Bill Would Fill the Gap in Copyright Protections for Music on AMFM Radio

On January 31, Sen. Marsha Blackburn filed the American Music Fairness Act. If it were to become law, the bill would secure full public performance rights in copyright owners' music sound recordings. The bill is backed by a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, including Senators Alex Padilla, Thom Tillis, and Corey Booker. An announcement for the bill states that Rep. Darrell Issa will be introducing companion legislation in the House. In the 119th Congress, both chambers should give the American Music Fairness Act the timely consideration it deserves. 

Copyright law contains a gap in its protection of the property rights of sound recording owners. Currently, terrestrial commercial AM/FM radio stations are allowed to broadcast copyrighted music sound recordings to attract listening audiences and earn money from airing ads around those recorded songs – all without obtaining a license or compensating the recordings' owners. 

 

The American Music Fairness Act would fix the issue. Under the Act, AM/FM stations would be required to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings – just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners. 

 

Importantly, the American Music Fairness Act would set low, set flat royalty rates for smaller stations. For instance, the bill would establish a rate of $10 per year for non-profit and commercial stations that generate less than $100,000 in revenue each year. An annual rate of $500 would apply to stations that generate revenues over $100,000 but less than $1.5 million each year. 

 

Another merit of the Act is that it would enable sound recording owners to receive public performance royalties from foreign radio stations. The U.S.’s lack of full public performance rights has enabled foreign stations to lawfully withhold royalties from American copyright owners. But if the Act becomes law, foreign trade agreement provisions would kick in and compel those stations to finally pay American sound recording owners for the use of their copyrighted property. 

 

Previously, the American Music Fairness Act has been falsely attacked as a tax bill. In reality, the Act is a pro-property rights bill. No intellectually honest person can claim one private party's obligation to pay another private party for the use of private property is a government tax. Copyright royalties are not taxes. (The obvious differences between payments for the right to make copies, publicly display, or publicly perform another's copyrighted property and payments of taxes or fees to the government are addressed in more detail in my blog post from September 2022.) 

 

The American Music Fairness Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in prior Congresses, and the House Judiciary Committee passed it in December 2022. Sen. Blackburn and her colleagues deserve thanks for reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act in the 119th Congress and giving sound recording owners another chance at being fully secured in their rights. Hopefully, the Senate will take up the bill for due deliberation.

 

Additional background on the American Music Fairness Act can be found in my 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," as well as in my April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections for Music Sound Recordings."

Congress Should Fully Protect Valuable Copyrighted Music Recordings

On August 29, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) released its "Mid-Year 2024 RIAA Revenue Statistics" report. RIAA's report finds a 4% increase in U.S. recorded music market retail revenues for a total of $8.7 billion during the first half of 2024 compared to $8.4 billion during the first half of the prior year. Digital streaming service subscriptions totaled about 99 million during the first half of this year, and those subscriptions account for almost two-thirds of total revenues. Additionally, the reported $994 million in physical sales during the first half of 2024 was up from $822 million during the first half of 2023, due primarily to a 17% increase in revenues from vinyl record sales. See RIAA's report for more details.

As music recording artists, producers, and the rest of the recorded music industry pursue creative and economic opportunities in 2024, there remains work for the 118th Congress to do to help ensure that valuable copyrighted sound recordings receive full protection under the law. One important thing Congress should do is advance the American Music Fairness Act – S.253 and H.R. 791. 

Under current copyright law, terrestrial AM/FM radio stations have a special exemption from paying royalties to owners of copyrighted sound recordings when those stations play the music on the air. Consequently, foreign terrestrial AM/FM radio stations do not have to pay royalties for playing copyrighted music owned by Americans so long as domestic terrestrial AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have no obligation to pay such royalties. In other words, the recorded music industry does not generate any direct revenues from radio broadcasts of copyrighted sound recordings. 

But S.253 and H.R. 791 would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do. Passage of the Act would enable U.S. copyright owners to receive royalties from foreign stations. Notably, the Act provides a low flat royalty rate for small commercial and non-profit stations. 

 

For further background on the American Music Fairness Act, see my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings." And for a brief overview of the hearing on H.R. 7910 held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet during the summer, see my July 5 blog post "American Copyright Owners Deserve Royalties When Radio Stations Use Their Property."

American Copyright Owners Deserve Royalties When Radio Stations Use Their Property

 On June 26, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a Hearing titled "Radio, Music, and Copyrights: 100 Years of Inequity for Recording Artists." The hearing featured testimony from witnesses on two competing legislative measures introduced in the 118th Congress: the American Music Fairness Act of 2023 and the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act.

The American Music Fairness Act – H.R. 791 and S.253 – would finally recognize a public performance right in terrestrial AM/FM radio broadcasts of copyrighted music recordings. If passed into law, the Act would require for-profit AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do. Smaller commercial AM/FM stations as well as non-profit stations that have less financial resources would qualify for a significantly reduced annual royalty payment of $500, $100, or $10. 

Testimony by country music star Randy Travis and his wife Mary Travis challenge the position of many radio stations that American recording artists don't deserve a public performance right for their sound recordings for radio airplay because radio broadcasts of their music promote sales of physical CDs, merchandise, and tickets. Indeed, in the age of digital streaming services, revenues from CD sales are only a fraction of what they were many years ago, and many recording artists struggle to make a living and pay their crew and other co-workers. Commercial terrestrial AM/FM radio stations profit from playing copyrighted sound recordings. Internet streaming and satellite radio services pay public performance royalties for broadcasting copyrighted sound recordings, and it makes no sense to continue giving terrestrial AM/FM radio services. 

 

At the hearing, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe testified to the important point about how the American Music Fairness Act would benefit American recording artists and copyright owners by unlocking significant royalties from foreign radio stations. As explained in my March 27 blog post, "Music Revenue Report Should Spur Congress to Secure Copyrights Fully":

Under existing international agreements, foreign terrestrial AM/FM radio stations do not have to pay royalties for playing copyrighted music owned by Americans so long as domestic terrestrial AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have no obligation to pay such royalties. Passing the American Music Fairness Act would open up those foreign royalty streams to U.S. copyright owners. Importantly, the legislation is sensitive to the limited financial resources of smaller commercial and non-profit stations by treating them to a low, flat royalty rate. 

The case for the American Music Fairness Act is presented in further detail in my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," and in my August 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Congress Should Secure Full Protections for Music Sound Recordings." 

 

Testimony from National Association of Broadcasters President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt endorsed the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act – H.ConRes.13 and Sen.Con.Res.5  – a resolution stating that Congress should not impose "any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge" on a local radio station broadcasting sound recordings over the air. But Mr. LeGeyt's testimony, like the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act, wrongly lumps payment of royalties by a radio station for commercially exploiting someone else's copyrighted property in with fees and taxes paid to the government. NAB's position isn't new, and it doesn't overcome the just claims of the owners of copyrighted property. I addressed the critical distinction between royalties and taxes in my September 2022 blog post, "In Debate Over Radio Royalties, Congress Should Favor Property Rights."

 

The American Music Fairness Act deserves to be advanced by Congress because it is a sound policy rooted in constitutionally recognized property rights principles. The other legislative measure is not. 

Music Revenue Report Should Spur Congress to Secure Copyrights Fully

On March 26, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) released its "Year-End 2023 RIAA Revenue Statistics." On the positive side for music sound recording artists and copyright owners, RIAA's report reveals annual increases in U.S. recorded music market revenues. But the report's release also ought to remind Congress that it ought to secure broader legal recognition of music copyrights and promote creative and economic opportunities by passing the American Music Fairness Act – S.253 and H.R. 791.

According to RIAA's report, total revenues retail for the U.S. sound recording grew 8% to $17.1 at retail estimated value, up from $15.9 billion in 2023. Revenues from paid subscriptions to streaming music services grew 9% last year $11.2 billion, amounting to 78% of streaming revenues and almost two-thirds of total revenues. Paid subscriptions to on-demand music services totaled 96.8 million, constituting an annual growth rate of 5.7%

 

Although annual revenues from digital downloads dropped again in 2023 – slipping to $434.1 million compared to nearly $495 million in 2023 – revenues from sales of physical copies of sound recordings rose again last year. In 2013, vinyl record sales revenues rose to $1.4 billion, up 11% compared to the year before, marking the seventeenth consecutive year of vinyl sales increases and the second consecutive year in which vinyl unit sales have exceeded CD unit sales. Last year, CD sales revenues also rose 11% to $537 million.

 

These positive annual revenue totals and trends reflect the high value and growth potential of copyrighted music. Copyrighted property deserves legal protections and a market environment favorable to creative and economic flourishing. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I observed in our book Modernizing Copyright Law: Constitutional Foundations for Reform (Carolina Academic Press, 2020), the American Founders believed that one of the key roles of government is to protect and promote the creation, acquisition, use, and value of private property. The U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8 Copyright Clause gives the federal government a direct charge to secure rights in creative works, declaring that Congress shall have power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Congress should take action to promote creative and economic opportunity in the U.S. recorded music market. It should advance the American Music Fairness Act – S.253 and H.R. 791. 

The American Music Fairness Act would ensure equal legal treatment of different music distribution platforms and alleviate unfairness to copyrighted owners of recorded music who receive no compensation when their recorded songs are commercially by terrestrial AM/FM stations. Under current copyright law, terrestrial AM/FM radio stations have a special exemption from paying royalties to owners of copyrighted sound recordings when those stations play the music on the air. But S.253 and H.R. 791, would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do.  

 

Under existing international agreements, foreign terrestrial AM/FM radio stations do not have to pay royalties for playing copyrighted music owned by Americans so long as domestic terrestrial AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have no obligation to pay such royalties. Passage of the American Music Fairness Act would open up those foreign royalty streams to U.S. copyright owners. Importantly, the legislation is sensitive to the limited financial resources of smaller commercial and non-profit stations by treating them to a low, flat royalty rate. 

 

For further background on the American Music Fairness Act, see my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings."

Satellite and Webcasting Royalty Payments at Issue in Copyrighted Music Case

On August 16, a lawsuit was filed for a case called SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. Plaintiff SoundExchange's complaint alleges that Sirius XM underpaid royalties for public performance of copyrighted music recordings on its satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS). SoundExchange is a non-profit entity that collects digital performance royalties from statutory license users and distributes them to artists and copyright owners.  

Royalty rates are set by the Copyright Royalties Board (CRB). The CRB separately sets royalty fees for satellite radio and commercial webcasters under the statutory license. As explained in SoundExchange's complaint, regulations provide that "royalties for webcasting are calculated on a per-performance basis rather than as a percentage of gross revenues: the webcasting royalty is assessed for each transmission of a sound recording to a listener, while the SDARS royalty is assessed as a percentage of the revenues the service generates." 

SoundExchange alleges that Sirius XM improperly allocated excessive amounts of revenue to its webcasting service – which requires lower royalty payments – thereby reducing royalties payable for its satellite radio service. Additionally, SoundExchange alleges that an independent audit revealed Sirius XM underpaid royalties, and that regulations require that amount owed – as determined by the auditor – be paid. According to SoundExchange's complaint: "To date, Sirius XM already has unjustifiably withheld more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists and copyright owners under the SDARS statutory license."

The case is likely to be a one-off because Sirius XM is the only provider of SDARS and music webcasting services. But given that Sirius XM has approximately 34 million subscribers and generates significant public performance royalties – not to mention the $150 million in unpaid royalties figure alleged in the complaint – a legal resolution will be tremendously important for copyright owners. 

That said, copyrighted sound recordings are valuable property and it is the role of Congress -- and its delegated authorities at the Copyright Royalty Board -- to provide clear boundary rules defining the scope of exclusive rights and expectancy interests in copyrighted property. Clear rules are a necessary foundation for ensuring that copyright owners can maximize the value and returns for their labors and investment. If nothing else, the case may furnish occasion for more clearly specify for future purposes how revenues and royalties are allocated between SDARS and webcasting services. 

 

This blog post does not express a position on the correct prospective outcome in SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. The case is only at its beginning in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Sirius XM has not yet filed any detailed pleadings in response to those SoundExchange allegations. Stay tuned. 

