AHRA, DPRA, LWMA
Reasons to Be Cheerful, Part 3
It’s been thrilling to see reaction to the Living Wage for Musicians Act since its introduction a few weeks ago – nearly 15,000 musicians, labels, and music workers have already signed on in support; and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Delia Ramirez, and Rep. Bennie G. Thompson have now joined as co-sponsors alongside leads Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Jamaal Bowman. SAG-AFTRA issued a statement of solidarity, a vote of confidence from a labor organization that recently won a huge victory for its members on related issues of streaming royalties. And many musicians have been voicing their positive feelings about the bill, online and at a series of live shows organized by UMAW to publicize the launch.
One of the most moving responses I’ve heard was said to me by a young folk musician. When she saw news of the legislation on social media, she said, “I allowed myself to feel a possibility.”
Of course, not everyone has been supportive. Pushback so far has been less substantive and more simply dismissive - either on grounds that the authors of the bill don’t know what they are talking about (we do, but go ahead and underestimate us); or that this is so unrealistic there is no need to consider it seriously.
I thought it might be worth taking up that second point. Because even some enthusiastic supporters are, I know, wondering the same thing. Could something like this really happen? That’s what I heard that folk singer hesitating to think. Should we allow ourselves to feel a possibility?
I believe we should. And there is one huge reason why: it has happened before. Many, many times in fact. Every new music technology has been followed by regulation from Congress, starting with player piano rolls, then records, radio, and continuing into the digital era with CDs, satellite radio, internet broadcast and yes, even streaming which currently pays songwriters and publishers - but not yet recording musicians - a stipulated amount by act of Congress. From the Copyright Act of 1909, which established the concept of mechanical royalties paid for reproductions of recorded music, to the Music Modernization Act of 2018, which required a new non-profit agency be created to collect songwriting royalties from streaming platforms, Congress has never shied from regulating music technology.
The Living Wage for Musicians Act is not a wild idea dreamed up by wacky musicians. It is strictly built on legal precedent.
There are two prior laws in particular that this bill draws from, both were passed in the 1990s when digital technologies initially entered the marketplace. And both these laws passed unanimously, it’s worth noting – one by a Democratic majority under Republican George H.W. Bush, the other by a Republican majority under Democrat Bill Clinton. Those weren’t storybook bipartisan times – Clinton went on to be impeached by that same Republican majority. But music bills have a history of passing by acclamation, even amidst bitter political divide. (The Music Modernization Act also passed unanimously in 2018.)
The first of these specific precedent laws was created in response to the introduction of recordable digital media – CDRs, DAT tapes, hard drives. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), as the official summary of the bill explains,
“Prescribes royalty payment guidelines for digital audio recording devices imported, manufactured, or distributed in the United States. Requires that royalty payments be deposited into the Treasury. Identifies interested copyright parties entitled to royalty payments. Prescribes royalty payment allocation and distribution procedures.”
Faced with the damage to musicians’ and songwriters’ income that recordable digital media presented, Congress passed this law requiring that 2% of the price of every digital recording device – not less than $1 per device and not more than $8 – be placed in a fund to be distributed as a royalty both to songwriters, and to featured and non-featured musicians. In addition, 3% of the price of all recordable media were added to the fund.
This is still true. The price of every CD recorder and every single CDR sold or manufactured in the US includes a percentage reserved as a royalty for musicians, thanks to an act of Congress.
The second specific precedent was passed into law as a response to the introduction of satellite radio and internet broadcast. The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) was created, in the words of the lawmakers themselves, “To ensure that a fair share of the digital sound recording performance royalties goes to performers.” Toward that end, a set amount was directed from these digital platforms to the rights holders of recordings - record labels - but not only to those rights holders. The DPRA also created a second pathway for payments from satellite radio and internet broadcast direct to recording musicians. And it stipulated that this money paid directly to recording musicians would sum to the same amount paid to the record labels. 50/50.
In order for 50% of this money from satellite radio and internet broadcast to be distributed directly to recording musicians, a new non-profit administrator was created to purpose: SoundExchange. Like so many other recording artists, I just received my most recent quarterly check from SoundExchange, which always arrives on time along with a transparent accounting. Thanks to an act of Congress.
The Living Wage for Musicians Act of 2024 uses the same pathway for payments direct to recording musicians created by the DPRA, to distribute a non-copyright based royalty funded by a percentage of sales to consumers, just like the AHRA. In this new case, the bill proposes a surcharge on streaming music subscriptions, not less than $4 and not more than $10. And it adds 10% non-subscription revenue from streaming platforms to the fund, in order to cover ad-supported (“free”) accounts.
We didn’t make any of this up. We looked at what Congress has done previously to regulate digital music technologies and ensure that a fair share of proceeds goes to performers. And we applied these same mechanisms to streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and YouTube, which currently pay nothing directly to recording musicians.
So let’s allow ourselves to feel a possibility. If you agree with the goals of this bill, please join its co-sponsoring lawmakers and UMAW in building a coalition toward adoption of this legislation. It will happen with your support.
Listening to: Rail Band (Buffet Hotel de la Gare, Bamako), 1973
Cooking: Champagne Mangos
One can hope 🙏🏻
Thank you for all yer hard work and determination Damon!!!