There are hearings on Congress on whether terrestrial radio should pay a performance royalty for the music they play. They have not had to do so, unlike the radio industries in other parts of the world, for historical reasons. The music industry has been lobbying to right this decades-long wrong and their arguments seem to have sympathetic ears in Congress notwithstanding the political capital of the NAB. I'm not always sympathetic to the arguments of the labels but, in this case, I am.
Quite simply, I don't think US terrestrial has a leg to stand on. They claim that they serve a promotional role for the music they play and that they should therefore be exempt (while internet & satellite radio isn't). As Billy Corgan testified, there is no doubt that radio is a heavy promoter of music. So what. They are still using a copyright and the owner of the copyright ought to get paid for it, especially if their IP can be licensed on a statutory basis. Their argument is absurd: they pay Rush Limbaugh for his content and go after people that try to re-broadcast it but they won't do the same for the music they play.
It is time for this to be changed and I hope it happens. It may well hasten the departure of music from FM radio but that would be a market decision. In fact, some enterprising labels may calculate that they do indeed derive a greater promotional benefit and offer to waive the royalties for stations playing their repertoire. But that should be the prerogative of the copyright holder.
Comments