Senate Judiciary Committee fails again. Gives thumbs up to RIAA “Bailout” Performance Tax
This is pretty much disgusting and makes me actually lean towards hating any label or collection agency. If you’ve been out of the loop, the RIAA’s Radio Performance tax is currently the biggest scam this side of hell. Remember in the good ‘ol days when new artists and labels would “beg” (by way of monetary payments) radio stations to play new music. Such a model promotes upcoming new artists and music which equates into more money spend on the respective artists down the road. Everyone’s happy right? Ha. With morons such as the RIAA involved, you though grossly wrong.
The whole idea of the Performance Rights Act is to pull a complete 180 on the typical model that radio stations play in promoting music. Instead of being paid to play music, now radio stations themselves are going to have to pay the RIAA and fellow scam artist companies to promote music. Kind of backwards don’t you think? This grand plan could very easily collapse. If radio stations refuse to play big label content and instead go independent, good-bye tax, good-bye income. Of course, the chances of that are pretty much 0 and they know that. What will happen however is those local bands looking to make it big will now have an ever greater mountain to climb. If radio stations have to pay to play music, why bother with smaller bands that don’t indirectly pay them? Why not just play the big names. Hey, they’re paying for it right?
Of course, RIAA and their love child “SoundExchange” will continue to beat their chest highlighting all the good they stand for, helping musicians, and doling out royalties from bogus taxes accordingly. Though, as TechDirt notes, they seem to have a small hoarding problem when money is concerned. You know, $100 million or so dollars sitting in their bank accounts — give or take.
Leaving off, a commenter on TechDirt also highlighted another point by posting a section of the wordage:
“Establishes a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for noncommercial, public broadcast stations.”
“(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that has gross revenues in any calendar year of less than $1,250,000 may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $5,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.
`(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that is a public broadcasting entity as defined in section 118(f) may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $1,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph.”
I’m not a lawyer. Though, they aren’t exactly the most “honest” sources of information so I guess that can be seen as a small blessing. Does anyone care to clear up verbal lingo above? Am I correctly assuming that radio stations can simply “cash out” (for lack of better words) on their royalty tax in favor of a lower yearly payment? Gee, that’s not questionable at all….