Should Performers Have Rights??

The “Stay Tuned” blog wants to focus on a big issue here in the music industry. Support it, or oppose it, the Performance Rights Act is making big headlines in the industry. According to Wikipedia, “The Performance Rights Act is an amendment to United States copyright law proposed by representative Patrick Leahy. The bill would expand the protection for public performances of copyrighted sound recordings. Under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, sound recordings have a limited public performance right in digital transmissions, such as webcasting.” This bill is set to expand the performance right to cover terrestrial broadcasts, such as AM/FM radio. It currently covers songwriters and producers of the song. The bill is both strongly contested and supported. Artists who support the bill argue that it properly compensates performing artists. Broadcasters who oppose the bill argue that the performance right is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

The benefits to this bill:

· Any recording artist who is not a songwriter or producer of a song will now receive performance royalties when that song is played on the radio.

· For radio broadcasters, this wouldn’t go into effect for 3 years after legislation (or 1 year for stations that bring in more than $5 million annually)

· This bill would regulate laws for all forms of radio, since cable and satellite radio already pay performers royalties.

· The bill would incorporate value to process of setting licensing and statutory rates to the “spins”, or the amount of time a song is played on the radio.

· The bill would regulate international royalty collection, as many other countries pay their artists a performance royalty.

This disadvantages to the bill:

· Radio broadcasters will have to pay out more money to publishers and record labels.

· Terrestrial radio may alter their format to either talk stations or only play certain artists limiting the chance to break and introduce newer artists.

· Jobs at terrestrial radio could be in jeopardy.

The Major Players

There are two major sides fighting for or against this bill to be passed in Congress. On the supporter side, there is the MusicFIRST Coalition. They brand themselves as “Musicians, Recording Artists, Music Businesses, and Supporters United for Fair Pay”. Big names included as supporters include the AFL-CIO, Harry Belafonte, Brooks and Dunn, Miley Cyrus, Dr. Dre, the American Federation of Musicians, the American Association of Independent Musician, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who awards the Gold, Platinum, and Diamond statuses to artists according to the album sells.

The other side that opposes this bill is the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). This is obviously made up of many terrestrial radio broadcasters all over the country, as well as various representatives in the House and a number of senators.

While nothing has yet been decided and this issue is still being fought, it is said that this issue has been going on for many decades. Many artists have defined the songs that we have heard throughout the generations. One great example of this is Aretha Franklin and her song “Respect”, released in 1967. What many are not aware of is that Otis Redding (known for his song “Sitting on the Dock of the Bay”) is the writer of “Respect”, who also released first in 1965. Under the current system, as big of a song as “Respect” was, Aretha was not paid from the song being played on the radio. But it is her vocals and version that are well known worldwide. (And in an added note is the “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” bridge is exclusive in Aretha’s version, not in Redding’s).

As big as a song as “Respect” was, under a revised system, Aretha could have received royalties from the song’s radio spins. This is what the bill is trying to achieve.

What is your take on it all?

For more information, you can visit the NAB and/or the musicFIRST websites.