As of Oct. 15, both houses of the U.S. Congress have passed versions of the Performance Rights Act, a law designed to "grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters." In other words, the government is forcing radio stations to pay royalties to copyright holders for songs played on air.
While supporters of the act, such as musicFIRST Coalition Executive Director Jennifer Bendall, claim that it brings society "one step closer to righting a wrong that has existed since the early days of radio; one step closer to winning the fight for fundamental justice that has been waged by countless artists and musicians over the last 80 years," it seems more like this law is a backward way for artists to try and keep milking a system that is becoming less and less viable as a business model for digital media and distribution progress.
Artists should not look to radio stations for profit, especially because radio broadcasting is - essentially - free advertising for the artists themselves. So when looking at this law, it befuddles me why bands want these 'advertisers' to pay a fee for the publicity the radio provides for them.
It's hard to say exactly how this act will impact the radio broadcast industry on the whole, but I think I have a reasonable prediction: Public radio will suffer greatly because of the extra financial burden and even commercial radio will probably either take a hit in the pocketbook, or simply narrow the already limited selection of top-40 style broadcasting cycles. And if this is the way it is going to be, I don't see anyone other than the already popular, famous and rich reaping the benefits from this act, making this writer wonder: Does Kanye West really need any more money?
-campbell bird