Radio Stations and the Performance Rights Act

10 thoughts on “Radio Stations and the Performance Rights Act”

1. This bill is somewhat of an “equalizer” to the currently lousy Internet performance fees that were recently imposed on all Internet “broadcast” sites.

   If the new proposed law is anything like the Internet fee collection system, it’s worse even than it looks on the surface, because it will require artists to actively opt out of a “convenience” collection service that is essentially another arm of the RIAA mafia.

   Log in to Reply

2. without compensating me?
   

   Log in to Reply

   1. “hundreds of dollars” a year to pay for its content, it’s probably not long for this world anyway.

      Log in to Reply

   2. Through the PROs like ASCAP and BMI? Why do they need an act of Congress to make them do their jobs more efficiently? I think it should be up to the PROs to figure out a better way to compensate the songwriters.

      I’m not necessarily for or against this legislation, but I recommended the diary because I think it’s a worthwhile discussion to have. I’m not really sympathetic to the recording companies, but I do think that artists deserve to be compensated.

      More than anything, I think it’s the disconnect between the radio stations, the recording labels, and the artists. There used to be a huge mutually beneficial arrangement between the three parties. But because people stopped buying the music, the recording industry (which was completely arcane in its operations, and should have reacted faster to the changing business atmosphere) had to look for new revenue streams–streams that included suing the shit out of their customers.

      Log in to Reply

      1. There are many royalties in the music business.  Writers get a royalty.  So do publishers.  Performers are supposed to get a royalty too.  But right now, they don’t if their music is played on the radio.

         As I read the legislation, it’s aimed at closing a loophole that screws performers out of their broadcast royalties.  Writers and publishers are already in good shape.  

         From http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/… :

         “Today marks the beginning of the end for corporate radio’s loophole,” said Jennifer Bendall, executive director of musicFIRST, upon introduction of the Performance Rights Act in the Senate and House of Representatives.

         “It’s unfair, unjustified and un-American that artists and musicians are paid absolutely nothing when their recordings are played on AM and FM radio. Music is their work, their livelihood. They deserve fair pay for air play,” Bendall said. “Artists and musicians across America thank Senator Leahy, Representative Conyers and their colleagues for introducing bills that will close the corporate radio loophole.”

         …

         “American broadcasters literally earn billions by playing our records,” said GRAMMYВ® winner Sam Moore. “All we ask is to receive what artists in every other civilized country around the world receive when their recordings are broadcast — fair compensation for the performance of our work.”

         …

         Major provisions of the Performance Rights Act are as follows:

            * Over-the-air broadcast stations would be able to use a statutory license and make one payment annually under a rate set through negotiations or by the Copyright Royalty Board for all the music they play, instead of having to negotiate with every copyright owner for each use of music.
         
            * The proposed legislation accommodates small broadcasters and others to assure balance and fairness to broadcasters and artists. More than 75 percent of all commercial radio stations and more than 80 percent of all religious stations would be covered through the planned accommodation.

                  o Small commercial stations would pay only $5,000 per year;
         
                  o Noncommercial stations such as NPR and college radio stations would pay only $1,000 per year;
         
                  o Stations that make only incidental uses of music, such as “talk radio” stations, would not pay for that music; and
         
                  o Religious services that are broadcast on radio would be completely exempt.

            * Proposed amendments to existing law would make clear that a new right for recording artists and owners cannot adversely affect the rights of, or royalties payable to, songwriters or musical work copyright owners.

         “The legislators crafted an accommodation for small broadcasters — but at the same time they did not want artists and musicians to continue to subsidize the radio conglomerates that rely on music to attract listeners and sell ads. The compromise language is fair to performers, fair to songwriters and fair to broadcasters,” Bendall said.

         ASCAP is neutral on the bill, so long as it isn’t amended to screw writers and publishers.  A quick Google couldn’t dig up BMI’s reaction.

         The principal opponents of this bill are the National Association of Broadcasters and  broadcasting giant Clear Channel.  This diary states one of their talking points.  Clear Channel is not worried about Mom and Pop radio stations.

         Log in to Reply

         1. ASCAP stands for “American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers.”  Nothing in there about performers, who are not represented by ASCAP.

            BMI stands for Broadcast Music, Inc.  From their web site, “Broadcast Music, Inc. collects license fees from businesses that use music, which it distributes as royalties to songwriters, composers & music publishers. ”

            Again, nothing about performers.

            Performers do get a royalty on the sale of a record.  But they’re shut out of broadcast royalties.

            Log in to Reply

         2. This is an interesting discussion.  From what I understand, the current radio royalty scheme pays artists via their publishing contract (which is to say, not much at all in most cases, the RIAA being what it is…).  

            This bill would bypass the publisher and give performers direct royalties if what you quoted is accurate.  But does that accurately reflect the rights of the artists under their contracts?  After all, the radio station is broadcasting published works, and the rights to those works are owned by the record companies.  In a straight copyright / contract world, the artists should be paid out of the record company contract royalty agreement.

            It’s bills like these that make me want to be a Congressman or policy wonk getting paid to do analysis full-time.

            Log in to Reply

            1. Artists are entitled to squat.

               If the artists were able to negotiate a better contract than that, God bless them.  Most artists aren’t so able.

               I included the Sam Moore quote for a reason.  Sam Moore is “Sam” from “Sam and Dave.”  Let’s take one of Sam and Dave’s biggest hits–Soul Man.

               Soul Man was written by Isaac Hayes and Dave Porter.  Whenever Soul Man is played on the radio, Hayes’ estate and Dave Porter earn a royalty.  The song’s publishing rights are owned by ALMO Music Corporation.  Every time Sam and Dave’s version of Soul Man is played on the radio, Hayes’ estate, Dave Porter, and ALMO Music earn a few cents.  But Sam Moore and the estate of Dave Prater don’t earn shit.

               I have no problem with this legislation.  If you don’t want to pay the royalty, don’t play the music.  It’s that simple.  Nobody is requiring any radio station to play “Soul Man.”  But lets face it–radio stations attract listeners and advertisers off of the music they play.

               If you’re making money off of someone else’s work, you should be prepared to pay them, unless you can produce a “work for hire” agreement.

               As far as “bypassing” publishers, the legislation does nothing of the sort.  Publishers and authors/composers would continue to earn the royalties to which they are entitled.  Nothing about this bill as it is currently written interferes with ASCAP or BMI collecting royalties on behalf of its members.

               Log in to Reply

               1. When an artist signs a contract with a record company, their contract typically says that the record company collects all royalties for that recording, and then distributes a portion of those royalties to the artist.  For the most part, the artists get pretty well screwed on these contracts – see any of a number of articles written by artists on how that (doesn’t) work.  My point being that the recording/publishing contract specifically covers all aspects of that particular recording – the artist has no rights to the recording itself outside of the contract.

                  Under such a contract, it should be incumbent upon the artists to require royalties from radio play be passed on as they are from CD sales.  If the record companies hold so much power that they can deny this, then they are essentially a colluding monopoly and should be regulated by the government through the RICO and anti-trust statutes, not by making a new law that adds an extra royalty to radio broadcasts that overrides a valid contract under Copyright law.

                  Log in to Reply

3. thanks for bringing up this issue; I wasn’t familiar at all.

   Log in to Reply