8 Comments

Summary:

Here we go again. The music industry is taking another run at Pandora and other digital services in Congress, claiming they should pay for pre-1972 recordings even though AM/FM stations do not.

Pandora and Sirius XM already pay far more in copyright royalties than AM/FM stations, but that’s not stopping the music industry from demanding that Congress force the digital radio services to pay even more.

This week, SoundExchange, a royalty collection service, announced a heart-tugging campaign called “Project 72.” The campaign is to back the “RESPECT Act,” a law proposed by George Holding (R-NC) and John Conyers (D-MI) that would require digital radio services to pay performance royalties for pre-1972 recordings.

As it stands, Sirius and Pandora don’t pay to perform these early recordings since they are not covered by federal copyright law.

The industry claims the issue is one of fairness, arguing that the earlier recordings deserve the same protection as the later ones. And, of course, SoundExchange is churning out quotes by famous acts like The Beach Boys  and Cyndi Lauper that urge Congress to “do right by legacy artists” such as Aretha Franklin.

Sounds fair, right? After all, what sort of philistine wouldn’t pay those dear old musicians for their oldies? Alas, it’s not that simple.

As I’ve explained before, the vagaries of copyright law mean that Pandora doesn’t pay for pre-1972 recordings — but neither does any other radio service. What’s more, the digital services are paying large sums to play post-’72 performance rights, while AM/FM stations (which are much richer) pay nothing at all. And, in any case, everyone must pay the songwriters and publishers for the pre-1972 works.

All the RESPECT Act would do is exacerbate these irrational distinctions between traditional and digital radio services (and possibly put Pandora and Sirius XM out of business altogether), while failing to solve the music industry’s deeper problem, which is the permanent decline of CD sales.

There is also the question of whether the pre-1972 works should be subject to copyright protection in the first place. Congress has already bestowed plenty of favors on the entertainment industry, which has resulted in the public domain — upon which many of the oldie songwriters relied so heavily — drying up. Expanding copyright protection even further would simply reinforce this pattern of cultural stifling.

Fortunately, the RESPECT Act appears to be more of a marketing stunt than a serious bill. As this month’s debacle over patent reform revealed, the current Congress is incapable of passing even bipartisan legislation, which means this particular sop to the music industry is likely to die by the midterm elections.

  1. Greed, pure and simple GREED!

    Reply Share
  2. Come on now, don’t you think these artists deserver their royalties?
    Leslie

    Reply Share
    1. Jason McKenzie Friday, May 30, 2014

      This is sarcasm right? Or do you seriously believe these “record companies” are going to pass any of the revenue to the artists?

      Reply Share
      1. How are you going to recompense the artists?Not everyone is with a record company. There are a lot of independents and they only get a fraction of a cent for streaming.
        Leslie

        Reply Share
  3. Sirius offers much more than music. Don’t lump it with Pandora.

    Reply Share
  4. jaredmeyer10 Friday, May 30, 2014

    There would undoubtedly still be creation without copyright protection; the argument (and the Constitutional basis in Article 1 Section 8) is that there would not be a satisfactory level. This is the reason for government granting the monopoly—to incentive more creation that will benefit the public. With this principle in mind, retroactively extending copyright terms is, as Mercatus Center Senior Fellow Jerry Brito points out, extremely problematic. If the point of copyright protection is to incentivize the author to create more, retroactive extension fails this test for the obvious reason that the work has already been created!

    Reply Share
  5. Jason McKenzie Friday, May 30, 2014

    When will the ISPs get on board with their streaming music partners and start throttling the music industry? They would likely change their tune if suddenly it took 10 hours to upload their bs vocoded top 40 works-in-progress to Soundcloud.

    Reply Share
  6. Yes they need to spoil their untalented artists like Justin Beiberhead
    and producers that play with wav and program files on their PC’s.

    Reply Share