A Look Inside the Fair Play Fair Pay Act


10 comments posted

This is much-needed

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 14, 2015 - 5:33pm.

This is much-needed corrective the devaluation of music in a distorted market. However, at the same time, the other root of music's devaluation must finally be addressed: PIRACY, in all its forms, including illicit sharing on host sites like YouTube.

Unless record labels are

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 19, 2015 - 11:48am.

Unless record labels are forced to be transparent in how the compensate artists, it's not a "FAIR" act.

The bill is quite strong on

Submitted by kevin on April 21, 2015 - 7:29am.

The bill is quite strong on transparency for artists. For radio airplay, it looks like Soundexchange would be the entity that collects and distributes royalties as they do with Pandora, Sirius XM, webcasts, etc. These monies are paid directly to the artist and don't go through a record label, and can't be held against recoupable debt to the label. Going further, the bill requires money to flow through Soundexchange even in the case of direct deals between labels and services, again meaning artists get paid directly. It's not a panacea but it's a very good step.

What is the reason for

Submitted by David Herlihy (not verified) on June 3, 2015 - 8:20pm.

What is the reason for applying the protocol for assigning 2 percent of performance royalties for recordings made before 1995? Is it somehow related to the DPRSRA?

Good question. You may be

Submitted by kevin on June 8, 2015 - 1:04pm.

Good question. You may be correct. We'll look into it.

The bill HR 1733 is not level

Submitted by BullsEye Radio (not verified) on December 15, 2015 - 10:40am.

The bill HR 1733 is not level at all ! I agree with part of it and there is part I don't agree with.

Small internet radio broadcasters for years and years have been doing the right thing. We pay our licensing fee's !! We have been paying our licensing fee's ! FM radio and all the other terrestrial industries have been finding every loophole possible to NOT pay their fee's.

So along comes Rep. Nadler and HR 1733 with this bill that finally corners the terrestrial stations, GOOD ! I'm glad that FINALLY they have no way out. BUT !

It also punishes the small internet radio broadcaster by RAISING our fee's for doing the right thing for many years !! Do you call this fair ?? As a small internet radio broadcaster, I don't find it fair at all ! In fact, it's downright offensive !

Because now terrestrial radio HAS to FINALLY pay their bills like they should have been doing for years , like small internet radio broadcasters HAD already been doing, Now they want all of the pie and want ONLY the RICH to be able to utilize the internet to broadcast. Raising the rates so high, that small broadcasters cannot afford to do what they have been doing for years.

It's wrong. It's unfair. It's a shyster way of doing things , but then again , we have come to expect only the worst from terrestrial radio haven't we ?

I am disgusted with the part of this bill that punishes the small internet radio broadcaster for doing the right thing for many years.

Why isn't terrestrial radio being sued for past royalties that they SHOULD have been paying for the last 15 years ? Why aren't they being fined for avoiding paying their bills with any possible loophole they could find ! Why are we being punished for actions of shysters ?

People in congress need to look at the whole story and hear from small broadcasters as well, not just the big players with the big mouths and loud whining !

John Michaels
Small Internet Broadcaster
Proud to have been paying
my royalties for the last
8 years without fail !

The bill retains the

Submitted by kevin on December 17, 2015 - 11:29am.

The bill retains the willing-seller/willing-buyer standard currently employed. Whether Small broadcasters continue to have their own rate tier is outside the scope of the bill.

How is this bill fair? All I

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on January 1, 2016 - 2:19am.

How is this bill fair? All I see it as is another attempt by pseudo-intellectual politicians who have no clue about anything that goes on outside the bubble down as Washington DC. Artists complaining that they aren't being get compensated is complete garbage, look alone at how much money artists such as Taylor Swift, Maroon 5, and others bring in. These individuals make me sick and I find it sad that they want to squeeze more from the consumer and are looking to the same government we've had over the last 8 years to implement socialist tactics and essentially take over and attempt to regulate the radio. I will continue on with my Sirius XM subscription. I like it because guys like Howard Stern are able to give the FCC the proverbial middle finger. Can I take my family to a concert today, no it's too expensive, my budgets don't even allow me outside of Sirius/XM the ability to buy digital music. Yup this is political and I believe the Tea Party along with guys like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Andrew Willow will have a field day with this and trust me when I say these representatives will be facing hell for their willingness to support big government infringement of what is essentially a first amendment freedom. Think of it this way, music is speech, everyone has a right to speak and be heard, well by forcing radio stations to compensate artists for speech isn't the government dictating what can and can't be said, this is a yes/no question, not one of it depends.

1) What you may not know is

Submitted by kevin on January 4, 2016 - 10:57am.

1) What you may not know is that your preferred service, Sirius XM already pays performers when they are played, while terrestrial radio does not. It's not a "socialist intervention" that makes it possible for Sirius to pay performers while providing you with an affordable listening option. It's just the common sense absence of a loophole.

2) If you are concerned about the price of concert tickets, you might consider that concert prices have gone up as revenue from recorded music goes down. So making it possible for artists to earn when they are played on the radio would take some pressure off the live marketplace to make up the difference.

3) Music is speech and everyone has a right to speak and be heard. What you don't have is a blanket right to use someone else's speech for profit, without compensating them. Many prominent conservative think tanks agree!

So in summary: You think

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 11, 2016 - 3:17pm.

So in summary:
You think nobody should get paid on a broadcasting service because Taylor Swift is rich. You hate big government pseudo-intellectuals, but you seem very ready to complain that someone should do something about high concert ticket prices. You think getting paid for people using your work is not only political, but a socialist tactic rather than a capitalist one. Also because you think something is free speech clearly means it is even when it's the sole product being used for profit by someone else who didn't make it. Do you even understand your own argument? THAT is a yes/no question.

If you believe these things then you should have your aforementioned pundits speak on whatever broadcast you run dozens of times not paying them while simultaneously bringing in any ad revenue it nets for yourself. Tell Rush and Glenn it's for the exposure. I'm sure they'll understand and thank you for the opportunity.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.