• 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

I think the ire here is primarily directed at the major radio conglomerates (iHeart, Audacy, etc.) But it could also be public, local independent stand-alones, LPFM and College stations soaked in the backwash of this too.

But realistically, where does radio go when there is no more licensed music to play?

Go Talk? Sports? Religious sermons? Or hope to heaven "I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen" makes a comeback?
 
Bongwater said:
I think the ire here is primarily directed at the major radio conglomerates (iHeart, Audacy, etc.)
Click to expand...

The funny part of that is those major conglomerates would pay the royalty if it was done in a fair way. The big companies are not the ones who oppose this royalty. I've sat in a room with the real opposition, and they are all the small single station owners, particularly the ones who are not chart reporters, who don't get any service from record labels. They're the ones who will quit the NAB and change formats or even shut down their stations if a royalty is imposed.

Bongwater said:
But realistically, where does radio go when there is no more licensed music to play?
Click to expand...

That's a complicated statement, because the music is licensed now. The current law only requires licensing by publishers, and radio gets those licenses every year. In fact, if the AMFA gets passed, the losers will be the songwriters, because radio stations will play less music, and writers will make less money. That is a given. Songwriters now get 100% of the royalties paid by radio. The new law would change that.

Beyond that, where does radio go? To court. Because the AMFA as written would require a royalty even if a station goes to talk or news to cover what it calls "incidental music." They want to get paid regardless of what radio does. They want to control what gets played and how it gets played. This is why the NAB is saying they want to negotiate. If you read the statement from the NAB, he isn't opposed to the royalty, but he's opposed to this particular Act because broadcasters were not involved in writing it. It's an unfair law that's unfair to radio, unfair to songwriters, and unfair to the public. The only people the act is fair for ar the global music conglomerates who are paying the costs of getting it passed.
 
The CEO of the NAB says he hasn't heard anything from the music industry about his offer to discuss their new music royalty:

www.insideradio.com

NAB Says It Hasn’t Heard A Peep From Music Industry Over Its Offer To Restart Royalty Talks.

It’s said that no response is a response, and in the case of the radio industry’s request to restart negotiations with the music industry over the ongoing radio royalty fight,
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

In my view, the reason is because they aren't interested in discussions or negotiations. They want compliance. They've presented their AMFA to congress, and that's it. Which is why there has been no progress on this issue in 80 years.

The other problem is who would be authorized to discuss with the NAB? MusicFirst is a subsidiary of the RIAA, which is run by the major record labels. It doesn't represent the artists (other than those under contract) and doesn't represent musicians.
 
www.insideradio.com

Music Industry Takes Its Radio Royalty Case To The FCC.

The music industry is expanding its campaign to enact a performance royalty for broadcast radio to include the FCC. In a letter to the Commission dated March 24, the RIAA-backed
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

Here is another one


The music industry is expanding its campaign to enact a performance royalty for broadcast radio to include the Federal Communications Commission. In a letter to the Commission dated March 24, the RIAA-backed musicFirst Coalition says arguments used by the National Association of Broadcasters to justify a proposed relaxation of radio ownership rules directly contradict its rationale in trying to block passage of proposed American Music Fairness Act (H.R. 4130).

“In fighting the AMFA, the NAB continues to claim airplay has ‘promotional value’ that eliminates the need for radio broadcasters to pay recording artists for the music the stations use to derive millions of advertising dollars,” musicFirst attorney Neil Fried says in the letter. “But even the NAB’s own arguments before the FCC are showing the flaws with its promotion claim.”

The arguments the letter refers to are part of the NAB’s stance in fighting for both relaxed ownership rules and passage of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (H.R. 1735), which would give news media outlets, including TV and radio stations and newspapers, an antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate better financial terms with the big tech companies.
Click to expand...
 
So the rep for Music First Joe Crowley did an interview with Inside Radio, addressing this proposal, and the big news is they will not negotiate on the main issue. The big sticking point from what I've heard is radio wants a discount on streaming. Crowley says no deal. They want full rate on radio, and full rate on streaming. That's unfair. The songwriters give radio a discount on streaming because they receive 100% of the broadcast royalty. Crowley says no discount. Radio stations say that's paying for the same music twice. So I think this is dead in the water. Completely. Radio won't pay if it gets nothing in return, and that's what they would get.

www.insideradio.com

Music Industry’s Willing To Talk, But Says Royalty Deal That Discounts Streaming Rates Is A No-Go.

Despite a tight election year timetable, the music industry expects “increased activity” this summer on legislation that would create a performance royalty on radio airplay. After walking away from the
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

The fact of the matter is Crowley's biggest problem is with small single station owners, not big corporate radio. The single station owners are pretty united against this royalty. They have threatened to quit the NAB and stop playing music over this issue. The small station owners don't care about the rate. Crowley offered them a low base rate. But the small owners heard that before with digital. What began as a minimum payment has increased geometrically over the last 20 years. The owners say "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." So unless the royalty exempts small owners, it's dead.

