A New Twist in the AM Radio Debate: Why Tying AM Mandates to AMFA Is a Game-Changer #IRespectMusic

The latest twist in the long-running AM radio saga comes from a new alliance: cars and music. Automaker trade groups Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Consumer Technology Association, and Zero Emission Transportation Association are shoulder to shoulder with the musicFIRST Coalition and SoundExchange in urging Congress to link the “AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act” with the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). If we’re going to mandate AM radios be placed in new cars then music played on those radios should pay the people who made that music. It’s unfair and fundamentally inconsistent to require one without the other, so broadcasters should pay artists.

What Is the American Music Fairness Act?

If you haven’t run across it yet, AMFA is bipartisan legislation sponsored by our champion Senator Marsha Blackburn in the Senate and our long-time ally Rep. Darrell Issa in the House of Representatives that would finally require AM/FM radio stations to pay performance royalties to recording artists and performers when their recordings are played over the air. Currently, the U.S. remains the only democracy that allows terrestrial radio to make billions from music without compensating performers.

Why Artists Get Left Out

As incredible as it may seem, under U.S. copyright law, terrestrial radio must pay songwriters and publishers—but not performers or sound recording rights holders. That means backup singers, session musicians, and producers receive zero compensation, even when their work drives–literally–billions in broadcast revenue. This is what allows the National Association of Broadcasters shillery to claim “we pay for music” and then try to pit artists against songwriters. That dog won’t hunt, but that never stops them from trying.

The musicFIRST Coalition, including SoundExchange and tons of artists and creators, has been front and center pushing Congress to close this loophole for years and we have been right there with them along with our friend Blake Morgan and his #IRespectMusic campaign.

 

“Mandating AM radio without addressing the performance royalty issue would perpetuate an inequity that denies hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to countless recording artists every year. Congress should not pass a mandate for radio without ensuring appropriate royalties for artists… They deserve to have their hard work respected and valued with fair compensation — like they receive in every other industrialized country.”
—SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe

The Math on AMFA

  • U.S. radio plays over 240 million songs annually without compensating performers
  • The music industry could gain an estimated $200–300 million annually if Americans were paid for domestic and foreign broadcast plays 
  • Aligns U.S. copyright with global norms—terrestrial radio already pays performers in virtually every other developed nation.

What is to be done

If Congress is going to mandate AM radio in every car, it can’t ignore the rights of the very artists who create the content. By demanding performance royalties through AMFA, we can preserve public safety benefits while ensuring creators are paid for their work. This is a rare chance for Congress to get it right—fairness and infrastructure can go hand-in-hand.

If you believe artists deserve fairness when their music plays on the radio, now is the time to act:

  1. Sign the letter to Congress. The musicFIRST Action Center has made it easy—just a few clicks to add your name. 
  2. Call your Senator and Representative and tell them to support both:
    • American Music Fairness Act (H.R. 861 / S. 326)
    • AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act—(S. 315 / H.R. 979–but only inclusive of performance royalties
  3. Spread the word on social media with tags like #PassAMFA, #FairPayForArtists, #IRespectMusic

by Trichordist Editor

@Unite4Copyright: Say “No” to Unlicensed AI Training

The biggest of Big Tech are scraping everything they can snarf down to train their AI–that means your Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, websites, Reddit, the works. Congress has to stop this–if. you are as freaked out about this as we are, join in the Copyright Alliance letter campaign here. It just takes a minute to send a personalized letter to Congress and the White House urging policymakers to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair compensation in the AI era.

by Trichordist

Creators Rally Behind Cyril Vetter’s Termination Rights Case in the Fifth Circuit

by Chris Castle

Songwriter and publisher Cyril Vetter is at the center of a high-stakes copyright case over his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” with massive implications for authors’ termination rights under U.S. law. His challenge to Resnik Music Group has reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and creators across the country are showing up in force—with a wave of amicus briefs filed in support including Artist Rights Institute.  Let’s consider the case on appeal.

At the heart of Vetter’s case is a crucial question: When a U.S. author signs a U.S. contract governed by U.S. law and then later the author (or the author’s heirs) invokes their 35-year termination right under Sections 203 and 304 of the U.S. Copyright Act, does that termination recover only U.S. rights (the conventional wisdom)—or the entire copyright, including worldwide rights?  Vetter argued for the worldwide rights at trial.  And the trial judge agreed over strenuous objections by the music publisher opposing Cyril.

Judge Shelly Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed. Her ruling made clear that a grant of worldwide rights under a U.S. contract is subject to U.S. termination. To hold otherwise would defeat the statute’s purpose which seems obvious.

I’ve known Vetter’s counsel Tim Kappel since he was a law student and have followed this case closely. Tim built a strong record in the District Court and secured a win against tough odds. MTP readers may recall our interviews with him about the case, which attracted considerable attention. Tim’s work with Cyril has energized a creator community long skeptical of the industry’s ‘U.S. rights only’ narrative—a narrative more tradition than law, an artifact of smoke filled rooms and backroom lawyers.

The Artist Rights Institute (David Lowery, Nikki Rowling, and Chris Castle), along with allies including Abby North (daughter-in-law of the late film composer Alex North), Blake Morgan (#IRespectMusic), and Angela Rose White (daughter of the late television composer and music director David Rose), filed a brief supporting Vetter. The message is simple: Congress did not grant a second bite at half the apple. Termination rights are meant to restore the full copyright—not just fragments.

As we explained in our brief, Vetter’s original grant of rights was typical: worldwide and perpetual, sometimes described as ‘throughout the universe.’ The idea that termination lets an author reclaim only U.S. rights—leaving the rest with the publisher—is both absurd and dangerous.

This case is a wake-up call. Artists shouldn’t belong to the  ‘torturable class’—doomed to accept one-sided deals as normal. Termination was Congress’s way of correcting those imbalances. Terminations are designed by Congress to give a second bite at the whole apple, not the half.

Stay tuned—we’ll spotlight more briefs soon. Until then, here’s ours for your review.

ARI.Amicus.Vetter.Final RDownload
by theinvisiblestagehand

Historical Losses from Statutory Rates–Are you ready for CRB 5 and the New Frozen Mechanicals?

The red line is the actual mechanical rate in pennies (nominal rate) compared to the blue line which is the inflation-adjusted rate (real rate). Notice that during periods without a COLA adjustment like we won for physical and CDs in CRB 4 (aka Phonorecords IV), the blue line is less than the red line.

An important feature of this graph is that the blue line continues the downward slope until it is saved by an increase in rates followed by a cost of living adjustment or stair step increases (some of which were due to a COLA).

As soon as the COLA comes off, the downward slope returns, meaning the buying power of the statutory rate declines. This is to be expected due to inflation–the downward slope will be more pronounced in times of high inflation.

Notice that this places a blank space on the area of the graph between the red and blue lines. That blank space represents lost revenue due to a fixed rate that is not adjusted for inflation. It is theoretically and industrywide loss of revenue.

It would be possible for songwriters to make the same calculation for streaming if the Copyright Office were required to publish the results of the CRB’s streaming mechanical calculation. This would be much easier because there has never been a COLA for streaming mechanicals, although there clearly ought to be.

One place to start making that case might be to calculate the industrywide loss from the failure to adjust for inflation in the rates the government forces us to take.

by Trichordist Editor

@human_artistry Campaign Letter Opposing AI Safe Harbor Moratorium in Big Beautiful Bill HR 1

Artist Rights Institute is pleased to support the Human Artistry Campaign’s letter to Senators Thune and Schumer opposing the AI safe harbor in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. ARI joins with:

Opposition is rooted in the most justifiable reasons:

By wiping dozens of state laws off the books, the bill would undermine public safety, creators’ rights, and the ability of local communities to protect themselves from a fast-moving technology that is being rushed to the market by tech giants. State laws protecting people from invasive AI deepfakes would be at risk, along with a range of proposals designed to eliminate discrimination and bias in AI. For artists and creators, preempting state laws requiring Big tech to disclose the material they used to train their models, often to create new products that compete with the human creators’ originals, would make it difficult or impossible to prove this theft has occurred. As the Copyright Office’s Fair Use Report recently reaffirmed, many forms of this conduct are illegal under longstanding federal law. 

The moratorium is so vague that it is unclear whether it would actually prohibit states from addressing construction of data centers or the vast drain on the power grid to implement AI placement in states. This is a safe harbor on steroids and terrible for all creators.

HAC Preemption Letter – Senate – 5.23.25Download
by Trichordist Editor

@JayGilbert Discusses Record Release Marketing Strategies

Our friend and long time music marketing consultant Jay Gilbert sits down with Chris Castle to discuss release planning and strategies on Part 3 of the Artist Rights Institute’s Record Release Checklist. You may have seen Jay on podcasts like Your Morning Coffee, Behind the Setlist (with Glenn Peoples) and Michael Brandvold’s Music Biz Weekly.

Jay discusses his excellent Release Planner and made a copy available for download on the Artist Rights Institute Artist Financial Education vertical. You can also listen to the podcast on The Artist Rights Watch podcast.

