House, Senate Leaders Introduce Performance Rights Act

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on February 4, 2009 - 11:43am.

Washington - The heads of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on Wednesday introduced the Performance Rights Act, bipartisan legislation that would remove traditional radio's exemption from paying performers in addition to songwriters, which is not the case for satellite or Internet radio, or for many foreign broadcasters. "For the past 70 years Congress has ignored the constitutional mandate that we protect copyrights by completely exempting broadcasters from paying performers, while the vast majority of countries have no such exemption. Our ignorance of intellectual property rights on this issue is a worldwide embarrassment and it must end now," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a co-sponsor of the House bill.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-GA) are spearheading the Performance Rights Act in their respective legislative bodies.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents radio station owners, called the bill a "record label bailout."

"Local radio broadcasters consider this fee a 'performance tax' that will not only harm your local radio stations, but will threaten new artists trying to break into the business as well as your constituents who rely on local radio," NAB president and CEO David Rehr wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

"Although the proponents of H.R. 848 claim this bill is about compensating artists, in actuality at least half of this fee will go directly into the pockets of the big record labels, funneling billions of dollars to companies based overseas."

Under the bill, noncommercial broadcasters would be able to take advantage of the statutory copyright license, subject only to a nominal annual payment to the artists.

 

Related Links:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090204.html

http://tinyurl.com/bvj5mc (Billboard)

http://tinyurl.com/akvl3f (NAB statement)

Comments

Are they kidding? Yes, I

Are they kidding? Yes, I suppose a song is the intellectual property of the artist, but let's get real. If the radio station never played the song, I wouldn't have heard it enought to decide to by the album. If I never heard the song on the radio, then I wouldn't even pay much attention to it when the video came on television. If I never bought the album, then I would never want to go to a concert where the artist is featured. From what I understand, concerts and tours are an artist's bread and butter. What station would pay to play an unknown, original, or innovative artist that was untested? How would your unique or trendsetting artists get their foot in the door? Also, This would absolutely kill small, locally, or minority owned radio stations. The compensation that singers/record labels get for their songs being played is free advertisement. If a radio station has to pay to play an artist's songs, then I suppose an artist and a label need to pay the radio station back for the advertisement and commentary the DJs give the song. This is a ridiculous and greedy gesture. I'm disappointed in my own senator for being one of the heads of such a silly idea.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.