Posted on March 28, 2008 by David Oxenford

SoundExchange to Audit Internet Radio Royalty Payments of Last.FM - What is the Value of Music?

Under the compulsory license for the use of sound recordings - the license which allows Internet radio services to use all legally recorded sound recordings by paying a royalty set by the Copyright Royalty Board - the designated collection agency can, once each year, audit a licensee to assess its compliance with the royalty requirements.  Under the law, when the collective decides to audit a company, it must notify the Copyright Royalty Board, who then gives public notice of the fact that an audit is to take place.  The Copyright Royalty Board has just announced that SoundExchange has decided to audit Last.FM.  Based on a number of public statements, SoundExchange has been citing Last.FM as an example of problems with royalties - contending that Last.FM had paid royalties of only a couple of thousand dollars a year, under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act, just before selling out to CBS for over $200 million.  Given SoundExchange's tough talk about Last.FM, this notice of an audit is not surprising.  SoundExchange's focus on this company illustrates the difficulty of valuing music use, and the different perceptions of music users and copyright holders as to what that value should be.

 In past years, SoundExchange has audited a number of webcasters - usually large webcasters.  As SoundExchange must bear the cost of the audit unless a significant underpayment is discovered, it is unlikely that more than a few companies will be audited each year.  However, as SoundExchange has made such a big deal of Last.FM, with witnesses on performance royalty issues mentioning it at Congressional hearings, and representatives mentioning it on various industry conferences (including SoundExchange President John Simson's reference to the company on a panel on which we jointly appeared at Canadian Music Week earlier this month), many expected that an audit would be forthcoming.

The complaint of the sound recording copyright holders (primarily the record companies), is that services like Last.FM use sound recordings as the building blocks of their business, and can amass large audiences based on the use of the sound recordings, yet the record companies don't get a share of the "windfall" that may result when these businesses are sold.  Of course, this argument assumes that the value of these services is primarily in their use of the music.  Under their theory, it would seem that all a service needs to do is start playing music, and audiences (and eventually riches) will result.  Instead, most digital media companies will argue that there is far more to creating a successful Internet service than simply starting to play music online.  If you just had to provide the music and watch the audiences roll in, Internet radio would be a huge business that anyone could enter - and the litany of failed or struggling Internet radio and digital music delivery companies should not exist.  To me, it seems that a service, to be successful, must offer something more than just music, whether it is the community aspects of a Last.Fm or iMeem, or the sophisticated music selection software provided by a service like Pandora.  These sorts of services take much investment and much time to develop audiences, and even longer to develop significant revenue.   And, while these companies may eventually be sold to a company that may better develop and monetize their audience, as happened with Last.FM, the record companies will receive significant royalty revenue if the new owners are successful in the development of the potential of the service.  If they are not successful, one wonder whether there really was any significant value received from the use of the music, and if there was no real value, should there be significant royalties?

The complexity of questions such as these, and the differing perception of the value of music (whether it has intrinsic value on a per performance basis, or whether it really only has value to the extent that it leads to the development of revenue) lead to the debates over the appropriate royalties that the services should pay - such as the debate over the Internet radio royalties that has been going on for the last year.  Given the inherently conflicting views of the value of the music, and the contribution of the other elements of a service, the arguments are difficult to resolve, as there may be no common ground on which agreement can be reached.  Nevertheless, as the industry matures, and there is more and more evidence as to how these services can monetize their use of music, perhaps more rational royalty models can arise - or so one would hope.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 19, 2007 by David Oxenford

Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty Introduced In Congress

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. 

The summary of the bill says that it would make other broadcasters not covered by these flat fees subject to Section 114 of the Copyright Act -meaning that their royalties would be set by the Copyright Royalty Board.  But the summary does not make clear what standard would be used.  Would it be the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard that is used for (and produced such controversially high rates for webcasters - see the various discussions of those issues, here), or the more lax 801(b) standard that just resulted in a 6-8% of revenue royalty for satellite radio and has resulted in a 7% royalty for cable audio services (see our post here)?  That may well be a crucial issue.

Already, opponents of the performance royalty have signaled their opposition, suggesting that the low, introductory rates for small and noncommercial broadcasters are just that - an opening rate that will allow the royalty to be imposed, but will quickly be raised.  They point to a similar experience in Canada, where there was a low starting rate for smaller broadcasters that grew over time at the request of the recipients of the fees.  In fact, when one compares the proposed royalties for small broadcasters with those paid by small webcasters, even those paying under some form of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act, an Internet radio station with $1.25 million in revenue would pay over $130,000 in royalties for sound recordings - which would seemingly raise questions either of fairness (why is the Internet radio company paying so much if a similar broadcaster only pays $5000), or suggests that SoundExchange will try to have the rates raised in the future.  And imagine what a $130,000 royalty would do to a small broadcaster's business.

SoundExchange and the Music First coalition have also issued their own press release supporting the bill.  With a bill finally introduced, the battle will really begin.  Watch for the fireworks in 2008.

[Update - December 19, 2007 - see our update, here, prepared after we reviewed a copy of the Bills introduced in Congress]
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on November 9, 2007 by David Oxenford

Another Proposed Settlement of Another Copyright Royalty Board Proceeding - New Subscription Services

The Copyright Royalty Board today announced that it is taking comments on a settlement to establish royalties for the use of sound recordings to be paid by companies that are planning to provide audio services to be delivered with satellite and cable programming.  In contrast to the "preexisting subscription services" who were in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, who recently reached a settlement agreeing to pay 7 to 7.5% of gross revenues for royalties (see our post, here), this settlement is with "New Subscription Services" which did not offer these kinds of subscription services in 1998.  This settlement does not apply to subscription services provided through the Internet.  The covered "new subscription services" have agreed to pay the greater of 15% of revenue or a per subscriber fee that will escalate over the 5 years that the agreement is in effect.  Given that these new services will be providing essentially the same service as the Preexisting Services, why the difference in rate?  Perhaps, it is because the difference in the law.

As we wrote earlier this week, the Preexisting Satellite Service pay royalties set based on the standards of Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act, which takes into account a number of factors including the interest of the public in getting access to copyrighted material, the relative contributions and financial risks of the parties in distributing the copyrighted material, the stability of the industry, and the right of the copyright holder to get a fair return on their intellectual property.  By contrast, the new subscription services who entered into the settlement just announced, who weren't around at the time of the drafting of the DMCA, use the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard also used for Internet radio.  And, because of the applicability of the willing buyer willing seller standard and the apparent uncertainties of the litigation process using it, these new services apparently decided to agree to a royalty double that of the preexisting services, even though they provide essentially the same service.

This settlement applies only to subscription services of a particular type.  This proceeding was begun when XM, Sirius and MTV all announced plans to offer audio services that are provided  as an add-on to a subscription to multichannel video providers (essentially cable and Direct Broadcast satellite television providers).  As these services cannot technologically track individual performances or listeners, they cannot pay according to the Internet radio decision.  Thus, a new proceeding was begun by the CRB to determine the rates to be paid by these services. 

Internet-based subscription services are not covered by this decision, but instead pay the royalties that apply to Internet radio services that were decided in March - if the subscription service is non-interactive (i.e. a listener cannot pick what songs he wants to hear) and otherwise meets the rules that apply under the statutory license (see our memo, here, for the details of those requirements).  Internet-based services that are interactive or otherwise don't meet the requirements of the statutory license must obtain clearances directly from the copyright owners, paying a privately negotiated rate. 

The fact that two settlements, one providing rates that are double the amount of the other when the only effective difference between the services was whether they were in existence at the time the governing statute was written fuels complaints about the arbitrary nature of the Copyright Royalty process.  While SoundExchange and other copyright holders have asked for "fairness" in seeking a performance royalty on broadcasters (who currently do not pay such a royalty), they benefit from the unfairness in circumstances such as this, when identical services pay royalties that are twice that paid by existing services.  And, to the extent that all services are deemed to be part of a single broad market for audio services, as some have argued, is there really justification for different treatment between subscription, nonsubscription, Internet and non-Internet based services?  When the rates that apply to satellite radio are decided in the next month, will we see these differences manifest themselves yet again?

These are not questions for the Copyright Royalty Board to decide - they only need to approve this agreement and are not charged with the broader responsibility of assessing the difference in policy between similar services.   Comments on this settlement are due on December 10.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,