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

ASCAP and BMI, which are the largest of the performing rights organizations - together controlling an estimated 85 or 90 per cent of the musical compositions - are subject to antitrust consent decrees.  They can't discriminate between music rights holders, and must offer the same licenses to similarly situated services, i.e. they must charge all webcasters according to set formulas - they can't cut deals with individual webcasters and offer them better deals, unless such deals are open to all that have similar qualifications.  Moreover, the rates that they charge are subject to government oversight by a "rate court" - a Federal District Court judge who can hold a trial to determine the reasonableness of any proposed rate.  This oversight is required by the antitrust consent decrees that govern both ASCAP and BMI.

As we have written before, SESAC, the smallest of the current PROs, is not subject to rate court review for its rates, nor is it restricted from "cutting deals" on the rates that it charges.  It is a private company, not subject to any antitrust consent decree.  Some music users have, from time to time, suggested that SESAC be brought under such decrees - including a group of TV stations that filed a lawsuit a year ago seeking to impose antitrust scrutiny on SESAC.  As SESAC is often able to require royalties from users that seem higher than those that would be due to it if it was paid on a strictly pro rata basis, these kinds of concerns arise from time to time.

But SESAC is still a fairly large organization, in business for a long time, and most media companies are accustomed to dealing with it.  EMI, and any other publisher that follows its lead, would seemingly be in a position similar to that of SESAC, and not be covered by the antitrust consent decrees.  Thus, any such publisher could charge what it wanted for the public performance right to the compositions that it controls, and even charge different services different amounts.  And it may be difficult for licensees to realize that they have to deal with a new organization or organizations to license music, and it will make it harder to determine which songs a music service has licensed or which ones it already has the rights to use.  Some webcasters are still are surprised that they have to pay SoundExchange, which has been around in one form or another for a decade, so how will they get the word that they now can't rely on ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for all their public performance needs for musical compositions?  While ASCAP's amended regulations (see Section 1.12 of those regulations dealing with this New Media opt-out) provide that ASCAP will must notify all New Media services when any publisher decides to avail itself of this New Media opt-out, and what songs will be licensed directly, as SoundExchange has itself found out, such notices often don't command the attention that one might think that they would. 

Collective licensing was developed to provide a one-stop shop to clear vast catalogs of music.  Many feel that it is necessary for those users - like a webcaster - who needs acceess to a broad array of music in order to operate its business.  When the sound recording performance royalty was first established in the 1990s, it came with a mandatory collective licensing approach (the "statutory license"), so that all users could easily determine how to pay for the music that they use, without needing to deal with every rights holder - perhaps having to negotiate a different deal with each one.  As we wrote here, that is why Internet radio has had the Beatles catalog for so long, even though interactive digital music services, which don't have a compulsory collective license only recently have been able to obtain such licenses.

If music publishers associated with record labels generally start to exercise their rights to withdraw their catalog from the PROs, it's possible that they could even exert more control over the use of the sound recordings.  If, for instance, they control both the publishing and the master recording (the sound recording) rights to a particular band's music, and they feel that the statutory sound recording performance royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Board are too low for a particular recording, they can effectively block the use of that sound recording by extracting a higher price for the musical composition the next time the license for that composition becomes due.  One could even see different prices being charged for the rights to different musical compositions (in fact, most Beatles compositions are held by EMI - so it is possible that every Internet radio operator will not have access to their recordings if this combined licensing scheme goes into effect).   While the efficiencies claimed by the publisher might exist in the case of some interactive services, or in cases where you are dealing with a very limited number of songs (e.g. negotiations to use the music in video productions), for traditional Internet radio services, the efficiencies seem to diminish, not increase.

Just what digital services are affected by this move?  Broadcasters do not seem to have to worry about this development, as the amendment to ASCAP's regulations allowing this partial withdrawal from its licensing system excluded them (and the definition of "broadcaster" under the antitrust conset decree (see Section II(f)), seems to exclude cable and direct broadcast satellite as well, as indicated in ASCAP's press release on the matter.  This exclusion would seemingly include broadcaster's Internet simulcast's of their over-the-air programming.  But other digital music services that are subject to Sections 114 (webcasters), 115 ("DPD", or "digital phonorecord deliveries", i.e. copies or reproductions of musical compositions made digitally) and 106(1) (other digital reproductions by audio services), are all covered. 

This is an evolving story.  There are many questions that remain.  One unanswered question is exactly which songs are covered by this opt-out.  Another is how it will affect the rates charged by ASCAP.  Finally, the practical effect remains to be seen.  It may well be that this new system will in fact prove more efficient, or will provide benefits to users and composers - or it may impose some of the burdens that I describe above.  Until this is all sorted out, music companies will need to watch carefully to ensure that they license the music they need - from the proper places.  More on some of the other issues involved in digital music licensing can be found in our advisory - The Basics of Music Licensing in a Digital World. 

NOTE:  Corrected 5/10/2011 to note that ASCAP, and not the music publishing company, sends out the notices to the services of a New Media opt out when a publisher decides to exercise it right to opt out of the normal ASCAP licensing scheme. 

