• 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

Bill To Create Radio Royalty Introduced In Senate Despite Majority Opposed In House

The first sentence explains why this bill is doomed. This royalty only benefits a handful of music-related states, such as NY, CA, MI, TN, and FL. The other states don't care.

The other problem is this quote: the bill would bring radio “up-to-speed with all other music streaming platforms, which already pay artists for their music.”

The fact is that broadcast radio can never come "up to speed" with streaming. The reason streaming pays labels and artists is because it's a digital system. Broadcast is analog. That fact is spelled out in the law. Until there is a way from broadcast radio to provide a digital service without requiring everyone to replace their radios, there is no equivalence. At the same time, streaming services are exempt from payola laws. Forcing broadcast radio to pay a label royalty while at the same time creating a federal crime for payola is impossible. You can only have it one way or the other.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom