WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 848, The Performance Rights Act

Comment by niki (November 28, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST

Weighing in kind of late. But I'm kind of at odds with this bill. I do think the recording industry is shooting themselves, but I mean with as much money as artists have to pay to have radio play (not necessarily continual) its only fair that some of this money comes back. While it is unlikely that it is all going to the artist the fact that in order to have your music played if you are not Jay-Z or Lil wayne or a popular person like that you have to pay anywhere from $500-2000(depending on station/dj) for a play and if you want it continually you better come with like $10k or be related to someone at the station. So radio is not free advertisement in contrast to some earlier posts...however what I do not agree with is the tax b/c it will give incentive to well established artists who the stations wont mind paying rather than a mediocre artist still building their career....

Comment by Athenian (November 15, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST

I'm a law student analyzing the bill as well and I second Nashvillian's comment. The time has come to repair the disparate treatment of performers. No one complains when the radio stations have to pay the songwriters or composers to play their music. The fact that performers get promotion from the radio stations doesn't mean that we should deprive them of their right to their own work! Radio is a $6 billion industry that has gotten away with not paying for the music they play for too long!...

Comment by Nashvillian (November 8, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST

I am a law student analyzing this issue for journal publication. Artists have pushed for this right for quite some time (there is a case from the late 1930s pushing against radio free use). The fact that radio stations promote music is a post hoc rationalization for a free ride they have enjoyed for over 70 years. We don't say that movie makers shouldn't pay licensing fees to writers because a movie "promotes" their book. Also, the specific contractual provisions allocating payments between record labels and artists have nothing to do with whether radio should pay artists a performance right fee. The NAB is a powerful lobby that has successfully blocked legislation of this nature for decades. The Act is not aimed at protecting superstars, but those who earn no revenue off touring, album sales, etc. or have long been out of the industry (like session players). Admittedly, both conglomerates need a business model change, but artists deserve these payments regardless....

Comment by IsaiahToo (October 4, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Should this bad bill pass, it will change the face of America forever. No longer would Americans from generation to generation be able to enjoy the pioneers signers and artists that radio helped create in the first place. This could result in future generations never hearing a song by Elvis, B.B.King, Dione Warwick, the Beatles, etc. Because, seriously, do they really expect radio stations to pay thousands to pay 30 and 40 year old songs. It's a money grab by the recording industry. Make no mistake about that....

Comment by Wyntyr (September 6, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Why does anyone want to create "parity" between radio stations? To ensure that all stations are controlled by big business? All this is going to do is ensure that there isn't any competition to the corporations that own multiple stations. It's time for congress to stop making laws that make no sense. Enough is enough already! If you cannot create a law that is beneficial to the people, STOP MAKING THEM!!! LEAVE MY RADIO ALONE!!!!...

Comment by Jo (August 14, 2009, 01:00:00)

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

If its not a "Tax" then why is the government forcing it? Last time I checked taxes are not an option. Call this new bill whatever you want but sounds like a tax to me all the same....

Comment by Randy in Jackson Hole (August 10, 2009, 01:00:00)

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

I'm very glad to see the tide of outrage over this bill. Obviously Patrick Leahy and his ilk have introduced this bill under the guise of "fairly compensating" the recording artists. But their ploy is so transaparent...and very disturbing. As many have responded...this bill would literally kill "free radio" as we know it. Free radio, over the years, has provided artists with the valuable services of "airplay" and "publicity." I cannot think of one major recording artist who does NOT owe their success to Free Radio. Our wonderful greedy politicians are out for blood on this one...but theirs will be spilled first through the election process. Throw the bums voting for this bill...out of office!...

Comment by Earl (August 10, 2009, 01:00:00)

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

First, the copyright owners of most music are the big labels, EMI, Warner, CBS/Sony, etc. The "artist" is on a work made for hire contract and in cases of top artists such as Madonna are well compensated. This should be done more like the songwriter's do it with a license negociated by a third party such as Harry Fox and an option not to ask for a free or to grant "freebees" and this would stimulate "non-major lable" artists, such as indy lables and home grown pressings who opt out of the license process. This "tax" can be turned into something that provides "alternative" music offerings and takes control out of the "Major Lables."...

Comment by Aaron (July 18, 2009, 01:00:00)

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EDT

I work for a small independent non profit radio station in a smaller market of the Los Angeles Metro Area. From my understanding of this bill. This would infact cripple are station from being able to provide exceptional broadcasting to are community....

Comment by Hell&BackMedevac (July 2, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EDT

This radio tax has nothing to do with royalties or performance fees but is the beginning of censorship. Stop radio, have a night of burning books, and, together with the Civilian Expeditionary Force, we have Germany 1930...

Comment by Nicole (June 25, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

I won't sit idly by and do nothing. I just finished writing my congressman. I encourage all of you to do the same. Go to this site to find your congress person. Write them and let them know you disagree with this new license fee or whatever it is called....

Comment by Nicole (June 25, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Brian Pride. What does Christianity have to do with this discussion? I am aware it is not a tax. However, at this time there is an economic downturn. Requiring anyone to pay more for something that they did not pay for in the past is not good thing. I am sure if the radio stations have to end up paying more money the listening audience will have to pay. I don't own a satellite radio so therefore what they pay doesn't concern me. People who do have it also pay for it so what is your point? It isn't as if Satellite radio is free to the listener. That is their chose mind you. A lot of internet radio stations get revenue from advertisements. But if the revenue from the advertisers has not increased who will bear the brunt of these new fees? No you need to shut up and get your facts straight. Small radio stations that are barely making ends meet as it is will probably have to shut down if their expenses are more than the revenue they are bringing in....

Comment by Brian Pride (June 22, 2009, 01:00:00)

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

If satellite, internet radio, and every other radio station out side the US has to pay a royalty (Not a Tax) then US radio should too. Fair is Fair. It's unfair to people like me that they use you dopey god fearin' christian types that don't have any of the facts right to push Big Radio's agenda. You should quit being the NAB's muscle and start using your own minds. The performance fees that they are looking to make radio pay the artists are ridiculously small....

Comment by Anthony (June 10, 2009, 01:00:00)

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Go to www.getmusictracks.com, we play nothing but independent artist and new music. Radio stations dont give the new artist the opportunity to have a hit single because they play the same music all the time. It comes to who is willing to pay for play. Internet radio is the next big thing! You can even stream from your phone and at the same time sell your album online instantly. Check out our staion and give me feedback if you dont mind, go to www.getmusictracks.com click on the 90.3 tab. Send your feedback to akrmanagement@gmail.com...thanks!...

Comment by Jaynuman (June 9, 2009, 01:00:00)

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EDT

If there is a service it should be taxed. If there is a product it should be taxed. If there is an income it should be taxed. If there is a financial gain it should be taxed. If you tax a portion you must tax all. If they live in a mansion they should be tax. If they live in a project they should be taxed. If they have a Bentley they should be taxed. If they have a Kia they should be taxed. If they eat lobster they should be taxed. If they eat chicken they should be taxed. If they earn money they should be taxed. If they receive money they should be taxed. If they smoke they should be taxed. If they drink they should be taxed. If they make law they should be taxed. If they break law they should be taxed. Tax them until they break & when they are broken tax them to clean up the mess that was left behind. When they return to their broken homes overtax them @ the state & local level. Tax them until their children beg for mercy. Tax their God Allah and Profits and then tax their prayers....

Comment by Barry (May 22, 2009, 01:00:00)

Fri, 22 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

This is not a tax. This is not a tax. commenters who say it is a tax are either stupid or liars. or both. if the fcc licensees, who get their license to broadcast don't like it they can go out of business. As the licenses are quite valuable i don't think there is going to be any tag days for the owner of the licensees. AND IT ISN"T A TAX....

Comment by R.L.Koplin_central Wisconsin (May 19, 2009, 01:00:00)

Tue, 19 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

If this goes through we (here in central Wisconsin and elswhere)will loose more services again (digital TV Sucks for Most of us non local viewers). I will not spend my dwindling income on recorded music because it is not available on the local radio station. If they (local radio ) can survive on only news and un licenced entertainment it would be a miracle. If this passes I will support an effort to oust the backers of this assult on the public....

Comment by all for my black radio stations first then others (May 14, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Im against this bill because basically the radio is promoting the artist for free their record label or company should be the one paying the radio station for playing their songs back to back sometimes tax the record companies and leave our the people radio stations out of this. Radio stations already pay taxes for playing artist songs...

Revision by webmaster (May 14, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 848 would provide parity in radio performance rights under title 17, United States Code.

Detailed Summary

Performance Rights Act - Amends federal copyright law to: (1) grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters; (2) establish a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for non-commercial, public broadcast stations; (3) grant an exemption from royalty payments for broadcasts of religious services and for incidental uses of musical sound recordings; and (4) grant terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings a per program license option.

Prohibits taking into account license fees payable for public performance via digital audio transmission of sound recordings in any proceeding to set or adjust the license fees for the purpose of reducing or adversely affecting such license fees. (Current law prohibits taking those fees into account in such a proceeding without referencing the purpose.)

Prohibits anything in this Act from adversely affecting the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

Prohibits taking into account the rates established by the Copyright Royalty Judges in any proceeding to reduce or adversely affect the license fees payable for public performances by terrestrial broadcast stations. Requires that such license fees for the public performance of musical works be independent of license fees paid for the public performance of sound recordings.

Revises provisions relating to proceeds from the licensing of transmissions.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 5/13/2009: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 9.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by Leah2009 (May 13, 2009, 01:00:00)

Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

The stations are very informative and necessary for such a time as this....

Comment by RJJ-Houston (May 13, 2009, 01:00:00)

Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

This bill will die... not even get out of commitee. If a artist and his organization makes their music available via radio, they have to earn income via traditional means. Sheila Jackson-Lee is on the wrong side of this debate @ this time. Private business can handle this deal. Let the small, privately owned and public stations survive....

Status as of May 13, 2009

Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

5/13/2009: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 9.

Comment by nom de plume (May 12, 2009, 01:00:00)

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 EDT

This tax will destroy small independent stations and minority-owned stations. Why should the stations have to pay a tax to ensure artists are compensated fairly? That responsibility should lie with the recording companies they work for! How do you expect a small station owner to fork over this kind of cash? The majority of these recording companies owned by foreign entities, and do not pay taxes in this country! They're laughing all the way to the bank!...

Revision by webmaster (March 12, 2009, 01:00:00)

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 848 would provide parity in radio performance rights under title 17, United States Code.

Detailed Summary

Prohibits anything in this Act from adversely affecting the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

Revises provisions relating to proceeds from the licensing of transmissions.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 3/10/2009: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by L (March 10, 2009, 01:00:00)

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Bye Bye College Radio!...