Music First

San Jose Mercury News: Corporate Radio Stations Need to Show Musicians the Money

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:00:00 GMT

By John SimsonFrom the Eagles' "Hotel California" to Tupac and Dr. Dre's "California Love," the Golden State is clearly the unofficial capital of popular music. Now musicians are asking California - and San Jose Rep. Zoe Lofgren - to stand up for them in support of a bill in Congress. We need to change a practice that has been hurting artists and musicians for far too long. We need to close a corporate radio loophole that exempts terrestrial radio from fairly compensating artists for their music. Today, AM and FM radio stations pay zero royalties to artists when they play their songs over the air. That means every time you hear a song on KFOG-FM (97.7) or KEZR-FM (Mix 106.5), no performer - from the frontman to the session musicians - is compensated. As a point of reference, that same song played over the Internet, satellite radio, television or in any other Western democracy would earn a royalty for the artists and musicians that brought the music to life. In fact, when those same AM and FM radio stations that broadcast music for free stream performances over their Web sites, they pay a royalty for those songs, but continue to refuse to do so when they play it on your traditional radio. Corporate radio is the only music platform getting a free ride. While the radio industry rakes in $16 billion a year in advertising revenue, it is not paying artists even a fraction of a penny for the use of their music. Songwriters rightfully receive compensation when radio plays their songs, but it's time artists were treated fairly as well. Artists have turned radio into a multibillion industry and receive nothing for their hard work and intellectual property. Having been a member of the music community for over 30 years, I understand the years of hard work, dedication and creativity required for artists to get even one song played on the radio. And only a lucky few go on to lead successful music careers. But what makes it more difficult is the injustice of radio using artists' music for free, a pattern that has existed for over 50 years and that adversely affects artists across the nation. If you think this is unfair, you're not alone. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, of which Lofgren is a member, just approved a bill (H.R. 4789) that would correct a loophole in the copyright law and require radio broadcasters to fairly compensate artists for the use of their work. It will also bring the United States in line with every other major free-market democracy, all of whom compensate performers when their music is broadcast over terrestrial radio. A similar measure was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's a simple issue of fairness. All musicians - from aspiring singers to well-known bands - deserve to be compensated for their music when it's played over the radio. As the performance right legislation moves toward consideration in the full U.S. House of Representatives, we are asking for the citizens of California, Lofgren and others in Congress to support performers and great American music by closing the corporate radio loophole. JOHN SIMSON is executive director of SoundExchange and a member of the musicFIRST Coalition.

Reno Gazette-Journal: Radio Should Pay to Play Our Music

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:00:00 GMT

By Sam Folio For every Bruce Springsteen, Frank Sinatra or Enrique Iglesias who captures the imagination of music lovers, there are thousands of working musicians, background singers and aspiring performers who are talented, hard-working and equally dedicated to their craft. They are not household names, but we've all heard their music. Their passion and their economic survival is vital to the breadth and richness of American music.In fact, entire industries thrive on the content and diversity of American recordings. Today we have more choices and access to music than at any other point in our history. You can hear your favorite performances on AM/FM radio, on a computer or via satellite or cable services. Yet, when we look at how performers are compensated when their recordings are used to generate profit for other industries, one glaring inconsistency jumps out.While performers are paid royalties when their recordings are broadcast over the Internet, via satellite or on cable television, they do not receive a single penny when used on the AM/FM dial.In simple terms, over-the-air radio receives special treatment through an exemption in the copyright law -- a "corporate radio loophole." While other platforms pay a performance royalty to musicians, AM/FM broadcasters have a free pass to play music without paying for the content.This massive loophole disadvantages the artists and other businesses that broadcast music. In fact, the United States is in the company of Iran, North Korea and China as the only Western democracy that does not require radio stations to pay musicians a performance royalty when their music is broadcast. To make matters worse, Americans also lose foreign radio royalties because of the lack of a payment to European artists here in the United States.The radio industry earns more than $16 billion annually in advertising revenue, while at the same time refusing to compensate the artists. Congress has recognized this injustice and Bipartisan legislation is moving through both the Senate and House.In order to achieve fairness for all involved, the musicFIRST Coalition (www.musicfirstcoalition.org) is asking for support in making this legislation a reality.At the end of the day, the AM/FM radio spectrum belongs to the public. We've given free use of this spectrum to the radio industry, in return for which radio broadcasters are required to provide some public service to local communities. But it makes no sense for them, unique among all music services, to also receive free use of the content they use to build their business. The reality is that we all, including radio, will benefit from fair radio royalties to performers, because fair compensation will help keep our music strong.Sam Folio is secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada. He is a longtime Reno resident.

