Home
| Enter the gallery |
|
 |
| Prometheus Calendar |
|---|
| See Upcoming events here |
| Search the Prometheus site: |
|---|
| Can't find it on the new site? |
|---|
| Look for it on the old site: oldsite.prometheusradio.org! |
| Syndicate |
|---|
|
| Translate the site: |
|---|
|
|
| The Performance Rights Act |
| Thursday, 04 June 2009 | |
Should Radio Support Artists By Paying A Performance Fee?Should Radio Support Artists By Paying A Performance Fee?
By Jade Meshesha So who exactly gets paid when you hear Patsy Cline singing "Crazy" on the radio? It's not who you think- with the current laws on the books, the songwriter (Willie Nelson in this case) and his publisher are compensated while the estate of Patsy Cline receives no pay for the performance. The Performance Rights Act is a bill which has recently been introduced into Congress that would correct this weird state of affairs by requiring radio stations to pay a fee to compensate performers for the use of their music over the air. It is strongly opposed by the National Association of Broadcasters, who generally assert that no radio station would want to pay any fee that they do not already pay. Here at Prometheus, we see this as an issue of fairness and we are trying to decide whether to support, oppose, or stay neutral on this legislation. Read on to see why there is such a strong need for performance fees in the US right now, and then let us know what you think. Do you support this bill? How could it be changed to be fair for performers, but also fair to small low power stations? While smaller stations are currently included in this legislation, there are some proposals that might attempt to ease the financial burden on non-commercial radio so that they pay much less than commercial radio. Large commercial stations will pay royalties to performers, while smaller noncommercial stations, including Low Power FM stations, would pay a flat annual fee that maxes out at a specific amount. Supporters argue that performers, like all workers, deserve to be paid for their hard work, and everyone, even community radio, should pay their fair share. Here at Prometheus, we see this as an issue of fairness and we are trying to decide whether to support, oppose, or stay neutral on this legislation. Read on to see why there is such a strong need for performance fees in the US right now, and then let us know what you think. Do you support this bill? How could it be changed to be fair for performers, but also fair to small low power stations?This legislation is politically interesting, because the main opponent of performance rights is the NAB, which is opposed to low power radio. And the primary advocate of a performance payment is the Future of Music Coalition, a musicians' advocacy organization which is one of the longest and most committed supporters of LPFMs, going back to 1998. So it is quite a predicament for low power radio stations! The NAB claims that when music is played on the radio, it is a form of promotion and so the radio stations should not have to pay, not even a penny. Currently in the United States, over the air radio is the only medium that broadcasts music but does not compensate artists or labels for the performance. Other forms of audio transmission, such as internet, satellite, and cable radio, compensate performers for their work when it is played. This legislation would end that exemption in copyright law, which would assure that all platforms are treated equally and pay a performance fee to artists. All other forms of performable copyrighted works, such as plays, TV shows, and movies, enjoy full performance rights and, supporters explain, so should audio recordings. Furthermore, the US is one of the few industrialized countries that does not have a broadcast performance right for sound recordings. What this means is that when an American artist is played in a foreign country, they do not receive royalties. This is seen as an act of protest by those countries against the fact that American stations do not pay a performance fee to foreign artists when playing their music. In effect, American artists and labels do not receive their fair share of royalties. So, the argument seems reasonable to us that there is a strong need for a performance fee here in the US, but what does it mean for your station? Here's the low down on what this legislation would actually do: Large commercial stations will pay performers royalties each time a song is played, but the bill creates multi-tiered payment schemes for small commercial stations and all noncommercial stations. For Commercial Stations: -A station with less than $100,000 in gross annual revenues would pay maximum annual royalties of $500 - A station with at least $100,000 but less than $500,000 in gross revenues would pay maximum annual royalties of $2500 - A station with at least $500,000 but less than $1.25 million in gross revenues would pay maximum annual royalties of $5000 For Noncommercial Stations: -A station with less than $100,000 in gross annual revenues would pay maximum annual royalties of $500 -A station with at least $100,000 in gross revenues would pay maximum annual royalties of $1000 While we appreciate the recognition that noncommercial stations may not be able to afford the higher royalties that large commercial stations would pay, these fees seem way too high. We know plenty of LPFMs with an annual budget of $10,000 or less, so even the lowest tier would be a whopping 5% of their budget! We believe that flat fees may be too inflexible at the bottom end of the revenue scale. Under this version of the bill, NPR stations, which have a relatively high operating budget, would pay only $500 more than the tiniest local low power stations, many of which operate on extremely tight budgets and rely on volunteer work to remain on air. It makes more sense for the performance fee to be based on a percentage of income, such as 0.25% of a stations annual income, in order to account for differing budgets. Thus a station with an annual budget of $10,000 would pay $25, and a station that brought in $100,000 a year would pay $250. Alternatively, to stay in line with this multi-tiered scheme, we think that at least one more level should be added; those stations operating on a budget under $50,000 should pay $100. We are inclined to think this is a reasonable amount for a non-profit community station to pay to help support the performers that we all know and appreciate. Please let us know what you think about this sort of rate, or any other that you think is more fair, including a total exemption. Besides the payment issue, the burden of additional record keeping is another important question. We would not want a whole new set of forms for everyone to fill out. One suggestion is that for the purpose of compensating performers, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and Sound Exchange (other organizations which already collect music royalties) be required to share the reporting forms that they already require of stations. It shouldn't be forgotten just how key musicians have been to the struggle to win low power FM in the first place, and to the current fight to expand low power radio. The Future of Music Coalition was built by musicians whose very first issue was LPFM, because they saw the way that consolidated commercial radio favored national artists over local ones, and they felt that something had to be done to make the radio dial more open to emerging artists. Future of Music has asked for our support on this bill because they think of LPFMs as more ethical and responsible broadcasters than the commercial stations. They ask, on behalf of musicians, that LPFMs set an example to the rest of the broadcasting community through their willingness to pay a fair share that is within their means. Prometheus is generally apprehensive to support any change that would impose a financial burden on LPFM stations. So we won’t support this bill if we hear that a lot of LPFMs are very opposed to it. However, we do believe that the musicians have a valid point about simple fairness: the artists who bring the music to life, who attract listeners to a station, and who make it possible for radio to make money by selling advertising or unnderwriting deserve to be compensated. The performance right for broadcast radio will provide vital income to all musicians and vocalists — from famous singers to backup players. And while royalties are currently distributed to songwriters and publishers, this right does not extend to those who actually perform the music. The bill is currently in committee at the House of Representatives and Senate, which is the point where changes and edits are made before it goes to a vote. It is crucial that any ideas for changes voiced as soon as possible. We welcome any suggestions or comments from you as we determine our stance, either in support or opposition, and any specific changes that you can think of that would ease the burden for small stations. Send comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it |
