Bill Overview
Title: American Music Fairness Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes that the copyright holder of a sound recording shall have the exclusive right to perform the sound recording through an audio transmission and addresses other related issues. (Currently, the public performance right only covers performances through a digital audio transmission in certain instances, which means that nonsubscription terrestrial radio stations generally do not have to secure a license to publicly perform a copyright-protected sound recording.) Under the bill, a nonsubscription broadcast transmission must have a license to publicly perform such sound recordings. The Copyright Royalty Board must periodically determine the royalty rates for such a license. When determining the rates, the board must base its decision on certain information presented by the parties, including the radio stations' effect on other streams of revenue related to the sound recordings. Terrestrial broadcast stations (and the owners of such stations) that fall below certain revenue thresholds may pay certain flat fees, instead of the board-established rate, for a license to publicly perform copyright-protected sound recordings.
Sponsors: Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in and affected by the sound recording and terrestrial radio industries worldwide
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill affects nonsubscription terrestrial radio stations that currently do not need a license to play copyrighted sound recordings, potentially affecting their operations and financial status.
- The bill impacts the music industry, particularly copyright holders, as it provides a legal framework that allows them to collect royalties from terrestrial radio stations, potentially increasing their income.
- Musicians, producers, and record labels, as copyright holders, are directly affected, as they gain an additional revenue stream from radio stations playing their recordings.
- Consumers may indirectly feel the impact if changes in radio station fees lead to changes in how music is broadcast or the variety of music available.
- The bill's provision for small radio stations to pay flat fees will affect these smaller entities, possibly allowing them to continue operations more affordably than if they had to pay higher rates.
Reasoning
- This policy directly affects radio station owners, employees, musicians, and the music-listening public. It's important to consider how it shifts financial responsibilities to radio stations and the potential trickle-down effects.
- Musicians and copyright holders may experience an increase in income from royalties. The magnitude of this increase will depend heavily on how often their music is played on terrestrial radio.
- Small radio stations with limited revenue might face financial pressure, but the provision for flat fees should help mitigate large cost impacts.
- Larger radio stations may need to adjust their budgets to accommodate royalty payments, possibly influencing their content offerings or advertising strategies.
- Listeners might notice changes in programming depending on how radio stations respond to the new cost structures.
Simulated Interviews
Singer-songwriter (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic because earning royalties from radio airplay could help me invest more in my music projects.
- Small local stations support artists like me; I hope the policy doesn't overwhelm them financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Radio station manager (Nashville, TN)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be financial strain paying royalties; we will need to cut costs elsewhere.
- The policy seems fair for artists, but challenging for smaller stations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Music producer (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will increase revenue streams from radio airplay, which benefits our artists.
- The transition might initially disrupt how music is promoted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Indie label owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more royalties from radio, we can better support our artists financially.
- Concerned about losing airtime if stations cut back on indie music.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Radio DJ (Chicago, IL)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Listeners may hear less new music if smaller stations shrink their playlists to save on costs.
- I hope the policy will strengthen relationships between artists and stations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public radio station director (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We rely on varied music programming; paying royalties requires careful financial planning.
- Community support will be crucial to maintain current operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance music journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could highlight the importance of compensating creators fairly.
- I expect station playlists could become less diverse if costs rise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Session musician (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More royalties for artists could mean more session work as creativity is invested back into music.
- Concerned about the sustainability of smaller radio stations though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad artists might get more support, but I hope it doesn't mean less variety in new music on radio.
- This would influence which artists I consider for my own projects later.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Music copyright lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act helps harmonize rights across digital and terrestrial formats, providing clearer framework for rights holders.
- Could reduce disputes over unpaid royalties, benefiting all parties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $1800000 (Low: $1400000, High: $3500000)
Year 3: $1700000 (Low: $1300000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $2800000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- The music industry will see increased revenue from royalties, which may stimulate more creative output and innovation due to better compensation.
- Radio stations, particularly small ones, may face increased costs that could affect their viability unless the tiered fee structure is effectively mitigating.
- The administrative burden on the Copyright Royalty Board will increase, potentially requiring additional resources to handle increased workloads.