200 Members of Congress Vow to Block “Any New Radio Taxes”

 

UScapitol

“We, members of Congress, should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings.”

The Local Radio Freedom Act.

Supporter list a/o Wednesday, May 13th, 2015…

US House of Representatives:

Ralph Abraham (LA-5)
Rick Allen (GA-12)
Lou Barletta (PA-11)
Joe Barton (TX-6)
Joyce Beatty (OH-3)
Dan Benishek (MI-1)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Rod Blum (IA-1)
Charles Boustany (LA-3)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-1)
Mo Brooks (AL-5)
Corinne Brown (FL-5)
Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
Ken Buck (CO-4)
Larry Bucshon (IN-8)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G.K. Butterfield (NC-1)
Bradley Byrne (AL-1)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Michael Capuano (MA-7)
Buddy Carter (GA-1)
Steve Chabot (OH-1)
Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1)
Mike Coffman (CO-6)
Tom Cole (OK-4)
Chris Collins (NY-27)
Michael Conaway (TX-11)
Paul Cook (CA-8)
Joe Courtney (CT-2)
Kevin Cramer (ND-AL)
Rick Crawford (AR-1)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-4)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Culberson (TX-7)
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Charles Dent (PA-15)
Sean Duffy (WI-7)
Jeff Duncan (SC-3)
John Duncan (TN-2)
Renee Ellmers (NC-2)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
John Fleming (LA-4)
Bill Flores (TX-17)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1)
Virginia Foxx (NC-5)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Scott Garrett (NJ-5)
Bob Gibbs (OH-7)
Christopher Gibson (NY-19)
Paul Gosar (AZ-4)
Trey Gowdy (SC-4)
Kay Granger (TX-12)
Sam Graves (MO-6)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Glenn Grothman (WI-6)
Frank Guinta (NH-1)
Brett Guthrie (KY-2)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)

Gregg Harper (MS-3)
Andy Harris (MD-1)
Vicky Hartzler (MO-4)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Joseph Heck (NV-3)
Jody Hice (GA-10)
French Hill (AR-2)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Richard Hudson (NC-8)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-1)
Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
Will Hurd (TX-23)
Robert Hurt (VA-5)
Evan Jenkins (WV-3)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-2)
Bill Johnson (OH-6)
David Jolly (FL-13)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
Jim Jordan (OH-4)
David Joyce (OH-14)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
William Keating (MA-9)
Derek Kilmer (WA-6)
Ron Kind (WI-3)
Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
John Kline (MN-2)
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-2)
Doug LaMalfa (CA-1)
Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
Robert Latta (OH-5)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
David Loebsack (IA-2)
Billy Long (MO-7)
Frank Lucas (OK-3)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-1)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Stephen Lynch (MA-8)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Thomas Massie (KY-4)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5)
David McKinley (WV-1)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Luke Messer (IN-6)
Candice Miller (MI-10)
Jeff Miller (FL-1)
Markwayne Mullin (OK-2)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-5)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Kristi Noem (SD-AL)
Devin Nunes (CA-22)
Pete Olson (TX-22)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Steven Palazzo (MS-4)
Frank Pallone (NJ-6)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-9)
Erik Paulsen (MN-3)
Stevan Pearce (NM-2)

Pedro Pierluisi (PR-AL)
Robert Pittenger (NC-9)
Joseph Pitts (PA-16)
Ted Poe (TX-2)
Mike Pompeo (KS-4)
Bill Posey (FL-8)
Charles Rangel (NY-13)
James Renacci (OH-16)
Reid Ribble (WI-8)
Tom Rice (SC-7)
Scott Rigell (VA-2)
Harold Rogers (KY-5)
Mike Rogers (AL-3)
Todd Rokita (IN-4)
Peter Roskam (IL-6)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Dennis Ross (FL-15)
David Rouzer (NC-7)
Edward Royce (CA-39)
Steve Russell (OK-5)
Paul Ryan (WI-1)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Matt Salmon (AZ-5)
John Sarbanes (MD-3)
Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
David Schweikert (AZ-6)
Austin Scott (GA-8)
David Scott (GA-13)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
John Shimkus (IL-15)
Bill Shuster (PA-9)
Michael Simpson (ID-2)
Albio Sires (NJ-8)
Adrian Smith (NE-3)
Christopher Smith (NJ-4)
Jason Smith (MO-8)
Steve Stivers (OH-15)
Glenn Thompson (PA-5)
Patrick Tiberi (OH-12)
Scott Tipton (CO-3)
Michael Turner (OH-10)
Fred Upton (MI-6)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Peter Visclosky (IN-1)
Ann Wagner (MO-2)
Tim Walberg (MI-7)
Greg Walden (OR-2)
Jackie Walorski (IN-2)
Timothy Walz (MN-1)
Brad Wenstrup (OH-2)
Bruce Westerman (AR-4)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3)
Ed Whitfield (KY-1)
Roger Williams (TX-25)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
Joe Wilson (SC-2)
Robert Wittman (VA-1)
Steve Womack (AR-3)
Kevin Yoder (KS-3)
Don Young (AK-AL)
Ryan Zinke (MT-AL)

US Senate:

John Barrasso (R-WY)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

James Inhofe (R-OK)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
David Vitter (R-LA)

 

Image of US Capitol Building by Phil Kalina, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

26 Responses

  1. Satan

    It’s nice to see all that lobbying money pay off!!

    Nicely done NAB!!

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    PR, surprised you didn’t go with a title more like “US Congress to Artists: Fuck You”

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    I love how artists being paid for a for-profit enterprise using their work is somehow considered a tax

    Reply
  4. Bandit

    and this is one of those political situations where if you point out to US politicians that the USA is one of only a few nations that doesn’t pay sound recording performance fees (just like North Korea) they get all indignant

    Reply
  5. FarePlay

    First, Paul, whose the quote from.

    Second. More than the broadcasters, The National Restaurant Association, is really going to be against it and they’re the organization with lots of local members in every voting district. If we’re smart we would find a way to carve out a pricing deal with them with little or no increase.

    Three. The biggest financial gains artists can get are laws that actually go after online piracy. Take away the Safe Harbor and make it a criminal offense with jail time. Without it, artists have no leverage to start changing things for the better. Also, we’re not asking for a new law, just fixing one that is seriously broken.

    My Congressman is on that list, so we’ll be having a conversation, for sure.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      This is what I said before; it’s a huge waste of time. These people already are paying, and trying to make them pay more will just mean they’ll play less music. They’re not the ones taking a piece of the pie they didn’t have before, Google and the ISPs are.

      Congress needs to pass a law that allows rightsholders to go to court and get a site blocked. PERIOD.

      It’s fucking RIDICULOUS that this hasn’t happened already.

      Reply
    • Good Luck!

      FarePlay

      “Second. More than the broadcasters, The National Restaurant Association, is really going to be against it and they’re the organization with lots of local members in every voting district. If we’re smart we would find a way to carve out a pricing deal with them with little or no increase.”

      This has nothing to do with restaurants. It is a resolution by Congressmen wherein they agree not to impose a royalty on broadcast radio.

      “Take away the Safe Harbor and make it a criminal offense with jail time. Without it, artists have no leverage to start changing things for the better. Also, we’re not asking for a new law, just fixing one that is seriously broken.

      My Congressman is on that list, so we’ll be having a conversation, for sure.”

      Yeah. Good luck with that.

      Your Congressman needs to run campaign ads on radio stations in his district. That’s how NAB gets so many Congressmen to agree to this resolution every session. He’s going to side with the radio stations on this, pretty much no matter how many individuals contact him on the issue.

      And as for removing the Safe Harbor provisions: That’s simply not going to happen. For many reasons, not the least of which is, it’s a dumb suggestion.

      Reply
      • FarePlay

        Yeah, like they’re going to refuse to take money from a political campaign or better yet stop giving politicians free advertising.

        Reply
      • Good Luck!

        FarePlay

        “Yeah, like they’re going to refuse to take money from a political campaign or better yet stop giving politicians free advertising.”

        You obviously need to study a bit more.

        1) Politicians don’t get “free ads” – that’s just a dumb remark,

        2) While of course selling ads to political campaigns is a part of the radio business, generally, if it’s selling ad time to support a candidate that is recommending they become subject to a new, additional royalty cost, forever, do you think they will run ads for that politician or AGAINST him/her?

        I’ll give you a hint: They will run ads AGAINST that politician.

        Check your history on this issue.

        Reply
        • FarePlay

          The “free advertising” comment was sarcasm. Sorry, I thought I was dealing with someone with an education.

          Reply
    • Anonymous

      Hahahahahaha you are so fucking naive. Congress doesn’t work for you. Democracy is this country is about as real as it is in the People’s “Republic” of China.

      Reply
      • FarePlay

        I agree with that, but my congressmans from a small district in a minor market.

        Reply
  6. Sean beavan

    How is paying an artist for their work that a for profit company makes money off of considered a tax. The U.S. congress … Bought and paid for.

    Reply
  7. Lyle David Pierce III

    A Plan To Eradicate Internet Digital Music Piracy?

    There are currently “296,211,600 internet users in the United States” and that number increases every second.

    “RIAA’s Josh Friedlander noted, the record industry has been flat at about $7 billion for 5 straight years.”

    What if the United States Congress were to instead levy a $5.00 surcharge (for example) on every internet user with an unlimited plan and tack that surcharge on their monthly internet service provider bill (pro-rating that amount in instances were an internet user has limited access data plans, let’s say a 1 GB per month data plan for example) for the purpose of eradicating internet digital music piracy and thereafter putting those dollars in a music industry rights holders fund for distribution to the rights holders.

    By levying a surcharge on an internet user at the internet point of access and thereafter putting those monies in a music industry rights holders fund for distribution to the rights holders, not only would doing so eradicate internet digital music piracy because everyone has already paid for “free digital music” to their internet service provider at the point of access, but doing so would also substantially increase the revenues for all concerned not to mention the fact that everyone with internet access now has access to “free digital music.”

    Let’s make this even more important. What if all of the governments around the world were to do the same. That is to say, levy a $5.00 surcharge (for example) on every internet user, et cetera, et cetera.

    Given the fact that there are currently “296,211,600 internet users in the United States” alone and that number increases every second, an additional $1,481,058,000 would be generated for distribution to the music industry rights holders in the very first month. That further translates into almost $18 billion in additional digital music revenue in the first year in the United States alone. The additional worldwide internet digital music revenue generated would be astronomical not to mention the fact that online digital music piracy would be virtually non-existent. Indeed, even pirates would have to pay for “free digital music” at the point of access.

    At first blush this may sound too good to be true, but consider the following practical applications, let’s say Spotify for example. Spotify currently offers a “freemium” ad-based model, as well as a “premium” subscription-based model. The idea is to convert the “freemium” users into “premium” subscribers.

    I am relatively certain that many are already acquainted with the pros and the cons of such so I will not add anything further, what is important for present purposes is the fact that the Spotify model would still exist as it currently exists with one important difference, that is to say, in addition to the revenues generated from the ads in the “freemium” model for distribution to music industry rights holders fund for distribution to the rights holders there are the additional funds generated from the $5.00 surcharge (for example) on an internet user at the internet point of access and of course, as a result, no more internet digital music piracy as everyone has already paid for “free digital music.”

    In short, ads still get sold on the “freemium” ad-based model to further offset the costs and the effort to convert “freemium” users to “premium” subscribers continues with one significant difference, that is to say, instead of $9.99 to subscribe to the “premium” ad-free service, the cost in light of the $5.00 surcharge (for example) need only be $4.99, a much more palatable sum, but there is more.

    Again using the Spotify example. I recently read that Spotify is soon to offer music video content in addition to the digital music content currently offered, therefore, it would be reasonable to surmise that if the music video content were only to be made available through the “premium” model as opposed to the “freemium” model, that in addition to a higher quality user experience that would be another very effective way to entice the “freemium” users to convert to subscribers. Simply put, only offer 320 kbps digital music in the “freemium” model and reserve higher quality digital music, as well as the music videos on the other side of the pay-wall in the “premium” subscription-based model.

    Another example is YouTube, again, bearing in mind that a $5.00 surcharge (for example) has been levied on an internet user at the internet point of access to eradicate internet digital music piracy. YouTube could offer ad-supported “free music video” and “free video” content as it currently does, but in a different manner. That is to say, by offering a music video and video content subscription option which as previously stated could be at a cost of $4.99 due to the surcharge, a consumer would have the option to either continue to access ad-supported “free music video” and “video content” as is currently offered or choose the subscription option.

    With those options available, the difference would be how the music video and video content providers choose to make their content available. For example, although all content available on the ad-supported side of the pay-wall would also be available to the subscriber on the ad-free side of the pay-wall, a music video or video content provider could choose to only offer their music video and/or video content exclusively on the subscription side of the pay-wall (or a combination of both, as well as for example a situation where a music video may be exclusively offered on the subscription side of the pay-wall yet live video performance(s) and other content may be offered on the ad-supported side of the pay-wall). Nevertheless, even if the music video provider for example chose to only offer their music video content exclusively on the subscription side of the pay-wall, the music content in the form of covers, re-mixes and fan-made videos such as lyric videos would still appear on the ad-supported side of the pay-wall if those content providers choose to make them available outside the subscription side of the pay-wall which is more likely than not to be the case given the amount of promotion and exposure received in so doing. In short, a YouTube content provider could simultaneously offer both exclusive and non-exclusive content through these means which could entice further subscriptions.

    All of which is to say, if a $5.00 surcharge (for example) were levied on every internet user with an unlimited data plan and tack that surcharge on their monthly internet service provider bill (pro-rating that amount in instances were an internet user has limited access data plan) in order to effectively eradicate internet digital music piracy once and for all and thereafter putting those monies in a music industry rights holders fund for distribution to the rights holders, the music industry as a whole as well as the consumer would benefit all for the price of a cup of coffee or two per month.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Oh no no no. If I am taxed $5 per month (which thankfully republicans would never approve) I would pirate 100% of my content going forward and drop all subscriptions.

      Reply
    • Satan

      Good intention-supporting creative artists
      Bad idea-having government collect money and redistribute

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions

      Reply
      • Lyle David Pierce III

        “Anonymous”: Oh no no no, it would not be a tax. And just in case the thought of “taxation without representation” entered your mind, consider the fact that every time an internet pirate engages in an act of online digital music piracy, that it is to say, theft, it is like a “tax” imposed without representation, a conscription as opposed to a subscription. And as for your comment that “[you] would pirate [your] content 100% going forward and drop all subscriptions” that is exactly the reason why levying the surcharge on an internet user at the internet point of access makes good sense. Firstly, assuming you had internet access “Anonymous,” you would have already paid the surcharge for your access to “free digital music.” So at that point, it would simply be a matter of choosing which online digital music service (such as Spotify or YouTube for example) you would use to access the “free digital music” you have already paid for by way of the surcharge. As there are many online digital music services, it would most likely be the service that offers the best user experience, et cetera, et cetera, which would guide you in making that choice which brings me to the part of your comment wherein you stated that you would cancel your subscriptions if you were required to pay a $5.00 “tax” which, given the fact that subscriptions are approximately $9.99 per month (here now closing my eyes to the promotional offers), makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as the $5.00 surcharge (for example) would be less than the current subscription rates of $9.99 and would only require an additional $4.99 to be the same amount that you are paying now (if, for example you have a subscription to Spotify) unless, of course, you were speaking to “freemium” subscriptions which again would make no sense as you will have already paid the $5.00 surcharge which allows you to access “free digital music” from the online digital music service anyways. In short, who are you hurting in such a scenario but yourself as everyone else who has internet access has already paid the $5.00 surcharge for access to “free digital music” and that is the whole point of levying the surcharge and why it would be an effective way to eradicate online digital music piracy. In short, in such circumstances, who would you “pirate” your own content to and, why, if the internet users have all paid the $5.00 surcharge at the internet point of access and thereby have means by which to access “free digital music” from an online digital music service would they need to consume your own “pirated” digital music content or any “pirated” digital music for that matter? Would there even be a need or demand for pirate online digital music services such as “Pirate Bay” in such circumstances?