Jet: Rap Legends Join Sinatra Daughter in Fight for Radio to Pay Artists

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Jet magazineRap Legends Join Sinatra Daughter in Fight for Radio to Pay ArtistsJune 30, 2008To view this article, please click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, then copy and paste the URL below into your browser:http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/JetArticle.pdf

Los Angeles Times: Fair Royalties from Radio

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Unlike online outlets, local broadcast stations don't pay performers. Legislation should level the playing field and preserve public access.June 26, 2008More than 100 years ago, Congress gave composers the right to demand royalties from those who played or sang their musical works in public. That 1897 law would later help songwriters (along with their publishers) collect a percentage of the revenue from radio stations that broadcast their tunes over the air. But when the radio industry was developing early in the 20th century, there was no copyright protection for the sound-recording business that was emerging around the same time. Such rights were not made part of federal law until 1972 (in response to vinyl record bootlegging). The result was a strange double standard that persists to this day: Radio stations have to pay composers but not performers.This double standard applies only to localbroadcasters, not stations that stream songs online, through cable TV or from satellites. That gives the AM and FM dials an advantage over their digital competitors. Broadcasters defend the exemption, arguing that radio airplay gives the biggest boost to music sales. That may be true, but the value is slipping as CD sales plummet. With labels and artists relying less on selling songs and more on monetizing the activities around them, it's hard to defend the free pass awarded to one of the most profitable businesses built on music.Today, the House Judiciary Committee's panel on copyrights is expected to consider a bill (HR 4789) that would end radio's exemption. Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village) and five others, it would require broadcasters with less than $1.25 million in annual revenue to pay no more than $5,000 in annual royalties, and cap public broadcasters' fees at $1,000. All other broadcasters would be left to negotiate deals with the royalty collectives representing labels and artists or else have the rate set by a panel of federal arbitrators.It's a simple measure that strikes a blow for fairness, not just to artists and labels but to webcasters and other music services that compete with radio. Still, it's not clear how the constitutional goal of promoting "progress of science and useful arts" would be served by creating a windfall for record companies and musicians. A better approach would phase in royalties gradually and include other provisions that promote public access to music -- for example, by speeding the entry of musical works into the public domain and ensuring that reasonable personal uses of music aren't denied through the labels' use of electronic locks. Intellectual property law is supposed to balance public and private interests -- a feature that Congress often forgets when responding to copyright holders.

Los Angeles Times: Nancy Sinatra Beats the Drum for Radio Royalties

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Nancy Sinatra beats the drum for radio royaltiesThe singer is backing a bill that would require radio stations to pay performers for playing their songs.By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times Staff WriterJune 12, 2008WASHINGTON -- -- She did it her way, with boots that were made for walking, when Nancy Sinatra followed in her famous father's footsteps by becoming a singer. Now, just as the late Frank Sinatra did, she's striding down another similar path -- activism for fellow musicians.On Wednesday, she headlined a House subcommittee hearing, urging lawmakers to force broadcast radio stations to pay royalties to performers and record companies when the stations air their songs. Although composers and songwriters get royalties from radio stations, singers and musicians who perform those songs, along with the labels that own the recordings, get nothing."It's not about me. It's not about my dad. Certainly, Dad wasn't fighting for this because he needed more money," Sinatra, 68, testified. "We are in search of fairness."The issue has become crucial to musicians and recording labels as CD sales continue to fall in the digital age. The industry launched a major push last year to try again to persuade Congress to institute a performance royalty. It could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a year for musicians and record labels, which would split the fees.Frank Sinatra organized musicians to lobby for a radio performance royalty in the late 1980s, but they were unsuccessful. Nancy Sinatra and her allies again face tough opposition.Although musicians and record companies have a strong supporter in Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village), who chairs the House subcommittee that handles intellectual property issues and who introduced a bill to repeal the radio exemption, the legislation's fate is unclear.Traditional broadcast radio stations, struggling themselves against satellite radio and iPods, have launched an intense counteroffensive. The National Assn. of Broadcasters has lined up a majority of House members behind a separate bill declaring a performance royalty would hurt local radio stations. The group released a report this week saying that the free promotion from radio airplay generates $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion in music sales each year."Radio airplay drives record sales," Steve Newberry, chief executive of Commonwealth Broadcasting Corp., which operates 23 radio stations in Kentucky, told Berman's subcommittee. "The system in place today has produced the best broadcasting, music and sound recording industries in the world. It is not broken and is not in need of fixing."But musicians and some lawmakers say the system has been broken for years. Some noted that Bo Diddley, the rock legend who died this month, had to keep touring into his 70s because he received no money from the airplay his recordings got on the radio."The bill is designed to fix a glaring inequity," Berman said. His legislation would remove the exemption for over-the-air radio stations and have a panel of copyright judges set the rates, probably a small percentage of revenue. Stations, with gross revenues less than $1.25 million a year, would play a flat $5,000 annual fee.Musicians and record companies feel they have fairness on their side because performance royalties now are paid by satellite, cable music channels and Internet radio.Berman hopes to push the bill through his subcommittee in the coming weeks, although support is mixed."The benefits of having songs played on free radio by the local radio stations are tremendous," said Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) "When the songs are played, record sales go up."Berman's bill has some key backers, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). Supporters of the bill, which include the Recording Industry Assn. of America, also have Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) on their side. And the Bush administration signaled its support this week.Mitch Bainwol, who heads the RIAA, said he was hopeful Congress would approve the bill this year. But supporters say they will push again next year if they fail.

Hollywood Reporter: Nancy Sinatra Pushes for Radio Royalties

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Nancy Sinatra pushes for radio royalties,Follows father's legacyBy Brooks BoliekJune 6, 2008, 05:27 PMCorrected: June 9, 2008, 05:37 PMWASHINGTON -- Continuing her father's legacy of fighting for all musicians, Nancy Sinatra will urge lawmakers Wednesday to approve legislation giving all musicians a royalty for songs aired on traditional radio.In 1988, Frank Sinatra pushed for legislation instituting a performance royalty, and Wednesday his daughter is expected to do the same a two decades later during a congressional hearing on the Fair Performance Right on Radio legislation, according to the MusicFirst Coalition.In a letter to artists and musicians dated Dec. 12, 1988, Frank Sinatra wrote: "We are of the opinion that legislation has not been enacted in part because recording artists have not been aware of the problem, while others with vested interests have lobbied heavily for the defeat of such legislation. We believe that with a unified effort from fellow recording artists, we may be able to pass such legislation."The MusicFirst coalition is comprised of the record labels, musicians and other music industry organizations that is pushing for legislation sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif.While Nancy Sinatra will testify on the legislation a number of musical performers plan to make their voices heard Wednesday (HR 6/11).Dan Navarro, Sugarhill Gang, Whodini and Kristine W are among the artists and musicians in Washington supporting the bill.Wednesday's hearing is an indication that things are getting hot in the copyright arena as the Copyright Alliance, a broad-based copyright industry group also is planning a push for the IP-PRO bill that sets up a "copyright czar" that is scheduled for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing June 17.

Music and the Industry: The Ethical Expression - Clear Channel, Shmearchannel

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Music and the Industry: The Ethical Expression(http://theethicalexpression.wordpress.com)Clear Channel, ShmearchannelApril 29, 2008Quite an interesting forum we had over at the good â��ole Loyno tonightâ�¦my last, might I add. We had John Simson, head of SoundExchange, come speak to the music industry students about the controversy that has stemmed from SoundExchange's attempt to distribute royalties to performers based on webradio spins. Strangely enough, the room did not burst into flames as we all suspected, and no, Mr. Simson did not grow little red horns out of his temples. Quite unexpectedly, Mr. Simson made some excellent observations about the state of the radio game and the PROs that should be shared with the big wide universe out there in cyberspace.So check this one out: Mr. Simson has set up a system whereby "small webcasters" pay $500 for the year to operate their stations on the internet until 2010, at which point congress will re-address this whole "SoundExchange" issue. Companies such as Pandora, Live365, AOL, and Yahoo will be paying a substantially larger amount as their audience is much wider in scope than these "little guys." So here's where the confusion sets in.I'm pretty sure that most people aren't really aware of what SoundExchange is and why they are charging webcasters to begin with. SoundExchange is a not-for-profitâ�¦let me say that again, NOT-FOR-PROFIT company that distributes royalties to performers, back up singers, and musicians that appear on recordings played on webradio, satellite radio, and XM. This is THE ONLY company in America that attempts to pay the performers, as all the PRO's such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are established to pay the songwriter and copyright holder of the song. European countries have been doing this for years, so what gives?Here's the fun part. Essentially, terrestrial radio stations have flat out refused to pay the same rates to SoundExchange as the webcasters and satellite guys. In fact, terrestrial radio has refused to pay AT ALL on account that they have been grandfathered in the system. How can they do this, you ask? It's really quite simpleâ�¦because politicians and those lovely people that hang out in Washington count on radio for promotion and votes, there's a huge elephant in the room. Nobody wants to say anything because everyone is concerned with saving their own skin. So while your average Joe running his internet radio station from his basement has to pay SoundExchange for his hundred listeners a day, Clear Channel doesn't have to pay for their millions. As it usually does, this all comes down to politics.So here's my thoughtâ�¦this is America, people, and we claim to be on the forefront of pretty much everything. You are responsible for holding your politicians responsible for themselves. Write a letter, send an e-mail, shout it out on a rooftopâ�¦whatever it takes. And if you're looking for some ugly figurehead to point the finger at for all this SoundExchange business, blame Clear Channel and all it's nasty behemoth friendsâ�¦you know you want to anyway. SoundExchange provides an invaluable service for the artist that, up until now, nobody else has even attempted. Once again, we find yet one more reason to hate the big guy, and I must sayâ�¦it feels good.Fortune Cookie:If you are an artist, join SoundExchange, and do a little research on how this can benefit you as an artist. If you're not an artist, but a caring citizen as you should be, write your local congressman about this issue and demand some action from the terrestrial radio stations.

Houston Chronicle - Pay for Play

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:00:00 GMT

March 13, 2008EditorialFor much of the past century, American musicians have been denied the right to get paid for their work when it is used to generate audiences and profits for radio station owners. Songwriters and music publishers receive royalties, but the performers who bring the music to life have been unfairly excluded.While U.S. radio broadcasters raked in more than $20 billion in 2006 for media conglomerates, the industry's representatives claim closing the royalty loophole would constitute an onerous tax on the industry.The United States is the only developed Western nation that does not allow its musicians to collect payments for recordings played over the radio airwaves. That puts it in the unsavory company of culturally authoritarian nations, including China, North Korea and Iran.Because the United States denies royalties to foreign musicians whose recordings are aired here, our performers lose an estimated $150 million a year in royalties they would have earned abroad.No other commercial electronic medium in the United States enjoys the right to appropriate the work of artists without paying fair compensation. If music is transmitted via cable, satellite or the Internet in the United States, performers are entitled to royalties.Legislation has been percolating in Congress for more than a year to remedy this injustice. With bipartisan sponsorship in both the House and Senate, the Performance Rights Act would provide for broadcast stations to purchase a license with a one-time annual payment at a government-set rate for all music played. Small commercial stations would pay a $5,000 annual fee, and noncommercial stations such as Pacifica and college radio stations would pay $1,000 or less. Religious services broadcast on radio would be exempt.Texas singer/songwriter Lyle Lovett testified before Congress last November, saying he appreciated the support his career received through radio exposure but, "Let's face it. No one tunes in to a radio station to hear the commercials." As to the claim of broadcasters that the royalty payments would constitute an unfair tax, Lovett says "paying me for the use of my property is not a tax. It's compensation."The session musicians who provide unique sounds and treatments for popular music and the singers whose voices can create hits deserve more than recognition. They deserve remuneration.The two Texas representatives on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees studying the bill - Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee - should lend the weight of their offices to supporting legislation that rewards the efforts of Lone Star music makers.

Philadelphia Inquirer - Editorial: Radio Royalties

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:00:00 GMT

Time for the piper to get paid.Broadcast AM and FM radio stations in the United States do not pay royalties to the performers of the music they play for your listening pleasure.Surprising? Unbelievable? It is - and shameful, and wrong.A bipartisan bill now in Congress would end this unfairness. Here's wishing it a speedy and deserved progress to the president's desk - and his rightful signature.Broadcast radio does pay the writers and publishers of music, as it should - but not the performers. The United States is among the few countries where this is so. (Others are China, Iran and North Korea - a nice bunch.)Internet, satellite and cable radio pay performance royalties, but broadcast radio always has been exempt. It's a sweetheart deal of sweetheart deals - especially now, when so much radio is purveyed by huge corporate concerns.When you hear Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Madonna or BeyoncÃ© on the radio, the songwriters and publishers get paid - but the band, essentially, is playing for free.That's one of the many hard things about the professional musician's life: People expect you to share your hard-earned talents, your creativity, for nothing.Musicians may make music seem easy, but that's because they're good at it.And radio is freely accessible to everyone, which may make it seem as if everything on radio should be gratis. But why?Whenever you hear a tune, a song, an opera, any music over the public airwaves, it took a lot of very hard work to get it there.Performers should get paid - there's simply no reason to think they should happily play for free.In December, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 was introduced into the House by Reps. Howard Berman (D., Calif.) and Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and into the Senate by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Utah).Now in the judiciary committees of both chambers, the act would remove the exemption for broadcast radio and require performers to be paid a small performance royalty each time their songs are played.Advocacy groups such as MusicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists are working hard to keep "fair play for airplay" in the public view.True, some of the money may go to the big music companies - but still, the men and women who perform also will begin to get payment they have deserved for generations.True also, the world of music is changing fast, switching from old media to new in confusing lurches. But the new media are actually paying the performers!It's time to end an exemption that for 80 years - since the debut of broadcast radio - has been unfair and way out of tune.

