Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Senate Judiciary Committee okays Performance Rights Act
16:34 | Thursday October 15, 2009
Musicians took a step closer to earning royalties from radio play in the US today after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Performance Rights Act.
The Act is designed to close a loophole in copyright law that means music radio stations do not compensate artists and musicians when they play their hits. A similar bill has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee.
musicFirst Coalition, which has been campaigning for years for radio royalties, has welcomed the move. Executive director Jennifer Bendall says, “Today we are one step closer to righting a wrong that has existed since the early days of radio; one step closer to winning the fight for fundamental justice that has been waged by countless artists and musicians over the last 80 years.”
Bendall believes the campaign is making progress now that two congressional committees have approved a bill to create a fair performance right on radio.
She adds, “Together we can create a performance right on radio that is fair to artists, musicians and rights holders, fair to other radio platforms that pay a performance royalty, and fair to AM and FM music radio.”








Readers' comments
It's about time!
Now let's just hope that the radio stations can afford to continue operating, otherwise we will not be compensated and also lose the exposure and airplay ! Time will tell ...
In response to the above comment radio stations throughout Europe operate on this basis and stay in business. If a radio station cannot operate by having to pay for its content then it should not be in business!.
Let's hope the radios don't get upset about having to pay to advertise artists music now. And let's hope they don't switch to playing more local bands and shunning big name acts they have to pay to play. And finally, let's hope the government doesn't stop propping up obsolete business models with poorly thought out laws. Wait...those are what I'm hoping for. NVM
Absolutely terrible news. Playing music on the radio was about promoting the music, not a way for the record labels to make money (you really think that musicians are going to see much of a cut of this money?). Now, for those stations that manage to stay afloat, they'll be playing the same songs over and over again (by big-name artists - forget the new bands) because that'll be the cheapest way to go. Glad to see our government is once again helping the RIAA...
This looks like a trojan horse IMO. It will mean more commercial time and at the end of the day it will signal the end of radio. People will get fed up with all the commercials and just play their mp3s.
@ Rebecca Mauleon: This is a bad thing, not a good thing. Good luck trying to hear local musicians or up-and-coming acts because they can't afford to pay whatever price it is to get their music on the air. Also, thanks to the gov't the RIAA now doesn't have to encourage NEW BUSINESS MODELS, instead they can just CHANGE THE LAWS as they see fit...hmmmm...About time indeed. I believe this article sums up why this is going to fail and lead to a radio revolution: http://techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1907526556.shtml
What this means to me... It was hard enough for a smaller act to get radio time before. Now the radio stations are going to have to pay a fee to play music. In order to hedge the new cost, the radio stations are going to take fewer risks and play only acts that have already gained some notoriety. Which means radio is going to get even more stale and bland. This might end up being a boon to satellite radio. My hope is that radio stations start playing more independent music to dodge the RIAA orchestrated tax on radio.
It's about time? Simply because this article fails to discuss the negative effects of the act does not mean it is good or even fair. A blatant step in the wrong direction if you ask me.
If this is a wrong that has existed since the early days of radio, why have there been payola schemes for the majority of that span, in which the record labels (illegally) payed radio stations to play their artists? Clearly, labels knew then, and presumably still know now, that radio is free promotion and advertising for their artists.
One less reason for me to listen to the radio now. I stopped because they played "Snap Yo Fingaz" every five songs a few summers ago. Now that the variety will completely tank, I'll be going back to my well manicured mp3 collection. Mission accomplished, RIAA.
This is completely asinine, Its just like OHH Lets Bail out wall street Lets give more money to the people who already have money SCREW THE RIAA they should have to pay the radio stations and Listeners for putting up with all their bull crap!
Your right because I never realized free promotions were such a horrific thing. The RIAA does NOT need a bailout and this bill should NEVER have been passed. These hits the radio stations play for free help to PROMOTE the artists, giving them MONEY!!!
I have never seen an industry put more nails in it's own coffin than the record industry has managed to do. This will not help anyone. It might stall the eventual death of the record industry as we now know for a very short time but not long. No Artist will see a dime of this money.
If I had an ounce of talent to write my own music, I would be writing up a storm and getting ready to give it a way to radio stations for free just to get my music out there. But you can guarantee that the RIAA has some how blocked this idea too, so that radio stations will not be able to choose artists willing to undercut the System. BTW I though one of the reasons radio stations had to turn in their playlists was to help figure out royalty payments. The more radio play, the higher your monthly check from all of the blanket rights payments from restaurants, clubs, musak, and other places that played the radio. I thought you were not supposed to get taxed twice for the same product.