• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

American Music Fairness Act

Here we go again. Every two years, Congress brings up imposing a new music royalty on broadcast radio. The latest one is called the American Music Fairness Act:

https://news.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=b16729

What they don't ever talk about is why this situation exists in the first place. Back in the 1920s and 30s, record companies in every other country set up structures where the artists and labels would get paid for airplay. However, in the US, record labels tried to prevent radio from playing recorded music. Then, once they saw the benefits to free airplay, they started bribing radio stations to play their music. That led Congress to pass payola laws that are supposed to prevent any exchange of money or favors between radio & records. Nobody would have cared about royalties except in the 80s and 90s, the major labels were sold to foreign conglomerates in France, Germany, and Japan. There, labels & artists receive a royalty. So now, the corporate owners in other countries want to get the same thing here. Except it's 80 years too late, and we already have laws that make this kind of thing subject to payola laws.

As a result, year after year, this issue comes up, and nothing happens. It doesn't even make it out of committee. But they do it anyway, because the people in congress have to make it look like they're doing something. We all know better.
 
Back in the 1920s and 30s, record companies in every other country set up structures where the artists and labels would get paid for airplay. However, in the US, record labels tried to prevent radio from playing recorded music.
I thought the blame for that went to the musicians' unions.
 
I thought the blame for that went to the musicians' unions.
The musicians union did not "intervene" in the issue until Pertillo became the national head of the union in the later 30's. Initially, the issue was between the record labels and radio; the labels did not "get" the fact that occasional airplay actually pushed sales. Later, they would see the light and pay radio personalities and programmers to play the songs as often as they could.

 
I should point out that ten years ago, the NAB offered a 2% deal to MusicFirst and it was turned down. They want to get a performance right empowered by law. Good luck getting anything passed by congress.

Around that time, Clear Channel made its own deal with several US-based labels to pay a percentage of airplay revenue in exchange for an equal discount on streaming royalties. They offered the same deal to the major labels and were turned down.
 
Yeah, but this time it's different. According to the story in the buzz feed section, they had the ultra hip and trendy Dionne Warwick there to pull for this as well!
A lot of Senators would know her more than Megan Thee Stallion. And she is far less likely to twerk them if she becomes annoyed.
 
Yeah, but this time it's different. According to the story in the buzz feed section, they had the ultra hip and trendy Dionne Warwick there to pull for this as well!


She's been at this same press conference for the last ten years.

Here's a link to a story from 2010:


She was wrong then, and she's wrong now. Broadcasters pay what the law requires. They pay artists for streaming royalties.

The main beneficiaries for this royalty are the record labels. And they're based in France and Japan.
 
She's been at this same press conference for the last ten years.
Here's a link to a story from 2010:
Ooh, that's actually about 11 years. First, kudos to her for fighting for what she believes in and for her industry, but second - Wonder if anyone thought to put together a "through the years" photo collage so we can see how she's held up through her various appearances on The Hill.
 
I got this in an email yesterday:


It's summertime! Whether you are on a road trip or at a barbecue, we hope you are enjoying your favorite tunes on your local radio station. But if the big foreign-owned record labels get their way, the music could stop. They want Congress to tax radio simply for airing and promoting artists' music. This means less music for you and fewer jobs for your community. Act now to tell Congress to support local radio!

ACT NOW

The Local Radio Freedom Act has been introduced in the House and Senate opposing a performance tax on local radio stations. Please take action today and encourage your members of Congress to support this legislation, or thank them if they have already joined as one of the nearly 200 cosponsors.

Our records indicate that you have provided us with your email address
in order to be an advocate for local TV and radio.

© 2021 National Association of Broadcasters, 1 M Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003

------------------------------------------------------------------

I give this for perspective. Personally, I have not enjoyed popular music on radio in decades. The "Top 200" is way to narrow for my experience in popular music.
 
MusicFirst will hold a press conference on Monday. They believe they are in a "battle with radio:"


The fact is that radio pays for the music it plays. It pays SoundExchange, it pays BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, GMR, and anyone else.

This is a made up battle by a group of people who are trying to justify their existence and raise money.

My first question to Joe would be: "Why did MusicFirst turn down the offer of a royalty from the NAB ten years ago?"

My second question to Joe would be: "Why does MusicFirst and the major labels refuse the offer of a royalty from iHeart. Several US based labels, such as Big Machine and a few others have been getting paid for years. But the labels from France and Japan refuse.

My third question is: Why won't MusicFirst negotiate with the NAB?

If the current recording artists and record labels feel they're being treated unfairly, all they have to do is ask us not to play their music on the radio. We will gladly comply.
 
Here's more detail on Monday's PC. It goes into detail about what MusicFirst REALLY wants:


The real opposition for their idea isn't from the big radio companies. iHeart, Audacy, Cumulus, and Beasley are already paying SoundExchange, and would gladly enter into a deal similar to what they have with BMI and ASCAP, where they get a discount for online royalties because they pay for broadcast. But MusicFirst objected to that.

The REAL opposition to the MusicFirst royalty comes from the small radio owners. They were the ones who threatened to quit the NAB ten years ago when the first deal was proposed. MusicFirst will try to turn this into a battle with corporate radio, but that is total BS. Small radio owners don't want to pay any more, and they see this as a money-grab by billionaires who fly in private jets.

In the meantime, Congress won't touch this issue, won't even bring it to the floor for debate, until both sides come to an agreement and give them a deal everyone will approve. We're a very long way from that now, and any poll that they present is totally irrelevant.
 
MusicFirst's Joe Crowley held his press conference today, and presented his in-house poll to push a new radio royalty:


This is not something that gets decided by popular vote. The public won't pay for a new music royalty. Advertisers will. They should poll advertisers and ask if they would pay an 8% surcharge to cover music royalties. One question missing from MusicFirst's poll: Do people know that 90% of the music they hear is owned by foreign companies based in France and Japan. I bet very few people know that.
 
Here's more of the NAB's response to Joe Crowley's press conference:

https://news.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=b16818

In this article, the NAB talks about a "holistic solution" to this. As background, ten years ago the NAB, in collaboration with the ten largest radio companies at the time, proposed that radio pay a percentage of revenue, but also receive a discount on digital royalties, similar to the arrangement radio has with the songwriting PROs. That proposal was rejected, and MusicFirst then said it would continue to pursue a federal royalty right, similar to the arrangement it received under the DMCA, that would be administered by the Copyright Royalty Board, and would involve increases every three years. Also at the time, a number of small radio stations quit the NAB over this proposal, saying it was not in the best interest of radio.

As you can see, the two side are very far apart, and that's why congress wants nothing to do with this entire thing. There are a handful of members who represent music industry states (CA, NY, MI, TN, LA) who support MusicFirst's law. But then there's the rest of the country, that has no interest in the music industry, and is often ignored by the music industry, that don't approve of this royalty.
 
Rep. Jerry Nadler, a longtime supporter of this new royalty, has scheduled a hearing in congress:


As I've said, there are a handful of reps who represent music industry states who support this. But not enough to even get this passed by a committee, much less to the floor of the house.
 
Supporters of AMFA want to meet with the heads of iHeart and Cumulus ahead of this week's congressional hearing:


The thing this group doesn't understand is that both of these companies pay millions to artists for streaming royalties. The real opposition to this royalty is not the big radio companies, but rather the hundreds of small radio companies. The opposition isn't only about the money, but about all of the additional paperwork, bureaucracy, and rules involved. That's the hidden expense.
 
There will be a hearing today on this royalty proposal, and here's the NAB's position:


It's true. Twelve years ago, the NAB offered a compromise proposal to MusicFirst, and it was rejected. There have been no alternatives proposed. The music industry wants Congress to impose a new royalty on radio with no negotiation. That's unacceptable, and we know that Congress won't do it.
 
Here is the prepared opening statement from the NAB President about the proposed royalty:

https://news.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=b16939
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom