Broadcast Law Blog

Broadcasters and other digital media companies have recently been focused on the royalties that are to be charged by the record labels for public performance of a sound recording in a digital transmission (under the Section 114 compulsory license administered by SoundExchange).  In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued this week, the Copyright Office tentatively concludes that there could be yet another royalty due for streaming - a royalty to be paid to music publishers for the reproductions of the musical compositions being made in the streaming process under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.  This notice was released just as the Copyright Royalty Board is concluding its proceeding to determine the rates that are to be paid for the Section 115 royalty.  While there have been reports of a settlement of some portions of that proceeding, the details of any settlement is not public, so whether it even contemplated noninteractive streaming as part of the agreement is unknown.

How did the Copyright Office reach its tentative conclusion?  First, some background.  The Office for years has been struggling with the question of just what the section 115 royalty covered.  Traditionally, the royalty was paid by record companies to the music publishers for rights to use the compositions in the pressing of records.  This was referred to as the "mechanical royalty" paid for the rights to reproduce and distribute the composition used in a making copies of a sound recording (a record, tape or CD).  These copies were referred to as "phonorecords."  However, in the digital world, things get more complicated, as there is not necessarily a tangible copy being made when there is a reproduction of a sound recording.  Thus, Congress came up with the concept of a Digital Phonorecord Delivery (a "DPD") as essentially the equivalent of the tangible phonorecord.  But just what is a DPD?

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

Once again, the extension of the sound recording performance royalty to broadcasters has become a hot topic in Washington. The subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property of the  House Judiciary Committee yesterday approved the bill introduced by Congressman Berman (about which we first reported here).  That bill would include broadcasters in the Section 114 sound recoding royalty currently applicable to digital music users including Internet radio, satellite radio and cable radio. Under the bill, the Copyright Royalty Board would be charged with the responsibility of determining what a royalty would be using the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard. Following this subcommittee approval, the bill would next be considered by the full committee. To become law, the Committee and the full House of Representatives would have to approve it, and similar legislation would need to be enacted by the Senate. As the NAB has garnered the support of a majority of the members of the House on a non-binding resolution opposing the imposition of the royalty on broadcasters, and as there is not much time remaining in the legislative session before the election and the end of this Congress, the whole process may well have to start fresh in 2009 (bills have to be reintroduced after the end of each two-year Congressional session). Yet, with all of the controversy over the issue in recent weeks, it appears certain that the issue will arise again, so it is important to look at some of the recent action.

Two weeks ago, the House subcommittee held a hearing on the issue. Prior to the hearing, the MusicFirst Coalition (principally supported by the RIAA and the affiliated record companies as 50% of any royalty goes to the copyright holders who are usually the labels) had Nancy Sinatra and the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band making the rounds on Capitol Hill in support of the royalty. These appearances follow the precedent set in earlier Capitol Hill proceedings, where the Coalition has brought in niche or oldies artists to address Congress - not major popular current acts. The artists who have testified (who have included Judy Collins, Sam Moore, Lyle Lovett, and Alice Peacock) have argued that the additional income that they would receive from a performance royalty would supplement their incomes which, in some cases, has either never been great or has declined as the demand or ability to tour has declined. The argument is always made that the royalty will encourage musicians to produce their music – though it is rarely if ever claimed that music wouldn’t be made if the royalty is not adopted, as songs have been written and sung for time immemorial, well before any royalty existed, merely for the pleasure or to fulfill the need for self-expression. The question is not one of ensuring the availability of music, but instead it is one about who should get how much of whatever money is made, directly or indirectly, from the use of that music. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio | Permalink | 5 Comments | Email entry

A decision by a US District Court in New York was just released, setting the rates to be paid to ASCAP for the use of their composers' music by Yahoo!, AOL and Real Networks.  The decision set the ASCAP rates at 2.5% of the revenues that were received by these services in connection with the music portions of their websites.  These rates were set by the Court, acting as a rate court under the antitrust consent decree that was originally imposed on ASCAP in 1941.  Under the Consent Decree, if a new service and ASCAP cannot voluntarily agree to a rate for the use of the compositions represented by ASCAP, the rates will be set by the rate court.  The Court explained that they used a "willing buyer, willing seller" model to determine the rates that parties would have negotiated in a marketplace transaction  - essentially the same standard used by the Copyright Royalty Board in setting the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the use of sound recordings by non-interactive webcasters (see our post here for details of the CRB decision).  The ASCAP decision, if nothing else, is interesting for the contrasts between many of the underlying assumptions of the Court in this rate-setting proceeding and the assumptions used by the Copyright Royalty Board in setting sound recording royalty rates.

