American Music Fairness Act

[davideduardo]

Sponsor ID is part of payola. By definition, payola is payment without disclosure.

... to a person who is not the owner and where that person is "paid" in the form of money or other consideration... and is a crime

Running a paid ad under contract with the station but where the listener is not advised of the sponsor is violation of FCC rules regarding sponsor ID and is a rule violation, not a crime.

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.

Here the disclosure has two different forms: to the owner in the case of payola where the employee takes money for station services, and to the listener in the case of lack of sponsor ID where there is no notice of who the sponsor is.

The FCC treats payola as a violation of sponsor ID rules.

But the station is vastly less responsible as discovery of payola is undocumented and hidden.

I did due diligence for the purchase of record label and part of the discovery revealed the names of PDs and DJs who received money from the label. The confidentiality of due diligence prevented us from taking action in regards to several PDs who worked for us.

Call it whatever you want. What the RIAA was offering was illegal.

It was interpreted as being illegal by lawyers involved. It was never taken to court.

 

[TheBigA]

It was interpreted as being illegal by lawyers involved. It was never taken to court.

One of the goals of having a lawyer is to keep from going to court. The point is that this was seen as illegal. When the head of the RIAA (who is also a lawyer) was told this, the idea was withdrawn and never offered again. However I can tell you that it is something that is done quite often in digital media, where the FCC disclosure and payola laws don't apply.

 

[davideduardo]

One of the goals of having a lawyer is to keep from going to court. The point is that this was seen as illegal. When the head of the RIAA (who is also a lawyer) was told this, the idea was withdrawn and never offered again. However I can tell you that it is something that is done quite often in digital media, where the FCC disclosure and payola laws don't apply.

But, in this case "Payola" does not apply since we are talking about documented deals with radio management and record industry associations.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

One of the goals of having a lawyer is to keep from going to court. The point is that this was seen as illegal. When the head of the RIAA (who is also a lawyer) was told this, the idea was withdrawn and never offered again. However I can tell you that it is something that is done quite often in digital media, where the FCC disclosure and payola laws don't apply.

The FTC needs to set equivalent rules for digital media then. Otherwise history tells us where it's headed.

 

[TheBigA]

But, in this case "Payola" does not apply since we are talking about documented deals with radio management and record industry associations.

Under the FCC definition, it applies. Read the rules. There was no 'documented deal' with the record industry because it was viewed as illegal. This was happening at a time when various states were conducting lengthy investigations into payola.

If you read the details of Elliot Spitzer's extensive payola investigation in New York State, the main area of interest was sponsorship ID, not individual payments. Yet it was all lumped under the general term of payola.

 

[TheBigA]

The FTC needs to set equivalent rules for digital media then. Otherwise history tells us where it's headed.

They might run afoul of the DMCA, that put the use of music under the auspices of the copyright holders. It really makes platforms powerless in the way they're allowed to use music. The music industry seeks to extend that authority to broadcast radio through AMFA. In that way, the word "fairness" is only seen from one side. That's not fair.

 

[CTListener]

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.

Then apparently SXM and the labels know the routine well and make contact before the corpses are cold. Wouldn't be surprised if the legal departments of the major labels are so used to this SXM gimmick that they initiate the contact and start talking money, because these temporary single-artist channels sometimes pop up less than 48 hours after the star passes on.

 

[Larry]

Wouldn't be surprised if the legal departments of the major labels are so used to this SXM gimmick that they initiate the contact and start talking money, because these temporary single-artist channels sometimes pop up less than 48 hours after the star passes on.

They probably already have contracts in place with the major labels (possibly excluding certain artists) so they don’t have to enter into a quickie contract everytime someone passes away.

 

[TheBigA]

They probably already have contracts in place with the major labels (possibly excluding certain artists) so they don’t have to enter into a quickie contract everytime someone passes away.

The main thing is a waiver for the DMCA. Sirius is very careful about that. In the case of Tina Turner, most of her solo music was on United Artists, EMI, and Capitol. All three are now controlled by Universal. My understanding is that they can only get so many waivers in a calendar year.

 

[CTListener]

The main thing is a waiver for the DMCA. Sirius is very careful about that. In the case of Tina Turner, most of her solo music was on United Artists, EMI, and Capitol. All three are now controlled by Universal. My understanding is that they can only get so many waivers in a calendar year.

The Turner tribute channel, which spanned five days, played her solo work and her recordings with Ike, from all labels she was with both as a solo and duet act. I can't recall a significant musical artist who hasn't gotten the tribute channel treatment since I've been listening, so the number of waivers SXM has per year must be pretty big. If there is an actual limit, it will certainly be tested in the near future as more and more performers from the musical boom years of the '70s and '80s begin to die off at a more rapid pace.

 

[TheBigA]

The House Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property & internet met in Nashville on Tuesday. One of the topics discussed was AMFA:

Radio Royalties Still Debated, Five Years After Music Copyrights Were Updated.

Nearly five years since the Music Modernization Act became law, the consensus among members of Congress and music industry executives at a House subcommittee hearing in Nashville on Tuesday was

www.insideradio.com

California's Darrell Issa is a big proponent of AMFA:

MSN

The fact is that AMFA is only popular in the handful of states, not enough to get it passed.

 

[TheBigA]

Meanwhile, we have the two biggest music rights organizations behaving as though there is no GMR or SESAC. They believe they are the only groups who get paid. Radio wants to hold the line on their budget.

Radio Industry Formally Asks Federal Court To Set Both ASCAP And BMI Music Royalty Rates.

The Radio Music License Committee is still fighting with ASCAP and BMI over whether their new rate agreements are decided jointly or separately. But in the meantime, it has formally

www.insideradio.com