washington, DC, where an unprecedented group of panelists and keynote speakers together with an engaged, diverse audience for a robust debate about the critical issues at the intersection of music, law, technology and policy. Registration is open now, and we have scholarships available for working musicians http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/Summit07/


Thanks for your help.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Clear Channel's Greatest Hits: Clear Channel drops royalty grab


We won!

A little over a week ago, the Future of Music Coalition announced a new campaign to end a sneaky move by Clear Channel to not pay indie artists’ royalties. We are pleased to announce Clear Channel has capitulated – in just 10 days.

We couldn’t have done it without your work, but we still need your help to bring about a better music industry (more on that later).

Here’s the background: As part of a settlement to end an FCC investigation into allegations of payola at some of their stations, Clear Channel and other broadcasters agreed to play 4,200 hours of local and indie music. Clear Channel set up a web page attached to each of its stations’ web sites that allowed local and indie artists to submit their music for consideration, but there was a major catch: artists had to check a licensing agreement that said that the artist granted “Clear Channel the royalty-free non-exclusive right and license, in perpetuity […] to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform […]” the content submitted via their website.

Clear Channel was asking artists to waive their performance royalties as a consideration for airplay. In other words, Clear Channel had responded to allegations of payola with a pay-for-play scheme aimed at indie artists.

This was an unconscionable action. As we shift from a physical to a digital music marketplace -- especially one in which fans will increasingly pay for access to music via subscription services -- performance royalties will become a more significant portion of artists’ revenue. It is critical that precedents are not established that require artists to relinquish royalties as a condition of airplay.

Last Monday, July 9, we launched a week’s worth of daily blog posts devoted to the topic. Then, Congress got involved. On Thursday, July 12, Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis., sent a letter to each of the major radio station groups, questioning their intent to honor the conditions of the payola consent decree. Feingold referenced the Clear Channel royalty issue in the letter, saying that the “required royalty waiver seems to violate the April commitment not to barter access to music programmers. I encourage you all, and Clear Channel in particular, to clarify this issue.”

If you remember, we also promised you a surprise at the end of the week. On Friday, July 13, we filed a Request for a Declaratory Ruling at the FCC over Clear Channel’s actions.

It was clear by the end of last week Clear Channel had had enough.

As of Monday, July 16, Clear Channel had revised the language in the licensing agreement. The new language removed the words “royalty-free” from the agreement, which ensures that artists can keep their rights to their public performance royalties. One of the nation’s smallest music non-profits beat back the nation’s most powerful broadcasters.

The victory is good for FMC, but great for all musicians. It proves that we can take on the most powerful forces in the radio industry and win. It also shows a more equitable music business is possible if we band together to make a concerted effort.

You can continue this work by taking one or more of the following actions:

1) Get five artist/musician friends to sign up to receive the FMC newsletter.

2) Join the Rock the Net campaign, which brings together artists, labels and music fans to support net neutrality.

3) Attend our 7th annual Future of Music Policy Summit, September 17-18, 2007 in Washington, DC, where an unprecedented group of panelists and keynote speakers together with an engaged, diverse audience for a robust debate about the critical issues at the intersection of music, law, technology and policy. Registration is open now, and we have scholarships available for working musicians.

4) Donate money to FMC.

5) Support the fight for Low Power FM Radio, which will help break the corporate control of the airwaves.

Thanks for your help.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Clear Channel's Greatest Hits: Taking on Clear Channel's royalties grab


On Monday, we promised readers a week full of blog posts about Clear Channel forcing local and indie artists to give up performance royalties in order to be considered for airplay on their stations.


Each day we’ve written about Clear Channel’s actions and why – contrary to their claims – they are not on the side of artists. If you’re new to the posts, please scroll down to have a look at what we’ve written.

You’ll also remember we promised you (and Clear Channel) a special surprise at the end of the week. Here it is:

Today, the Future of Music Coalition and Media Access Project filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission requesting clarification that Clear Channel’s practice of forcing local and independent recording artists to waive potential royalties as a condition of having a song considered for broadcast airplay is tantamount to demanding payola.

To backtrack a little: This spring, the FCC and the four major radio broadcasters settled the payola investigation by agreeing to pay $12.5 million in fines. As part of a side deal, the broadcasters also agreed to a set of “rules of engagement” that included airing 4,200 hours of local and indie music.

Just a little over three months after that settlement, FMC found that Clear Channel is engaging in a different type of pay-to-play: waiving performance royalties in consideration for airplay.

In our request for a declaratory ruling, we are specifically asking the FCC to rule that:

(the) waiver of digital performance rights in exchange for broadcast carriage of music constitutes consideration within the meaning of Sections 317 and 507 of the Communications Act and 47 CFR §73.1212, and, consequently, an artist waiving such performance rights is a sponsor of the broadcast of such broadcasts and must be identified as such.

So what does that mean without the legal gobbledy gook? Surprisingly enough, it’s not illegal for a record label to pay a radio station to play a certain song. However, it is illegal for a station to play a song it has accepted some type of payment for (be it money, a gift or “valuable consideration”) without announcing who has sponsored the song. This is the legal definition of payola.

We believe that Clear Channel is asking for a “valuable consideration” by requiring artists to give up their valuable performance royalties for consideration. Since asking for local and indie artists to give up something valuable, Clear Channel would be breaking the “sponsorship” rules unless it announced that these indie songs were “sponsored by” the band in question, as the Communications Act requires.

For years, FMC has contended that access to commercial radio is roughly equivalent to a poker game – you can’t buy your way on the air, but if you don’t ante up you have no chance of gaining airplay. In FMC’s view, Clear Channel is simply extending this practice in a brazenly transparent way that clearly violates the letter and spirit of the payola settlement.

In a music industry that’s rapidly moving towards a “celestial jukebox” where music fans will have always-on access to vast amounts of music performance royalties will become an important revenue stream for musicians and songwriters. We need to nip Clear Channel’s actions in the bud before it undermines future royalties for all artists.

Here’s a link to the complaint.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Clear Channel’s Greatest Hits: Why Clear Channel’s assault on performance royalties is significant


As we’ve exposed this week, Clear Channel is giving indie artists a raw deal by forcing them to give up performance royalties as a condition of getting airplay on its hundreds of stations. Remember, as a condition of its settlement with the FCC over payola allegations, Clear Channel and other broadcasters were required to play 4,200 hours of local and indie music. It’s replacing one form of a payola with another.


Sneaky. Greedy. Egregious. Any number of pejoratives could be used to describe the move, but it is especially troubling because digital performance royalties are becoming an ever more important source of revenue for artists as technological changes drive the way music is delivered.

In today’s post, we’ll take a step back from the current controversy to examine the performance rights landscape. Many artists don’t realize how the performance royalties work and why they will become such an important source of revenue. So here goes.

Performance Royalties 101

Even if you never think you’ll hear your music on the radio, it’s important for all musicians and songwriters to understand that most performances of musical works in public places – including the internet – generate a royalty.

The performance right is a right shared by the song’s creators. Performance royalties can be generated by everything from radio airplay, to TV performances, to jukebox plays. Because of the enormous potential for revenue, this right should not be waived carelessly as thousands of dollars could be left on the table instead of put in the creators’ pockets.

This is especially true as consumer culture becomes more mobile, and more wireless. To quote our friend Jim Griffin, we are moving away from “music as a product” and towards “music as a service”. In other words, in the not-too-distant future, more consumers will be happy to just pay for access to musical content, whether through subscription services, listening to webcast stations, or having their existing collections streamed to their cell phone. In this new era of “music as a service” the public performance right takes on an ever-growing role and, as such, musicians and songwriters should be extremely careful about how they manage this right.

Traditional radio airplay = royalties for songwriters and publishers

When a song is played on traditional over-the-air radio, there are two groups of creators that are paid a royalty for this performance: songwriters and publishers. Radio stations operate under blanket licenses issued by the three US performance rights organizations – ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. The blanket license allows stations to play anything that’s represented by these three PROs without having to seek direct permission from the songwriter/publisher. Fees that the radio stations pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the blanket licenses are then passed along to their songwriter/publisher members as royalties.

How much a station pays each of the PROs in blanket license fees depends on a number of factors, including whether it’s a commercial, noncommercial or college station, and the station’s gross adjusted revenue, but it’s safe to say that it’s less than 5% of a commercial station’s revenue goes to this set of blanket fees.

How much a songwriter/publisher makes for airplay is also a complicated formula, but it’s fair to say that having your song played on a commercial radio station for even a few weeks can generate a lot of money.

Say, for example, you’re in a band that has a moderate radio hit that’s played on most of the modern rock stations around the country. Not a blockbuster – just a song that’s played a couple thousand spins over a few months. The royalties for that much airplay could easily top $10,000 for the songwriter, and $10,000 for the publisher. That’s $20,000 if you’re self-published. Clearly, the performance right can generate significant revenue.

