digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Billy Corgan wants broadcast radio to pay artists

news.cnet.com — Internet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass. Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

Who dugg this? Made popular Mar 11, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

201 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mu0p, on 03/11/2009, -4/+70Radio stations already pay performance rights organizations such as ascap and bmi for use of songs who in turn pay publishers and writers of said songs. It's simply radio stations accountable exactly the same way that internet radio is. Either have both terrestrial and internet radio pay performance rights or neither should pay them.

    I work for an indie label love what the digital age has done to the music industry, but in the end, artists simply aren't making as much money for their music as they would be able to 15 years ago. Artists are looking for other ways to make a living which is why ticket prices for live shows have shot up in the past few years even for smaller acts.

    I know I'm going to get dugg down for this, but the culture of free entitlement of many music fans (myself included) needs to end somewhere and the artists and writers responsible for music need to start getting paid for their work at some point.

    p.s. here's a link to the actual bill since the cnet article was woefully uninformative: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4789/show
  • yoshiboy, on 03/11/2009, -7/+57This is probably a good thing: it would effectively reduce the number of radio stations operating in any given area, and especially for smaller markets. And these people would quite likely start pirating music more than they used to, or learn how to do so. And slowly but surely, the RIAA would lose their control over what becomes popular, leaving that decision back to the people.

    Billy Corgan is apparently remarkably brilliant: it's not like anyone really buys CDs anymore (or pay for music at all), so now they can get money from the people who make money off of playing their music, not the people who listen to it personally.

    Also, a protip to CNET: Don't use .bmp files in web pages. There's no excuse for that.
  • rockstar1o9, on 03/11/2009, -1/+45I have a better idea for artists to make money: GET RID OF ***** TICKETMASTER AND THEIR RIDICULOUS FEES. Then give the artist a few more dollars per show. I don't understand why I get charged $15 per ticket in fees when the show only costs $20??
  • ousthouse, on 03/11/2009, -7/+49Remember back when musicians were all like "***** you, government! I just wanna rock!"

    They were a lot cooler back then
  • BrandonJM, on 03/11/2009, -6/+44Dugg for the shear balls of the concept
  • Grendelson, on 03/11/2009, -7/+42I support Billy Corgan's effort to destroy the music industry.
  • merky1, on 03/10/2009, -2/+32I think that the plan was to level the playing field between internet and broadcast stations. Why is there a difference between music delivered via the air vs. internet.
  • RadiatedAnt, on 03/11/2009, -23/+49Billy Corgan what happend to you, you used to be cool.
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+24Wrong homophone, shears need to keep the hell away from balls.
  • cloudberries, on 03/11/2009, -1/+24"even if it was a friend of mine singing a song he wrote himself"

    Seriously? Jesus. What about humming a tune on a bus? Would you need to shell out royalties for that too?
  • yurishoujo, on 03/11/2009, -14/+35Because you know, radio isn't free advertising or anything. No one's ever heard a song on the radio and went "wow, that was something new, let me go buy that/check out that artist."

    Corgan is just pissed no one listens to the Pumpkins anymore, and is trying to gain money from dead songs. It's like when the Village people were blaming pirates for their lack of sales. Not the fact that disco went out of style 40 years ago.
  • 5h0ckw4ve, on 03/11/2009, -1/+22Corgan: What??? I'm still cool! You pay later!!!
  • fiskintl, on 03/11/2009, -3/+23who listens to the radio anymore anyway?
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -7/+26***** Billy Corgan. I've actually met the guy, and he's as big a prick as you would imagine him to be. I met Jimmy Chamberlain and James Iha at the same time, and they were very nice and personable guys. It's not like I was bothering them either. I ran into them at Lollapalooza just walking around. Corgan's happy ass decided to yell "*****" at me while I was walking away. I assume it's because I knew who he was. It's the best I've been able to come up with.
  • PaulHouse, on 03/11/2009, -4/+23Go Ahead, give some of the Great Musicians some air time. To HELL with corporate radio.
  • Amadeus2490, on 03/11/2009, -1/+19Maybe he was hoping you were gay?
  • VoidEngineer, on 03/11/2009, -0/+16Hahahahaha. they used a bmp!
  • Elohir, on 03/11/2009, -4/+19Billy Corgan was a rock god. Now he's a used up hack. I unfortunately went to see the 're-imagined' version of the pumpkins last year. Half the crowd ended up walking out during a 25 minute series of pointless masturbatory solos, after a mini-rant on how rock is dead and mainstream pop is the music of the future. It was depressing as hell.
  • skiindude22, on 03/11/2009, -3/+18Of course he argues that the broadcast radio needs to pay also, not that the internet stations shouldn't have to pay.
  • cmallinson, on 03/11/2009, -3/+18I've gotta say this - I think he has a point here. I had to pay a fee in Canada to the music industry just for the right to play any music at all at my wedding - even if it was a friend of mine singing a song he wrote himself. Retailers need to pay a fee to have a radio station playing on their premises. Companies need to pay the fee to have "hold music" on their phone systems. Why do radio stations get to play music all day for relatively low cost and soak up ad revenue for profit when these companies, as well as online "radio" services like Pandora need to shell out huge bucks to do the same thing?

    I don't have the answer, but something here is not fair.

