performance tax

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Uninformed, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts

    Have any of you all heard the new commercial regarding a tax on music played on radio stations? It sounds like in the commercial that they are a little upset with congress and the administration. You can hear the add by clicking The Link and then downloading the No performance tax radio English :60. It is just a radio ad so there is no reason to worry about clicking on it from work. Anyway tell me what you think? Anyone know if the tax is being misrepresented?
     
  2. BA93

    BA93 1,000+ Posts

    Is this a tax paid to the govt or a fee paid to the recording industry?
     
  3. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts

    You heard what I heard on a rock/grunge station on my way home this evening.
     
  4. HornBud

    HornBud 2,500+ Posts

    Since the artists are taxed on the royalties.....
     
  5. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts

    Anyone else listen to this ad? It sounds like a new tax. Probably the recording industry lobby was able to sneak it in.
     
  6. Nuge

    Nuge 100+ Posts

    You listen to music on the radio? Really?
    You must like the Red Hot Chili Peppers because that is all I ever hear when I turn on the radio. [​IMG]
     
  7. Battleship

    Battleship 25+ Posts

    WASHINGTON -- One of the biggest lobbying fights in the nation's capital this year could involve a traditionally non-Washington subject: rock and roll.

    At issue: whether AM and FM radio stations should pay royalties to performers on recorded music played over the airwaves, and if so, what those rates should be. Right now only composers and their affiliated publishers reap these payments.

    In one corner is the MusicFIRST Coalition, which includes the Recording Industry Association of America, several artist groups and SoundExchange, the folks who collect licensing fees from satellite and Internet radio stations and distribute it in the form of royalty payments to musicians. They say it's not fair that session musicians and others who play or sing on records played on the radio should be denied compensation.

    Poppycock, argues Dennis Wharton a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, the group on the other side. Half of the money would go to record companies, and "Who has abused artists worse than the record labels traditionally?" he asks. "No one."

    Led by the NAB, broadcasters including Clear Channel Radio, Emmis Communications ( EMMS - news - people ) and National Public Radio have formed the Free Radio Alliance in opposition to the Performance Rights Act. The legislation would require terrestrial broadcasters to pay performance royalty fees. Stations with less than $1.25 million in annual revenue would be allowed to pay a flat fee of no more than $5,000 per year.

    According to the NAB the bill would impose an additional financial burden on broadcasters during a recession and would drive many music stations into talk radio or out of business. Moreover, the industry group says, radio airplay is already free promotion for artists.
     
  8. general35

    general35 5,000+ Posts

    this is interesting. traditionally, radio stations used to get to play the music for free and it gave free publicity to the artist. this seems gay. radio stations have a tough enough time making a profit.
     
  9. NEWDOC2002

    NEWDOC2002 1,000+ Posts


     

Share This Page