Radiohead have joined a protest with artists like Billy Bragg, Robbie Williams and KT Tunstall at how badly they are treated by record companies and music streaming websites like YouTube.

The Times report that the inaugural meeting of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which will be held behind closed doors at a secret West End venue today is aimed at giving famous names a greater say in how music industry contracts are struck in an increasingly opaque digital age.

The FAC, which describes itself as a “coalition, not a union”, has been organised by Billy Bragg, the veteran protest singer, Dave Rowntree, the Blur drummer turned Labour Party candidate, and Radiohead.

The stars complain that performers often do not receive any royalties from digital music deals - struck on confidential terms none of the artists understand - and that music companies unfairly restrict creative expression by hanging on to copyright for up to 50 years.

Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien, said: “The music companies did a deal with Nokia recently, so they could launch phones with access to all sorts of music. We think they all received advances from Nokia, but nobody is saying who got what - and we think some of that money should go to the artists.”

Another target of complaints is MySpace, the social networking website owned by News Corporation, parent company of The Times. Billy Bragg said: “I don’t know how much money MySpace makes from advertising, but we don’t receive any royalties from it. They are not putting any money back into content.”

Complaints about copyright are also expected to dominate, amid concerns that record companies insist on keeping ownership of songs for the entire fifty year period they remain under copyright. “It’s like taking out a mortgage on a house, paying off the mortgage and you still don’t end up owning the house,” O’Brien said.

However, there are signs that the effort at collective action is not impressing the record companies. One senior industry executive, who asked not to be named, said: “I don’t know if the the industry needs another lobby group; there are already plenty out there. We need to all pull together here.”

Other attendees are expected to include singer-songwriter Kate Nash, the Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason and Limahl the former frontman of Kajagoogoo. But to form a plan of action will require agreement from a string of famous names who are not used to collective action. “We’ll have to see how it goes,” O’Brien said. “It could all end up in a great big ruck.”

 

 

 

http://www.ateaseweb.com/2009/03/11/radiohead-join-in-on-youtube-myspace-protest/

Billy Corgan Speaks Before Congress

 

Billy Corgan is used to being the baldest man in whatever room he's in. But when the Smashing Pumpkins frontman steps onto the floor of Congress, he's.... Well, yeah, he's still the baldest man.

 

Earlier today, Corgan, along with RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol, spoke before the House Committee on the Judiciary during a hearing on the Performance Rights Act. The proposed law, which the RIAA is pushing, would require radio stations to pay royalties to the musicians who play on the songs they broadcast, as well as the songwriters. As the Chicago Sun-Times reports, internet, TV, and satellite broadcasters all currently have to pay royalties to musicians, but terrestrial radio stations only pay royalties to songwriters.

 

Of course, Corgan stands to make a pretty nice chunk of change if this law passes. He's already made plenty of money in royalties as a songwriter when his songs are played on the radio, but now he'd even make money when they play the Pumpkins' cover of "Landslide".

Speaking before Congress, Corgan had this to say: "The change to the law we are here to discuss only redresses an outmoded, unfair practice that favors one participant's needs over another. This legislation is simply a form of restoration to artists long overdue."

 

Also, kind of hilariously: "Ours is a business that always begins with the brilliance of the artists."

 

The Smashing Pumpkins website has a thorough account of Corgan's testimony, and Getty Images has some photos of Corgan looking mighty smoove. See below for the full transcript, which can also be found on the Smashing Pumpkins website:

 

 

 

I'd like to thank Chairman Conyers and the Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today about the Performance Rights Act. I'm here as a representative of the musicFIRST coalition, to give voice to fellow artists and musicians who have joined together to assert their right to be compensated for the airing of their musical performances on terrestrial radio.

 

Because of my experiences in the music business for over 20 years, I have a particular sensitivity when it comes to artists' rights, and who controls the distribution, and therefore, the worth of those rights. Like many of my peers, I come from a working-class background, beginning my musical journey playing in dingy bars and college lunchrooms. Being a performer requires countless hours of dedication to your craft. It is not an easy business to undertake, and for every success story, there are many who have not had the opportunities that I've had.

 

I was able to find an audience, in no small measure, because of the long support of my music by terrestrial radio. I am a big fan of radio, and am very interested in its continued health and well being. Terrestrial radio has helped me to discover many of the artists that became influential to my life and artistic pursuits. I by no means see them as the bad guy.

