PDA

View Full Version : Performance Tax



EdA
02-15-2010, 01:06 PM
http://www.noperformancetax.org/en/Take%20Action

I would like to hear from anyone with informed opinions

it appears to be a recessive tax that would be a disincentive for free radio

what emanates from Washington is not always what it appears to be but the authors of the legislation seem to support the thought that it indeed is what it appears to be

T. Mac
02-15-2010, 01:34 PM
Ed, I'm confused. I thought this was already the law? According to the back article (http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2010/01/29/News/Bill-Jeopardizes.Campus.Radio-3860891.shtml), the proposed law mandates radio stations pay artists for the right to broadcast their music. To me, this sounds like the right thing to do as it is the intellectual property of the artist. Unless the sticking point is the proposed distribution schedule of the royalties?

T. Mac

EdA
02-15-2010, 01:38 PM
Ed, I'm confused.

me too, seeking enlightenment.........Franco, UB, KG....?

I've heard the promos several times on the local sports talk station

Franco
02-15-2010, 01:56 PM
Yes, radio already pays royalties for every song played, each time it is played. The new proposal would increase royalties to 4 times the going rate.

Some see it as an endrun around the "Fairness Doctrine". If passed it would be the death nail to mega-broadcasters like Clear Channel. CC ownes the Rush Limbaugh Show as well as the syndicator for Sean Hannity through thier wholelly owned Premier Radio Network. Clear Channel, which went privately owned 18 months ago is in default with creditors.

Others think it is just the recording artist wanting more money for each song aired.

The irony is, if radio doesn't play the artist, they remain unknown. If radio plays the artist then they have the opportunity to make potential millions. They think that radio has to play thier music. If passed, there will be a lot more Talk and Sports formats on the air.

Artist and thier agents WILL kill the goose that has layed the Golden Egg for them.

Last week, TV Broadcasters have joined the fight against increased royalities knowing that they are next.

I think a settlement somewhere in the middle will be reached and the advertisers will end up paying for it and will pass the added expense as they charge consumers more for thier goods and services.

The biggest negative impact could be streaming radio since that format has little to no income as it is in its infancy stage.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 02:04 PM
This bill was introduced in the last session and died in committee. However, it has broad, bi-partisan support. It is now in the Judiciary Committee in the House. The bill states that Congress will not impose any fees or royalties on radio stations for playing music. The recording industry has been petitioning Congress for legislation that would impose such fees. The text of the bill is only a few lines once you get oast the whereas clauses. It reads, in full:


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act.

Whereas the United States enjoys broadcasting and sound recording industries that are the envy of the world, due to the symbiotic relationship that has existed among these industries for many decades;

Whereas for more than 80 years, Congress has rejected repeated calls by the recording industry to impose a performance fee on local radio stations for simply playing music on the radio and upsetting the mutually beneficial relationship between local radio and the recording industry;

Whereas local radio stations provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers of music in the form of radio air play, interviews with performers, introduction of new performers, concert promotions, and publicity that promotes the sale of music, concert tickets, ring tones, music videos and associated merchandise;

Whereas Congress found that ‘the sale of many sound recordings and the careers of many performers benefited considerably from airplay and other promotional activities provided by both noncommercial and advertiser-supported, free over-the-air broadcasting’;

Whereas local radio broadcasters provide tens of thousands of hours of essential local news and weather information during times of national emergencies and natural disasters, such as September 11th, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike, as well as public affairs programming, sports, and hundreds of millions of dollars of time for public service announcements and local fund raising efforts for worthy charitable causes, all of which are jeopardized if local radio stations are forced to divert revenues to pay for a new performance fee;

Whereas there are many thousands of local radio stations that will suffer severe economic hardship if any new performance fee is imposed, as will many other small businesses that play music including bars, restaurants, retail establishments, sports and other entertainment venues, shopping centers and transportation facilities; and

Whereas the hardship that would result from a new performance fee would hurt American businesses, and ultimately the American consumers who rely on local radio for news, weather, and entertainment; and such a performance fee is not justified when the current system has produced the most prolific and innovative broadcasting, music, and sound recording industries in the world: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 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.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes, radio already pays royalties for every song played, each time it is played. The new proposal would increase royalties to 4 times the going rate.

Some see it as an endrun around the "Fairness Doctrine". If passed it would be the death nail to mega-broadcasters like Clear Channel. CC ownes the Rush Limbaugh Show as well as the syndicator for Sean Hannity through thier wholelly owned Premier Radio Network. Clear Channel, which went privately owned 18 months ago is in default with creditors.

Others think it is just the recording artist wanting more money for each song aired.

The irony is, if radio doesn't play the artist, they remain unknown. If radio plays the artist then they have the opportunity to make potential millions. They think that radio has to play thier music. If passed, there will be a lot more Talk and Sports formats on the air.

Artist and thier agents WILL kill the goose that has layed the Golden Egg for them.

Last week, TV Broadcasters have joined the fight against increased royalities knowing that they are next.

I think a settlement somewhere in the middle will be reached and the advertisers will end up paying for it and will pass the added expense as they charge consumers more for thier goods and services.

The biggest negative impact could be streaming radio since that format has little to no income as it is in its infancy stage.
Franco,

When I read the text of the bill, it doesn't seem to be what you are describing since House Concurrent Res 49 prohibits additional taxes or royalties from being imposed by Congress.

Franco
02-15-2010, 02:18 PM
Franco,

When I read the text of the bill, it doesn't seem to be what you are describing since House Concurrent Res 49 prohibits additional taxes or royalties from being imposed by Congress.



The issue has not been resolved.

I recently received a letter from my employer asking for a contribution to the No Performance Tax Increase organization to help fight the increase. Like I wrote, TV just joined the fight last week.

How old is the bill you quoted?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/08/radio-internet-royalties-business-beltway-radio.html

P S

If there is an increase, get ready for a lot more Talk Radio.

Franco
02-15-2010, 02:29 PM
Yardley, I think this is where the confusion comes into play;

Currently, only the Song Writer and Composer recieves royalties from music played on radio.

Now the performers want a piece. If the Black Eyed Peas recorded/covered a Bob Dylan song, Bob would make the money and not the Peas.

The additional tax would provided money for the recording artist. In the case of songwriters/performers, they make more dough. Guys like George Strait, who has all his songs written by Nashville songwriters recieves no royalities under the current agreement. George does make a lot of $ from CD sales and concerts appearences.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 02:44 PM
The issue has not been resolved.

I recently received a letter from my employer asking for a contribution to the No Performance Tax Increase organization to help fight the increase. Like I wrote, TV just joined the fight last week.

How old is the bill you quoted?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/08/radio-internet-royalties-business-beltway-radio.html

P S

If there is an increase, get ready for a lot more Talk Radio.
The bill I quoted is the version introduced on February 12, 2010. I didn;t go back to compare it with the text of the prior version. You can see the current text at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc111-49. I'm not trying to argue any point, I'm simply confused since it looks like the current text is exactly what the broadcasters want.

Franco
02-15-2010, 03:02 PM
The bill I quoted is the version introduced on February 12, 2010. I didn;t go back to compare it with the text of the prior version. You can see the current text at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc111-49. I'm not trying to argue any point, I'm simply confused since it looks like the current text is exactly what the broadcasters want.

If the issue was resolved on Friday, I am not aware of it. Aftereall, we are on Mardi Gras holiday through tomorrow!

BonMallari
02-15-2010, 08:45 PM
The NAB ( National Assn of Broadcasters) has their annual convention here the first week in April...I am opposed to any tax that restricts radio airplay in any way shape or form..it will be interesting to see how they view this issue...last year they were in fear of any fairness doctrine type of legislation...hmmm will have to play closer attention to this issue

Franco
02-15-2010, 11:03 PM
The NAB ( National Assn of Broadcasters) has their annual convention here the first week in April...I am opposed to any tax that restricts radio airplay in any way shape or form..it will be interesting to see how they view this issue...last year they were in fear of any fairness doctrine type of legislation...hmmm will have to play closer attention to this issue

I just read the today's trades online and there is nothing about a settlement.

Ah the NAB, went to one convention years ago in Atlanta. Boring group. They'll talk about electronic ratings/listener surveys and digital broadcasting but don't know how to dine or drink.;-)

paul young
02-16-2010, 08:41 AM
if there's a lot more sports and talk radio, there will be fewer listeners.....-Paul

Franco
02-16-2010, 09:10 AM
if there's a lot more sports and talk radio, there will be fewer listeners.....-Paul

It is the threat of more talk and sports radio that will make he Record Labels and thier artist backoff. The Radio Industry will not pay more in Royalty fees.

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 09:31 AM
I tracked down my confusion. The bill I quoted is House Concurrent Resolution 49,which was mentioned in the article referenced by EdA.. This is supported by NABS and was introduced specifically to counter The Performance Rights Act, which is HR 848. The Performance Rights Act extends royalty fees paid by terrestial broadcasters. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Conyers and is co-sponsored by 49 members from both parties. It was introduced in March 2009 and reported by a sub-committee to the Judiciary Committee last May. H. Con. Res 49 was submitted on February 12, 2010 and is co-sponsored by 253 members, or a large majority of the Congress from both parties. It explicitly prohibits any new fees or taxes from being imposed on radio stations such as those provided in HR 848. The number of sponsors for H. Con. Res. 49 would seem to preclude any chance at all that HR 848 would be adopted.

Franco
02-16-2010, 09:47 AM
As recorded music sales continue to decline all across the globe, radio may have to look at more News/Talk and Sports programming as a viable alternative.

I was just reading last night where little Birmingham, Al. now has two all Sports stations on FM. One an ESPN affiliate the other Fox Sports.

Both News/Talk and Sports are not well-rated stations across the country with the exception being WFAN, New York. WFAN is the top revenue generationing station in the USA.

Both of these formats ahve what we call in the industry top Power Ratios, share of audience compared to share of revenue. They exceed music radio in terms of revenue power ratios.

In our little town, our News/Talk and our all Sports station out earn most of the music stations, even those with 5 times as many listeners. Why? Because they have active listening as opposed to passive listening that many music stations have. Advertisers want to reach listeners that are engaged. Plus, with New/Talk, though a smaller audience, it is one with much more spending power.