US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel said that this would create “a right of public performance for copyright owners for sound recordings transmitted by over-the-air broadcast stations.” This isn’t a necessarily a new position for the White House, as copyright officials have spoken out in support of the performance fee before.

However, large and small broadcasters alike have responded that the performance fee will be detrimental to local American radio stations. Despite the smallness of the recommendation within the scope of a relatively large white paper, the performance fee would have far-reaching effects in an already troubled economy. The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement decrying the job-killing effect on the industry, and noting that it aimed at broadcasters “without offsetting provisions and benefits that recognize the unparalleled promotional value of radio airplay.”

Members of Congress have also shown their opposition to the performance fee. Currently, there is no bill proposed in Congress to create a radio performance fee, but it’s expected that one will be introduced. Advocates of local radio and the Free Radio Alliance are already circulating a resolution in support of radio in the House; it has more than 125 signatures. A similar resolution is being circulated in the Senate and has 16 signers.

The Free Radio Alliance will keep providing updates to the performance rights debate. In the meantime, write your congressman and tell them to support free and local radio and sign the Local Radio Freedom Act Resolution.

Much like in past years, the resolution reads:

… 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.

Sen. Nelson’s press release goes on to say:

The Local Radio Freedom Act resolution would help protect the symbiotic relationship that has existed between the broadcasting and sound recording industries for more than 80 years. The artists are introduced to the public, build their fan bases, and get free over-the air advertising for their records, concerts and merchandise.

So far, neither the Performance Rights Act nor any similar measure has been introduced by the record labels. Stay tuned for developments over the coming weeks!

The Free Radio Alliance says radio airtime is free promotion that is key to singers’ careers. In fact, they pointed out with posters, that’s how they heard Dionne Warwick’s songs in the first place. Imposing a royalty would only enrich big record labels, including those overseas.

A performance tax on radio broadcasters in the US would have crippling consequences.  College, local and minority-owned stations would be the hardest hit with many of them shuttering their doors.  Broadcasters are struggling in this economy already – added fees and royalties paid to large record companies overseas will only add to that burden.

“The last thing we need is to choke of more off our local media.  We need more voices…that actually represent the local interests.”

Listen to Senator Warner’s complete comments at 1070 WINA by clicking play below.

[audio:http://67.72.16.166/wina/2239543.mp3]

WATE in Knoxville has the story:

At the radio station STAR 102.1, they say the radio performance tax would add on to the thousands of dollars radio stations already pay to play music on the air.

“This added tax will only eliminate jobs and take signals off the air that are serving communities today,” says General Manager Chris Protzman.

Read the entire story at WATE Knoxville.

Black and Hispanic stations would bear the brunt of compulsory performance fees for sound recordings, and the loss of such stations would be particularly acute for Black and Hispanic communities where local radio stations are “a primary venue for the expression of minority and ethnic viewpoints,” the paper states.

The report concludes that the Performance Rights Act…

“would most likely reduce diversity, and thus run contrary to Congress’s long-standing goal of enhancing media diversity. The economic and diversity impacts would be especially harsh on minority-owned radio stations, the outlets least able to tolerate additional burdens. Record companies should not try to kill the ‘golden goose’ of radio broadcasting in an effort to boost their bottom lines. Free music for free airplay has stood the test of time. It’s an arrangement that is not broken, and does not need to be fixed.”

Read the full story at FMQB.

At the CMJ Music Marathon in Manhattan last week, a panel of hit songwriters concurred, “the best way to land a hit is a tried-and-true one: Get on the radio.”

“The business is so singles-driven now,” Ossoff says, adding that the new trend is for songwriters to submit only a verse and a chorus to execs, who will tell them to finish songs that have hit potential.

“Radio’s become more important because of what has happened,” said David Katz, half of the production-songwriting team S*A*M and Sluggo, responsible for recent hits from Boys Like Girls, The Academy Is . . . , and Metro Station. “The hit song’s become a more important medium because no one buys albums any more.”

Source: Newsday

Fred Baker, Jr., president of KISR radio in Arkansas, says, “if it does go through, I will probably get out of the business. There are too many people trying to hack at it as it is. I have some sympathy for the performers, but let’s look at the big labels. What salaries are they getting at the top? What kind of cars are they driving? It is one of the most stupid, self-serving things I have heard of. It’s beyond the pale.”

Bill Pharis, president of Fort Smith Radio Group in Arkansas, has seen cutbacks already:

“We’ve gone over to talk programming on three of our stations,” said Pharis. “… One of the reasons we did that is because of the fees for music. We pay a reduced rate for music on those talk stations. That’s another reason across the country news and information is now the No. 1 format. People are trying to avoid those fees where they can. They’re not looking to add any more. It won’t help (artists). It’ll hurt them.”

Source: Southwest Times Record

“By many estimations, passage of this legislation would result in potentially billions of dollars flowing from local broadcasters to the recording industry and would have a devastating impact on the local radio broadcasting system as we know it,” Sens. Lincoln and Barrasso wrote.

The Senators said that imposing a fee on local broadcasters would “fundamentally change free radio,” and that many music stations would be forced to flip to talk formats rather than paying fees to air music. “At the end of the day, this will result in less music being played on the radio,” they wrote.

Lincoln and Barrasso concluded by saying, ”This legislation clearly evokes strong opposition that transcends party affiliation. As leaders of our two parties, we ask that you oppose any effort to move this bill, either as a stand alone measure or as part of a broader legislative package.”

Source: FMQB

“If a large station is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in fees, they’re going to play the performers who are most proven to get a return on investment,” says Newberry, CEO of Commonwealth Broadcasting Corp.

Radio stations currently pay about $550 million a year to music licensing agencies that represent songwriters and music publishers. They also paid $25.2 million last year in regulatory fees to the Federal Communications Commission.

Source: USA Today