NAB Responds to Royalty Legislation
Terrestrial radio does not have to pay music royalties, and they want to keep it that way. There are two competing bills that are on the table in Washington. One maintains the current no royalty status, and the other seeks to establish royalties.
This is a battle that has been going on for quite some time, and at stake is the business model of terrestrial radio, the livelihood of music performers, and the profits of the record labels themselves. This is a classic case of not really knowing who to root for. On one hand, there should be a level playing field regarding royalties for terrestrial, satellite, and Internet radio. On the other hand, the record companies have been virtual fat cats for quite some time. Suffering in the fringe are performers who receive very little money for the broadcasts of their performances.
If nothing else, the current condition of the economy points to the NAB backed bill having a decent shot of being the victor in this battle. The NAB bill already boasts 192 supports, a substantial lead vs. the musicFirst backed legislation.
In response to the recent news of the Judiciary Committee passing a revised version of the musicFirst supported legislation, the NAB’s Dennis Wharton stated:
“We were pleasantly surprised by the considerable bipartisan opposition to a performance tax, even in a committee where support for the record labels is strongest. NAB applauds these nine members for standing with America’s hometown radio stations, their 235 million weekly listeners, and the yet-to-break artists who will lose their number one promotional platform if this bill is enacted.
“Nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels. Record label abuse of artists from Count Basie to Prince is well-documented, as evidenced by scores of lawsuits filed by musicians cheated out of royalties. Moving forward, the fundamental question is this: If the debate is about ‘fairness to artists’, why should the record labels get one penny from a performance tax on radio stations?”
Thus the battle lines have been drawn. The NAB strategy is quite interesting. They are painting the record labels as the potential recipients of “pork”. Given the climate in Washington, and all of the ire about “pork laden” legislation, it may not be popular to approve a bill that benefits the record companies.
The debate will rage on, but as one SiriusBuzz reader stated, “…it is a race to 218 votes and the NAB backed bill has 192 of them already.” (Thank You Homer). The reality is that there are legitimate arguments on each side of the issue. Those arguments will be played out over the coming months, and in the end it is my opinion that the NAB backed legislation currently has the advantage. The best way to learn about this issue… Visit musicFirst and the NAB sites.
[via musicFirst & NAB]
Position: Long Sirius XM
The Pro NAB backers are old Washington ie John Kerry. The one vote that counts is the President who has received a lot of money and support from Musicians. Afterall he is the Celebrity President.
every body gets taken for a ride except the lables, and in the long run the new pay services must suffer thru the cost increase or pass it through to the subcriber in the form of higher fees.
and whats really bad is soundexchange which collects royaltys for the industry had hundreds of millions of dollars on hand that was un-claimed as many artist and performers where never told of the availabilty of the pooled funds. after much outrage they made a effort to reach out to these people and some where top performers and located at ease and informed about a simple document filing process was able to collect their small share.
worth noting is after a set amout of time (three years) the funds are released directly to soundexchange..wonder whom controls sound exchange, and the new found pool of unclaimed funds.
i gave up following this crap, as it really botherd me when i witnessed how un-equal the cost basis for the same content was for the new digital platforms vs legacy deliver systems and the old business model.
Im not giving radio or tv a free pass here everybody needs to pay the artisit and performers.
“The reality is that there are legitimate arguments on each side of the issue.”
And what is the “legitimate” argument for SIRI XM to pay higher royalty rates than regular radio stations.
jon i agree
some of its the general publics own fault, we have reached this point. they have for to long allowed the business industry to resolve many issues. with out the input of the American people directly on a large scale. as many have little time, or care to really research the facts and or motives hidden within the issue.
this has allowed the labels to divide the distribution channels into little sectors and pursue the highest rates for each of the new sectors,as the labels pick and chose whom they really want as business partners based on their terms again a process which excludes the public input process completely.(appl)
while much of the labels real cost in a digital production vs the old model can be argued over to a degree, the fact is the labels, have not changed the model they use for calculating cost of manufacturing/distribution/waste/breakage along with setting the related terms in artist contracts.which supports a artificial higher (pricing of the content) to the consumer and other distribution platforms which tends again to inflate the royalty rates being paid by the business’s.
Our government has allowed all to often industry to cry wolf and scream for forms of protection when they would have been better off telling them the simple truth evolve constantly,fairly or die.
this issue of music should have been handled by the government fairly for the people, by use of a very small flat tax on any device which can play music in any form period based on the music labels total revenue from within America i wonder what that fee would amount to……i also think it would help all content flow more like water which would result in better sales for all.and could even reduce the act of piracy of material.
no wonder America is in its current economic state.
i guess I’m way off on my thinking or the American government is protecting the wrong citizen.
of the people, by the people, for the people.lmao
The sad part is that the record companies take a chunk of the money that SoundExchange takes in, again screwing the writers and performers; and now this new Bill does the same. With the record companies taking in over 50% of the royalties paid in… screwing the writers/performers more.
This is just a record company backed Bill, aimed to make them more money.
Another fact ignored is that the ASCAP, BMI, SESAC licenses in the US entitle the publishers 100 years of royalties on a published work — while in the rest of the world it is only 50 years. This difference in publishing royalties, makes up much of the difference in not paying the performance royalty. Ignored by the media.
BTW, the opposition has 196 co-sponsors — and they only need 218 for a majority of the House… not 251. There are 435 House members, so 218 constitutes a majority.
———
Wow. Good catch Homer. I don’t know why I had the 251 in my head, but missed it even in the proff reading. Thank you for the correction, and I have corrected the articl.
No problem.
The count on the other Bill was from the latest article I read… actually, looking at the Bill itself, they’re up to 198 as of yesterday.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/.....00049:@@@P
———-
I think the uk voted last week or just before to change the copy right term length, to around ninety years.
Tim, they lengthened it to 70 years in a compromise deal… still not equal to the 100 years in the USA.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po.....s-next.ars
——–
Opposition signs on a couple more, now have 200 co-sponsors. Also out today, several national civil rights advocacy groups send challenges to the Conyers’ bill to Pelosi — saying the bill will bankrupt as much as 1/3 of all minority broadcast stations.
This Bill will likely not even see the floor with the swiftness of the challenges being laid out ahead of it.
Doesn’t mean that it can’t happen in the 112th Congress though… it’s eventually going to come to a head, but not looking too promising this time.
——–