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

Every year, about this time, I dust off the crystal ball to offer a look at the year ahead to see what Washington has in store for broadcasters. This year, like many in the recent past, Washington will consider important issues for both radio and TV, as well as issues affecting the growing on-line presence of broadcasters. The FCC, Congress, and other government agencies are never afraid to provide their views on what the industry should be doing but, unlike other members of the broadcasters' audience, they can force broadcasters to pay attention to their views by way of new laws and regulations. And there is never a shortage of ideas from Washington as to how broadcasters should act. Some of the issues discussed below are perennials, coming back over and over again on my yearly list (often without resolution), while others are unique to this coming year.

Last week, we published a calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters.  This article looks ahead, providing a preview of what other changes might be coming for broadcasters this year – but these are delivered with no guarantees that the issues listed will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC's long list of pending items, or that they will be resolved when we predict. But at least this gives you some warning of what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.

General Broadcast Issues

 

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

 

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: The FCC is very close to resolving its Quadrennial review of its multiple ownership proceeding, officially begun in 2011 with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The rumors were that the FCC was ready to issue an order at the end of 2012 relaxing the rules against the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, as well as the radio-television cross-interest prohibitions, while leaving most other rules in place. TV Joint Sales Agreements were also rumored to be part of the FCC's considerations – perhaps making some or all of these agreements attributable. But even these modest changes in the rules are now on hold, while parties submit comments on the impact of any relaxation of the ownership rules on minority ownership. Still, we would expect that some decision on changes to the ownership rules should be expected at some point this year – probably early in the year. 

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, the Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC” – see our article about the RMLC), filed a complaint in US District Court in Pennsylvania against SESAC, arguing that SESAC is a monopoly and should be treated like ASCAP and BMI.  RMLC is asking that SESAC be subject to an antitrust consent decree as are these two bigger collection societies. As we have written before, SESAC is not a non-profit organization like ASCAP and BMI, and is not subject to consent decrees like these other performing rights organizations (“PROs”). Instead, it is a private company, owned by venture funds which, up to now, has set its own prices for licenses subject only to negotiations with the rights holders. So what is this suit all about, and will broadcasters see any changes in SESAC licensing in the short-term? 

RMLC claims that SESAC, by effectively being the only way to license the public performance of compositions by thousands of different composers, effectively can get monopoly prices. Practically speaking, radio stations cannot individually license all the songs written by SESAC performers and, even if the stations were able to directly license some of the music from SESAC writers, SESAC still would not reduce their fees.  All SESAC licenses are blanket licenses that give stations the right to use all the music in the SESAC catalog, but are not reduced by any pro rata amount should any music be directly licensed. Thus, argues RMLC, stations cannot try to reduce their licensing liability through direct licenses with songwriters even if such deals could be negotiated.

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, we wrote about the recently announced deal between Big Machine Records and Entercom Communications.  The day after we posted that article, Clear Channel announced another label deal - this time with Glassnote Entertainment Group, the home of bands including Mumford & Sons and Phoenix.  As with its Big Machine deal, the public releases suggest that the label agreed to lower digital performance royalties in exchange for a royalty on over-the-air performances by the company.  What impact do these deals have on the threat of a broadcast performance royalty, and why do the parties enter into these deals?

When the Entercom deal was discussed at the NAB Radio Show, the host of the session asked for a show of hands from broadcasters in the audience who were absolutely opposed to any performance royalty - and about a quarter of the hands in the room went up.  This is probably reflective of concerns that the break in the almost unanimous opposition of radio broadcasters to an over-the-air performance royalty for record labels and musicians could mean that the broadcast performance royalty (what used to be referred to as the "performance tax") would become inevitable. Will these deals embolden the recording industry to once again push Congress to move on the stalled effort to institute a performance royalty?  Perhaps not. At a Congressional hearing soon after the announcement of the original Big Machine-Clear Channel deal, Congressional Representatives were asking witnesses from the broadcast and music industries if the deal reflected a marketplace solution to the royalty issue, obviating the need for any government involvement. And that was certainly the message of the NAB at the Radio Show – these deals are unique deals by companies that can uniquely benefit from them as they have a large digital presence, not a template for universal extension to all broadcasters.

Continue Reading...

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

A deal between Big Machine Records and a broadcaster, this time Entercom Communications, was announced at the NAB Radio Show giving the record company a royalty on the broadcaster’s revenue from over-the-air broadcasting in exchange for lower royalties on digital operations. This deal follows one announced by Clear Channel back in June. Talking to broadcasters around the country, many seem confused by the deals, not understanding why they were done, how they work, or what they accomplish. More than anything, many broadcasters fear that the deals will lead to a generally applicable royalty payable to sound recording copyright holders (i.e. the record companies) on over-the-air broadcasting.  Let's start with an explanation of how these deals work. 

While the details of these deals are not public, a session at the NAB Radio Show shed a little more light on the subject.  The session also included a promise from a Clear Channel representative that more deals are on the way. Perhaps the biggest news was at least some indication of the parameters of the financial terms of the agreements, with the President of Big Machine saying, in response to the question of whether the deal was an agreement to pay 1% of over-the-air revenues in exchange for a 3% digital royalty, that these numbers were certainly in the ballpark. If those numbers are in fact accurate, the digital royalty is substantially smaller than that paid by most webcasters, where royalties computed on the usual per song per listener basis can range from 45% of revenue to several times the total revenue of most webcasters.  

Continue Reading...

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

Radio broadcasters have been receiving invoices from the Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”), and many are asking whether the invoice is “real.”  Some stations seem concerned that they are being asked to pay some fee that they really don’t owe. The truth is that this is one bill that most commercial stations in fact do owe, and it is a bill that they should actually be happy to pay. RMLC is the committee that represented radio broadcasters in the recent negotiations with ASCAP and BMI, leading to new agreements covering the royalties to be paid to these organizations through 2016. We wrote about the ASCAP agreement, here. The BMI agreement was announced recently, and we’ll try to get a summary of that agreement up on the blog sometime soon. These settlement agreements significantly reduced the amount of royalties that the radio industry as a whole pays to ASCAP and BMI for the public performance of musical compositions on over-the-air radio (and in connection with their digital uses of music as well).   As part of these settlement agreements, the Court overseeing the antitrust consent decrees with ASCAP and BMI, which had to approve the settlements, approved the fees to RMLC as well. 

Under the terms of the Court approval, all stations that either elected to be represented by RMLC in the negotiations (see our article on that election here), or those who elect to be covered by the settlement by signing an agreement with ASCAP and BMI under the terms that RMLC negotiated, are required to pay the fee to RMLC.  The fee funds RMLC operations in the future, and pays for the cost of the litigation and negotiations that led to the settlements.

Continue Reading...

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

The Radio Music Licensing Committee has announced a settlement with BMI over music royalties for the public performance of musical compositions for the period from 2010-2016.  Terms have not been announced, so we can't provide the details, yet.  But as we wrote recently when the RMLC announced the terms of its agreement with ASCAP, we would assume that the terms would be somewhat similar to the ASCAP deal.  If no settlement had been reached with BMI, the case would have gone to a "rate court" in Federal District Court to see what the fair market value of the performance right was.  As analogous rates often form the basis for rate court determinations of fair market value, the settlement with ASCAP would no doubt have been an issue for BMI, as it would appear to set a benchmark rate for the public performance of musical compositions.  But, we will have to wait to see what the filings say before we can determine if, for sure, the rates will decrease relative to prior rates to the same extent that they did for ASCAP.

It is worth reflecting on how RMLC came to reach deals with ASCAP and BMI, and to explain why there is no reference to a SESAC deal.  I've already heard or seen several people suggesting that an agreement with SESAC may be next - when in fact that is not something that is imminent, as can be explained by the differences between ASCAP and BMI on one hand, and SESAC on the other.  ASCAP and BMI are both governed by anti-trust consent decrees that have been in place for over 50 years.  Under both decrees, these organizations have to enter into agreements to set royalties for all similarly-situated users of music in various categories of businesses – categories including radio, TV, websites, background music, restaurants, bars, hotels, performance venues and practically every other place where music is performed for the public.  If no agreement can be reached on a voluntary license, a “rate court” decides on the royalties. Essentially, that means that a US District Court in New York has a trial to set the rates.

Continue Reading...