First, some basics on this decision.  ASCAP represents the composers of music (as do BMI and SESAC) in connection with the public performance of any composition.  This decision covered all performances of music by these services - not just Internet radio type services.  Thus, on-demand streams (where a listener can pick the music that he or she wants to hear), music videos, music in user-generated content, karaoke type uses, and music in the background of news or other video programming, are all covered by the rate set in this decision.  Note that the decision does not cover downloads, presumably based on a prior court decision that concluded that downloads do not involve a public performance (see our post here).  In contrast, the CRB decision covered the use of the "sound recording" - the song as actually recorded by a particular artist - and covers only "non-interactive services," essentially Internet radio services where users cannot pick the music that they will be hearing.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media , Website Issues | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this week on the Future of the Internet, dealing principally with the issue of net neutrality - whether Internet Service Providers treat all content carried through their facilities equally.  This issue principally involves questions of whether ISPs can charge big bandwidth users for their content to be transmitted through the ISPs facilities, or to be transmitted at preferred speeds.  The testimony of Chairman Martin at the hearing raised several issues - issues both about what he said and what some reports perceived him to say.  Some reports had him saying that the FCC did not need to regulate indecency on the Internet - though I never heard that question asked. But he did say that he did not have trouble with ISPs blocking illegal content such as child pornography and illegal file-sharing, which raises the question of whether some might look to ISPs to become copyright police - blocking access to material that does not have copyright clearances.  And, with the hearing being held on the same day as a media company purchased a company that can identify copyrighted material by reviewing that content when transmitted on the Internet - is that possibility coming closer to being a reality?

In recent weeks, there have been several trade press reports about government regulation of indecency on the Internet.  I've seen at least two trade press reports on Chairman Martin's testimony before the Commerce Committee, claiming that he said that no government regulation of indecency on the Internet was necessary.  I did not hear any reference to indecency regulation in his testimony (a written version of his statement is available here, and you can watch the entire testimony, here).  Instead, that testimony was about whether Congress needed to pass laws to allow the Commission to enforce its net neutrality principles.  Nonetheless, the press seems to believe that Internet indecency is an issue which might be targeted by regulation.  A recent study finding that the majority of Americans think that FCC regulation of indecency should be extended to the Internet has also been cited in several reports.  However, despite the seeming interest in regulation of the Internet, there are serious constitutional concerns about any such regulation.  In fact, as we wrote here, numerous attempts to regulate indecency on the Internet have been overturned by the Courts on constitutional grounds, as the government could make no showing that the regulations were the least restrictive means for restricting access to adult content.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency , Intellectual Property , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

Last week, the Copyright Royalty Board published an order seeking comments on a proposed settlement establishing the royalties for "Business Establishment Services."  Essentially, this is the royalty paid by a service which digitally delivers music to businesses to be played in stores, restaurants, retail establishments, offices and similar establishments (sometimes referred to as "background" or "elevator" music, though it comes in many formats and flavors, and may sometime include the rebroadcast of programming produced for other digital services).  The proposed settlement would essentially carry the current rates forward for the period 2009-2013.  These rates require the payment of 10% of a services revenue (essentially what they are paid by the businesses for the delivery of the music) with a minimum annual payment of $10,000.

Some might wonder how a royalty of 10% royalty can be justified - and why it shouldn't set some sort of precedent for the Internet radio services about which we have written so much here.  Once again, as we've written before, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act sets different standards for different kinds of music use.  For many consumer-oriented services (like satellite radio, digital cable radio and Internet radio), there are different standards used to determine the royalty rate.  For Business Establishment Services, it's not the standard that is different - it's the royalty itself.  Under the DMCA, there is no performance royalty paid either by the business or the service provider.  Instead, under the statute, the royalty is paid only for the "ephemeral copies" - those transitory copies made in the digital transmission process.  That is different than the royalty for all of the other digital services, where fees are paid for both the performance (under Section 114 of the Copyright Act) and the ephemeral copies (under Section 112).

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

This week, the Copyright Royalty Board issued an Order denying a request by SoundExchange for rehearing of certain aspects of the decision released last month setting the royalties for satellite radio - XM and Sirius.  These are the royalties for the use of sound recordings by these services on their digital systems.  The decision, which set royalties at 6 to 8% of revenues of these services, and the denial of the rehearing motion, provide examples of how the CRB applies the 801(b) standard of the Copyright Act.  In setting royalties, that standard assesses not only the economic value of the sound recording, but also the public interest in the wide dissemination of the copyrighted material and the impact of the royalty on the service using the music.  The satellite radio decision sets a royalty far lower than that assessed on Internet radio - where the royalty is set using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard looking only at the perceived economic value of the sound recording.  That willing buyer, willing seller standard is also proposed for broadcast radio in the recently introduced performance royalty bills now pending before Congress (see our summary here) - so it could be expected that any royalty set using that standard would be higher than that set for satellite radio. 

The initial Copyright Royalty Board decision, the full text of which is available here, first made a determination of how to compute the royalty.  While both the satellite radio companies and SoundExchange initially suggested a percentage of revenue royalty given that satellite radio can't count specific listeners, the parties later amended their proposals (after the Internet radio decision) to include a computation based on the frequency of a song's play, to try to more closely approximate the Internet radio performance-based model (about which we wrote here).  In addition to the suggestion that this metric more closely approximated that used in the Internet radio decision, the satellite radio companies suggested that a metric based on the songs played would give them the opportunity to adjust their use of music to reduce their royalty obligation.  The satellite companies suggested that, if the royalty was too high, they could reduce the number of different songs that they played.  While not specifically referenced in the decision, it is possible that they also considered the possibility of getting waivers from artists to encourage playing particular songs, which could further reduce a royalty based on a per song computation.  The Board declined to provide that option, finding that the percentage of revenue option best took into account the business of the companies.  The Board also suggested that it doubted that satellite radio really had the ability to lessen the use of music in reaction to a high royalty rate.  (The Board does not discuss the possibility of royalty waivers, which are essentially worth nothing in a situation where the royalties are based on a percentage of a service's entire revenue). 

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

The Copyright Royalty Board today announced that it is taking comments on a settlement to establish royalties for the use of sound recordings to be paid by companies that are planning to provide audio services to be delivered with satellite and cable programming.  In contrast to the "preexisting subscription services" who were in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, who recently reached a settlement agreeing to pay 7 to 7.5% of gross revenues for royalties (see our post, here), this settlement is with "New Subscription Services" which did not offer these kinds of subscription services in 1998.  This settlement does not apply to subscription services provided through the Internet.  The covered "new subscription services" have agreed to pay the greater of 15% of revenue or a per subscriber fee that will escalate over the 5 years that the agreement is in effect.  Given that these new services will be providing essentially the same service as the Preexisting Services, why the difference in rate?  Perhaps, it is because the difference in the law.

As we wrote earlier this week, the Preexisting Satellite Service pay royalties set based on the standards of Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act, which takes into account a number of factors including the interest of the public in getting access to copyrighted material, the relative contributions and financial risks of the parties in distributing the copyrighted material, the stability of the industry, and the right of the copyright holder to get a fair return on their intellectual property.  By contrast, the new subscription services who entered into the settlement just announced, who weren't around at the time of the drafting of the DMCA, use the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard also used for Internet radio.  And, because of the applicability of the willing buyer willing seller standard and the apparent uncertainties of the litigation process using it, these new services apparently decided to agree to a royalty double that of the preexisting services, even though they provide essentially the same service.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The Copyright Royalty Board has asked for comments on proposed royalty rates for the use of sound recordings by "Preexisting Subscription Services."  In adopting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress divided digital music services into various categories, each of which are assessed different royalties for the use of sound recordings. Preexisting subscription services were those digital subscription music services in existence as of the date of the adoption of the DMCA. Basically, these were the digital cable music services that were in operation in 1997.  In the proceeding now being resolved by a settlement between Music Choice (the one remaining service that was in existence in 1997) and SoundExchange, the companies propose a royalty of 7.25% of gross revenues of the service for the period 2008-2011, and 7.5% of gross revenues for 2012. A $100,000 minimum payment is due at the beginning of each year.  Comments on the settlement are due on November 30.  As set forth below, this settlement sets the stage for the upcoming decision on satellite radio royalty rates - as these two services are both governed by a royalty-setting standard that is different than that used for Internet radio.

