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

Rights to the sound recording of most popular recorded music will typically come from the record label. And, for these sorts of on-demand uses, the rights to most recorded music will not be cheap and easy to obtain. It will come easily only for specific songs that the labels want to promote – sometimes referred to as “podcast safe” music.  This music is usually a song from a new artist, or an alternate take of a new song by an established artist, meant to be used to promote a new release.  Getting rights to the full catalog of music typically played by a music intensive radio station will require a negotiation with each record label and the payment of significant money - the kind of negotiation that has delayed the introduction of services like Spotify in the US for so long.

Rights to reproduction and distribution of the musical composition typically come from the music publishing company (or sometimes music publishing companies where there is more than one writer of a song).  These licenses—known as “mechanical licenses”— can be obtained through a statutory license, setting out payments to the copyright holders of any musical work that has been publicly released, but only if some strict procedures set out by law are followed.   These rights can also be obtained directly from the publishers or songwriters or, in many instances, through the Harry Fox Agency, which licenses compositions on behalf of many copyright holders. There are also a number of private companies that will help in getting the necessary licenses to use the musical composition.   Depending on the use that you have in mind, the record companies may themselves have already cleared the right to the musical composition, and that right will come with the right to the sound recording when you negotiate for that right.  But needless to say, it is not an easy process that will allow routine podcasts or downloads of music programming. 

Even the podcast of the performance of a local artist, with his permission, may require a mechanical license from the songwriter or music publisher if the artist has been singing “cover” songs.  So be careful when recording local artists - you may think that you are getting their music royalty free, and you may be avoiding the sound recording royalty and a negotiation with a record label, but you may still have the musical composition to deal with if the local performer has not written their own songs.

There are lots of other caveats and exceptions that may apply in certain circumstances.  But these don't allow the routine podcast of music programs or the other types of uses described above.   So be careful - or you may have the music industry knocking at your door demanding an unexpected payment.  For more information about these topics, check out our Advisory on the Basics of Music Licensing in Digital Media. 

The problem with the ASCAP and BMI royalties stem from the agreements with these organizations which broadcasters reached about 5 years ago.  These deals provide for set yearly fees to be paid to ASCAP and BMI by the radio industry as a whole (over $230,000,000 to each organization this year).  The fees are divided among all broadcast stations based on formulas set out in the agreements.  The agreed upon fee grew in each year of the agreement (from about 150 million dollars in 2001 to the current levels).  These agreements were entered into in an economic climate where it was thought that radio revenues would continue to grow, and broadcasters did not want to cut the PROs in for a "piece of the action", i.e. a percentage of the revenue that they make (which was the formula before the current deals).  But, as radio revenue has not continued to climb, but has in fact fallen in recent years, the fixed industry fee has caused the ASCAP and BMI fees to constitute far higher percentages of radio revenue than ever before.  At the same time, ASCAP and BMI and the composers that they represent have become accustomed to receiving an established, growing pot of money each year.  With two sets of differing expectations, conflict could arise. 

In addition to amount of the royalty, there are also questions of what the royalty will cover.  In the old days, it was simple - the royalty would cover the over-the-air signal of the station.  Now, broadcasters are interested in covering streaming, music-on-hold, music sent to mobile devices, and other uses.  These issues can become difficult, too, as it is not always clear where ASCAP and BMI's rights end and where a broadcaster must deal directly with music publishers.  For instance, there is a question of whether a podcast is a public performance of a song or the making of a reproduction of that song - a different copyright licensed by the publishers, not the PROs (a topic we'll discuss in another post).  This may present another difficulty in the royalty negotiations.

With all these issues, there are questions of whether a voluntary deal can be reached between the RMLC and ASCAP and BMI.  What happens if there is no agreement?  These two organizations are subject to antitrust consent decrees entered into with the Department of Justice over 50 years ago.  As such, the rates are set by a "rate court", a US District Court judge who hears evidence from the broadcasters and from ASCAP or BMI in a trial-type hearing (each organization traditionally being considered in a separate proceeding).  These can be long and expensive hearings.  Like any litigation, the ultimate decision cannot be easily forecast.  Thus, the current negotiations are important, so broadcasters should carefully watch as this case progresses to see what impact these royalties may have on their operations in the future. 

Congressman Howard Berman chairs the subcommittee, and he opened the hearing with a summary of the issues - indicating that he expected that the committee would move legislation this year to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters.  Congressman Berman pointed to the lack of equality between performers and composers in getting royalties (when both contribute to the popularity of a song), the fact that most other Western nations collect royalties on the public performance of both the composition and the sound recording, and platform equality (the fact that satellite radio, digital cable radio and Internet radio all pay royalties while broadcasters do not), as justification for the imposition of a new royalty on broadcasters.  Congressman Berman indicated that the royalty that he was seeking to impose would cover only broadcasters - and not be extended to commercial establishments like bars, restaurants and retail stores, which also currently pay a performance royalty to the composers of music.  He also said that he wanted to insure that any royalty would not hurt the ability of radio stations (especially smaller stations) to cover the news, and he would consider the possibility of special provisions to protect smaller stations.  He also made clear that he did  not want any sound recording royalty to decrease the amount currently paid to composers.

These themes were presented throughout the hearing - echoed by most of the witnesses and most of the committee members.  Testifying for the royalty were performers Judy Collins and Sam Moore, and New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes - who also enjoyed a pre-Congressional career as a recording artist.  Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, also testified in favor of a performance royalty to be imposed on broadcasters, echoing the themes of Congressman Berman, and restating a position that has long been taken by the Copyright Office.  The Broadcasters were represented by a sole witness - Charles Warfield, President of ICBC Broadcast Holdings, a broadcaster with stations in New York and several other radio markets.

The artists made the argument that the current system was unfair, as they made significant money for composers whose songs they made hits on the radio - but they received nothing from the radio play of these songs.  Of course, neither mentioned what they received from the increased sales of their recordings that resulted from the increased airplay of their music.  Both also argued that the need for the revenue from these royalties was acute, as artists are forced to keep touring for their entire lives to make money, and the royalties would provide a safety net for them.  While Mr. Warfield suggested that the record companies, who stand to profit the most from the royalty and who already profit the most from the sale of recorded music, should better compensate artists so that they did not find themselves in these dire financial positions, his arguments seemed to fall largely on deaf ears.

On the issue of international royalties, the artists contended that foreign broadcasters, who do pay royalties on the public performance of recorded music, do not pay American artists for the performance of their music on these foreign stations as there is no reciprocal right in the US to pay foreign artist for US airplay.  The artists envision a pool of money waiting in the hands of foreign performing rights organizations that should start flowing to US artists.  No distinction was made between the US and foreign markets, nor was there discussion of how the royalty in foreign markets serves as a subsidy for local talent to develop in these smaller music markets in various international jurisdictions - to avoid having American music become the standard worldwide. 

The disparity between digital media and broadcasters was also explored in depth.  Many of the witnesses and the committee members made the point that it was unfair that the digital competition to broadcasters paid royalties, but broadcasters themselves did not.  Some even suggested that, given this competition, the broadcasters no longer provided the amount of promotional benefit they once did (Ms. Peters going so far as to suggest that they provided no promotional benefit that would outweigh the need for a royalty).  In response, Mr. Warfield pointed to the continuing vast reach of radio - reaching over 230,000,000 US residents each week, and the fact that record companies still constantly hound broadcasters seeking the airplay of recorded music - belying the claims that radio performance hurts record sales.  By the end of the hearing, even Mr. Berman acknowledged that radio does provide promotional exposure to artists, but he still questioned whether that alone justified the exemption from sound recording royalties.  The unique obligations of broadcasters to provide public interest programming was also cited as a reason for the different treatment of broadcast and digital services.

In fact, the concern that the imposition of a royalty could harm the local news and information services provided by local radio stations was the one ray of hope for the broadcaster in the hearing.  Virtually all of the committee members were concerned about the possibility that small stations would be hurt by royalty increases.  Especially at small stations, there was a recognition that there is a limited pool of money that is available and, if an additional expense is added, then broadcasters have to find the money some place, and cutting service to the community is not a desired result.  Several committee members suggested that broadcasters could just raise their advertising rates to handle the increased fees.  That, to this observer, seemed a bit naive - if broadcasters could simply raise their rates to bring in more revenue - wouldn't they have already done that?  Most broadcasters are businesses out to maximize their profits and - if they could get greater profits from increased advertising rates - they would have already raised those rates.  The reality is that broadcasters compete for advertising dollars in an ever-expanding media pool.  By raising rates, other forms of advertising - print, direct mail, billboards, TV, digital media and others - become more attractive to the advertiser.  If a broadcaster has a new significant fee to pay, with fixed revenue, the money to pay the new cost has to come from cutting funds used for other purposes.

From recent experience of smaller broadcasters complaining about the relatively modest increases in the past few years in royalties paid to BMI and ASCAP, one can only wonder how these broadcasters could deal with an entirely new royalty.  While Ms. Peters suggested that the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard of Section 114 of the Copyright Act would allow for the distinction between rates paid by large and small broadcasters, small webcasters can testify that this standard doesn't always produce the desired result, as the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision on Internet radio  royalties shows (where the Board found that public interest concerns - like the preservation of diverse sources of media outlets, did not factor into the economic analysis of a willing buyer, willing seller standard). 

The Internet radio experience, where SoundExchange requested royalties of 30% of revenues - 6 times more than the royalties paid for the rights to play the composition, should frighten all broadcasters.  And, while the current proposal is for royalties only on broadcasters, Ms. Peters made clear that she saw no theoretical reason why that royalty should not also extend to other performances of music - like in retail stores.  With hundreds of millions of dollars or more at stake in yearly broadcast royalties, and potentially more from retail outlets, this is sure to be a major battle in coming months.  The proponents of the new royalty have made a facially attractive case for imposing this new obligation on broadcasters.  Broadcasters must pay attention to this issue now , and explain to their Congressional representatives the impact that such a royalty would have, as this is currently the single most direct threat to their bottom line and, if the tenor of the conversation at the hearing is any indication, the threat is real.