  • Samiyam, on 03/11/2009, -0/+14Because Ticketmaster is a publicly-traded company, its shareholders want to see revenue grow year after year. One way to do this without a whole lot of effort is to just continually raise prices until your customers say "Enough" and sales actually start to decrease.
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -1/+15He has shown it buy the horrible fan raping, marketing premise of expecting his fans to buy 5 CDs, from 5 different retailers, in order to hear all of the songs recorded for their last album. Needless to say, it flopped.
  • Samiyam, on 03/11/2009, -2/+16Billy Corgan worked in a record store. Does that make him a "guru on the music business"?
  • mithrasinvictus, on 03/11/2009, -1/+13The record labels golden age is over, there is no going back.
    Artists have more recording and promotion options. Internet radio will make payola less effective. "The culture of free entitlement" is the result of record companies' refusal to adapt to a new technology. There was a demand that wasn't being met.
  • theskillwithin, on 03/11/2009, -6/+18The Smashing Pumpkins already has a mass amount of dedicated fans.
    he is not dependent on radio.
    radio is dependent on artist.
    artists should have a say in what happens with their art.
  • WiretapStudios, on 03/11/2009, -0/+11Billy Corgans head looks like a sheared ball.
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+11I think you mean "music marketing industry", the music is just a byproduct these days.
  • CTK14A, on 03/11/2009, -1/+12Songwriters =/= performers
  • Snoosy, on 03/11/2009, -1/+11"I'm yet to hear of a band that is more generous to its fans than The Smashing Pumpkins."

    Nine Inch Nails. They gave their latest album away for free, and provided fans with the tools to create remixes of their songs and post their work on the official NIN website. That's WAY more generous than anything Billy Corgan has ever done.

    And yes, I love the Pumpkins.
  • netant, on 03/11/2009, -0/+101) radio is already dead.
    2) Your junk is not getting broadcasted anyway, even if its free.
    3) Somehow, music manages to survive in England, and they collect royalties for artists there. In fact, I'd argue the scene there is more vibrant than here.
    4) Why on earth should streaming "radio" stations have to pay a royalty, while broadcast stations get favored treatment?


    I would much prefer both internet/broadcast radio be free, but if one side can't, then neither should the other. And if that means radio stations get shutdown, then so be it; I'm big on spite.
  • ezekahr, on 03/11/2009, -0/+9I thought someone like Billy Corgan would know by now the record companies (such as the one they are signed to) are usually the ones paying off the radio stations to play what they want.
  • Psybient, on 03/11/2009, -1/+10Billy Corgan has an emo band? What the hell are you talking about?
  • TheMachine1, on 03/11/2009, -2/+10From way back when Billy Corgan/Smashing Pumpkins were still a popular act people labeled Corgan as a pretentious dick.
  • 0tis, on 03/11/2009, -0/+8In England, at least, this has previously been taken to the extreme that guitar shops need to pay a fee to the PRS in case somebody plays a cover in their shop.
  • DiscoUnderpants, on 03/11/2009, -0/+8All the people Ive met that work in records stores seem to think so.
  • JordanM85, on 03/11/2009, -3/+10They should be happy to get radio play. Same with people using their songs on YouTube videos. It's free advertising, you fools.
  • mithrasinvictus, on 03/11/2009, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

    You can't do that with the enormous amount of independent radio stations.
  • Dinsdale77, on 03/11/2009, -15/+21This man could kick me in the balls and I would still listen to his music, SP is that good.
  • evergrim, on 03/11/2009, -0/+6Hell, Quentin Tarantino worked in a video store..
  • jenshik, on 03/11/2009, -0/+6Ouch.
  • cloudberries, on 03/11/2009, -1/+7You going to back that up with anything or are you just going to rant?
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -2/+7You sadly miss the point here. The radio industry workflow is as follows: Musician provides free content to radio --> radio gives musician free advertisement by playing the content. The exposure results in record sales, for the artists.

    The specific rotation reflects what the majority has said they want to hear. This is why some indie bands unintentionally become stars and some previously big acts fade into obscurity. Stations that ignore the listener, turn in a poor ratings book, can not sell advertising and go out of business. As much as it may break the heart of indie music fans to understand this, more people want to hear Britney and Nickelback than indie music. The day that changes, so will radio stations, whos profits are dependent upon appeasing their audience. Then again, if that happens, indie music will have become pop music, which you'd likely despise too.
  • Schmapdi, on 03/11/2009, -0/+5Snoosy -

    You mean like how the Pumpkins gave away the double cd Machina II - Friends and Enemies of Modern Music in like 2002? Released for free on the internet - waaaaay before that sort of thing became even remotely common.
  • bpm2000, on 03/11/2009, -0/+5I'm pretty sure I won't see a better comment today.
  • fury420, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4gotta love sarcasm, especially when people dont get it :)
  • Fogdelune, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4Would this change the policy of most radio stations to play only 7 songs in 40 minutes, then repeat those songs throughout the day? If so, I'm all for it.
  • inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4Dude do you realise you just proved JCred's point by making it impossible to just go out and the buy the recent god damn songs.. it's called consumer choice.. consumers can now choose what songs they want to buy for a good few years.. so by suddenly trying to restrict that choice when it exists else because you are a greedy ***** will equal less sales.. because the consumer is not going to go.. hey yeah.. I'm totally cool for you taking away my options.
  • mithrasinvictus, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4Any argument made against this by broadcast radio should be applicable to internet radio as well, though. This way, 2 sets of lobbyists will be involved on opposing sides.
  • Amadeus2490, on 03/11/2009, -0/+4Haven't listened to the radio since 2002. I check out all my music online, or by word-of-mouth.
  • puusj, on 03/11/2009, -1/+5Finally the US is dealing with the issue of performance rights. Europe already embraced this a long long time ago... The only thing I can say is: this is a fair deal!

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 202 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.