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

ASCAP and the Radio Music Licensing Committee have reached a settlement on the amount that radio stations will pay to ASCAP for the use of music for the period through the end of 2016. The agreement was approved last week by the US District Court in the Southern District of New York acting as a “rate court” to consider those fees. We reported that a settlement had been reached in early December, and now we’ve seen the actual documents and can provide some details of this agreement between the commercial radio broadcast industry and ASCAP. It should result in significant savings for broadcasters from rates that they had been paying prior to January 1, 2010.

As we wrote in 2010 when RMLC and ASCAP were first trying to reach a deal on new rates, the biggest problem with the old rates was the payment structure. Rather than making ASCAP a partner of the broadcaster by cutting them in for a percentage of the broadcaster’s revenue, under the deal that ended in 2009, ASCAP was to receive a set fee each year from the broadcast industry.  That set fee was divided among all commercial radio stations not based on station revenues, but instead based on the market size and technical coverage of each station. So all similarly powered stations in a market paid the same ASCAP fee, whether they were big revenue producers or not.  And the agreement was entered into during a period where radio broadcasters thought that revenues would be ever-increasing, so that set fee to be paid to ASCAP increased each year. As the economy and broadcast revenues fell during the later years of the deal, while the set fee kept increasing,broadcasters were paying an ever-increasing percentage of their revenues to ASCAP – far more than would have been paid had the industry stuck to a percentage of revenue formula.

Well, the experiment is over, as the new deal returns to a traditional percentage of revenue deal. Music radio pays ASCAP 1.7% of “revenues subject to fee from radio broadcasting." Essentially, that is all the revenue that a station receives from advertising and promotions, less a 12% deduction (presumably to cover commissions and costs of collection). Barter revenues, and payments made to networks (as opposed to the stations themselves), are excluded from the gross revenue calculation. All revenues from HD programming (including any amounts received for brokered programming) is also included (at least for the time being – subject to reevaluation should HD revenues account for 25% of radio revenues by 2015). New Media revenues, if the arise exclusively from streaming your station on the Internet, are also included in this gross revenue calculation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New ASCAP royalties are on their way to radio broadcasters. ASCAP and the Radio Music Licensing Committee (RMLC) have just announced that they have reached an agreement in principal to return to the percentage of revenue royalties that for so long were paid by radio stations to ASCAP and BMI – a system that was abandoned for a market-based flat-fee system designed to avoid having the licensing organizations as partners that shared in what stations believed would be forever rising radio revenues. Of course, soon after the deal was struck, the current economic troubles hit, radio revenues fell, and the flat fees left many stations paying multiples of what they had been paying under the prior system. A return to the percentage of revenue-based system would seem to be a very good thing. See our previous summary of this royalty controversy, here and here. 

But, as of now, we know very little about the details of the deal – other than it returns to the percentage of revenue basis and that it seemingly will include all revenues of the broadcaster – including the ASCAP royalties due for streaming, other website music uses, and mobile applications (note that these royalties cover only the fees due for the public performance of the musical composition.  In online digital applications, fees still need to be paid to SoundExchange or other rights holders for the public performance in the sound recordings - the actual recordings made by a band or singer of one of those musical compositions - see our articles here and here). The deal with ASCAP will run through 2016.  We’ll have to wait until the final deal is released before a full assessment of its impact can be judged. 

For the RMLC and the broadcasters who financially support it, a deal should limit further litigation expenses with ASCAP (as a rate court proceeding had begun) while the final details of the settlement are hammered out. Watch for those details coming at some point in the future. And, remember, the RMLC also has BMI to deal with – which also had an agreement that expired at the end of 2009. The final royalties to be paid to both of these organizations should be retroactive to the beginning of 2010, so some analysis will need to done as to whether stations have over or underpaid under the interim fees that are currently in place (see our article here) once the details of the ASCAP deal is announced, and a final resolution of the BMI royalty is reached through settlement or litigation. 

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

Every year, about this time, I dust off the crystal ball to offer a look at the year ahead to see what Washington has in store for broadcasters.  This year, like many in the recent past, Washington will consider issues that could fundamentally affect the broadcast industry - for both radio and TV, and affecting the growing on-line presence of broadcasters.  The FCC, Congress, and other government agencies are never afraid to provide their views on what the industry should be doing but, unlike other members of the audience, they can force broadcasters to pay attention to their views by way of new laws and regulations. And there is never a shortage of ideas from Washington as to how broadcasters should act.  Some of the issues discussed below are perennials, coming back over and over again on my yearly list (often without resolution), while others are unique to this coming year.  Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.

Television Issues

Spectrum issues have been the dominant TV concerns in past years, first with the digital transition, and more recently with the "white spaces" rulemaking and the proposals advanced as part of the FCC's Broadband Plan to reclaim part of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband uses.  These issues remain on the FCC's agenda, as do new issues dealing with the carriage of television stations by cable and satellite television providers.  Specific issues for TV include:

Spectrum reclamation:  The initial proposals for the reclamation of part of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband were laid by the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in November, looking at how the TV spectrum could be used more efficiently, and how incentive auctions encouraging some TV stations to vacate their channels could be conducted.  Congress still has to pass legislation to allow such auctions, and it will probably also mandate a spectrum inventory to determine if the reclamation of the TV spectrum is really necessary to provide for wireless broadband needs.  At the same time, some TV operators have begun to talk about television stations themselves providing broadband service with their excess spectrum.  While Congress will probably act on the auction bills this year, and there will be much debate about the details of the reallocation issue, so don't expect final resolution of this matter in 2011.

White Spaces:  The FCC has authorized the operation of wireless devices in the television spectrum, resolving many of the concerns about interference to television operators by requiring all wireless users to protect operating TV channels in specific areas based on databases of existing users, not on spectrum sensing techniques.  But implementation issues still need to be worked out - including finding parties to compile and administer the databases to make sure that all existing spectrum users who are to be protected are registered.  Expect action on these matters this year, but no actual white spaces use until after these implementation efforts are completed.

LPTV Digital Transition:  While many members of the general public may consider the digital television transition to be complete, many Low Power TV stations and TV translators are still operating in analog.  The FCC has commenced a proceeding to require the transition of these stations to digital, suggesting that the transition be complete as early as the end of 2012.  Expect controversy on this issue.  Many LPTV stations feel that being forced incur the costs to covert to digital is premature and could imperil broadcast service, especially to rural areas and minority populations who rely on translators and LPTV stations, if spectrum repacking caused by any future repurposing of TV spectrum for broadband forces further technical changes.  These issues will be considered by the Commission this year.

Retransmission Consent Reform:  At the end of 2010, there was much controversy over retransmission consent issues, as there were instances where broadcasters and cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors had difficult negotiations over the carriage fees to be paid to the TV stations.  FCC sources stated at the end of the year that a proceeding will be initiated to determine if the rules governing the negotiation process should be changed.  The multichannel video programming distributors and some public interest groups argue that the FCC should protect viewers who may have their TV service disappear if a TV station does not reach a deal with a MVPD, while the broadcasters argue that the ability to remove the station is the heart of the negotiation, and removing the risk of the MVPD losing the right to carry the station would negate the negotiation.  Look for this proceeding to commence early in the year but, as it will no doubt be very controversial, it may take some time to resolve.

DMA Boundary Issues:  The FCC has also begun a proceeding to look at DMA boundaries that cross state lines to see if every television viewer should be guaranteed to receive service from cable or satellite providers of a station in his or her state.  Television stations fear that this guarantee could upset traditional television markets, and could have an impact on retransmission consent negotiations in border counties.  Comments in this proceeding are due on January 24th, 2011.

Continue Reading...

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

The NAB Radio Board today voted to adopt a Terms Sheet to offer to the musicFirst Coalition which, if agreed to by musicFirst and adopted by Congress, will settle the contentious issue of whether to impose a sound recording performance royalty (the "performance tax") on over-the-air broadcasters.  If adopted, that will mean that broadcasters in the United States, for the first time, will pay a royalty to artists and record labels, in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC that go to the composers of the music.  What does the Term Sheet provide, and what will this mean for broadcasters, webcasters and others who pay music royalties?

The Term Sheet sets out a number of points, including the following:

• A 1% of gross revenue sound recording royalty to be paid to SoundExchange
• A phase-in period for the 1% royalty, that will be tied to the number of mobile phones that contain an FM chip.  A royalty of one-quarter of one percent would take effect immediately upon the effective date of the legislation adopting it.  The royalty would rise in proportion to the number of mobile phones with enabled FM chips.  Once the percentage of phones with FM chips reached 75%, the full royalty would take effect.
• The 1% royalty could only be changed by Congressional action.
• The royalty would be lower for noncommercial stations and stations with less than $1.25 million in revenue - from a flat $5000 for stations making between $500,000 and $1.25 million in revenue down to $100 for those making less than $50,000 per year.
• Broadcasters would also get a reduction in their streaming rates - but only when FM chips in mobile phones exceed 50% penetration.  The reduction would be tied to the rates paid by "pureplay webcasters" (see our summary of the Pureplay webcasters deal here), but would be set at a level significantly higher than pureplay webcasters, rising from $.001775 in 2011 (if FM chips were quickly deployed) to $.0021575.
• Future streaming royalties would not be set by the Copyright Royalty Board but by a legislatively ordered rate court - presumably a US District Court similar to that which hears royalty disputes for ASCAP and BMI.
• An acknowledgment by AFTRA that broadcasters can stream their signal on the Internet in their entirety - apparently agreeing to relieve broadcasters from any liability for the additional amounts due to union artists when commercials featuring union talent are streamed
• An agreement that broadcasters can directly license music from artists and reduce their  liability for the new royalty by the percentage of music that the broadcasters is able to directly license
• Agreements to "fix" issues in Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act in making the provisions of these laws regarding ephemeral copies and the performance complement consistent with the waivers that major record labels gave to broadcasters when the NAB reached its settlement with SoundExchange on streaming royalties last year.  See our post here on the provisions of those waivers.
• musicFirst would need to acknowledge the promotional effect of radio in promoting new music, and would need to work with radio in attempting to secure legislation mandating the FM chip in mobile phones.

[Clarification - 10/26/2010 - Upon a close reading of the Terms Sheet, it looks like the phase in of the 1% royalty and the delay in the streaming discount only kick in if Congress does not mandate active FM chips in cell phones.  If the mandate is enacted, then the full 1% royalty and streaming discount is effective immediately. Given the opposition of much of the wireless industry to a mandated FM chip, this may represent a recognition that the legislation requiring the active FM chip will not be enacted in the near future]

What does this all mean?

Continue Reading...

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

The debate over the proposed performance royalty (or "performance tax") on over-the-air radio is once again front page news in all of the broadcast trade press, as radio executives who make up the NAB Radio Board reportedly are making their way to Washington, DC to decide on whether to pursue a settlement with those seeking to impose the royalty.  What's on the table?  Reportedly a very low (perhaps 1% of revenue as reported in some of the trades) royalty for terrestrial radio, a royalty set in legislation for at least a several year period.  In exchange, broadcasters would get a break on streaming royalties and a push towards getting working FM chips into cell phones - a potentially big audience boost for radio operators.  But from all we have heard, this is not, by any means, a done deal.  What will happen?

We wrote just a few weeks ago about a proposed settlement and why it might or might not be a good idea, and received many comments on our post.  As was clear from the comments, many are not sure why a settlement of any sort makes sense at this point, when the NAB has so far bottled up the royalty in Congress, and where the next Congress is, at least in the eyes of many, going to be far more Republican and, in some people's eyes, a lot less likely to impose the royalty.  Proponents of a settlement respond that the royalty is not necessarily a partisan issue, with Republicans such as Senator Hatch of Utah, Congressman Issa of California, and many members of the Tennessee delegation taking strong positions in favor of the royalty.  So, just because there is a change in Congress (if it in fact occurs) does not necessarily mean that the current Performance Rights Act or some other version of the royalty proposal would be dead.  Moreover, as we wrote in our recent post, there still is the remainder of the current Congress to get through, including the "lame duck" session after the election, when Congressmen who may no longer have jobs will be voting on much legislation, including many big budget bills in which a performance royalty rider can get hidden. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The broadcast trade press has recently been full of talk of the possibility of reaching a settlement with the recording industry on the adoption of a Performance Royalty for broadcast stations -paying performers and record companies for the use of music by radio stations (on top of the fees already paid through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to composers).  The latest controversy was set off by comments made at the Conclave Radio Conference by Bonneville Radio's CEO Bruce Reese, who has also been prominent in NAB activities, who suggested that broadcasters were on the defensive in Congress, and that a good settlement was better than a bad legislative outcome.  Other broadcasters have disagreed with Reese's assessment, asking why broadcasters would be willing to settle when they have a majority of Congress on their side, having signed the NAB-supported resolution opposing the royalty.  Which side is right?

It should be emphasized that, even though broadcast groups have done an amazing job rounding up support for their opposition to the "performance tax" - signing up far more than a majority of the House of Representatives on a resolution opposing the royalty - that resolution is non-binding.  Congressmen can change their mind, and of even more concern, the proposed performance royalty can end up getting tagged on to some must-pass legislation that Congress needs to adopt before the end of the year.  Congress has many budget bills that need to pass to fund the government's operation, and these huge bills have a way of attracting all sorts of unrelated matters being folded into their provisions.  With leaders of many important committees in the House and Senate being supporters of the royalty, its easy to imagine that one of these bills can end up with performance royalty language included.  While one broadcast trade publication suggests that NAB lobbyists are paid to stop this sort of thing from happening, it is unrealistic to believe that the NAB is invincible, as provisions on unrelated bills can pop up seemingly out of nowhere and surprise everyone, especially when pushed through by powerful congressional leaders who less committed representatives are unwilling to challenge (especially when to do so might mean voting against some important legislation to which the performance royalty is attached).  Congressman simply will not vote down the defense appropriations bill just because there is a performance tax attached.  This kind of maneuver is of particular concern given that many of these bills may well be considered after the election in November, during a "lame duck" session of Congress when, especially this year, there will be many representatives who may not be around again in January to face the wrath of voters (or of broadcasters) who may be disappointed by their final votes.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an email blast that went out this morning, the musicFIRST Coalition, the group organized to pursue a performance royalty on radio broadcasters for the use of music in their over-the-air broadcasts, announced that they would be holding a rally and concert with a member of the 1960s rock band the Monkees, musically backed by three Congressmen.  Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees will be backed by a band featuring two Democratic Congressmen and a Republican in a concert to be held in the Capitol Building's Visitor's Center at 4:30 in the afternoon - presumably so that other Capitol Hill staffers will stop by and attend the rally.  While this is not the first concert to be held in support of the royalty, this one comes after some in the broadcast industry have suggested that the push for the royalty is dead for the year, given the fact that the NAB has well over half the members of the House of Representatives signed onto a non-binding resolution opposing the royalty.  The concert, plus the recent letter from the Copyright Office in support of the broadcast performance royalty that we recently wrote about, show that the campaign from the supporters of the royalty has not diminished, but instead continues unabated.

Some in the broadcast community have suggested that, given the major issues that are pending before Congress and the fact that the Congressional schedule will likely be tight in the fall in advance of the November elections, there was not time for this issue to come up this year.  But there are still many opportunities for the issue to be considered - either as part of some other legislation, or perhaps in the "lame duck" session of Congress after the elections but before the new Congress is convened in January.  During that lame duck session, Congressmen who are not returning to Washington, either through retirement or after an election defeat, can be unpredictable,  Thus, broadcasters need to continue to be on alert for possible action in this area, and need to continue to talk to their local representatives to combat the "star power" that the recording industry can muster to visit the halls of Congress.

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

According to a letter from the Copyright Office that has recently been made public, the economic troubles of broadcasters, which have been used to argue against the imposition of a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by radio stations, are cyclical and are largely over.  Thus, argues the letter, the improvement in the fortunes of radio stations merits a reexamination of whether the Performance Rights Act imposing such a royalty should be adopted.  The letter contrasts the reportedly good news for radio broadcasters with the Copyright Office's view of the plight of the record industry, which is deemed to be more permanent, based on the pervasive nature of illegal downloading.  Given the Copyright Office's concern with the fate of the record companies, and their need to establish a more stable revenue source through payments of fees from the users of music to replace the sales of music that have declined so dramatically, the Copyright Office suggests that further review, with an eye toward adoption of the performance royalty, is merited.  This letter was addressed to the US General Accounting Office, which in February issued a report concluding that the imposition of a performance royalty would have a negative impact on the radio broadcast industry, as it has been hard hit by both fundamental changes in competition and from downturns in the business cycle, and that the imposition of the royalty would cause some stations to go out of business and others to cease playing music.  But the GAO promised a further review of certain issues, and the Copyright Office had not weighed in before the initial GAO report, this letter was prompted. 

The Copyright Office has long been on record as supporting the imposition of a performance royalty in sound recordings in the United States - not just for radio, but for all industries that use music.  This would match the performance royalty in the musical composition, as collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, for the public performance of musical compositions not only by radio, but also by television, cable television, in bars and restaurants and stadiums, and in virtually any other location where music is used in a public setting.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Copyright Office would take the position that it does in this letter.  What is perhaps surprising is that the letter seems to go beyond a legal document setting forth the legal justifications for the imposition of the royalty, and instead has the tone of an advocacy piece that takes a firm position in support of the recording industry over the interests of broadcasters, and one which advocates only the position of the recording industry.

Continue Reading...

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

The Copyright Royalty Board has announced its approval of new sound recording performance royalties for "new subscription services", i.e. music services provided to the customers of cable or satellite television systems by companies not in this business in 1998 at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.   This royalty was adopted after a settlement between Sirius XM Radio, the only music service which filed to participate in this proceeding, and SoundExchange.  The settlement as approved provides for royalties that are the higher of 15% of the revenues of the service (subscription payments plus other revenues such as advertising and sponsorships provided by the service), or a minimum per subscriber fee that increases over the five year course of the royalty period.  The details of this settlement, including the escalating per subscriber royalties, can be found in the Federal Register notice of its approval, here.

This royalty has very limited applicability, governing only the payments due from audio services "transmitted to residential subscribers of a television service through a Provider which is marketed as and is in fact primarily a video service," i.e. music services bundled with a subscription to a cable or DBS service - and only where that service is delivered to residential users.  Given the limited applicability of this service, one might be inclined to ignore its adoption.  However, broadcasters in particular should pay attention to this royalty, as it is again indicative of the value that the music copyright holders and SoundExchange place on the use of their music in an audio service, and thus of what SoundExchange would seek were they to get a performance royalty on over-the-air broadcasting.   

Continue Reading...

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

In one more indication that the Broadcast Performance Royalty (or "performance tax" as opponents of the legislation call it) is not dead yet is an article in yesterday's New York Times reviewing the issues at stake in the proceeding.  What was perhaps most interesting about that article was the fact that it appeared only one page away from an article about Internet Radio service Pandora, and a discussion of how that hugely popular service was almost driven out of business by music royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Board in their 2007 royalty decision.  The article about the broadcast performance royalty mentions that one of the difficulties in assessing the impact of the proposed royalty is that no one knows how much it will be, as it would be set by the Copyright Royalty Judges on the CRB.  Yet the Times makes no mention of the controversy over the previous decisions of the Board in the context of the Internet radio royalties, and how such royalties almost impacted services such as Pandora.  

How much would the proposed royalties on broadcasters be?  We have written before on that subject,here.  Under previous decisions using the "willing buyer, willing seller" royalty standard which is set out in the legislation that has passed House and Senate Judiciary committees dealing with this issue, the lowest royalty for the use of music in any case before the CRB has been 15% of gross revenues.  Even using a standard seemingly more favorable to the copyright user (the 801(b) standard that assesses more than the economic value of the music but also looks at the impact that the royalty would have on the stability of the industry on which it is imposed), the royalties have been in the vicinity of 7% of gross revenues for both satellite radio and digital cable radio, the two services that are subject to royalties set using the 801(b) standard.  This is more than broadcasters currently pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC - rates which are also currently the subject of proceedings to determine if these rates should be changed (see our posts here and here).   

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

Television Issues.

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

Continue Reading...

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

This week, six Congressional supporters of the broadcast performance royalty wrote a letter calling upon the NAB to sit down with music industry representatives to reach a "negotiated resolution" of the "longstanding disagreement" in a session to last from November 17 through December 1.  The letter suggests that the negotiations will be supervised by Members of Congress and the staff of the Judiciary Committees of Congress, with a report to be made by the Committee staff at the end of the negotiation period which will be considered by Congress in further actions on this issue.  The parties are instructed to bring individuals who have decision-making power to reach an agreement.  Could this call for negotiations really result in a deal that would lead to a law requiring that radio broadcasters pay a fee for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air stations?

First, we must ask whether there will even be any negotiations.  The NAB's only statement issued thus far says that they are willing to "talk to Congress" about the matter, but that they hoped that the discussion would include some of the almost 300 members of Congress who oppose the royalty.  As we've written before, the NAB has over 250 Congressmen and over 20 Senators signed on to resolutions opposing the performance royalty.  With the initial letter being signed by 6 supporters of the royalty, and the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate being filled with its supporters, why would the NAB be willing to jump into what could be seen as the lion's den - engaging in a high stakes competition where the referees are on the record as favoring one side?  Note that the NAB statement says nothing about participating in "negotiations", which the former President of the NAB had said that he would never do.  We will have to see whether the change at the top of the NAB will bring a change in the attitude of the NAB.  New NAB President Gordon Smith, who has been in his job less than two weeks,  is said to be more of a consensus-builder than his predecessor, but he has had a very short time to come up to speed on the issue or to build any sort of consensus among those he now represents on where to go on this issue. 

Continue Reading...

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

The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved the bill to impose a performance royalty (or the "performance tax" as the NAB had called it) on radio broadcasters for the public performance of sound recordings on their over-the-air stations.  As was the case in the House of Representatives when its Judiciary Committee approved their version of the bill, the Committee acknowledged that there was still work to do before a final bill would be ready for the full Congress.  Nevertheless, this is the first time that the Judiciary Committees in both Houses of Congress have approved the performance royalty, serving as a warning to broadcasters that this issue may well be moving to a showdown before the full House and Senate during the current session of Congress. 

There was only limited debate on the bill at the Committee hearing, yet several open issues were identified.  The Committee made clear that, even though it was approving the bill in the form introduced and amended by its managers, there were still changes that would be made in the future before any legislation was ready to be finalized.  Senator Feinstein of California discussed several of the issues.  First, the bill as amended by the Senate managers (Senators Leahy and Hatch), the bill provided relief for small broadcasters so that any performance royalty would not impose an undue burden on them.  The bill proposed the following royalty structure for small broadcasters:

(I) revenues of less than $50,000 - a royalty fee of $100 per year;

(II) revenues of at least $50,000 but less than $100,000 - a royalty fee of $500 per year;

(III) revenues of at least $100,000 but less than $500,000 – a royalty of $2,500 per year;

(IV) revenues of at least $500,000 but less than $1,250,000 – a royalty of $5,000 per year.

Senator Feinstein, who stated that she favored parity between all music services that pay a royalty, suggested that this same royalty structure should be applied to small webcasters who, under current settlement agreements, can pay almost 30 times the amount that a small broadcaster with the same revenues would pay under this bill - and those settlements were an improvement on the royalties that would have been paid under the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board.  Senator Feinstein stated that "the parties" were working on an agreement that would amend the bill to extend these rates to small webcasters.

Continue Reading...

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

While we have written much about the battle over the broadcast performance royalty (or the "performance tax" as broadcasters call it) - whether broadcasters will have to pay artists and record labels for the right to play their music on the air - we have not written much about another looming issue with the royalties that broadcasters must pay to play music on their stations.  While broadcasters are very familiar with the ASCAP and BMI royalties, they may not be fully aware that there is a looming dispute over the amount that broadcasters will pay to these organizations in the near future.  At a panel that I moderated at the NAB Radio Show, Bill Velez, the head of the Radio Music Licensing Committee, talked about the current negotiations for the renewal of the royalty agreements between radio stations and these two Performing Rights Organizations ("PROs").  Both of the current agreements expire at the end of this year, and the RMLC is in the process of trying to negotiate new agreements.  However, because many broadcasters feel that the current deals charge more for these music rights than is justified in the current economic environment, while the PROs are reluctant to decrease the royalties that the composers they represent currently receive, the differing perceptions of the value of these rights could lead to litigation over the amount that should be paid by broadcasters for the use of this music.