The agreements for the interim rates are not currently available for public review, and there is no press release about either deal evident on the ASCAP or BMI websites.  Thus, it is unclear if the agreements will be applied to all broadcasters, or only those that have elected to be part of the RMLC negotiating group.  As we have written before, ASCAP and BMI have previously tried to get an indication from stations as to whether they are part of the RMLC negotiating group, or whether they will try to negotiate their own agreements.  We have also heard that at least one other group, the National Religious Broadcasters Music Licensing Committee, has indicated that they would represent commercial broadcasters in negotiations over new royalties.  However, it still seems to us that any other negotiating group will look first to the outcome of the RMLC process to set the royalties, and most likely will not be negotiating or litigating their own agreements, unless they have a business model that would make any RMLC deal unworkable.  This is both because ASCAP and BMI are prohibited from negotiating different royalty rates for similarly situated music users, and as the royalty litigation is very expensive and time consuming, and it is unlikely that any group would try to re-litigate any decision that RMLC reached.

 Does the decrease in rates, even if on a temporary basis, signal that there will be a permanent decrease in the rates?  In short, it should not be viewed as a guarantee.  While the fact that the Performing Rights Organizations agreed to these decreases might be seen as a sign that these companies recognize that there is a different radio economy that needs to be reflected in lower royalty rates, it could also be seen as a recognition that even a hearing on temporary rates is an expensive process.  The PROs recognize that RMLC will be holding out for a decrease in rates, and that they would be arguing for that decreased rate even on an interim basis.  Thus, to avoid the costs of litigation, and since any interim decrease in rates would be recaptured if a higher permanent rate is set, the PROs could have agreed to these rates simply to avoid the costs of litigation.  So don't start counting on these reductions being permanent - that will take significant litigation (or extensive negotiations) to accomplish.

So this is by no means the end of the story.  Watch as these events develop over time.

Also, this rate covers only these three Internet services, and only covers ASCAP.  Of course, the decision may be instructive as to the rates that would apply to other similar companies (and potentially for BMI rates in the future, as they also are subject to a consent decree - though SESAC is not).  However, most Internet companies, especially smaller companies that cannot afford expensive rate court litigation, are paying royalties under the "experimental licenses" that ASCAP posted on its website (and which have rates somewhat lower than the decision here for non-interactive services, and somewhat higher for interactive services), and should not, for the time-being, be affected by this decision. 

While this decision involves a different right than does the CRB decision for somewhat different types of services, the rights are similar, yet the approaches taken by the Court here and the CRB in the setting the sound recording royalty were quite different.  For instance, one of the criticisms of the CRB decision, especially by the small webcasters that I represented in the proceeding, was that the CRB refused to adopt a percentage of revenue royalty, finding it difficult to compute what revenue was to be included as being subject to the royalty and because it did not represent a payment for all of the music used.  The CRB found that a per performance (e.g. per song, per listener) rate was more appropriate as it insured a fair return to the copyright holder in the sound recording even by a service that did not maximize its revenue.  Under a percentage of revenue royalty, the CRB determined, there might be minimal payments for the use of music.  Here, however, the Court found almost exactly the opposite,  concluding that a percentage of revenue rate appropriate for the following reasons:

• It was economically efficient, as it did not provide any disincentive to a service not to use music as might be the case for a royalty that demanded a per performance fee
• It adapts to changing conditions, as it will collect more when a service makes more revenue and less when a service has hard economic times, thus taking into account changing economic and competitive conditions, variations in financial fortunes and changes in technology and other unforeseen changes in the circumstances of the services that may occur over time
• Revenues were simple to verify as information about total revenues were routinely collected by a service
• That these royalties provided the kinds of efficiencies expected for a blanket license - easy administration, that covered all rights to all the music represented by ASCAP, and gave the service certainty as to its music costs so that it did not need to take royalties into account in deciding how to introduce any new aspect of its service

By contract, the new CRB rates require many services to pay based on performances, a metric that many services don't currently track, and which many may not be able to accurately count (see our post here).  The CRB royalties also are such that they the webcaster must carefully consider them in making any decision as to whether or not to launch any new service as, if that service attracts listeners but not revenue, the service could owe significant fees without having earned the revenue to pay for the music use.  The per performance royalty does not adjust to changing economic conditions, either, as it remains at the level set by the CRB, regardless of the ability of the service to monetize the use of music or changing economic and competitive conditions.  In effect, the per performance royalty does not encourage the use of music, as evidenced by many of the larger services that are reportedly limiting their listening or (as in the case of AOL), getting out of the Internet radio industry entirely (see our post here).

The Court in the ASCAP case stated that deciding the marketplace value of music under a blanket license like the one at issue here is a difficult process, as there really are few if any real examples of what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to.  The existence of the blanket license and the threat of a rate court proceeding itself distorts the market, and contributes to results of any voluntary deal that is negotiated for similar rights.  And the consideration of benchmark royalties negotiated for other services (a number of which were considered here) all have some differences with the situation at hand, meaning that some sort of inexact and hypothetical adjustment must be done to use the benchmark to determine the rate applicable in the pending case.  Regardless of whether or not one thinks that the decision reached in this case was the correct one, the considerations that went into reaching the rate are ones that might be instructive for future cases involving the CRB's decision on the sound recording royalty.