-
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
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
The view presented here is that artists are also creators, as are musicians who played on the song. Music today is more complicated than simply playing the words & notes on a page. For the past 60 years, there have been many advances in the studio, and a lot of the music has become a product of the studio than strictly conveying a song. Of course that begs the question why the artist doesn't demand composition credit, and if fact some do. Elvis may have been one of the first to do it.
Left out of course is the record label, and under this new act, they would get 50% of any new royalty. They claim this right because of their investment in and ownership of the recording.
But you pay "upfront" to the electrician. You don't pay upfront or as you go for musicians.
I thought radio airplay is considered free publicity for the musicians and labels, which leads to greater record/tape/CD/whatever sales.
It still is, but the creators and publishers of the music realize what a desperate situation radio would be in without music, so now they're pushing for as big a slice as they feel they can get. I have a feeling radio is fighting this, but can't afford to have stations go dark or stuff the FM band with talk-based programming if Congress passes the Act and the president signs it into law. Passage is a worst-case scenario for radio, but in the end radio would have no choice but to capitulate.
Depends on who you ask. Physical product sales isn't as big a factor as it once was. But airplay does drive a lot of activity, such as concert attendance.
This new act will still charge talk stations for what they call "incidental music." The goal of the law is to force radio stations to all pay something, and then come back every few years with a new increase. Just as they do with streaming royalties.
This has long been my belief as well. However, physical music sales have largely given way to streaming which doesn't require promotion from radio to sell product. And huge segments of commercial radio have devolved into playing such painfully old and exceedingly familiar music that there seems to be little promotional benefit to the artists any more in terms of new music discovery via big radio.
On the other hand I believe the copyright laws that were originally intended to protect artists have been corrupted and exploited by big money interests who siphon off the lion's share of proceeds that should rightfully go to the creators. With music of course this means the labels that keep most of the money while throwing fractions of pennies to the artists.
The bottom line is there's no one to really root for in this money chase, unless you want to cheer on the major labels who will be the big winners yet again if their incessant political "lobbying" (a.k.a. bribery) finally pays off.
I think that's a big part of why this never gets passed, even though they've tried for many years. It's obvious why it helps the big music states, such as NY, CA. MI, FL, and TN. But it's harder to justify to someone from Iowa or Indiana. The rest of the story is that the two biggest record labels are no longer based in the US. So this ends up being more money for foreign companies.
As expected, the bill passed in the committee. There was an amendment to the bill, and that will be attached when the bill advances to the floor of the full house. No telling if or when the bill will come up for discussion. Over 250 members have already signed on to oppose such a bill if it comes up for a vote. Republican Jim Jordan said that it's very unlikely to pass the full house. We'll see what happens. Time is running out...only a few weeks left before this congress is over.
www.insideradio.com
Performance Royalty Bill Advances To House Floor.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance the American Music Fairness Act to the full House today. If adopted, the proposed legislation would require radio stations to pay performance royalties
But of course "incidental music" is optional.
You could operate a talk format with no music whatsoever, or "music for hire" akin to jingle packages where the copyright is owned by the broadcaster.
Music in commercials...
You could, but you will still be liable for the minimum charge. There are no exceptions.
That's just one part of what makes this bill unfair.
More details on yesterday's vote on AMFA.
www.insideradio.com
It's up to Pelosi if they will hold a full house vote.
Radio Royalty Bill Moves Forward, But Congress Hopes To Find Compromise In 2023.
Despite a recognition that the odds are slim that a bill to mandate a performance royalty on radio will make it through Congress during the final weeks of the lame
It's up to Pelosi if they will hold a full house vote.
It would be up to the advertiser to pay the cost of using copyrighted/ASCAP/BMI music in their commercials. But lots of commercials are now straight VO. For those that do require background music, there are production libraries available to both radio and agencies containing original, commercial-length beds that can be used without incurring royalty fees for airplay.
Doesn't matter. Every radio station will be compelled to pay something if this new royalty takes effect.
The royalty is based on revenue, not format.
That's kind of what this is. Because even talk shows play clips of recorded music from time to time. The question is would you like to pay a small fee every year, or get sued for $50,000 for every time you play a licensed song? Think of it like insurance. Pay them now or pay them a whole lot more later.
I can't find this in the bill anywhere, nor in any of the NAB material. So, please explain how this can be.
I can't find anything in the bill that exempts talk formats. The royalty is based on revenue, not format.
The exemption is here:
No performance = no royalty.
No performance = no royalty.
- Status