As you probably know, when a song is played on old-fashioned radio, a small fee goes to, not the artist, but the songwriter of the song in question. It’s only a nickel or so, on average, but over time that can really add up.

But radio stations have never had to pay money to the nominal artists of the songs they play. So-called “performance royalties” were excluded, on the thinking that radio play helps sell records. (Songwriting royalties are called “publishing.”)

This has always grated on some in the industry.

Jeffrey Yorke in Billboard has been following the behind-the-scenes political maneuvers to change the current law. The industry doesn’t have an easy way of it; the National Association of Broadcasters, which has an influential lobby in D.C., not to mention an entire country full of broadcast outlets, to press its case, is unalterably opposed to the idea, on obvious grounds. (It would cost radio stations an enormous amount of money.)

In his most recent story ($), Yorke notes that, while it is very unlikely Congress will do anything about the matter this year, the issue has moved to a new level:

A resounding voice vote June 27 by the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property in favor of the legislation sent the Performance Rights Act to the full House Judiciary Committee. A vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a similar bill is also possible. But the legislation doesn’t seem poised to get much further in this election year, as Congress is scheduled to adjourn for a summer recess after the first week of August and faces a full agenda after it reconvenes following the Labor Day weekend.

I’ve always been reflexively against the matter, on the grounds that the music industry doesn’t deserve any more money until it cleans up a few of its own scandals, which over the years have included not paying artists royalties; price-fixing; raising prices; payola; and, more recently, the file-sharing legal assaults.

But I think there’s an argument or two to be made for it today.

1) Radio isn’t the primary course of artist exposure these days. With music available everywhere, radio doesn’t make and break careers any more. It’s just another industry making money off of music. Why should it get its goods for free when internet radio, for example, doesn’t?

2) The way the industry is evolving, the law could be written to not make the labels the primary conduit for the performance royalties. An arm’s length nonprofit organization mandated to perform fiduciary duties in channeling the money to the correct rights-holder might, over time, be a force for protecting artists’ rights in this area.

(By which I mean: Right now,there’s no way to stop a label from pilfering performance royalties, because the label could make the argument, a legitimate one, that its promotional muscle contributed to the airplay. But as the industry evolves, and artists who are not tied to labels emerge, the set-up would make survival in that area more likely. In the past, if you were an independent artist and you had a fluke radio hit, you made no money off of it; you were practically forced to go to a label to monetize it.)

3) It’s a great time to screw over terrestrial radio. Nuff said!