"It's bad public policy to make a royalty obligation distinction between terrestrial radio and satellite radio."
Just like I said back in February, "We've seen this show before." Another special, backroom deal has been brokered in an effort to breathe life into the Music Modernization Act. Supporters of this bill are now attempting to portray SiriusXM as the "enemy" by mischaracterizing our position in the press as a "brand new attack," a "new source of friction" and, my personal favorite, a "fresh assault." This is simply wrong.
Our position on the CLASSICS Act (now part of the MMA) has been clear since its introduction -- it's bad public policy to make a royalty obligation distinction between terrestrial radio and satellite radio. Radio is radio. If SiriusXM and other "audio services" pay pre-'72 royalties, then terrestrial radio should be required to do the same. The same is true for post-'72 royalties. The President of SoundExchange recently agreed with us, writing in an op-ed published earlier this month:
"...it's not like radio can't afford to pay recording artists. Nobody makes more money from recorded music than the $14 billion radio industry. Radio revenue blows away that earned by competitors like SiriusXM ($5.4 billion) and online streaming services ($6.2 billion in total). Music radio revenue has risen by nearly $40 million since 2013 and the number of music stations has increased every year for the past five years . . . if radio wants to have rules that reflect the music industry of today then that should apply across the board."