Also, to be clear, while Crowley talks all the time about artists, he does not represent artists. MusicFirst is a subsidiary of the RIAA, which represents the major record labels. The artists don't care about radio royalties because only a small percentage of them get played anyway. Most of those who do also write their songs. So they get songwriting royalties. They know radio airplay helps puts fans in concert seats. That also applies to classic artists who don't have current hits. Their main income is from touring, so airplay keeps them top of mind.
 
Last edited:
boombox4 said:
Out of business?
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely. My take is that they're all bluffing. They know that, other than sports, there's nothing they can put on a full market FM signal that will attract listeners and advertisers the way music does, and in most markets there's only room for one sports station. So if, somehow, the Fairness Act passes, the music station owners will either bite the bullet and fork over the fees or sell their stations to someone who will. Better for the owners of a top-rated AC, CHR or country station to cash out early than die a slow, painful death doing dollar-a-holler religion or geezer talk.
 
Really? Owners could care less if it's a music format or dollar a holler religion or geezer talk. If it breaks even or pulls some profit is what matters. The owner sure isn't thinking they'll lose money in order to do a music format because paying the bills with anything else is below them. They're thinking 'end the red ink ASAP by any means needed'. If that push ever comes, the owner will always opt for profit versus content.
 
The problem is that the way the law is written, there's still a fee for what they call "incidental music." That means bumper music in talk shows, bed music in advertising, and anything else that's not strictly spoken word. So there's no way out. If you're a radio station, they want your money.
 
Back to the artists, since that's at the core of Crowley's appeal, if you're an artist who is getting airplay on OTA radio, you're in a very different class from artists who are only getting heard online. The radio stars tend to be bigger than the streaming-only stars. In other words, they are celebrities. It opens the door for them to merchandise that celebrity in ways that songwriters can't. One example is Blake Shelton. He makes way more money from The Voice than anything he does in music. And Blake wasn't that big a star when he started on The Voice ten years ago. Some of these stars write books or come out with their own line of whiskey. They use those things to fund other aspects of their career that make more money. So don't feel bad about the poor artists. The artists who are poor now will remain poor even if this royalty happens, because they don't get airplay on the radio. So they would not benefit from a royalty.
 
In addition to this bill put forth by the music industry, there is a new bill being proposed by Detroit Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Her bill is specifically aimed at musicians. Currently, they receive 1% of the royalty under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apparently Rep. Tlaib is seeking more money for musicians:

www.yahoo.com

Streaming royalties are broken, Rashida Tlaib thinks Congress can fix them

There’s never been an easy time to be a musician, but for many in and around the industry, the 21st century has presented one calamity after another for those hoping to make a living through music. The turn of the century saw record labels implode at a staggering rate, and it would be some time...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
There will be a final attempt to get the "unfairness" royalty bill passed during the lame duck session:

www.insideradio.com

House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler To Lead Radio Royalty Push In Lame Duck Session.

Despite the fact that a majority of House members are on record opposing a public performance royalty on free, over-the-air radio, the RIAA and musicFirst are still pushing for a
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

If you notice, the bill only has support from a handful of music-related states, such as NY, CA, MI, and TN. The rest don't care.

If it fails, they will have to start from scratch once a new Congress is sworn in.
 
This week, the "unfairness" royalty bill will move to the markup phase in the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the committee, but that's how it goes.

www.insideradio.com

Radio Royalty Bill Heads For Markup Session In House Judiciary Committee.

The House Judiciary Committee announced late Friday that it will hold a markup of the American Music Fairness Act on Wednesday, Dec. 7. But with more than 250 bipartisan cosponsors
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

Members of the committee are mostly from larger states, such as NY, CA, and TX, so it's possible that the bill might get passed by this committee. The larger states seem to support this bill, while the smaller states don't. That may be why it's in this committee.

The content of this bill was written by the recording industry without any input from radio. The head of MusicFirst, former congressman Joe Crowley, has said that they will not compromise on any aspect of this bill. It's their way or the highway.
 
As the House Judiciary Committee meets to consider a new royalty bill. the head of the NAB calls for negotiations to work out a deal that both sides could support:

www.insideradio.com

LeGeyt Calls On Record Industry To Work With Radio On ‘Comprehensive’ Royalty Approach.

As the House Judiciary Committee considers the American Music Fairness Act this afternoon during a markup hearing, the NAB is chiding the music industry for repeatedly rebuffing radio industry efforts
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

The RIAA's MusicFirst group has continually refused any negotiations, preferring to force their bill through congress.

About 11 years ago, the NAB put together a proposal that would provide a royalty for artists that was similar to what radio currently pays songwriters. The offer was refused, and since then, there have been no further discussions. Since then, iHeart worked out a voluntary deal with several independent labels that pays them a royalty based on airplay.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom