Performance Rights Act Gets Support From White House


At first I had hopes because of the date, April 1, that this was a prank. Unfortunately, in the clear light of the following day it is indeed legitimate. What I’m referring to is the letter from the Commerce Department’s general counsel expressing White House support for the Performance Rights Act (PRA). Not cheerful news for stations, although the battle is not lost yet.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), our sponsors, responded in short order with this statement made by EVP Dennis Wharton (text from AllRadioNews):

“NAB was aware this letter was coming, which is a position taken previously by the Bush Commerce Department. We’re disappointed the Commerce Department would embrace legislation that would kill jobs in the U.S. and send hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign record labels that have historically exploited artists whose careers were nurtured by American radio stations. The good news is that 260 members of the House of Representatives and 27 U.S. Senators are standing with hometown radio stations and against the RIAA.”

While this represents a setback, it does not mean our cause is lost. The news that those in favor represent a rare bipartisan coalition in Congress is balanced out by the fact that those against are also a completely bipartisan group. This issue is not a simple in which party loyalties factor, oddly enough.

I really think the best argument against this legislation is a simple look at the history of radio payola, an opinion shared by Nate Anderson at Ars Technica:

[…] the NAB (correctly) points out that it has been the broadcasters who repeatedly engaged in “payola” over the years; not only has radio paid nothing to the recording industry, but the industry has gone to the trouble of paying extra to radio, just for the privilege of promoting particular songs.

Just for the record, I do agree that all broadcasters should be paying the same royalties regardless of delivery mechanism. In my opinion, that means webcasters and satellite should be paying royalties structured like radio enjoys now rather than increasing radio’s burden to match theirs.

Image: stevegarfieldCC BY 2.0


Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Performance Rights Act Gets Support From White House”

  1. Internet Radio Listener Says:

    Good for the goose?

    So, NAB is getting hoisted by their own petard, and now they are hoping to rally support? From whom, exactly? Certainly not from their fellow Internet and satellite broadcasters. United, they might have stood a chance.

  2. George Williams Says:

    Thanks for commenting, but I think if you page back through our articles you’ll find this blogs stance has always been against the additional royalties for Internet broadcasters. I’ve actually never touched on satellite honestly.

    From the link you supplied above: Responding to Westergren’s comments an NAB spokesman issued this statement: “NAB has concerns related to Congress attempting to fast-track a bill introduced less than 24 hours ago that could have serious implications for broadcasters, Webcasters, and consumers of music. NAB spent more than a year trying to work out an equitable agreement on webcasting rates, only to be stonewalled by SoundExchange and the record labels. We will continue to work with policymakers on a solution that is fair to all parties.”

    I would say that there are two readily apparent facts that support the NAB statement at that time:

    1) Webcasters (many of whom are terrestrial stations) and satellite radio became subject to the additional fees.
    2) here we are two years later seeing this battle to impose those fees on broadcasters.

    Also, I’ve met Time Westergren. I worked on Save INternet Radio stuff with him at the New Orleans Jazz Fest back in 2006. Really nice guy with a love for music and lot of business savvy. That said it think his comments about NAB slowing things down are being proven premature as the ripple effect of those hasty decisions catches up with all levels of the industry. Love him as a person, but disagree on this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: