American Music Fairness Act

[TheBigA]

This is the kind of endless legal action radio stations have to look forward to if congress enacts the AMFA:

Radio And SoundExchange Sing Similar Tune In Court: CRB Rates Should Be Tossed Out.

Broadcasters and SoundExchange may not agree on how much radio stations should pay for using music in webcasts, but they can agree on one thing – the Copyright Royalty Board

www.insideradio.com

Nobody is ever happy with the rates. The one thing they agree on is that the Copyright Royalty Board is the wrong way to go. The bad news is that AMFA uses the CRB to decide rates. Bad idea. Radio wants to negotiate rates as we do with songwriters.

 

[davideduardo]

I thought this was obvious, but artists are members of the musicians union. So the union took the side of the artists, such as Paul Whiteman, in legal fights against radio. Otherwise the artists would have no representation.

In general, though, the union under Petrillo, was concerned about the rank and file. He defended live music in smaller markets where radio stations wanted to use recorded music. Petrillo's statements indicated he was mostly concerned about the "working musician" and not the big bands at the big venues which would have live music no matter what.

The biggest issue with radio in the later 30's and through the 40's was to require stations to have "house bands", even in the smaller markets. The "big bands" with recording contracts and radio shows were a different issue and were the cause of Petrillo's prohibition of all new recordings in the middle of WW II.

It was not, in fact, until Petrillo lost much of his power towards the end of the 40's and early 50's that Storz and McLendon could do "Top 40" recorded music formats.

 

[TheBigA]

It was not, in fact, until Petrillo lost much of his power towards the end of the 40's and early 50's that Storz and McLendon could do "Top 40" recorded music formats.

The forerunner of that was WNEW's Make Believe Ballroom. Bandleader Paul Whiteman filed suit against WNEW because they played his records the same night as his live radio show on NBC. He lost. He appealed, and he lost again. By playing recorded music, radio stations were not creating copies. Therefore no copyright infringement.

 

[davideduardo]

The forerunner of that was WNEW's Make Believe Ballroom. Bandleader Paul Whiteman filed suit against WNEW because they played his records the same night as his live radio show on NBC. He lost. He appealed, and he lost again. By playing recorded music, radio stations were not creating copies. Therefore no copyright infringement.

While related, that was not an issue of the union. WNEW at the time complied with the union's requirements at other times of the day. This was a recording artist who got no money for the playing of his music on the radio and who felt that such airplay hurt his live, paid performances.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio Business Report did a story that it's likely the AMFA is dead because it's not included in the omnibus spending bill. It appears that the omnibus will be the last piece of legislation that will be voted on, and according to this CNN summary, the AMFA is not included:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/20/politics/spending-bill-congress-omnibus/index.html

 

[TheBigA]

We now have a new congress, the 118th, so without any delay, they've jumped to reintroduce the AMFA:

Music Industry Tries Again, Hoping New Congress Will Solve Old Radio Royalty Standoff.

Despite the failure of previous efforts to change federal copyright laws and require royalties to be paid on AM/FM airplay, the music industry is giving it another try. Supports of

www.insideradio.com

I may be missing something, but I see no changes in the new bill. The last bill never got to the floor for a vote. Once again, they're going to try and force this down the throats of US radio stations, rather than get input and support from the people who will have to pay this new royalty. This has been basically a big state vs small state battle. The music producing states like NY, CA, MI, TN, and FL support it, while the smaller states don't.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

We now have a new congress, the 118th, so without any delay, they've jumped to reintroduce the AMFA

Seems the strategy is to put it out there every time and hope it somehow makes it through eventually. Does anyone really expect to see the divided Congress pass anything at all this term though, never mind this royalty bill?

 

[TheBigA]

Here we go again. iHeart announces its Q4 earnings, and Joe Crowley attacks them for not paying artists:

https://radioink.com/2023/03/01/on-cue-crowley-criticizes-iheart/

The fact of the matter is that iHeart pays artists a lot of money. They pay SoundExchange millions in streaming royalties. They pay artists directly when they perform on company festivals. And they have a voluntary royalty program that pays any artist who registers. To be fair, the AM/FM side of iHeart isn't the part that's responsible for all the growth. The growth is in digital, and that's where the artists are getting paid. I wonder where Joe Crowley will be when the radio-only companies announce their earnings, and they're not as rosy as iHeart's.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

And they have a voluntary royalty program that pays any artist who registers.

Really? Seems to be talking out both sides of one's mouth to do this, and also oppose the AMFA.

 

[TheBigA]

Really? Seems to be talking out both sides of one's mouth to do this, and also oppose the AMFA.

Can you find me a quote from anyone at iHeartRadio saying they oppose AMFA?

 

[Larry]

I wonder what the reaction would be if someone proposed amending the AMFA to require radio stations pay royalties to artists but remove the part of AMFA that proposes paying royalties to record companies?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Can you find me a quote from anyone at iHeartRadio saying they oppose AMFA?

The source is, in fact, Congressman Crowley. He writes that iHeart is sending their lobbyists to oppose the bill.

If that is not true, Bob Pittman or other iHeart executives should correct the record.

 

[TheBigA]

The source is, in fact, Congressman Crowley. He writes that iHeart is sending their lobbyists to oppose the bill.

You believe him? Really? He also says iHeart doesn't pay artists. Clearly, he has no idea, and he's just reading talking points.

Do some research on this issue. Twelve years ago, the NAB, with the support of the biggest radio companies, offered a voluntary royalty to artists, and it was refused by MusicFirst. They don't care about artists getting paid. They want congress to give them a right. That's all they care about.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

You believe him? Really? He also says iHeart doesn't pay artists. Clearly, he has no idea, and he's just reading talking points.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, yes.
Also, you are the only source I've seen for this "voluntary royalty program". I went looking for this on Google and could not find anything, except as relates to iHeart's streaming platform, where such royalty payments are required by law.

