CONGRESS SEEKS MORE LABEL SPECIFICITY FROM RECORDING INDUSTRY

RIAA Chmn. Hilary Rosen said current “parental advisory” labels, which warn of “explicit content” were enough to give parents general sense of whether CD might be inappropriate for their children. Hastings Entertainment CEO John Marmaduke, testifying on behalf of National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers, said current labels were sufficient and had worked well in Hastings stores. But subcommittee members held out BMG and its new labels as example of better model. Those labels warn specifically of “strong language” and “sexual + violent content.” House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.), who wasn’t present for most of hearing, appeared at end to say he believed more explicit warning labels in advertising were warranted: “The only question is: Can you help a little bit, can you help a little bit with a little more information on these labels?”

But Russell Simmons, chmn. of Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, said putting such labels on recordings would be going down path toward censorship, that such labels were subjective judgments that violated artists’ First Amendment rights and that those labels disproportionately would affect black artists who sang about important issues, mostly living conditions in inner cities. “What is offensive is any attempt by the government to deny the expression of words and lyrics or music that emerge out of a culture that has become the soul of America,” Simmons said. “Congress should not attempt to legislate preferences in music, art and culture.”

Both Tauzin and Rep. Shimkus (R-Ill.) tied industry’s cooperation on labeling to its efforts to get Congress to help it protect creative content from piracy. “Your representatives come into my office on a regular basis asking for assistance in fighting Internet piracy and other matters important to your industry’s bottom line,” Shimkus told panelists. “And don’t get me wrong, I agree with your argument -- stealing is wrong. It is immoral. But so is marketing explicit content to our youth.” Simmons said issues were separate, and Rosen said industry was continuing to strengthen its guidelines, noting that more edited versions of music had become available, that all print, radio and TV ads communicated presence of explicit content when such warning was necessary, and that industry had continued efforts to raise public awareness about parental advisory program.

FTC’s June 2002 review of industry practices showed “virtually no change” in such practices since Sept. 2000, saying ads continued to be placed on TV shows and in magazines popular with teenagers, said Lee Peeler, deputy dir., FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection. Industry views its labeling system as not being age-based, so self-regulatory code doesn’t include restrictions on ad placement, Peeler said. Dr. Michael Rich of American Academy of Pediatrics said music industry should be more specific, allowing parents to read lyrics before deciding whether to make purchase. Broadcasters and music industry should demonstrate sensitivity and self-restraint in decisions on what is produced, marketed and broadcast, Rich said.

Although members of subcommittee threatened no specific action if industry didn’t cooperate, Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) said Congress expected industry to continue to work with his panel “to do the right thing for America’s parents and their kids.” He said he didn’t think it was appropriate to legislate those issues, and Rep. Harman (D-Cal.) agreed. But Tauzin left little doubt about his intentions with not-so-subtle pressure: “When you come to us to ask for us to give you help to make sure that your creativity rights and value rights are protected, we're here. We're now asking you to stretch.”