American Music Fairness Act

[TheBigA]

Variety posted a commentary from two Senators advocating the AMFA, calling radio "un-American:"

AM and FM Radio Do Not Pay Royalties to Artists — That’s Un-American: Guest Post by Senators Alex Padilla and Marsha Blackburn

The U.S. is the only major country where radio pays no royalties to artists or copyright owners. The American Radio Fairness Act aims to address that.

variety.com

What the music industry wants to do is impose a government regulated royalty on an industry without their input or representation. That's also un-American and could also be un-constitutional.

Radio's music royalty situation was established in the 1920s. The artists and labels didn't set up any structures at that time to collect royalties. In fact, SoundExchange wasn't established until the late 90s. Most radio stations pay royalties to artists through SoundExchange. All radio is asking for is representation in the discussion. The music industry refuses to negotiate. That's un-American.

 

[secondchoice]

If the artists read their record label contract, they will soon realize the record companies will get a lion's share of any payments. Also there is a problem with their math. With the state the industry is in it will be like "getting blood from a turnup". The serious money is still in touring. If you can't afford a back up band, work a deal with Ringo Starr's all star band.

 

[davideduardo]

If you can't afford a back up band, work a deal with Ringo Starr's all star band.

As a sidebar, we've seen the Ringo Starr show several times, and it was great fun. The idea of bringing in star musicians is great and entertaining.

 

[Larry]

The Variety commentary barely mentions the royalties that will be paid to performers and musicians. I wonder if this bill would pass much more easily if additional royalties only went to recording artists and not to record labels.

 

[TheBigA]

The Variety commentary barely mentions the royalties that will be paid to performers and musicians. I wonder if this bill would pass much more easily if additional royalties only went to recording artists and not to record labels.

Keep in mind that the group promoting this act is paid for by RIAA. They represent the record labels.

 

[Larry]

Keep in mind that the group promoting this act is paid for by RIAA. They represent the record labels.

Yep. And I’m sure the Variety piece emphasized the recording artists and demphasized the record labels because it’s difficult to conjure up sympathy for the record labels.

 

[TheBigA]

Yep. And I’m sure the Variety piece emphasized the recording artists and demphasized the record labels because it’s difficult to conjure up sympathy for the record labels.

The Variety piece was written by the two Senators. It's also difficult to conjure up sympathy for the artists who fly in private jets and make billions of dollars while they jack up ticket prices to their shows. The poor artists don't get radio airplay, and there's nothing in this bill that would change that. This is about the rich getting richer. That's why they need politicians to plead their case.

 

[CTListener]

The Variety piece was written by the two Senators. It's also difficult to conjure up sympathy for the artists who fly in private jets and make billions of dollars while they jack up ticket prices to their shows. The poor artists don't get radio airplay, and there's nothing in this bill that would change that. This is about the rich getting richer. That's why they need politicians to plead their case.

Not every recording artist who gets heavy airplay is Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen. Most don't have the intangible "something" needed to become stadium-filling attractions and have to pack their schedules with dates at fairs and small auditoriums to make money. Some luck into opening-act status for the stars, but not the majority. In a fair world, no popular performer should have to tour year-round out of necessity. That they're not sharing in any of the ad revenue that radio gets for using their music is wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Not every recording artist who gets heavy airplay is Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen. Most don't have the intangible "something" needed to become stadium-filling attractions and have to pack their schedules with dates at fairs and small auditoriums to make money. Some luck into opening-act status for the stars, but not the majority. In a fair world, no popular performer should have to tour year-round out of necessity. That they're not sharing in any of the ad revenue that radio gets for using their music is wrong.

The point is that radio is still responsible for a huge percentage of the exposure of people to music. Traditionally, going back to the 30's at least, the record industry has believed that radio gives more than it takes. In fact, they, the record companies, have often and consistently rewarded radio with free concert appearances, promotional items and even clandestine payments to play their product.

I can't tell you how many times I have had to "eject" record promoters from my office or building because they made improper or illegal offers. If they wanted my airplay that badly, why should they be paid to do them a favor?

Whatever the amount of radio rights payments, the proceeds will always be given out proportionally based on airplay. Artists with one or two moderate hits will no even be able to buy a new guitar or keyboard while the superstars will be buying Porsches and flying private jets.

 

[Kelly A]

This is about the rich getting richer. That's why they need politicians to plead their case.

And...who contribute to the political campaign coffers.

 

[TheBigA]

Not every recording artist who gets heavy airplay is Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen.

It doesn't matter. If you're getting airplay on the radio, you're reaching more people than someone who just put his song on the internet. It's a more targeted form of airplay. That can help artists get sponsorships that other artists. So while radio may not pay artists directly, the airplay they receive gets them commercial sponsorships that could exceed an airplay royalty. I just today received a press release from an artist who has 3 #1 songs, and he now has a major sponsorship.

 

[TheBigA]

That they're not sharing in any of the ad revenue that radio gets for using their music is wrong.

The basis for what is called a "performance royalty" is the creator of the music. The courts have determined that the songwriters are the creators. The artists are interpreters. So the writers receive 100% royalties, or a percentage of ad revenue. It's a negotiated royalty, not one set by the government (which is what AMFA would do). Artists can easily become writers of their own songs and claim a portion of that 100% royalty. Taylor & Morgan get that. So to say radio isn't sharing "any of the ad revenue" is untrue.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I can't tell you how many times I have had to "eject" record promoters from my office or building because they made improper or illegal offers. If they wanted my airplay that badly, why should they be paid to do them a favor?

This brings up an interesting question. How much of this payola now goes on at Spotify, Amazon, Apple Music etc.? I don't think there are even laws or regulations against it like there are for broadcast radio, right? How long before big music is dictating everything that gets force-fed to subscribers on those platforms, if it isn't already?

 

[TheBigA]

This brings up an interesting question. How much of this payola now goes on at Spotify, Amazon, Apple Music etc.? I don't think there are even a laws or regulations against it like there are for broadcast radio, right?

Correct. Payola laws only apply to broadcast radio. The US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws.

In the debate over this royalty, the RIAA offered to provide a discount for certain music (primarily new releases). They had to withdraw the offer when told that constituted payola.

 

[CTListener]

Correct. Payola laws only apply to broadcast radio. The US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws.

That's how SiriusXM can turn entire channels that normally play a wide variety of artists and songs into virtual roadside memorials for recently deceased superstars for up to a week. Soul Street, for example, played nothing but Aretha Franklin and Tina Turner for several days after their deaths. One day is fine. Beyond that is less an added benefit for listeners and more a way for Tina and Aretha's labels to spur sales of catalog product while enriching SXM Corporate.

 

[davideduardo]

Correct. Payola laws only apply to broadcast radio. The US is the only country in the free world that has payola laws.

A whole "bunch" of Latin American nations have commercial bribery regulations and laws which can be applied to this situation. Payola falls under the category of employee theft, as, by definition, it is paid airplay where the owner did not receive the payment and an unauthorized employee did.

In the debate over this royalty, the RIAA offered to provide a discount for certain music (primarily new releases). They had to withdraw the offer when told that constituted payola.

That does not make sense, as the RIAA offer was to station owners. Payola is theft by an employee of station services.

 

[TheBigA]

That does not make sense, as the RIAA offer was to station owners. Payola is theft by an employee of station services.

In the context of sponsorship disclosure, the law doesn't specify employee or station. If the station receives money, service, or valuable consideration in exchange for airplay, it must be disclosed. So that would require a radio station to announce the royalty discount adjacent to the airplay of every new release that qualified under the discount.

47 U.S. Code § 317 - Announcement of payment for broadcast

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[TheBigA]

That's how SiriusXM can turn entire channels that normally play a wide variety of artists and songs into virtual roadside memorials for recently deceased superstars for up to a week.

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) prevents a digital radio station such as Sirius from playing more than 4 songs within a three hour period by one artist. In order to create a memorial station or a dedicated artist channel, they must obtain a waiver from the copyright holder, which is usually the record label. Obtaining that waiver can then lead to conversations about marketing. You know the rest.

 

[davideduardo]

In the context of sponsorship disclosure, the law doesn't specify employee or station. If the station receives money, service, or valuable consideration in exchange for airplay, it must be disclosed.

That is sponsor ID. Failing by the licensee to indicate who paid for an ad is a common cause for fines and notices from the FCC. Since payola is not a licensee infraction, the issue become employee theft under the law.

So that would require a radio station to announce the royalty discount adjacent to the airplay of every new release that qualified under the discount.

47 U.S. Code § 317 - Announcement of payment for broadcast

www.law.cornell.edu

Those are rules that we call "Sponsor ID" which requires that the sponsor be identified, either through a well-known brand name or the company name. When it applies to politics, whether the sponsor is a candidate's own committee, a PAC or other entity, there must be the equivalent of "Sponsored by (name)" in the message.

 

[TheBigA]

That is sponsor ID. Failing by the licensee to indicate who paid for an ad is a common cause for fines and notices from the FCC. Since payola is not a licensee infraction, the issue become employee theft under the law.

Sponsor ID is part of payola. By definition, payola is payment without disclosure. So it's both, when done by an employee or station. A station or company would be equally liable under payola law for failing to disclose. The FCC treats payola as a violation of sponsor ID rules. Call it whatever you want. What the RIAA was offering was illegal.