Performance Royalty Tax

[splicer38]

Currently, radio stations play music they get for free, and in return artists and record companies receive between $1.5 to $2.4 billion dollars annually in free exposure and publicity. Now, record companies are asking Congress to pass legislation that would tax local radio stations for the music they play. This legislation, known as the Performance Royalty Tax, will severely limit the amount of music you can hear on radio, and may force stations to reduce staff or shut down. It could also negatively affect the amount of community service radio stations are able to provide.

Please help us stop this ill-conceived idea by contacting your senator and congressman and ask them NOT to support the Performance Royalty Tax. Visit http://www.noperformancetax.org/

Now we all know that we pay to play through ASCAP and BMI. This Royalty tax is another layer of cost to pay the record companies. Reduces profitability…etc. I hope it gets killed but in this current environment, who knows!

 

[NHRadio]

A majority of House members are already opposed to the performance tax. The bill's future is dim, thankfully.

Currently, radio stations play music they get for free, and in return artists and record companies receive between $1.5 to $2.4 billion dollars annually in free exposure and publicity. Now, record companies are asking Congress to pass legislation that would tax local radio stations for the music they play. This legislation, known as the Performance Royalty Tax, will severely limit the amount of music you can hear on radio, and may force stations to reduce staff or shut down. It could also negatively affect the amount of community service radio stations are able to provide.

Please help us stop this ill-conceived idea by contacting your senator and congressman and ask them NOT to support the Performance Royalty Tax. Visit http://www.noperformancetax.org/

Now we all know that we pay to play through ASCAP and BMI. This Royalty tax is another layer of cost to pay the record companies. Reduces profitability…etc. I hope it gets killed but in this current environment, who knows!

 

[ArtSix]

I hope, someday, that someone doesn't pay YOU for the work that you do.

 

[mistermicrophone]

I hope, someday, that someone doesn't pay YOU for the work that you do.

Please. Radio provides artists a FREE forum to expose the public to their music. In return, the public will but their records. How else will these artists reach critical mass without radio?

If these artists are that upset about what they're NOT making, they should fire their managers and try to re-negotiate their contracts.

 

[NHRadio]

I work in Radio...I'm used to it. ;D ;D

I hope, someday, that someone doesn't pay YOU for the work that you do.

 

[JIBGUY]

This whole thing is nothing but an attempted money-grab from the record companies. The labels (record companies) are going to try to switch payments by radio stations to artists (which is about 40% of the attempted money-grab) [50% they say, but then there's distribution costs] to compensate artists INSTEAD of record companies paying anything to the artists. Right now, the labels pay dog-doo to the artists. If this money-grab is a success, they'll not even pay that.

Just because 230+ House members have aligned with the broadcasters (in a NON-binding situation), doesn't mean it won't happen. Conyers (Mich) and Leahy (VT) are pushing hard. They, like the labels, must have a thing against radio, and a thing FOR sending a majority of domestically-made money from radio stations to foreign-owned labels. (The top 3 record labels, controlling about 60% of America's music are foreign owned!).

And if it does not succeed this year, they WILL be back for another try next year.

This is a case of GREED. It is the government's responsibility to halt corporate greed, the very thing that caused this entire recession. Apparently Conyers and Leahy are not all that bright.

 

[BidSellerSold]

Recession caused, in its entirety by GREED? Its the governments responsibility to halt corporate greed? Your liberals sleeves are showing and shining so bright that you're being blinded by it...greed is the driver of economies and is what keeps the US econmomy from completely sinking. Corporate greed is good because it creates jobs and wealth and allows us to all get "stuff"...including new radios and CDs and make donations to whatever conservative and liberal cause you want...including political campaigns...the only greed here is the greed of political power by Leahy and the rest of the num-skulls we elect every cycle. Funny how the "artists" aren't speaking out against this...why do you think that is? Looks like Leahy and Conyers are looking out for the unions and the members of those unions who support the Democratic Party with millions in donations and fundraisers.

And what of the local radio jock getting minimum wage? Don't worry, they'll put up a fight to get you another 33 cents an hour some time after next session in congress...there's the change you were looking for...now all you need is some hope.

 

[promotherobot]

I have a question: Will TV shows like Letterman and Kimmel have to pay a performance royalty when artiits perform on their shows? If not that seems pretty unfair. Why should TV benefit from the labor of artists without paying them?

PTR

 

[Remaster]

I am all for it. Just to make sure it is fair, "I" want the same cut they want from radio....of the Fleetwood Mac show that sells out the Verizon this summer. That's only fair right? Any artist that supports this bill doesn't care about their fans. Stations banning the artist are not servng #1 (the listener) and for artists...those who bite the hand that fed them to the mansions they live in are doing the same

 

[JIBGUY]

Recession caused, in its entirety by GREED? Its the governments responsibility to halt corporate greed? Your liberals sleeves are showing and shining so bright that you're being blinded by it...greed is the driver of economies and is what keeps the US econmomy from completely sinking.

