From HelpSaveRadio.com:

"70% or more of the performance fees will go overseas [to ‘foreign-owned record labels'] and virtually none will come back into your districts..."

THE FACTS: OK - let's dispel this myth once and for all. According to the ACTUAL TEXT of the legislation (see pie chart below), performers receive 50 percent and sound recording copyright owners receive the other 50 percent. And since many artists own the copyright in their master recordings (more than 1,200 artist-owned independent record labels now receive royalties from SoundExchange), U.S. performers will always get more than half of the performance royalties.

Broadcasters can stretch the truth, but they can't alter mathematical fact.

When it comes to Big Radio not paying performers for using their music, Fredericksburg, Maryland radio station manager Paul Johnson somehow thinks it's a mutually beneficial arrangement:

"Basically there's a nice barter service."  (BBC)

THE FACTS: Without a performance right, musicians have no say under current law in whether broadcasters can unilaterally take their music and use it for free (justifying it as "promotion"), all while pocketing $14 billion in revenues.

Huh? Doesn't a "barter service" presuppose the right of both parties to be able to...you know...barter?

According to Dennis Baxter, general manager of KCAA 1050 AM:

"if musicians are not getting a fair deal for their recordings, that's a problem to be solved among artists, composers and record labels." (sbsun.com)

THE FACTS: Okay, let's follow the logic of this one: by broadcasters' reasoning, a restaurant doesn't have to pay for food because "that's a problem to be solved" among farmers, packagers, and distributors. A homeowner doesn't have to pay for the house because "that's a problem to be solved" among architects, carpenters, and designers. A TV station doesn't have to pay for airing a sporting event because "that's a problem to be solved" among the players, management, and the stadium.

In what world do disagreements among creators of a product permit someone else to use the product for free?

Mr. Baxter also conveniently overlooks the fact that broadcasters are legally entitled to use recordings for free. So, without reforming the laws, exactly how do musicians get a "fair deal" for their recordings when the user (Big Radio) isn't paying at all?

From the Big Radio Archive, filed under H for "Huh?":

According to Ernesto Garcia, the program coordinator for local radio station KRGT FM and others, "If I were at a station in Tucumcari, N.M., then I would pay $500 to $1000, or whatever the fee is, a month to record companies... If I were at a larger station in say Las Vegas, Nev., or Los Angeles, Calif., or even Albuquerque, N.M., they would expect us to pay a certain fee a year, about 20 percent of our profits, just for playing Eminem or George Strait." ... Garcia said that commercial stations would be limited based on their location. (Roundupnews.com)

THE FACTS: Now they're just wingin' it... Under the PRA, payments by commercial stations have nothing to do with their location, as Mr. Garcia states, but are based on their annual revenue. For all the music they can play, smaller stations would pay no more than $5,000 a year, not per month (and many would pay as little as $500 a year). The payments are distributed not just to record companies, but to any other recording copyright owner, as well as all performers on the recordings. And it's impossible to guess where Mr. Garcia's "20 percent of profits" claim comes from since the legislation does not set a rate for larger stations (those with revenue above $1.25 million a year), but instead leaves it to a Copyright Royalty Board, which will take many factors into account (including any promotional value provided by broadcasts). From what bizarro universe does Big Radio pull their facts?

The NAB recently announced that Andy Berkowitz, program director for WWOT-FM Altoona, PA, is the winner of the "Don't Tax That Dial" competition. Berkowitz will be awarded $2,500 for his winning entry, in addition to travel, two nights hotel stay and registration for two to attend the 2009 NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia.

THE FACTS: What a coincidence! Mr. Berkowitz's award is exactly half the low flat-fee amount his station would be eligible to pay under the PRA. (With revenue between $500,000 and $1.25 million a year, a station can elect to pay just $5000 a year for all the music it can play.) Throw in the value of his NAB-provided travel accommodations and the amount is pretty much the same as what WWOT-FM would pay under the PRA. Looks like the broadcasters are not so cash-strapped after all. It's as if NAB is waving Big Radio's big profits in the artists' faces, saying, "We'd rather throw away our money than pay you for your work." Talk about disrespect!

If you think WWOT-FM Altoona is pleased with its program director's monetary award for creating propaganda, imagine how meaningful it would be for the creators of the content who actually keep the station in business...

