Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

I mean, I have sympathy for the writers, but I also don't believe that it's necessarily equitable that a songwriter receives all the money when a song is played on the radio but the performer receives nothing (that is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Consider the case of "I Will Always Love You", written and originally performed by Dolly Parton but made globally famous by Whitney Houston. I mean, Parton is a pretty legendary songwriter, but let's be honest, the only reason that song was played over and over on the radio was Houston's voice. When Houston died and the song was again put in rotation on the radio, is it really fair that Parton received all the benefit of that and Houston's estate nothing?

View on HN

In this case the writers are talking about "publishing" rights which are distinct and separate from the sound recording (I believe those are called the "master" rights).

----

Copyright is split into two main sections: copyright in the song (known as publishing rights) and copyright in the sound recording (known as master rights). The publisher only deals with the publishing right, which is the songwriting side and includes the music and lyrics.

Traditionally, a record label will own the master right, which is basically the right to use a particular recording of that song, but if you’re a self-releasing artist or producer then you will most likely own this right yourself.

https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/music-publishing-explained-fo...

In the US a performer still receives nothing when the song is played on the radio, all the royalties go to the writers: https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties#why-songwriters...

No. This is a subtle difference but a very important one. In the US, the performance right on broadcast radio is not collected at all. The publishing rights are collected on.

That's really not the same thing as "publishers take all the money".

Yes, what you've written about broadcast vs. publishing rights on the radio is correct, but what I wrote "In the US a performer still receives nothing when the song is played on the radio, all the royalties go to the writers" is still 100% correct (I made no mention about the source of the rights), so I'm not sure why you started your comment with "No."

>> is it really fair that Parton received all the benefit of that and Houston's estate nothing?

According to a quick Google search, Houston made over $30 million from the Bodyguard soundtrack, and millions more after her death.

Performing artists can also collect performance royalties, but I think am/fm radio is excluded from this and I don't know how much it is in comparison to songwriter royalties.

The Bodyguard soundtrack could have been recorded without Houston.

It could not have been recorded without Parton.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com