The Washington Times - Airing on Free Use

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:00:00 GMT

By Dick ArmeyMarch 7, 2008 Sometimes economics is complicated stuff. It's dense and hard to translate, and the most sensible arguments are lost in rhetoric and technical mumbo-jumbo. But sometimes economics is plain and simple. Here's a case in point:Those who invest their blood, sweat and tears into creating something - whether a gadget, some innovative software, a work of art or music, or a new drug - deserve to be compensated for their work. That's why the patent and copyright laws are specifically required by the Constitution. It's also basic market economics.But one industry is exempt from Economics 101. One industry is legally permitted to take others' valuable property without compensation and stiff creators while every other competitor pays them.This is the broadcast radio industry, which gets to thumb its nose at economics, and the property rights of hard-working creators and investors. Radio has this exemption as a result of a historic anomaly - essentially because radio didn't exist when the copyright laws were written in 1909. Thus, since its inception, the broadcast radio industry has enjoyed a baffling and unjustifiable exemption from paying the performers of music when they use their music to make a profit. And unlike Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," performers can't do anything about it.Meanwhile, all of broadcast radio's competitors make this common-sense and economically obvious payment. Satellite radio companies XM and Sirius, Internet radio broadcasters, and even cable music channels all pay a "performance right." Of course, they all pay a royalty to the performer and copyright holder; they are using the performer's property for their own commercial purposes.Beyond the unfairness of radio's exemption, we need to consider the negative impact to our economy and our principles. With the exception of the United States, every industrialized country grants performers and record companies a right to be compensated when a song is played on the radio. I'm embarrassed to say we share our ignominious distinction with China, Iran and North Korea - not exactly the Axis of Liberty. And since American over-the-air broadcasters don't pay the performance right, the rest of the world stiffs our performers as well, leaving American money on the table that they use to subsidize their own industries. How can we demand that other countries conform to market principles and enforce intellectual property rights when we allow this massive loophole in our own property rights laws?Radio stations insist they should be able to take music for free because they promote future sales. In other words, they should get to use it for free and let someone else pay for it.Let's go back to economics. It's up to the owner of the property, not the user, to decide whether the user gets it for free. If the creator wants to allow a station to play his music without compensation because the promotional value is worth it, he is free to do so. But the choice is the owner's, not the user's.Now, I'm not against radio stations. They enrich my life immeasurably. My daily commute would be awfully boring without them. But they shouldn't be able to use other people's property for free.So I would simply ask Congress at long last to include broadcast radio with every other music platform that must pay a performance right on music they play for commercial gain. Bipartisan bills in the House and the Senate to so just that. There is no reason not to pass these bills promptly.If Congress repairs this inequity, we can go from Merle Haggard singing "Workin' Man Blues" to Hank Williams Jr. singing "If You've Got The Money (I've Got the Time)."â�¢ First, it's simply the right and fair thing to do. By exempting over-the-air radio from a performance right, the U.S. government in effect granted broadcasters a subsidy at the expense of other platforms and performers. Everyone else pays. Over-the-air radio - which already gets the spectrum for free - should pay too.â�¢ Second, it is consistent with, if not required by, our fundamental constitutional protections and traditions of protecting the work and creative brilliance of our people, whether real property, personal property or intellectual property.â�¢ Finally, it is essential if we expect others in the world to respect U.S. demands that they protect our property, because we set the standard. It is high time we hold broadcast radio to the same principles of property rights as everyone else. If they build a business out of other peoples' property, they should pay for it. If performers' music is worth using, it's worth paying for - plain and simple.Dick Armey is senior policy adviser at the law firm of DLA Piper and a former member of the House of Representatives from Texas.

24 Billion Reasons to Support Radio Performance Right

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Clear Channel Deal Closes But Not a Penny for Artists and Musicians FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECONTACT: Tod Donhauser202-326-1829tod.donhauser@edelman.comThe musicFIRST Coalition released the following statement today on the Clear Channel private equity deal. The deal is valued at $24 billion, including debt. The statement may be attributed to Doyle Bartlett, executive director, musicFIRST."News that Clear Channel, the largest radio ownership group, has gone private for $24 billion casts a spotlight on radio's failure to compensate the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners ears to the radio dial. The contrasts could not be more stark. $24 billion for corporate radio's ownership, not a penny for America's artists and musicians.""Without music, this deal would be impossible. Without music, Clear Channel's radio empire would just be castles in the sand. Yet corporate radio refuses to discuss a fair performance right for America's artists and musicians. Recently the head of the National Association of Broadcasters said â��I would rather cut my throat than negotiate on this.'""For corporate radio negotiating $24 billion deals is ok, but talking to America's artists and musicians about a fair performance right on radio is just too scary.""The Clear Channel deal makes abundantly clear the case for legislation to create a fair performance right on radio."###People who love music understand that creativity, talent and hard work are required to bring it to life. The goal of musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) is to ensure that struggling performers, local musicians and well-known artists are compensated for their music when it is played both today and in the future. Of all the ways we listen to music, corporate radio is the only one that receives special treatment. Big radio has a free pass to play music â�� refusing to pay even a fraction of a penny to the performers that brought it to life. musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) is committed to making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed Fair Pay for Air Play. For more information on musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) please visit www.musicFIRSTcoalition.org.

House Subcommittee Approves H.R. 4789, the Performance Rights Act

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

For Immediate ReleaseContact: Martin Machowsky202.326.1702martin.machowsky@edelman.comHouse Subcommittee Approves H.R. 4789, the Performance Rights ActMajor step in securing a fair performance right on radio for U.S. artists and musiciansWashington, D.C., June 26, 2008 â�� the musicFIRST Coalition issued the following statement today after the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property passed H.R. 4789, the Performance Rights Act. The statement may be attributed to Doyle Bartlett, executive director, musicFIRST Coalition."Subcommittee passage of H.R. 4789 is a major victory for America's artists and musicians and a major triumph for fundamental fairness. "We applaud Representatives Berman and Issa and the members of the subcommittee for their hard work on this bill. With their leadership and support we have made significant progress toward creating a fair performance right on radio. But we still have a long way to go. "A loophole in the law lets AM and FM music radio stations earn $16 billion a year is advertising revenue without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial. It's not right, it's not fair and we are going to make sure it is changed."All other music platforms â�� satellite radio, Internet webcasts, and cable television music stations â�� pay artists and musicians to use their music. It's only fair that terrestrial radio be held to the same standards. "H.R. 4789 includes important accommodations for small, public and religious radio stations. We are committed to working with the members of the subcommittee, our supporters in the House and Senate and broadcasters to address all reasonable concerns."Today's vote moves us one step closer to ensuring that all performers â�� from aspiring and local artists, to background singers and well-known stars â�� receive fair payment when their work is played on AM and FM radio. The subcommittee's action today is a harbinger of things to come."### People who love music understand that creativity, talent and hard work are required to bring it to life. The goal of the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is to ensure that aspiring performers, local musicians and well-known artists are compensated for their music when it is played both today and in the future. Of all the ways we listen to music, corporate radio is the only one that receives special treatment. Big radio has a free pass to play music â�� refusing to pay even a fraction of a penny to the performers that brought it to life. The musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is committed to making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed Fair Pay for Air Play. For more information on the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition please visit www.musicFIRSTcoalition.org. Supporting organizations include: American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), Music Managers Forum - USA (MMF- USA), The Latin Recording Academy, The Recording Academy, The Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Inc, Recording Artists' Coalition.

Citizens Against Government Waste Write Letter of Support for H.R. 4789

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

June 25, 2008The Citizens Against Government Waste wrote the following letter in support of the Performance Rights Act, H.R. 4789.To view this letter, click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner of this page, then copy and paste the link below into your browser:http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/CitizensAgainstGovernmentWasteSupportLetter.PDF

Nancy Sinatra Writes to Speaker Pelosi on Fair Performance Right on Radio

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Nancy Sinatra Writes to Speaker Pelosi on Fair Performance Right on RadioJune 25, 2008To view Nancy Sinatra's letter to Speaker Pelosi, click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner and copy and paste the following link into your browser:http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/SinatraPelosiLetter.pdfTo view the note that Sinatra references in the above letter, copy and paste the following link into your browser:http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/FinalSinatraLetterwithLinerNotes.pdf

Corporate Radio-Backed Resolution Still Searching for a Reason

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Martin Machowskymartin.machowsky@edelman.com202-326-1702Corporate Radio-Backed Resolution Still Searching for a ReasonWASHGINGTON, June 24, 2008 - musicFIRST Coalition issued the following statement today in response to the announcement by the National Association of Broadcasters regarding the number of co-sponsors on a non-binding resolution. The statement may be attributed to Doyle Bartlett, executive director, musicFIRST coalition."When you look at H.R. 4789, the Performance Rights Act, and corporate radio's non-binding resolution, there's not too much we disagree on. We think corporate radio should pay the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners ears to the radio dial. They don't. But on a broad range of issues we agree."The corporate radio-backed resolution addresses the interests of bars, restaurants, retail establishments, sports and other entertainment venues, shopping centers and transportation facilities. The Performance Rights Act affects none of these businesses."Corporate radio says it is concerned about small radio stations, so is musicFIRST. That is why the bill musicFIRST supports includes accommodations for small, public and religious broadcasters. Most radio stations would only pay a flat, affordable annual fee set by Congress to clear the performance rights for all the music they use. We love mom and pop radio stations and want to make sure that they survive and thrive. But giant conglomerate radio groups are doing quite well. One company alone is up for sale for $20 billion. That's more than the entire music industry. These big companies can't hide behind the mom and pops."musicFIRST and corporate radio also agree that radio has a bright future, but musicFIRST thinks that future is only as bright as the music created by artists and musicians. Music brings listeners' ears to the radio dial and boosts corporate radio's bottom line. Music and radio go hand-in-hand. They support each other. We are entering a new era in radio. Artists and musicians sound even better in high definition, and more handheld devices like mp3 players and cell phones will have radio receivers. Radio's future is bright but only if radio supports the artists and musicians who bring music to life."musicFIRST invites members of Congress who support the non-binding resolution to also support the Performance Rights Act. Members who are concerned about the future of radio can cast a vote for radio and for music by supporting the Performance Rights Act."### People who love music understand that creativity, talent and hard work are required to bring it to life. The goal of the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is to ensure that aspiring performers, local musicians and well-known artists are compensated for their music when it is played both today and in the future. Of all the ways we listen to music, corporate radio is the only one that receives special treatment. Big radio has a free pass to play music â�� refusing to pay even a fraction of a penny to the performers that brought it to life. The musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is committed to making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed Fair Pay for Air Play. For more information on the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition please visit www.musicFIRSTcoalition.org. Supporting organizations include: American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), Music Managers Forum - USA (MMF- USA), The Latin Recording Academy, The Recording Academy, The Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Inc, Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Society of Singers, SoundExchange and Vocal Group Hall of Fame.

