Listening to Cathy Hughes' commercials/commentary regarding the Performance Rights Congressional Bill on the radio has caused me to really think about this piece of legislation. For those who do not know, Cathy Hughes is the owner of Radio One and TV One, a mega-media empire. She is against the Bill, calling it a "performance tax" vs. a royalty, and an additional financial burden for radio stations. The Bill legislates a royalty for performers when a song that they have recorded is played on the radio. Songwriters and publishers already receive a royalty. The central issue is should performers also receive a royalty and who should paid this royalty. The songwriters and publishers' royalties are paid out of album sales and when the song is played on the radio. Recording artists/performers receive payment from album sales and concert tours. The record companies get the majority of the proceeds from record sales.
In principle, I agree that performers/recording artists should be compensated based on the popularity of their performance. The issue is how should the royalty be structured and who should pay it. Why can't the same model that is used for songwriters and publishers be used?
Any thoughts?
3 comments:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010
The Performance Rights Act, H.R. 848/S.379
Listening to Cathy Hughes' commercials/commentary regarding the Performance Rights Congressional Bill on the radio has caused me to really think about this piece of legislation. For those who do not know, Cathy Hughes is the owner of Radio One and TV One, a mega-media empire. She is against the Bill, calling it a "performance tax" vs. a royalty, and an additional financial burden for radio stations. The Bill legislates a royalty for performers when a song that they have recorded is played on the radio. Songwriters and publishers already receive a royalty. The central issue is should performers also receive a royalty and who should paid this royalty. The songwriters and publishers' royalties are paid out of album sales and when the song is played on the radio. Recording artists/performers receive payment from album sales and concert tours. The record companies get the majority of the proceeds from record sales.
In principle, I agree that performers/recording artists should be compensated based on the popularity of their performance. The issue is how should the royalty be structured and who should pay it. Why can't the same model that is used for songwriters and publishers be used?
Any thoughts?
Hi V Nona,
I think that the same model should be uses. I also agree in principle they should be paid. But what is kind of peculiar and murky about this whole thing is that the artist and record company strives so hard to get their music played on the radio in so much that some use payola to make it happen. Conversely, the radio station needs the music in order to attract and maintain an audience. The radio airplay is what enables the record company and artist to sell records and concert tickets. They really wash each other’s back and enable each other to achieve their objective. Maybe they should leave well enough alone.
The Internet is already impacting terrestrial radio stations, particularly as it relates to ad revenue. But as we know from history, time and technology brings about changes. Communication, distribution and entertainment content are all moving toward digital mobile devices. Eventually, terrestrial radio and record labels will become extinct.
Deryl Lampkin
Thanks Deryl for your comments. The relationship between radio stations and record companies/artists is interesting in that they really need each other. The dynamics in the industry have occurred as each one tries to better position themselves against the other (i.e., payola). Technology always changes the game so it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this industry.
Post a Comment