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

But, beyond the question of whether the parties are even willing to participate, could these sorts of negotiations actually be successful?  Copyright issues, as they are so detailed and technical given the complexity of the mechanics of the Copyright laws, are often resolved through negotiations - often at the urging of Congress.  Congress tends to believe that a negotiated solution is more likely to anticipate the issues that could arise than is an imposed legislative solution where one side totally prevails over the other.  But here, there are many parties involved who may not see eye to eye on the kinds of issues that might be discussed in any negotiation. 

Congress has called on the parties to bring people who can make decisions to participate in the sessions, yet who would that be?  On the recording industry side, it would seem that the 4 major labels, the association of independent labels, and the artist union representatives would be able to easily fit into a room to negotiate.  On the other side, while it might seem that the NAB is the appropriate party, the NAB itself does not pay royalties - its members do.  And its members are a diverse group.  There are many public companies that own stations, and hundreds of private ones. There are large market stations and small market ones - differing constituencies that have differed on performance rights issues in the past.  And, perhaps most importantly, there are many stations with differing interests as to what might be included in any negotiations.  Some groups have evolved digital operations while others are still focused almost solely on their broadcast operations.  Some have interests in waivers of the performance complement (which was an issue in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement on Internet radio royalties) while others don't.  Some do significant amounts of talk or news, while others are much more music intensive.  All these diverse interests would have to be taken into account in reaching any deal that would cover broadcasters - and two weeks with Thanksgiving in between does not seem to provide the time to reach a deal.  In fact, given that broadcasters for the most part believe that the issue is all but dead given the majority of the Congress signing on to the anti-performance royalty resolution, how do you then convince broadcasters nationwide that a deal is in their best interests when they have been so adamant against even talking about a deal.  Given all these obstacles, it simply does not look possible to have a deal in this time period - even were the parties to actually sit down and try to work something out.

So, if the parties are not sure to negotiate, and if the prospects of a deal in two weeks in late November are so slight, why bother with the letter?  One thought is that the letter is another well-orchestrated publicity move by royalty proponents.  Just like the MusicFirst petition filed at the FCC complaining about broadcasters supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the royalty (with little or no evidence of any real boycott by any commercial station), this letter has already generated press attention putting a spotlight back on the issue - attention that has perhaps flagged somewhat since the NAB had signed up its majority of the House of Representatives onto the resolution opposing the royalty.  Perhaps by trying to make the NAB look bad, the supporters of the royalty are trying to pry some of the legislators off their positions in favor of the NAB and against the performance royalty (see our post here about the potential for ways that the bill could move even with a majority now signed onto the anti-performance royalty resolution).

So, will any of this work?  Watch and see, as we should know whether negotiations take place very soon.

In the actual discussions of the royalty, several issues were repeatedly raised, which we try to deal with in more detail in subsequent posts.  These include the following:

• Supporters of the royalty contended that fears of the royalty's impact on small broadcasters and noncommercial operators were dealt with by the House of Representatives' version of the legislation by imposing a small, flat yearly fee as low as $500 per year on these stations.  Senator Leahy made the point that this royalty was probably less than most stations were paying for their NAB dues to lobby against the royalty.  Steve Newberry, Chair of the NAB Joint Board and the owner of a group of small market radio stations, submitted that, while $500 today seemed like a small amount, these numbers have a way of going up.  After all, 10 years ago when the sound recording performance royalty for digital operators was first adopted by Congress, radio was supposed to be totally exempt - yet here we are, arguing for a change in that exemption.
• Supporters of the royalty constantly made the argument that broadcasters were using their "property" without compensation, or agreement.  Newberry argued that they were getting fair compensation through the promotion of their work by broadcast stations - a partnership that has produced the most significant music industry in the world.  Senator Durbin of Illinois suggested that there was no longer any agreement to the partnership between broadcasters and artists, as the artists were no longer agreeing to allow their music to be used without compensation.  Yet the system being proposed by Congress - a statutory royalty - would still deprive artists of choice - a choice to opt out of the royalty and allow their music to be played for free to promote airplay, especially if broadcasters have to pay a percentage of revenue for the royalty (if the percentage is not reduced by playing music where the royalty is waived, broadcasters will have no incentive to play that royalty free music, so artists do not have the choice to try to increase airplay through a royalty waiver)
• Supporters of the royalty argued that most industrialized nations had the royalty, and that US artists were not getting their share of royalties when US music was played in overseas markets.  Performing rights organizations in those countries do not pay US artists for the performance of their works since the US will not pay foreign artists for the performance of their works on over-the-air radio.  Newberry pointed to the differing copyright standards in other countries (such as a 50 year protection for copyrighted works, rather than the 99 year copyright in the US).  His written testimony also pointed to efforts in several countries to reform their royalty system, as the system inhibited the playing of new music.   The written testimony also made the point that, as the US will still have not adopted a full performance royalty (as performances in bars and restaurants, stadiums and concert halls, and other public venues still will not be covered), there still will be no full performance royalty, so foreign countries may still withhold their payments to US artists. 

An interesting suggestion was raised by Texas Senator Cornyn that has perhaps been dismissed by too many parties too quickly.  Cornyn suggested that, rather than compelling a performance royalty, Congress should set up a "Do Not Play" list, similar to a do not call list.  The list would be made up of those artists who do not give their consent to radio stations playing their music without the payment of a royalty.  Thus, radio stations would have to negotiate with artists on this list to get the rights to play their music.  Stations could play the music of all other artists without a royalty.  This proposal was dismissed by some in attendance at the hearing for a number of reasons.  It was argued that small market radio stations might have a problem negotiating for carriage of major stars and, as suggested by Senator Durbin, that it would set artists and composers against each other, as the composer might want the song played, while the artist might not.  Finally, Ralph Oman, the former registrar of Copyrights, suggested that it would harm small artists that felt that they needed to give up their rights to get airplay.  We will address these arguments in a subsequent post.  But the idea is interesting in that many Internet radio operators have discussed the potential for getting artist waivers to reduce their SoundExchange fees (see our post here).  Issues with setting up a pool of royalty-free music include concerns over assuring that artists who waive fees have the right to do so, and also the simple logistics of contacting enough artists to make such a waiver system worthwhile.  If the government were to set it up, with appropriate safeguards, these issues might be eliminated. 

The issue of platform parity for the standards used to determine the royalties paid by various users of music was also raised at the hearing.  Bob Kimball, from Real Networks, argued that any bill addressing a performance royalty should also address the disparity in royalty rates and standards used in setting the sound recording performance royalty.  In this discussion, issues that were raised include:

• Whether it was fair that small broadcasters, with up to $1.25 million in revenue, would pay $5000 or less in sound recording performance royalties, while Internet radio companies with $1.25 million in revenue would pay $150,000 in royalties.  While some suggested that FCC licensees have greater costs imposed by FCC obligations that justified a lower fee, Kimball asked how that cost disparity could possibly justify royalties 30 times as high as proposed for small broadcasters.
• The question of whether the 801(b) standard (about which we wrote earlier this week) or some other standard was appropriate.  Shelia E, testifying for the MusicFirst coalition, seemed to agree that a modified 801(b) standard, as proposed in the House of Representatives bill on the broadcast performance royalty, made sense for all music users. 
• Kimball also raised the question of whether it was fair that some settlements on Internet radio royalties reached under the Webcasters Settlement Act were considered to be precedential for purposes of the next CRB proceeding, while other settlements were considered nonprecedential - seemingly at the choice of SoundExchange.  Kimball suggested that all should be precedential, or all should be excluded, but that private parties should not get to choose which settlements should be considered in setting future rates.

Finally, a question was raised as to the precedent that any sound recording royalty would set for the public performance royalty for the musical work - the right to the song's composition as paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.  The ASCAP and BMI royalties, if they cannot be negotiated, are set by a rate court which acts somewhat like the Copyright Royalty Board in making a determination of what a fair rate for the royalty should be (see our story on one such decision, here).  At the hearing, Mr. Kimball suggested that there was language in the House version of the Performance Royalty bill that suggested that sound recording performance royalties could set a precedent for ASCAP and BMI to raise rates, but that they could not be used by music services to argue that the ASCAP and BMI rates be lowered.  This might be an important issue not just for digital music services, but also for broadcasters who are currently in negotiations about the ASCAP and BMI rates for periods after the end of this year.

Nothing was resolved at the hearing, though much was discussed. The Committee, like the Judiciary Committee in the House, seems ready to move on the legislation.  But whether the full Senate will act is perhaps as big of a question as whether the House will.  This issue is not over (as we wrote here), so keep watching and see what develops. 

We have written before how, using the Copyright Royalty Board decision that was reached for XM and Sirius in 2007 (and recently upheld by the Court of Appeals), it could be concluded that the "willing buyer willing seller" standard could lead to a broadcast performance royalty as much as 25% of gross revenues.  We reached that conclusion by looking at the CRB decision which set a royalty for XM and Sirius (at that point separate companies) of 6% growing over a six year period to 8% of gross revenues (with some adjustments subtracting those revenues clearly attributable solely to non-music programming).  The CRB reached that decision after finding that a fair market rate (essentially what the willing buyer willing seller standard is supposed to determine) would be approximately 14% of the XM/Sirius revenues (principally their subscription revenues as their music streams were commercial free).  This value was adjusted down to the final royalty to preserve the stability of the industry, a factor required to be taken into account by the 801(b) standard that applies to the determination of the satellite radio (but a factor left out of the House version of the broadcast performance royalty bill).  That 14% of revenue was computed on the assumption that about half of the subscription revenue could be attributed to non-music programming (e.g. news, sports, Howard Stern and Oprah, etc).  So, if the perceived market value of the music in Sirius XM programming was 14% of the total subscription revenue, and half of that value came from non-music programs, then the value of a pure music service would be double that number, or something in the vicinity of 25%.

At the House hearing on the performance royalty held in March, an RIAA witness seemingly implied that the royalty would actually end up being closer to the 6-8% of revenue that Sirius XM now pays.  But recent royalty decisions give one pause about such a claim.  Look, for instance, at the recent settlement between the Pureplay webcasters (some of whom I represent) and SoundExchange, where the percentage of revenue royalties range between 12 and 14% of revenue for small webcasters to 25% of revenue (at a minimum) for large pureplay webcasters.  And this rate is deemed an experimental rate, reached as a compromise and not reflecting the true value of music, according to the SoundExchange press release.

In other services where there is no adjustment made for the preservation of the industry subject to the royalty, the royalty has been high - though perhaps not quite as high as in the webcasters' case.  For instance, in connection with "new subscription services", the audio services provided with DISH and DirecTV video services, the parties planning to provide those services and SoundExchange reached an agreement for a royalty rate of 15% to avoid a CRB hearing.  Even in connection with Business Establishment Services (like Muzak) that do not pay for the public performance of music, but only for the ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process (the most insignificant part of the webcaster royalty - assumed to be about 8% of the total royalty), the parties agreed to pay a royalty of 10% of gross revenues.  In no case of which I am aware has the royalty for the public performance of sound recordings been set at less than 10% of gross revenues, and then only in connection with "small webcasters," who have revenues similar to those of radio broadcasters who would pay a flat fee under the pending legislation for the broadcaster performance royalty. 

Thus, the conclusion of the CBO, that the broadcast performance royalty would be substantial, seems right on target, unless the new legislation adopts the full 801(b) factors. These factors would have to include the factor looking at the preservation of the stability of the industry which was so important in the Sirius XM decision - the one factor omitted from the standard proposed in the revised House bill. 

Of course, even at 6-8% of revenues, broadcasters will probably find the royalty significant).  But at 25%, in today's economic climate, it would virtually drain the radio industry of its profit margins.  We will be interested in seeing if these factors are discussed in tomorrow's Judiciary Committee hearing.

The MusicFirst claim is that this case is different in that broadcasters have a self-interest in the topic.  Yet, seemingly, that argument goes too far, as a restriction on broadcasters editorializing on topics in which they have some interest could very well eviscerate the First Amendment rights that they have now had for so many years.  For instance, editorials on tax policy, health insurance, utility rate hikes, and even local bond issues may well have a direct impact on the broadcaster, but no one suggests that these topics are off limits.  Even an editorial supporting or opposing a political candidate, the heart of the editorial right for newspaper publishers and now enjoyed by broadcasters, could be seen as potentially having a financial impact on the broadcaster.  The MusicFirst petition does not address why these issues are somehow different from the performance rights issue, or why artists are entitled to more rights than supporters of positions that may be contrary to the broadcaster's position on other issues.

Moreover, it was clear even before the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine that broadcasters are not "common carriers," meaning that they do not have to accept every ad or message that anyone wants to put on their airwaves (Common carriers, like telephone companies, have to transmit every message that is given to them).  The broadcaster can serve as an editor or journalist, picking and choosing the message that it wants to convey to its listeners.  The only exception is for Federal political candidates, who have legislated a right of "reasonable access" - legislation that has not been challenged in the Courts in recent memory.  But regardless of the rights of political candidates, this exception is in no way relevant to the MusicFirst Coalition.

The MusicFirst petition also suggests that broadcasters may be improperly characterizing spots that they run against a performance royalty as Public Service Announcements ("PSAs").  Yet that also is not a relevant criticism, as the FCC did away with all of its mandatory program logging requirements back in the 1980s.  Thus, whether broadcasters characterize the announcements are PSAs, or Entertainment or News or anything else has no current significance for regulatory purposes.  Note that the localism rules adopted but not yet effective for TV, and those proposed for radio, would bring back the mandatory classification of broadcast programs and give the PSA classification regulatory significance if and when these proposed rules become effective.  But it is certainly not an objection at this point.

The PSA suggestion is tied into another claim that the radio broadcasters running these announcements may not be meeting their public file issues under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") which requires that a broadcaster who runs advertising discussing "Federal issues" put information into their public files similar to that which is maintained for political candidates (see our post, here, for details on that requirement).  While we have advised our clients to comply with these rules, especially if anything of value has been provided to the station in connection with the ads (including scripts or pre-produced spots), where the station airs its own editorial message on the issue, the spots do not seem to fall into the BCRA requirements as they are not sponsored programming, which is essentially what those requirements address.

Ignoring other procedural and substantive issues in the petition (including its failure to name names - in most cases omitting information about the stations which supposedly engaged in the complained of conduct and of the artists who were discriminated against), the issue seems to boil down to a First Amendment issue.  No one would suggest that performers be required to allow broadcasters to attend their concerts to speak against the royalty, so why should broadcasters be compelled to give voice to a position to which they are fundamentally opposed?  We will see what the FCC does with the MusicFirst petition in coming months.  Given the recent statements of the proposed new Chair of the FCC at his confirmation hearing that he has no intention of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, the prospects are that this petition will be simply one more publicity volley in a protracted war over the broadcast performance royalty.

Minimum Fee:  Each broadcaster must pay a yearly minimum fee of $500 per channel.  A "channel" is either the stream of a single station, or an Internet-only subchannel, or any other unique on-line stream (e.g. the stream of an HD subchannel).  For any group owner, the per-channel minimum fee is capped at an annual $50,000.  The deal does not consider different streams of the same station, originating at the same website, to be different channels (e.g. where you provide different streams of the same station at different speeds - slower speeds for those who are on dial up or mobile connections and higher bit rate streams for those on broadband connections).  The minimums are applied against the per performance fees set out above.

Recordkeeping: For most broadcasters who are streaming, the settlement requires “census reporting” of the music that they stream. Census reporting means that the webcaster has to report monthly to SoundExchange information about each song that they play – including the song title, artist, album, and the ISRC code or marketing label for that song. The reports also have to include not only how many times each song played, but also how many listeners there were for each song. SoundExchange has long sought census reporting from webcasters, who are currently required to report only on the music played for two weeks each quarter (though the CRB has been considering extending the obligation to include census reporting)

In this deal, there are some exceptions to the recordkeeping requirements that have been adopted to accommodate broadcasters, which also have ramifications for the per performance fees. Broadcasters can avoid total census reporting for a limited percentage of their programming, having to report only the aggregate tuning hours ("ATH") streamed during this programming, and provide a playlist of the songs that were aired during those hours. For these limited hours, there would be no need to report on the number of listeners to each song. This exception has presumably been raised to address the issues that some broadcasters have arisen with syndicated programs that do not run through their music scheduling software, and cannot be linked up with some of the audience measurement tools that are available to broadcasters to provide the number of listeners who had heard each song. However, the amount of programming where complete census reports do not need to be provided will diminish over time, so that, by the end of the period that is covered by this settlement, it will be the expectation that complete census reporting can be provided. The amount of programming exempt from census reporting is as follows:

2009 .......................................... 20%

2010 .......................................... 18%

2011 .......................................... 16%

2012 .......................................... 14%

2013 .......................................... 12%

2014 .......................................... 10%

2015…………………………… 8%

As broadcasters may submit reports either together, for all of the stations that they own, or on a per station basis, this alternative can be very important for stations with multiple stations.  If, for instance, a broadcaster owns 10 stations, and one of those stations is programmed primarily by a syndicated programming service where per performance calculations are difficult or impossible, while the other 9 stations are programmed by the broadcaster through its own music scheduling software, the calculations above can be made on a group-wide basis if all stations are reported together.  Thus, the usage may be reported on an ATH basis for the hours programmed on the one station that receives the syndicated programming, and on a per performance basis for all of the other stations in the group, and the broadcaster would remain under the limits set forth above.  This one calculation is done based on hours programmed, not based on listnership, so the fact that the station programming syndicated music is in Anchorage and has a small on-line audience, while the other 9 stations are in major markets with large on-line audiences, does not matter for the purposes of calculating the broadcaster's compliance with these percentages on a group-wide basis.

For broadcasters who choose this option, they also pay their royalties based on ATH figures, instead of on a per performance basis. Instead of counting how many songs were played in these hours, they can assume that 12 songs were played each hour, and royalty based on the assumption that there were 12 songs played in each of the tuning hours in those programs for which no census reports are provided. A “tuning hour” is the equivalent of one listener listening for one hour (or two listeners for a half hour each, or 4 for 15 minute, etc.).  In other words, for the hours in which a station chooses an exemption, they would compute the number of aggregate tuning hours streamed, multiply that by the 12 songs that were assumed to have been played in those hours, and multiply that times the per song rate for the year in which the streaming was done, as set out above.  The number of Aggregate Tuning Hours streamed by a broadcaster should be available from the broadcaster's content delivery network who provides the bandwidth for the streaming.

Small Broadcaster Exception:  For broadcasters with stations that stream less than 27,777 ATH per year (essentially the hours that would result in it paying only the $500 minimum fee), an election can be made to exempt it from the recordkeeping requirements set out above.  The broadcaster need only pay the $500 minimum fee and submit the playlist for the songs that it played, without tracking the number of listeners it had to each song.  In addition, for the payment of an additional $100 fee, the broadcaster can be totally exempt from all reporting requirements.  This may be an attractive option for many small broadcasters.

