S.379 - Performance Rights Act

A bill to provide fair compensation to artists for use of their sound recordings. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to provide fair compensation to artists for use of their sound recordings. as introduced.
  • Short: Performance Rights Act as introduced.
  • Short: Performance Rights Act as reported to senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • myopencongress 03/10/2009 5:15am

    NO. This is NOT a loophole for AM and FM radio stations. This is FREE advertising for the songwriters and should NOT be charged to the radio station.

  • BiigNiick 11/22/2009 5:23pm

    So, I went to the dentist the other day and had two cavities filled and my teeth whitened. I don’t have dental insurance and usually pay cash, but after reading the comment above I decided not to pay my bill. I told the doctor that it was ‘free advertising’ for his practice and walked out the door. This isn’t how the world works!

    I think people should get paid for their work, especially when some other party profits from using their work! Terrestrial radio in America is the only place that artists aren’t paid for the use of their work. Satellite radio pays, internet radio pays, terrestrial radio in every other developed country pay. . .

  • daveyspi 02/18/2010 8:38am

    Sound recordings, unlike musical and other copyrightable works, do not give the author the exclusive right to publicly perform the work. One of the many purposed justifications for this Act is that performers should be entitled to a performance royalty just as songwriters are, which may be accomplished by granting this exclusive right.

    There is nothing in the Act that would ensure that performers are paid any portion of the amount collected by the record labels and their contracts almost certainly don’t address their entitlement to a royalty that did not exist at the time of drafting.

    In addition, what impact would this have on commercial radio? The public would be subjected to even more advertising and less content (to cover the new costs) on what is supposed to be “the public’s airwaves”.

    As such, there is simply no legitimate basis for a fee, tax or any other charge to be placed on the public performance of sound recordings.

  • jharding 02/23/2010 2:07am

    This is a common misconception that artists do not get paid for terrestrial radio play. The fact is BMG, ASCAP and other organizations make sure that artists, song writers and bands get payed for playing their material on the radio. Getting the government involved in anything like this is a mistake. Look at who’s lobbying the senate to get this passed – BIG RECORD COMPANIES. Do you think they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Are they going to give the artists all the proceeds from this? Not hardly – this is just another way big business gets Washington in their hip pocket to clean out the little guy. Sure, the big artists might see some more cash from this, but they’re not the ones that need the help. No indie artist will benefit from this act. Smaller radio stations may be forced to close from the increased expense. This will simply increase the rift between the rich and the poor, and spawn more illegal pirate radio vs. “sanctioned” radio conflicts.

  • rmksr 03/04/2010 9:55am

    Dionne Warwick just hasn’t had a good job since the Psychic Friends Network shut down. Why don’t the end users just pay listening fees? What if we don’t like the song? Seriously, I don’t want anyone to be taxed for providing me a John Mellencamp song… it wasn’t that good. We could just impose a tax on stations deciding to play Dionne Warwick songs. Artists could make the decisions about whether their songs were tax-exempt or not. This would give artists opt-in (or opt-out) protection, and radio stations could make decisions to play or not play songs they find expensive. Also, let’s not forget that people like Pat Leahy are also performing artists. Who is compensating him for his art?

  • SamanthaK 03/25/2010 6:10am

    Local rdio stations should not have to pay to play sound recordings. It would be alot different if the performers were actually performing live on the radio, but they are not. Therefore local radio stations should not have to pay royalties to play sound recordings.

Vote on This Bill

25% Users Support Bill

14 in favor / 43 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments