Wednesday, October 14, 2009
UPDATE: North Texas broadcasters speak out against Performance Rights Act
Flickr user AleBonvini
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote October 15 on the proposed Performance Rights Act (PRA), sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The bill amends federal copyright law to grant performers “equal rights to compensation,” and establish a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for less profitable or public broadcasting stations.
While the bill “provides that nothing in this act shall adversely affect the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works,” it's not necessarily good news for local radio stations or artists. The PRA would create a financial burden on local broadcasters, and serve as a detriment to the long tail of independent and unsigned musicians.
According to Chandler of CBS Radio Dallas, the PRA is an attempt by larger labels and their lobbyists to compensate for a hemorrhaging business model by taxing radio stations under the banner of “artist rights.”
“This bill is an attempt to squeeze the last drops from the label's dying business,” Chandler says, “by laying blame on their old nemesis, radio.”
While radio stations already pay an annual performance fee to license music, labels decide how that money is distributed. The business model for radio is changing -- and largely to the benefit of emerging artists. According to Dan Mason, CEO of CBS Radio, CBS is selling off all of its properties below market 15 so they can focus more on local content.
The royalties proposed by the PRA have the potential to keep local and emerging artists off the airwaves as stations become less likely to play unproven acts. It's a sure determinate against locally-focused radio programming, like KERA's forthcoming music station, KXT (set to launch November 9), and CBS's Indieverse.
“Advertisers only buy into stations that are popular and have high ratings,” Chandler said, adding that listeners will then be stuck with “more Lady Gaga and less local Dada.”
Constituents are encouraged to contact Senator John Cornyn (202-224-2934) to voice their position on the Performance Rights Act (S.379). Many state representatives, including Richardson's congressman, Pete Sessions, have openly opposed the bill.
UPDATE: The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Performance Rights Act on October 15, 2009.

Jesus Valadez says:
Can't I just send a generated letter to the Senators? I'm too lazy to call.
Verified
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
rosesdie says:
I would like to hear the arguments for this bill. Isn't it a good thing if local stations have to pay artists for their music? Don't local artists still have the ability to get exposure on myspace? You are suggesting that radio stations will just give up on local music because it's too expensive?
Anonymous
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
pslavens says:
yes, rosie. Local stations will be forced to cut local music because it is not fiscally possible to play. Its one thing to promote music that isnt going to give any remuneration, its quite another to play music that is going to cost money to play. This is not good news for unknown music. Why not think of Radio as promotion, not a revenue stream. The age of the record company model is over.
Anonymous
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Travis Bush says:
I hope ONCOR has a good MHMR plan..
Verified
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
ray326 says:
Looks like the indie artists and general public have lost out to big biz bribe money once again, Paul.
Anonymous
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Andrew Laska says:
Can someone explain how this can pass constitutional muster? Why do artists and stations have to use this contractual scheme?
Verified
1 month, 1 week agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal