Performance Royalty Fight Spills Into AM Mandate Debate. Dec 8, 2025
Congress has shown little interest in changing federal copyright laws to require radio stations to pay for on-air music use. ... Odds of any action on performance royalties seem low based on the legislation’s current level of support. But the pro-royalty MusicFirst Coalition joined forces this summer with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the Consumer Technology Association — two critics of an AM mandate — to connect the two issues.
“Such linkage could complicate or delay progress on the AM bill, which is otherwise positioned for congressional action,” ... ..
Debate over the performance royalty proposals has been much quieter than in the past. But broadcasters are loud and clear about the potential impact. ... ..The current version of the radio royalties bill introduced in January would require all radio broadcasters to pay royalties for music use. .. includes discounts for some small broadcasters ... but no station would be exempt from the fees, including religious stations. NRB points out there is nothing preventing future rate increases.
Even with supporters of a radio royalty renewing their push this week, broadcasters may yet have the last word. The industry has successfully lobbied 216 House members — a near majority — to sign the Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA), which opposes any copyright law revisions impacting AM/FM airplay.
I thought all commercial stations had to pay royalties for playing music, and pay a lot? Didn't know they didn't. So if they don't part 15 sure doesn't have to, or shouldn't.
But not here(Canada). Other than part 15 Canadian equivalent all stations have to pay. Artisan knows more about this.
But when I think of it the radio promotes songs. It's like free advertising getting something played on radio. They promote a product. Why do radio stations have to pay for playing music?
In the U.S., radio stations have to pay music (i.e., composer) licensing fees, but not performance fees. It's the performers who want to get compensated by radio stations.
In Canada, the various licensing bodies have stated that they have no interest in collecting fees for BETS-1 broadcasting.
You do have to pay both music and performance fees for any other radio broadcasting.
Artisan Radio obtained a non commercial license, specifically for internet streaming. Non commercial stations pay a percentage of operating costs (in my case, next to nothing), for the right to both broadcast and stream. In return, the licensing bodies may ask for several days of broadcast logs per year. Those logs weren't requested this last go round, but they were when I was on Bowen and had the same license.
Commercial stations pay licensing fees for both broadcasting and streaming. Not sure how it's calculated for broadcasting, but for streaming it's a small amount per listener per song. Any amount charged is then divided between the music composers and performers. The costs can really add up.
I'm have mixed opinions about the situation in the U.S. If music composers are getting royalties, then why shouldn't performers? The same argument - the song is getting advertising with radio plays - holds for both. Then again, I hate to see radio stations get hit with more costs when many are just barely surviving.
If it were up to me, I'd just take the current royalties and divide them up between composers and performers. But then the composers would scream.
Probably the best thing to do is not touch anything, at least right now.
House Majority Backs Local Radio Freedom Act
RADIO ONLINE | Thursday, December 18, 2025 | 10:01am CT
A bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives has signed on to the Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA), a resolution opposing any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge on local broadcast radio stations. According to supporters, 219 House members have now endorsed the measure, along with 26 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate. .... ...
https://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=n48330