The Hidden Money In Radio (...except radio is dying)

Price, J. (2011, September 15). The Hidden Money In Radio (...except radio is dying) - TuneCore Blog. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from http://www.tunecore.com/blog/2011/09/the-hidden-money-in-radio-except-radio-is-dying.html

This article explains why artists let their music play on the radio when radio is not the most popular medium these days. The simple answer to that is a "public performance" license. Songwriters and publishers allow performing rights organizations (there are three in the United States: BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC) to give licenses to third parties to play an artist's song. Every time an artist's song is played on the radio, the artist is paid by the organization. Radio was the largest source of income for artists until television came around, but artists still get income from other sources from radio, such as digital streaming radio (Spotify, Pandora). The only problem with this is the performing rights organizations have trouble tracking the amount of times artists' songs are being played in the digital world. "There is no transparency as to what is being charged and/or collected, and there are huge gaps of time between when they collect their money and when it is paid out." When an artist's song is being played, the artist is technically owed money, but since no efficient system for tracking this exists, artists are given minimums instead of an exact amount they should be paid. "For example, if an artist’s recording streamed ten times, the songwriter should be paid for ten public performances." 

I personally wondered why radio hasn't completely died out as a medium used today and it makes sense the answer as it why radio is still relevant today for performing artists is money. I learned about public performance licenses regarding artists' songs and radio. I knew of performing licenses regarding plays, and it only makes sense that those licenses extend to the music industry and the songs radios play. Being a songwriter, publisher, or artist today must be difficult. I can only imagine the amount of money owed to those artists when websites like YouTube exist, where songs can be played again and again endlessly. Some amount of money does go to those artists, but, like the article said, they are not paid the equivalent of ten public performance licenses when the song is being clicked on ten times. The artists should not get a minimum. I truly hope a compromise can be set without completely eradicating websites like YouTube and digital streaming websites like Spotify.