Internet/Satellite Radio Airplay = royalties for songwriters, publishers, performers and record labels

When you hear a song on a webcast station, or on satellite radio, or even on the internet simulcast of a traditional radio station, there are four groups that are paid a royalty for this performance: songwriters and publishers are paid by their PRO (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) and performers and sound recording copyright owners (usually the label) are paid by SoundExchange. Again, these performance royalties are paid DIRECTLY to all parties thus avoiding shifty label accounting practices.

Like traditional radio stations, webcasters and satellite radio operate under blanket licenses issued by the three US performance rights organizations – ASCAP, BMI and SESAC – and a separate statutory license for the digital performance right. Fees that the webcasters pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the blanket licenses are then passed along to their songwriter/publisher members as royalties, and the statutory digital performance fees are passed on to performers/sound recording copyright owners by SoundExchange.

Let’s take our same example from above: a minor commercial radio hit with 2,000 spins that’s also simulcast on the commercial station’s internet stream. The songwriter/publisher get a royalty payment from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for the digital internet performance, and the performer and label split the SoundExchange royalties.

Clear Channel Contract Urges Artists to Waive this Right

Clear Channel’s latest move attempts to get artists to waive their performance royalties as a condition of consideration for airplay. The wording of the contract -- that the artist will “grant to Clear Channel the royalty-free non-exclusive right and license, in perpetuity” – is vague enough for us to assume that an artist would waive both sets of performance royalties if he/she agreed to these terms and conditions.

Clear Channel is asking artists to give up something of value to get on the air, which is the very definition of payola. And since performance royalties – especially digital performance royalties – will be an increasingly important portion of artists’ revenues for years to come, Clear Channel’s move is an assault on musicians’ future livelihood. As we have seen in previous posts, this is hardly a new pattern for Clear Channel. They’ve pressured artists to play free shows, asked them to sign away performance royalties and threatened them if they didn’t agree to the terms of their concert deals.

This is a company that is not -- and has never been -- on the side of artists.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Clear Channel's Greatest Hits: The media giant's long reach into the concert business


This week the Future of Music Coalition is taking on Clear Channel because the company is forcing local and indie artists to waive performance royalties to have their music considered for airplay on the chain’s stations.


What’s really angered us is that the move comes as part of a settlement of an FCC investigation into payola at Clear Channel stations. According to the terms of the deal, Clear Channel and other broadcasters must play 4,200 hours of local and independent music. So let’s recap: Clear Channel is investigated for payola and then they turn around and ask local and indie artists to give up something of value to get on the air. Kind of sounds like payola all over again, doesn’t it?

In its response to FMC, Clear Channel claims it has the artists’ best interest at heart, but that’s simply not the case. As we wrote yesterday, Clear Channel’s dominant position in the radio market ensures most local and indie artists won’t get significant airplay. Today, we’ll look at how Clear Channel tried to unite two different streams in the music industry – radio and concert promotion – under the banner of corporate synergy to generate not only revenue, but also significant leverage in the music industry.

In addition to acquiring more than 1,100 radio stations, throughout the late 1990’s the media giant also spread its tentacles into other areas of the media and entertainment business: outdoor advertising, radio research, regional news networks, radio trade magazines, syndicated programming, music venues, and, perhaps most important for artists, concert promotion.

In 2000, Clear Channel bought the nation’s largest concert promoter, SFX Entertainment, for $4.4 billion (the new unit was dubbed Clear Channel Entertainment at the time). The sale put Clear Channel in a position no company had ever occupied: the primary arbiter of radio airplay and the 800-pound gorilla in the concert industry. Clear Channel took two of the crucial positions required for an artists to make a living and combined them into one. In 2005, Clear Channel decided to spin off the live entertainment division from its radio holdings for reasons discussed below. But before we get to that, we need to discuss a little history of the Clear Channel SFX-merger.

Clear Channel argued its position would create synergy that would enrich artists and the company itself. For artists to be successful, they need airplay. Once they have airplay and have gained a mass following, they can sell a lot of concert tickets, or vice versa. Clear Channel said it could make both happen.

What happened instead was more Sopranos than synergy. In some cases, the company was accused of using access to radio play on its stations to force artists into bad concert deals. A 2001 Salon article details:

"One manager for a platinum-selling rock band says too often bands today have to choose between radio airplay or a big concert payday. He says not long ago his act was arranging a deal for a concert in Denver.

Clear Channel Entertainment offered the act significantly less money to promote the show than (Nobody in Particular Presents or NPP) did. Since the manager is supposed to act in the best interest of the band, the logical move would have been to accept the NPP offer to guarantee the band a bigger paycheck.

But the band's label was told that if the act didn't accept Clear Channel Entertainment's lower offer, local Clear Channel stations would not play the band's new single, let alone promote the show on-air. Without that radio support, NPP's more generous offer suddenly didn't look so appealing.

That incident was not isolated. When Everlast played Denver last year the same thing happened, someone close to the artist claims; his label was told if Clear Channel didn't handle the concert promotions, its stations would not promote the show on the air. (Salon citation)

NPP sued Clear Channel accusing it of “monopolistic and predatory practices” in concert promotions in the Denver area. NPP alleged: “Clear Channel repeatedly has used its size and clout to coerce artists to use Clear Channel to promote their concerts or else risk losing air play and other on-air promotional support.”

In 2004, a judge threw out the charges of monopolistic behavior against Clear Channel, but allowed the rest of the case to continue. It was settled later that year, but not before some damning e-mails came to light. In the e-mails, Clear Channel executives said they wanted to “crush” rival concert promoters and they discussed threats to artists and record labels if they did not agree to the terms of Clear Channel concert deals.

Despite the heavy-handed tactics, Clear Channel executives had nothing but praise for the Denver operation:

“The synergy between Clear Channel and SFX, especially in Denver, has been nothing but spectacular. Denver is becoming a model for how successful it can be,” said then SFX executive Chuck Morris.

Other artists said they felt pressure from Clear Channel to play free promotional concerts as Rolling Stone reported in 2004:

“Some artists and managers also complain that Clear Channel stations use their control of the airwaves to pressure acts into playing radio-promo concerts. A manager of a Top Forty group says that his client's songs were pulled from a large-market station after the band refused to play a free promotional concert in 2000.”

For the artists that Clear Channel claims to have at heart, the Clear Channel-SFX merger was a mixed story. In 2002, rocker Steve Miller had this to say in Billboard:

"As the 1990s went on, Clear Channel came in, and things started getting real crazy, real quickly. I looked up one day and said, 'Who are these guys doing 11 of my shows?' Then it was 19, then one year it was 38 of 42 gigs. But the money wasn't good. I'm not talking about profits; I'm talking about where it was coming from. I don't like the way they run their facilities, and I don't like the way they treated me as an artist. Their lack of a sense of humanity is shocking."

After announcing a 59 percent drop in profits in the first quarter of 2005, Clear Channel decided to sell off Clear Channel Entertainment to boost revenues. Analysts said the entertainment division was the least profitable and most volatile of Clear Channel’s holdings. Clear Channel’s much-anticipated synergy between concert promotion and radio airplay never materialized. Its experiment was clearly a failure, but it hardly changed Clear Channel’s greedy tactics.

In 2007, the Patent Office threw out a patent by Instant Live, formerly a Clear Channel company, after a challenge by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Instant Live claimed its patent gave it a monopoly on all-in-one post-concert digital recording. It would have forced anyone making such a recording to use Clear Channel technology and stifled innovation – not unlike Clear Channel has tried to lock artists into bogus performance royalty deals and promotional concerts. The tune remains the same at Clear Channel.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Clear Channel's Greatest Hits: How Clear Channel rules the airwaves and why it’s bad for indie musicians


As we wrote about yesterday and in previous weeks, Clear Channel is attempting to strip indie artists of performance royalties in order to be considered for airplay on its stations.

As part of a settlement with the FCC following an investigation into payola allegations, Clear Channel and other major broadcasters agreed to air 4,200 hours of local and indie programming. Clear Channel set up a page on its stations’ web sites that allowed indie artists to submit their music for airplay, but required them to check a licensing agreement that waives the artists’ performance rights.

Incredibly, Clear Channel has responded to allegations of payola by instituting a new type of pay-to-play; the system means artists are trading something of value – their performance royalties – for consideration for airplay. It’s simply payola under a different name. The arrogance is astounding, but speaks volumes about the power the nation’s largest broadcaster wields and why it’s bad for indie musicians.

To fully understand why Clear Channel is attempting to strip indie artists of performance royalties, it’s important to understand the company’s rise to power as the nation’s largest broadcaster and its primary motivation – selling ads, not making great radio.

"We're big. We're bad. We're back. We're rich," bragged former Clear Channel chief Randy Michaels to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Clear Channel’s ascent came faster than Wal-Mart’s. Clear Channel owes its dominant position to an obscure clause in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which eliminated a provision that had previously capped the number of stations any one company could own at 40 nationwide.
What followed was an unprecedented era of consolidation in radio. After the elimination of the national ownership cap, radio station owners went on a buying spree, with Clear Channel growing from 40 stations to over 1,200 in less than five years. Since then, the chain has decided to go private and sell hundreds of stations, but still remains the biggest player in the broadcast industry.

The Telecommunications Act and subsequent ownership consolidation had a significant impact on the kind of radio we hear today. As FMC’s 2006 study “False Premises, False Promises” demonstrated:

 Just fifteen formats make up more than 75 percent of commercial airplay.
 Important genres such as jazz, bluegrass, folk and new rock have little presence on the commercial dial.
 Individual stations in the same format owned by the same chain have strikingly similar playlists. In the case of Clear Channel stations in the same format, playlists overlapped on about 55 percent of songs.

As entertainment lawyer Michael Guido told Frontline about the state of consolidated radio:

“In the early days of the music business, the record business, you could find a DJ in Cleveland, like Alan Fried, or in Buffalo, who would fall in love with a record, start playing it, people would react to it, and you could start a record off that way. It's much more difficult to do now with two or three conglomerates controlling all the radio formats.”

That’s largely because you can’t find the local DJ anymore at Clear Channel stations. To fatten its bottom line, Clear Channel embraced the now infamous practice of “voice tracking,” beaming programming prepared by a DJ in a centralized station to stations across the country, and programming playlists regionally. The result: homogenized track lists and the elimination of hundreds of local DJs familiar with musicians in their local music scene. If Clear Channel really cared about artists – especially indie and local ones – it wouldn’t eliminate its primary contact with them.

Rather, Clear Channel’s motivation has always been the dollar, as employees have attested.

“The ‘Cheap Channel’ nickname really fits because that’s the bottom line; they don’t care about their employees,” a Clear Channel employee told Salon in 2001.

Clear Channel has also advocated for record labels to directly pay for airplay of songs – the ultimate triumph of money over music. For years, airplay was determined by a type of payola system. Records labels paid independent promoters to promote certain records to radio stations. The promoters would in turn pay radio stations annual fees and give them perks if they added the songs to their playlists. Clear Channel’s plan would have cut out the middle man.

A columnist at the Houston Press summed up Clear Channel’s position on selling airtime to the highest bidder:

“In the days of truly competitive radio, most stations would have avoided such an arrangement because of the loss of credibility it brings…. The prevailing school of thought at Clear Channel appears to be that radio stations are mere supermarkets, with airtime a commodity to be bought and sold like shelf space. In this view, songs are commercials for the CDs that carry them.”

It’s also important to understand the relationship between big radio conglomerates and major record labels: they reinforce each other. There are more radio stations on the American radio dial now, and yet space on the airwaves has become scarce. This is partly because some formats are programmed so narrowly and partly because some formats with different names overlap considerably in terms of their programming choices. Fewer and fewer songs reach the charts, due to the predominance of “crossover” hits. This increases the cost of promotion for musicians as it becomes more expensive to capture the attention of program directors. Musicians need more resources than ever before to break through the radio redundancy to get on commercial radio forcing them to seek out major label deals.

In the self-reinforcing structure we have described, music industry resources benefit a small number of musicians. Radio stations play songs by a smaller number of musicians. A few “winners” among musicians reach the top and make a great deal of money, but the dominant players like Clear Channel get paid either way while having have shut out many other musicians from both major labels and radio. It is hard to see how Clear Channel is "really on the side of artists."

Monday, July 9, 2007

Clear Channel threatens indie artists


Two weeks ago, FMC sent out a press release and posted this blog entry that documents us catching Clear Channel red handed in an attempt to force indie artists to sign away their future performance royalties as a condition of consideration for radio airplay. What makes this truly unbelievable is the fact that they did this through the very same program that was set up as a condition of their payola settlement.


To back up a step: earlier this year, the FCC finally announced a payola settlement with the four major radio networks. As part of the settlement, the radio networks agreed, among other conditions, to pay a $12.5 million fine and air 4,200 hours of local and independent music on their stations. A pittance, really, but this meant that artists that have long been excluded from the airwaves in favor of payola-driven play lists might finally get a chance at some commercial airplay.

Clear Channel set up an online application for local and independent artists to submit their music for airplay on each of its stations. The applications are on a web page attached to each Clear Channel station website. See, for example, http://www.dc101.com/cc-common/artist_submission Specifically, the contract states (as of 7/06/07):

1. License. You grant to Clear Channel the royalty-free non-exclusive right and license, in perpetuity (unless terminated earlier by You or Clear Channel as set forth below), to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform, publicly display and distribute any sound recordings, compositions, pictures, videos, song lyrics, still images, Your name, picture, portrait, photograph, band information data, graphics, trademarks, text, information, screen names, profiles, newsletters, gig listings, play lists, podcasts, blogs, broadcasts, messages, software, XML, RSS and links and/or other content (collectively, the “Content”) submitted by You to us on this website (the “Site”), […]


“Royalty-free”, “in perpetuity”, “use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform”. Looks to us like Clear Channel is asking the artists to sign away their performance royalties just to allow Clear Channel to consider playing their music. Even more ludicrous, they’re using the very structure that was agreed to as part of the FCC-led payola settlement to do it. Most companies would be a bit ashamed of this, but as we’ve learned over the years Clear Channel is not just any company.

Clear Channel’s Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Andy Levin responded to our discovery with an exceptional bit of double talk:

"Where else could a band called Oh Crap! Ninjas get more than 7,000 spins in just a couple of weeks online? But now the FMC says it wants us to pay a royalty every time a listener samples new music from an unsigned artist. That's the surest way to kill this experiment and so I have to ask, Who's really on the side of the artists here?" – “Air Traffic Control,” by Todd Martens, Billboard July 7, 2007.


The snide tone toward a successful indie band aside, negotiating a deal with the FCC to avoid further investigation into payola allegations is hardly an “experiment.” It would be like the FCC calling the $12.5 million portion of the settlement it reached with Clear Channel and other broadcasters a “suggested donation.” Threatening to kill the settlement is a scare tactic.

Levin also seems to imply it would be a financial non-starter for Clear Channel to pick up the costs of the digital performance royalty, so just how much would it cost for the nation’s largest radio chain to stream an Oh Crap! Ninjas song 7,000 times? $10,000? $5,000?

According to current SoundExchange rates, it would be about $7.70.

What’s most troubling is that Clear Channel appears to have learned nothing from the payola scandal. The company’s mindset remains fundamentally the same: musicians owe the chain for airplay. As Levin told Businessweek in a follow up story:

“(Musicians) should be paying us to play their music. Unfortunately, that's against the law."

So Andy, who was it again that was on the side of artists?

It’s not illegal for Clear Channel officials to speak their minds. Falsely claiming to speak for artists is galling, but not illegal. Calling a “forced penalty” an “experiment” is a distortion, but doesn’t break any laws. One thing that is illegal is payola. Clear Channel doesn’t seem to want to get it.

Clear Channel threatens indie artists


Two weeks ago, FMC sent out a press release and posted this blog entry that documents us catching Clear Channel red handed in an attempt to force indie artists to sign away their future performance royalties as a condition of consideration for radio airplay. What makes this truly unbelievable is the fact that they did this through the very same program that was set up as a condition of their payola settlement.

To back up a step: earlier this year, the FCC finally announced a payola settlement with the four major radio networks. As part of the settlement, the radio networks agreed, among other conditions, to pay a $12.5 million fine and air 4,200 hours of local and independent music on their stations. A pittance, really, but this meant that artists that have long been excluded from the airwaves in favor of payola-driven play lists might finally get a chance at some commercial airplay.

Clear Channel set up an online application for local and independent artists to submit their music for airplay on each of its stations. The applications are on a web page attached to each Clear Channel station website. See, for example, http://www.dc101.com/cc-common/artist_submission Specifically, the contract states (as of 7/06/07):

1. License. You grant to Clear Channel the royalty-free non-exclusive right and license, in perpetuity (unless terminated earlier by You or Clear Channel as set forth below), to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform, publicly display and distribute any sound recordings, compositions, pictures, videos, song lyrics, still images, Your name, picture, portrait, photograph, band information data, graphics, trademarks, text, information, screen names, profiles, newsletters, gig listings, play lists, podcasts, blogs, broadcasts, messages, software, XML, RSS and links and/or other content (collectively, the “Content”) submitted by You to us on this website (the “Site”), […]

“Royalty-free”, “in perpetuity”, “use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, digitally perform”. Looks to us like Clear Channel is asking the artists to sign away their performance royalties just to allow Clear Channel to consider playing their music. Even more ludicrous, they’re using the very structure that was agreed to as part of the FCC-led payola settlement to do it. Most companies would be a bit ashamed of this, but as we’ve learned over the years Clear Channel is not just any company.

Clear Channel’s Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Andy Levin responded to our discovery with an exceptional bit of double talk:

"Where else could a band called Oh Crap! Ninjas get more than 7,000 spins in
just a couple of weeks online? But now the FMC says it wants us to pay a royalty every time a listener samples new music from an unsigned artist. That's the surest way to kill this experiment and so I have to ask, Who's really on the side of the artists here?" – “Air Traffic Control”, by Todd Martens, Billboard July 7, 2007.

The snide tone toward a successful indie band aside, negotiating a deal with the FCC to avoid further investigation into payola allegations is hardly an “experiment.” It would be like the FCC calling the $12.5 million portion of the settlement it reached with Clear Channel and other broadcasters a “suggested donation.” Threatening to kill the settlement is a scare tactic.

Levin also seems to imply it would be a financial non-starter for Clear Channel to pick up the costs of the digital performance royalty, so just how much would it cost for the nation’s largest radio chain to stream an Oh Crap! Ninjas song 7,000 times? $10,000? $5,000?

According to current SoundExchange rates, it would be about $7.70.

What’s most troubling is that Clear Channel appears to have learned nothing from the payola scandal. The company’s mindset remains fundamentally the same: musicians owe the chain for airplay. As Levin told Businessweek in a follow up story: “(Musicians) should be paying us to play their music. Unfortunately, that's against the law."

So Andy, who was it again that was on the side of artists?

It’s not illegal for Clear Channel officials to speak their minds. Falsely claiming to speak for artists is galling, but not illegal. Calling a “forced penalty” an “experiment” is a distortion, but doesn’t break any laws. One thing that is illegal is payola. Clear Channel doesn’t seem to want to get it.

Friday, July 6, 2007

OK GO on Capitol Hill

With more than 20 million views of their treadmill video, OK GO has the kind of exposure and constituency that politicians dream of. OK GO and the Future of Music Coalition took that political muscle to Capitol Hill last Thursday to talk about two very important issues: low power radio and net neutrality.


The boys, who looked natty in vintage suits, also got to fill in the lawmakers on their recent trip to New Orleans, along with FMC, to raise money for artists displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Here are some photos:

Friday, July 6, 2007: This Week in News

Webcasting

SoundExchange Minimum Fee Offer Draws More Pushback
SoundExchange offers to cap minimum per-station fees at $2500 ($500 per station). While this would ease the pressure on services like Pandora or Live365 that create hundreds, if not more, personalized stations for listeners, the devil, as always, is in the details. Namely, SoundExchange will only agree to the cap if stations agree to stop their lobbying efforts for the Internet Radio Royalty Act, which would reverse the CRB's ruling for higher royalty fees.
by Paul Resnikoff, DigitalMusicNews, July 5, 2007


Webcasters' Plea Falls on Deaf Ears
Lawmakers met to hear testimony from groups and individuals affected by the impending July 15th increase in internet royalty rates, but concluded that private negotiations would be more effective than government intervention at this point. Everyone agreed, however, that the ongoing question of how artists can be fairly compensated for their work was ultimately not in the hands of SoundExchange and the music industry.
by Olga Kharif, Businessweek, June 29, 2007


Internet radio compromise on the way?
SoundExchange announced that it has offered the Digital Media Assocation (DiMA) a $2500 cap on the new webcasting royalty requirement. However, SoundExchange's only applies until 2008 while the increased rates extend through to 2010.
By Anne Broache, CNET, July 2, 2007


Radio

Terry Meets Band Known for Treadmills Video
The band OK Go recently met with Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) to discuss low-power FM radio. They also thanked Lee, who introduced the Local Community Radio Act on June 21st, for his efforts to keep low-power FM alive.
by Jenny Nowatzke, KETV, June 29, 2007

Traditional Radio to Pay for Play?
The music industry is lobbying Congress to get terrestrial radio to pay the
public performance royalty for sound recording, just like its Web and
satellite siblings
by Olga Kharif, Businessweek, July 5, 2007


New Technology

Widget helps fans, artists sell digital music
A new digital music technology called Mixtape, offered by the company
Goodstorm. can be embedded on blogs and Web sites, making them digital music stories.
Benny Evangelista, San Francisco Gate, July 2, 2007

Public Enemy to Use a Digital Distributor
Hip-hop legends Public Enemy are using TuneCore to digitally distribute
their next album. Says founder Chuck D: "I knew I had a fan base and I
wanted to go directly to them," he said. "What good is a label? All they do
is give you money. And in the area of digital distribution, they can't do
anything better or faster than anyone else."
Robert Levine, New York Times, July 2, 2007

Music Industry

EMI First Major to Sell MP3s Via Individual Sites
A deal between EMI and Snocap now allows music fans to purchase and download DRM-free mp3s directly from individual websites. Currently, the deal only allows for songs to be sold on MySpace pages but is set to expand to more sites in the future. 30 Seconds to Mars, Korn, Dean Martin, MIMs, and Yellowcard are among some artists who will begin selling mp3s on their MySpace pages.
by Antony Bruno, Billboard Biz, June 29, 2007


A change of tune
Some major labels are changing their deals with artists to include not just
music sales but other revenue streams including merchandising, concert
revenue and licensing deals
The Economist (UK), July 5, 2007


Net Neutrality

AT&T Rigs Net Neutrality Study
New studies by Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of Nevada Reno have reported that "a net-neutral approach requires between 60 and 100 per cent more capacity to maintain the same level of performance." However, the credibility of both studies is questionable, because both were funded by AT&T who has long supported a "tiered Internet."
by Cade Metz, The Register, July 4, 2007

How the FTC Mangled Net Neutrality
Last week's FTC report on Net Neutrality lacked original research on the broadband market and simply reiterated justifications of how discriminatory behavior could benefit broadband providers. Their "wait-and-see" conclusion is ultimately flawed, because the analysis that led them to it contains illogical and, in some cases, irrelevant arguments.
by Art Brodsky, TPM Cafe, June 28, 2007

FMC's press release on FTC report:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRFTCnetneutralityreport07.cfm


Other


McCain Panders to Right Wing, Drops Call for Media Diversity
In response to the blocked Democrat-backed reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, John McCain has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act which states that "divergent viewpoints do not have to be offered on the same radio or television show, but can be found simply by channel surfing, reading a newspaper or browsing an Internet blog.
Think Progress, July 5, 2007

Republican Sideshow? The Fairness Doctrine and the Politics of Panic
Matthew Lasar discusses why the Fairness Doctrine has once again become an issue in politics and the events leading up to the proposed Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would kill the Fairness Doctrine once again.
by Matthew Lasar, Lasar's Letter, July 4, 2007

Monday, July 2, 2007

Classical music in a digital age


Chicago Classical Music is running a two part piece over the next two weeks called "Think Digitally, Broadcast Globally" by the Future of Music Coalition. The piece focuses on how the Internet has changed the way classical, jazz and world music reaches fans. Here's an excerpt from the first installment:


Just a decade ago, options for hearing chamber music, jazz, and world music on the radio were straightforward and rather limited: a local NPR or Pacifica station spinning Beethoven string quartets or Wynton Marsalis on a dial filled with infinite varieties of commercial pop, country, and talk.

But as with many art forms, the Internet has revolutionized how niche music reaches fans. With recording, podcasting and webcasting becoming cheaper every day, traditional radio broadcasts have morphed into dozens of new forms on the web, and - perhaps most importantly - the line between being a performer and a broadcaster has blurred. This new environment offers new possibilities for reaching new audiences, but it requires a new way of thinking about radio.

More than a quarter of all Americans tuned into web radio last month. Of that, 25% were tuning into simulcasts of their favorite broadcast stations. But what were the rest listening to? At least 6,000 of them were listening to Wolf Trap Radio, checking out live recordings of classical, cabaret and soft rock from the Filene Center, interviews with performing artists and Wolf Trap staff, and special programming such as music and commentary from jazz pianist John Eaton. Wolf Trap Radio broadcasts 24 hours a day and is accessible via their website, Live365.com, and - perhaps most importantly - the iTunes web radio station directory, filed under "Eclectic".

Radio offers many opportunities for classical music, but the key to finding them is understanding the medium in the Internet age. It requires new partnerships, new thinking, and, in some cases, becoming a DJ.

To read the whole thing, go here.