RSSUS House to Debate Resolution Against Radio Performance Royalties
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 2, 2007, 2:36 PM
In a gamble that is certain to receive stiff opposition from both sides of the aisle, Reps. Gene Green (D - Texas) and Mike Conaway (R - Texas) offered to the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday a draft resolution opposing the imposition of royalties on terrestrial radio broadcasters for the use of sound recordings.
"For more than 80 years, Congress has rejected repeated calls by the recording industry to impose a performance fee on local radio stations for simply playing music on the radio and upsetting the mutually beneficial relationship between local radio and the recording industry," reads one clause of the draft for House Concurrent Resolution 244, which thus far has garnered 50 co-sponsors.
"Local radio stations provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers of music," it continues, "in the form of radio air play, interviews with performers, introduction of new performers, concert promotions, and publicity that promotes the sale of music, concert tickets, ring tones, music videos and associated merchandise."
Not surprisingly, the National Association of Broadcasters has signed on. "The undeniable fact is that radio airplay is a musician's greatest promotional tool and generates millions of dollars in revenue annually for RIAA-member companies and performers," stated NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton yesterday.
But exactly how far backers of the resolution would go to gain support from backers of performers' rights is uncertain. Last May, it was reported that interest groups representing the recording industry began lobbying Congress to extend royalties being considered for Internet streaming radio services, to broadcast radio. Doing so would eliminate the key argument against streamers' royalties: that broadcasters and Internet streamers aren't being treated alike.
Without any apparent opposition making itself known, in July, House subcommittee members heard from legendary witnesses from the music performing industry, who literally joined with them in grilling a single representative of broadcast radio about why they and other performers, in their view, had been cheated out of billions in royalties over an eight-decade period.
The very fact that HCR 244 is a resolution and not a bill for legislation could be seen as an effort by congressmen to simply get their fellow members to take a stand one way or the other. Since it isn't formal legislation, the resolve may be legally perceived as something less than an outright ban, and perhaps not legally binding.
For that reason, interest groups in favor of the resolution are speaking out perhaps more forcefully than they would normally. "The experience of Internet radio and the crisis they face with the new copyright fee should give anyone pause," stated Cathy Rought, representing the Free Radio Alliance. "Given an inch, the labels went a mile.
"The system we have works," Rought continued. "The US broadcasting system is the envy of the world. Someone that lives in New York City has access to 36 different commercial radio stations, while someone that lives in London only gets 19. Local communities shouldn't be penalized for the labels' failure to meet the consumer demand of the digital age."
So why should internet radio get hosed while over-the-air is free?
I would sure rather see the big chain radio companies paying their fair share of the royalties than let them drive the internet companies off the air with discriminatory royalty taxes.
I am for Internet Radio Equality. Are you? Or are you just out to kill off the competition that is eating your lunch.
Score: 0
"So why should internet radio get hosed while over-the-air is free? "
Because it's not? OTA radio pays license fees/royalites/etc.
Want equality? There ya go.
Score: 0
I'm no expert, but the mention of London drags me into the discussion, as I live here.
There may be only 19 official FM stations in London, but that seems very low. If you include all the local BBC stations, it's probably more than that. On top of that, there are dozens more pirate stations, plus AM and Long wave. Most of the new stuff is going onto terrestrial digital radio, also available to any aDSL or cable TV user.
The big issue is that all venues who play CD or Radio (including the smallest cafe or jazz club) must register with and pay money to the PRS (Performing Rights Society). This money goes to rights holders.
I assume that if the 80-year holiday enjoyed by US radio stations is only part of the struggle that's now underway. As ever, follow the money trail.
Score: 0
19 FM stations? Wow. I think we have about 10...tops. Lucky SOB.
Score: 0
We (internet Radio)pay for the CD's, We pay to play the CD's (pay to promote the music)and as if that was not bad enough, we can't sell airtime (advertising)like terrestrial radio does.
If terrestrial radio is doing the record companies
a favor, then internet radio is _________.
I hope they revisit the internet radio side of this crap. Internet is father reaching (WORLD WIDE)more diverse (we play everything)and for now, no commericals.
Score: 0
Only because the labels haven't seen a market in internet radio until now.
They own the rights to the music. They didn't see a way to market this in an online radio format and let the hobbyists be. Now they want to capitalize on the internet market for online radio.
This is well within their rights.
It's stupid, it's bad PR, and it's going to likely backfire on them horribly, but...
Hey, if they want to commit suicide, more power to them.
Score: 0
Yes, Payola has worked for years. Leave it be.
Score: 0