No matter what, no matter when, Big Radio just doesn't want to pay performers.

In an interview with a Florida television station, NAB Executive Vice President for Media Relations Dennis Wharton tried to justify Big Radio's opposition to a performance right:  "The recording industry is suffering some severe financial losses not through the fault of radio stations, but because they failed to adapt their business model."

THE FACTS: During a March 25, 1993 hearing on the performance right in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, NAB President & CEO Edward O. Fritts stated: "The recording industry continues to be very successful and, frankly, we believe has no demanding need for more broadcaster money." I guess they'd say that was then, this is now. The message is clear: whether the music industry is up or down, broadcasters want to keep using performers' property for free.

From noperformancetax.org:

"...big record labels are trying to turn artists against their number one promotional vehicle by asking Congress to impose a performance tax on local radio"

THE FACTS: The campaign for a performance right officially began in 1935 by 700 performers (including Bing Crosby) as the National Association of Performing Artists (NAPA). Since then, singers and musicians from Frank Sinatra to Gladys Knight to Bruce Springsteen have spoken out in support of this basic act of economic fairness (what broadcasters conveniently and self-servingly call a "performance tax"). Record labels have never "turned artists against radio"; rather, artists have led the way (gaining labels' support) in the decades-old search for a performance right.

This whopper is audacious even by Big Radio's standards:

"...the music itself is not a source of revenue for the stations. The entity that is the station is what attracts listeners (who pay nothing to hear the content) and advertisers (who pay for access to our intellectual properties)." http://helpsaveradio.org/

THE FACTS: Why do YOU tune into a particular music station? Is it for "the entity that is the station" (whatever that means), or is it for the music? Advertisers pay for access to the audience who tunes in because they want to hear music creators' intellectual property. Simply put, no music = no audience = no advertising dollars = no music station. The music is in fact THE source of revenue for music stations.

Other than Big Radio, can you think of another industry that gets to use for free the very product that keeps it in business?

HelpSaveRadio.org, aka Big Radio's online effort to deny performers fair compensation, makes this interesting claim about the Performance Rights Act:

"This is how they [the music industry] intend to cover the decline in revenue caused by falling CD sales."

THE FACTS: CDs have only been around for 25 years. The fight for a performance right by artists and musicians has gone on for more than seventy years.

In the past seven decades, there have been dozens of new technologies and, like most industries, the music industry has seen periods of growth and decline. The "decline in revenue" argument is bogus; broadcasters have refused to pay even in good times. As NAB stated 16 years ago, the "recording industry continues to be very successful and, frankly, we believe has no demanding need for more broadcaster money." (Testimony of Edward O. Fritts, President and CEO of NAB, during House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, March 25, 1993.)

A performance right has never been about sales of CDs, LPs, cassettes or 8-track tapes. This is not about good times or bad times in the market. A performance right has always been a matter of fairness and justice - the right to be fairly compensated for your hard work.

A case of fuzzy math... According to Atlantic Broadcasting CEO Brett Denafo:

"A lot of these local stations in all markets all over the country will probably end up going dark, it would kill them, something like for us here at Atlantic Broadcasting, you're talking about $300,000 a year in a tax that would devastate Atlantic Broadcasting." NBC40

THE FACTS: Must be the new math...Atlantic Broadcasting's three music stations make less than $1.25 million. The Performance Rights Act has specific accommodations for these smaller stations. By law, Mr. Denafo's three music stations would only have to pay a maximum of $5,000 each per year - $15,000 total for all the music they can play - a far cry from the $300,000 he seemingly pulled out of thin air. Stations just like Atlantic Broadcasting's are covered by the PRA's accommodations:

• Stations with revenue less than $100,000 per year pay only $500 per year
• Stations with revenue between $100,000 and $500,000 / year pay only $2500 per year
• Stations with revenue between $500,000 and $1.25 million per year pay only $5000 per year
• Noncommercial stations with gross receipts less than $100,000 / year pay only $500 (other noncoms pay only $1000)

These small but fair payments for all the music that stations can play won't -kill‖ local radio stations, as Big Radio claims. The Performance Rights Act will simply compensate performers for their hard work.