ROYALTY TAX COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!

[georgechambers]

RE HR 848 The NEW TAX-ROYALTY

These blind mice have been fed junk by the artist and record companies. These mice are so little to even reply to those that want to address them on this issue.
These guys are in the pockets of NON US record companies and the NAACP.
No one responds on this issue. These cowards ignore the public, these are our elected officials?
Small market stations do not get record service and must buy product, does the artist get paid?
Please contact these puppets and remind them who they work for.

John Conyers Michigan Rep 313-961-5670 313-226-2085 (Fax)

Darrel Issa California Rep 202-225-3906 202-225-3303 (Fax)

Jim Cooper Tennessee Rep 615-736-5295 615-736-7479 (Fax)

Thank you

George Chambers
KXIT/KIXK Radio
kxit at xit.net

 

[interested party]

I am probably the only broadcaster that is...FOR....a performance royalty being paid by radio......,.and I've felt that way since I recorded my first record in 1963.

I am, however, against the portion of the bill that pays session players and backup singers.

I believe these are contracted employees that HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES

And if they weren't paid or not paid in full etc........then their beef should be with whomever hired them...........not radio.

I also think that both pro and con arguments on this issue are intelligent arguments. One falls on the side of their own subjective personal belief.

 

[Meepster]

I guess I can see both sides of this in a way; It's diffucult to think of an artist/writer not getting everything his efforts deserve, (session musicians HAVE already been paid like 1099 contract workers), but I can't allow myself to forget that it was RADIO that sold RECORDS in the first place. The music was played on the air and if they liked it, the kids went out and bought the records.
-Remember "Coal Miner's Daughter" and how "Dew" drove from station to station pleading with them to play Loretta's record?
I can only imagine how THAT would have turned out if "Dew" asked station owners to PAY him to PLAY Loretta's music. That would have been funny.
We'd have never heard of her. (or hundreds of others)
I know times are different now, but in the end, it seems that asking a radio station to pay royalties to promote music and get people interested in new artists is kind of backwards. Still, in these days of Ipods and personal music...people must hear new stuff for the first time somewhere.

 

[Kent]

The problem I have with the Performance Rights Act is that the bill's sponsors say the it will achieve parity between terrestrial radio stations and other forms of broadcast media.

However, that's a lie. It will not. Internet and satellite radio stations can charge labels and artists for airtime. CBS admits to doing this with Last.fm. I don't believe Sirius-XM comments as to whether or not it charges for airtime, but the common belief is that they do for at least some single artist channels.

To me, it seems like, if money is allowed to flow one way, it needs to be able to flow the other, too. So, if we must have a Performance Rights Act, it needs to provide true parity between terrestrial and other means of broadcasting. It should, therefore, also remove the labels' exemptions from fees by forcing the FCC to change its sponsorship identification laws and allowing broadcasters to charge for airtime without disclosure.

 

[TheBigA]

It should, therefore, also remove the labels' exemptions from fees by forcing the FCC to change its sponsorship identification laws and allowing broadcasters to charge for airtime without disclosure.

Just understand that it will only benefit big stations in big markets. Anyone who works at a small station in a small market will tell you that they don't get free music service, they don't get any freebies from labels, and they won't get any money to compensate them for their royalty. So a station in Bismarck that happens to make $2 million a year will be charged the full royalty, which will be about 9% of revenue. While bigger stations will probably make a profit. As you said, it's not fair.

 

[Kent]

I think you realize I'm only speaking halfway seriously. My main point is that broadcasters should be pointing out the obvious, which is that the radio and recording industries have been subsidizing each other for decades, and the labels want to end radio's subsidy while forcing radio to subsidize them even further all in the name of getting rid of subsidies. Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? If I were a broadcaster, I'd be taking the labels to task on this, and the alternative I've floated around seems like a good way to challenge them to me. I can't imagine the RIAA and musicFIRST would go for a bill that removed their subsidy, too!

 

[TheBigA]

I can't imagine the RIAA and musicFIRST would go for a bill that removed their subsidy, too!

I've discussed it directly with them, and they like it because, in the view, the copyright owner gets to decide how and where his/her music gets used. It's a control issue. They'll pay for control. That's what payola is all about. What they don't like is having their music played, and they have no say in the matter.