LEE GREENWOOD: Trump can help finish the fight Frank Sinatra started

The 1995 Act grants copyright owners of sound recordings an exclusive right to perform their works 'by means of a digital audio transmission' — creating a limited public‑performance right for digital transmissions (not ordinary over‑the‑air broadcasts).

Because U.S. radio broadcasters refuse to pay artists when they use their recordings on the air, American artists and record labels are denied the estimated $200 million in performance royalties annually that would be paid to them in nearly every other nation.

When your local FM station plays a hit song, the songwriter and publisher get paid through PROs; but the artist who actually performed the recording and the label receive nothing for that play under U.S. law (terrestrial radio).

The agreement sets the rates payable by over 10,000 commercial terrestrial radio stations to publicly perform works in ASCAP’s repertory—showing that terrestrial radio pays songwriters/publishers via PRO licenses.

Establishes rates/terms for public performance of sound recordings in certain digital transmissions and defines 'Broadcast Simulcast' (simulcasts and other digital retransmissions are subject to section 114 performance royalties).

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.

Performing artists currently don't get paid for traditional radio play, which has long been thought of as promotional rather than a direct revenue stream; bills such as the Performance Rights Act have been proposed to change that.

The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording ... do not include any right of performance under section 106(4).

Because over‑the‑air transmission by broadcast radio stations falls outside the definition of 'digital audio transmission,' radio stations do not need to pay royalties to the performers, record labels, or other owners of the sound‑recording copyright.

We have collection agreements with counterpart organizations in countries across the globe ... allowing us to collect and pay ... all available international performance royalties through a strong global partnership network.

In a decision circulated to WTO Members on November 9, 2001, the arbitrators determined that the value of the benefits lost to the EU in this case is $1.1 million per year ... the United States made a lump‑sum payment of $3.3 million to the EU.

Because the U.S. does not recognize neighbouring rights ... U.S.-based recording artists may never see these royalties. Some foreign CMOs do not pay out to American artists because the US does not reciprocate; funds may end up in a 'black box'.

It achieves this balance by requiring broadcast corporations whose gross annual revenue is greater than $1.5 million – or stations owned by parent companies whose annual revenue tops $10 million – to pay fair-market royalties, while ... instituting an annual flat fee ranging from $10 to $500 depending on the type of broadcaster.

The American Music Fairness Act would mandate a new performance tax on free, local radio stations ... NAB remains committed to working to find a mutually beneficial solution ... but this AMFA proposal is not the answer.