musicFIRST Sends Herring to NAB

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJune 23, 2008Contact: Marty Machowskymartin.machowsky@edelman.com 202-326-1702musicFIRST Sends Herring to NABCorporate Radio's Promotion Argument Distracts From Real Issue; It's a Red HerringWashington, D.C., June 23, 2008 â�� The musicFIRST Coalition today sent David Rehr, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), a can of herring to make the point that corporate radio's promotion argument is nothing more than a distraction."It's a red herring," said Doyle Bartlett, executive director of the musicFIRST Coalition. "Every other platform that claims to promote music sales pays a performance royalty. The real issue is that corporate radio earns $16 billion a year playing music without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial."Satellite radio, Internet webcasts, and cable television music stations pay a performance royalty. Radio stations that stream their signal online pay a performance royalty."They all provide some promotional value and they all pay a performance royalty. Radio is different because of a loophole under copyright law, not because of promotion," Doyle said. "The loophole lets AM and FM radio stations take the property of artists, musicians and copyright holders without permission and without paying for it."Herring is the third gift that the musicFIRST Coalition has given to NAB. The first was a dictionary to help corporate radio understand that a fair performance royalty is not a tax. musicFIRST also gifted four songs on iTunes to NAB to highlight the need for a performance right on radio.A copy of the note accompanying musicFIRST's gift to NAB follows:To: David Rehr, President and CEO, National Association of BroadcastersFrom: Your friends at the musicFIRST Coalitionred herring; n1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color2[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs]: something that distracts attention from the real issue(Source: Merriam-Webster Online)At last week's hearing on H.R. 4789, the Performance Rights Act, before the House Committee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, your witnesses clung to the argument that AM and FM terrestrial radio should not pay a fair performance royalty to America's artists and musicians because of the claim that radio promotes music sales.Your argument is a red herring that distracts attention from the real issues. Every other platform that plays music and claims to promote music sales pays a performance royalty. Terrestrial radio stands alone as the only platform that does not compensate the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial.Satellite radio, webcasters, cable radio channels, and your members who stream their signals online all pay a royalty for the use of music, even though they provide free promotion of music.It is because of a loophole in copyright law, not because of promotion, that AM and FM terrestrial radio is able to take someone else's creation and property without paying for it. That's not fair. Radio should be held to the same standard of fairness as all other music platforms. Artists and musicians deserve to be compensated for their hard work and dedication, just like anyone else. It's their property â�� that radio is taking without compensation â�� that attracts listeners. AM and FM radio stations earn $16 billion a year in advertising revenue playing music. No one listens to radio for the commercials.

June 11 Hearing: Tom Lee's Testimony

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

June 11 Hearing: Tom Lee's TestimonyJune 11, 2008The following PDF contains the full testimony given by Tom Lee at the Performance Rights Act hearing on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.To view this document, click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, then copy and paste the link below into your browser.http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/TomLeeTestimonyJune11Final.pdf

June 11 Hearing: Nancy Sinatra's Testimony

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

June 11 Hearing: Nancy Sinatra's TestimonyJune 11, 2008The following PDF contains the full testimony given by Nancy Sinatra at the Performance Rights Act hearing on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.To view this document, click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, then copy and paste the link below into your browser.http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/WrittenTestimonyofNancySinatra.pdf

Frank Sinatra Letter Regarding the Performance Right

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Frank Sinatra Letter Regarding the Performance RightJune 11, 2008The following PDF contains a letter written by Frank Sinatra in 1988 about the need for a fair performance right.To view this document, click the printer icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, then copy and paste the link below into your browser.http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/assets/press/FinalSinatraLetterwithLinerNotes.pdf

Nancy Sinatra and Tom Lee of AFM Lead Charge Up Capitol Hill for Fair Performance Right on AM and FM Radio

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 11, 2008CONTACT: Tod Donhauser tod.donhauser@edelman.com 202-326-1829Nancy Sinatra and Tom Lee of AFM Lead Charge up Capitol Hill for Fair Performance Right on AM and FM RadioNancy Sinatra: "It is our music that attracts listeners and drives the multi-billion dollar radio industry."Tom Lee: "Radio may help to spread culture. But make no mistake, performers create culture." WASHINGTON, June 11, 2008 â�� Today, Nancy Sinatra, singer and daughter of iconic musician Frank Sinatra, and Tom Lee, president of the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), led the charge up Capitol Hill for the creation of a fair performance right on radio. Sinatra and Lee testified on behalf of the musicFIRST Coalition at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on H.R. 4789, the â��Performance Rights Act.'Nancy Sinatra came to Washington to continue the work her father, legendary music icon Frank Sinatra, started decades ago. During her testimony, Nancy Sinatra commented on the injustice of artists not receiving compensation by a radio industry that uses their product to garner billions in advertising revenue."It is our music that attracts listeners and drives the multi-billion dollar radio industry," Sinatra told the subcommittee members. "Imagine struggling in your job, perhaps for years, to make the best product you can â�� a product made of your blood, sweat and tears. Now imagine that someone takes your product â�� without your permission, without compensating you and without any consequences whatsoever â�� to build their own hugely successful business. Well, that is what happens to artists and musicians every single day. It is wrong and it must be fixed."Tom Lee also spoke on behalf of the musicFIRST Coalition about the importance of a performance right on radio, highlighting the fact that artists deserve to be paid for their performances, even though music is their passion."Radio may help to spread culture. But make no mistake, performers create culture," Lee said. "They may do it for love, but they also have to eat. They must provide for their families just like other working people. And although some of the younger performers may not believe it yet, some day they will want to retire â�� or their health may force them to. They don't get a weekly or a monthly paycheck. They are entrepreneurs â�� businesspeople â�� who patch together many different income streams to earn their living. Royalties, concert fees, t-shirt sales, and union payments like session fees, pension and health â�� any and every kind of payment is important to them."Sinatra also discussed her father's efforts decades ago to secure a fair performance right for artists and musicians."Many years have gone by since our industry began trying to right this terrible wrong, yet performers still are not compensated for the use of their work on broadcast radio; and we are still here, still trying to get fair pay," she said. "This is an injustice that compelled my father 40 years ago to bravely lend his voice to the cause of fairness."In a letter to artists and musicians dated December 12, 1988, Frank Sinatra wrote, "we are of the opinion that legislation has not been enacted in part because recording artists have not been aware of the problem, while others with vested interests have lobbied heavily for the defeat of such legislation. We believe that with a unified effort from fellow recording artists, we may be able to pass such legislation." Sinatra and Lee were joined in Washington by dozens of artists and musicians including Charles Tolliver, Dru Hill, Dan Navarro, Kristine W, Sugarhill Gang, and Whodini to urge support for legislation to create a fair performance right on radio.This week's activities on Capitol Hill kicked off last Friday when the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band met with the Congressional Songwriters Caucus. The band performed its hit single "Mr. Bojangles" for caucus members and explained that the songwriter, Jerry Jeff Walker, is paid every time the band's recording airs on the radio, as he should be. But the band members do not receive a penny. "Even the delivery man who brings pizza to a radio station makes more money than all the artists and musicians whose songs are played on the radio that day," Nitty Gritty Dirt Band member John McEuen told the caucus.The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property hearing on the â��Performance Rights Act' was the third Congressional hearing about the issue of a performance right on radio. In July 2007 GRAMMYÂ® winners Judy Collins and Sam Moore â�� both founding members of the musicFIRST Coalition â�� testified at the House Subcommittee hearing on "Ensuring Artists Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance Right and Platform Parity for the 21st Century." Then in November, four-time GRAMMYÂ® winner Lyle Lovett and singer songwriter Alice Peacock testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "Exploring the Scope of Public Performance Rights."The â��Performance Rights Act' â�� legislation jointly introduced in the House and Senate in December (S. 2500 and H.R. 4789) â�� would correct a loophole in the copyright law by removing the broadcaster exemption to assure that all platforms are treated equally and pay a performance royalty to artists. The musicFIRST Coalition is a partnership of more than 165 artists and 13 music industry organizations advocating that performers â�� from aspiring and local artists, to background singers and well-known stars â�� be compensated when their music is broadcast over the air. ### People who love music understand that creativity, talent and hard work are required to bring it to life. The goal of the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is to ensure that aspiring performers, local musicians and well-known artists are compensated for their music when it is played both today and in the future. Of all the ways we listen to music, corporate radio is the only one that receives special treatment. Big radio has a free pass to play music â�� refusing to pay even a fraction of a penny to the performers that brought it to life. The musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition is committed to making sure everyone, from up-and-coming artists to our favorites from years-ago, is guaranteed Fair Pay for Air Play. For more information on the musicFIRST (Fairness in Radio Starting Today) Coalition please visit www.musicFIRSTcoalition.org. Supporting organizations include: American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), Music Managers Forum - USA (MMF- USA), The Latin Recording Academy, The Recording Academy, The Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Inc, Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Society of Singers, SoundExchange and Vocal Group Hall of Fame.