First, it is important to understand what rights ASCAP and BMI are providing. These organizations, along with SESAC (about which we have written here), provide the copyright license for the "public performance" of the "musical work" or the composition, the words and musical notes to a song.  This is in contrast to the rights to the sound recording (the song as performed and recorded by a specific artist), which is licensed by SoundExchange.  Webcasters have to pay ASCAP and BMI for the use of the composition, as well as paying SoundExchange for the use of the sound recording when streaming music on the Internet.  Broadcasters only have the obligation to pay ASCAP,BMI and SESAC for the composition in connection with their over the air broadcasts but do not, under the current law (unless the broadcast performance royalty is passed), have to pay SoundExchange.  Because the current ASCAP and BMI royalties have been in place for several years, most broadcasters probably don't think much about them, but they may have to in the near future.

Continue Reading...

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

The NAB today announced that it has selected Gordon Smith, a former Republican Senator from Oregon, as its new President.  He succeeds David Rehr, who left the NAB last Spring.  Smith has been practicing law in Washington since leaving the Senate after being defeated in his reelection bid in the 2008 election.  While in the Senate, he served on the Commerce Committee that oversees the FCC.  From a quick on-line search, it appears that he was active in the push for the "broadcast flag" sought by broadcast program producers to identify copyrighted video content broadcast by digital television stations.  Other than his Congressional background, it does not appear that he has other direct broadcast experience.  I would be interested in any knowledge that readers of this blog have about other connections he may have to the broadcast media and any past positions that he has taken on broadcast issues.

Having someone with experience on Capitol Hill was clearly crucial to the NAB given how many controversial issues broadcasters are now facing from Congress and from the FCC.  When David Rehr departed, we wrote about the many issues facing the NAB, most of which are still pending.  These include: 

• The potential broadcast performance royalty - i.e. the recording industry's attempts to, for the first time,  impose a sound recording royalty on broadcasters for their over-the-air transmission of music

• The FCC’s implementation of their White Areas order allowing wireless users to use parts of the TV spectrum – and the appeals and other attempts to overturn or modify that decision

• The reauthorization of SHVERA, to continue to allow satellite companies to beam local television signals into local markets – where parties are raising all sorts of extraneous issues about carriage rights and retransmission consent, possible changes in TV market boundaries, and changes in the rights of satellite carriers to import distant signals.

• The FCC’s localism proceeding, which could impose new obligations on broadcasters at a time when broadcast competition has never been so intense - when the marketplace should dictate how broadcasters best serve their communities

• Potential Congressional effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another

• A number of FCC proceedings that could affect new methods of advertising meant to combat technological changes – like embedded advertising and product placement that are meant to partially overcome the effects of DVRs.

• Congressional attempts to regulate advertising and programing – including potential efforts to restrict prescription drug ads, ED treatments, violent programming and programming that promotes unhealthy foods

• FCC attempts to reign in technical changes in FM stations to allow them to take steps to increase power and to move into larger markets

• Congressional moves to remove restrictions on LPFM stations on channels that are third-adjacent to full power facilities – and to potentially give these new stations rights to replace existing FM translators

 

Continue Reading...

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

Last week, the FCC released a decision denying objections to the sale of the NY Times-owned radio station in New York City - objections based on the fears of certain listeners that the sale would mean the loss of the station's classical music service.  In rejecting the petitions, the FCC relied on the long-standing policy of the FCC not to get into format questions, citing a thirty year old policy statement, upheld by a Supreme Court decision, which found that such review "would not benefit the public, would deter innovation, and would impose substantial administrative burdens on the Commission."  In other words, the Commission concluded some thirty years ago that it had no place in making programming decisions for broadcasters.  It is ironic that this decision was released on the same date as comments were due at the FCC on the MusicFirst petition arguing that broadcasters should be compelled to air specific content - commercials that advocate the adoption of a performance royalty and music from performers who supported the royalty. 

It appears from a review of the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System that, while the FCC solicited comments on the MusicFirst petition, MusicFirst itself did not choose to file anything in response to that request.  A few musicians' groups did file comments, echoing the concerns originally raised by MusicFirst, but with very little specificity to support the implication that there was a nationwide conspiracy of broadcasters to boycott music from royalty supporters.  And, while most of the comments stated that they did not want to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, they nevertheless went on to say that broadcasters who did not air statements in support of the royalty should have sanctions imposed.  Maybe I'm missing something, but that sure seems to be an invitation to government compelled speech.   The NAB filed extensive comments addressing the First Amendment implications of the complaint. 

Continue Reading...

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

David Oxenford provided a legal update on Washington issues to the Kansas Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention in Topeka on October 19, 2009.  His presentation - What Broadcasters Need to Know About What to Expect from Washington in 2009-2010 - discussed issues including the proposed broadcast performance royalty, localism and multiple ownership proceedings at the FCC, LPFM changes, and advertising and sponsorship identification policies.

A copy of Dave's PowerPoint presentation is available here.   

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

On October 6, 2009, David Oxenford participated in a panel called "Post-Millennium Analysis: The DMCA in the 21st Century" at the Future of Music Coalition's Policy Summit in Washington, DC.  Other panelists included David Carson, General Counsel of the US Copyright Office, and Mitch Glazer, Executive Vice President, Government and Industry Relations for the RIAA.  The panel discussed, among other topics, webcasting royalties and the proposed broadcast performance royalty, and the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA for services which allow the posting of user-generated content.

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

On September 25, 2009, David Oxenford moderated a panel at the NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia called "The Day the Music Died - Streaming, The Performance Tax and Other Copyright Issues."  In addition to the music royalties involved in webcasting and the possible broadcast performance royalty, the panel discussed other copyright issues, including the state of the current negotiations between the Radio Music Licensing Committee and ASCAP and BMI over composer's royalties for broadcast stations, and issues about licensing music for podcast and mobile applications.  Panelists included Bill Velez, head of the Radio Music Licensing Committee, which is conducting the ASCAP and BMI negotiations, and Jack Donlevie, the General Counsel of Entercom, who was involved in the negotiations of the Broadcaster-SoundExchange settlement on Internet Radio Royalties.

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

The FCC today asked for public comments on the petition of the MusicFirst Coalition asking the Commission to take action against broadcast stations who did not fairly address on air the proposed sound recording public performance royalty for terrestrial radio.  The Petition, about which we wrote here, alleges, with very few specifics, that some radio stations have taken adverse actions against musical artists who have spoken out in support of the royalty, and also that stations have refused to run ads supporting the performance royalty while running their own ads opposing the royalty (opposing ads which MusicFirst claims contain false statements).  MusicFirst submits that these actions are contrary to the public interest.  The FCC has asked for comment on specific issues raised in the Petition.  Comments are to be filed by September 8, and Replies on September 23.  

The specific questions on which the FCC seeks comment are as follows:

(i)      whether and to what extent certain broadcasters are “targeting and threatening artists who have spoken out in favor of the PRA, including a refusal to air the music of such artists";

(ii)    the effects of radio broadcasters’ alleged refusal to air advertisements from MusicFIRST in support of the PRA;

(iii)   whether and to what extent broadcasters are engaging in a media campaign, coordinated by NAB, which disseminates falsities about the PRA; and

(iv) whether certain broadcasters have evaded the public file requirements by characterizing their on-air spots in opposition to the PRA as public service announcements.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, just before the Senate recesses for its summer vacation, an abridged version of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed sound recording performance royalty for over-the-air radio.  Internet radio royalties were also encompassed in this discussion, principally concerning the issue of "platform parity", i.e. whether all music services subject to the sound recording performance royalty should pay a royalty determined by the same standard, or perhaps even the same royalty.  We've already written this week about some of the issues surrounding the broadcast performance royalty (why it's still being considered given that a majority of the House of Representatives has already signed a resolution against the royalty, here, and discussing the likely amount of the royalty were it to be adopted, here).  Neither of these issues was discussed in depth at the hearing.  But a multitude of other issues were raised in the hearing. and we'll address many of them over the next few days.  But first, today, a summary of the issues raised.

First, it should be made clear that there was not a full committee in attendance.  While a few Senators came and went without saying a word, questions were asked or comments made by only 5 Senators of the 19 on the Committee.  So judging how the full committee feels about the issues raised when only 5 Senators (4 of them Democrats) asked questions may not be a fair assessment of how the committee as a whole feels about the issues raised.  But, broadcasters should take warning that all of the Democratic Senators in attendance seemed to be sympathetic to the idea of adopting a broadcast performance royalty.  However, it must be noted that all also seemed somewhat sympathetic to the concerns about the financial impact of the royalty on broadcasters.  Just as members of the House have cautioned broadcasters to negotiate on a royalty before one is imposed on them, Senator Leahy of Vermont, the Chairman of the Committee, echoed those sentiments, promising that "legislation will move" on this issue - meaning that the issue will not simply fade away, despite the signatures on the NAB petition opposing the performance royalty.

Continue Reading...

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

One of the fundamental questions that surrounds the proposed broadcast performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by over-the-air (or the "performance tax" as it has been labeled by the NAB) is how much it could it cost a broadcaster?  Right now, that question is difficult to determine, as the pending bills do not themselves provide any details as to what the fees would be, except for noncommercial entities and for small broadcasters for whom fixed yearly fees are proposed.  For a broadcaster with a station having over $1.25 million in yearly revenues, the current Congressional bills leave the amount of the royalty to be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board.  In the current Senate draft of the bill, the amount to be paid would be based on the "willing buyer willing seller" standard that has been so controversial for Internet Radio companies. But the hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow will address, among other issues, the question of "platform parity," i.e whether all companies subject to the sound recording performance royalty should pay a comparable rate, so we may see that proposal change as it did in the House version, to some form of the 801(b) standard (about which we wrote here and here).

We will write about the differing rates paid by differing music services in the next few days, especially as it becomes clear as to what rates for Internet radio royalties were agreed to under the most recent settlements with webcasters pursuant to the Webcaster Settlement Act.   But even without a detailed analysis of all of the rates that have been agreed to, certain trends can be seen as to what SoundExchange, on behalf of the artists and copyright holders, believes to be a fair royalty for the use of their music.  And that number is likely to be a "Substantial" one, as suggested by a recent Congressional Budget Office review of the cost to broadcasters of the proposed performance royalty.

Continue Reading...

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

Even though the National Association of Broadcasters has been successful in getting about 240 Congressional Representatives (far more than a majority of the House of Representatives) to sign onto a resolution opposing the adoption of a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by broadcasters in their over-the-air programming, the efforts to enact that legislation have not died.  In fact, if anything, these efforts by the recording industry and related associations have intensified - and will be reflected in a hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday afternoon.   While I've seen some commentary suggesting that this is a futile effort because of the signatures on the NAB resolution, there are many reasons that broadcasters must continue to  be wary of the imposition of the royalty, and why they must keep up efforts to stop it from being enacted if they fear its potential impact.

How can this legislation be enacted if a majority of the House of Representatives have signed the resolution stating their opposition?  First, it is important to recognize that the NAB resolution, The Local Radio Freedom Act, is nonbinding.  Congressional representatives who have signed on to the resolution can take credit with their local broadcasters for having done so.  When the time comes for a vote on proposed legislation, it's possible that these same Representatives could change their mind, or be pressured by artists and labels in their districts to vote differently from their previously expressed sentiments.  With a long way to go in this session of Congress, facing a vote on the royalty and seeing how committed these Representatives are to the positions that they have taken on the resolution is still a real possibility.  The legislation imposing the royalty (or the "performance tax" in the words of the NAB) has passed the House Judiciary Committee, and the Speaker of the House has not yet specifically stated that the bill will not come to a full House vote, even though she has been pressed to do so by broadcast interests.

Continue Reading...

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

The MusicFirst coalition last week asked that the FCC investigate broadcast stations that allegedly cut back on playing the music of artists who back a broadcast performance royalty, and also those stations who have run spots on the air opposing the performance royalty without giving the supporters of the royalty an opportunity to respond.  While the NAB and many other observers have suggested that the filing is simply wrong on its facts, pointing for instance to the current chart-topping position of the Black Eyed Peas whose lead singer has been a vocal supporter of the royalty, it seems to me that there is an even more fundamental issue at stake here - the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.  What the petition is really saying is that the government should impose a requirement on broadcasters that they not speak out on an issue of fundamental importance to their industry.  The petition seems to argue that the rights of performers (and record labels) to seek money from broadcasters is of such importance that the First Amendment rights of broadcasters to speak out against that royalty should be abridged.

While the MusicFirst petition claims that it neither seeks to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters nor to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, it is hard credit that claim.  After all, the petition goes directly to the heart of the broadcasters ability to speak out on the topic, and seems to want to mandate that broadcasters present the opposing side of the issue, the very purpose of the Fairness Doctrine.  As we've written, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished as an unconstitutional abridgment on the broadcaster's First Amendment rights 20 years ago.  As an outgrowth of this decision, FCC and Court decisions concluded that broadcasters have the right to editorialize on controversial issues, free of any obligation to present opposing viewpoints.  What is it that makes this case different?

Continue Reading...

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

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee today approved a bill that would impose, for the first time, a royalty on radio broadcasters for the public performance of sound recordings in their over-the-air broadcasts.  if this bill were to be adopted by the full House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, broadcasters would have to pay for the use of sound recordings (the actual recording of a song by a particular musical artist) in addition to the royalties that they already pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of the underlying musical composition.  While, from the discussion at the hearing today, the bill is much amended from the original bill (about which we wrote, here) to try to address some of the issue that have been raised by critics, the Committee made clear that there were still issues that needed to be addressed - preferably through negotiations between broadcasters and the recording industry - before the bill would move on to the full House for consideration.  It was, as Representative Shelia Jackson Lee of Texas stated, still a "work in progress."  In fact, the Committee asked that the General Accounting Office conduct an expedited study of the impact of this legislation on radio and on musicians - but it did not wait for that study before approving the bill - despite requests from some royalty opponents that it do so. 

While I have not yet seen a copy of the amended bill that Congressman John Conyers, the Chairman of the Committee, said had been completed only a few hours before the hearing, the statements made at the hearing set out some details of the changes made to the original version of the bill.  First, changes were made to reduce the impact on small broadcasters - reducing royalties to as little as $500 for stations that make less than $100,000 in yearly gross revenues.  Interestingly, Representative Zoe Lofgren pointed out that, in a bill that means to address the perceived inequality in royalties, a small webcaster with $100,000 in revenues would be paying $10,000 in royalties - 20 times what is proposed for the small broadcaster.  And the small broadcaster who would pay $5000 for revenues up to $1.25 million in revenue would be paying 1/30th of the amount paid by a small webcaster making that same amount of revenue.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

National Association of Broadcasters President David Rehr today announced his decision to leave the Association, leaving the NAB without a leader at a time when the Association is facing an incredible number of challenges in Washington. One can only hope that the NAB acts quickly to replace Rehr with someone prepared to aggressively address the needs of an industry hobbled by the current economic climate, and challenged by regulatory issues that could further undermine the ability of radio and television operators to compete in today’s media marketplace. The potential broadcast performance royalty, which could require that radio operators pay musicians and record labels for the rights to play their music on the air, is but one of a number of fundamental challenges that need to be addressed very shortly by broadcaster’s representatives in Washington - perhaps in the next week or two when the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee may take up the "performance tax" issue (as the NAB has called it in their arguments on Capitol Hill).

What else will a new NAB President have to contend with?  In addition to the performance royalty, there seems to be a perception in many quarters that broadcasting is no longer the special medium that it once was that demands regulatory deference because of the public interest service that it provides.  Because of the lessening of some of Washington's regard for broadcasters,  there are many issues now before the FCC, Congress, the courts, and other agencies in Washington – all of which could have a serious impact on broadcasters - including:

 

• The final days of the DTV transition
• The FCC’s implementation of their White Areas order allowing wireless users to use parts of the TV spectrum – and the appeals and other attempts to overturn or modify that decision
• The reauthorization of SHVERA, to continue to allow satellite companies to beam local television signals into local markets – where parties are raising all sorts of extraneous issues about carriage rights and retransmission consent, possible changes in TV market boundaries, and changes in the rights of satellite carriers to import distant signals.
• The FCC’s localism proceeding, which could impose new obligations on broadcasters at a time when broadcast competition has never been so intense - when the marketplace should dictate how broadcasters best serve their communities
• Potential Congressional effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another
• A number of FCC proceedings that could affect new methods of advertising meant to combat technological changes – like embedded advertising and product placement that are meant to partially overcome the effects of DVRs.
• Congressional attempts to regulate advertising and programing – including potential efforts to restrict prescription drug ads, ED treatments, violent programming and programming that promotes unhealthy foods
• FCC attempts to reign in technical changes in FM stations to allow them to take steps to increase power and to move into larger markets
• Congressional moves to remove restrictions on LPFM stations on channels that are third-adjacent to full power facilities – and to potentially give these new stations rights to replace existing FM translators

Continue Reading...

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

The week, Congressman Rick Boucher, a member of both the House of Representatives Commerce and Judiciary Committees, told an audience of broadcasters at the NAB Leadership Conference that they should accept that there will be a performance royalty for sound recordings used in their over-the-air programming and negotiate with the record companies about the amount of a such a royalty.  He suggested that broadcasters negotiate a deal on over-the-air royalties, and get a discount on Internet radio royalties.  Sound recordings are the recordings by a particular recording artist of a particular song.  These royalties would be in addition to the payments to the composers of the music that are already made by broadcasters through the royalties collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.   Congressman Boucher heads the Commerce Committee subcommittee in charge of broadcast regulation, and he has been sympathetic to the concerns of Internet radio operators who have complained about the high royalty rates for the use of sound recordings.  Having the Congressman acknowledge that broadcasters needed to cut a deal demonstrated how seriously this issue is really being considered on Capitol Hill.

The NAB was quick to respond, issuing a press release, highlighting Congressional opposition to the Performance royalty (or performance tax as the NAB calls it) that has been shown by support for the Local Radio Freedom Act - an anti-performance royalty resolution that currently has over 150 Congressional supporters.  The press release also highlights the promotional benefits of radio airplay for musicians, citing many musicians who have thanked radio for launching and promoting their careers.   The controversy was also discussed in an article on Bloomberg.com.  In the article, the central issue of the whole controversy was highlighted.  If adopted, how much would the royalty be?  I was quoted on how the royalty could be very high for the industry (as we've written here, using past precedent, the royalty could exceed 20% of revenue for large music-intensive stations).  An RIAA spokesman responded by saying that broadcasters were being alarmists, and the royalty would be "reasonable."  But would it?

Continue Reading...

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

In the last 5 days, the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC has held two oral arguments on appeals from decisions of the Copyright Royalty Board - one from the Board's decision on Internet Radio Royalties and the other on the royalties applicable to satellite radio.  The decisions were different in that, in the Internet Radio decision, the appellants (including the group known as the "Small Commercial Webcasters" that I represented in the case) challenged the Board's decision, arguing that the rates that were arrived at were too high.  In contrast, at the second argument, SoundExchange was the appellant, arguing that the Board's decision set royalties for satellite radio  that were too low.  But, in both arguments, an overriding question was whether the Judges on the CRB were constitutionally appointed and thus whether any decisions of the Board had any validity.  While the question was expected and specifically raised in the webcasting proceeding (see our post here when that issue was first raised), the discussion at the satellite radio argument was somewhat of a surprise, as the issue had not been raised by either party, and the Appeals Court judges were not even the same judges who had heard the Internet radio argument.  Yet one of the Judges raised the issue, unprompted by any party, by asking if the Copyright Royalty Judges were properly appointed and indirectly asking if their decision would have any validity if the constitutional issue was found to exist.

Will the Court decide the constitutionality issue, and what would it mean?  No one knows for sure.  One of the issues raised by the Court in the Internet radio case was whether the issue had been raised in a timely fashion.  In both cases, the possibility of requiring additional briefing on the issue was also raised by the Court, though no such briefing has been ordered - yet.  Even if the Court was to find that the Board was not properly appointed, there are questions as to whether the existing decisions should nevertheless be allowed to stand, while blocking new decisions until a new appointment scheme is found.  Alternatively, Congress might have to intervene to resolve the whole issue and, if it was to do that, would Congress simply ratify the current decision, or would there be new considerations that would affect any Congressional resolution?  The issue raises many questions, and we'll just have to wait to see what the resolution will be.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

In the last two weeks, we have seen Capitol Hill rallies by the Free Radio Alliance, opposing what they term the “performance tax” on radio, and yesterday by the Music First Coalition, trying to persuade Congress to adopt a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings for the over-the-air signal of broadcast stations. We’ve written about the theories as to why a performance royalty on sound recordings should or should not be paid by broadcasters, but one question that now seems to be gaining more significance is the most practical of all questions – if a performance royalty is adopted, how would broadcasters pay for it?

 The recording industry and some Congressional supporters have argued in the past that, if the royalty was adopted, stations could simply raise their advertising rates to get the money to pay for the royalty. While we’ve always questioned that assumption (as, if broadcasters could get more money for their advertising spots, why wouldn’t they be doing so now simply to maximize revenues?), that question is even harder to answer in today’s radio environment. With the current recession, radio is reporting sales declines of as much as 20% from the prior year. Layoffs are hitting stations in almost every market. In this environment, it is difficult to imagine how any significant royalty could be paid by broadcasters without eating into their fundamental ability to serve the public – and perhaps to threaten the very existence of many music-intensive stations. And the structure of the royalty, as proposed in the pending legislation, makes the question of affordability even harder to address.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The battle over the broadcast performance royalty has begun anew, with the introduction of legislation to impose a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings on broadcast stations.  This royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (which go to compensate composers of music), as this royalty would be paid to the performers of the music (and the copyright holders in the recorded performance - usually the record companies).  The statement released by the sponsors of the bill cites numerous reasons for its adoption - including the facts that most other countries have such a royalty, that satellite and Internet radio have to pay the royalty, and that it will support musicians who otherwise do not get compensated for the use of their copyrighted material.  The NAB has countered with a letter from its CEO David Rehr, arguing that musicians do in fact get  compensation through the promotional value that they get from the exposure of their music on broadcast stations.  The 50 state broadcast associations also sent a resolution to Congress, taking issue with the premises of the sponsors - citing the differences in the broadcast systems of the US and that of other countries where there is a performance royalty, and arguing that broadcasting is different from the digital services who have a greater potential for substitution for the purchase of music.  What does this bill provide?

The bill introduced this year are very similar to the legislation proposed last year (which we summarized here); legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee but never made it to the full House, nor to the Senate.  Some of the provisions of this year's version include:

• Expansion of the public performance right applicable to sound recordings from digital transmissions to any transmission
• Royalties for FCC-licensed noncommercial stations would be a flat $1000 per year
• Royalties for commercial stations making less than $1.25 million in annual gross revenues would pay a flat $5000 per year.  There is no definition of what constitutes "gross revenues," and how a per station revenue figure could be computed in situations where stations are parts of broadcast clusters
• Excludes royalties in connection with the use of music at religious services or assemblies and where the use of music is "incidental."  Incidental uses have been defined by Copyright Royalty Board regulations as being the use of "brief" portions of songs in transitions in and out of programs, or the brief use of music in news programs, or the use in the background of a commercial where the commercial is less than 60 seconds - all where an entire sound recording is not used and where the use is less than 30 seconds long
• Allows for a per program license for stations that are primarily talk
• Establishes that the rates established for sound recordings shall not have an adverse effect on the public performance right in compositions (i.e. they can't be used as justification for lowering the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC rates)
• Requires that 1% of any fees paid by a digital music service (such as a webcaster, or satellite radio operator) for the direct licensing of music by a copyright owner (usually the record company) be deposited with the American Federation of Musicians to be distributed to non-featured performers (background musicians), while the distribution of any fees to the featured performer be governed by the contract between the performer and record company
• Requires that any 50% of any fees paid by a radio station for direct licensing of music be paid to the agent for collection of fees (i.e. SoundExchange) for distribution in the same manner that the statutory license fees are distributed (45% to the featured performer, 2.5% to background musicians, and 2.5% to background vocalists)

Continue Reading...

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

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Stephen Colbert Christmas Special begins with Colbert sitting at the piano, writing new Christmas songs.  Why?  He explains that, while he likes all of the old Christmas songs well enough, he'd only get royalties if he wrote the songs, so he's writing his own.  In a few sentences, Colbert explains the system of broadcast royalties in the United States, and the source of the dispute over the broadcast performance royalty that took up much committee time in the last Congress, and is bound to return in the next Congress in 2009.  As Colbert explains, in the US, the composers get paid when their music is played on a broadcast station. These payments come from the the royalties that broadcast stations pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, the performing rights organizations or "PROs" that represent the composers or the music publishing companies that hold the copyrights to those songs.   But, as Colbert points out, the performers do not get paid when they sing the song on the air.

We've written about the controversy about whether or not performers should get a royalty when a song that they perform but did not write, is played on the air.  But Colbert seems to have solved the problem about the performer not getting royalties when their songs are played on the air - simply by writing his own songs. And maybe we'll be singing these songs at future Christmas parties, paying Colbert royalties, and at the same time explaining broadcast performance royalties to future generations.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the sound recording performance royalty, titling the hearing  "Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules Across Platforms" (a webcast of which can be accessed here).  While the hearing was ostensibly to search for a way to come up with a uniform system of determining music royalties across various digital media platforms (though the broadcast analog performance royalty snuck into the discussion from time to time), in reality it appeared to be two things - a search for compromise and a demonstration of the dramatically different perspectives from which the recording industry and the digital radio industry approach the topic.  While one might assume that the dramatically different approaches would mean that no compromise was possible, there were a few areas of commonality that perhaps reflect the potential that, at some point, common ground can be found.  We will review the hearing's discussions in multiple parts - today dealing with the issue of the standard to be used in assessing royalties for the public performance of sound recordings and, in a subsequent post, we will summarize the differing world views of the participants and why the dramatically different ways that they see the business make for difficulty in compromise.

But first, a summary of the issues that were to be discussed at the hearing. Essentially, the hearing was to discuss two bills addressing different aspects of the royalty issues.  Senator Feinstein of California, who chaired the hearing, was looking for any common ground that might exist that would allow for movement on the Perform Act that she has introduced.  That act would attempt to do two things - (1) assure that a common standard was used to assess sound recording royalties in all digital media and (2) adopt standards that would require digital services to use some form of security or encryption that would make "stream ripping" more difficult.  The first goal of her bill, looking for a common standard, was an attempt to avoid some of the problems that have been evident in the royalty proceedings that have thus far been held before the Copyright Royalty Board which have resulted in dramatically different royalties - ranging from 6 to 8% of revenue for satellite radio companies and a similar royalty for digital cable music services (see our posts on those rates here and here) derived under an "801(b) standard" (after section 801b of the Copyright Act) , and the royalty for Internet radio that has been estimated to range between 75% and 300% of gross revenues of those services, derived from a "willing buyer, willing seller" royalty standard.  The Perform Act would subject all to a single standard - and it currently proposes a new standard - "fair market value."

Continue Reading...

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

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Share Link

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). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

We wrote yesterday about the introduction of a bill in the House and the Senate proposing to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air signals.  At that time, we did not have a copy of the bill itself, but were basing our post on press releases and a summary of the provisions of the bill that was available on Senator Leahy's website.  We have been able to obtain copies of the bill titled the  "Performance Rights Act" - or actually of the "bills," as the House and Senate versions are slightly different.  Reading those bills, many of the questions that we had yesterday are answered, and some new questions are raised as to how this bill, if enacted, would affect radio broadcasters.

One question about which we wrote yesterday was whether these bills would require that any royalty be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard or the 801(b) standard that takes into account more than a simple economic analysis in determining the royalty.  The 801(b) standard is used for services in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (essentially cable audio and satellite radio) and evaluates not only the economics of the proposed royalty, but also factors including the interest of the public in the dissemination of copyrighted material and the disruption of the industry that could be caused by a high royalty.  In connection with the recent CRB decision on the satellite radio royalties, the potential disruption of the industry caused the CRB to reduce the royalty from what the Board had determined to be the reasonable marketplace value of the sound recordings (13% of gross revenues) to a figure rising from 6 to 8 % of gross revenues over the 5 year term of the royalty.  In the Internet radio proceeding, using the willing buyer, willing seller model, no such adjustment was made.

In these bills, the proposal is to use the willing buyer, willing seller standard for broadcasting.  For a service that has been around far longer than any other audio service, it would seem that a standard that assesses the impact of a royalty on the industry on which it is being imposed would be mandatory.  Who wants to disrupt an entire, well-established industry that has served the public for over 80 years?.  But such a reasonable term is not part of the proposal here.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

In a pre-Christmas surprise that most broadcasters could do without, identical bills were introduced in Congress on Tuesday proposing to impose a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings by terrestrial radio stations.  Currently, broadcasters pay only for the right to use the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) and do not pay for the use of sound recordings in their over-the-air operations of the actual recording.  This long-expected bill (see our coverage of the Congressional hearing this summer where the bill was discussed) will no doubt fuel new debate over the need and justification for this new fee, 50% of which would go to the copyright holder of the sound recording (usually the record label) and 50% to the artists (45% to the featured artist and 5% to background musicians).  The proponents of the bill have contended that it is necessary to achieve fairness, as digital music services pay such a fee.  To ease the shock of the transition, the bill proposes flat fees for small and noncommercial broadcasters - fees which themselves undercut the notion of fairness, as they are far lower than fees for comparable digital services.   

While, at the time that this post was written, a complete text of the decision does not seem to be online, a summary can be found on the website of Senator Leahy, one of the bills cosponsors.  The summary states that commercial radio stations with revenues of less than $1.25 million (supposedly over 70% of all radio stations) would pay a flat $5000 per station fee.  Noncommercial stations would pay a flat $1000 annual fee.  The bill also suggests that the fee not affect the amount paid to composers under current rules - so it would be one that would be absorbed by the broadcaster. 

Continue Reading...

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

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the possibility of imposing on broadcasters a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings.  This would be a new royalty, paying for the public performance of the recording of a song by a particular artist - a fee that would be on top of the fees that broadcasters already pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of the underlying compositions.  Unlike the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing, about which we wrote here, this hearing was a much more measured proceeding, weighing carefully the implications of imposing a new royalty - both as to whether it was really necessary to encourage creation of more music by performers, and as to whether radio stations could afford to pay such a royalty.  In fact, in closing the hearing, Senators asked the representatives of the Broadcasters and of the musicians to provide the committee more information on these two issues.

The Music First Coalition seeking the new royalty was represented by two recording artists, Lyle Lovett and Alice Peacock.  Committee members were clearly excited to have Mr. Lovett testifying, thanking him repeatedly for taking time out from his touring schedule (he had played a concert the night before in suburban Washington, at the Birchmere Club in Alexandria that Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, said was attended and enjoyed by some of his staffers), and the committee was even treated to a few bars of Ms. Peacock's song "Bliss."  But between the performances and the star treatment, committee members did ask hard questions - including whether a royalty was really needed.  Both artist stated that music was their passion, that they would be performers no matter how much they were paid.  If passion drove the creation of music, asked one Senator, as the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works, why is a new royalty on broadcasters even necessary? 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As the clock ticks down to the July 15 effective date of the royalty rates for Internet Radio as determined by the Copyright Royalty Board, webcasters held a Day of Silence today, June 26, to demonstrate to listeners what may well happen if the rates go into effect, and to galvanize their listeners to ask Congress for relief. With the Day of Silence bringing publicity to the Congressional efforts to put the webcasting royalties on hold and to change the standard applied by the Copyright Royalty Board so that it is not focused completely on a hypothetical "willing buyer, willing seller" model, it's worth looking at some of the other issues that have arisen in the royalty battle in the last few days - including further pleadings filed in connection with the Motion for Stay currently pending in the US Court of Appeals, and the Congressional hearing that will occur on Thursday. 

As we've written before, there is currently pending a Motion for Stay of the CRB decision which was submitted jointly by the large and small webcasters and NPR.  Last week, the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Copyright Royalty Board to defend the royalty decision, and SoundExchange, each filed oppositions to the Motion for Stay. Each raised many of the same arguments. First, they argued that the large webcasters had procedurally forfeited their rights to challenge the question of the $500 per channel minimum fee by not raising their objection early enough in the CRB proceeding. The DOJ also argued that the damage from the minimum fee was speculative as there was no way to know how that minimum fee would be interpreted. The DOJ contended that, as it was unclear that SoundExchange would prevail on any claim that those Internet Radio services that produced a unique stream for each listener would have to pay $500 for each such stream, the question might end up in a lawsuit – but wouldn’t inevitably lead to the irreparable harm that is necessary for a stay to be issued.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Share Link

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).

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link