Music biz attorney Chris Castle, in my humble non-litigious opinion, is the perfect example of the sort of bottom-feeding leech that loiters around the increasingly-shallow yet murky waters of the music industry. Pro-copyright and pro-Four Families, this capitalist cretin recently blasted Fred von Lohman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in his Music • Technology • Policy blog, asking the spurious question “why does the EFF hate artists so much?”

After reading Castle’s less-than-convincing argument against a recent von Lohman posting to the Los Angeles Times opinion blog, I don’t believe that I’d hire this idiot to park my car, much less represent me in any legal business. Although I would agree with Castle that von Lohman went a little over the top in referring to copyright as a “tax,” I take issue with Castle’s assertion that “copyright is a private property right that allows creators to earn a living.”

At issue is the coming battle between the Four Families of the Recording Industry and the National Association of Broadcasters over a proposed performance royalty on terrestrial radio. As recounted elsewhere, satellite radio networks like XM and Sirius currently pay a performance royalty to the industry in addition to a mechanical royalty. Since its beginning back in 1926, regular broadcast radio has been considered a promotional medium and has been exempted by law from having to pay performance royalties; currently, earthbound stations pay only an annual mechanical royalty to entities like BMI and ASCAP that collect the cash and disseminate it to the songwriters.

Smelling an intoxicating new revenue stream on which to gorge itself, the recording industry – through its legal pitbulls, the RIAA – is pushing its puppets in Congress to eliminate the royalty exemption on radio broadcasters, which would create a multi-billion dollar windfall for the record labels. Needless to say, the NAB doesn’t like this one iota and will be fighting it tooth and nail. I can’t say who will win, but in this battle between two corrupt industries, I’ll have to side with radio…more about which later. First, back to this loony lawyer Castle.

Much like a magician uses sleight of hand to distract you from the real magic, so too does Castle use his dubious logic to lead the reader away from the real issues here. Castle purposely clouds the discussion, purporting that to be anti-copyright is to be anti-artist. Witness his earlier statement that “copyright is a private property right that allows creators to earn a living.” In reality, in practice, in the real world, copyright law does no such thing for many artists.

Whether you’re a writer or a musician or an illustrator or whatever, the first thing that happens when you sign a contract with a label or a publisher (i.e. a corporation) is that they take away any and all of the rights to your art, typically forever, and for everywhere. It is this sort of copyright domination that von Lohman and the EFF are fighting, the misuse and abuse of copyright and intellectual property law by multi-national corporations. Do you really think that Congress extended copyright protection to the life of the creator plus 75 years because they were helping those guys you knew in a band in high school? No, they did it to protect the profit margin of Disney and dozens of other giant corporations, so that they can keep making money from Mickey Mouse T-shirts.

Further, Castle mischaracterizes the main thrust of von Lohman’s recent argument, which is against the performance royalty for radio. In von Lohman’s words, quoted in Castle’s blog rant, the EFF spokesman states, “if anything, the ‘digital performance right’ that was created by Congress in 1995 should be repealed, not extended to terrestrial radio. After all, so far the track record for the digital performance right has been pretty dismal, impeding new digital music services without generating meaningful new revenues for artists.” Castle goes on to defend the cartel’s use of copyright law rather than argue against von Lohman’s stance on the issue in question.

Castle writes, “I would suggest that society needs copyright to protect the creative community from von Lohman of the EFF’s fellow travelers at the National Association of Broadcasters and the Consumer Electronics Association who would free ride on our backs. If our rights are not protected, or at least protectable, the clear beneficiaries of the rollback of artist's rights that von Lohman of the EFF advocates are NAB and CEA members who continue to get music for free.” It seems that Castle has bought into the industry’s pixie-dust stance, hook line and sinker.

For decades, the recording industry and the radio industry have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. The labels provided radio stations with records to play at no charge, and the stations played them, promoting the label’s products and ostensibly leading to increased record sales. Both sides profited greatly from the relationship, which Castle (and, obviously, much of the industry) believes is now one-sided, with radio exploiting the work of the poor, underpaid artists that are represented by the noble, gentle record labels.

For the recording industry to stand up after decades and say that, well, maybe radio airplay isn’t as promotional for our artists as we thought is clearly bullshit. If radio doesn’t help record sales, why have the labels spent literally millions of dollars on advertising, contests and even cash bribes to get stations to play their records? The track record of payola and collusion between the recording industry and radio is well documented and lengthy.

The truth of the matter is that the recording industry and its apologists like Chris Castle have NEVER had the artist’s best interests in mind. If they did, they wouldn’t screw musicians out of royalties on sales and licensing fees as they have through the years (which has also, sadly, been well documented). To trot out poor Sam Moore or a washed-up Judy Collins in front of Congress as examples of the musicians that would be helped by this proposed new royalty on radio is blatant deception. If history has taught us anything about the recording industry, it is that the artist is the last one to make any money from the label’s actions on their behalf.

Sorry, Chris, but I have to disagree with you. A performance royalty on broadcast radio is a bad move, and one that will do nothing to benefit any but a small handful of musicians that have enough juice to demand their share (and get it). The other 99.9% of recording artists will see absolutely no change in the status quo while Doug Morris and Edgar Bronfman and their ilk will get even richer by exploiting the artist’s work…which, coincidentally, is exactly what you claim that von Lohman and the EFF are doing.

If a performance royalty on radio broadcasters is levied, then I propose this common-sense solution to the argument over what’s fair and what’s not fair. Rather than drop this bundle of cash into Sound Exchange’s bank account (Sound Exchange is collecting organization formed by industry lobbyists the RIAA to collect royalties on digital radio), let’s set up a true non-profit that has the artist’s best interests in mind, one without any corporate connection at all.

It wouldn’t take much…if a few of the wealthier recording superstars like Bono or Paul McCartney or Tim McGraw each ponied up a hundred grand or so, a collection organization could be formed that would divide the proceeds 50/50 between the labels and the artists, after taking a small cut off the top to pay for administration and maybe set up health and life insurance for artists. Let’s put Nashville lawyer Fred Wilhelms in charge and maybe something good will come out of this otherwise cockamamie idea. Then we’ll see if industry drones like Chris Castle really support the artists, or if his words are just more self-serving bullshit.