Senate Judiciary passes Performance Rights Ace

Nasdaq wire is reporting The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a bill to require radio stations to pay royalties to performers when their music is aired. (Music First representatives have also confirmed this.)

While the bill is still a long way from passing, this is the most important hurdle it needed to clear.

I have mixed feeling about this. While I don't think it's fair that one group (terrestrial radio) gets to use something for free that another group (digital broadcasters) has to pay a large fee to use. (We pay 10-12% of our revenues because we're a "small webcaster", large webcasters like Pandora have to pay 25% of their revenues just to cover the sound recording copyright. (BMI,SESAC,ASCAP royalties for the underlying composition amount to another 4-5%).

The more commercial indie labels I talk to all want a reasonable royalty that's consistent across similar platforms (analog or digital). They value the exposure they get from the radio, but they're also looking for additional streams of revenue. I can understand that.

There are also plenty of netlabels and very indie-artist run labels who aren't to the stage of "maximizing revenues" from their portfolio of works, and are more interested in getting the free publicity that radio offers them. To many labels, the exposure is much more important than the royalty revenue.

My fear is that despite the intentions of MusicFirst, soon after this gets passed, the RIAA labels will band together to raise the rates paid by the over the air guys to match the levels paid by (and that some say is bankrupting) internet broadcasters.

And if that happens it will be the end of terrestrial broadcast music. The only thing on the FM dial will be talk shows, religious and spanish programming. And that will be kind of sad. And ultimately not serving to the music industry.

Hopefully, my fear won't come to pass.

FMQB: Radio Industry News, Music Industry Updates, Arbitron Ratings, Music News and more!

As reported in FMQB: "the musicFIRST Coalition filed a formal request with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking them to investigate and take action against radio stations over reports that some of them are refusing to air music from artists who support the Performance Royalty. "

Specifically, they're targeting WMPH, a high school radio station in Wilmington, DE that mostly plays dance and electronic music. WMPH decided to boycott those artists that were promoting Music First. And this likely didn't affect their playlists at all, as most dance/electronic artists that get airplay on non-commercial radio are not affiliated with the Big 4 labels that are behind MusicFirst.

While I'm not opposed removing terrestrial radio's exemption that allows them to play any publicly-released sound recording without royalties, I also think that royalty should be reasonable. And I also think that stations that make licensing deals with the labels they play- labels that still want the promotional exposure- shouldn't be forced to pay a licensing fee for using recordings they don't use.

John Simpson at SoundExchange has repeatedly encouraged direct licensing in response to the CRB rates, including this quote from 2007: "they always have the outlet of going in direct licensing" (Royalty Week PDF)

So why is MusicFirst (of which SoundExchange is a supporting member and financial backer of) getting so upset when a broadcaster says it won't play material from artists who are proponents of this royalty?

You can't force broadcasters to play your music and then charge them for it.

Perhaps once more broadcasters start following the lead of WMPH, we'll start to hear more innovative music on the airwaves, and not just the same old derivative stuff that the big labels try to foist off on the public all the time.

And then maybe them, the labels will start to acknowledge the promotional value that radio exposure can give.

Performance Rights Act (HR 848) Approved, on way to passing

The House Judiciary Committee approved the Performance Rights Act (HR 848) today, with 21 in favor, 9 not in favor.

It includes these rates that apply only to over the air broadcasts:

Any station that makes less than $100,000 annually will pay only $500 annually for unlimited use of music.

Any station that makes less than $500,000 but more than $100,000 annually will pay only $2500 (half of the amount in the original version of the bill) annually for unlimited use of music.

Any station that makes less than $1,250,000 but more than $500,000 annually will pay only $5000 (unchanged since the bill was introduced)) annually for unlimited use of music.

The bill also includes a statement of "Parity for all radio services" which establishes a “placeholder” standard to determine a fair rate for all radio services that will encourage negotiations between the stakeholders

As I've mentioned before compared to AM/FM broadcasters, Webcasters currently get a really bad deal: A webcaster with 1.25 million in revenue would be paying about $140,000 while an over-the-air broadcaster would only pay $5000. A webcaster with $250,000 in revenue would be paying $25,000 a year while an over-the-air station would pay 1/10th that.

SomaFM joined over 300 other broadcasters in signing a letter to Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith [PDF] asking them to amend the Performance Rights Act to extend small broadcaster protections to small webcasters.

On the webcasters side, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California spoke passionately and convincingly of this need to extend small broadcaster royalty limits to small webcasters. Unfortunately, a specific webcaster inclusion was not put in this version of the bill, so we'll need to do more lobbying of Congress to get it included in the final bill.

In related news, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009 was also introduced. The text is basically the same as the WSA 2008, the biggest difference being instead of a specific date for submitting deals for publication (a deadline which has already passed) the new bill gives 30 days from enactment to finalize deals.

Webcasters deserve the same deal as over-the-air Broadcasters

The terrestrial broadcast performance royalty bill, officially known as "The Performance Rights Act" (H.R. 848) [alternative link], will also be considered by the House Judiciary Committee today. Unlike webcasters, the rate would be $5000 a year for stations with revenues up to 1.25 million dollars. A webcaster with 1.25 million in revenue would be paying about $140,000 a year to play the same music.

Doesn't seem fair does it?

If this indeed passes, and there is a good likelihood it will, then we need to demand that webcasters who broadcast non-interactive radio streams should also get to pay those same rates.

Here's the relevant text from the bill:

SEC. 3. SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SMALL, NONCOMMERCIAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND RELIGIOUS STATIONS AND CERTAIN USES.

(a) Small, Noncommercial, Educational, and Religious Radio Stations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 114(f)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that has gross revenues in any calendar year of less than $1,250,000 may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $5,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.

(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that is a public broadcasting entity as defined in section 118(f) may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $1,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.'.

Does the New Administration change anything for radio royalties?

It seems that the RIAA, Recording Academy and MusicFirst think the new administration will be more on their side than the old administration:

Neil Portnow, CEO of the Recording Academy said last night at the Grammys:

“When it comes to protecting a musician's intellectual property and the right to earn a living, The Academy says, "Yes, we can!" And with a new Congress, we will champion the passage of pending legislation to ensure, that just like in every developed country in the world, all music creators are compensated for their performances when played on traditional radio.”

Historical datapoint: he DMCA was passed under the Clinton administration, and the DMCA is what has placed huge royalties on internet radio. The Performance Rights Act of 2009 will add those same royalties on over-the-air broadcasters that internet broadcasters now pay. While on one hand, I think it's great that there is equality for over-the-air (often referred to as terrestrial) broadcasters, but I'm concerned that rather than one fair, small royalty placed on everyone will actually end up being one really large royalty levied on all broadcasters, terrestrial and internet.

Conyers, Issa Re-introduce Bipartisan Performance Rights Legislation

This bill as it stands probably doesn't do much for webcasters, other than propose to take away the exemption for terrestrial broadcasters. I'm disappointed that it doesn't say that all forms of broadcasting will pay the same price, be it terrestrial or digital. Media Week has more on the story, including the response from the NAB, including this quote from NAB's letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Three of the four largest record label conglomerates -- Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI -- are internationally-based" and "although the big record labels have seen their revenues decline over the last decade, local radio broadcasters are not the reason the recording industry is losing money, and it should not be the industry to fix it.

 

Here's the text of the press release:  

WASHINGTON. D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and Darrell Issa (R-CA), introduced The Performance Rights Act, a bipartisan measure that takes a first step at ensuring that all radio platforms are treated in a similar manner and that those who perform music are paid for their work.   

The legislation would amend an inequity in America's copyright law that exempts over-the-air broadcasters from paying those who perform the music that we listen to on AM and FM radio.  Webcasters, satellite radio providers and cable companies are presently required to pay for music they broadcast.   

"Beyond the fairness that this bill provides for performers, we have an opportunity to show the rest of the world that the United States practices what it preaches in protecting intellectual property," said Issa. "For the past 70 years Congress has ignored the constitutional mandate that we protect copyrights by completely exempting broadcasters from paying performers, while the vast majority of countries have no such exemption.  Our ignorance of intellectual property rights on this issue is a worldwide embarrassment and it must end now."   

"All those in the creative chain of musical production - the artists, musicians, and others who enrich us culturally - deserve to be justly compensated for their work," said Conyers.  "We have introduced the Performance Rights Act to ensure fairness so that any service that plays music pays those who create and own the recordings - just as satellite, cable and internet radio stations currently do. Working with the Senate, I hope that Congress may act quickly to pass this important legislation to level the playing field between different technologies and ensure rightful compensation to performers."  

  The Performance Rights Act is cosponsored by Reps. Issa, Berman, Waxman, Blackburn, Hodes, Wasserman Schultz, Weiner, Cohen, Nadler, Wexler, Peterson (MN), Johnson (GA), Schiff, Sherman, Shadegg, Jackson Lee, L. Sanchez, and Harman. Companion legislation was introduced Wednesday in the Senate by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and former Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).   

"In introducing the Performance Rights Act, we are sensitive to the needs of broadcast radio stations," said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  "I want to ensure that the performing artist, the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio, is compensated fairly.  Our legislation, appropriately, permits noncommercial stations to take advantage of the statutory copyright license subject only to a nominal annual payment to the artists.  Similarly, we intend to nurture, not threaten, small commercial broadcasters.  Smaller music stations are working hard to serve their local communities while finding the right formula to increase their audience size.  I will continue to work with the broadcasters – large and small, commercial and noncommercial – to strike the right balance."    

"This legislation would ensure that musical performers and songwriters receive fair compensation from all companies across the broadcast spectrum - not just from Web casters, satellite radio providers and cable companies," said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  "It is an attempt to strike a harmonious balance between fair compensation for artists and a vibrant radio industry in the U.S."   

 

House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property passed the Performance Rights Act

The fight between the RIAA and the NAB is heating up.  The RIAA scored one when the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property passed the Performance Rights Act. I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't like the fact that net radio has to pay high royalties while over the air radio doesn't.  On the other hand, I don't want to see AM/FM broadcasters forced to pay the same ridiculous rates that we have to pay. 

I really think this is going to backfire on the RIAA and it's major label members.

The Performance Royalty Debate

I'm going to miss this as we'll be setting up for the Bay Area Takeover day party at SXSW, but if you care about the state of radio royalties, go check out this panel.

south by southwest festivals + conferences: "The Performance Royalty Debate
Room 12AB
Thursday, March 13th
11:45 am - 1:00 pm


The United States is the only territory in which terrestrial radio is exempt from paying performance royalties to performers. A coalition of groups is seeking to reverse this anomaly and bring US policy in line with the rest of the world. This legislation faces strong opposition from the broadcast lobby. What are the issues at stake, and what are the chances that Congress will make it law?"

It's still Payola

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the past, the radio industry was plagued by payola scandals: Stations took money from record companies in exchange for airplay. Now, a group representing recording artists is seeking to turn the pay-for-play strategy on its head: It wants radio stations to pay artists and their record labels when the stations play their music.

What they don't mention is that record labels who want to promote artists will be able to waive these royalty fees if stations agree to feature their artists and releases. Suddenly, we have a legal form of Payola available again.

While I agree that it's only fair for broadcasters to pay reasonable royalties for the sound recording of the music they use, I don't think that exemptions should be allowed on a track by track basis.

With BMI, ASCAP and SESAC (who license the underlying composition of the song) you can't "opt out" of paying the royalty; you have to pay it no matter what. It should be the exact same way with the sound recording royalty.

The Promotional Value argument

There is a valid argument that todays corporate radio operations (e.g. CBS, Clear Channel) is not providing adequate promotional benefit to record companies to justify their exemption from a performance right royalty (much like internet radio already pays).

But the argument that there is no promotional value for radio is a weak one, and an argument that I wish MusicFirst (the association backed by SoundExchange, RIAA and many independent record labels) would stop using.

In the testimony from Alice Peacock (a singer/songwriter) she said something that bothers me because of the context she uses it in:

Frankly, the promotion argument sounds a little silly. Last week I bought a pair of Nike shoes. I wear them everywhere—well, except to Senate hearings. With the Nike logo on my feet, I am probably promoting their brand wherever I go. Can you imagine if I decided not to pay for the shoes on the grounds that my promoting Nike should excuse me from payment? My refusal to pay would be called "shoplifting." But radio's refusal to pay artists is called "business as usual."

Wearing shoes with a logo around town may not be significant promotional value; but once she brings those logos on stage in front of a large audience, it's a different matter!

You don't think the popular performing artists wearing clothes with the big designer labels are buying all that stuff themselves? No, the designers give them to them to get the promotional publicity for seeing their brand worn by a star.

It's also common for performing musicians to get lots of gear and other goodies in exchange for promotional consideration. Guitars, drums, cymbals, keyboards are commonly given to popular musicians to use, so that aspiring musicians will see them and want to buy that brand as well. Why do you think so many drummers have their drum brand in huge letters on their drums? And it's been going on that way for decades.

Radio has a tremendous amount of promotional value. However, the way many stations do things in this new media-consolidated world detract a lot of value from that promotion. How often do you hear a radio DJ play a new song, and mention the album name or the label it's on?

The other argument against promotional value (the one that no one seems to like to talk about) is that while radio can promote songs, that promotion doesn't always turn into a purchase. This is something that radio needs to help fix: right now, many people hear something on the radio and then go out and download a free copy of it. Promotional value only has value if it brings in money.

What I've done at SomaFM is made sure that we have links to where people can buy CDs and legal downloads when they hear something on our station. It's not a perfect solution yet because we play a lot of stuff that's not available for legal download; or it's out of print or otherwise hard to obtain a copy of.

Another problem that is really a record industry problem and not a radio problem is the fact that there are so many "for promotion only" CDs ending up on Amazon, Half.com and brick and mortar stores like Amoeba Records. If you go to buy a CD and can get a used FPO copy for half the price, you'll buy it - who cares if there is a hole punched in the UPC. This is a case when the value of radio promotion goes to the wrong person - the used CD store and not the sound recording rights holder.

Labels: you need to do some work on this as well. Meet broadcasters halfway. Make sure that when people go to obtain your recordings that they can do it legally and quickly. And broadcasters should be telling people how to buy the music they're playing as well. Then everyone benefits.

musicFIRST makes some proposals for over-the-air royalties

Radio Ink: According to the document obtained by Radio Ink, the coalition is proposing changes to the law that would do away with broadcasters' royalties exemption and have small commercial stations -- "small" is not defined -- pay a flat royalty rate of $5,000 per year, while noncoms and college stations pay $1,000 a year.

Inside Radio has an op/ed piece by John Simson that has a lot of the usual rhetoric we hear from SoundExchange, but this part was very interesting:

Most over-the-air radio is owned by big conglomerates that centralize playlists. They build multi-billion dollar businesses around artists’ music. People who create that music should receive a fair portion of those revenues.

We want to be fair to smaller radio stations, too. For some this payment may be the difference between being profitable and having to struggle. This is why we are in favor of accommodations for smaller radio stations, college stations, talk radio and religious broadcasters. Small radio stations may not be able to pay like the big conglomerates, and we want to accommodate them. We hear them. We hope they hear us.

I'm happy to see SoundExchange is realizing that the diversity of independent radio is valuable. While Simson doesn't say that directly, by making a jab at large conglomerates with centralized playlists he's giving a nod to the independent programmers and station operators out there who are exposing listeners to new and interesting music, not just playing the same old proven hits that everyone knows already.

John goes on to say:

Sometimes Washington, D.C. rhetoric trumps the truth; the musicFIRST Coalition isn’t trying to put radio out of business like the NAB would have you believe. We want us all to march to the same drumbeat, one that won’t be easy to achieve, but that we hope is going to be fair.

One thing John doesn't mention is the international reciprocal rights that this would give US sound recording copyright holders. Currently, US rightsholders don't receive any money for airplay in non-US countries (that do charge broadcasters a royalty for sound recording performances). So while non-US stations are paying these royalties, even if they only play US recordings, all their royalty money goes to the pool of non-US rightsholders.

Once the US establishes a performance right, those collected overseas royalties will be distributed to the appropriate US-based rightsholders.

That's really the big issue here, and I'm convinced that it makes sense.

As long as those performance royalties are reasonable, of course!

Notes from the Platform Equality hearing

Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, held a hearing on "Platform Equality", which would end the decades long royalty exemption for terrestrial broadcasts.

Howard Coble (R-NC), Steve Cohen, (D-TN), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) were among those voicing support for the proposal to end the terrestrial broadcast sound recording performance royalty exemption.

The three main arguments for this according to Berman:

The exemption was never justified under copyright law

Calbe, Satellite and Internet have to pay these royalties. There should be no discrimination based on platform.

US us the only major country that doesn't have a sound recording performance right.

Terrestrial broadcasters currently only pay royalties to the composers of the music; the "musical work". They do not pay for the use of the sound recording. In 2005, broadcasters paid $450 million in muscical work performance royalties.

Issa stated that congress is preparing to reorganize section 114 of the copyright act. (This is the sections that covers royalties for internet, satellite and cable services and provides exemptions for some other uses, such as use of music in business environments.)

Issa spoke a lot about HD radio, and the threat it makes to sale of CDs. He is under the impression that the 64kb or lower compressed digital audio sounds as good as CD. HD does not stand for High Definition. It stands for "Hybrid Digital". Unlike HDTV, which improved the signal quality delivered to consumers, HD radio is not a marked improvement. Signal to noise ratios are improved, but there are audible compression artifacts in the audio.

Issa also talked about a flood of HD radio recording devices that automatically split tracks coming out soon. (I think he's extremely wrong on this, there is so little uptake on HD hardware, there are only 2 or 3 HD radios on the market right now, and they're selling very poorly. I've heard a statistic several times that say an American is more likely to be run over by a bus than they are to listen to HD radio in the last year.)

Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis, TN,

San Jose, CA representative Zoe Lofgren was the only rep to speak out on the importance of small, independent internet (and non-internet) braodcasters. While she's not necessarily opposing the rate, she wants a rate that won't hurt small and non-commercial broadcasters.

(more later)

Music First: Radio does not sell records

According to a study by Stan Liebowitz for the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation linked (but apparently now removed) from the Music First coalition website's FAQ states:

Radio does not have the positive impact on record sales normally attributed to it. Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a compliment.

A more detailed abstract of the study:

This paper undertakes an econometric investigation of the impact of radio play on sales of sound recordings using a sample of American cities. The results indicate that radio play appears to have an economically important negative economic impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a complement. This research exposes an important fallacy of composition in applying to the entire market a conclusion based upon the positive relationship between radio broadcasts of particular sound recordings and the sales of those particular sound recordings. This finding imposes a more complete view of the implications of economic suggestions to allow the radio/record market to function unhindered by government regulations.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to read the full study before they took it down. (Maybe they took it down because they didn't have the proper copyright clearances to publish it on their site, oh the irony.) But radio Consultant Mark Ramsey, who did read the whole thing, makes this comment:

Even if we accept the conclusion that some radio listeners don't buy music and further accept that radio satisfies whatever need they have, the author of the study doesn't acknowledge the tangible difference between the stealing of music via P2P and the fact that radio stations do indeed already pay considerable license fees to play the music industry's content on the public airwaves. This notion that radio is getting something for nothing is downright offensive.

After a bit of searching, I tracked down an online preliminary version of this report (PDF) if you want to read it yourself.

Stan Liebowitz has flip-flopped about similar issues in the past, writing a paper for the CATO institute that said MP3s were killing music, then saying in 2002 the decline in music sales was in sync with the overall decline in the economy, but then in 2003 blaming MP3s for declining music sales again, based on data supplied by the RIAA.

I guess I'm just curious about how the record industry thinks people find out about new music, if it's not over the radio, or from file sharing, or what. How many people are going to want to buy something they haven't heard about?

Non-comm WMPH Boycotts Music First Coalition Artists

The Music First Coalition is a lobbying organization created by SoundExchange and the RIAA to get get copyright law changed so that over-the-air broadcasters will have to pay additional royalties for broadcasting music much like internet and satellite radio service do.

This boycott sure didn't take long to happen:

The National Association of Broadcasters is fighting efforts by musicFirst, a new coalition of recording artists, including Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, and Natasha Bedingfield, demanding performance royalties from radio stations. "Congress has long recognized that radio airplay of music generates millions of dollars in revenue for record labels and artists," said Dennis Wharton, NAB spokesman. "Were it not for radio's free promotional airplay of music on stations all over America, most successful recording artists would still be playing in a garage."

WMPH and many other stations across the country are saying NO to this insatiable greed. The musicFirst coalition of artists is attempting to hurt the radio stations, disc jockeys, and fans that have always been their greatest ally. Radio has done so much to promote their careers by playing their music frequently, interviewing them, and mentioning their concerts and events on the air. Artists make their money by record sales and performing at concerts. Without radio's free publicity for over 60 years, most artists would likely be neither rich nor famous.

I wonder how long it will be before Clear Channel and CBS do the same?