Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

This afternoon the Commission released an Order authorizing FM radio stations to increase power on their hybrid digital radio operations. This power increase is a welcome boost to HD radio operations and was eagerly awaited by many FM stations broadcasting in digital.  In a nutshell, the rule change allows stations to increase from the current maximum permissible level of one percent of authorized analog effective radiated power (ERP) to a maximum of ten percent of authorized analog ERP.  In raising the power permitted for digital radio operations, the Commission acknowledged that the current digital power levels are insufficient to replicate stations' analog coverage and that indoor and portable coverage are particularly diminished.  Building on proposals advocated by National Public Radio (NPR) and iBiquity, the Commission has provided for an immediate voluntary 6 dB increase in Digital ERP (except for super-powered FM stations, as discussed below).   In addition, stations will be allowed to seek authority for increases over 6 dB up to a maximum of 10 dB using an informal application process.

Once the Order becomes effective, eligible FM stations may commence operations with FM digital operating power up to -14 dBc (that is, up to a 6 dB increase), consistent with the existing IBOC notification procedures.  Stations availing themselves of the voluntary power increase must notify the FCC electronically of the increased digital power within 10 days of commencement using the Digital Notification form via the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS).   The exception to this is super-powered FM stations, which, regardless of their class, are limited to the higher of either the currently permitted -20 dBc level or 10 dB below the maximum analog power that would be authorized for the particular class of station, as adjusted for the station's antenna height above average terrain.   The Audio Division's web site contains an FM Super-Powered Maximum Digital ERP Calculator available here to assist super-powered stations with determining the maximum permissible Digital ERP.  Licensees of super-powered FM stations must file an application, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in the station's FM Digital ERP. 

For power increases over 6 dB, licensees will be required to submit an application to the FCC, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in FM Digital ERP beyond 6 dB. Licensees wishing to operate with an FM Digital ERP in excess of -14 dBc must make a calculation and determine the station's max permissible Digital ERP as detailed in paragraphs 17 through 20 in the Order, available here.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reading the trade press and the blogs, one would think that the Tim Tebow ad that will reportedly air during the Super Bowl presented novel, controversial legal issues.  In fact, while we haven't seen the ad, from what we've read, there do not seem to be significant legal issues - most particularly ones that arise from an FCC perspective.  The word is that this ad is pro-life, telling his mother's story of why she decided to have her child after a medical recommendation that she not, and how that child grew up to be a famous quarterback.  Where are the FCC legal issues?  Even were this ad to explicitly address a "controversial issue of public importance", like the abortion debate, and even were stations running the ad not willing to take ads from pro-choice groups (and there is no indication that this sort of rejection of opposing viewpoints has occurred), as the debates earlier this year on the airwaves and over cable channels made clear, there is no longer any Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC.  Thus, there is no FCC requirement for stations having to give equal time to competing sides of any particular issue (even when the Fairness Doctrine existed, there was never an obligation for strict equal time - a broadcast station just needed to, in some manner, present both sides of an  issue).

At most, were the ad to advocate some specific Federal action, there might trigger an FCC obligation for stations that carry the ad to place a note in their public file about the ad and the amount paid to run it (see our post here), but otherwise the issue seems to be a tempest in a teapot.  Since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters have been assumed to be able to exercise their own editorial discretion to decide what serves their audience and what doesn't.  In the vast majority of cases, no one bats an eye.  But combine celebrity, the Super Bowl and a reference to a political hot-button issue, and you have a media controversy - even though there is no legal one.  So, unless the ad has some content that no one seems to be contemplating, the folks at the FCC should be able to relax and simply watch the game (assuming no clothing malfunctions or similar unexpected events - which we will leave to another post on another day...)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympics less than 2 weeks away, and March Madness not far behind, we once again need to remind our readers that all three are trademarked terms, meaning that their use, particularly for commercial purposes, is limited.  We've wrote here last year about the use of the term "Super Bowl" in commercials, and about the use of "Olympics" two years ago (here).  Our warning then bears repeating now - the trademarked terms should not be used in commercial messages except by authorized advertisers.  These advertisers have paid big bucks to be able to say that they are an Olympic sponsor, or that they are having a Super Bowl sale.  The holders of these trademarks enforce them rigorously (so that they can get the big bucks from the official advertisers), so don't risk their use without official permission.  See our Super Bowl post from last year for details on how to refer to these events without running afoul of trademark limitations.

As we wrote last year, this does not prevent all use of these terms.  News reports about the events can still be given.  DJs can still chat about who is going to win the Super Bowl, or about the latest judging controversy in Ice Dancing at the Winter Olympics.  But don't try to commercially exploit these terms (e.g. saying that you are "Springfield's March Madness station") unless you have really paid for the rights to use the trademarked term.  Be careful, as a cute promotional idea can end up costing your station far more than you intended. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, freeing corporations to use their corporate funds to take explicit positions on political campaigns, has been mostly analyzed by broadcast trade publications as a good thing - creating one more class of potential buyers for broadcaster's advertising time during the political season - which seems to almost be nonstop in these days of intense partisan battles in Washington and in the statehouses throughout the country.  What has not been addressed are the potential legal issues that this "third party" money may pose for broadcasters during the course of political campaigns.  Not only will an influx of money from non-candidate groups require that broadcasters review the contents of  more commercials to determine if the claims that they make are true, but it may also give rise to the return of the Zapple doctrine, one of the few remnants of the Fairness Doctrine never specifically repudiated by the FCC, but one which has not been actually applied in over a quarter of a century.  Public file obligations triggered by these ads also can not be overlooked. 

First, the need for broadcasters to vet the truth of allegations made in political ads sponsored by non-candidate advertisers.  As we have written before(see our post here), the political broadcasting rules enforced by the FCC allow broadcasters to run ads sponsored by the candidates themselves without fear of any liability for the claims made in those ads.  In fact, the Communications Act forbids a station from censoring a candidate ad.  Because the station cannot censor the candidate ad (except in the exceptionally rare situation where the airing of the ad might violate a Federal felony statute), the broadcaster has no liability for the contents of the ad.  So candidates can say whatever they want about each other - they can even lie through their teeth - and the broadcaster need not fear any liability for defamation based on the contents of those ads.  This is not so for ads run by third parties - like PACs, Right to Life groups, labor unions, unincorporated associations like MoveOn.org and, after the Citizens United case, corporations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today launched a proceeding on the Future of Media in the digital age and put out a call for comments on a variety of issues.  The goal of the Future of Media project, in the Commission's own words, is to produce a report to provide "a clear, precise assessment of the current media landscape, analyze policy options and, as appropriate, make policy recommendations to the FCC, other government entities, and other parties."  The effort is being spearheaded by Steven Waldman, a former journalist and Internet entrepreneur, who is serving as a senior advisor to FCC Chairman Genachowski, as we wrote earlier.  According to the Public Notice issued today, the FCC's initiative seeks to respond to the rapid technological changes in the media marketplace,  financial turmoil in the traditional media, and questions about the role that traditional media will play in the future.  While the FCC intends to draw from its ongoing proceedings regarding media ownership, universal broadband, children's issues, etc., to gather info for its report, it also intends to draw on studies, comments, workshops and hearings, interviews, and outside research.  

To that end, the Public Notice seeks comment on a wide variety of issues in order to build a record for its final report, which will be issued later this year.  The current state and future of traditional journalism is one of the issues the FCC has raised, but is not the sole focus of the project.  Among the topics the FCC has identified for discussion and comment are:  the state of TV, radio, newspaper, and Internet news and information services; the effectiveness and nature of public interest obligations in a digital era; the role of public media and private sector foundations; and many others.  Not unlike the Broadband project that has consummed the Commission in recent months, by this Future of Media project, the FCC is seeking to tackle many big picture items.  In doing so, it is starting at the very beginning by asking questions as broad as:  "What are the information needs of citizens and communities and are those needs being met?"  In all, today's Public Notice contains 42 detailed questions covering six pages, which inquire about business models and financial trends; the information needs of communities and citizens; commercial media (broadcast TV, Radio, Cable, and Satellite); noncommercial and public media; Internet and mobile platforms and applications; and print media. 

Given the enormous scope of the project, its nascent stage, and the continually evolving nature of the media and technology landscape it is impossible to know what recommendations the Commission might ultimately make.  But any parties interested in informing the Commission's conclusions and future recommendations should consider participating in the proceeding.  The deadline for comments is March 8th, and interested parties can submit comments electronically through ECFS, or via the new Web site established for the project, which the FCC hopes will serve as an arena for public discussion on the future of media and any public policy recommendations.  The Future of Media web site also contains a blog to provide additional information about the project on an ongoing basis. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent decision, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ruled that a tower owner should pay a fine for a single day where the required tower lights were not operational, and where no required monitoring of the tower to discover such outage was taking place.  On top of the penalty for the non-working lights, the FCC also fined the owner for the failure to report a change in ownership of the tower.  The total fine in the case was $4000 (reduced from an initial fine of $13,000 because of the tower owner's past record of compliance).

As with any FCC fine, while the fine was for one day of tower light outage, there was more to the story.  The FCC inspected the tower after receiving a complaint stating that the lights were out on a day that was almost a month before the inspection - indicating that the outage may have been in place for far longer than the one day revealed by the FCC inspection.  The tower owner admitted that the person who was supposed to conduct the required daily inspection of the tower lights had moved from the area in which the tower was located, and the owner did not know exactly when that occurred.  The owner did not get someone new to do the inspection until after the FCC inspection.  And the tower had no automatic monitoring system to determine if the lights were in fact operational.  With these admissions, it seemed clear that there was the potential that there had been a problem for a long time, so perhaps the fine was not unexpected, even though the lights were fixed within hours of the FCC report of the problem, as the issue was a simple one that the tower owner blamed on a careless repair person who had recently visited the site.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At the end of 2009, we wrote about the interim royalties agreed to by both ASCAP and BMI, agreeing to reduce the amount of royalties paid by commercial radio stations by 7% until final royalties were agreed to by these Performing Rights Organizations and broadcast groups (principally the Radio Music Licensing Committee), either through negotiations or by litigation.  While many had assumed that these reduced rates would stay in place until the final royalties were set, we have now learned that, in fact, these are but "provisional rates" to be in place only until interim royalties are set by the Courts which supervise the royalty-setting process. Recently, the PROs and the RMLC filed motions with the courts that oversee the ASCAP and BMI antitrust decrees under which these organizations have operated for half a century, stating that they have not been able to agree to either final or interim royalties, and thus need the Court to set interim royalties until a final royalty is determined.

The interim royalty process does allow the presentation of evidence and argument by the parties to the Court as to what the appropriate royalty should be until the final royalty-setting process runs its course.  There is a legal presumption that, in the absence of some compelling evidence otherwise, the rates that were previously in place would continue while final royalties are litigated.  Whether the Courts will look back to the royalties paid by radio owners in 2009, or whether the provisional royalties that were set in these end-of-the-year agreements will have any effect on the interim royalties remains to be seen.  But don't count on the interim 7% reductions being in place for long, as the Court should set the interim royalties relatively quickly, probably later this year.  And once these interim royalties are set, the more difficult issue will face the PROs and RMLC - reaching a deal or litigating over the final royalties that will be paid by radio broadcasters for the public performance of musical compositions.  Given the inability of the parties to reach any agreement on interim royalties after a year of discussions, it may well be quite some time before final royalties are set - at which time there will be a "true up" back to January 1 of this year.  So broadcasters need to watch these developments carefully, and to not count any discounts as final until the final royalties are established. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A reminder that by February 1 noncommercial radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York, and noncommercial television stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma must prepare and file electronically a biennial Ownership Report with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) using the current noncommercial FCC Form 323-E.

Please note, this filing date applies only to noncommercial radio and TV stations in the states listed above. The FCC has revised its rules regarding the reporting of ownership interests for commercial broadcast stations, and has revised the commercial Ownership Report – Form 323. Although commercial broadcast stations will file on a unified reporting deadline, by Order released late December 2009, the FCC has suspended indefinitely the filing of biennial Ownership Reports for commercial broadcast stations as we've posted previously. The Commission is taking additional time to address certain issues raised by petitioners and to revise the new form further.  Once the FCC re-releases the form, stations will have 90 days to file the report, so stations should watch this space or the FCC's releases for future news about the return of the Ownership Report for commercial stations. 

Noncommercial stations, on the other hand, continue to follow the previous rules filing biennial Ownership Reports on FCC Form 323-E, which has not been revised. The FCC is conducting a rule making proceeding to change, potentially, some of the ownership reporting rules for noncommercial licensees, but meanwhile, noncommercial broadcast stations continue to follow the existing rules.  Accordingly, as Feb. 1, 2010, marks the two-year anniversary of the filing of a biennial Ownership Report for noncommercial stations in the above-referenced services and states, those stations must now file a biennial Ownership Report to update their ownership information or affirm the information currently on file.  More information about this filing deadline can be found in our recent client advisory, available here.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

February 1st marks the deadline for two FCC EEO requirements.  First, by February 1st, radio and television stations located in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma must prepare their Annual EEO Public File Reports. Specifically, stations or Station Employment Units (SEUs) in those states with five or more full time employees (30 hours or more per week) must:  (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection file of each station comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the Web site, if any station in the SEU has a Web site, all by Feb. 1. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the hiring and EEO activities conducted by the station or SEU during the past 12 months. The Report provides information about the full time job positions filled in the last year, the recruitment sources used to fill those positions, and the outreach activities that the station or SEU performed during the year. In preparing their Annual Reports, stations are encouraged to carefully review their EEO activities and take the time to organize their records. Stations should have appropriate documentation to back up each of the recruitment sources used for each job opening, as well as for each outreach activity. This annual report is also a good time for the station or employment unit to assess the success of its outreach and the efficacy of its recruitment sources, and to make any adjustments necessary to improve EEO compliance in the coming year. A copy of our longer EEO primer can be found here.

Second, in addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report, by February 1 television stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma , as well as larger radio stations in New Jersey and New York (i.e., those with eleven or more full-time employees) must prepare and file electronically with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  The Form 397 provides the FCC with copies of the SEU's two most recent Annual EEO Public File Reports, and is an important part of both the station’s compliance with the EEO rules and the Commission’s monitoring procedures. While normally the Annual Report is simply prepared and placed in the station's public file and on the website, at the mid-point of the license term stations must actually provide the FCC with copies of its two most recent Reports.  More information about both of these February 1 filing deadlines can be found in our recent client advisory available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You've arrived here as the result of a broken link. 

The full article regarding the proposed revisions to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) posted on February 2, 2010 can be found here.  

We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for reading. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

David Oxenford today conducted a webinar for the Kansas Association of Broadcasters on the rules for political advertising.  In addition to the elections for the US House of Representatives, Kansas has a race to fill a vacant US Senate seat, as well as elections for Governor and a whole host of state and local offices.  With an August primary and the November general election, the 2010 election season could be a busy one in the state.  David's presentation covered reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit rates, FCC paperwork obligations and the other related issues that govern how broadcasters need to treat political candidates and other political advertisers.  The slides from David's presentation are available here.  Broadcasters should also refer to Davis Wright Tremaine's Political Broadcasting Guide for information about preparing for the upcoming campaign, and spotting legal issues that may arise during the election season.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The earthquake in Haiti has caused many to look for ways to help - including broadcasters.  While many broadcasters are already pitching in to do their part to aide relief efforts, noncommercial broadcasters are, in some cases, limited in what they can do.  Noncommercial stations cannot raise funds, even for other noncommercial groups, if that fundraising "substantially alters or suspends regular programming" of the station.  Under these rules, NCE ("Noncommercial educational) stations are thus forbidden to hold a telethon or other pledge drive that suspends normal programming where the proceeds would go to a third party - even a nonprofit third party group.  Thus, recognizing the magnitude of the tragedy in Haiti, the FCC has agreed to grant liberal waivers of these policies, issuing a public notice announcing that NCE stations wishing to conduct such efforts can simply file an electronic request, by email, with certain supervisors in the Media Bureau's Audio and Video divisions, setting out the nature of the programming, its length, and the beneficiary.

We obviously applaud the FCC's rapid response on this issue.  But we note that it is interesting that the Public Notice states that applicants for one of these waivers also must state whether the special fund-raising effort is part of the station's normal fundraising, or if it is a separate program. The public notice does not mention that noncommercial stations can make fundraising appeals for third parties under the current FCC policies, as long as those appeals do not suspend or interfere with normal station programming.  It would seem to me that such appeals would permit a DJ on an NCE station, in a normal programming break, to urge listeners to contribute to the Red Cross or some other charity, or for a regularly scheduled talk show on a station to feature a discussion of the situation in Haiti and of how people can assist with disaster relief, without needing any specific approval of the FCC.  The key to whether a waiver of the FCC policies is necessary is whether there is a substantial alteration or suspension of the normal programming of the station.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year poses a new set of regulatory deadlines, and to help you remember all of those deadlines, the Davis Wright Tremaine Broadcast Group has prepared a calendar setting out the dates that broadcasters need to remember in 2010.  The calendar can be found here, and sets out FCC imposed deadlines for, among other things, Ownership Report filings (for noncommercial stations for now, until the status of the Form 323 for commercial stations is resolved), for quarterly issues programs lists, for EEO public file and Mid-Term reports, and for children's TV reports.   The calendar also provides reminders about the dates of SoundExchange filings and payment obligations, and for the political windows during which lowest unit rates apply for the Federal elections to be held in 2010 (for the House of Representatives in all states, and for the Senate in over a third of the states).  Lots of dates to remember - so check out the DWT Broadcasters Calendar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many Webcasters who have elected the the royalty rates set by many of the settlement agreements entered into pursuant to the Webcasters Settlement Act must file an election notice with SoundExchange by January 31 to continue to be covered by those settlement agreements.   These agreements were entered into by groups of webcasters and SoundExchange, and allow the webcasters to pay royalties at rates lower than those rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board for 2006-2010.  January 31 is an important date even for those webcasters who are covered by agreements that don't demand an annual election, as most Internet radio operators must make annual minimum fee payments by January 31.  SoundExchange does not send out reminders of these obligations, so Internet Radio operators must remember to make these filings on their own.  The original election forms filed under settlement agreements signed by the NAB and by Sirius XM cover the entire settlement period from 2006-2015, so no election form must be filed each year, though minimum fee payments must still be made.  Note that certain small broadcasters, who need not meet SoundExchange recordkeeping obligations, do need to file an election to certify that they still meet the standards necessary to count as a small broadcaster.  The WSA settlement agreements that cover Pureplay webcasters, Small Commercial webcasters, Noncommercial Educational webcasters and other noncommercial webcasters all are entered into on a year-by-year basis.  Thus, to continue to be covered, parties currently governed by these agreements need to file a Notice of Election to again be covered by these agreements by January 31 (though note that the SoundExchange website provides for filings by February 1, presumably as January 31 is a Sunday).

The election forms are available on the SoundExchange website, though they are not easy to find. The forms that must accompany the annual minimum fees are also on the SoundExchange website.  Note that in some cases there are forms that cover both webcasters who paying under a particular settlement, as well as under the special provisions for small entities that are covered by these same agreements (e.g. Small Pureplay webcasters file a different form than other Pureplay Webcasters even though both are governed by the same agreement.  Similarly Small Broadcasters file a form different than other broadcasters, though both are covered by the same agreement).  These forms can be found at the links below.  Click on the name of the category of webcasters for a link to our article that summarizes the particular settlement, the minimum fees required, and the qualifications for small webcasters under that deal (if there is such a provision):

• Broadcasters minimum fee form - here.
• Small broadcasters election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Pureplay webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small pureplay election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small commercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Microcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Noncommercial educational webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Other noncommercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Noncommercial microcasters election form - here. Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Satellite radio (for their webcasting operations - a deal that may also fit other commercial webcasters who are not covered by other agreements) minimum fee payment form - here.

Note that there is no specific form for NPR affiliates covered under the NPR settlement, as an organization set up by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting handles all payments and SoundExchange filings.  Other companies providing Internet radio services need to pay attention to these dates - and file the necessary papers and make the required payments by the upcoming deadline. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another year is upon us, and it’s time for predictions as to what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2010.  Each year, when we look at what might be coming, we are amazed at the number of issues that could affect the industry – often issues that are the same year to year as final decisions are often hard to come by in Washington with the interplay between the FCC and other government agencies, the courts and Congress. This year, as usual, we see a whole list of issues, many of which remain from prior years. But this year is different, as we have had a list topped by issues such as the suggestion that television spectrum be reallotted for wireless uses and the radio performance royalty, that could fundamentally affect the broadcast business.  The new administration at the FCC is only beginning to get down to business, having filling most of the decision-making positions at the Commission.  Thus far, its attention has been focused on broadband, working diligently to complete a report to Congress on plans for implementation of a national broadband plan, a report that is required to be issued in February.  But, from what little we have seen from the new Commission and its employees, there seems to be a willingness to reexamine many of the fundamental tenants of broadcasting.  And Congress is not shy about offering its own opinions on how to make broadcasting "better."  This willingness to reexamine some of the most fundamental tenets of broadcasting should make this a most interesting, and potentially frightening, year. Some of the issues to likely be facing television, radio and the broadcasting industry generally are set out below.

Television Issues.

In the television world, at this time last year, we were discussing the end of the digital television transition, and expressing the concern of broadcasters about the FCC’s White Spaces decision allowing unlicensed wireless devices into the television spectrum. While the White Spaces process still has not been finalized, that concern over the encroachment on the TV spectrum has taken a back seat to a far more fundamental issue of whether to repurpose large chunks of the television spectrum (if not the entire spectrum) for wireless users, while compressing television into an even smaller part of what’s left of the television band – if not migrating it altogether to multichannel providers like cable or satellite, with subscription fees for the poorest citizens being paid for from spectrum auction receipts. This proposal, while floated for years in academic circles, has in the last three months become one that is being legitimately debated in Washington, and one that television broadcasters have to take seriously, no matter how absurd it may seem at first glance. Who would have thought that just six month after the completion of the digital transition, when so much time and effort was expended to make sure that homes that receive free over-the-air television would not be adversely impacted by the digital transition, we could now be talking about abolishing free over-the-air television entirely? This cannot happen overnight, and it is a process sure to be resisted as broadcasters seek to protect their ability to roll out new digital multicast channels and their mobile platforms. But it is a real proposal which, if implemented, could fundamentally change the face of the television industry.  Watch for this debate to continue this year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year’s Court of Appeals decision on Internet radio royalties for 2006-2010 remanded one issue to the Copyright Royalty Board for further consideration – the issue of the minimum annual fee to be paid by each webcaster. The Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”) had decided on a $500 per channel minimum fee – a fee that created much concern in the Internet radio community as there was no clear delineation of what a channel was. For services, like Pandora, where there is a unique stream created for each listener, by some definitions there could be an almost infinite number of channels all subject to the $500 minimum fee. Following the CRB's initial decision, a number of the larger webcasters and SoundExchange entered into a settlement capping the minimum fee obligation at $50,000 per webcaster per year. Thus, services with more than 100 channels would only pay a minimum fee of $50,000 at the beginning of each year. However, this settlement was never extended to all webcasters - it applied only to those webcasters who signed the deal.  Following the Court remand, SoundExchange and DiMA (the Digital Media Association which represents many webcasters), submitted the 2007 settlement to the CRB to be codified into the rules that govern webcasters generally. Just before Christmas, the CRJs asked for comments on that settlement. Comments are due by January 22. 

In many cases, this settlement has been superseded by subsequent events – namely the settlements with webcasters that were entered into in February and then later in the summer under the provisions of the Webcaster Settlement Acts. Settlements with broadcasters, pureplay webcasters, small commercial webcasters and various noncommercial groups all set their own minimum fees (and, for the most part, cover the periods through 2015), and thus this proceeding is largely irrelevant to these webcasters. If this settlement is approved, the only remaining question before the CRJs on the remand of the 2006-2010 proceeding will be the minimum fee for some noncommercial groups that did not enter into any settlement, as this agreement on minimum fees applies only to commercial webcasters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link