To be very honest, yes, I believe the Congressman more than you.

Do some research on this issue. Twelve years ago, the NAB, with the support of the biggest radio companies, offered a voluntary royalty to artists, and it was refused by MusicFirst. They don't care about artists getting paid. They want congress to give them a right. That's all they care about.

Are you referring to the one where the NAB offered a 1% royalty, and that royalty rate only took effect upon Congressional legislation being enacted and 75% of mobile phones had an FM tuner? Summarized here

Because that proposal was never a serious one. You constantly rail against MusicFirst for refusing to negotiate with the NAB, but they, in fact, did negotiate for much of the 2010s and the NAB wasn't willing to meet them 1/8th of the way, much less halfway. So they've changed their focus to using the force of law to get their way.

 

[TheBigA]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, yes.

He's a lobbyist himself. He's not a congressman. He works for the RIAA.

Also, you are the only source I've seen for this "voluntary royalty program". I went looking for this on Google and could not find anything, except as relates to iHeart's streaming platform, where such royalty payments are required by law.

Here are two links:

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/06/13/154871444/clear-channel-will-be-the-first-to-pay-royalties-for-music-on-its-air

Clear Channel-Warner Music Deal Rewrites the Rules on Royalties (Published 2013)

Clear Channel will pay royalties for the first time to performers and a record label when songs are played on its radio stations. In return for the record label, Warner Music, will discount the high cost to stream music online.

www.nytimes.com

Read what Pittman says. This isn't someone who is opposed to paying artists.

Because that proposal was never a serious one.

It was a proposal. MusicFirst wants a legislated royalty, and this was a counter. From there, you negotiate, and MusicFirst responded by saying: We only want a legislated royalty with the CRB setting the rate. The NAB already knows what that is, because radio uses that system for streaming. The NAB today only wants one thing: A negotiated royalty, similar to what radio has with the PROs, with a discount for stations that also stream. Crowley says no. Our way or the highway. So that's where things stand now.

 

[TheBigA]

The senate has introduced its version of the Local Radio Freedom Act in opposition to AMFA:

Senate Resolution Opposing Radio Royalty Introduced As House Version Adds 23 Cosponsors.

The annual NAB State Leadership Conference brought hundreds of broadcasters to Washington last week to meet with their local members of Congress. That effort is already paying off with the

www.insideradio.com

When you see the list of states that oppose AMFA it's very obvious where the battle lines are drawn. This is a big state vs small state battle. New York, California, Texas, and Florida want the royalty, while New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, Wyoming, and Montana are against it.

 

[CTListener]

The senate has introduced its version of the Local Radio Freedom Act in opposition to AMFA:

Senate Resolution Opposing Radio Royalty Introduced As House Version Adds 23 Cosponsors.

The annual NAB State Leadership Conference brought hundreds of broadcasters to Washington last week to meet with their local members of Congress. That effort is already paying off with the

www.insideradio.com

When you see the list of states that oppose AMFA it's very obvious where the battle lines are drawn. This is a big state vs small state battle. New York, California, Texas, and Florida want the royalty, while New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, Wyoming, and Montana are against it.

The radio industry must be very happy that the Senate gives equal voting clout to the largest and smallest of states. Even if AMFA somehow gets through the House on the strength of all the big states' votes (which it won't because some big states aren't major states for music recording and marketing), it will be squashed in the Senate, where Wyoming and Iowa count just as much as California and Tennessee. If getting legislation passed were done the same way electing a president is, AMFA would be a slam dunk.

 

[TheBigA]

It's important the NAB continues to lobby for this, because it keeps the debate active, and makes it clear that the only way to resolve this is by negotiation, which MusicFirst refuses to do. The best example is what we saw a few years ago with the Music Modernization Act. The music business came to congress with a completed bill that was agreed to by all stakeholders, and it was passed by congress. Everyone, including the NAB, supported the deal. As long as MusicFirst continues with its strategy of wanting to use congress to force its will on radio stations, it will continue to come up short.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Here's a fantastic piece on the music industry and streaming. It's not exactly related to the AMFA with respect to radio, but it's a compelling read that's tangentially connected anyway.

A couple of quotes:

"Consumers are pouring more than $12 billion dollars a year into music streaming services. From there it enters a dark, labyrinthine economy shaped by centuries-old laws and unchecked market power. When that money emerges out the other side and reaches artists, it has been reduced to fractions of pennies."

"Our ability to scrutinize that black box has been methodically and strategically hampered by the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). On its face, we don’t know much about what happens to that money. But what we do know is disconcerting, and what we can reverse engineer is outright alarming. The streaming and music industries are both breeding grounds for anti-competitive behavior. Astronomical licensing costs have squeezed the streaming market and created a world where music streaming is treated as a loss leader for the world’s wealthiest tech companies. Licensing deals are riddled with payola and other kickbacks, which maximize wealth for major labels while minimizing how much they have to pay out to artists."

https://publicknowledge.org/policy/streaming-in-the-dark-where-music-listeners-money-goes-and-doesnt

 

[TheBigA]

Here's a fantastic piece on the music industry and streaming. It's not exactly related to the AMFA with respect to radio, but it's a compelling read that's tangentially connected anyway.

It's an interesting article, but lives in an ideal world. The former music retail business, the one before digital, where hard product was trucked to music stores, was filled with a lot of the same unfair advantages for major labels or major distributors. The problems aren't new, just the names of the companies. But everyone wants to make money. The article only deals with recorded music, and doesn't include the live music business, where Ticketmaster reigns supreme. Yes it's a problem, and its all very complicated.