 

The change to the law we are here to discuss only redresses an outmoded, unfair practice that favors one participant's needs over another. This legislation is simply a form of restoration to artists long overdue.

 

The rights of any artist are often rife with vague distinctions and contradictions, as the worth of a creative endeavor cannot be calculated by any science. Works of art are judged subjectively, and if deemed good enough, plugged into a vast system that attempts to establish their mettle and eventually capitalize on that value. The debate over what any piece of art should command on an open market is as old as time itself.

 

As it stands currently, if you have written a song and you have the good fortune of being played on terrestrial radio, then you, as the author, are entitled to a fixed form of compensation as established by Congress. This compensation, of course, recognizes the unique contribution that the author has made to the creation of the song. Conversely, if you also happen to be a performer on that very same song, by law, terrestrial radio owes you no form of compensation at all. The decision behind this long-held inequity stems back to 1909 when radio was in its infancy, and since sound recordings had only recently come onto the market, they were not included. The old fashioned radio business has held onto this exemption for over 80 years -- a law made in a bygone era for a set of reasons long past.

 

This landmark exemption however stripped performers of their right to a free market evaluation of the value of their recorded works. From my perspective, this issue is one of fundamental fairness. If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

 

Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid. These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them. Not every performer on a hit song is a big name, and they might not see the same windfall that a star might. One can't assume they participate in the merchandise or touring income that is linked to commercial radio success. Not everyone who hears a song on terrestrial radio buys a ticket or a t-shirt. Some listeners just listen, thereby rewarding only the station and their advertisers, and not performers themselves.

 

All areas of the modern music business are currently feeling the shifting tides as new models emerge and old ones are broken up. Ours is a business that always begins with the brilliance of the artists. Contrary to long-held myths, it does take money to create new music. As the traditional revenue streams have dried up, most notably in the overall decline of record sales, it has placed stress on who continues to benefit from the old models. The future demands new partnerships and a rethinking of long-held practices about how artists should be compensated for their music. The hallmark of any great entertainment career is sustainability. Recognizing both the significance of the author and performer in the music making process helps to create those future opportunities.

 

In closing, and with all due respect to those that oppose the passage of the Performance Rights Act, to classify this measure as a "tax" is an interesting choice of words. For who has been taxed more than the artists themselves? Artists have paid their dues, so to speak, to establish terrestrial radio as a great and dynamic medium. We must consider that, for many artists, the difference between receiving these resources is the difference between a life in music and a life out of music. Few could deny that when a classic performance is captured, forever frozen as a musical snapshot in time, generation after generation returns to these moments, each finding something a little different. Whether we are talking about Motown, Stax, Elvis, or Howling Wolf, when the public decides that a specific performance is worthy of their attention, then it seems only fitting that this little bit of magic as documented be recognized in the form of direct compensation for the artists and organizations that helped to create it.

 

I thank you for your time. Posted by Tom Breihan on March 10, 2009 at 5 p.m.

 

 

http://pitchfork.com/news/34809-billy-corgan-speaks-before-congress/

MySpace is being paid by record companies for having the music there and YouTube will not move to pay artists - it's making a lot of money from just being free to host videos on and free to view videos on. Google would not be happy if YouTube was forced to pay as it already lets companies scour videos and remove audio and videos as they see fit

Yeah, I always wondered why youtube was not a copyright infringement. I hope this doesn't keep new videos off the site.

i still find it hard to believe that record companies continue to ignore the power of youtube. i think radioheads video for House of Cards has notched up over 5 million views in the last 6 months. just imagine how many people were exposed to their music for the first time through that video. record labels and the like should compare the money they make from keeping videos off youtube to the value of it being available to over 5 million potential fans. i give the "record label" another 5 years maximum before they all dissapear. they've had close to a decade to embrace technology and the internet and by the sounds of it most of them still see it as their enemy.

 

who cares if youtube and myspace make shitloads of money out of advertising. look at the exposure they are giving these artists for free. i'm waiting for the day that artists and their labels admit that they aren't going to make money from albums, singles and radio airplay they need to get off their butts and start touring cos thats where the money is.

Very true on the YouTube. It's the same with movie companies and all those music videos made with the film. They don't get that it's earning them FREE ADVERTISING and not harming them, but they have to go by their copyright instead :roll:.