In a detailed response to the U.S. Copyright Office’s Notice of Inquiry on Performance Rights Organizations (PROs), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is urging reforms to a licensing system it calls “complex and opaque.” The NAB argues that today’s music licensing structure, dominated by ASCAP, BMI, and smaller entities like Global Music Rights (GMR), is financially burdensome and legally risky for broadcasters.
“Broadcasters support a fair, transparent, and workable music licensing system,” the NAB stated. “One that ensures rightsholders are compensated while allowing broadcasters to serve their audiences.” However, the NAB contends that the current system, particularly the rise of fractional licensing—where multiple PROs control portions of the same song—undermines these goals. This practice often forces broadcasters to pay licensing fees that exceed 100% for overlapping rights, not due to broader music usage, but due to structural inefficiencies.
The NAB also highlighted the challenges posed by PROs not governed by long-standing consent decrees, such as GMR. Although smaller than ASCAP or BMI, GMR still holds significant leverage due to the legal pressures facing broadcasters. Under current copyright law, broadcasters risk substantial statutory damages if they fail to secure a license, even for songs they may not know are part of their programming.
“As a result, broadcasters are effectively forced to license from every PRO claiming even a fractional stake in a popular composition, regardless of whether they’re actually using the work,” the NAB wrote. The group argues this creates legal uncertainty and inflates costs unnecessarily.
To address these issues, the NAB is calling on the Copyright Office to support the creation of a centralized, transparent public database listing who owns what rights, across all PROs. “Broadcasters need to know what rights they’re acquiring, from whom, and under what terms,” the NAB stated. “Transparency is essential to a fair and functioning music licensing system.”
Meanwhile, ASCAP and BMI pushed back in their own comments. ASCAP warned that additional regulation could hurt songwriters by reducing royalties and disrupting a system that already benefits both creators and users. The organization defended collective licensing as efficient and essential for fair compensation in a fragmented industry.
BMI echoed these concerns, suggesting that the inquiry was driven by businesses seeking to lower royalty payments. They argued that more regulation would weaken the protections that copyright law affords music creators, ultimately undermining the value of creative work.
Despite the pushback from PROs, the NAB maintains that reform is needed to balance compensation with clarity and fairness. Without structural changes, broadcasters say they will continue to face costly licensing hurdles that threaten their ability to provide diverse, music-rich programming to the public.