The Copyright Royalty Board announced the proceeding to set the royalties for Preexisting Subscription Services at the same time as they initiated the proceeding to set new royalties for Satellite Radio Services - which were also considered to be preexisting services at the time of the adoption of the DMCA - not because they were actually operating, but as their services had been announced and construction permits to construct the satellites had been issued by the FCC.  No settlement has been reached with the satellite radio services (except as to limited "new subscription service" that XM and Sirius provide in conjunction with cable and satellite television packages where, according to the CRB website, a settlement has been reached), and a hearing was held earlier this year to take evidence on what the rates for those services should be.  As we've written before, SoundExchange has requested royalties that would reach 23% of a satellite radio operator's gross revenues.  The satellite radio case has been completed, briefs filed, and oral arguments were held in October.  A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

On Friday, in a number of publications, a story was carried questioning the claims made by the NAB that the broadcast performance royalty being sought by the music industry could amount to 10-35% of the revenue of the radio industry.  A post on the Wired Listening Post blog seemed to have started the story.  This is the royalty which would be paid to the copyright holders in the sound recording - and would be in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the composers of music (see our post on the topic, here and here) .  Wired quoted a spokesman for the Music First Coalition (the music industry coalition seeking the performance royalty) claiming that the NAB's claims are overstated - and that any broadcast royalty to be paid to sound recording copyright holders would be similar to those paid in Europe for the use of sound recordings, and similar to the amounts currently paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the use of the musical compositions, in the range of 3-5% of revenues. Only the Radio and Internet Newsletter seemed to question this statement.  From looking at the history of SoundExchange's claims made in other royalty proceedings, the questions raised by RAIN seem entirely justified.  SoundExchange has consistently argued in connection with all of the other on-going royalty proceedings that the sound recording royalty is far more valuable than the composition royalty - asking for a royalty over 6 times the amount of the composition royalty - 30% of gross revenues.  How can Music First now contend that the royalty will be only a few percent of revenue, when their representaives have consistently requested royalties many multiples of that amount?

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the broadcast performance royalty (see our post, here), when committee members asked how much the royalty would be, Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, suggested that it could a simple matter of applying the "willing buyer, willing seller" criteria of Section 114 of the Copyright Act to broadcasting.  That standard is exactly the same one that led to the current Internet radio royalties which have been so controversial (see our coverage here).  In that proceeding, SoundExchange had asked for royalties of the greater of the per performance royalty that the Copyright Royalty Board imposed or 30% of gross revenue.  While the Copyright Royalty Board did not adopt a percentage of revenue royalty because they feared that it was too difficult to compute for services that had multiple revenue streams, most observers have estimated that the pe performance royalty exceeds 100% of revenue of the small commercial webcasters, and are close to 100% of revenue even for the Internet radio services provided by the major Internet content companies.  In making their offer of a "special deal" to Small Commercial Webcasters on May 23, with royalties between 10 and 12% of gross revenue, SoundExchange specifically stated that it thought that the 10-12% rate was "a below-market rate to subsidize small webcasters ... to help small operators get a stronger foothold" in developing their businesses.  While 10% is suggested to be a "below market" rate in an immature industry still struggling to find a business model, the Music First Coalition now suggests that a royalty less than half that amount is what they would request for broadcast radio.

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

If you are a broadcaster, you know that it's not going to be a good day when you walk into a hearing on the possible extension of the performance royalty in sound recordings to over-the-air broadcasters and see buttons saying "I Support a Performance Right NOW" on the lapels of every other witness on the panel - including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters.  But that was the scene in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing as to whether the right to collect a royalty for the public performance of a sound recording (the actual song as sung by a particular artist, as opposed to the underlying musical composition) should be paid by broadcasters.  Broadcasters in the United States have paid only a royalty on the public performance of the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC), and have never paid a royalty for the public performance of the sound recording.  The lack of a sound recording royalty has always been justified in the past on the theory that the artists and copyright holders in the sound recording benefit more than composers through the airplay of the sound recording, as they receive the bulk of the proceeds from CD sales, and the performers benefit from the promotion of live performances.  As they benefit from the promotion provided by the airplay of the song, there is no need for any sort of performance royalty.  As the music and radio businesses have both thrived in the United States - more so than anywhere else in the world - it seemed that this arrangement was mutually beneficial.

But, in recent years, the consensus over this mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have broken down.  Starting in 1995, a performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services, including the royalty on Internet radio which has recently been so controversial (and about which we have written so much, here).  And, with the recent downturn in the record companies' business, additional sources of revenue are being sought - thus the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collective that receives sound recording performance royalties, have started a Congressional push to require the collection of royalties from over-the-air radio.  And that push was reflected in the hearing held on Tuesday before a House Committee that seemed clearly to favor the imposition of this royalty on broadcasters.

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As reported in Digital Music News and other publications on Friday, Clear Channel Communications dropped its waiver of music royalties from its on-line agreement signed by musicians submitting songs to the Company in hopes that their music would be played on the Company's radio stations.  In writing about this decision, most publications attribute the decision to the petition filed with the FCC by the Future of Music Coalition and other public interest groups arguing that the waiver requests constituted a form of payola - the giving of something of value (the waiver of the right to receive a royalty) in exchange for the playing of music.  However, on close inspection, that would appear to be a misunderstanding of the royalty, as there would seem to be no royalty that would be affected by the waiver in connection with the playing of this music by radio stations, and therefore there would be no payola over which the FCC has any jurisdiction.

According to the Future of Music petition, Clear Channel's promise to play new music was made in connection with the payola settlement that it and other companies entered into with the FCC, and was apparently contained in a side letter filed with the FCC, as it was not spelled out in the settlement agreements themselves. See our analysis of the settlement agreements, here.  The side letter promised that the Company would dedicate a certain amount of radio airplay on the Company's radio stations to new local music.  However, such play would not implicate any music royalties - so a waiver of royalties would not confer any benefit on the Company.  Broadcast stations pay no royalty for the use of a sound recording - thus the waiver that Clear Channel requested was without any value as there was no royalty to waive.  While broadcast stations do pay a royalty for the composition (the underlying words and music of a song), stations play flat fees to ASCAP and BMI that are a function of the station's market size and power - not a function of how many songs are played.  Thus, as there is no sound recording royalty and a flat fee for the composition royalty unaffected by any waivers, the waiver did not confer any benefit to the Company in connection with its broadcast operations.  Thus, there where would appear to be no payola issue over which the FCC would have any jurisdiction.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media , Payola and Sponsorship Identification | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Should artists waive their rights to performance royalties in order to get airplay on broadcast or Internet radio stations? That questions has come to the fore based on a click-through agreement that Clear Channel included on a website set up to allow independent bands to upload their music for consideration for airplay by its stations. While artist groups, including the Future of Music Coalition, condemned that action, there are always two sides to the story, as was made clear in a segment broadcast on NPR’s Morning Edition, in which I offered some comments. As set forth in that segment, artists may be perfectly willing to allow unrestricted use of a song or two in order to secure the promotional value that may result from the airplay that might be received. For the broadcaster or Internet site seeking such permission, getting all rights upfront may well be an important consideration in deciding whether or not to feature a song – especially in the digital media.

Critics of the waiver made much of the fact that the site was set up at least partially to meet Clear Channel’s informal commitment made as part of the FCC payola settlement to feature more independent music, even though that commitment was not a formal part of the settlement agreement.  (See our summary of the payola settlement, here).  Even to the extent that the informal commitments made by the big broadcasters encompassed making time available to more independent musicians, the critics ignore the fact that the companies do not need any waiver of any sound recording performance royalty in connection with the over-the-air broadcast of those songs, as there currently is no public performance right in a sound recording for over the air broadcasting (though artists and record lables are now pushing for such a royalty, see our story here). Thus, the use of the waiver was only for the digital world – which was not covered by the FCC's jurisdiction over payola promises or the promises to increase the use of independent music. So, effectively, the company is being chastised for trying to minimize their costs on giving the music even greater circulation through their digital platforms than they initially promised.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Radio , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The battle over performance royalties for broadcast stations seems to have been officially joined. We wrote last week about the rumors of a coalition of record companies and musicians that was reportedly forming to lobby Congress to enact a performance royalty on broadcast radio for the use of sound recordings, and the NAB’s immediate reaction, writing a letter to Congress to oppose the new royalty. Now, the press reports that the pro-royalty group has responded with their own letter to every Congressman, asking that immediate action take place to impose the royalty. Two letters in one week indicate that this summer may be a hot one for broadcasters on Capitol Hill.

The royalty being discussed would be one new to broadcast radio in the United States, but one well known to non-broadcast digital music providers such as Internet radio – as it is the same royalty that has been the subject of so much controversy since the Copyright Royalty Board released its Internet radio royalty decision in early March, more than doubling between 2005 and 2010 the royalty that those stations pay for the use of sound recordings. The royalty on the use of sound recordings (the song as recorded by a particular artist) is in addition to the royalties that are paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the underlying musical composition. So, if imposed, this would be a new royalty for US terrestrial broadcasters.

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property | Permalink | 5 Comments | Email entry

In recent years, patent issues have arisen in many areas affecting online media.  In a recent decision, the Supreme Court decided that lower Courts have more discretion to review whether a patent should be rejected for "obviousness."  To be valid, a patent must cover some degree of innovation, and should not be simply an idea that would be obvious to the normal person when looking at a particular situation.  If the claimed invention would be "obvious" to a person looking at the particular circumstances and using common sense, the Court found that a patent could be rejected.  A memo from our law firm on the details of the decision can be found, here.

As set forth in the memo, the extent to which this decision will affect existing patents and pending disputes remains to be seen.  In the on-line media world, patent issues have been arisen for many companies.  For instance, there have been patents claims asserted against companies providing on-demand digital media, pop-up billing screens, ad insertion technologies and even on-line contests.  This decision may not affect these patent claims or any of the hundreds of others that have been the subject of dispute among digital media companies.  But continuing litigation in this area should be monitored to see if developments affect any patent claims that may be asserted against technologies that your company may be employing.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

A story in the Hollywood Reporter indicates that a coalition of record companies and associations representing performing artists are preparing to initiate a Congressional lobbying effort to push for a royalty for performance rights in sound recordings that would apply to broadcasters' over-the-air transmissions, not just their Internet streams.  Broadcasters currently pay performance royalties  to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for their over-the-air music programming - royalties that are paid to composers (or music publishing companies) for the use of the underlying musical composition.  Digital operators (satellite radio, Internet radio, digital cable radio) pay royalties for the composition and also pay royalties for the sound recording, i.e. the actual performance as recorded on a record, CD, or digital download.  The copyright for the sound recording is usually held by a record company.  The performance right in a sound recording did not exist in the United States until 1995, and still applies only to digital transmissions.  Obviously, if extended to broadcasting, this could result in huge expenses to broadcasters - amounts for which they probably have not planned.

This is not the first time that such a royalty has been mentioned.  In introducing the PERFORM Act earlier this year, Senator Feinstein of California suggested that this legislation, which makes certain changes in the digital royalty standards that apply to various services as well as to other copyright license provisions, was only a first step in clarifying royalty issues.  In statements made at the time, there were indications that she favored further legislation to adopt a sound recording performance right for broadcasters.  At last week's Future of Music Conference, David Carson, General Counsel of the Copyright Office, also spoke in favor of such a right - suggesting that if SoundExchange collected money from broadcasters they might not need to seek so much from Internet Radio companies (see our coverage of the Internet radio royalty issues, here).

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As we wrote on Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board released to the parties their decision setting the sound recording music royalties for Internet radio for the years 2006-2010 - and the rates will be increasing significantly (absent success on appeal or in settlement discussions). The rates and appeal process are set out in our post on Friday.  The parties have until Monday, March 5 at noon, to request that the Board keep portions of the decision that contain confidential proprietary information out of the public record. Thus, the text of the decision is not yet public. Nevertheless, many parties are asking for more specific information about the decision and its impact. Certainly, when the decision is public, everyone will want to make their own judgments. But, until that time (which should be soon as the Board was careful to avoid using any significant amount of confidential information), I offer some observations about the decision (from my vantage point as a party who represented some of the webcasters involved in the proceeding), as well as thoughts on some of the questions that I have seen posted on various discussion boards this weekend.

First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo).  Also, the webcaster cannot notify their listeners when any specific song will play. The decision does cover the Internet transmissions of the over-the-air content of most broadcast stations. 

The royalties are paid to SoundExchange – a nonprofit corporation with a Board made up of representatives of artists and the record companies. The royalties go to the copyright holders in Sound Recordings and the performers on those recordings ( the copyright holder is usually the record label. Royalties are split 50/50 – and the artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording). 

The decision by the Board was the result of a long proceeding – which began in 2005. A summary of the proceeding can be found in our posting, here. Satellite radio also has to pay similar royalties, as do services that provide background music to businesses ("business establishment services"). Separate proceedings are underway to determine rates for these services.