Stronger Copyrights Would Give Added Boost to Rising Music Market

On March 9, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) released its "Year-End 2022 RIAA Revenue Statistics." RIAA's report highlights continuing annual increases in U.S. recorded music market revenues. Hopefully, recording artists also do well here in 2023. But Congress can promote the continued success and expansion of economic opportunities in the copyright-intensive music recording industry by passing the American Music Fairness Act – S.253 and H.R. 791.

RIAA's report found that retail revenues for the U.S. sound recording industry grew to $15.9 billion in 2022, up from $15 billion in 2022. Revenues from paid subscription music services increased 8% to 10.2 billion in 2022, accounting for 77% of streaming revenues and almost two-thirds of total revenues. Interestingly, in 2022, vinyl records outsold music CDs for the first time since 1987. For the sixteenth year in a row, revenues for vinyl record sales have increased. And in 2022, revenues from sales of vinyl grew 17%, constituting $1.2 billion of the $1.7 total for sales of physical copies that year. Also, $495 million in revenues were generated from sales of digital downloads, an annual figure that amounted to only 3% of annual U.S. recorded music revenues last year. Digital download revenues have declined several years in a row since 2012, when they constituted 43% of annual recorded music revenues. 

Bearing those overall positive findings in mind, there are steps that Congress can and should make to promote flourishing and opportunity in recorded music marketplace. One significant thing that Congress can do is pass the American Music Fairness Act, which was reintroduced in the 118th Congress as S.253 and H.R. 791. 

 

Existing copyright law exempts terrestrial AM/FM radio stations from paying royalties to owners of copyrighted sound recordings when their music is given radio airplay. Online subscription services and online ad-supported services that play copyrighted sound recordings pay royalties to the owners of those sound recordings. But no such payments are required by AM/FM stations that profit from broadcasting copyrighted sound recordings by drawing audiences and resulting ad revues. 

 

The American Music Fairness Act would rectify this unequal legal treatment and the unfairness to copyrighted owners who receive no compensation when third party terrestrial AM/FM stations commercially exploit their creative works. S.253 and H.R. 791 would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do.  

 

An oft-overlooked downside to the current terrestrial AM/FM station exemption for paying public performance royalties to copyrighted sound recording owners is that the exemption effectively precludes the sound recording owners from receiving royalties from foreign stations that play their music over the air. So long as domestic terrestrial AM/FM radio stations have no obligation to pay royalties for broadcasting copyrighted sound recordings owned by American, foreign radio stations are similarly relieved from having to pay those royalties when they play copyrighted music owned by Americans. Passing of the American Music Fairness Act into law would therefore enable American copyright owners to tap royalty streams in foreign nations. Notably, the legislation takes a light-touch approach to smaller commercial and non-profit stations by treating them to a a low, flat royalty rate. 

 

My February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," spotlighted the hearing that the legislation received a in the House Judiciary Committee during the 117th Congress. The 118th Congress is now primed to advance the American Music Fairness Act into law. 

American Music Fairness Act Advances Out of House Committee

On December 7, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend the American Music Fairness Act – H.R. 4130 – in the form of a substitute bill. The legislation now goes to the full House of Representatives for consideration. The House – and then the Senate – should pass the bill into law and secure full public performance rights in copyright owners' music sound recordings. 

Under existing copyright law, terrestrial commercial AM/FM radio stations can profit off of copyrighted music sound recordings by broadcasting them to attract audiences and then draw revenue from running ads – all without paying royalties to the recordings' owners. The American Music Fairness Act would finally change this. The bill would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners.

An important aspect of the American Music Fairness Act is that the bill includes a low, flat royalty rate for smaller commercial stations and for non-profit stations. In addition to ensuring that sound recording owners finally receive compensation for third-parties' commercial use of their copyrighted works in America, the bill would enable sound recording owners to begin receiving from foreign radio stations public performance royalties that have long been withheld because of the shortcomings of U.S. copyright law.

Also, nobody in Congress should take seriously the claim that royalty payments to copyright owners for public use – including commercial use – of their works is a tax. Royalties are not taxes. There are obvious differences between paying taxes or fees to the government and paying for the right to make copies, publicly display, or publicly perform another's copyrighted property. (I address this matter more in my blog post of September 6, 2022.) The American Music Fairness Act is a pro-property rights bill. 

For further background on the American Music Fairness Act, see my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," as well as my April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections for Music Sound Recordings."

Recording Music Revenues Up: Stronger Copyrights Would Increase the Pot

Late September of this year, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) released its "Mid-Year 2022 RIAA Revenue Statistics." RIAA's report reveals many interesting and positive trends and data points for the U.S. recorded music market. The report also ought to serve as a reminder that the sound recording industry is copyright intensive and that Congress can bolster copyrights for owners of music recordings by passing the American Music Fairness Act.

According RIAA's report, during the first half of 2022, retail revenues for the U.S. sound recording industry grew to $7.7 billion, up from $7 billion during the first half of 2021. And wholesale revenues rose to $4.9 billion during the first half of the year, up $300 million compared to the first half of the prior year. 

Streaming is overwhelmingly the dominant source of revenue for the sound recording industry, as about 84% of its revenues during the first half of 2022 came from streaming services. Of the $6.5 billion generated by streaming during the first half of the year, about 78% or $5 billion came from paid streaming subscription services. Meanwhile, revenues from digital downloads of single tracks and albums declined 20% to $256 million, amounting to only 3% of total revenues for the recorded music industry. As RIAA's report shows, paid subscriptions have continuously increased in recent years and have now reached the 90 million subscriber mark.

 

Conversely, RIAA reported declines in revenues from digital and customized radio services such as SiriusXM and Internet radio stations. Total revenues from that category of services dropped 3%, down to $556 million. Notably, U.S. copyright law does not secure a public performance right for sound recording owners when AM/FM terrestrial radio stations broadcasts their music. As a result, direct revenues to the music recording industry from airplay on terrestrial radio is effectively zero. 

In terms of revenues from retail sales of physical products, revenues from CD sales declined 2% to $200 million. CD sales constitute 26% of physical revenues. Yet revenues from vinyl records continue to grow. According to RIAA's report, "[r]evenues from vinyl albums grew 22% to $570 million, and vinyl's share of the physical market increased from 68% to 73%."

Having noted these overall positive trends in music recording revenues, there are things that Congress can do to help promote the music marketplace and grow the pie bigger for recording artists and music fans. Perhaps the most immediate thing Congress can do is pass the American Music Fairness Act – H.R. 4130 and S. 4932. 

As previously mentioned, current copyright law exempts terrestrial AM/FM radio stations from having to pay royalties to owners of copyrighted sound recordings when their music is played on the air. This means that commercial AM/FM stations can profit off of copyrighted sound recordings by broadcasting them to attract audiences and then draw revenue from running ads. 

The American Music Fairness Act would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners.

 

So long as the U.S. exempts American AM/FM stations from paying royalties to American sound recording owners, foreign stations have no obligation to pay royalties for broadcasting copyrighted sound recordings owned by Americans. But by passing the American Music Fairness Act into law, Congress would open up royalty revenue streams from foreign radio stations and American copyright owners would receive revenues that they rightfully deserve. Importantly, the legislation includes a low, flat royalty rate for smaller commercial stations as well as for non-profit stations. 

As discussed in my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," H.R. 4130 has received a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. And S. 4932 was introduced in September of this year. There is still time in the 117th Congress for the American Music Fairness Act to become law. Congress ought to make it so. 

Senate Bill Would Ensure Royalties for Radio Play of Copyrighted Sound Recordings

On September 22, Senators Alex Padilla and Marsha Blackburn announced the introduction in the Senate of the American Music Fairness Act – S.4932. If it becomes law, the bill would secure full public performance rights for owners of copyrighted music sound recordings. In particular, the bill would secure the right of sound recording owners to receive royalties when their music is broadcast by terrestrial AM/FM radio stations. Current copyright law specially exempts AM/FM radio stations from having to pay such royalties, thereby giving those stations free rider use of copyrighted sound recordings for commercial purposes. That exemption should be removed from copyright law.  

S.4932 is identical to H.R. 4130. The latter bill received a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on February 2 of this year. The House Judiciary hearing on the bill was the subject of my February 24, 2022, Perspectives from FSF Scholars,"American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings." Additional reasons for supporting the legislation were offered in Free State Foundation Legal Fellow Andrew Magloughlin's March 2022 blog post, "Broadcasters' FCC Filing Undermines Radio Copyright Exemption." And the American Music Fairness Act was one of the many interesting issues discussed during FSF's July 2022 webinar, "Hot Topics in Copyright Policy."

 

Notably, the American Music Fairness Act provides for significantly reduced royalty payment rates for non-profit and small commercial AM/FM radio stations. And don't for a minute confuse royalties with taxes. Royalties are payments owed to private parties for usage of their property rights. For more on royalties versus taxes, see my blog post from September 6 of this year, "In Debate Over Radio Royalties, Congress Should Favor Property Rights."

 

Hopefully, the 117th Congress will dedicate time in its remaining schedule to pass the American Music Fairness Act into law. By doing so, Congress will accord owners of copyrighted music sound recordings what is rightfully due to them when their music is played by commercial AM/FM radio stations. 

In Debate Over Radio Royalties, Congress Should Favor Property Rights

An article published in Law360 on August 31 covers the ongoing debate in Congress over whether AM/FM radio stations ought to pay royalties when the stations play copyrighted sound recordings over-the-air. Mixed into the debate is an attempt by some radio broadcasters to equate copyright royalties with taxes. But it's a ruse and easy to see through. Royalties are rooted in intellectual property (IP) rights, and Congress should recognize the right of sound recording owners to receive royalties when their copyrighted music is played on the radio. 

The Law360 article mentions House Concurrent Resolution 33, which opposes recognizing the exclusive right of music recording owners to receive royalties when radio stations, including for-profit stations, broadcast their intellectual property (IP). House Concurrent Resolution 33 (H.Con.Res.33) states that "Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings."

 

It's bothersome that the House resolution lumps in public performance royalties with government fees and taxes. There are obvious, categorical differences between those things, but the resolution's language appears intended to blur the distinctions. Royalties are not taxes or government fees. Royalties come from private property rights. They are proceeds from the use of one's private property by another private party. 

 

The House resolution gets it right on taxes, but wrong on royalties. Congress should not impose new government fees or taxes on users of copyrighted sound recordings like AM/FM radio stations. But Congress also should not continue to privilege radio stations with free rider use of copyrighted sound recordings that belong to third parties. That privilege unjustly undermines the property rights of sound recording owners to receive a return when their private property is commercially exploited. 

 

For a legislative approach to this topic that better respects IP rights, see my August 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections from Sound Recordings" and my February 2022 Perspectives, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings." As explained in those papers, the American Music Fairness Act (H.R. 4130) would finally recognize that sound recording owners have a public performance right to receive royalties when their copyrighted works are played over-the-air by AM/FM radio stations. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8 Copyright Clause gives Congress the responsibility to secure property rights in creative works such as sound recordings. And the American Music Fairness Act, if enacted, would achieve a pro-property rights result. The House Judiciary Committee ought to favorably report the bill and the House ought to pass it.   

Tennessean Op-Ed on Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I today published an op-ed in The Tennessean titled "Three Ways to Modernize Copyright Laws in the Digital Age." The just-published op-ed touches on themes we addressed in more detail in our new book, Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age – Constitutional Foundations for Reform(Carolina Academic Press 2020). Our thanks go to The Tennessean for publishing our op-ed. Be sure to check it out at The Tennessean's website. Our new book is available both in print and e-book editions. 

Teleforum on Modernizing Copyright Law - Audio Available

On March 31, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I participated in a Federalist Society teleforum to discuss themes from our new book Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age – Constitutional Foundations for Reform. The discussion ranged from DMCA reform, small copyright claims relief, AM/FM terrestrial radio's exemption, and the natural rights basis for copyrights. Audio for that teleforum can now be downloaded or streamed from the Federalist Society's website. Our thanks go to the Federalist Society, to moderator Prof. Adam Mossoff, and to teleforum participant Vice Dean and Prof. Michael Risch. Our new book is now available for purchase at Amazon and at Carolina Academic Press. 

