Comments on: 5 Reasons Why the Performance Rights Act is a Bad Idea

By: The Impending Death of Free Radio? | The Legality

The Impending Death of Free Radio? | The Legality — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:26:05 +0000

[...] performers should be compensated fairly, but say ‘no’ to the bill because they claim that the record labels will truly enjoy the revenues from the proposed license fee increase, not the artists. Society is [...]

By: Reid Hyams

Reid Hyams — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:32:52 +0000

Did it ever occur to anyone that payola is not really dead, and that when the PRA becomes law, the record labels will just up the payola to cover the PRA expenses…

By: Sybil Augustine

Sybil Augustine — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:49:25 +0000

1. …”if you have a library of thousands of albums and 45s, many of which were never reissued on CD, and if you allow your DJs to choose which ones they play—or even to bring in still more music from their personal collections of rare soul or jazz or bluegrass or electronica obscurities—then tracking the data suddenly becomes a full-time job.”
to which JES says:
1. buy a computer. All of our local SF Bay area college stations (KALX, KFJC, KUSF) have their playlists available online usually within minutes of play.

But you’re talking about COLLEGE STATIONS, where people are volunteering and/or getting college credit for things they do at the station, including typing in playlists. We don’t have those kinds of volunteers here at our COMMUNITY STATION [Which, seeing the lack of response to my comments, virtually nobody on this list even knows or cares about--I won't let that stop me.] Colleges have large staffs and tons of money to fund their stations, they don’t have to go on-air and ask for donations. We’re still struggling with our one IT guy to design a playlist to type in that will meet SoundExchange requirements; and then I’m going to struggle to find volunteers willing and able to properly type in other people’s playlists and track the data. We can’t hire another full-time staff person to do that, we already had to cut our benefits and COLAs and are operating at a large deficit for the first time in eighteen years.

I guess it’s not worth my looking at this thread anymore since all you people want to do is argue about corporate radio and payola. But please try to bear in mind when you talk about this, not ALL stations are in the same position.

By: Performance Rights Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee | 95years

Performance Rights Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee | 95years — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:43:48 +0000

[...] siphon about $500 million in revenue away from them and back to the record labels. They’ve argued that the act would cripple local radio and force many stations to cut jobs. Artists argue that the [...]

By: refe

refe — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:30:38 +0000

I always appreciate thoughtful responses that make use of the word 'idiotic!' By the way, have you read the follow-up post? It fills out some of the ideas here in a bit more balanced way.

By: jes

jes — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:16:02 +0000

1. buy a computer. All of our local SF Bay area college stations (KALX, KFJC, KUSF) have their playlists available online usually within minutes of play.
2. when are independent artists played on Middle of the dial radio anyway? i don’t see any changes that will happen within the stations already guided by advertising dollars.
3. what an idiotic argument, it’s like saying “if it was bad for the US Government to take the wealth from Native American lands, shouldn’t it be equally bad for the Native Americans to demand retribution?”
4. Stating that a reassessment of one’s position is misinformation is itself misinformation. It’s not based on misinformation, it’s based on reassessment of the initial problems.
5. Most musicians in the post-John Fogerty world are well aware of holding their own copyrights. “in most cases” copyright holder is the major label only for artists who signed it away on major labels, not for independent artists at all. Many times the advantage to an artists being on a major label is the money up front, that they get paid to make their records in exchange for money the label collects on time. If an artist goes for that, why do we have to have sympathy for them?

By: Sybil Augustine

Sybil Augustine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:31:26 +0000

You need to differentiate between Commercial and Corporate stations, and noncommercial radio. Almost none of what you said applies to stations like mine. For example, you say:

“What IS local radio anyway? How many stations out there aren’t part of a larger, multi-region or national group? ”

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of college and community radio stations as well as larger public stations and small, low-power FM stations in the United States. I don’t have a complete list for you because we’re all TRULY independent and locally based. There are several other Linked-In groups where we discuss these issues and more, as well as the Grassroots Radio Coalition and the National Federation of Community Broadcasters [which has been around for over 35 years.] Our station’s been on the air for over 33 years and is a cornerstone of this community. Just because you are not aware of these stations doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are not important.

“Perhaps the bill should be modified to allow a reduced rate for stations that fall under a certain revenue limit. But let’s face it, most radio stations with any real listenership were grabbed up by corporations long ago.”

Exactly = with the vast majority of our income from listener sponsors, it’s impossible for us to afford the same rates as commercial stations; and with all on-air personnel being volunteers, it’s impossible for us to force compliance with these regulations. It’s a digital divide issue — this conflicts with our mission to provide access to diverse populations because everyone here doesn’t use a computer. So WORT and other stations like ours SHOULD be exempted because according to you and most industry calculations, we don’t have any “real” listenership….just enough to support us and keep us on the air for the past 3 decades or so. This would all change if this law is enforced the same across the board.

By: Sybil Augustine

Sybil Augustine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:11:12 +0000

For a noncommercial community radio station like us, it’s not about having the balls to not use their music, it’s about the fact that nobody will understand why we can’t play whatever we want anymore and they’ll just stop listening to, and thus supporting, our station. Then we’re just toast.

I would much rather take the other alternative, and stop webstreaming our music programming. That will also hurt us greatly in terms of local as well as global listenership, and is not the fair or right answer to this problem. College and community stations who rely upon volunteers for most or all of our programming should simply be exempted from most of these reporting requirements.

By: Sybil Augustine

Sybil Augustine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:06:33 +0000

That seems very naive to me. DJs want to play the music they like, that they feel sounds good right now, that people are talking and writing about. They will NOT put an unknown artist on when the new Sonic Youth or Beck or Christian McBride or Vieux Farke Toure album is out. And how do we explain to bands coming to town that we can’t play their music to help promote their show? We would lose thousands in support from local promoters and businesses, as well as the respect of bands and musicians both local and global. It does not matter how good the CC music is, unless all the major well-known artists have stuff on there too it will never get much play.

By: refe

refe — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:31:40 +0000

Good luck with that.