        “Satan”: In theory, the United States Congress would implement the legislation for the purpose of eradicating internet digital music piracy, however, for example, organizations such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SoundExchange could thereafter distribute the funds generated from the “INTERNET DIGITAL MUSIC ANTI-PIRACY SURCHARGE (hereinafter, referred to as “IDMAPS”) to the music industry rights holders for distribution to the rights holders. In short, the IDMAPS concept is just one of many ideas that have been raised for discussion over the past decade or so to try and come up with an effective solution to combat online digital music piracy as well as resolve the many issues regarding the implementation of an effective business model with regard to music in the digital age. If this idea provides a solution, inspires or leads to a solution to the online digital piracy problem then more time and effort can be directed to more positive pursuits rather than the problem of online digital piracy.

        Reply
        • Lyle David Pierce II

          Lyle III!!!! Sorry folks. I keep telling him this “music like water” bullshit that Peter Jenner started talking about years ago is never going to fly, but kids these days…

          Reply
          • Lyle David Pierce III

            Does the sale of compact discs actually encourage internet digital music piracy?

            Imagine that the sale of all compact discs ceased at this very moment. If that were to happen, the question that arises is: Where then would the pirates get access to the digital content in order to make such available for illegal download?

            Theoretically, as eluded to above, a $5.00 surcharge (for example) levied on every internet user with an unlimited data plan and tack that surcharge on their monthly internet service provider bill (pro-rating that amount in instances were an internet user has limited access data plans, let’s say a 1 GB per month data plan for example) at the internet point of access for the purpose of eradicating internet digital music piracy and thereafter putting those surcharge dollars in a music industry rights holders fund for distribution to the rights holders by organizations such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SoundExchange would effectively eradicate online digital music piracy, BUT FOR the availability of physical digital media which as the empirical evidence proves (and “Anonymous” stated above) would eventually make its way to a piracy site at some point.

            Assuming for purposes of discussion that digital music, digital music downloads as well as digital music videos are in an encrypted format so that the digital content could only be played through the media players of duly authorized internet digital music, digital music download or digital music video service providers, it seems probable that a combination of such measures (such as an internet user surcharge at the point of access and the elimination of physical digital media) would effectively eradicate online digital music piracy (or, at the very least, strike a major blow to the piracy organizations). The matter of which online digital music, digital music download or digital music video service providers are duly authorized remains to be seen; if there are any such duly authorized service providers, I am unaware of such (perhaps due to the confidentiality agreements).

            The thought of eliminating compact discs (and other physical digital media) from the market may sound ludicrous at first blush, but consider the alternative. If digital music, digital music downloads as well as digital music videos were encrypted in a manner that could only be accessed and played through the secure media players of the duly authorized online digital music, digital music download or digital music video service providers, in the absence of physical digital media formats such as compact discs, what other sources would be available to the piracy organizations to access digital content? If there is no access to physical digital media, it follows that there can be no physical digital content to pirate.

            It takes no great stretch of the imagination to surmise that compact discs (as well as video discs, etc.) make their way out of the manufacturing facilities, as well as the retail outlets (not to mention the unauthorized pre-release leaks of physical digital media by critics, reviewers, radio stations, et cetera) only to find their way to online digital piracy sites well before the official release dates of such physical digital media. It also takes no great stretch of the imagination to surmise that the financial losses occasioned by such unauthorized activities are exacting a devastating toll. On a lighter note, the elimination of physical digital media has a further upside such as the savings of manufacturing and shipping costs.

