The National Association of Broadcasters is ratcheting up its lobbying blitz against legislation currently moving through the House and Senate that the trade group believes would cost jobs and kill off local radio stations' offerings. The bill, which would end AM and FM stations' exemption from paying copyright royalty fees to performers of the songs that grace their airwaves, is being targeted in a series of new advertisements in the Washington Metrorail system. Their 45 banners are plastered across the Capitol South metro station, which is located two blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The NAB also recently launched NoPerformanceTax.org to beef up its campaign to defeat the bill, which is championed by music industry interests like the Recording Industry Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, and the Recording Academy.
"Every week, radio airplay reaches 235 million Americans, promoting both new and legacy artists and generating more than a billion dollars in CD and download sales for record labels annually. By contrast, artists routinely sue their record labels for cheating them out of royalty money," an NAB spokesman said in a press release. "We welcome an honest debate over which side has been a better friend to recording artists: America's hometown radio stations or foreign-owned record labels." An official with the MusicFirst Coalition, which supports the bill, said: "No amount of advertising can right a wrong. Corporate radio earns billions without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners ears to the radio dial. Satellite radio, Internet radio and cable music stations pay a fair performance royalty, as so radio stations throughout the world."
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Tech Daily Dose does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
New Media
Online Politics
Tech Policy
Responded on May 20, 2009 1:59 PM
LW
Being a former musician I think that it would open up radio to stop playing the same song every 5 minutes. I think Sirius and XM will play a major role as they will get alot of new clients. I also think that its about time. I remember trying to get my bands songs on the radio and couldnt because I didnt have 10k to sit down with the DJ. This is ridiculas. I think radio should be open to all if you have good music to be played not just the ones who have money to grease the palms of DJ's. I really can't believe that they thought this would last with this erra of digital recordings and OTHER options. Things always change and I think its good for everyone.
Responded on May 1, 2009 3:57 PM
pilgrim
I notice there's an ongoing theme in National Journal/TDD's coverage of the "radio royalty" debate, and that is to characterize the current proposals as "ending an exemption" currently given to radio broadcasters. (E.g., "The bill, which would end AM and FM stations' exemption from paying copyright royalty fees to performers of the songs that grace their airwaves....") I'm afraid this mischaracterizes the nature of copyright law in the United States, both in its curent form and historically. Musical performers have never been granted a general "public performance" right under U.S. copyright law. Never. In the 1990s, Congress created a new right for musical performers - the right to perform their works publicly by means of digital audio transmission - but that's it. So the current proposals in Congress will not end an exemption or exception, but rather, they will grant musical performers a new, exclusive right in copyright law which U.S. law has never given them before -- that is, the exclusive...
Read More
I notice there's an ongoing theme in National Journal/TDD's coverage of the "radio royalty" debate, and that is to characterize the current proposals as "ending an exemption" currently given to radio broadcasters. (E.g., "The bill, which would end AM and FM stations' exemption from paying copyright royalty fees to performers of the songs that grace their airwaves....") I'm afraid this mischaracterizes the nature of copyright law in the United States, both in its curent form and historically. Musical performers have never been granted a general "public performance" right under U.S. copyright law. Never. In the 1990s, Congress created a new right for musical performers - the right to perform their works publicly by means of digital audio transmission - but that's it. So the current proposals in Congress will not end an exemption or exception, but rather, they will grant musical performers a new, exclusive right in copyright law which U.S. law has never given them before -- that is, the exclusive right to perform audio recordings publicly. To characterize this as ending some special exemption enjoyed by broadcasters is to frame the issue as musical performer lobbying groups would like it framed. It is no more accurate than the broadcsting industry's attempt to frame the proposal as a "tax." The proposals in Congress aren't a tax, either.
TDD readers would be well served if TDD could present the current round of public performance right debates free from the rhetorical spin preferred by either side in this ongoing debate.
Collapse