Congress Should Take Up the AM-FM Act to Better Protect Music Copyrights

The owners of copyrighted music should be protected in their rights. But a glaring void in the law allows AM and FM radio stations to play copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining permission or paying the owners. Legislation introduced in Congress on November 21 called the "Ask Musicians for Music Act" (AM-FM Act) would, if passed, fill that void and secure to sound recording owners the legal protections they deserve. 

The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause gives Congress the responsibility to secure exclusive rights in the creative works of musical and other artists. Yet existing law gives terrestrial AM and FM radio broadcasters an unfair privilege by allowing them to retransmit copyrighted sound recordings without having to pay any royalties to the owners of those recordings. No matter how many stations play their music, no matter how many plays their music receives, and no matter how much money those stations make, sound recording owners receive no royalties from AM and FM broadcasters.

According to the FCC's Communications Marketplace Report (2018), total broadcast radio revenue exceeded $16.5 billion in 2016. (This figure excludes digital/online revenue received by broadcast stations.) SoundExchange has estimated that American copyright owners of sound recordings are denied about $200 million in annual royalties that would have been paid to them for radio broadcasts in other nations. The law also confers an unfair advantage on terrestrial AM/FM broadcasters, since competing satellite radio broadcasters and non-interactive online services (or webcasters) do have to pay royalties for transmissions of copyright sound recordings. 

Congress should better secure copyright protections in sound recordings. Promising legislation introduced soon in the Senate by Senator Marsha Blackburn and in the House by Representative Jerry Nadler would serve that constitutional purpose. 

The AM-FM Act would amend the Copyright Act by requiring AM and FM stations to get the consent of copyright owners before broadcasting their sound recordings. In other words, the AMFM Act would finally give sound recording owners the say over whether their own sound recordings may be used by terrestrial radio broadcasters. And it would allow them to seek payment for such usage. Also, creative artists and other sound recording owners who prefer letting stations to play their music over the air for free may let them to do so. 

Additionally, the AM-FM Act would protect small broadcasters as well as public and education stations by capping the compensation that sound recording owners may annually receive from those stations. The focus of the AM-FM Act is on large commercial broadcasters.

Interestingly, many broadcasters have called for reforms that would better respect their own copyrights by allowing them to negotiate with cable operators over retransmission rights for broadcast TV programming. Existing law provides cable operators a compulsory license to retransmit to their subscribers copyrighted broadcast TV programming by paying royalties to the programming owners at government-prescribed rates. Broadcasters have claimed that the compulsory license unfairly restricts their exclusive rights in their TV programming and that it results in royalty payments below what they could negotiate in a free market setting. So, it's a bit odd – indeed, inconsistent – for broadcasters to steadfastly oppose payments for radio broadcasts of copyrighted sound recordings. 

The AM-FM Act constitutes an important step in respecting exclusive rights in creative works in all circumstances, regardless of medium or commercial industries involved. By passing the AM-FM Act, Congress can better secure copyrights in sound recordings and meet its obligation under the Constitution's Copyright Clause. 

Pre-72 Sound Recording Owners Now Receive Royalties They Deserve

October 11 marked the one-year anniversary of the signing of the Music Modernization Act of 2018. Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I supported the MMA, including its provision to ensure that copyright owners of sound recordings made before early 1972 receive federal protections for public performances of their recordings via digital audio transmission just like post-72 sound recordings.  

According to SoundExchange's "Digital Radio Report" for the third quarter of 2019: "SoundExchange is already administering the majority of the MMA’s provisions, distributing more than $10M in royalties to creators of pre-72 recordings and millions more to producers."

The U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 Copyright Clause empowers Congress to secure exclusive rights in creative works so that the creators of such works can enjoy the fruits of their labors. The MMA appears to be fulfilling that constitutional imperative.  

IP Enforcement Coordinator's Report Spotlights Copyright Protection Progress

In late February, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) released its Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress. The Report provides "an overview of the Trump Administration's intellectual property enforcement strategy and policy efforts" across multiple agencies. IPEC's coordination and development of U.S. IP policy is intended "to promote innovation and creativity, and to ensure effective intellectual property protection and enforcement, domestically and abroad." 