            As for the comments of “Lyle David Pierce II”, firstly, did you ever consider the possibility that said person could be deceased, and is in fact deceased? Secondly, it does not matter that “it will never fly,” what matters is whether or not it will float. As for the “kids these days,” that is exactly why levying a surcharge on an internet user (which is more often than naught the parents of the children or otherwise adults) at the point of access makes good sense.

          • Lyle David Pierce III

            In view of the resiliency of The Pirate Bay which simply set up 6 more domain names, and the subsequent redirection of the soon to be confiscated .se address(es) to said domains, in response to yesterday’s order (May 19th, 2015) of the Stockholm District Court to confiscate ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se domains, the idea of levying a $5.00 surcharge (for example) on every internet subscriber (user) at the internet point of access, among other things, for the purpose of eradicating internet digital music piracy is not quite as impractical as one may have first thought.

            Furthermore, the open letter sent to President Barack Obama yesterday which urged against any laws that would require companies to build “backdoors” into their software to provide government agencies access to encrypted data, may now be even more important than first thought.

            The letter which was signed by nearly 50 tech companies (including Google, Apple and Facebook) as well as others stated among other things that “[w]e urge you to reject any proposal that U.S. companies deliberately weaken the security of their products,” further requesting among other things that “…the White House instead focus on developing policies that will promote rather than undermine the wide adoption of strong encryption technology,” averring that “[s]uch policies will in turn help to promote and protect cybersecurity, economic growth, and human rights, both here and abroad.”

    • MarkH

      This is nonsense. People download books, TV shows, movies, software, etc. How many of these surcharges are you planning on adding?

      Reply
  8. CaseyFMC

    It’s a non-binding resolution that NAB pushes every Congress. Like a form letter, almost. I bet half of the House members who are on this list had no idea what they were actually signing on to.

    The many issues in rates and platform parity simply cannot be solved without eliminating the loophole in US copyright law that allows AM/FM broadcasters to not pay performers and sound copyright owners. It is also increasingly clear that this is a fundamental imbalance of trade, as US artists and labels are unable to collect for overseas plays due to a lack of a reciprocal right.

    Given the above, and a growing push from artists to eliminate this exemption once and for all, I believe there is a better chance of getting this done than any other time in history. Congress is looking very closely at music licensing reform, and a terrestrial performance right is a key part.

    Also, NAB has plenty of battles to fight on the TV side. Even if you’re that big of a trade association, budgets are finite. At some point the lobby expenditures to fight this one for radio becomes a simple cost-benefit analysis.

    Reply
    • Good Luck!

      Casey, for a Washington operative, your view on this seems a bit naive.

      First of all, you can bet that virtually every one of those House members (and Senate, as well) knew EXACTLY what they were signing. It’s not some boilerplate that they didn’t pay attention to. NAB pushes for this resolution every session, and it takes them a lot of time and lobbying effort – because they have to convince the members to sign.

      Moving on, while I agree that the issue of a broadcast performance right is a very central part of music licensing reform – and certainly key to platform parity – it’s a bit hyperbolic to say that “the many issues in rates and platform parity simply cannot be solved” without it. The only parity issue that requires it is, obviously, the issue that terrestrial radio doesn’t pay, while digital does. The distinctions between satellite and internet and between the rate setting standards could be standardized quite easily, separate and apart from the establishment of a terrestrial radio performance right.

      It’s odd that you would say – in response to an article about the fact that this resolution has been adopted, again – that you “believe there is a better chance of getting this done than any other time in history.”

      You’ve got a congress that has, once again, said that there’s basically no way it’s going to happen. What about that, makes you think a terrestrial broadcast right is any closer to happening? Because they’ve had a few hearings and the Register has said she agrees with it (again, for the 40th time in 20 years…)?

      Finally, NAB’s radio and TV sides operate virtually independently. Almost like two separate trade organizations, each representing their own broadcast medium. Whatever issues the TV side has don’t really affect the radio side, and vice-versa. You can be sure that the cost benefit analysis on this issue for radio broadcasters is “Whatever it takes, at ALL costs!!!!”

      Reply
  9. Satan

    Little secret…..National Public Radio is against it too…don’t tell anyone…….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *