Listening to Cathy Hughes' commercials/commentary regarding the Performance Rights Congressional Bill on the radio has caused me to really think about this piece of legislation. For those who do not know, Cathy Hughes is the owner of Radio One and TV One, a mega-media empire. She is against the Bill, calling it a "performance tax" vs. a royalty, and an additional financial burden for radio stations. The Bill legislates a royalty for performers when a song that they have recorded is played on the radio. Songwriters and publishers already receive a royalty. The central issue is should performers also receive a royalty and who should paid this royalty. The songwriters and publishers' royalties are paid out of album sales and when the song is played on the radio. Recording artists/performers receive payment from album sales and concert tours. The record companies get the majority of the proceeds from record sales.
In principle, I agree that performers/recording artists should be compensated based on the popularity of their performance. The issue is how should the royalty be structured and who should pay it. Why can't the same model that is used for songwriters and publishers be used?
Any thoughts?
Posted By: Nona Ogunsula
Wednesday, May 26th 2010 at 7:20AM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
