Members jeffleg_2000 Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 What's next? Will I have to pay for music just because I trun on my Car Radio someday. Will have to pay a fee just because I hear the music in Head!!!!!!!!!!!! What do you kind folks think about it? 'Performance Rights Act' Introduced By Cortney Harding, N.Y. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) jointly introduced legislation today that would end the exemption of terrestrial (Over the air) radio stations from current copyright law which requires satellite radio, cable radio channels, and Internet webcasts to pay a royalty for the use of sound recordings. The 'Performance Rights Act' remove the broadcaster exemption in the copyright law to assure that all platforms pay a performance royalty to artists. The proposed legislation would give over-the-air broadcast stations the ability to use a statutory license and make one payment annually under a government-set rate for all the music they play, instead of having to negotiate with every copyright owner for each use of music. Under the legislation, small commercial stations would pay $5,000 per year; noncommercial stations would pay $1,000per year; stations that make only incidental uses of music, such as "talk radio" stations, would not pay for that music; and religious services that are broadcast on radio would be completely exempt. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., this week introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) supporting a “performance fee” paid by raido stations for the music they play over the air. SoundExchange, which represents major record labels, applauded the move. The royalties would be paid to that organization, which would disburse the funds to the labels and artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members //()() Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 Let's hope not. As of now, they do it for you! It makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 “performance fee” paid by radio stations for the music they play over the air. Not sure if this is any different than business as usual. Radio stations always paid fees to the PRO's. Can you explain the difference? Best, John:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 SoundExchange, which represents major record labels, applauded the move. The royalties would be paid to that organization, which would disburse the funds to the labels and artists. Oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 Will I have to pay for music just because I trun on my Car Radio someday. Will have to pay a fee just because I hear the music in Head!!!!!!!!!!!!That isn't how it works. Over the air radio stations are mostly commercial corporations. It is they who will pay the licensing fees. They will do it through the ad revenue they generate. The only way it will cost you anything is through higher prices for goods and services to offset the higher ad prices the radio stations will have to charge. But that's pretty much how all businesses work. Public and college radio stations will pay through the listener support they get now as well as through grants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 So Blue, do you think its good news? Just curious to know what you think. Should we expect less music on major radio stations if this law is applied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurfu Posted February 12, 2009 Members Share Posted February 12, 2009 Wouldn't the payola that the stations get just cancel this out anyway? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 13, 2009 Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 So Blue, do you think its good news? Just curious to know what you think. Should we expect less music on major radio stations if this law is applied? I think it's good IF the money goes to the artists. Otherwise it's just another government mandated money grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crazy88Fingers Posted February 13, 2009 Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well now I always thought the radio was pretty much free advertising for artists (except for the whole payola thing). I don't see this working out well for anyone that isn't getting a new check every year. Especially up and coming artists who may not be signed to major labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members yollyp Posted February 13, 2009 Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 If the end-result of this bill is for the benefit of the majority and will eventually create more "jobs" -meaning, the payment or tax paid is religiously spend for a good purpose, then this might be a noble move for the bill-author. But if this will be an added "burden" for the businesses that will be directly hit, then, the author should think not twice but ten times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 13, 2009 Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 But if this will be an added "burden" for the businesses that will be directly hit, then, the author should think not twice but ten times. You're talking about a member of the US Senate. Thinking even ONCE would be refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeffleg_2000 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 You're talking about a member of the US Senate. Thinking even ONCE would be refreshing. How True............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boxorox Posted February 13, 2009 Members Share Posted February 13, 2009 How does this differ from the fees already paid to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC? Is this to close a loophole with sattelite stations, or a second bite at the apple by the Feds? Is this a way for "SoundExchange", representing Labels, to squeeze out profit by taking control of monies that should or will be distributed to artists? Is it in essence another royalty? If sattelite broadcasters were somehow exempt from paying the licensing fees that conventional broadcasters pay, I'd say it might be a good thing. If not, I don't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 14, 2009 Members Share Posted February 14, 2009 You're talking about a member of the US Senate. Thinking even ONCE would be refreshing. But the people keep re-electing those career policy makers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 14, 2009 Members Share Posted February 14, 2009 How does this differ from the fees already paid to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC? Is this to close a loophole with sattelite stations, or a second bite at the apple by the Feds? Is this a way for "SoundExchange", representing Labels, to squeeze out profit by taking control of monies that should or will be distributed to artists? Is it in essence another royalty? If sattelite broadcasters were somehow exempt from paying the licensing fees that conventional broadcasters pay, I'd say it might be a good thing. If not, I don't see the point. Kind of a tossup Public air pays like mentioned above. Satellite and other services may not have contributed but are using the material for monetary gain themselves via subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Instrospection Posted February 14, 2009 Members Share Posted February 14, 2009 That isn't how it works. Over the air radio stations are mostly commercial corporations. It is they who will pay the licensing fees. They will do it through the ad revenue they generate. The only way it will cost you anything is through higher prices for goods and services to offset the higher ad prices the radio stations will have to charge. But that's pretty much how all businesses work.Public and college radio stations will pay through the listener support they get now as well as through grants. True. And as much as it may suck for the average blogger or podcaster, the thing is that alot of the hobbyist journalists have to be weeded out, too. Sure they play your music, but no one's listening anyways, and you're not getting paid anything. One has to ask themselves what free exposure means when there's not a hope in hell of an actual audience hearing their stuff. I get alot of requests for promos, and at first, it's flattering. After awhile, you realize that you can't send out freebies to everyone, because postage and costs add up real quickly....and not everyone really has intentions to play the stuff, they just want free stuff to feel important or whatever. I ran into a problem with some guys asking for promos for play on their podcast, and then they convieniently never had a podcast after that or took a "hiatus" or whatever. I have to check back at places to see if they played the material, to track it for tax writeoff purposes and whatnot, to prove that there was some sort of airplay, otherwise it's a waste of money for everyone. Of course, there is a TON of people doing great stuff for bands, but there's also alot of shysters out there that have their hand out. I'm not sure if needing to pay royalties would be the answer to weed some of those guys out to get their act together and take it seriously, but I can say with all honesty that promoing at radio and niche places with good exposure, it doesn't translate into sales. There sort of needs to be some trickle down effect. At least at campus radio, with Nielsen BDS, you get a slow, small trickle of money. But it is at least proof that your material is out there, which is something I cannot say about sending promos into the great wide open to your average podcast dude or blog person or whatever. I think that the royalty rate is like 9 cents a play for artists. I can definetely say from experience that no one is quitting a dayjob from radio play, unless it's being played on hundreds or thousands of stations several or tons of times a day. So even if you did have a blog, if you played 100 songs which, to play devil's advocate, are an average of 4 minutes, that's $9.10 in royalties to artists. For 6 and a half hours worth of content. Compared to the cost of making the music? That's chump change. Even if you had to be registered or pay out royalties, it's not like royalties pay a hill of beans or cost a hill of beans. Even with radio shows and online radio, you have to wonder who's a hobbyist and who can actually pay to reward bands and musicians for what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted February 21, 2009 Members Share Posted February 21, 2009 There's a distinction to be made between performance royalties and what broadcasters currently pay in the US. Here's a pretty even-handed explanation of the current situation. Bottom Line: Satellite broadcasters already pay a performance royalty and terrestrial broadcasters do not. They only pay the writers and publishers - not the performers. There's been a performance royalty in Europe and all the rest of the developed world for close to 50 years. NAB has just suppressed it with superior lobbying power. As a musician, I would like to see musicians get paid for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.