<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

      <rss version="2.0">		
        <channel>
          <title>WashingtonWatch.com - Comments for S. 2500, The Performance Rights Act</title>
          <link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills</link>
          <description></description>
          <managingEditor>info@washingtonwatch.com</managingEditor>
          <generator>http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1</generator>
          
<item>
<title>Comment by lauren (June 6, 2008, 15:46:32)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2500.html#36505</link>
<description>There is a problem with this bill that is quite obivious. The AFM-American Ferderation of musicians is mostly made up up session musicians so how does this bill benefit them? Are they considered artist underthis bill? If not then this bill for the most part will only benefit instrumentalists that do separate recording such as Victor Wooten. The rest that will benefit from this will be artist such as Faith Hill and others that only perform and do not write their music. If this is the case then this bil has to be revised....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">36505@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:46:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Tony (May 12, 2008, 22:03:39)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2500.html#34638</link>
<description>I fell that this bill is going to end free radio. the radio companies are not reporting great profits. I see that the amount of revenue generated looks like alot, but the cost to run a broadcast company must not be cheap. what is the profit of the broadcast companies. i will back this bill if the profits are great. Satellite radio charges there listener and this is why I feel that they should pay. Now on the other hand I don’t agree on internet stations having to pay, unless they are charging there listeners....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">34638@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 21:03:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dan DeBruler (December 30, 2007, 15:36:22)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2500.html#25869</link>
<description>The unasked question around the Performance Rights Act “How much additional income will an artist actually receive?”

Out of the tens of thousands of recording artists who will conceivably be covered under the legislation, how can any artist expect to receive a fair share? As a radio station manager, I am asking for a closer look at the practicality of the Performance Rights Act, which will ultimately benefit the legal counsel and employees of the collection agency to a greater extent than it will any performing artist.

If the law passes, we will make every attempt to negotiate individual fees with artists we actually play. That would provide a fair share, and offer radio the opportunity to work out a “willing buyer, willing seller” agreement both parties could live with....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">25869@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:36:22 EST</pubDate>
</item>
        </channel>
      </rss>
  		