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

By: refe

refe — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:27:39 +0000

This post was written about a year ago when the bill was still undergoing changes and many of the details were either unformed or unclear. While I still believe that there is likely to be collatoral damage if this bill goes through, the terms are much less alarming than they appeared early in the process. For example, the tiered fee structure which takes into account the size and profitability of the individual station, etc.

I will probably close comments because the discussion has moved far beyond the point that this post addresses and with all the new information out there now it seems silly to debate these outdated 5 points.

By: Michael Babbitt

Michael Babbitt — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:00:43 +0000

Briefly read the bill and have concluded that the fees are not enough to put anyone out of business. It doesn’t mean that I support the bill, but I recant my statement about putting radio out of business. Clearly it won’t do that.

By: Michael Babbitt

Michael Babbitt — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:56:53 +0000

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-379

There is the bill. It does appear that the fees are not substantial enough to warrant alarm at this point.

By: Michael Babbitt

Michael Babbitt — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:39:52 +0000

Having worked for commercial radio in the past, I know that there is barely enough ad revenue to pay the bills. The DJ’s are paid very little, and the cost of operating the towers and paying the blanket performing rights fees, sales staff, etc. really don’t make for huge profits. As it is, indie artists do get some play but this bill will end that. Worse, radio stations themselves could be forced to shut down…or even worse, the “Too big to fail” mantra could come into play followed by a government takeover. With the govt. running the stations the RIAA would finally have total control of what is played, once again…and that of course would only include the artists on their host of major labels.

By: Deuce

Deuce — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:13:37 +0000

Regarding costs I simply cannot understand that argument against the PRA.

For stations grossing less than $50,000 per year, the fee is $100/year according to the Senate version. $100!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT?! Given the minimum is much higher in the H.R. version but I imagine the Senate amendments to be accepted without argument.

You claim reporting criteria will increase costs by thousands… give me a break. Having a DJ on an excel spread sheet is going to add thousands of costs to the local or university station? I highly doubt it.

You claim this will not provide a great enough benefit to be worth the detrimental affect on stations. I again have to disagree. Economies of scale make fractions of a dollar add up quickly and significantly. Ask Sound Exchange which currently has a backlog of millions of dollars waiting for their recipients to register with them.

I am trying to be open minded and unbiased but I have the bills right in front of me and I do not see an Apocalypse on the horizon for radio stations. I do however see fairness and equity for artists.

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.