Recording industry serenades partiers
The place to be in Denver tonight is this concert featuring Kanye West, sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America and a long list of companies, as well as the One Campaign. I’m heading there shortly to try my (so far) not so good luck at party crashing.
The Washington Post recently reported the House ethics committee ruled this week that House members and top staff are required to pay $90 apiece for tonight’s concert. However, the Senate committee said that senators and staff can go for free, because the event qualifies as a “widely attended event” under the new ethics law:
At a minimum, ethics lawyers said the industry will have to post signs warning House aides that they must pay the $90 fee and set up a booth to collect the money, or else the industry could face criminal charges from the Justice Department for knowingly giving illegal gifts to congressional staff members.
(Indeed, reported the Post, the House “blue dog” Democrats who attended a party on Sunday night were required to pay $22 apiece. Apparently that party included an open bar and a show by pop rocker KT Tunstall–I wouldn’t know, because a bouncer told me I couldn’t venture on private property.)
As for tonight’s event, of course the RIAA has a big agenda before Congress. The Center for Responsive Politics earlier this year reported how the recording industry is supporting a bill that would make radio broadcasters pay royalties to the recording industry in exchange for playing their songs:
The music industry’s spending is buoyed by its lobbying juggernaut, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which in the first quarter of 2008 has already spent $1.5 million on lobbying efforts, more than it spent in all of 2007. Since 2002, the RIAA has contributed to the campaigns of 17 of the 24 members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. These contributions total $115,070. Of those 17 subcommittee members, seven have come out publicly in favor of the bill (Reps. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Anthony Wiener (D-N.Y.), Berman, Issa and Conyers).
I’ll report back later.
PARTYFINDER™ Hints
Beneficiary: congressional candidate, lawmaker, or entity which collects funds raised at party
Host: person who is hosting party-often, but not always, a registered federal lobbyist
Venue Name: where the party is
Entertainment Type: type of gathering, such as "breakfast," "ski trip," "bowling"
Other Lawmakers Mentioned: lawmakers mentioned on invitation who are used as a draw for the event
Sunlight's Party Time is a project to track parties for members of Congress or congressional candidates that happen all year round in Washington, D.C. and beyond. (read more)
We also post information we receive about parties where members of Congress are expected to participate—such as convention or inaugural parties.
Since we don't hear about all the parties, you can also tell us if you know where the party is and we don't.
Dem02020 said...
As additional information in an otherwise difficult to understand Bill, the Bill referred to above, in reference to the RIAA, that Bill is called “The Performance Rights Act” (H.R.4789), sponsored (as noted in the OpenSecrets article) by Rep. Berman (D-CA).
While certainly it is the money that these competing interests (the RIAA and the National Association of Broadcasters) spend in trying to influence the Passage (or not) of H.R.4789, while that is what truly interests Opensecrets and others working for a more full and open disclosure of how money is what drives much of Congress’s agenda, I want to note something about “The Performance Rights Act” itself.
While at first glance it seems fair and just to pay the royalties that the Bill calls for, it should be noted for those who don’t already know, that royalties are paid to the copyright intellectual property owners of songs and/or music played on the radio: they are paid to the authors of the songs, and of the music…
What “The Performance Rights Act” does is extends to the singer performer also, a copyright intellectual claim to the music played on the radio… and while that might seem fair, just where does intellectual property begin and end in this regard?
If not only the writer of the song, and of the song’s music, is owner here, but also the singer of that song too, then what of the guitar player? What of the drummer, and the guy who hits the cow bell? Truly, what of the Sound Engineer?
Anyway, merely as an aside to the RIAA and their attempts to purchase influence in the making of our laws, I wanted to point out that the particular law referred to above, “The Performance Rights Act”, seems to me to extend copyright intellectual property rights a bit too far… because in Rep. Berman’s House introduction of his Bill, he noted that he thought not only does Irving Berlin deserve intellectual copyright and royalties for “White Christmas”, but so also does Bing Crosby, for merely singing what were the words and music of another who created them, Mr. Berlin… which is just plain dumb and wrong: as it wasn’t Bing Crosby who gave “White Christmas” the copyrighted value it has, but Irving Berlin who gave the words and music he created to Mr. Crosby: and in turn gave Bing Crosby fame (and money) merely to sing what Mr. Berlin had wrote and created…
And besides, where would it stop, because Martha Davis could easily have sang “White Christmas” better than Bing: and at a much faster beat by The Waitresses, well it’s no contest.
Let’s reserve intellectual property rights to creaters, not crooners.
Comment posted: Aug 28, 2008 at 1:47 amLeave a Comment