With that background – here are some more thoughts on the decision – obviously in very summary form. The Board is charged with determining the royalty rates that would be determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller in a marketplace transaction. The Board was clear in the decision that it would look simply for evidence of what such a deal would be – it would not look at policy reasons why certain groups of webcasters (including small commercial webcasters or noncommercial webcasters) should get some special rate.

Posted By David Oxenford In FM Translators and LPFM , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , Multiple Ownership Rules , On Line Media | Permalink | 20 Comments | Email entry

I've just returned from this year's Radio Advertising Bureau convention in Dallas.  In reflecting on the convention, and in discussing it with many who were in attendance, the consensus was that this was not your Father's RAB convention.  I was surprised by how little discussion there was of traditional radio at the conference.  The sessions weren't the typical ones about how to make the most money from selling your cluster of radio stations in combination, or how to compete against the newspaper or the Yellow Pages, or how to get the most out of your sales staff.  Instead, virtually every session talked about leveraging your digital assets.  There were discussions of using your website, streaming, podcasts, text messaging, and  audio on cell phones to increase the financial performance of broadcast stations.  There were discussions of HD Radio and some of the opportunities that service might offer if and when it starts getting consumer acceptance.  All in all, it seemed as if radio (or at least those planning the convention sessions) had received the message that the industry needs to take advantage of its ability to drive traffic to new technologies, and drive that traffic to new media sources that stations themselves create. 

In the past, there seemed to be a fear about discussing these new technologies.  It was almost as if the technologies weren't discussed, they'd go away.  But at the RAB, and at many of the conventions of the state broadcast associations that I have attended over the last year, broadcasters seemed to have decided that they need to embrace the new media.  While the old fear had been that these new media sources would cannibalize the current broadcast audience, everyone seems to now recognize that the audience is going to use these technologies no matter what - so the broadcaster might as well be the one cannibalizing its own audience.

While legal and regulatory issues do not tend to be the primary topic of discussion at the RAB Conference, as in almost any broadcast discussion, they do come up.  Here too, the discussion was digital.  For instance, in the speech by NAB President David Rehr outlining the priorities of the NAB for the year, only the effort to authorize FM translators for AM stations (which we wrote about here), was not a "digital" topic.  The other issues discussed by Mr. Rehr included pushing the FCC for final rules for digital radio, monitoring the actions of satellite radio companies XM and Sirius, and finally, the issues that arise out of the Perform Act.  The Perform Act is a copyright bill introduced in the Senate last month that would affect digital royalties for music used on the Internet, place restrictions on services promoting the promotion and sale by digital music providers of devices that disaggregate songs contained in a digital stream, and require copy protection technologies to be employed by digital music providers.  Hardly the exciting stuff that makes for an applause line in a convention speech.  While we will write more about the Perform Act in a separate posting, the major concern for broadcasters is that the sponsor, California Senator Diane Feinstein, suggested in her remarks that the performance royalty on sound recordings which now applies to satellite radio and webcasting (which we have written about many times including here), should also apply to broadcast radio.  And that is a big enough issue - one that could hit broadcasters directly in the pocketbook - that it demands the industry's attention in every forum. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Digital Radio , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

In a recent article from the Boston Globe, an interview with the new manger of WBZ-TV in Boston stressed the importance of the stations call letters.  The article talks about the connection that the local audience had to the well-known station call letters , and how the station had suffered to some degree by de-emphasizing those call letters while using other station branding.  That story, to me, raises the question of whether stations have taken the necessary steps to protect their brand by protecting the use of their call letters.

Since 1983, the FCC has left disputes about the use of confusingly similar call letters to local courts.  Thus, if a competitor picks a set of call letters that could confuse the public about the relationship of their station to yours, you may need to sue to stop that use.  And now, when stations often keep alive formats that have been dropped by moving the formats onto Internet Radio Stations or to HD Radio subchannels, the call sign may well live on even after it has been dropped from a primary on-air station.  Thus, it needs protections other than those provided by the FCC.

In 1983, the FCC stated that stations had a sufficient interest in call letters to obtain a service mark.  A service mark gives the call letters the protection of Federal law, and may impose penalties on a competitor who tries to infringe on those call letters.  To protect that brand, the investment of a few hundred dollars to file a service mark application may well be worth it, and something that more stations should consider.

Posted By David Oxenford In Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry