In case you missed it: yesterday, the Future of Music Coalition held its annual summit, a full dayâ€™s worth of varied speakers and varied topics.
The primary topic was the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) â€” Pandoraâ€™s Tim Westergren led off the summit with a â€œconversation panelâ€ designed to drum up support for the bill. Senator Ron Wyden, sponsor of the Senateâ€™s version of the bill, had the honor of keynoting the event, and his remarks centered around the legislation.
The Trichordistâ€™s own David Lowery participated on a panel in between the two devoted to the bill. He was joined by General Counsel of the American Federation of Musicians Patricia Polach, SoundExchange General Counsel Colin Rushing, Consumer Electronics Association lobbyist Michael Petricone, and AccuRadio founder Kurt Hanson.
Lowery had earlier challenged Westergren on the free speech implications of Section 5 of IRFA. Westergren deflected: â€œIâ€™m not going to get into a back and forth over legislative language.â€
ing the panel discussion, Lowery focused again on the chilling effect that Section 5 would pose to artists and artist organizations. The AFMâ€™s Polach echoed his concerns.
When Senator Wyden took the podium, heÂ attempted to address these concerns. With his voice raised, he conceded that â€œIf the consensus in the legal community is that this restricts the First Amendment, it will be a very short-lived provision.â€ Techdirtâ€™s Mike Masnick jumped to Wydenâ€™s defense:
Satellite radio provider Sirius XM is currently suing SoundExchange and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) primarily because of blog posts expressing their opinion on direct licenses pursued by Sirius. It is seeking monetary damages, a permanent injunction, the dissolution of SoundExchange, and the invalidation of all copyrights licensed by SoundExchange â€” copyrights involving over 70,000 performers â€” because these organizations representing artists engaged in speech that Sirius disagrees with.
These groups have explicitly raised the First Amendment in defense. As A2IM argues in its memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss, filed last June, â€œa trade associationâ€™s mere recitation of facts and its opinion on an issue or standard cannot constitute an antitrust violation.â€
Instead, such a recitation is protected free speech. â€¦Â Sirius pleads nothing more than just such protected expressions of A2IM opinion.
Artists and artist advocates should not need to run things by their lawyer whenever they want to communicate to other artists their thoughts and opinions on deals offered by Sirius, Clear Channel, or any other business that relies on their music.
We donâ€™t have to wonder if there is a free speech concern with Section 5 of IRFA â€” there is. We donâ€™t have to guess if corporations will sue artist organizations for speaking up â€” they already are.
Section 5 would only codify and set in stone thisÂ suppresion of dissent.
That IRFAâ€™s own authors, self-described defenders of the First Amendment, werenâ€™t aware of the definite chilling effect of the bill until yesterday only reinforces the idea that Congressional tampering with artistsâ€™ royalties is not yet ready for prime time.