Broadcast Law Blog

In several recent speeches and press releases, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein has challenged the FCC to do more in the regulation of children's programming.  In a recent Press Release, the Commissioner outlined proposals including the following:

• Improve the V-Chip and other program blocking technologies
• Improve ratings information for television programming - including potentially having third parties review programming for its suitability to children as opposed to the television programmers themselves doing the ratings
• In the context of a proceeding on Embedded Advertising that has been rumored for quite some time, look at how such advertising is used in children's programming
• Restrict interactive advertising directed at children.
• Convene a summit to explore these issues

In addition to these proposal, the Commissioner gave a recent speech to the Media Institute in which he expanded on these ideas, and also lengthened this agenda to include further Commission action to define and restrict violent programming.  He also expressed his regrets over the recent decision overturning the FCC's fines for fleeting expletives and urged that action be taken to overturn this decision (see our post here on the FCC's appeal of that decision).  And in yet another recent speech, he emphasized the proceeding on Interactive advertising in children's programming, remarking on how the Commission has a pending proceeding that has been pending and unresolved for several years.  He cited the Commission's tentative conclusion to ban such ads, as broadcasters form a "portal" for children's entrance to the Internet.  While the Commissioner expressed that the FCC had little jurisdiction to do much on the Internet itself (but see our recent post as asking whether the FCC may soon get more power over the Internet), he felt that restrictions on the links to the Internet from television programs would be useful in protecting children. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Children's Programming and Advertising , On Line Media , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

A recent Washington Post article highlights a bill that was recently introduced in Congress suggesting that the FCC bring back their rules for audio descriptions of video programming - rules which were thrown out by the Courts several years ago as being beyond the scope of the Commission's authority without explicit Congressional authorization.  But not only does this bill propose to give that missing Congressional approval to the FCC to re-introduce video description requirements for broadcast television, but it would authorize the FCC to introduce these rules, and closed-captioning requirements, on all video screens, including MP3 players, wireless devices and other video devices getting their programming through the Internet or other digital technologies.  With this bill, and various other proposals that have surfaced in recent months, it seems more and more likely that, as the Internet becomes even more important in the provision of broadcast-like programming in the future, the FCC may be called on by Congress to impose broadcast-like restrictions on that programming.

The full text of the recent bill, introduced by Congressman Markey, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, can be found here.  A summary of the bill is also available on Congressman Markey's website.  The bill deals first with the accessibility of telephones and other communications devices, before setting out the provisions dealing with the captioning and video description requirements for broadcast and Internet video devices.  The bill first asks the FCC to study and report to Congress on the issues with captioning and video description on video devices, and then asks the FCC to adopt rules governing these matters, making video programming placed on the Internet that was either broadcast on a television stations or which is "comparable" to broadcast programming to be subject to these rules.  The idea is to make all TV-like programming subject to the rules, no matter what device it is viewed on.  Presumably, if adopted, the law would allow the FCC to make exemptions for certain types of programming (just as it currently allows exemptions from the current closed captioning requirements for small entities that have insufficient resources to caption a program).  The bill also requires that the FCC make sure that program guides and emergency information are available to those with hearing or visual difficulties, and that the navigation devices on video receivers can  be worked by those with disabilities.  So the FCC would have much to do to comply with this law, if adopted, and all within an 18 month period.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , Indecency , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 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

Website operators who allow the posting of user-generated content on their sites enjoy broad immunity from legal liability.  This includes immunity from copyright violations if the site owner registers with the Copyright Office, does not encourage the copyright violations and takes down infringing content upon receiving notice from a copyright owner (see our post here for more information).  There is also broad immunity from liability for other legal violations that may occur within user-generated content.  In a recent case, involving the website Roommates.com, the US Court of Appeals determined that the immunity is broad, but not unlimited if the site is set up so as to elicit the improper conduct.  A memo from attorneys in various Davis Wright Tremaine offices, which can be found here, provides details of the Roommates.com case and its implications.

In the case, suit was filed against the company, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, as the site had pull-down menus which allowed users to identify their sex, sexual orientation, and whether or not they had children.  Including any of this information in a housing advertisement can lead to liability under the law.  The Court found that, if this information had been volunteered by users acting on their own, the site owner would have no liability.  But because the site had the drop-down menus that prompted the answers that were prohibited under the law, liability was found.

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

While US webcasters may think that they have legal issues - whether it be the Internet radio music royalties that have been such a concern (see our coverage, here) or the copyright and other liability issues that surround user-generated content on various websites (see our story here), they face nothing like new rules that were recently adopted for webcasters in China.  The new rules require government permits from two separate Chinese government agencies before webcasting operations can begin.  In addition, the rules appear to require ownership and control of webcasting operations by state-owned companies.  A memo on these new rules, prepared by attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine's Shanghai office, can be found here.

These rules apply to streaming audio and video delivered to mobile and wireless devices.  The rules also require yet another permit for sites that contain news content, and require taping of programs (a proposal made by our own FCC in connection with broadcast programs to monitor for indecency) to monitor for program content that may offend government requirements.  Clearly, it's a different system than that in place in the US - one which website operators interested in an operation in China should study carefully.  Again, details can be found in the memo prepared by the attorneys in our Shanghai office.

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

As the nation's television stations move closer and closer to the February 17, 2009 termination of analog broadcasting, plans are well underway to re-use the channel that these stations must surrender after that date.  Currently, most television stations operate on two channels, their traditional analog channel, and a transition channel on which they have been allowed to transmit their digital signal until the end of the digital transition.  As we wrote here, the FCC has assigned to all stations a final channel on which they will operate once the transition is complete (usually the transition channel or the original analog channel).  After February 17, 2009, the television stations will only broadcast on their final digital channel, and their other channel will be returned to the FCC.  All television operations will be consolidated in Channels 2 through 51, allowing the re-use of Channels 52-69.  Some of those returned channels have already been auctioned off (see our post here about some of the operations on those channels), and the FCC has recently announced auction rules for the remaining channels.  Our firm has just issued an Advisory setting out the important dates for participation in that auction - the so-called 700 MHz auction.  That advisory is available, here.

As these channels have excellent propagation characteristics, it is believed that they will be highly sought, with some estimates that the nationwide channels may bring several billion dollars into the Federal treasury.  Rumored uses include various forms of broadband access, either through open systems where consumers will pay for access as they do for any Internet access, but content providers will not have to pay, to more closed systems where the licensees determine what content will be provided.  As set out in the Advisory, at least some degree of openness to new devices that connect to the network is guaranteed on some portion of this spectrum under the Commission's orders.  But ultimately how much of that spectrum is used for closed systems transmitting video or audio entertainment (sounds like broadcasting) remains to be seen.   The more things change....

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , General FCC , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

Website operators planning to allow visitors to post their own "user generated content" can, for the most part, take solace that they will not be held liable for third-party posts if they meet certain criteria.  The Communications Decency Act provides protection against liability for torts (including libel, slander and other forms of defamation) for website operators for third-party content posted on their site.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides protection against copyright infringement claims for the user-generated content, if the site owner observes certain "safe harbor" provisions set out by the law.  The requirements for protection under these statutes, and other cautions for website operators, are set out in detail in our firm's First Amendment Law Letter, which can be found here.

 As detailed in the Law Letter, the Communications Decency Act has been very broadly applied to protect the operator of a website from liability for the content of the postings of third parties.  Only recently have courts begun to chip away at those protections, finding liability in cases where it appeared that the website operator in effect asked for the offending content - as in a case where the owner of a roommate-finder site gave users a questionnaire that specifically prompted them to indicate a racial preference for a roommate - something which offends the Fair Housing Act.  However, as set forth in the Law Letter, absent such a specific prompt for offending information, the protections afforded by this statute still appear quite broad.

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

On Friday, the FCC issued a public notice promising further testing of "white spaces" devices.   As we've written before, these devices are being promoted by many of the largest tech companies as ways to make more efficient use of the television spectrum by using low power wireless devices within that spectrum in places where those devices would not interfere with the operation of television reception.  The National Association of Broadcasters and other television groups have opposed allowing such operations for fear that they will cause interference to broadcast stations.  Especially during the digital transition, when listening habits are just being worked out and new digital televisions are just being purchase and installed by users, and because interference to a digital television station does not result in "snow" as in the analog world, but instead no picture at all, broadcasters fear that these devices could severely impact the success of the digital transition. 

In August, as we wrote here, the FCC released the first results of its interference studies, finding the potential for severe interference to television broadcasters.  While broadcast groups trumpeted these tests as proof of their fears, many of the tech companies claimed that the testing was flawed, using at least one device that was malfunctioning.  The tech companies essentially asked for a "do over," while the broadcasters argued that, even if a tested device was malfunctioning, that malfunction itself was enough to demonstrate that the devices are not reliable enough to protect television operations during this sensitive transition.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , On Line Media , Television | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

Fred Thompson's formal announcement of his candidacy on the Tonight Show on Wednesday has focused more attention on the FCC's Equal Opportunities doctrine.  We wrote about the issue, here, highlighting the fact that evolving FCC policy has found that more and more broadcast programming is exempt from the Equal Time rules, as it is considered to be bona fide news interview programming.  The Hearst Argyle television stations around the country last night ran a segment in their news programming on that issue - a segment in which I was interviewed.  That segment can be viewed, here - a genuine bona fide news interview if ever there was one.

The television segment is also interesting in that it asked the question whether the FCC's rules will ever be expanded to the new media.  While the rules do apply to some new media (like satellite radio), extending them to the Internet seems unlikely.  How could such rules ever be applied to the hundreds of thousands of individualized web sites spread across the Internet.  The Federal Election Commission has been struggling with issues of whether it should extend its campaign spending and contribution limits to the Internet, most recently in announcing a decision that favorable comments about candidates made in blogs are not campaign contributions subject to FEC rules.  The FEC took the position that blogs are media outlets exempt from FEC regulation - much like the FCC's decisions expanding the scope of the news interview exception from the Equal Opportunities doctrine.  People get their news and opinion from more and more diverse sources, and the government seems to be correctly moving in the right direction of allowing this diverse political discussion to flourish free from the hand of regulation.

Posted By David Oxenford In On Line Media , Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC announced today that the Office of Engineering and Technology will be hosting a meeting to describe and discuss the findings announced recently regarding the testing of prototype equipment proposed for use in the so-called TV "white spaces".  As we reported yesterday, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology recently issued two reports finding that the prototypes of these TV white spaces devices that had been made available for testing appeared to interfere with television signals.  The FCC has asked for comment on its reports, with initial comments are due by August 15, and reply comments due by August 30.  

Given the significance (and contentious nature) of the issue, the Commission has now announced that it will hold a meeting to answer questions, provide an overview of the tests it conducted, and consider suggestions for further testing to evaluate the performance of TV white space devices.  The FCC's meeting will be held on Thursday August 16, 2007 at 1 PM at the Commission’s testing lab in Columbia, Maryland.  Parties interested in attending the meeting should send an e-mail to Patricia.Goff@FCC.gov, identifying the organization and how many individuals plan to attend.  According to the FCC, space is limited.   A copy of the FCC's public notice with the full details is available here. 

Posted By Brendan Holland In Digital Television , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Two weeks ago, we wrote about the FCC’s proposal for the auction of the 700 MHz band – the portions of the spectrum that will be reclaimed from television operators after the digital transition.  These channels will be used to provide some form of wireless broadband service. The Commission made its decision on the use of this spectrum last week, reserving at least some of the spectrum for “open access” uses – where the provider will not be able to restrict the devices that can access the network, nor limit or block services that run on the network, as long as the devices and services do not cause damage to the network.  In theory, this will encourage the creation of numerous new devices and services to capitalize on the open wireless network being provided.  While the Commission has not released the full test of this decision yet, a memo from our firm, describing some of the decisions announced at the FCC open meeting and in the subsequent public notice, can be found here.

Whether the provisions that the Commission adopted will be sufficient to entice some of the Internet “content” companies, like Google, to bid, remains to be seen. But this “beachfront spectrum” will no doubt introduce some exciting new uses as it begins to come into operation in the next few years - providing more people more wireless access to mobile content - and more competition to those traditional wireless industries that many consumers have forgotten are both wireless and mobile - those provided by traditional broadcasters. 

