RIAA vs NAB: The battle over Performance fees

Bring out the lobbyists. The latest battle gearing up in Washington involves the recording-industry calling for terrestrial radio to pony up performance fees for compositions broadcast over-the-air.

NAB President/CEO David Rehr wants Congress to reject the RIAA's plea to have broadcasters pay for the recordings played over the air, and he's come out swinging with a a letter to every Senator and Representative.

In the letter, Rehr says that the RIAA, "is asking Congress to support the creation of a new 'performance right' that would require local broadcasters to pay for the use of sound recordings when they are aired on the radio. But this is not a right. This is a new tax."

"In reality, the system in place today adequately compensates everyone," he writes. "Radio stations pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year to composers and publishers through fees paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. While record labels and performers may not receive payments from broadcasters, the free promotion that they receive by having their music played on the radio increases album and concert sales, which ultimately results in compensation for performers and record labels."

Funny, the same thing can be said about Internet radio and Satellite Radio. And from this standpoint, I actually will say that I agree with Mr. Rehr (*gasp!*) and the NAB (*double gasp!*). I don't believe that terrestrial radio should have to pay the performance fees - but on one condition - that Satellite Radio and Internet Radio shouldn't have to pay either.

Equal playing field. 

Sure, the NAB's motives are a bit selfish. If the NAB is going to bat for terrestrial radio, and for Internet radio, it's a bit hypocritical to not defend satellite radio at the same time. But the end game is the same: all broadcasters should be treated the same. Digital or not.

In 1995, Congress agreed with the RIAA that copyright owners should receive royalties for digital streaming of performances. But there is truly little difference between analog and digital broadcasts - especially from the listener's standpoint. All the recording-industry wants is to line their pockets further. But then again, so does the NAB.

Don't be fooled, this has nothing to do with the artists, this has everything to do with squeezing every industry they possibly can. But if terrestrial radio doesn't pay, then neither should other mediums. But if Internet and Satellite need to pay, well then...

[via Radio & Records]