April 2011

How do you determine who is control of a noncommercial broadcaster governed by a self-perpetuating Board of Directors?  That question was addressed in a recent FCC decision, dismissing an application for a new noncommercial FM station that had not properly disclosed its owners on its FCC Form 340 application. In that case, the applicant had reported to the FCC…

What should SoundExchange do with money that it collects for the performance of sound recordings, when it does not know what sound recordings were played by a particular service?  As we’ve written many times on this blog, SoundExchange collects royalties from digital music services , including satellite radio, cable radio and webcasters, for the performance of sound recordings (i.e. a recording of a song by a particular artist).  It is charged with the obligation to distribute these royalties one-half to those who hold of the copyright to the sound recording and one-half to the artists who perform on those recordings.  However, SoundExchange, according to a filing recently made with the Copyright Royalty Board, does not always know which songs were played by a particular music service.  Thus, it has had difficulty distributing all of the money it collects – currently holding $28 Million in royalties from the period 2004 to 2009 that have not been distributed.  Why?  According to SoundExchange much of the problem is that not all services report what they played and how often, and other information that is submitted is sometimes inaccurate or otherwise does not adequately identify the music that was played.  To deal with this problem, SoundExchange has asked that the Copyright Royalty Board authorize it to use proxy information to distribute these funds from 2004-2009.  The CRB has asked for comments on that proposal.  Comments are due on May 19.

What is proxy information?  Basically, SoundExchange plans to infer from the information that it does have what music was played by the services for which it has no information.  According to the SoundExchange filing, they would make these assumptions based on the type of service.  Thus, information from webcasters would be used to estimate what other webcasters were playing.  Information from background music services who did report would be used to determine what other background music services played, and so on.  The CRB, in its request for comments, asks if the proxy should be further broken down so that, for instance, noncommercial webcasters would serve as a proxy for other noncommercial webcasters, and commercial webcasters would serve as a proxy for other commercial webcasters.  The Copyright Royalty Judges are also seeking to assess whether SoundExchange has done all that it can do to get the required information, and if the proxy system is a fair way of determining distributions for the money that has not yet been awarded to rightsholders and artists. 

Does this proposal have any impact on the services themselves?  Apparently not, as SoundExchange is at this point only looking for this authority in order to distribute money collected for royalties that came in from 2004 to 2009.  It does not appear to be looking at imposing any new restrictions on webcasters or other digital music services.  Instead, it is only looking for the authority to distribute the money that it has already collected based on the information that it has available.  What should music services take away from this request?Continue Reading SoundExchange Seeks Permission to Distribute Royalties Based on Proxy Information

The FCC is taking a close look at the video programming marketplace and gathering data that will undoubtedly shape its rules and policies in the coming years.  Its review comes in the form of a periodic assessment of the multichannel video programming industry required by the Communications Act.  By its Further Notice of Inquiry issued…

The FCC’s indecency rules have, in recent months, twice been declared unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – essentially finding that the FCC’s policies imposed unconstitutional restrictions on speech as they did not give broadcasters any way of determining what was permitted and what was prohibited.  After seeking several extensions of time to determine whether to seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals decisions, the FCC today released its Petition for Certiorari to the high court.  The Supreme Court need not hear this request for review though, given its previous decision on these rules (which we wrote about here), and the high publicity and public interest in this subject, the case could quite well end up on the schedule.

This appeal deals with two cases.  First, it seeks review of the decision of the Court of Appeals throwing out the fleeting expletive admonitions given to Fox network stations for the broadcast of two Billboard Music Award shows that contained expletives, one by Cher and one by Nicole Richie.  Following the precedent set by the Golden Globes case (where Bono used the "F word"), the Commission held that the use of one of these single words, even if not used in a sexual context, were inherently indecent.  The second case covered by the Supreme Court petition was for the depiction of bare female buttocks in the program NYPD Blue – resulting in $27,500 fines on a number of ABC stations.  This decision was also overturned by the Court of Appeals.Continue Reading FCC Decides to Appeal Indency Cases to Supreme Court

The sale of a noncommercial radio station is often controversial, especially when it’s clear that the format of the station will change after the transfer.  In a decision released last week denying a Petition to Deny challenging the application for the sale of KTRU, the noncommercial radio station owned by Rice University, the FCC again made clear that they are not in the business of regulating the formats of broadcast stations.  For 30 years, the FCC has held firm to its position that the marketplace is best for deciding on what format a station should broadcast.  Thus, when Rice University students argued that the sale of their station and the loss of the diverse format that the station had programmed would harm localism and diversity, the FCC rejected the argument.  Seemingly, that decision makes sense, as we don’t want a government agency becoming a czar of the programming offered by broadcast stations.  When we see decisions from the regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom or Canada sanctioning stations that don’t stick to their legally proscribed formats, we wonder how such a system could possibly function in the US.  Can you imagine the FCC fining a station because it played too many hits on an alternative station?  Of too much rock on an Adult Contemporary station?  Once the FCC or any government agency gets into regulating formats, these sorts of decisions will follow.  Luckily, based on this decision and the prior 30 years of precedent, we won’t have to worry about such an eventuality.

The Commission also rejected other objections to the sale of KTRU. The Petitioners had challenged the noncommercial purpose and educational plan of the buyer – an argument summarily rejected as the buyer was already the licensee of another noncommercial station in the market.  The ownership of that station led to another argument – that the sale would violate ownership limits by concentrating too many noncommercial stations in the hands of one operator.  But the FCC made clear that there are no ownership limitations on how many noncommercial stations one company can own. Continue Reading FCC Makes Clear It Doesn’t Regulate Formats – Rejects Petition Against Sale of Noncommercial Station

SoundExchange claims on its website that webcaster SWCast.net was shut down when SoundExchange complained to its ISP that the service was not paying royalties for the use of the music played by the site.  SWCast was an aggregator of webcast channels created by other individuals, who paid the company – allegedly for the streaming and for the royalties that were due for that streaming.  According to the SoundExchange press release, the webcaster was shut down when SoundExchange "sent a letter requesting that the hosting ISP disable access to the SWCast site."  SoundExchange’s statement says that, despite repeated attempts to engage the webcaster, SWCast neither paid royalties nor filed reports of use for the songs streamed by the service, leading to SoundExchange’s action.  As far as we know, this is the first time that SoundExchange has taken such an action. 

How did this work?  While we have not seen the letter that SoundExchange sent to the ISP, we can assume that it alleged that SWCast was infringing on copyrighted materials by not paying the required royalties.  ISPs have a safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, protecting them from liability for the infringement of users of their services, if the ISP does not encourage the infringement, registers an agent with the Copyright Office, and agrees to take down infringing content when properly notified by a copyright holder (see our post here).  We can only assume that SoundExchange or the copyright holders themselves notified the ISP that the material streamed by this webcaster was infringing as no royalties were being paid and, to protect itself, the ISP blocked access to the site.Continue Reading SoundExchange Claims Credit for Shutting Down Webcaster Who Was Not Paying Royalties

Last week, in a frenzy of cleaning up issues left from old license renewal applications, the FCC upheld several $9000 fines for public file violations – most in connection with the failure of licensees to have a complete set of Quarterly Programs Issues lists ("QPIs") in those files.  The broadcasters who were fined came up with a variety of arguments as to why those fines should be reduced or eliminated – which were uniformly rejected by the Commission.  What we find interesting is that, while these large fines were levied against a number of broadcasters, the FCC is at the same time asking whether retention of the public file can be justified under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  So which is it – an important tool to keep the public informed about the ways that stations serve their public, or an unreasonable burden on those who are regulated by the FCC?

While this request for comments on the paperwork burden imposed by the public file may be nothing more than a routine review of Commission rules to justify their continuing existence under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, it is interesting that this rule – long the source of wrath from broadcasters who complain that the file is never visited except by the occasional college broadcasting student who has to do so as a class project, or by the competitor in the market looking for something to complain about (and even those visits are extremely rare for most stations) – is now up for review and comment.  Why was this rule selected for review?  Will there be other rules about which the FCC asks for comment?  Is there any justification for the burden imposed on broadcasters (which the FCC estimates at a cumulative 1,831,706 hours of work annually, but to which it curiously assigns no associated cost burden with the required tasks) when it is routine for the file to be never visited?  You have your chance to voice your comments – with the filing deadline for such comments being June 17, 2011.Continue Reading Fines of $9000 for Public File Violations Upheld, But FCC Asks if the Paperwork Burden of the Public File is Justified

This past week’s political news seemed to be all about Donald Trump and his possible run for the Presidency – and his plans to announce his intent to run on the season finale of The Apprentice.  When, a week ago, we wrote about the President declaring his candidacy, there was little interest in our post, and there seemed to be little news attention in general to that announcement.  But when Donald Trump started making noise about his possible Presidential run, and his plans to announce his intent on the season finale of The Apprentice in May, our phones started ringing, asking how can he do that?  My partner David Silverman was quoted in a Huffington Post article, while my analysis was misunderstood in a Hollywood Reporter legal blog (see why I was misunderstood below).  But the question remains – can Trump continue on The Apprentice while signaling his interest in running for President?

In fact, there is no FCC rule that prohibits a broadcaster from giving airtime to a political candidate on any kind of program, as long as they are willing to provide equal time to opposing candidates.  There may be other legal issues involved in giving time to a candidate as it may in effect be a deemed a campaign contribution to the candidate (an issue apparently for PACs as well, as explained by that legal scholar Steven Colbert, here), but the FCC’s equal time rules don’t prohibit the appearance of a candidate on an entertainment program, they only demand that the stations that broadcast the program give equal amounts of time to opposing candidates who ask for it – if the opponents ask for it within 7 days of the candidate’s appearance.  And that is often the first issue – will the opposing candidate ask for it?  None of the Republicans asked when cable networks continued to run episodes of Law and Order featuring Fred Thompson, even after Thompson declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination.  Nor did other candidates request time after there was a parade of candidate appearances on Saturday Night Live during the last election (see our post on this pattern of candidates passing on their equal time rights).  But would a Trump declaration of a candidacy on The Apprentice even face that minimal risk?  Probably not.Continue Reading Donald Trump May Declare Presidential Candidacy on The Apprentice – FCC Legal Issues?

The FCC has granted a one week extension for reply comments in the proceeding looking to take many of the preliminary steps toward incentive auctions by which the FCC would reclaim parts of television spectrum for use by wireless broadband companies.  Comments are now due on April 25.  We wrote about the many issues in this…

As broadcasters pursue their digital future, new legal issues arise to greet their entry into the on-line world and to add to the challenges posed by the new media. Over the last few years, we’ve have written extensively about music rights and their impact on webcasters, broadcasters, and other digital media companies. We’ve talked about patent law issues that have faced digital media companies. And we’ve discussed other content issues, like FTC online sponsorship disclosure requirements, that have arisen from time to time. But the one issue that now seems poised to dominate the legal conversation in coming months (or years) is that of privacy. This past week, we saw Pandora announce that it has received a subpoena from a Federal grand jury in connection with an investigation into the use of information collected from various mobile apps, and whether users of these apps were aware of the use of their private information. Other companies apparently received this same request.  This investigation is but the tip of the iceberg on privacy issues facing media companies operating in the digital world – challenges coming from the courts and from legislative and administrative initiatives in Washington.

Everyone knows that one of the great benefits of the Internet and the many services available on-line and through mobile apps, is the ability to personalize so as to provide a unique listening or viewing experience for every user. Instead of being limited to the linear programming that a broadcast service provides to all users at the same time, users can tailor their digital media experience to give them what they want and, as wireless broadband penetration increases through smart phones and other devices, almost whenever they want it. In some cases, the costs of providing an individualized service, because of bandwidth needs, royalties and license fees and for other reasons, the cost per each additional listener is often higher than that incurred by the traditional media. And online users thus far have been unwilling to tolerate the commercial advertising load that a traditional media experience might provide. To meet these higher marginal costs, and the lower spot loads, many digital media companies have looked to personalization of advertising to allow for higher advertising rates on the theory that advertising will be more efficient if you can guarantee that it will be targeted to reach its intended audience – geographical, demographic or based on expressed interests. As digital media companies have sought to refine the targeting available through their advertising, privacy issues have arisen.Continue Reading Pandora Gets Subpoena About Mobile App – Privacy, the Next Big Issue for Digital Media Companies