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

As the digital television transition continues, broadcasters have been concerned about the proposals made by a number of the major computer companies seeking the right to operate low power wireless devices in the spectrum used by television stations – in the so-called "white spaces" between channels. Because of the potential for interference, television obviously don’t operate on every channel in every city. The proposal by the tech companies, about which we wrote here, would allow unlicensed wireless devices to operate at low power within this spectrum, provided that such devices were “smart” enough to detect television signals and to avoid the use of channels that would interfere with these signals. Last week, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology issued a report finding that the prototypes of these devices that had been made available for testing appeared to interfere with television signals. The report did note, however, that this testing should not be viewed as the end of the story on this issue, as further refinements to the devices might be able to eliminate the interference. The FCC has asked for comment on this report. Public comments are due on August 15, with replies on August 30.

The white spaces debate has been a very contentious one. The tech companies who favor it have argued that the efficient use of the television spectrum, and the congestion in other portions of the spectrum used by unlicensed devices, mandate attempts to allow these devices to operate in the television band on the condition that they do not interfere with TV uses. These companies contend that they should be able to create devices that can sense television stations and avoid interference to these stations.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Last week, the US Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit released a decision, finding that the operator of a web site had not given its customers adequate notice of the change in the terms of use of its website. The site had posted the changes on its website, but had not provided specific notice of the changes (though emails, letters or even click through notices) to adequately assure that the user was aware of the changes or had consented to those changes. A post on our firm”s Privacy and Security Blog explains the meaning of this decision to web site operators, and suggests ways in which the operators of web sites can avoid the issues raised by the court decision. For broadcasters or other companies hosting websites, who may from time to time change the terms of use of the site, it worth reading the explanation of the decision as posted on our Privacy and Security blog.

Posted By David Oxenford In On Line Media | 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

There are no items on the agenda for next week's FCC meeting from the Media Bureau, so one might think that the "broadcast" community could ignore this meeting.  However, there is one matter that will be considered that may well have an effect on the media landscape for the foreseeable future.  That is the adoption of service rules for the 700 MHz spectrum - the remaining portion of the spectrum to be reclaimed from television broadcasters after the digital transition.  Part of that spectrum has already been reclaimed and is beginning to be used by companies such as Qualcomm offering digital multimedia services such as the MediaFLO system, about which we have written before.  The remaining portion of the spectrum that will be auctioned by the Commission by January 2008 and has the potential to provide significant high-speed digital wireless services to the public.   However, anyone reading the communications press would realize that there is a major controversy over how that service will be provided.

The argument is over whether service will be provided on the new spectrum in an open manner - in essence a wireless high speed connection to the Internet where any service can get direct access to the consumer - or whether it will function more like the current systems run by the existing wireless carriers, where the carriers will be able to control the content that will be delivered to the consumer.  This is, by no means an easy decision, and it is currently being debated in Congress and at the FCC.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , On Line Media | 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

Just when Internet music companies were starting to understand one set of royalties applicable to the use of music on the Internet through the controversy over the Copyright Royalty board decision on royalties for the public performance of sound recordings in a digital delivery system, the Copyright Office held a hearing on Friday to discuss an entirely different royalty - the "mechanical" royalty for the use of the "musical work" in making a "phonorecord."  In plain English, the copyright holder in the publishing rights in a musical composition (the underlying words and music in a song) is entitled to a royalty when a copy of a song using that composition is made.  While that doesn't sound too complicated, when copies are made in the digital transmission of music over the Internet (and even in other digital media), all sorts of questions arise.  And in the conversations on Friday, questions were raised as to whether the obligation to pay a royalty for making a digital copy even applied to the streaming of a song on the Internet or possibly even the playing of a song on an HD Radio station.  These stations already pay (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) for the public performance of a musical composition, but the mechanical royalty is for a different right, and is collected by a different group, and the question being raised was whether a different royalty is also due when music is used a digital context.  This is also different than the SoundExchange royalty that is paid for the public performance of a sound recording (a particular song as recorded by a particular artist).

The Copyright Office held this Roundtable to update the record in a proceeding begun by a Notice of Inquiry issued in 2001 to try to determine how to apply in a digital world the mechanical royalty and the compulsory license for that royalty under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.  That section applies to the use of a composition in the making of a record or CD.  The artist or record company would have to pay the publishing company a flat fee per copy to obtain the rights to use the underlying song.  That fee is currently about 9 cents per copy, though the Copyright Royalty Board is is in the midst of a proceeding that is to determine whether that royalty should be changed.  When applied to the making of a physical copy, that concept is not hard to understand (though, as set forth below, it is not easy to administer).  But, in a digital world, questions arise as to when the obligation to pay a royalty arises.

Posted By David Oxenford In Internet Radio , On Line Media | Permalink | 3 Comments | Email entry

With July 15 now less than a month away, the new Internet Radio music royalties are still scheduled to go into effect.  Congressional legislation is slowly being considered, and a Motion for Stay to put the regulations on hold pending appeal has been filed (see our post here).  Some discussions on settlement have also taken place, though no deals have been done.  Without some action, payments under the new rules will soon be due.  See our memo, here, for more details on the CRB decision, and all of our posts on this issue, here.  While the legal and legislative actions are still proceeding, and the clock is counting down, the coverage in the popular media continues to grow.  In two recent discussions of the issue, SoundExchange spokesmen seem to blame Internet Radio for the current woes of the recording industry and to justify the high royalty rates through comparisons to the illegal pirating of copyrighted music.  All of these issues will be discussed at a seminar that I am moderating later this week at the Digital Media Conference in the Washington DC area.

One example of SoundExchange's recent claims can be found in a series of articles found on the Los Angeles Times website featuring a "Dust-up" exchange of viewpoints on the Internet radio issue,  between Kurt Hanson, owner of Internet radio broadcaster Accuradio and the publisher of the Radio and Internet newsletter, and Jay Rosenthal, a Board member of SoundExchange.  Mr. Rosenthal, in attacking the value of Internet radio as a promotional tool, said that while webcasters might excite people about new music, most new music is now illegally downloaded so that the promotion doesn't actually help the artists.  But, as Kurt Hanson points out, that would essentially be an excuse for never promoting any music in any venue - in fact it seemingly would be an excuse for shutting down the recording industry.  If music promotion just leads to illegal file sharing sites, and little or no music is ever to be sold again, why bother?  Does the recording industry really expect to make up for lost sales by receiving royalties from Internet radio?  Yet the same point seems to be made by SoundExchange President John Simson in a piece done by the PBS program NOW.  That program focused on the Internet Radio station Radio Paradise and how its popular, eclectic music mix will be silenced if the new royalties go into effect.  In that story, Simson also points to illegal downloading as causing the woes of the music industry, seemingly implying that this justifies outrageous royalties - yet offers nothing to tie downloading to Internet radio.

Posted By David Oxenford In Internet Radio , On Line Media | Permalink | 2 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

In a ruling released last week, a US District Court Judge issued a ruling finding that a download of a recorded musical work does not give rise to a "public performance" requiring a payment to ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.  If this decision is upheld on appeal, it could mean that one less fee would have to be paid in connection with on-demand downloads - which would also affect podcasts and video downloads made available by broadcasters on their websites.  However, there are many issues that must be understood about this ruling, so broadcasters should not impetuously rush to provide downloads and podcasts without first securing the bundle of rights necessary for such performances.

First, it is important to understand the issue that was presented in this case.  The case did not involve streaming of programming - so it has no effect on Internet radio royalties.  It involves only downloads - where a copy of a specific work is downloaded to a single consumer's computer at the request of that consumer.  This is what happens when a consumer buys a song from iTunes, or downloads a podcast made available by a broadcaster.  There is no question that, to provide such a download or podcast containing music, a service needs to get permission from the copyright holder in the "sound recording," the song as recorded by a particular artist.  This is typically received from the record company which holds the copyright.  In addition, there is a requirement that the rights to the composition must be obtained for purposes of the making of the making of a "reproduction" and a "distribution" of the underlying composition.  This is typically obtained from the publishing company or a clearinghouse such as the Harry Fox agency.  A service that provides downlaods of music can alternatively pay a statutory royalty for the composition, though that requires following a somewhat cumbersome process of filings set out by the Copyright Office and requiring specific notice to the copyright holder in the publication.

