Warning: I Was Wrong

New Information Has Changed My Opinion About The NAB's Royalty Settlement Proposal
For those in opposition to the NAB royalty term sheet, I encourage you to read this in full and then make up your mind.

 

As you know, I'll carry the flag for the radio industry to the ends of the earth and will try to lead our soldiers to win every battle on behalf of radio. I'm willing to stand in the face of opposition to do what is best on behalf of this industry.

But any good military strategist will tell you that there is a time to stand down and not lead troops into slaughter. There are times when wars must end, and the parties must come together. Now is that time.

The Changing Battlefield
A good general will change his battle plan based on new information about opposing troop locations, weather conditions, and increased or decreased armaments to be faced. Intelligence operations play a key role in not walking into an ambush. Wars are lost when leaders stick to their opinions even when additional information sheds new light on how they should proceed.

Radio is at war, and our war over royalties must not be lost. That is why I'm changing my opinion.

It's Not About Being Right
My intelligence reports have shed new light on the conditions of radio's battle over performance royalties. I am not interested in proving myself right by sticking to my past opinions.

I now believe I was wrong in my assertions against the NAB.

Listening To Intuition
I recently wrote two very strong editorials in opposition to the NAB legislative term sheet that proposed a settlement with the music industry over performance royalties. Yet, in spite of countless hours of research, something did not sit right with me. My instincts were telling me I'd missed something.

After all, the NAB Radio Board is made up of very smart and capable people who have a great deal to lose. Why, then, would they be leading this industry off a cliff? Was it possible they could all be so wrong?

Starting From Scratch
I couldn't get that out of my head. Though I had read the term sheet, the NAB press releases, and their responses to my editorials, and though I had spoken to a number of people, I still felt uncomfortable with my own conclusions, even after publishing them.

I could have left it alone and said nothing more, in the interest of standing my ground. But my only interest is in a positive outcome for the radio industry.

I started my research again from scratch. I re-read all the comments on my blog, read through my notes, and went over the conversations I had had with dozens of broadcasters. I revisited all my assumptions, and the facts stated in the NAB term sheet.

I then spent almost two hours on a call with NAB Joint Board Chair Steve Newberry. I fired off some very tough and pointed questions, and he openly addressed them. I then took part in a second call, with the negotiating team and NAB and Radio Board representatives including Newberry, Charles Warfield, Bruce Reese, John David, and NAB EVP/Communications Dennis Wharton.

Off-The-Record Comments
Those of us who have been the die-hard opposition to this term sheet could not fathom the NAB Radio Board's willingness to go along with it. The term sheet appeared to give up too much, and I believed the starting point of under 1 percent of revenues would end with a much higher rate. I felt there were better options that would have limited radio's exposure and kept radio's fees from rising.

So I asked the board members to share, off the record, the complexities of their negotiations and meetings so I could understand the story behind the proposed deal. To their credit, they trusted I wouldn't ambush them by publishing their comments, and they were forthcoming about every detail. They talked openly about the state of their relationship with Congress, about things they were told privately that could have changed the direction of the deal, and about the feedback they'd gotten about the opposition to the term sheet.

I now believe I was wrong in my assertion that the NAB is selling fear. What insiders understand about the complexities of negotiations cannot be fully revealed, in light of the ongoing negotiations. The NAB Radio Board cannot fully articulate in public all the behind-the-scenes conditions -- and that need for discretion, of course, is a good part of what prompted the backlash.

'Trust Me' Makes Me Nervous
Following their vote to accept the term sheet, the NAB Radio Board asked us to trust their judgment. But my instincts are to distrust anything that doesn't reveal the full story, and I tend to think of back-room dealings as underhanded. But, in this case, I now agree that the NAB is dealing with a political world where back channels are critical.

To fully understand the facts of this matter, one must probe every issue, every discussion, every rumor and conspiracy theory, and every part of the negotiations leading up to the Radio Board's announcement.

That's what I have now done, step by step, with hours invested. Once one learns of the strategy behind the decisions, everything becomes clear. Like others, I had the "a-ha moment," when it all made sense.

Unfortunately, I cannot share what I've learned. So now you'll have to decide if you can trust my judgment.

Avoiding The CRB
The focus everyone has been taking, myself included, is on the royalty rate, which of course is critical. But there are other critical issues this term sheet resolves. The biggest, of course, is avoiding the risk of having rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board. The CRB has a history of unreasonable rates and erratic behavior. Having the CRB involved could have disadvantaged either radio or the music industry. It's in the interest of both to keep them at bay.

Though in my previous editorials I did agree that avoiding the CRB is a must, I felt there were other options to structure a deal, such as a consent decree. But I now know that those options have all been quietly played out and would devolve against the rate on the table.

Lowering Streaming Fees
Another issue is the rate radio will have to pay for streaming -- which many believe is the future of distribution beyond transmitters. (There are still limitations on the number of simultaneous streams in any market; today it caps out at about 80,000.) This term sheet lowers overall streaming fees by at least 10 percent, with more specific criteria for smaller stations and religious broadcasters.

Also, the AFTRA portion of the agreement will allow radio to play spots created by AFTRA talent in streams, no substitution required.

Both these provisions will be good for radio, especially as streaming increases.

A Cellphone Mandate?
Of course, another much talked-about issue is the proposal that FM chips be mandated on all cellphones. As I have previously stated, I'm not a big fan of mandates by our government, and I believe a mandate to require cellphones to have activated FM chips will not be passed due to the strong lobby from the CEA and the wireless industry.

I have never been opposed to the idea of pursuing an FM chip for radio. My biggest concern is that it wasn't worth paying onerous fees in exchange for it. But that was based on being incorrectly informed about how the royalty percentage would be subject to growth.

The NAB has since shown me why it would be almost impossible for MusicFirst to come back to the table to increase the royalty rate down the road. The foundation for that is a written agreement that both parties must agree to any rate increases.

What About Promotional Value?
Radio, of course, has been in opposition to paying performance royalties because of all the promotional value we have brought to the labels over the years. In this deal, the labels are not only acknowledging radio's promotional value (which is why the rate they are willing to accept is not higher), but they want to become partners with our industry, to grow together.

As Steve Newberry put it, "Wouldn't it be a nice change that instead of the president of the Grammys slamming radio on national TV, he speaks of the importance of radio's role in the success of artists?" I couldn't agree more. The industries have always had a mutually beneficial relationship, and it's time to end the friction.

Surprisingly, the labels seem to be getting beyond their vitriol toward radio since we finally came to the table to negotiate. This term sheet could end the battle and start a world of cooperation. And it doesn't restrict radio airplay, which was a major concern of mine.

Will The Artists See Any Money?
I stand firm in my belief that since MusicFirst, the opposition, is funded and controlled by the four major record labels, having SoundExchange -- which was formerly part of the RIAA -- collect and distribute the royalties is not in the best interest of the artists or of independent labels.

This past weekend I spent time with the manager of a major recording artist, and we discussed my editorials on this topic over dinner. Though he believes radio should pay royalties, he agreed with me that the financially troubled labels might not be willing to share as much of the collected fees as they should, and he agreed with my premise that artists cannot speak out for fear of retaliation from the labels. He urged me to seek a solution where SoundExchange will not collect these fees.

I'd love to see Congress step in with a mandate to form an independent third-party collection firm, much like ASCAP or BMI, to make sure the artists are being well represented. But frankly, radio needs to stay out of that fight and continue to negotiate in good faith with MusicFirst. Getting involved in that aspect will only hamper negotiations.

This Could Have Gone Badly
Most of us who have taken an opposing point of view to the NAB efforts to negotiate have done so because we were not fully informed. Radio started this process with a no-negotiation stance, and it didn't look good to Congress. Had we continued on that track, we would be looking at results that make this term sheet look like manna from heaven.

Consumed By Passion
I now believe the NAB Radio Board has acted in good faith on behalf of this industry. Though I questioned it and became consumed with my passion to prove them wrong, I now believe I was the one who was wrong. The reason many of you still hold the hard line is because you have not been privy to the confidential conversations and back-room deals. I encourage you to pick up the phone and find out firsthand, then make up your own mind.

When the NAB press release about the term sheet hit my desk, I immediately erupted and reacted with a scathing editorial. Though I have to take responsibility for not picking up the phone to understand this deal in more detail, I think those of us who have opposed this action were in the dark, and had missed the NAB's change of attitude toward negotiations.

In spite of a town hall meeting that was highly publicized in the middle of the summer, many of us were off doing summer things and missed those communications. I don't think the NAB should assume that its press releases, its speeches, and even video town hall meetings are enough with a pressing matter like this. I encourage them to continue communication efforts inclusive of the entire industry.

Lesson Learned
My lesson from this is that if my intuition is telling me something isn't right, I should pick up the phone and dig deeper before reacting. I didn't call the right people who could have let me in on the back story. For that, I have deep regret.

The Power of Unity
Greater Media's Peter Smyth recently wrote an online column calling for industry unity as a response to my editorial. He said I was creating industry division. I responded that it was the NAB's acceptance of this term sheet that was creating division. Smyth was right, I was wrong.

I'm sure some will suggest I'm wishy-washy and say, "The NAB got to Eric." So be it. The bottom line is that I am willing to admit when I am wrong, no matter what the outcome or criticism. It is better than leading our troops to slaughter.

A child becomes an adult when he realizes that he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong.
Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin (1973) "Childhood"

I encourage you to make up your own mind by viewing the NAB town hall meeting and reviewing the term sheet. But to get the rest of the story, you may need to make a phone call.

Eric Rhoads
Radio Ink

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN

 

P.S.: NAB President/CEO Gordon Smith and other NAB Board members will be on hand at our Forecast meeting, on December 7 at the Harvard Club in New York, to discuss the performance royalty issue.

To learn more, go to www.radioink.com/forecastsummit. Register online or call 561-655-8778.

Comments

[Horne35Stacy]

I guess that to get the mortgage loans from banks you ought to have a good motivation. However, one time I have received a commercial loan, because I was willing to buy a building.

[Kevin Webb]

Bravo to Eric for standing up to admit publicly that which we've all been guilty of at one time or another and that is "I was wrong". Hard enough to do in private, even harder to do when such a passionate case was made.

I read and agreed with his first post on this subject based on what I'd read and heard and what he'd said as well. Made sense at the time. But I too sensed that even though it didn't pass the smell test it may in fact be necessary to accept the deal to prevent the government dictating the terms of the deal. Congress can be a very cranky and dangerous bear to deal with especially when there are powers and/or actions behind the scenes that cannot be fathomed on the surface. I had a small taste of this when I was trying to get a powerful and useful tool into the hands of the National Weather Service on behalf of the blind and sight impaired that would also benefit everyone else. Forget the sale, I just wanted to see the NWS have the best tools for the greater good however it got done in the end. Because of power struggles, "real" politics, infighting, etc. the feature never happened and never will.

I believe it is time the public should know more about the Copyright Royalty Board. How is it 3 "judges" arrived at the unreasonable streaming rates that effectively stalled that business model from moving forward in a meaningful manner? What are their qualifications to set those rates? Journalists should be asking these questions, investigate their process out in the open and publicize the results. (I think the electronic media will now be *very* reluctant to bite the hand that can slap them back hard.) What DO you know about them and why do they have such broad and sweeping power? Who do they answer to?

Eric states "The CRB has a history of unreasonable rates and erratic behavior." This sounds like a clue is being telegraphed to us and someone should follow through even if behind the scenes.

"Unreasonable rates"? The record industry was willing to apparently shoot themselves in the foot or stand by and let it happen? Doesn't make sense. Maybe a bad business decision, but still. "Erratic behavior"? Again with such strong power in their hands we cannot afford to have them acting like drunken sailors throwing darts at a dart board to decide the fate of billions of potential dollars to be realized from online business for radio and everyone else.

I'm sure there's much more than this part of the big picture but I'll bet it's a strong undercurrent of that which is not right. Personally I believe the NAB cannot "out" the CRB because of the very power and/or influence they wield. No, something really does not smell right.

Overall, radio *must* be a much stronger force online as that is where the future of broadcasting lies. We will probably realize later with 20/20 hindsight that, all things considered, this deal may have been the lesser of two evils for the necessary advancement of radio technology merging with online media. "Get busy living or get busy dying."

And to the "Anonymous" poster, shame on you. Spew and run huh? Freedom of speech is wonderful. Freedom to hate is easier when you can do it anonymously.

[Charlie Ferguson, General Manager, Northern Broadcast Inc.]

Let me state, again, the NAB can no longer represent me or my company in any political or financial dealings. Let me remind all who read this that the compromise of basic principles for political expediency has another name - it's called "a sellout." Take the 1% - so it doesn't become 8% rings hollow, since MusicFirst bailed on the negotiations as soon as the NAB laid down their "Term Sheet." The NAB Board got four-flushed - and by now, they should know it!

[anonymous]

Eric - It looks like the NAB and Struble have you under interrogation. You are really nothing but a pin-cushion for HD Radio. You are a jellyfish with no backbone that speaks to the mighty dollar. You and the rest of the lousy Jews, along with Struble and the NAB Board, should go home and play with your little Mighty Red HD radios. Boo Hoo, I want my little HD radio - LMFAO!!!

[Eric Rhoads]

I believe it is much higher.

[Eric Rhoads]

This could be the case Greg, but at this stage the battle would result in 8% if this isnt settled. You do need to hear the back story.

[Greg Jablonski]

I have been firmly opposed to the PRA and the NAB's position, and Eric, I'm sorry, but you haven't changed my mind. There is something, however, that might. I understand that the RIAA needs to establish a 1% or greater royalty in order to be a party to international agreements that will bring in quite a bit of money from the rest of the world. In other words, our 1% has INCREDIBLE value to the RIAA. If streaming royalties were INCLUDED in the 1%, much the way ASCAP and BMI include streaming in their royalties, my head just might be turned. My guess is the RIAA is too greedy to consider anything like that. The "reduced" streaming royalties in the NAB term sheet are ridiculous and not worth a second look. Every 100 AQH listeners would cost stations approximately $15K annually on top of the 1% over-the-air royalty based on 10 songs per hour and the initial term sheet rate, which is scheduled to go up faster than medical insurance premiums. No thanks. For those to whom it is available, spoken-word is a far better option. No RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC royalties -- over-the-air or on-line!

[Patrick R. Pfeiffer]

I do appreciate the dialogue Eric. You couldn't remember but in the 1980's I sent you some stuff re/O.E.S. you published.

But the anger out here and feelings that "our organization" was the first to blink in a game of chicken is real, and visceral.

You may have misunderstood my first question.

What is XM/Sirius paying, or being demanded to pay in PRA?

Or are you saying, same as local free radio? 1% or less?

[Eric Rhoads]

Im going to attempt to answer....

Question #1: How much does; or is it being proposed, Satellite
radio-which provides absolutely no local content and is almost totally
dependent on music; pay in comparable PRA fees?

Answer: 1% or less. Go to NAB site and click on term sheet. They have a sliding scale proposal of under 1% based on certain actions. Also different scale for market sizes.

Question #2: How much does the recording industry owe radio
broadcasters for high volumes of free airplay; GIVEN FOR FREE TO THE END
CONSUMER; that stimulates music sales, concert ticket sales and
merchandise sales?

Radio airplay is so obviously key to music sales, they used to bribe
broadcasters to play it-remember payola and plugola?

You PAY to see a movie that uses music. You PAY to see a concert.
Radio stations do NOT charge consumers to listen to the music being
played.

How about the legal argument that the benefit from radio airplay to the
recording industry is so vast, as to obviate any financial compensation?

Answer: If this deal goes thru MusicFirst is saying that they originally wanted 8% but will settle for 1% and consider the other 7% in the promotional value we bring to the table.
Regarding the getting paid part of the argument... I cant answer other than the others are not using public airwaves...thus this is where Congress gets involved. We are a service to the public too.

Question #3: Most local stations integrate a high amount of non-music,
local information content into their day along with music. They are not
totally music dependent. How is that factored?

Answer: Monitoring services record every actual song played. Not sure how deep this goes in terms of smaller markets if at all.

Question #4: In addition to the money, which is insulting enough; what
kind of time-consuming, burdensome reporting methods will be involved
that are a hidden cost to broadcasters and will disproportionately
affect small broadcasters?

Answer:Been addressed in the negotiations and they have kept this to a minimum and much less than the current streaming rules.

Question #5: Say I play Classic Country or Gold Standards. How are
these Performance Fees going to be paid to performers who are dead?

Answer: There are TWO copyright holders in most cases. The label which releases the song and the performer. The performers heirs are entitled to rights for a certain number of years beyond death. (I think its 75 but Im not entirely sure.)

Good questions. Maybe someone at NAB will chime in.

[Patrick R. Pfeiffer]

First off, pardon my prior typos.

Question #1: How much does; or is it being proposed, Satellite radio-which provides absolutely no local content and is almost totally dependent on music; pay in comparable PRA fees?

Question #2: How much does the recording industry owe radio broadcasters for high volumes of free airplay; GIVEN FOR FREE TO THE END CONSUMER; that stimulates music sales, concert ticket sales and merchandise sales?

Radio airplay is so obviously key to music sales, they used to bribe broadcasters to play it-remember payola and plugola?

You PAY to see a movie that uses music. You PAY to see a concert. Radio stations do NOT charge consumers to listen to the music being played.

How about the legal argument that the benefit from radio airplay to the recording industry is so vast, as to obviate any financial compensation?

Question #3: Most local stations integrate a high amount of non-music, local information content into their day along with music. They are not totally music dependent. How is that factored?

Question #4: In addition to the money, which is insulting enough; what kind of time-consuming, burdensome reporting methods will be involved that are a hidden cost to broadcasters and will disproportionately affect small broadcasters?

Question #5: Say I play Classic Country or Gold Standards. How are these Performance Fees going to be paid to performers who are dead?

[Eric Rhoads]

Patrick

I see your logic. But lets change the game for sake of discussion....

Lets say that you are a photographer and you hold the copyright to the works you have published. Lets say you publish his photos anyway. He has a LEGAL right to collect money from you. Even if youve been doing it all along.

At issue here is that the musicians are the copyright holders. If a movie company uses their music they legally have to pay unless the fee is waved. This is the issue here. The labels before never tried to collect this probably because they were flush with cash, but when things got bad they saw a hole in their bucket and remembered that others pay copyright fees, why not radio. Congress pretty much has to support copyright law and my guess is that most in Congress will support copyright law, even to an industry that never before had to pay it.

We can tell them to eat rocks all we want but at the end of the day its not THEM we are dealing with, its Congress, and at this stage Congress is saying negotiate or else we set the rate, and if we set the rate it must go thru the CRB, and we dont want that because they already set the rate on streaming, which is outrageous and not taking anyones ability to succeed financially into consideration.

All of your arguments were valid but its beyond that now. We either try to get a reasonable deal done now and lock down the rate for eternity, or we pay a much bigger fee which is always subject to growth. Though you may feel it is inconsievabvle, its in fact exactly where things are. Yes, its too bad it got to this and NO BROADCASTER wants it, but they know if they dont take this, its going to be really ugly.

[Patrick R. Pfeiffer]

I need someone to explain to me how Group (a) can unilaterlly declare that Group (b) owes them money; that was never agreed to;

nor ever deemed to be owed by Group (a) at any time in prior history;

and somehow Group (b) has no recourse to tell Group (a) to go pound sand?

Eric, if I declare that I've decided you owe me $20; would you negotiate with me, or tell me to go to hell?

Would you say, "well I won't pay $20 but how about $2 for a cup of coffee?"

It's ludicrous.

It's inconceivablbe this unilateral declaration could ahve any legal traction.

Common sense dictates that Broadcasters have to have some legal avenue to tell these bastards to go to hell.

[Joe Schwartz, President/CEO, Cherry Creek Radio]

Eric, it took a lot of guts to re-consider your position on the NAB's recent actions regarding the highly controversial PRA issue. I think you hit the nail on the head by bringing to light the NAB's burden of keeping the negotiations confidential, and not being able to share them with all of the NAB's constituents. As a newly elected NAB board member, I have had the opportunity to have frank discussions with the negotiating party as well as many board members. I can tell you that, prior to joining the board, I couldn't conceive of a situation where I would agree to pay any kind of performance tax to recording artists. I, too, subscribe to the notion that the airplay received by the artists more than makes up for any monetary compensation they would receive. It's a known fact that radio station airplay sells records and will continue to do so for many years to come. As a matter of fact, if you happened to catch the CMA awards the other night, just about every single winner thanked all of the radio stations that play their music. In any event, armed with the real facts as well as the behind the scenes issues, I was able to make a much more informed decision than I would of. In fact, I would be happy to discuss the issue with anyone who would care to discuss it with me. I encourage all interested parties to contact any of the NAB board members to have a frank, honest discussion of the facts and circumstances surrounding this very volatile issue.

[Eric Rhoads]

Dan

You may be right and may be forced to make a decision to a spoken word format. But that $200 a month would have ended up at 8x that amount, but the labels are forgoing 7% more because they consider the promotional value radio offers.

This thing has played out so far, and I dont think there is any broadcaster who wants to pay even 1% but if Congress were to mandate 8% we would have no other option but to do so by law. The 1% looks pretty good in that case, and things will go that way if this is not settled.

[Dan Keating]

Eric,

I took guts to do what you did. But in looking at the term sheet even for a small market station like mine it could cost another $200+ a month. Put that on top of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees and it makes music a rather pricey venture. Radio didn't give away the music on-line which has caused a lot if not most of the problems for artists in record sales. There are no government bail out plans for radio so why do we need to bail out the artists. Radio played a large role in making them famous and now we get thanked by having to pay even more to get to air their music. I am not an NAB member so I can't speak of what they have or haven't done. I just know the bottom line says we can't pay anymore to play music.

[Eric Rhoads]

Patrick:

I thought EXACTLY the same thing. Unfortunately, what youre saying is not true. I thought the new Republican majority would favor the NAB position but that was all hype from the previous NAB administration. The reality, I learned is that the republicans are not on the side of stonewalling this legislation and are ALSO saying this needs to be settled and if we continue to take the no negotiation policy, radio will end up with 8% fees and will be at the whims of the CRB, which means it could be higher than 8%. Though I wish it had not gotten to this point, it did and now, any tactic other than negotiation would end up backfiring. There is a time to let go and negotiate. This is that time.

As you know I was a diehard against this, and there are things I learned which cannot be repeated, which make me believe without any doubt, that this is our best option going forward.

[Patrick R. Pfeiffer]

So you're saying, if a big enough gang surrounds you and demands your wallet; offer them your cash instead of putting up a fight and hope to keep your credit cards.

These royalties have never been a part of either radio's or the recording labels/artists business models before.

Why should we accept the premise that they should be-just because the other guys want our money and evidently have more political clout?

The new Republican Majority is likely to be more empathetic to our views.

It's time to stay firm on prinicpal and put up a fight. The street thugs don't get my money.

[SMS]

Eric - you look like someone under interrogation! LOL!

[State Rep. Jim Condon, VT Assoc. of Broadcasters]

Dear Eric,

I admire the guts you've showed by publicly changing your mind on this issue. I agree this is our best option and also agree that it will likely be decided in "backchannel" discussions. Thanks for the cajones!

[SMS]

"Eric, Thank you so much for writing this. I am so moved by your passion to get the story right and report it."

God, I am so sick of you NAB/iBiquity ass-kissers, I could just vomit! This whole thing, just like the Mighty Red Farce, was set up from the begining! Jesus Christ, people, get a life!

BTW - "I'm no fan of HD Radio, but..." LOL!

[Christopher Miller]

Eric
Thank you for taking the time for posting your comments.
It is too bad for radio station owners that our NAB was not able work with the record labels as partners to help in some way correct the HUGE mistake the record labels made in letting people download individual songs for pennies that ended up killing thier business model. Radio stations are the number one advertising outlet for record labels and instead of helping stations to be successfull all the record labels will end up doing will be to put music formated radio stations out of business.
It would be nice if music formated radio stations could opt out of the royalty payment option that the radio stations would have to pay for having their program directors pick the songs to be played and instead the radio stations could price their air time to the record labels at marketplace rates and see how much the record labels would be willing to pay in order to get their music advertised to the consumers/radio station listeners.

[John R. Beck, Jr.]

Eric, Thank you so much for writing this. I am so moved by your passion to get the story right and report it even though it contradicts your previous viewpoint. It had to be hard to publish this but it is with sincere appreciation that I thank you for doing so.

John Beck, Emmis Radio-St. Louis & NAB Board Member

[Dave Scott]

1. Eric, I'm proud of you for digging.
2. When getting "the rest of the story" led you to change your mind, I'm proud that you did change your mind...and said so publicly.
3. On FM radios in mobile phones, the laws of physics demand an antenna for FM, which can't be built into the phones. That means earbuds. That will diminish the "value" of FM chips in cell phones, at least for casual listening. People are used to speakers for ring tones and holding the thing to their ear for phone calls. They will expect the same to listen to radio news and weather and ball games.
4. RIAA claims the purpose of a PRA is to get performance money to "starving artists". If Congress acts, it should mandate the percentage that must actually go to artists by requiring that LITTLE OR NONE can go to overhead and administration. Record companies get overhead money from store and download sales, publishing and other sources. They already have admin to share the wealth.

[Matt Hackett, CEO, ARIA Inc.]

Thanks Eric. I think this took some real guts. As you know, I've been bashing on for years about the need to get these issues properly sorted out, including the inevitability of a performance royalty, based on my experiences in international radio markets and the way music sales have changed; (interested parties can check out our article on this issue from May 2009 here: https://connect.aria-radio.com/?q=node/518 ). The thin line called a 'traditional radio' that is dividing us from all other types of streaming media is getting thinner every day - we had better be prepared - and working closely with record companies who have a vested interest in our success will be vital.

[Daniel P Mitchell]

In the militay we called this a retrograde movement. Faced with a superior force; better to retreat in a controlled manner rather than have a rout. I guess Eric discovered better political power. What is it, the mother's milk of politics: MONEY. Oh well, radio is the step child in media and we just have to realize it. Congress goes with the money and we do not have it.

[Dan Halyburton]

ERIC

It says a lot about a person when they take a strong stand and then upon reflection decide a new course of action is warranted. I am glad you took the time to understand the NAB position. Having set across the table from the RIAA in negotiations and having participated in 2 copyright royalty hearings on behalf of broadcasters, I can tell you that the copyright "deck" is stacked against radio. I have always found the current NAB position to be the best position for radio in the midst of a very complex political environment. Thanks for taking the time to see that and share your thinking with everyone.

[SMS]

"I'm not a fan of HD Radio, but..."

Yup, there is no way Bob "The Fraud" Struble will get HD Radio mandated into cell phones; the CTIA, CEA, Congress, and musicFirst have all rejected that idea. At first, I thought that Bob may have given you a piece of iBiquity equity that changed your mind. I don't trust anything you print, Eric. Like Struble and the NAB you all have dishonest, alterior motives. You have zero credibility and I can't believe that someone with your lack of maturity is the editor of a major radio publication. Sold out of the new Mighty Reds yet, Eric? LOL!