That being said, I do have an open mind, and the very informative Creative Deconstruction blog has a great article entitled, "5 Reasons Why The Performance Rights Act Is A Bad Idea."
These are compelling reasons, and strike at my biggest fears for the bill - the corporate entities surrounding the music business will get all the money originally meant for the artists, and the radio entities that treat independent musicians fairly will be hurt by this piece of legislation.
As with so many bills before Congress, you have to start to wonder just which ones are well-meaning but got corrupted along the way, and which ones have ulterior motives from the start. It seems pretty hard to find legislation that's 100% pure of intent. At this point, I'm on the fence about the PRA.
2 comments:
This bill smelled fishy to me right from the start. The article you cite clarifies my thinking somewhat. It is riddled with unsupported claims but I tend to agree with it because it feels correct. The "industry" has been ripping off artists since the beginning. Performers -- hide the silver when big corporations sponsor legislation to "help" you. I think I'll take the status quo while a better bill is worked out, with input from the performers who are supposed to benefit.
Yes, it's always the artists who seem to lose in the end even when their being "protected."
Post a Comment