If you’re confused about what to call the newest terrorist threat – ISIS or ISIL – Daniel Pipes…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ISIS or ISIL?

If you’re confused about what to call the newest terrorist threat – ISIS or ISIL – Daniel Pipes, the renowned conservative Middle East expert, has an answer.

Whichever one you want.

The Obama administration prefers “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL), while almost everyone else uses “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS). At first blush, some commentators think they detect a subtle framing effect to blur any possible links between the rise of this group with Obama’s blundering Syria policy.

Pipes isn’t one of them. According to him, “both translations are accurate, both are correct, and both have deficiencies – one refers to a state, the other has an archaic ring.” Pipes should know since he wrote a book about the underlying history that gives rise…[more]

September 12, 2014 • 06:57 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room CFIF Urges Opposition to H.Con.Res 16., the Local Radio Freedom Act
CFIF Urges Opposition to H.Con.Res 16., the Local Radio Freedom Act Print
Thursday, September 12 2013

In a letter sent today to all Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Center for Individual Freedom joined a coalition of free market organizations opposing H.Con.Res 16., the Local Radio Freedom Act.

Specifically, the letter urges members NOT to co-sponsor the Act at it “is a specific endorsement of the current regime, which offers no meaningful property rights to music performers” when their songs are aired on AM-FM radio.  And because “it has a chilling effect on the development of a forward-thinking policy that respects the rights of all music producers in all media.”

Read the letter below or download it here (.pdf).


 

September 12, 2013

To Republican Members of the US House of Representatives:

As organizations supporting property rights, we believe that artists who produce music deserve to hold real, effective rights to their products, including both the writer and performer of a given recording. If a given work is transmitted, common sense and basic fairness dictate that the medium of transmission should not affect the existence of these rights. Currently, however, a performer holds no effective rights to his or her product in terrestrial radio.

As you may be aware, H. Con. Res. 16, the Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA) has been introduced in the House. This resolution is a specific endorsement of the current regime, which offers no meaningful property rights to music performers in regard to transmission over terrestrial radio. Because this resolution endorses the status quo, it has a chilling effect on the development of a forward-thinking policy that respects the rights of all music producers in all media. For this reason we urge you to refrain from co-sponsoring H. Con. Res. 16.

The Constitution protects private property rights and specifically delegates to Congress authority to protect creative works. Unfortunately, LRFA closes the discussion about how best to protect property rights by resolving that terrestrial radio should never pay performance royalties on music broadcast on their stations used for raising advertising revenue. This is not equitable treatment for any musical artist or music distribution service.

Supporters of LRFA have argued that requiring terrestrial broadcast stations to pay a performance royalty is akin to a performance tax. This is incorrect; a performance royalty is not a tax. The definition of a tax is the transfer of wealth from a household or business to the government. Royalties go to rights holders, not to the government. It is completely within the rights of broadcasters to decide not to pay for the use of a performer’s song by not using the song. Paying a private citizen or business for the use of their property is clearly not a tax.

Additionally, supporters of LRFA claim that the promotional value artists derive from having their music played on the radio exceeds compensation which would be due under a royalty. However, cable, satellite, and Internet pay a royalty for sound performances. In a free market, some copyright holders might decide to forego royalty payments in return for having their music on the radio. Nonetheless, these decisions should be made by the free market, not the government.

Congress should not preclude a free market approach to royalty payments. We, the undersigned, urge you to refrain from cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 16, the Local Radio Freedom Act, and allow the discussion to remain open about how best to protect the rights of both performers and writers in the creation of music.

Sincerely,

Andrew Langer, President
Institute for Liberty

Grover Norquist, President
Americans for Tax Reform

Tom Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste

Phil Kerpen, President
American Commitment

Jeffrey Mazzella, President
Center for Individual Freedom

David Williams, President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Katie McAuliffe, Executive Director
Digital Liberty

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Which one of the following significant days in American history has been designated Patriot Day by Joint Congressional Resolution?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Barring a dramatic surprise, the basic contours of this year’s Senate races are pretty much set. They will be defined by President Obama’s extraordinarily low 40 percent approval rating, a stagnant economy for those in the middle class, and the White House’s inability to tout any policy success stories that voters care about. That said, Republicans have clearly decided to play it…[more]
 
 
—John Fund, National Review Online National-Affairs Columnist
— John Fund, National Review Online National-Affairs Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe that President Obama is committed to decisively combating ISIS or is merely giving lip service to it because of public opinion regarding his entire foreign policy approach?