So this morning on the radio, I heard this PA about a radio tax....does anyone else know anything about this?

It's more accurately called the Radio Performance Tax. It's been talked about off-and-on for decades.

Since forever, radio stations have been paying fees to the writers of the music they air, but not the performers. It's a throwback to when radio stations had their own in-house orchestras.

Periodically, performers try to get a piece f the pie, it's simply come around again. It has nothing to do with “taxing” radio listeners.

Here's a Google News search for radio performance tax. More than you ever wanted to know...

Terrestrial Radio Royalties Bill

Tough call on this one. On one hand, ever since the invention of [terrestrial, as opposed to satellite] radio and its evolution as an entertainment medium, the operators of such stations have always been allowed to play music royalty-free.

In fact, for most of the last 80-90 years, artits and managers and promoters have eagerly sought radio airplay as a means of getting their music heard. Remember the "payola" scandals of the 1950s and 60s?

What this law is attempting to pull off is a sea change to the way that radio stations are allowed to play music: It seeks a royalty for the copyright owner for every airplay.

The ads that you hear are paid for by the owners and operators of terrestrial radio stations. Of course, they call such a royalty a "radio tax". In some ways, it is but it is not really a tax.

Like Sam Zell telling the Wrigley Company that he should retroactively charge them for "naming rights", this has the look of unfairness.

I would oppose such a law especially because, as is typical, the artists themselves would only see a pittance. The big music companies - record labels, production houses, etc. - would get most of the money.

Edit: This really sums it all up, from the radio station's point of view.

quote:

"For 80 years we've had a relationship with the recording industry that they provide us free music and we provide them free air time," said Entercom Radio Wichita General Manager Jackie Wise.

BTN that quote does sum it all up, wow!

Ted, I was confused on your post (until I read BTNs) as it was presented as the money going to the record companies, not the performers. The performers essentially get paid by the record labels, based on album sales (usually). The record labels tend to make all of their money on album sales and the entertainers' popularity, but with the technology age, they've been losing income left and right....perhaps rather than trying to get more green out of the deal, they should accept that the economy sucks and no one (I don't care HOW talented....athlete, performer, etc.) should make that much money for such a minute amount of time (this one's for all of you "entitlement junkies" to jump on).

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. Thanks for the links as well....

In a sense we're both right. At the moment, the “owners” are seeking compensation when their music is played on the radio... But the performers are trying to figure out how to do an end run and get paid directly.

During my brief tenure as a disk jockey in a former life, we DJs all had to log every record we played for one week every year.

Naturally, for that week we played only songs by singers we really, really liked... naively assuming that she they got the nickel (or whatever).

Broke my heart when, years later, I learned that she they got nuttin'.

The key point is: The proposed royalty goes to the copyright owner. Usually, this is the music publisher but the artist might also have rights.

Read about what happened to John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater for a "worst case" example of an artist getting fleeced by his label/publisher.

Siruis was stating to charge for this last July - I heard. I already was paid through October so I missed the fees, then I put my car in storage. But when I pull it out in about a month or two and start up Siruis again, they stated that the quarterly/yearing fees were changing due to this tax and would go up slightly.