Eric Rhoads' Blog
NAB Disputes RIAA Claims Ahead Of Performance Rights Hearing
WASHINGTON -- March 9, 2009: "The Recording Industry Association of America's performance tax effort is founded on an incomplete and therefore misleading comparison of U.S. and international copyright law," says the NAB, ahead of tomorrow's hearing on the Performance Rights Act, which would for the first time impose performance royalties on broadcast radio.
The RIAA has said repeatedly that the United States is one of only a few countries that does not require radio to pay performance royalties for airplay, but NAB EVP Dennis Wharton says that "relies on cherry-picking international examples that paint a distorted picture of copyright law." Wharton continues, "The U.S. protects sound recordings for 45 years longer than Canada and many countries in Europe and elsewhere; if it's 'international parity' that RIAA is looking for, they ought to examine the entire landscape."
The white paper, by the NAB's Jane Mago, Benjamin Ivins, and Suzanne Head, points out that under U.S. copyright law, sound recordings are generally protected for 95 years, while Canada and many countries in Europe and Asia provide 50 years of protection.
The study says, "In many countries that have implemented a performance fee, broadcasters that pay the highest fees to record companies are, or have been, government-owned or -subsidized. Government-subsidized broadcasting in many countries is used to control content by promoting cultural, political, and other agendas."
The study also notes that "layering a new payment requirement onto the compensation system that already exists would do nothing to advance the economic policy behind copyright law, which is not to reward the labor of authors, but rather to promote the progress of science and useful arts for the good of the public. There is no reason to believe that the grant of a new performance right would provide incentives to record labels or artists to produce more -- or better -- sound recordings."
The NAB's white paper concludes that the current model of free airplay "has served the recording and broadcast industries well for decades and that adding a new performance royalty "would take this mutually beneficial system and transform it into an unfair, one-sided scheme that financially benefits only the recording industry -- to the detriment of local radio stations and their listeners."
Among those set to testify at tomorrow's hearing are Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan, RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol, and NAB Radio Board Chairman and Commonwealth Broadcasting President/CEO Steve Newberry.
NABOB, SRA Urge Opposition To Performance Royalties
Spanish Broadcasting System VP/New York Market Manager Frank Flores wrote in a letter to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week, "Never has Hispanic radio been in more danger than it is right now." Flores, writing on behalf of the Spanish Radio Association, urged caucus members to oppose the Performance Rights Act.
The letter continues, "The big, internationally owned record labels are looking for a bailout at the expense of radio stations and Hispanic communities across America. If the labels get their way, jobs will be lost, our airwaves will become less diverse in both ownership and programming, and, ultimately, Hispanic communities across the country will suffer." Flores said the royalty would mean job losses, programming cuts, and loss of vital information sources to non-English-speaking Hispanics.
NABOB Exec. Director Jim Winston made a similar point in a letter last week to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus. He too noted that a performance royalty will put jobs in jeopardy and said, "The impact could be particularly severe for African American station owners."
Winston wrote, "By making stations even more unaffordable, this legislation would put the dream of ownership further out of the reach for African American entrepreneurs trying to enter the radio industry. And for smaller stations geared toward urban areas and the minority community, it could mean cutting vital programming, or in some cases, shutting down entirely -- silencing our voices on the airwaves when African Americans are already underrepresented."
Anti-Royalties Resolution Adds Support
Meanwhile, the Local Radio Freedom Act, a resolution opposing performance royalties for broadcasters, has gained the support of nine more House members, bringing the total to 144. The resolution reads, "Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings."
|
(3/10/2009 5:16:52 PM) And speaking of looking at the WHOLE picture, what would the "artists" think of reversing the laws that prevent stations from collecting payments for playing songs? That's grossly illegal for us to do now; but if the scale tips their way, then why not ours too? Can you hear them whining about how having to pay stations to get music played would ruin diversity, favor the rich, and so on? Well, if it works for one side, I say let it work for the other too. Or better yet, just leave it alone. |
| - J.R. Lewis |
|
(3/10/2009 2:44:46 PM) I WAS AT THE CRS40 LAST WEEK. ARTIST AFTER ARTIST WOULD PERFORM AND STATE "THANK YOU RADIO, WITHOUT YOU WE COULD OF NEVER MADE IT ". IF THIS PERFORMANCE TAX PASSES IT WOULD HURT SMALL MARKET RADIO AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE HOW I DO MY PROGRAMMING. MY STATION FEATURES A LOT OF NEW ARTIST'S. THE ESTABLISHED ENTERTAINERS ,THAT ARE THANKING US, WHILE TRYING TO TAX US, WOULD HAVE LEAST PRIORITY ON MY STATIONS! |
| - LINDA JONES |
Add a Comment | View All Comments