Corporate greed is DIFFERENT than Corporate healthy profits, the latter I'm for. Greed caused corporations to live on the edge, wanting more and more. Well the edge collapsed and they fell off the cliff. Had they been happy with healthy profits, they'd be fine, as would be the US economy. Giant radio corporations are no exception. Most of the radio stations owned by smaller concerns including those here in New England, where 'greed' isn't the drive of the operation, are doing OK, but they've been hampered by the USA-wide recession caused by your apparent heroes.

Your comments on Leahy and Conyers..... ditto.

 

[raccoonradio]

Greater Media is running ads on their stations, and started a website (helpsaveradio.org)
getting people to convince lawmakers to OPPOSE the performance tax. They also relayed
the message to their listeners via email (WTKK Insiders Club, for example)

 

[Bakers_Bookstore]

I posted this on the Boston board but it appears it needs to be said here as well.

I find this whole campaign by Greater Media (CBS is also in on it) very very funny. It was only a few years ago that CBS and I believe others tried to charge record companies for playing their artists. I think that began on their country stations and was a failure.

Now the recording industry is doing the same thing to those poor poor corporate giants and boo hoo, IT AIN'T FAIR!

 

[radiothis!]

I believe you are wrong about CBS charging record companies to play their songs. That'd be illegal. Entercom (and possibly CBS) got in trouble with the Feds for payola issues, but it wasn't some concept they floated at the corporate level and then later declared "a failure." It was a couple of overzealous PDs/MDs. And for the record, payola happens all the time anyway--and the record companies are certainly okay with it.

In this case, it's not the big companies that I worry about--it's the increasing amount of local owner/operators.

I will never understand the music industry's approach to media. It includes some of the most backward, lawyered-up, short-sighted policies of any "creative" enterprise. It's funny--if record companies all went out of business tomorrow--we'd still have music. Sheryl Crowe (alas) would still have her career.

Why? Because the "media" would still play new albums and tracks, show music videos, incorporate music into their TV shows. New artists would post to YouTube, Facebook and online blogs. Artists would perform to make a living (just like they did before record labels). Don't get me started on artists who complain about diminished profits because of the digital age. Too damn bad. Pick another "career." Working in music is tough. It's like broadcasting. Do it because you love it, not for the cash.

The record labels are an out-of-date, useless backbone desperate for cash and purpose. I really hope to live to see their demise.

Wow. I didn't know I was so angry 'till I started typing.

 

[Bakers_Bookstore]

Pay for play was very real...CBS and others tried it and failed...now the industry is shooting back...you're suprised why? As far as Mom and Pop stations go...they went away a long time ago!


http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/31/arts/pay-for-play-back-on-the-air-but-this-rendition-is-legal.html

 

[robbbc]

Well this site as veered even more to the right recently. Must be excessive Glenn Beck Viewing amongst posters. Not up to pace with all the details so feel free to correct.

#1. How is this a Tax? Its a fee paid to the owners of the intellectual property (IP- it's not an elitist thing, I swear!). A tax is paid to the government. Any advertising campaign that is this openly disingenuous raises my BS meter fast. The campaign needs to stick with the facts and make its case, not change the language to suit its purposes.

UPDATE: just went to the website and it is still confusing me on this point. I then read part of the actual act I am still puzzled. Is this a tax or a fee paid to the label. Can you opt out? If so, How?

#2. Its up to the labels to decide if they want the money. There is a good bit of competition in record-land. This could be an opportunity for a (free) small label to become a value added choice for a station. If this is bad for the big labels I could only think that is a good thing overall. If the labels are shooting themselves in the foot, let me be the first to load the gun.

#3. How is this any different than syndication? TV stations and even radio stations have had to pay to play programs in the past (or barter). A program is treated differently than a song? Sounds like a double standard.

#4. Media is changing. Expecting our old models and expectations of thinking to remain the same is idiotic. Half the stations out there play music now found on the discount shelf. You think their listeners are going to go out looking for a Led Zeppelin record, yer off yer rocker! Or how 'bout old Celine Deon or god knows who else on the mix stations. These are being played for free right now and no one is going to go racing around looking for these records. It is not "good PR"- save, maybe, for formats like CHR, urban contemporary, and country. A significant portion of these listeners do go out and buy records or downloads based on the radio. If the record labels decide to release some singles for free (like they already do online) they should be able to use these "current" radio formats to their benefit.

 

[TheBigA]

#1. How is this a Tax? Its a fee paid to the owners of the intellectual property

Tax or fee, it's a land grab. That which has been free for 65 years will not cost a portion of your revenue, regardless of whether or not the music actually attracts revenue. They aren't offering a way to pay for it. Simply saying if you want it, pay. And leaving it up to some judges at the Library of Congress to come up with the figure. That system has practically killed the digital media world. And the music industry LOVES digital media.

Is this a tax or a fee paid to the label. Can you opt out? If so, How?

It is paid to a third party: SoundExchange, which is part of the RIAA. You can’t opt out. If you play music, you pay SoundExchange. No competition.

#2. Its up to the labels to decide if they want the money.

Really? Are you sure about that? This is a very complicated scheme where lots of people are getting money: The label, the copyright owner (which may be the label), the artist, and the musicians on the session. Any one of them can sign a waiver, but it seems like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo just to give free airplay to music that is intended to make money.

This could be an opportunity for a (free) small label to become a value added choice for a station.

Well then, why have the royalty in the first place? Doesn’t that just make it a control issue? And if I’m playing certain exempt music just to dodge the royalty, doesn’t that qualify as payola? Any time money is used as an incentive to airplay, it becomes payola. Is this legalized payola?

#3. How is this any different than syndication? TV stations and even radio stations have had to pay to play programs in the past (or barter).

In syndication, you get market exclusivity. The labels aren’t giving you exclusivity of their music. You get the same music as your competition. If your station makes more revenue (for whatever reason), you pay more for the exact same song.

#4. These are being played for free right now and no one is going to go racing around looking for these records.

Actually, after Michael Jackson died, lots of people, many of whom were too young to buy his records new, went to stores to buy them. Capitol Records is about to reissue a new collection of Beatles music. I’m not kidding. They have the ability to sell and resell all this old music, and radio airplay shows there is an audience for it. The real problem is that almost all record stores, as we know them, only carry a limited line of current music. They don’t sell back catalog. You can buy it via mail order (Amazon, etc), but it’s not that immediate gratification.

The other point is that airplay of older music keeps those artists alive for touring and other public appearances. That’s the main reason why songwriters get a royalty and artists don’t. The artist can continue to perform and market themselves as celebrities because of continual airplay. The minute it stops, the public will forget who you are. If you ask unsigned artists which they prefer: The royalty or the airplay, they’ll tell you the airplay. But the labels are pushing for the royalty because it’s the only way they can make up for their failure to create quality music at a fair price that the public wants to buy.

 

[robbbc]

So from what I gather it looks like a poorly put together bill. I prefer a more passive approach, but I don't agree that music should be played by radio stations for free unless the providers have authorized this. I don't see how it is the government's mandate to ensure that everyone gets paid, that should be left to contractual obligations between the various stakeholders in the music production. Those contractual obligations should be handled privately within the auspices of the "record label". Radio should not receive a pass on paying if that is what a record label wants. A radio station should have the right to decide whether or not they want to play music for a fee (directly to the label) or choose "free" (or no) music.

I can't see how the fact that for years radio stations have gotten free music and therefore that it is now their right. Regardless of whether it is good or bad for artists/writers/record stores is academic to the discussion at hand (although I was the one who brought it up). Is music intellectual property: yes. Is music protected by copyright law: yes. You could even take it a step further, perhaps allowing radio stations to be payed for playing music (infomercial style). Maybe that would assuage the current angst? If I write a book, I could give it away to reviewers or online. I could copyright it and sit on the contents. My choice.

 

[TheBigA]

So from what I gather it looks like a poorly put together bill.

I agree. It was a patchwork bill written by the lawyers at the RIAA, aimed to build a coalition of groups within the music industry, give them all what they want, without providing any way to pay for it. Plus it creates a music monopoly, where all forms of radio must go through one single service, SoundExchange, which is a division of the RIAA. And it sees all music as equal, new releases and catalog, hit songs and obscure album cuts.

It's unrealistic, at a time when the public demands free content, and has the means to get it, that radio (including internet and satellite) must collect revenue to pay for the use of music. When the very same music is available free elsewhere. It turns radio into the bad guy, the policeman, instead of the music industry, which has failed to control its own copyright.

 

[magnadan]

Just curious. If I were to take broadcast radio signals and re-broadcast them complete with the station's announcers, newscasts, etc. on my own "radio tuner and player", but inserted my own commercials in place of the spots actually broadcast by the terrestrial radio stations, would the broadcast stations allow it?

I'm giving their station free promotion. Would it bother them that I'm making money using their copyrighted material (and making money from it) without compensation?

Couldn't I just argue that I'm promoting the station so it's an even trade?

Another question, why wouldn't Disney allow me to use the likeness of Mickey Mouse on my website if I chose to start "Mickey Radio"? I'd be promoting Disney. Wouldn't they be happy with that? Oh yeah... copyright law.

Why does the record industry not have the same rights?

 

[TheBigA]

Couldn't I just argue that I'm promoting the station so it's an even trade?

That would work if your promotion translated to money in some way for them. Promotion has to be more than awareness. In radio's case, awareness translates to sales of music and tickets.

Music that gets played on the radio is more valuable than music that doesn't. That's why the labels spend billions and are willing to commit crimes to get airplay.