Although the Trump Administration's enforcement policy "includes all areas of intellectual property and innovation policy," its policy activities regarding copyright protections merit attention. In 2018 progress was made in better securing copyrights. But there is plenty more that the Trump Administration and the 116th Congress can do to modernize and strengthen protections for Americans' creative works. 

One achievement touted in the Report is the passage of the Music Modernization Act of 2018. In an op-ed for The Hill and in several blog posts, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I urged Congress to adopt reforms contained in that legislation. The Act (1) secured federal copyright protections for public performances via digital audio transmission of pre-1972 sound recordings; (2) established a streamlined process for producers, mixers, and sound engineers to directly receive royalty payments; and (3) facilitated more timely and accurate payment of songwriter "mechanical license" royalties and also provided blanket licenses for digital streaming services. As I explained in a February blog post, the widely endorsed MLC Coalition will be submitting to the U.S. Copyright Office a proposal for creating a collective entity to administer mechanical license royalties pursuant to the Act. 

An appendix in the IPEC Report highlighted the Copyright Office's expected release of its public study report on the "moral rights" of authors. Moral rights provisions in foreign nations typically restrict or prohibit sales or transfers of authors' rights to be acknowledged as creators of their works as well as their rights to control the integrity or future use of their works. In a Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Randolph May and I made the case that "current U.S. copyright law as well as contract law protect authors’ and creative artists’ rights to control whether they receive credit for their copyrightable works and whether their works are adapted into new media or transformed." We concluded: "Importing additional foreign-based moral rights restrictions into U.S. copyright law would create legal uncertainties, destabilize existing voluntary contract arrangements, reduce market freedom, and threaten the market value of copyrighted works."

The IPEC Report also referenced the Copyright Office's ongoing public study of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Section 512 contains the so-called "notice-and-takedown" provision under which copyright holders are entitled to give notice to an online service provider when infringing content is posted on its network or website. A provider receives immunity if it “responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing.” 

Unfortunately, owners of copyrighted sound recordings, movies, and other creative works suffer steep financial losses from mass online infringement. They also experience difficulties navigating the DMCA's outdated legal processes. The DMCA was adopted before user-upload sites such as YouTube became prevalent. In a Perspectives paper, Randolph May and I called attention to the urgent need to update the law, and we highlighted ways that Congress can reduce notice-and-takedown compliance burdens for copyright holders and improve protections from online infringement. That same paper also called on Congress to adopt a voluntary small claims court for resolving disputes over alleged online infringement involving copyright owners of modest means. 

Additionally, the IPEC Report identifies ongoing criminal copyright investigations and prosecutions by federal law enforcement. A Report appendix noted that the U.S. Justice Department "continues to pursue significant, large-scale piracy and counterfeiting operations." It cited the March 2018 sentencing for criminal copyright infringement of the owner of Sharebeast.com, which "operat[ed] a massive file-sharing infrastructure that distributed approximately 1 billion copies of copyrighted musical works through Internet downloads." Indeed, the Report cited the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) description of Sharebeast.com as "the largest online file-sharing website specializing in the reproduction and distribution of infringing copies of copyrighted music operating out of the United States." The RIAA estimated $6.3 billion in total loss to its members. Furthermore, according to the Report, the FBI had pending "23 investigations of copyright infringement related to software,""41 investigations of other copyright infringement," and "8 investigations of copyright infringement related to signal theft" of video programming at the end of fiscal year 2018. 

Randolph May and I published a Perspectives paper on how Congress ought to modernize criminal copyright law to combat online piracy. For starters, Congress should make online piracy via Internet streaming a felony. Prosecutions for criminal copyright infringement are not numerous, and they are limited to willful infringement of protected works. However, civil copyright enforcement is oftentimes inadequate for curbing large-scale online piracy operations like Sharebeast.com. In another Perspectives from FSF Scholars, we emphasized the need to modernize international agreements by requiring foreign nations to step up criminal copyright enforcement against large-scale online piracy. 

The IPEC Report is valuable in spotlighting key achievements and ongoing initiatives by the Trump Administration to strengthen protections for IP, including copyrighted works. In 2019, the Trump Administration and the 116th Congress ought to commit to building on that progress to better secure Americans IP rights and to advance our economy in the Digital Age.