Anyone interested in hearing what the other Kerry is up to?

[beachmom]

I'm talking about Cameron Kerry, that is, who is currently the Commerce Department's general counsel. He has weighed in on a topic that has been of intense interest to me: music performance royalties and whether terrestrial radio should pay them the way internet radio and satellite radio do. I wrote extensively about the issue in this thread here in the summer of 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=158657

Here is where we were last summer:

Broadcast radio stations now pay song royalties to songwriters and producers, but they don't pay performance fees for playing the artists' music.

In contrast, cable, satellite, and Internet radio pay performance royalties.

Both the House and the Senate have bills pending that would compel performance payments, but the legislation is a long way from becoming law.

The House bill passed the House Judiciary Committee in May, but it is unclear when it will see a floor vote. Senate sponsors warned Tuesday that the bill will see further action and urged the National Association of Broadcasters to engage in negotiations.

It appeared, however, that nothing would happen given the clout of the N.A.B. Then early this spring, the Obama Administration made an official pronouncement of their position on this issue. The messenger was Cameron Kerry:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/04/obama-administration-endorses-performance-royalties.html

http://opinion.latimes.com/files/pra-views-letter---s-379.pdf

You can read the text of the letter above.

In my own thoughts on the matter, I reluctantly endorsed these royalties being paid, since it is completely unfair that AM/FM radio doesn't pay while all other formats do. I do worry, though, that this will lead to even more radio stations on FM to convert over to talk radio. This is already happening in the Atlanta market, and it is troubling. However, most countries in the world already pay these royalties, except to American musicians since these countries' musicians do not get paid by American stations. Given the "creative destruction" happening to the music industry, it seems more musicians will need these royalties as album sales continue to plummet.

So fast forward to now, and an absurd (and kind of hilarious) development has occurred. The NAB and the RIAA (gee, which org do I hate more? I can't decide) have come to a compromise.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/08/radio_royalties_fix_require_fm.html

A Performance Rights Act to even things out by requiring radio stations to pay performance royalties has slowly been gathering steam in Congress, and now broadcasters appear open to compromise.

For the most part, the proposal outlined in this release by the National Association of Broadcasters seems reasonable. Stations would pay, at most, 1 percent of their annual revenue, and those rates could no longer be ratcheted upwards by the same panel that tried to mug Webcasters. Stations would pay less to simulcast their content online and would be able to air the same commercials online and over the air.

But there's one weird wrinkle: The government would also have to require mobile-phone manufacturers to include FM tuners in every phone.

...

But electronics manufacturers are predictably unamused by the idea of the government forcing them to add features customers don't seem to want--the Consumer Electronics Association denounced this proposal in a press release. But in a separate statement forwarded by a publicist, CEA president Gary Shapiro allowed for a compromise: some of this performance royalty would get kicked back to phone manufacturers to compensate for their added expenses.

Odds are this tuner-mandate proposal won't accomplish anything but demonstrate the sense of entitlement some industries have.

Okay, first off I am not against an FM radio being put in a mobile phone. But MAKE THEM DO IT? Geez. That really is a stupid, stupid regulation, and actually is government out of control, but not at the hands of overzealous liberal interventionist, but by an industry that is fighting against change.

Wired magazine has been having fun with this new "idea" (elsewhere it has been compared to some strange laws that came out after the car was invented to protect the horse and buggy industry):

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/08/alt-text-dying-industries/

Alt Text: Brilliant Plans to Rescue Dying Industries

...

Obviously the important thing, in early 21st-century America, is to make sure that no fading industry is left behind. If that means bolting outdated technology to new devices and letting consumers pick up the bill, well at least we can make sure that “morning zoo” DJs are kept off the streets and out of trouble.

This is such a wonderful idea, in the sense of being a terrible idea, that I think other industries should come up with their own ways of making sure they never have to adapt to new technological realities, then lobby the government to enforce the life-saving mandates. If they all pull together, they can provide me with material for a dozen columns.

Newspapers

Let’s start with newspapers. They’ve been having a lot of trouble adapting to the internet, and there’s no guarantee that iPads and Kindles and the like are going to help. Solution: Require companies to bundle a parakeet with every new tablet or e-reader device.

This will create a groundswell of demand for newsprint with which to line the cages of the federally mandated house pets. I strongly suggest that all the major news consortium start talking to their representatives about making this a reality. This could have saved Cathy, dammit!

Anyway . . . . I thought it was interesting to see Cameron's name pop up. His name also came up re: FISHERIES!

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HC8NB80.htm

I thought you would all be interested. Plus the FM radio in every handheld device story is something else.

[wisteria]

1. I think radio stations should have to pay the performance royalties like the others do.

As for the possibility of more talk radio, maybe that would be a good thing. Too much of anything is usually bad. I think the time is coming when we will see the interest in talk radio diminish.

[beachmom]

2. Yup, with the exception of NPR, of course.

NPR is actually very successful because they offer something on terrestrial radio that private industry has largely stopped offering: news. Now I realize liberals have become disenchanted with NPR, and they have fallen for a lot of the he said/she said equivocation stuff, but they still are way better than anything else on the AM/FM dial. You would be surprised to hear how many conservatives listen to NPR, because they, too, are interested in getting straight news, not partisan entertainment.

[wisteria]

3. I agree. I consider them a better source they most other mediums. n/t

[sandrakae]

4. There is another Kerry?

We could only be so lucky.:)