Don’t miss Parts 1 and 2 on getting your record ready with legal and business issues available on the Financial Education Vertical here and here and checklist for YouTube videos here.

by Trichordist Editor

Martina McBride’s Plea for Artist Protection from AI Met with a Congressional Sleight of Hand

This week, country music icon Martina McBride poured her heart out before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Her testimony in support of the bipartisan NO FAKES Act was raw, earnest, and courageous. Speaking as an artist, a mother, and a citizen, she described the emotional weight of having her voice—one that has offered solace and strength to survivors of domestic violence—exploited by AI systems to peddle messages she would never endorse. Her words echoed through the chamber with moral clarity: “Give me the tools to stop that kind of betrayal.”

The NO FAKES Act aims to create a federal property right over an individual’s name, image, and likeness (NIL), offering victims of AI-generated deepfakes a meaningful path to justice. The bill has drawn bipartisan support and commendation from artists’ rights advocates, child protection organizations, and even some technology companies. It represents a sincere attempt to preserve human dignity in the age of machine mimicry.

And yet, while McBride testified in defense of authenticity and integrity, Congress was quietly advancing legislation that was the opposite.

At the same time her testimony was being heard, lawmakers were moving forward with a massive federal budget package ironically called the “Big Beautiful Bill” that includes an AI safe harbor moratorium—a sweeping provision that would strip states of their ability to enforce NIL protections against AI through existing state laws. The so-called “AI Safe Harbor” effectively immunizes AI developers from accountability under most current state-level right-of-publicity and privacy laws, not to mention wire fraud, wrongful death and RICO. It does so in the name of “innovation,” but at the cost of silencing local democratic safeguards and creators of all categories.

Worse yet, the economic scoring of the “Big Beautiful Bill” is based on economic assumptions that rely on productivity gains from AI ripping off all creators from grandma’s baby pictures to rock stars.

The irony is devastating. Martina McBride’s call for justice was sincere and impassioned. But the AI moratorium hanging over the very same legislative session would make it harder—perhaps impossible—for states like Florida, Tennessee, Texas, or California to shield their citizens from the very abuses McBride described. The same Congress that applauded her courage is in the process of handing Silicon Valley a blank check to continue the vulpine lust of its voracious scraping and synthetic exploitation of human expression.

This is not just hypocrisy; it’s the personification of Washington’s two-faced AI policy. On one hand, ceremonial hearings and soaring rhetoric. On the other, buried provisions that serve the interests of the most powerful AI platforms in the world. Oh, and the AI platforms also wrote themselves into the pork fest for $500,000,000 of taxpayers money (more likely debt) for “AI modernization” whatever that is. At a time that the bond market is about to dump all over the U.S. economy. Just another day in the Imperial City.

Let’s be honest: the AI safe harbor moratorium isn’t about protecting innovation. It’s about protecting industrialized theft. It codifies a grotesque and morbid fascination with digital kleptomania—a fetish for the unearned, the repackaged, the replicated.

In that sense, the AI Safe Harbor doesn’t just threaten artists. It perfectly embodies the twisted ethos of modern Silicon Valley, a worldview most grotesquely illustrated by the image of a drooling Sam Altman—the would-be godfather of generative AI—salivating over the limitless data he believes he has a divine right to mine.

Martina McBride called for justice. Congress listened politely. And then gave her to the wolves.

They have a chance to make it right—starting with stripping the radical and extreme safe harbor from the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

by Trichordist

Massive State Opposition to AI Regulation Safe Harbor Moratorium in the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ (H. Con. Res. 14)

As of this morning, the loathsome AI Safe Harbor is still in the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ (H. Con. Res. 14) as far as we can tell. There is supposed to be a “manager’s amendment” released this morning yet which will include any changes that were made in last night’s late night session. Watch this space at House Rules for when that managers amendment is released. You will be looking for Section 43201 around page 292. As far as we can tell, the safe harbor is still in there, which is not surprising as it is coming from David Sacks the Silicon Valley Viceroy and White House Crypto Czar.

But the safe harbor—a 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI)—has ignited significant opposition from a broad coalition of state officials, lawmakers, and organizations. As you would expect, opponents argue that this measure would undermine existing protections and hinder the ability of states to address AI-related harms. Despite the fact that it was snuck through in the middle of the night, opposition is increasing all the time, but we cannot relent for a moment as Silicon Valley is at it again and wants to hang an AI safe harbor in the lobbyists hunting lodge, right next to the DMCA, Section 230 and Title I of the Music Modernization Act.

State-Level Opposition

A bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general have voiced strong opposition through NAAG to the AI regulation moratorium. In a letter to Congress, they emphasized that the moratorium would disrupt hundreds of measures being both considered by state legislatures and those that have already passed in states led by Republicans and Democrats. They argue that, in the absence of comprehensive federal AI legislation, states have been at the forefront of protecting consumers.

AG LEtterDownload

Organizational Opposition

Beyond state officials, a coalition of 141 organizations—including unions, advocacy groups, non-profits, and academic institutions—have expressed alarm over the proposed safe harbor moratorium. In a letter to Congressional leaders, they warned that the provision could lead to unfettered abuse of AI technologies, undermining critical safeguards such as civil rights protections, privacy standards, and accountability for harmful AI applications.

Notable organizations opposing the moratorium include:

  • Alphabet Workers Union
  • Amazon Employees for Climate Justice
  • Mozilla
  • American Federation of Teachers
  • Center for Democracy and Technology 
FINAL-Letter-Opposing-AI-State-Preemption-Google-DocsDownload

We don’t ask you pick up the phone and call your Congress representative very often, but this is one of those times. If you’re not sure who your representatives are, you can go to the House of Representatives website here and look at the upper right hand corner for this box:

You can also go to the 5calls webpage opposing the safe harbor moratorium which is here. They have developed some collateral and talking points for you to draw on if you like.

This is a big damn deal. Let’s get it done. We’ve all done it before, let’s do it again.

by Trichordist Editor

A Long-Overdue Win for Artists: CRB’s Web VI Rates Mark Major Step Toward Fairer @SoundExchange Streaming Royalties

In a landmark development for recording artists, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has proposed new royalty rates under the “Web VI” proceeding, covering the period 2026 through 2030. These rates govern how much commercial broadcasters must pay for streaming sound recordings under the statutory licenses set forth in Sections 112 and 114 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

The new rates reflect the culmination of years of advocacy by SoundExchange and artist-rights groups and represent another meaningful upward adjustments in royalty rates. The Copyright Royalty Judges have adopted a meaningful schedule of increases—both in per-stream royalties and in the minimum annual fees webcasters must pay—designed to better align statutory streaming compensation with market realities. (Unlike streaming mechanical rates, webcasting royalties are a penny rate per play.)

A Clear Victory in Numbers

YearWeb V Per-Performance RateWeb VI Per-Performance Rate% Increase Over Web VWeb V Min. Annual FeeWeb VI Min. Annual Fee / % Increase
2026$0.0021$0.0028+33.33%$1,000$1,100 / +10.00%
2027$0.0021$0.0029+38.10%$1,000$1,150 / +15.00%
2028$0.0021$0.0030+42.86%$1,000$1,200 / +20.00%
2029$0.0021$0.0031+47.62%$1,000$1,250 / +25.00%
2030$0.0021$0.0032+52.38%$1,000$1,250 / +25.00%

These increases aren’t merely arithmetic; they represent a philosophical shift in how creators are valued in the digital economy.

Structural Adjustments

Beyond the rate hikes, the CRB has adopted operational changes proposed by SoundExchange to royalty reporting and distribution. For example:

– The late fee for audit-based underpayments is reduced from 1.5% to 1.0% per month, capped at 75% of the total underpayment.
– Starting in 2027, webcasters using third-party vendors must obtain transmission and usage data or contractually guarantee its delivery.
– If a commercial broadcaster fails to file a report of use, SoundExchange may now distribute royalties based on proxy data.

These tweaks aim to close loopholes and increase reliability in royalty tracking—critical steps toward a more transparent system.

The Road Ahead

While the Web VI proposal rule will be final after June 16, 2025, it is already being hailed as a pivotal win by artist advocates. For too long, streaming-era economics have undervalued creators in favor of platforms and intermediaries.

This ruling is a recognition—long overdue and hard-won. When finalized, the Web VI clear and easy to understand rates and terms will not only ensure a greater financial contribution for featured and nonfeatured recording artists and rights holders, but also reassert the foundational principle that creators should be paid fairly when their work fuels billion-dollar platforms.

For artists and musicians navigating a shifting industry, the law is catching up with the market it governs on the side of the creators who drive the business.

Of course, don’t forget that some of these same broadcasters who pay under the statutory license for streaming do not pay anything to artists for over the air broadcast of terrestrial radio for the exact same plays of the exact same records–another reason that Congress must finally pass the American Music Fairness Act. That’s why we support the #IRespectMusic campaign and the MusicFirst Coalition. Ask Congress to support musicians here.

Pie Chart Web VDownload
by Trichordist Editor