We at CFIF often highlight the clear and present danger that drug price control schemes pose to American…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
New Lung Cancer Breakthrough Illustrates the Potential Peril of Drug Price Controls

We at CFIF often highlight the clear and present danger that drug price control schemes pose to American consumers, who benefit from our private pharmaceutical sector that leads the world - by far - in innovation.  A new lung cancer treatment breakthrough in the form of Amgen's Lumakras illustrates that interrelationship.

Simply put, Lumakras reduced the risk of progression by 34% compared to chemotherapy in patents with advanced lung cancer, which is particularly welcome considering lung cancer's especially low survival rate (18.6% over five years, and just 5% for advanced forms).  The breakthrough required years of research and enormous amounts of investment, however, which The Wall Street Journal notes makes Lumakras the type of innovation put at risk by new drug price controls…[more]

September 22, 2022 • 05:06 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's Courtroom Legal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts
Home Press Room CFIF Opposes Local Radio Freedom Act
CFIF Opposes Local Radio Freedom Act Print
Monday, April 05 2021

The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) this week joined with a coalition of national organizations, led by Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, on a letter to Republican Members of Congress reiterating "opposition to any reincarnation of the so-called Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA)." 

Read the letter below or the view it here (PDF).


 

April 5, 2021

To Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: 

As organizations supporting intellectual property rights, we write to reiterate our opposition to any reincarnation of the so-called Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA) and urge you to refrain from co-sponsoring such legislation.  

The Constitution protects intellectual property rights and specifically delegates to Congress authority to protect creative works.  Artists who produce music therefore have the right to protect their intellectual property, including both the writer and performer of a given recording.  When a given work is transmitted, common sense and basic fairness dictate that the medium of transmission should not affect the existence of these rights.  Yet, under the current regime, a performer does not hold effective or enforceable rights to his or her product when it is distributed through terrestrial radio. 

The LRFA endorses this failure to provide meaningful intellectual property rights to music performers for transmission over terrestrial radio.  By maintaining the status quo, the LRFA fails to protect the rights of all music producers in all media. 

The LRFA also prevents the consideration of a forward-thinking process that would protect these intellectual property rights, resolving that terrestrial radio should never pay performance royalties on music broadcasted by their stations and used for raising advertising revenue.  This inequitable treatment for certain music artists should not be allowed to continue. 

Supporters of the LRFA have argued that requiring terrestrial broadcast stations to pay a performance royalty is akin to a performance tax.  A tax is the transfer of wealth from a household or business to the government.  A performance royalty is a payment to the holder of intellectual property rights, the value of which is determined in a free market.  Paying a royalty should only be avoided when a broadcaster decides not to transmit the recording.  Otherwise, there should be fair compensation. 

LRFA supporters also claim that the promotional value artists derive from having their music played on the radio exceeds the compensation which would be due under a royalty.  This may have been a valid argument when terrestrial radio was the only way to transmit a recording.  But cable, satellite, and internet platforms all pay a royalty for sound performances.  The 2018 Music Modernization Act further ensured equitable compensation by updating the royalty standard paid by these platforms.  Yet, once again, platform parity was thwarted by terrestrial broadcasters’ continued exemption from any payment to performers at all.

In a free market, some copyright holders might decide to forego royalty payments in return for having their music on the radio.  These decisions should not be made by the government with Congress precluding such an approach to royalty payments.  

We urge you to refrain from cosponsoring or otherwise supporting the LRFA or similar legislation, and instead support a free-market solution to protect the rights of both music writers and performers. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Schatz    
President    
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste    
 
Tom Giovannetti    
President
Institute for Policy Innovation             
 
Phil Kerpen   
President    
American Commitment                 
 
Seton Motley
President
Less Government
 
Jeff Mazzella
Presidnet
Center for Individual Freedom
 
David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
 
Related Articles :
Quiz Question   
Which one of the following U.S. Presidents signed the executive order establishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"Now they tell us. We're referring to the Congressional Budget Office, which finally rolled in Monday with its cost estimate for President Biden's unilateral student-loan write-down: $420 billion. ...The cost of Mr. Biden's unilateral extension of the moratorium on student loan payments for another three months through December will be $20 billion. But that's a bargain compared to the $400 billion…[more]
 
 
—The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
— The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
 
Liberty Poll   

Choosing from the list below, what issue is currently most important to you heading into the mid-term elections?