Breaking: Seven Additional Members of Congress Co-Sponsors of Local Radio Freedom Act

A bipartisan group of six new Members of Congress and a Senator are in full support of the Local Radio Freedom Act that dictates “Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recording on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings.”

Adding to the list of supporters are Reps. Joe Barton (TX-6), Lynn Jenkins (KS-2), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5), Erik Paulsen (MN-3), Jim Renacci (OH-16) and Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1), and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

The Local Radio Freedom Act is now co-sponsored by 139 Members of the House and 11 Senators.

5 Responses

  1. Visitor

    Its not surprising. Radio is one of the most powerful influences for elections. They can bend congress to do whatever they want.

    Unlike many artists and songwriters, congressmen still understand the reach radio has and the promotional power it can offer. They are willing to pay radio for the promotion by giving them favors on matters such as this. That advertising is worth it to them. Meanwhile artists still seem to think they should be paid for free advertising. And people call politicians greedy….

  2. Henry Chatfield

    With that logic are you also in favor or Pandora paying lower fees?

    They represent almost 8% of the entire US radio listenership so you can’t really argue that they no longer promote the artist too.

    I’m not saying radio doesn’t provide something of value, I just think the perceived value exchange is imbalanced, heavily in favor of radio.

  3. Vi

    Hey visitor by that logic then tv stations shouldn’t pay for programming since its free advertising for pay per view or Netflix or DVDs. So I guess every other country in the world has it wrong but these shills for the broadcast industry know better huh?

  4. Visitor

    First, let’s not forget that terrestrial radio pays the publishing royalties. So their argument that radio should be “free” because there’s an even exchange in promotional value is already a bit disingenuous. As an aside (DMN readers likely already know), our system of not paying royalties on the recorded music is unique to the US; whereas in most of the rest of the world, both the composition and the recorded music owners receive a royalty for terrestrial radio (aka public performances).

    Anyway, back to the argument concerning the promotional value of radio making up for the lack of a music royalty. This argument simply doesn’t hold water for me — if it is indeed promotional, then the copyright holders should be willing to waive their royalty in exchange for greater airplay and promotion. What this comes down to is what a fair rate is for the use of copyrighted works in building a business, whether its terrestrial radio or non-interactive Internet radio (a la Pandora) and I just don’t think it is the place of these Congressmen to make business judgments on the value of promotion vis a vis the use of the copyrighted work. Let the market decide.

    • hippydog


      It seems pretty simple to me.. Let the ARTIST, the OWNER of the copyright DECIDE what or who is the best promotional value for THEM..