Posted on January 19, 2010 by David Oxenford

You Know Those Interim ASCAP and BMI Royalties? - They May Be More Interim Than You Think

At the end of 2009, we wrote about the interim royalties agreed to by both ASCAP and BMI, agreeing to reduce the amount of royalties paid by commercial radio stations by 7% until final royalties were agreed to by these Performing Rights Organizations and broadcast groups (principally the Radio Music Licensing Committee), either through negotiations or by litigation.  While many had assumed that these reduced rates would stay in place until the final royalties were set, we have now learned that, in fact, these are but "provisional rates" to be in place only until interim royalties are set by the Courts which supervise the royalty-setting process. Recently, the PROs and the RMLC filed motions with the courts that oversee the ASCAP and BMI antitrust decrees under which these organizations have operated for half a century, stating that they have not been able to agree to either final or interim royalties, and thus need the Court to set interim royalties until a final royalty is determined.

The interim royalty process does allow the presentation of evidence and argument by the parties to the Court as to what the appropriate royalty should be until the final royalty-setting process runs its course.  There is a legal presumption that, in the absence of some compelling evidence otherwise, the rates that were previously in place would continue while final royalties are litigated.  Whether the Courts will look back to the royalties paid by radio owners in 2009, or whether the provisional royalties that were set in these end-of-the-year agreements will have any effect on the interim royalties remains to be seen.  But don't count on the interim 7% reductions being in place for long, as the Court should set the interim royalties relatively quickly, probably later this year.  And once these interim royalties are set, the more difficult issue will face the PROs and RMLC - reaching a deal or litigating over the final royalties that will be paid by radio broadcasters for the public performance of musical compositions.  Given the inability of the parties to reach any agreement on interim royalties after a year of discussions, it may well be quite some time before final royalties are set - at which time there will be a "true up" back to January 1 of this year.  So broadcasters need to watch these developments carefully, and to not count any discounts as final until the final royalties are established. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 28, 2009 by David Oxenford

ASCAP and BMI Enter Into Agreement With RMLC for Interim Reductions In Radio Royalties Until Final Fees are Set

The Radio Music Licensing Committee ("RMLC") has announced that it has entered into agreements with both ASCAP and BMI for interim royalties to be paid by commercial radio stations until final royalties are set.  These royalties will be set either through negotiation or through litigation in Federal Courts which act as a "rate court" to determine what reasonable rates will be under the antitrust decrees that govern these organizations.  As we wrote here and here, the RMLC has been involved in negotiations seeking a significant reduction in the royalties paid by radio stations for the right to make a public performance of musical compositions (or "musical works").  Both organizations have agreed to a 7% reduction in the amount currently paid by radio broadcasters, to be reflected on the invoices sent by these organizations for 2010 royalties.  According to the press release on the ASCAP agreement, the discounts are interim agreements only, and will be subject to retroactive adjustment to January 1, 2010 once final royalties are set.

This money goes to composers of music, as contrasted to the controversial SoundExchange royalties that pay the performers of music (currently only in the digital world, but proposed in legislation pending before Congress to be extended to over-the-air broadcasting).   ASCAP and BMI are essentially collection agencies (called Performing Rights Organizations or PROs) for large groups of songwriters.  By signing up and paying royalties to these organizations and to SESAC, a smaller but still significant PRO, broadcasters obtain a "blanket license" to play all the songs covered by songwriters who are members of these organizations - which are essentially all of the songwriters whose songs are likely to be played by radio.  The existence of these organizations save radio stations from having to negotiate independently with the thousands of songwriters and publishing companies that own the copyrights to these compositions - an arduous task that might be almost impossible without the existence of the PROs. 

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.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on November 18, 2009 by David Oxenford

Letters From ASCAP, BMI and RMLC - What's a Broadcaster to Do?

Radio broadcasters all over the country have been receiving letters about music royalties – from ASCAP, BMI and the Radio Music Licensing Committee (RMLC).  The ASCAP and BMI letters are asking for the broadcaster to sign a letter committing themselves to some royalty obligation for 2010.  They pose three options to the broadcaster – sign up to pay royalties for 2010, join the RMLC negotiating group, or notify ASCAP and BMI that they will be negotiating their own royalties.  The RMLC letter suggests that the broadcaster join in their negotiating group to help to establish a new royalty structure with these entities.  What does it all mean, and what should a broadcaster do? 

These letters are all triggered because the rates for royalties that commercial radio broadcasters pay to ASCAP and BMI for the musical compositions that they play on the air expire at the end of 2009. (Noncommercial broadcasters have a special rate set under the review of the Copyright Royalty Board, and thus are not subject to these deals)  RMLC represents most radio broadcasters in their dealings with the performing rights organizations (or "PROs" as ASCAP and BMI, and SESAC, are called). We wrote about the many issues that have held up an extension of the current agreements between radio broadcasters and ASCAP and BMI here. If there is no new deal covering these royalties in place by the end of the year, broadcasters who continue to play these compositions (which will be virtually all commercial radio operators) will need to determine how to pay royalties when the current royalty agreements expire.  The current agreements do not have any automatic extensions in them, as the antitrust consent decrees that bind these companies call for royalty deals of no more than 5 years in duration. Thus, as the old agreements are about to expire, and no new agreements are in place, the flurry of letters has followed to put broadcasters on notice of the current situation.  Of course, none of these letters is entirely clear in spelling out all the issues involved.  So we'll try to explain some of those issues below. 