The status of "small broadcaster" is determined by the number of hours streamed in the previous year.  Thus, a broadcaster can continue to be a small broadcaster for the year that it exceeds the ATH threshold.  It can even elect to be a Small Broadcaster in the year after it exceed the cap, if it agrees to take steps to limit its bandwidth, or the number of people who can connect to its stream, so as to bring itself back under the 27,777 ATH limit in the subsequent year.

To elect this Small Broadcaster status, broadcasters must file this form by April 2 if they are already streaming. 

Performance Complement Exceptions:  NAB has also announced that they have entered into agreements with the individual record companies to waive certain aspects of the performance complement.  We summarized the performance complement here.  This restricts the number of songs by the same artist or from the same CD that can be played in close proximity to each other.  Violations of the performance complement would mean that the broadcaster would not be covered by the statutory royalty (the royalty summarized above that allows the webcaster to stream all of the songs that are legally recorded and released in the US, simply by paying the royalties, without needing to negotiate with individual copyright holders).  The details of the waiver do not yet appear to be public.   We will write about that when they are available.

Summary:  So what does this all mean?  Does it make steaming economical for the broadcaster?  Opinions differ.  The Audio4Cast blog suggests that this deal does represent a reduction in rates and certainty for the future, as broadcasters would otherwise have to pay the higher CRB rates or hope that the appeal of the webcasting case or the next CRB proceeding would bring lower rates, which would cost lots of money to litigate and has an uncertain result.  On the other hand, the Radio and Internet Newsletter provides other dissenting voices, arguing that the rates remain too high to make streaming a profit center for most broadcasters.  The Inside Music Media blog, which tends to be critical of the radio industry, criticized this deal as not providing any real relief to webcasters.  Each broadcaster will have to look at the economics of the deal for him or herself, and then decide what to do.  Seemingly, the options are to take this deal, or to stop streaming, as the CRB decision does not provide a better alternative, and there is currently no other deal out there that would help the broadcaster.

Broadcasters obviously already pay for music that they play – to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. And the rates that are being paid to these organizations may well be going up in the coming year, as both the ASCAP and BMI deals with the radio industry are to be re-negotiated this year. Of course, this money goes to the composers of the music, not to the performers (and the copyright holders in the performances – the record companies) who would be receiving the proposed new performance royalty on sound recordings. The proposed legislation states that the imposition of the performance royalty on sound recordings is not to have any effect on the amount that broadcasters pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Thus, the money would by necessity have to come from other station operations. Some broadcasters have suggested that one way of paying a sound recording royalty would be to simply pay what they are paying now to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC into a pot, and let the artists, composers and labels fight for it. This, of course, is opposed by the composers who rightly see the royalty as one of the principal ways in which they are compensated, as they do not share in the profits from the sale of CDs and downloads, but instead get a flat fee for a “mechanical royalty” established under Section 115 of the Copyright Act, and the composers do not typically get money from concert tickets or merchandise receipts that performers may enjoy.

This is not, as suggested by royalty proponents, a simple matter of broadcasters getting more money to pay for any royalty. It is a zero sum game, and if the money can’t come from the composer’s royalty, it has to come from station operations. Given the high fees sought (and received) by the recording industry for the performance royalty in sound recordings from digital services (where the least that has been paid is 6-8% of gross revenues by satellite radio, and that was only after the computed "willing buyer willing seller" royalty was found to be twice that amount but adjusted down to preserve the stability of the industry, and after having been initially adjusted based on the finding that half of the gross revenues of satellite radio were the result of talk programming not subject to the royalty), broadcasters could be asked to pay a huge bill (see our post here on computing that bill). And, with the FCC poised to potentially impose new localism requirements on broadcasters that would entail even more operational costs, something has got to give. Broadcasters hope that it is not their economic viability that is the thing that does the giving.