The laws regarding music being broadcast on the radio - any kind of radio - are pretty confusing and counter-intuitive. For example, if a Lady Gaga song is played on your local terrestrial pop radio station, the person who wrote that song gets paid (as well as their publisher), but Ms. Gaga gets nothing. On the other hand, if that same song is played on satellite radio or online, not only does Gaga get cash but so does her label and all the musicians who performed on the track.
The United States is one of only a handful of nations in the entire world that does not have a performance royalty for terrestrial radio airplay. Many musicians and record labels are trying to change this by lobbying Congress for the “Performance Rights Act” which would grant such a royalty. The advocacy group pushing this effort is known as musicFIRST.
Of course, radio stations, which have historically resisted every attempt at ‘taxation’ of their revenue, have been counter-lobbying with their own bill: the “Local Radio Freedom Act”. This would prevent Congress from imposing any new royalties on broadcasters, claiming that radio has been free promotion for the recording industry, who should be thankful for it.
What’s your opinion? Do recording artists and other performers deserve a royalty for getting played on the radio?
Royalty Ruling Looms for Radio Stations, Musicians [boston.com]
Tags: royalty issues, traditional radio
[...] The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has passed the Performing Rights Act, a piece of legislation that would require terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties to performers in broadcasted recordings. A similar royalty exists for satellite and internet radio, but there is of course significant debate over this issue. [...]