So what do broadcasters need to know in making a decision about which of the options offered in the ASCAP and BMI letters should be selected? First, under the antitrust consent decrees which govern the operation of ASCAP and BMI, once an entity that wants to use music notifies the PRO that it is ready to negotiate a deal, it can use the music without infringement, though the royalties ultimately adopted will apply retroactively. The process for setting a royalty starts with a negotiation period. If no deal can be reached, the parties go to rate court – usually a long, expensive hearing before a US District Court judge, which will set rates retroactively to the first use of the music.   After receiving the letters from ASCAP and BMI, some broadcasters have thought that they might negotiate their own deals.  Theoretically, that is possible.  However, most radio operators won’t be able to negotiate a separate royalty, as ASCAP and BMI are forbidden from negotiating a royalty that treats similar music users in a different manner. So these PROs cannot grant to one radio station a deal that is different than the royalty they charge to another, unless there are substantial differences in the way the stations use music that would justify a different type of royalty. Thus, if a deal is reached with RMLC, or if it arrived at through litigation, that deal will probably end up being applied industry-wide to all stations which fit within the classes of stations covered by the RMLC deal.

In the BMI letter, they offer a 4% discount off of current rates for stations who do not sign up to be included in the RMLC negotiating group.  That may be attractive to some radio operators.  Note, however, that the discount will be subject to retroactive adjustment (either as a credit or as additional liability) should the RMLC end up with different rates.  So it may be that this deal would afford only a temporary discount, but for that period it may be of some assistance to stations suffering cash flow issues.  Why was the proposed discount offered if it is only temporary and there will be a true up to whatever is arrived at by RMLC?  Perhaps the deal is intended to be used, if many stations select it, as evidence before the District Court as to what an interim rate should be if there is no voluntary agreement between the parties. The Court is charged under the consent decrees, if there is no voluntary agreement, with adopting an interim rate which stations will pay while the litigation over the permanent rate is proceeding.  While the Court can accept evidence as to what the interim rate should be, there is a presumption that the prior rate should continue to apply. So, while RMLC may argue that, because of the change in the health of the radio industry the current rate structure should be abandoned even for the interim period, the PROs might be able to use the agreement of many broadcasters to the interim deals they have offered as evidence of the continuing reasonableness of the current rates as an interim rate.

And then there is the option of signing up with RMLC to be considered part of their negotiating group.  Practically speaking, as we stated above, most commercial broadcasters will end up being bound by the outcome of the RMLC actions, unless they have some unique attributes of their business that would allow them to claim that they are not similarly situated to other radio stations and thus entitled to a different rate.  Some broadcasters have been concerned about signing on to the RMLC group, worrying that RMLC will assess them a fee.  Many broadcasters remember that there is an RMLC assessment as part of the current ASCAP and BMI agreements.  But that fee was agreed to by the Court and assessed on all stations that were subject to the settlement (essentially all commercial stations), so it was not a "voluntary" fee that came from designating RMLC as a station's agent for purposes of negotiation.  Practically speaking, the RMLC is every broadcaster's agent, as virtually every commercial station will be bound by the deal that they either negotiate or litigate.

These are complex issues that every station should review with their attorney. But broadcasters should consider all of the implications of their actions, not just on themselves, but also on the industry as a whole.  For virtually every radio station, the deal negotiated (or litigated) by RMLC will be binding on them.  So whether or not radio broadcasters sign up to formally be part of their group, broadcasters need to follow their actions closely, as their actions will dictate what stations are paying to the PROs for the next several years.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 3, 2009 by David Oxenford

Broadcast Performance Royalty - What Would It Cost? The Congressional Budget Office Says A "Substantial" Amount

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.

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.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on April 4, 2009 by David Oxenford

Congressman Boucher to NAB - Accept Performance Royalty - How Much Would It Cost?

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?

Last month, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the broadcast performance royalty.    The hearing demonstrated the seriousness with which the House Committee viewed the prospect of a royalty being imposed on over-the-air broadcasters, with several Congressmen issuing warnings similar to that conveyed by Congressman Boucher, warning broadcaster representatives to sit down and work out a royalty with the recording industry, or Congress would impose one on the broadcasters which they might not like.  At the same time, broadcaster representatives emphasized an issue that, while important before, has become more crucial now -the economy and the financial health of the broadcast industry.  With broadcasters suffering from the poor economy, a royalty could be crippling to many.  But on the question of how much the royalty would be, RIAA President Mitch Bainwol echoed the line from the RIAA spokesperson in the Bloomberg article, saying that it would be "reasonable."  When asked what that meant, he said the it would be a bit more than is currently paid by broadcasters to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (approximately 4-5% of revenues), saying that something in the area of 6-8% might be normal in these sorts of situations.

That range of numbers - the first numbers that I have heard from a representative of the recording industry - is somewhat surprising.  Two weeks ago, the recording industry was in the Court of Appeals arguing that a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting a royalty of 6-8% of revenues for satellite radio was too low.  In the Internet radio world, SoundExchange asked for more than 30% of gross revenues, and ended up with a per performance royalty that most webcasters have said works out to 75% or more of their revenues.  Yet the recording industry is saying that 6-8% would be reasonable?  It will be interesting to see if that number is repeated in other forums as evidence of their reasonableness, or if this was a one-time statement of this individual, not adopted by the industry as the benchmark for what they seek.

The back and forth at the hearing may provide some indication as to the next steps in the process of trying to impose these royalties.  There was significant discussion of an independent study to assess the impact any royalties would have on radio operators and musicians.  While no party publicly objected to a study, there has seemingly been no follow up to authorize that study since the hearing.  And, as the recording industry said that the study should not slow the adoption of the royalty, one questions why a study would be authorized if Congress was planning to go ahead and authorize a royalty before the results of the study were available.  Why let the facts get in the way of legislation? 

While Congress heading for their Spring recess, look for more action on the royalty in May after they have returned.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,