No performance tax issue

[WPPCProductions]

Hi all,I"ve been hearing and reading about this performance tax issue lately.This will turn radio to the worse with more revenue sucked out of their profits if they even have one left as the way things are going now.I like to know what in the hell is wrong with the music industry lately.us guys were supporting them for ages playing them.now they want to bite off the hands that feed them.I hope this wont happen,if it does. Alot of more of us will be out of work and standing in a very long unemployment line.

My buddy emailed this link today.

http://www.noperformancetax.org/issue.asp

 

[WPPCProductions]

Here's some additional info from Radio Business Report-Television Business Report .


http://www.rbr.com/radio/15878.html

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

A POX on everybody's house!

This is indeed a serious matter. You and others should be up in arms and pleading your case.

However, it is also a good time to realize we often try to cultivate and nurture democracy "on the cheap" in our country. This is becoming a nasty fight where people are resorting to "cheap shots" and trying to drape political stances on this issue which ought to be kept separate. I would "preach that sermon" to all groups involved in the struggle.

It is certainly appropriate for the NAB to speak out on this issue. I personally take offense that the NAB chooses to use the word "tax" in their lobby efforts. A tax is a revenue stream that goes to government. This proposed law would cause a revenue stream to go from one group of businesses to another group of businesses. That is not a tax. It would appear that NAB has chosen to make this struggle a Republicans vs. Democrats battle which is an effort to "do democracy on the cheap".

It is a legitimate discussion and struggle to argue about the "free" value radio gets by using copyrighted and performed music as program material, and to argue about the "free" value record companies and artists get from exposure of their music on the radio.

It is a legitimate discussion and struggle to argue about how that money that broadcasters may end up paying be split up between the record companies, the artists and others. (Where the hell is the Studio Janitor's Union? Why doesn't this bill in congress provide part of the revenue that would be extracted from broadcasters would go to the support staff that made the recording session work?)

How do we know the current royalties being paid by broadcasters to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC are appropriate amounts, are they being correctly split up among the people who actually deserve to receive them. (Maybe some union that cleans up the wadded up preliminary versions of music in the trash can should be sitting at the negotiating table. ;D )

Oh, I lost my head there for a moment. I had this dream that maybe we could be patriots and "do government" in such a way that future generations would look back on our era as a time when we helped perfect the whole concept of self government. NO, I guess we are destined to go down in the history books for our penchant for doing "democracy on the cheap".

Cue the Republicans. Cue the Democrats. May the best bully win. Who can be worried about getting it RIGHT. This is about winning and losing!

 

[TheBigA]

I personally take offense that the NAB chooses to use the word "tax" in their lobby efforts. A tax is a revenue stream that goes to government.

But they have gone to the government for this fee, and the rate will be set by the government. So there is a gov't role. So in that way, it's a tax. But I've thought the best way to describe it is "reverse payola." Because that's what it is, and any time money exchanges hands between radio and records, crime usually ensues. This opens a huge door for illegality to take place, and one only needs to examine how this fee is working in the digital media to see the problems this will create.

 

[H82BL8]

Good point BigA. How many other private industries can you name, outside of publishing, in which the government mandates payments and how much those payment will be? The naming convention alone, copy-"right" eludes to government intervention.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Though there is an effort to move away from it, utilities have traditionally had their rates regulated by government. Historically insurance rates for automobiles and residential property has been regulated by government.

We used to regulate railroad and trucking freight rates but our modern day superior wisdom says we shouldn't do that. So today we have trucking companies, railroads, and airlines down in the crapper where radio is also currently dwelling.

Government dicttes at least the minimum rate at which employees will be paid.

The precedent has been set. Government has been known to set rates and pricing for private industry. I'm not arguing that it is right, I am not arguing that it is wrong. Just that: It is done.

 

[TheBigA]

Though there is an effort to move away from it, utilities have traditionally had their rates regulated by government.

