The decades-old debate about how royalties should be paid
when a song plays on the radio has re-emerged, with Congress taking up the
issue and record labels breaking new ground by striking private deals with
broadcast companies.
According to USAToday, the battlefront is in Nashville , where
performers, labels, songwriters, publishers and radio stations accustomed to
working side-by-side have renewed their disagreement. And it comes against the
backdrop of Warner Music announcing a breakthrough deal last week to collect
royalties when its artists have a song played on one of Clear Channel's 850
radio stations.
At stake are tens of millions of dollars in performance
royalties that federal law exempts broadcast companies from paying to artists
and labels for songs broadcast on terrestrial radio. Those payments go
exclusively to the songwriters and publishers, as has been the arrangement for
decades.
 |
| Mel Watt |
But U.S. Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., said the time for change has
come. He plans to file legislation soon that would recognize performance
royalties for artists and require broadcast companies to negotiate royalty
arrangements with labels. In 2009, Watt and others in Congress pushed the
Performance Rights Act, which would have mandated a new royalty for artists and
labels when a song is played on traditional radio.
The 2009 bill cleared the House Judiciary Committee, but
never reached a floor vote over pushback against that mandate. In response,
Watt said his new bill instead would recognize performance royalty rights and
require broadcast companies and labels to work out their own arrangements over
royalty payments.
"I've felt that it was unfair for AM/FM stations to use
the works of artists to make money for themselves without paying the artists
whose stuff they're using," Watt said
No comments:
Post a Comment