subscribe
Why Congress Should Vote "No" on The Performance Rights Act - H.R 848
Most people turn on the radio and forget the miles of federal regulation that exist on this venerable and cherished media. Right now there is a heated debate over the royalty fees that are in place for "terrestrial broadcasts" versus new media such as internet and satellite. As it stands now radio is exempt from paying any performance royalties whereas other media do have to pay such royalties. We here at Doctor Rhythm have discussed this issue at length before back when it was called H.R 4789. (The number change is a common thing in Congress.) Therefore, I will not go into detail why this legislation is debated or the history behind royalties. Instead visit, http://www.doctorrhythm.com/archive/2_18_09.html.
You can read the text of this very short bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h848/text, essentially poised as a revision to section 114 of US Copyright Law. Here are my top reasons for you to urge your Congressional representative to vote NO on H.R 848 as it stands.
1) It is a tax. We all know that corporations do not pay taxes, the people do. Congress should drop the performance royalties on all media. This would be more efficient in providing "parity" to performers.
2) It is government over regulating a private industry. This legislation could ultimately just give the record labels another huge check because often performers have to sign away such royalties or negotiate a very low percentage. Only household name artists would benefit and they seem to be doing just fine. The bill explicitly says the label pays the artist, "in accordance with the terms of the artist’s contract." What will most likely happen is the artist's contract will not allow any residual terrestrial broadcast royalties. This marginalizes local, classical and non-mainstream musicians.
3) This bill pays unions. The American Federation of Musicians and The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have their hands all over this bill. They will be allowed access to the Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund which is fueled by 1% of the royalties radio stations pay of which will go toward paying "non-featured" musicians regardless of their union membership. BUT the bill also stipulates "The Fund may... deduct the reasonable costs related to making such distributions."
4) The bill gives all the power to a government bureaucracy known as the Copyright Royalty Board. Essentially this Board is hidden underneath a ridiculous regolith of red tape and paperwork. Just have a look at the Procedural Regulations here, http://www.loc.gov/crb/fedreg/2005/70fr30901.html#dart_claims. Can you actually make sense of this?
5) If this becomes law it could give an unfair advantage to larger radio stations and could prompt them to only play the music of high-grossing artists. OR to curb the costs they could possibly introduce more talk and less music and we all know how droll and entertaining disc jockeys can be.
6) More talk on radio favors the "dreaded" conservative talk radio stations. This is what they specialize in, talking. Ironically, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) who introduced the bill would be helping out some of his political talking-head opposition if this bill becomes law. It should be noted that there are a few Republicans that support this bill, though it is largely a Democrat initiative.
I do give these legislators credit for discussing this bill with respect to businesses, but it is abundantly clear that they are not musicians. They do not understand that most musicians will not benefit from this legislation because record labels will negotiate their rights away. I also give credit to those that are trying to reduce the rates on small webcasters along with this bill. Overall, I say no to this bill in principle and I hope you will contact your Congressional representative with your opinions.
In good musical health,
Dr. Rhythm
