-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
noperformancetax.org
- Thread starter NAGantt
- Start date
From what ive heard the record companies are pushing this because they are worried about losing money from songs played on the radio, but you would think they would make plenty of money off of the fact that everybody has ipods and buys music from itunes and that fewer and fewer people are even listening to radio these days...
Nik said:www.futureofmusic.org said:
Give me a break. :Why don't we just force the two groups to split the current fees, and everyone can shut the hell up already.
What they fail to tell you is that, in nearly every other industrialized nation, broadcasters are permitted to charge labels for airtime. A lot of the reason we don't have a "performance right" is because, if it was wrong for money to flow one way, it was just as wrong for it to flow the other. If this act is simply a bad idea whose time has come, it needs to be part of a wholesale change in the system rather than a simple additional charge to music radio stations. That's not what I see being proposed. Some say the record labels would be okay with payola being legalized, but I don't see it. After all, they're not lobbying for that as a compromise.
Kent said:
I've heard Mitch Bainwol say he's OK with radio charging for airplay. But he can't speak in favor of legalizing payola because he knows Congress is against it, and it would kill the bill. He likes the idea of radio charging for airplay under the current rules, because it would require radio stations announce that the spin was paid for.
Nik said:TheRover said:
www.futureofmusic.org said:
Give me a break. :
Nearly every other industrialized country has universal health care. Nearly every other industrialized nation has a Prime Minister. So it's clear that what other countries do is their business, and we're under no obligation to change our laws to conform with the rest of the world.
However, if that WAS the goal, this law is not like any other law, and goes much further than what any other country does.
NealH said:
That's like saying I'll oppose murder when corporate insurance companies cut rates. There is no relationship between a bad law and a handful of companies that own radio stations. Why? Because the performance tax will apply to ALL stations, not just corporate-owned stations. But the fact is that a lot of the corporate stations feature local programming. The reality is the big corporate radio companies will be able to afford the performance tax. They already pay millions of dollars in streaming royalties. It's small companies like Service in Dallas that will be hurt. So your one sentence is filled with contradictions. And the music industry doesn't care about local radio or corporate radio. They just want money.
The way it is figured, the only stations that get a break are those who gross under $100,000 per year. We are talking very small stations here. They get a $500 slap on the wrist. Go over that amount and you get to pay at least five times as much and probably many times more.
That economic reality does very little to encourage marginal stations to improve their programming or to hire decent employees. How many people could you support with a gross income of less than $100,000, an annual electric bill of roughly $12,000 and a current music-licensing fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC of $8-10,000? Let's not mention rent, property taxes, equipment maintenance, FCC licensing fees etc.
It is the little guy who will get screwed the most.
That economic reality does very little to encourage marginal stations to improve their programming or to hire decent employees. How many people could you support with a gross income of less than $100,000, an annual electric bill of roughly $12,000 and a current music-licensing fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC of $8-10,000? Let's not mention rent, property taxes, equipment maintenance, FCC licensing fees etc.
It is the little guy who will get screwed the most.
B
ButtnPushr
Guest
TheBigA said:
What's your definition of "a lot"..?
- Status