As Lauren Frandsen selected tracks to play on a KURE radio show, “Paint Your Own Gnome,” she chose between the station’s collection, her own CDs, and her iPod in.

It made little difference to KURE what music she played, as it gives her the freedom to pick the songs she or her listeners want without concern about copyright.

But, if H.R. 848, the Performance Rights Act, is passed into law, things could change.

The proposed legislation would amend federal copyright laws to grant performers equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters. As the copyright law currently stands, when a radio station plays a track, the songwriter but not the performer is entitled to royalty payment from that use.

Frandsen, senior in journalism and mass communication, said when she picks a song to play on the air she hopes people will become interested in the artist and look into him or her further. It’s an encouragement, she said.

The National Association of Broadcasters has taken to the airwaves with advertising labeling the legislation as the “radio performance tax” and pushing the issue online on social media and other various Internet and Web-based outlets.

On its Web site, www.noperformancetax.org, the NAB states the bill would “reduce the variety of music radio stations play, and all but eliminate the possibility of new artists breaking onto the scene” and suggests it would cause stations to “switch to a talk-only format or shut down entirely.”

“My sense of this though is that it’s really not ‘David versus Goliath’ here,” said Jeff Blevins, assistant professor of journalism and mass communication.

“It’s kind of the nature of capitalism, this is really a market issue,” Blevins said.

“When the concern was about payola, I think the concern was broadcasters held all the power — they were the gatekeepers. But now I think the Recording Industry Association of America is perhaps more powerful because they have other ways to deliver their music.”

Blevins doesn’t believe it would do anything to rein in illegal payola practices.

“The FCC is not really interested in enforcing payola,” he said, citing the various ways to get around the law and suggesting it’s difficult to enforce.

Ben Wiedenhoeft, drummer of Ames band Atombender, asked, “If the burden of per play royalties were added, the ration of commercial time to music would drastically change, and then why would anyone want to listen?”

Wiedenhoeft said he isn’t concerned with any change it would have on local bands’ ability to be played on the radio, reminding people that many bands in Ames only have the chance to be heard on local music shows typically broadcasted once a week.

But he said getting his music played on the radio, whether it’s one local station or through an agency getting his band on 25 regional stations, the promotional value outweighs any financial benefit.

He said he feels the RIAA is simply intent on collecting more money in response to the decline of CD sales and changing music trends over the past decade.

Liza Bevilacqua, sophomore in performing arts, said she usually discovers new music on Pandora Internet radio or by browsing iTunes.

“I don’t have time for the radio as much as I used to so I look for new ways to find new music,” Bevilacqua said.

“It is true radio listenership is down,” said Barbara Mack, associate professor of journalism and mass communication.

“And radio stations would characterize it as they are in the fight for their lives.”

Mack said radio stations would argue they deserve special treatment because they serve a local interest satellite radio cannot achieve, carrying local news and emergency signals, and thus deserve the least possible financial burden.

She said traditional radio is advertisement supported while satellite radio is consumer supported.

“It’s not only free to the consumer, it’s cheap to make,” Mack said. “I mean it doesn’t take much to get a local radio station on the air.”

Mack divided radio stations into two camps; the ones that belong to large groups, such as Clear Channel, and the really small ones, such as college stations like KURE, and she admited the added royalty payments would hurt the little guys more, as they don’t have nearly as much money to begin with.

Frandsen said KURE does not play advertisements but does read grants for local businesses and groups who have donated money.

Because her station is a non-profit they cannot play advertisements.

The Performance Rights Act was brought up in previous terms by a collection of bipartisan U.S. Congressmen and Senators but has been revived during the 111th session of Congress.

“The Bush administration made it clear they did not look with a favorable eye on this legislation,” Mack said.

Neither Blevins nor Mack feels the public will express much outrage and remain skeptical of how much it would really change radio.

Performance Rights Act — Would amend federal copyright law to: 

(1) Grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters; 

(2) establish a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for non-commercial, public broadcast stations; 

(3) grant an exemption from royalty payments for broadcasts of religious services and for incidental uses of musical sound recordings and 

(4) grant terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings a per program license option.

Provides that nothing in this act shall adversely affect the public performance rights or royalties payable to songwriters or copyright owners of musical works. The bill states that the maximum a station will be charged which earns less than $1.25 million in annual revenue and non-profit and public broadcasting stations would be $5,000 a year, but could be as low as $500 a year.

— Information from www.OpenCongress.org