Comments on: Performance Rights Act (S. 379)

By: Janine

Janine — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:41:33 +0000

I don’t believe the artists would get much if any of the money generated by this tax. It will hurt local radio stations and the communities they play to. Not only does local radio stations play music for new artists, but they are a major contributor to public service and local charities. If this tax goes into effect, independent radio will become a thing of the past.
I believe that because big record labels didn’t adapt to the digital age, they want to subsidize their losses with this tax. I mean who needs a big record label when it is so easy to make your own CD’s yourself. VOTE NO ON THE PERFORMANCE TAX!!!

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:22:25 +0000

Radio stations already pay their dues to the artists. After all, if we didn’t hear their music on the radio, it’s unlikely we’d be out at the store buying the recordings for which they most certainly do get paid. As was said above, I suspect little if any of the monies garnered from the passage of these bills would actually make it back to the musician. I’ll be urging my representatives to vote no.

By: Danno

Danno — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:37:09 +0000

I have read both the senate and house draft bills and neither directs the funds to a new source. It seems it will be up to the “good will” of the record companies to send a portion of the tax back to the artist. I would bet that any existing contract, which does not have this provision, will not add one red cent to the artist but will certainly fund the music labels. It would be interesting to see the campaign contribution levels from the record labels to Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Boxer . . .

My prediction for the future is that everyone will have to have a digital radio and will pay a subscription fee for radio. Of course, that transition will kill off the small stations and leave the BIG BOYS with the whole thing.

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:33:17 +0000

That’s interesting. I don’t really know that much about it, but it sounded like a good way for musicians to get paid. But the royalty problem is the only reason I haven’t started a radio station relative to this site. I’ve wanted to many times, but I just can’t afford it. So I can totally see your point.

By: Dan Dennis

Dan Dennis — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:20:03 +0000

For independent musicians who typically don’t collect royalties (because their performances aren’t typically part of the BMI or ASCAP catalog), this might be a good thing. But for the majority of artists, this will simply add to their coffers (and to those of the record labels as well). It will also lead to silencing small market stations who can’t afford to pay even the $5,000 annual royalty fee called for in the bill (and I used to work for one – we bought records out of our own pockets most times). Even the $1,000 that public radio stations would have to pay would stifle the work of the very artists you are trying to promote, because those stations would stop playing music. I would urge people to write their Senator and vote NO to this bill, because passage would mean the death of independent radio.