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

The Copyright Office last week released a wide-ranging Notice of Inquiry, asking many questions about the statutory licenses that allow cable and satellite companies to retransmit broadcast television signals without getting the specific approval of all the copyright holders who provide programming to the television stations. The notice was released so that the Copyright Office can prepare a report to Congress, due June of 2008, in which it will present its views as to whether the various statutory licenses still perform a necessary function, and whether any reforms of the current licenses are necessary. To complete its report, the Notice asks many questions about how these licenses currently work, whether the licenses function efficiently, and whether they should be retained, modified or abolished in favor of marketplace negotiations. The Notice even asks whether the existing statutory licenses should be expanded to take into account the different ways video programming is now delivered to the consumer, including various Internet and mobile delivery systems. Thus, virtually anyone involved in the video programming world may want to be part of this proceeding. Comments are due July 2 and reply comments are due September 13.

The cable and satellite statutory licenses were adopted by Congress to allow these multi-channel video systems to retransmit broadcast  signals. Without these licenses, the individual owners of copyrighted material – including syndicated,  network, sports, and music programming -- would have to be consulted to secure necessary copyright approval before the television signal could be retransmitted. As the multi-channel video providers would, in many cases, not even know who held all these rights, they instead pay a statutory license which is collected, pooled, and then distributed to the various rights holders in proportions agreed to by those copyright holders or, in the absence of agreement, set by the Copyright Royalty Board.

Posted By David Oxenford In Cable Carriage , Digital Television , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In a recent press release, Clear Channel Communications announced an agreement with mSpot Radio to provide the programming of over 100 Clear Channel radio stations to mobile phone users.  Interestingly, this announcement comes in he thick of the battle over the new royalty rates for the streaming of music on the Internet.  In recent pleadings seeking rehearing of  the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting those rates, SoundExchange (the collective that collects the royalties on behalf of Copyright owners and musicians) raised only one issue.  The sole issue on which SoundExchange requested clarification was whether the royalties that were recently adopted would apply to mobile phone transmissions of programming containing music. 

A brave move in light of the current royalty decision - one perhaps reflecting the desire to have radio programming everywhere a listener wants it, or one that foresees revenues from the wireless phone companies compensating the parties for the costs involved.  It will be interesting to see how this roll out of radio stations on mobile phones progresses.

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

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a decision released last week, permanently enjoined on First Amendment grounds enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA").  That Act sought to require website operators to restrict access to portions of their websites where there is material that would be "harmful to minors."  The decision is the latest development in litigation that is nearly a decade long over COPA - a law that has never taken effect but rather has been preliminarily enjoined virtually since its enactment - which has been part of legal challenges to Congress' efforts to regulate online sexually oriented content.  This litigation has already twice been to the Supreme Court.  The most recent opinion makes it likely the issue will go to the Supreme Court a third time (following an intermediate appeal to the Third Circuit).  If the law ever were to survive review, a broad range of websites, including not only those involving sexually oriented adult content, but also potentially many other sites including those covering news events or sex education, would have to change how they do business online.

At the center of the challenged law is COPA's "harmful to minors" standard, the application of which to Internet speech was struck down by the Court.  COPA makes it a crime for commercial websites to make material that is "harmful to minors" publicly available, and it exposes alleged violators to up to $50,000 in fines and six months' imprisonment.  As a practical matter, COPA would require website operators that offer content that might fall within the "harmful to minors" standard, which is an adapted version of the legal test for whether material is unlawfully obscene, to restrict access by requiring use of a credit card or similar account mechanism, a digital certificate that verifies the age of website visitors, or some other technologically reasonable measure that can restrict website access based on age.  Parties challenging and/or opposed to the law say the harmful-to-minors standard is vague and sweeps too broadly, and that statute is an overly restrictive approach to dealing with minors' potential access to online sexually oriented content, especially given the less restrictive alternative of filtering software that can block such access.  The Court found COPA was invalid on several legal grounds.  These include that it is not narrowly tailored and the government failed to satisfy the legal requirement of showing the content-based restriction is the least restrictive means of serving its asserted interest in protecting minors, and that COPA is vague and overbroad.

Posted By ronald london In Children's Programming and Advertising , Indecency , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

We have been covering the controversy over the rise in the royalties for all those who are providing an Internet radio service, whether they be over-the-air broadcasters streaming their signals on the Internet or pure webcasters whose stations are only available on the web.  Our previous postings on the topic can be found here.  Today, National Public Radio's program, On the Media, is airing an interview that they did with me on this topic.  You can listen to the Interview, here. 

A number of major media sources are doing stories on the impact of these royalties on small webcasters.  The Wall Street Journal yesterday ran a story focusing on the impact on the royalties on small webcaster, WOXY.  That story can be found here (subscription required for full story).  The Boston Globe also ran a story focusing on two Boston area webcasters.  As those stories set forth, while all webcasters are hit hard by the royalty, small independent webcasters face the most immediate crisis, as their royalty obligations will exceed their total revenues.  The first royalty payment under the new royalty rates is due on May 15, so the clock is ticking for these webcasters.

Requests for rehearing to be filed with the Copyright Royalty Board will be filed on Monday, so coverage of this story will continue.

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

In a curious bit of timing, on the day after the NTIA released its Order setting out the process for providing consumers coupons to finance their purchase of converter boxes to allow their analog televisions to continue to receive a signal after the digital transition, a coalition of high-tech companies visited the FCC to promote the use of the television spectrum to provide a wireless broadband Internet service.  We wrote about the FCC proceeding to allow these uses, on a non-interference basis, here, when the FCC launched its "white spaces proceeding." 

The proposal by many of the leading high-tech companies, including Microsoft, Intel, Google and other computer manufacturers, would allow smart devices to operate in the television band to send and receive wireless Internet signals, without interfering with television users.  The NAB has expressed concerns about whether these devices could in fact operate without interference to television stations.  In a Washington Post story, it was reported that the companies provided the FCC with a prototype device for testing, and stated that the devices could be ready for consumers by 2009 - perfectly timed for the end of the digital television transition.

This is a proceeding that all television broadcasters should watch carefully.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 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

Yesterday's New York Times featured an article on radio's increasing use of Internet video to promote their on-air programs, to extend their brand, and to increase the connection with their listeners.  This is another manifestation of the theme we wrote about earlier this week in connection with this year's RAB Convention, where the emphasis was on radio broadcasters maximizing and leveraging their digital assets.  But, in doing so, stations must be alert for the legal issues that this extension can raise.

For instance, we have written before about the concerns about using copyrighted music in video productions without permission from the record company or other copyright holder in the musical performance.  Stations should not make their own music videos without securing authority from a copyright owner of the song that they are featuring (from both the artist and the composer).  If stations are asking listeners to post their own video on the station's website - like a local YouTube - the station must be prepared to take down any video using copyrighted material if the station is asked by the copyright holder.  And the station should adopt Terms of Use for its site, warning users not to post copyrighted material without permission.  The station should also not encourage the use of copyrighted material without permission - for example, it should not give prizes to the producers of the best music video for the website unless it has obtained permission for the use of the particular song or songs that are to be used by contestants.

Remember, the Internet magnifies all sorts of intellectual property issues by making it possible for copyright and trademark owners to monitor infringement far beyond the coverage contours of the broadcast station. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 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

The FCC yesterday adopted two orders approving the initiation of operations by Qualcomm of its MediaFLO wireless multimedia system on television channel 55 in the Richmond/Norfolk area of Virginia, and in St. Louis Missouri.  Qualcomm purchased the nationwide rights to use Channel 55 in an FCC spectrum auction several years ago.  At the end of the digital transition, channels 52 and above will no longer be used by television broadcasters, but instead will be used for wireless services (as well as some public safety users).  The channels between 52 and 59 have already been auctioned, and can be used if they don't cause interference to current television users.  In these two cases, Qualcomm was able to reach agreements with broadcasters in adjacent markets to agree to accept minimal amounts of interference so that Qualcomm could initiate its MediaFLO service.  The FCC found that the minimal interference to these stations would not significantly affect television viewers, and granted Qualcomm authority to commence operations.

According to the Qualcomm website, their MediaFLO service will provide interactive audio and video to handheld devices - essentially mobile phones optimized for multimedia content.  While the website seems to imply that this will be a closed system with content provided by a limited number of providers or partners, it will operate with a IP type technology, which could allow a more open system in the future.  Other users are apparently planning to use these channels for high speed wireless Internet services.  So, perhaps ironically, as free over-the-air TV abandons these channels in the next two years as the digital transition nears its end, a new subscription audio and video service will take its place.  Progress?

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , Internet Radio , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 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