The difference is that utilities are monopolies. THAT'S the reason for their rates being set. To prevent them from using their monopoly powers to charge too much. Part of anti-trust regulations. Not the situation with radio companies. However, the music industry is being set up as a monopoly, with all royalties being officiated by one group: SoundExchange. My point about SoundExchange is there is no recourse. The rates are set, and broadcasters must pay them. There is no other agency radio can go to and say "I got a bad deal from SoundExchange. What can YOU do?"

The other part is that the Copyright Royalty Board has done a terrible job in officiating the fees being paid by digital broadcasters. There is no fairness in the current system, and everyone knows it. Everyone is paying different rates, using different systems for calculating the rates, and those rates are outrageously high when compared to other royalties, such as publishing. It's obvious that system is broken and must be fixed. And broadcasters definitely should avoid being part of that kind of system.

The question we need to ask ourselves is how much government involvement do we want in our media. And how much do we want MONEY to be involved in the relationship between radio and records.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Here's a way to end the dispute:

Radio stations will agree to pay performance fees to artists, but Payola will be legalized.

Market forces will determine compensation rates, and the government will keep its nose out of the music business.

We'll see who comes out ahead.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's a way to end the dispute:

Radio stations will agree to pay performance fees to artists, but Payola will be legalized.

Market forces will determine compensation rates, and the government will keep its nose out of the music business.

We'll see who comes out ahead.

Two points:

1) That gives an advantage to top rated stations in large markets...the ones with all the audience. It makes record labels into national advertisers. That means low rated stations in small markets (ie, the non trade reporters) would pay full rate with no discount.

2) The amount of paperwork this proposal requires is the real issue. All music needs to be documented by artist, label, and copyright holder. Some automation systems already do this kind of documentation. But it's the principle that counts. It's a power play by labels, pure and simple.

 

[bossbill]

I'm willing to take 5% of my profits (profits, not revenues) and put it in a pool. BMI, ASCAP, Sesac, and RIAA can determine for themselves how to split it up. And I get to do what I want with their music. In return, I would like a proportionate share of the money they provide to the metro radio stations, the tv channels, including MTV, etc., based on my population count.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm willing to take 5% of my profits (profits, not revenues) and put it in a pool. BMI, ASCAP, Sesac, and RIAA can determine for themselves how to split it up.

Unfortunately, that's not what's being discussed in Congress. The sad part is that RIAA went to the publishers and tried to do that deal, and they were told to take a hike. They weren't going to give any of their money to the labels. Then they tried to rework artist deals, to take some money from artist touring, and the managers & agents said no. All the internal greed within the music industry united when they all decided to go after radio. And it won't be for 5%, either. Estimates are that you'll be paying 10% of revenues in addition to BMI and ASCAP, both of which are also about to go up.

Meanwhile, all that music is bringing in less and less revenue. The audience for music hates the revenue device we call commercials. This is only a problem on music stations. News, talk, and sports run more commercials with no negative effects. The music royalties are set to increase every year, even though profits have been droipping for three consecutive years. No one seems to make the connection between the music and the drop in revenues. Certainly no one in the music industry wants to accept responsibility. But if I was delivering content that was bringing in diminishing returns, I would not be getting an increase every year. Yet that's exactly what the royalty agreements do.

The other thing I realized recently is they want their royalty to remain the same for the life of the copyright. Yet if I'm an actor, and I appear in a TV show, my residuals drop every year, until a point where they're almost zero. Why should a guitar player on a session get the same royalty for life when Opie no longer gets a check from all those Andy Griffith reruns we see on TV Land? That makes no sense to me. Why is no one talking about this?

 

[Nostalgia]

BigA, in three paragraphs you provided more historical and rational information than in dozens of posts on the subject. Thank you very much. As a SAG member I should have thought about the decreasing payment schedule on my own but that analogy slipped by. I guess I havent received any of those 75 cent checks from Universal recently.

Indeed, why is no one talking about this???? With your permission I would like to forward this to my congress persons.

 

[TheBigA]

With your permission I would like to forward this to my congress persons.

Sure!

They keep talking about how the US is the only country in the free world without a performance right. We're also the only country in the free world without univeral health care. You see how easy that is to fix. The US is also the only country in the free world with payola laws. If we're going to fix one inequity, why not fix them all?

Their other point is that satellite and internet pay royalties, so why shouldn't terrestrial. The answer is simple: Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act required them to. Why? Because they are digital, and listeners to them can make CD-quality copies, which they can't from over-the-air radio. It's all in the DMCA, plain as day. Until terrestrial becomes digital, it should be exempt from a performance royalty.

Don't get me started on this. I can go all day.

 

[TheRover]

H.R. 848 The Performers Royalty Act

October 1, 2009 C-SPAN

RADIO PERFORMANCE ROYALTIES DISCUSSED
on the Communicators Program

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/289261-1

"Guests discussed efforts by legislators to require commercial radio stations to pay royalties such as songwriters currently receive to the performers of music. The effort has been led by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and his bill (H.R. 848, the Performers Royalty Act) was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee. Steve Newberry expressed opposition to the measure during an interview in the C-SPAN studio on August 31, 2009. At the time he was the chair of the Radio Board of Directors of the National Association of Broadcasters. Duke Fakir, an original member of "The Four Tops" music group, talked about the benefits of the plan. He was interviewed in a hotel lobby in Tysons Corner, Virginia, on August 15, 2009. "The Communicators" is C-SPAN's weekly series that examines the people and events currently shaping telecommunications policy."

 

[WPPCProductions]

Hi all,I dont want to start a new topic on this bullcrap,but I found my original, Ok,When the big vote on this will happen,The locals here are playing the NAB ad, more and more lately,like every couple of hours.Is it getting near the date?

 

[TheBigA]

There won't be a vote until it goes to the floor for discussion. I don't expect that to happen any time soon. Way too many more important issues to discuss than something that benefits only a small number of people.

But the simple answer is that it's not on the legislative calender for either Senate or the House this year.

 

[CTListener]

With your permission I would like to forward this to my congress persons.

Sure!

They keep talking about how the US is the only country in the free world without a performance right. We're also the only country in the free world without univeral health care. You see how easy that is to fix. The US is also the only country in the free world with payola laws. If we're going to fix one inequity, why not fix them all?

Their other point is that satellite and internet pay royalties, so why shouldn't terrestrial. The answer is simple: Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act required them to. Why? Because they are digital, and listeners to them can make CD-quality copies, which they can't from over-the-air radio. It's all in the DMCA, plain as day. Until terrestrial becomes digital, it should be exempt from a performance royalty.

Good old analog FM, if the processing isn't too heavy-handed, sounds better than the 36-48kbs of bandwidth Sirius XM crams each of its digital music channels into. A CD burned from a top-quality FM broadcast might actually be preferable to one burned from Sirius XM.

 

[CrankyYankee]

I know this thread is about "performance" considerations, but maybe a modified form of a radio/TV license as is explained in this article could be an answer to this potential problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_licence

Then again, maybe not. Anyhow, it's worth a read.

 

[TomT]

The license referred to is paid by the listener, not the private commercial station. As used in the UK, it subsidizes the BBC. No relevance to the performance tax, an attempt by the recording industry to compensate for declining interest in their fine line of buggy whips.

 

[streamer]

The license referred to is paid by the listener, not the private commercial station. As used in the UK, it subsidizes the BBC. No relevance to the performance tax, an attempt by the recording industry to compensate for declining interest in their fine line of buggy whips.

It ""funds" the BBC Domestic operations. It's their primary source of revenue. BBC World Service is paid for by the UK Government and is always a source of arguements about impartiality. All other BBC operations such as BBC (Crap) America are commercial operations.