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."