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

Last week, the Copyright Office published in the Federal Register the final decision of the Copyright Royalty Board on the statutory rates for Internet radio royalties - royalties paid by webcasters for the noninteractive streaming of sound recordings.  As we have made clear before, these are royalties that are paid in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of the musical compositions (see our memo on Using Music in Digital Media, here, that explains the difference between the sound recording and musical composition royalties).  The rates adopted by the CRB are the rates to be paid by any webcaster who has not elected alternative rates available under one of the many settlement agreements between SoundExchange and groups of webcasters, which were entered into under the Webcaster Settlement Acts.  The Final Decision corrects a few typos in the initial decision, but otherwise leaves the substantive holdings of the decision unchanged.  We described those holdings here.  While the publication of the final decision starts the clock running on filing an appeal, the new rates are unchanged from those that were in effect for 2010 for commercial webcasters who had not elected any available alternative set of rates.  Thus, these webcasters will continue to pay at the rate of $.0019 per "performance" (a performance being one listener listening to one song - e.g. if there are 100 people listening to a stream that plays 10 songs in an hour - there are 1000 performances in that hour) for the remainder of 2011.   The publication of these rates has, however, triggered a number of questions about the comparative royalties that different Internet radio services pay for streaming music on the Internet - rates summarized below.

As set out below in detail, there are significant differences in the royalties paid by different services for the 2011-2015 royalty period.  Broadcasters who are streaming their programming on the Internet pay lower per performance royalties than webcasters paying the statutory rate in the first years of the 5 year period, but higher rates at the end of the period. (See a summary of the Broadcaster royalty agreement here).  "Pureplay" webcasters, like Pandora, pay significantly lower per performance royalties than either broadcasters or those paying under the statutory rate, but are required to pay a minimum fee of 25% of the gross revenue of their entire business - ruling out these lower rates as an option for any service that has lines of business other than webcasting.  (See a summary of the Pureplay deal here).  The broadcaster deal and that which applies to the Pureplay webcasters were both arrived at pursuant to settlements reached under the two Webcaster Settlement Acts, passed in 2008 and 2009.  These allowed the groups covered by these agreements to negotiate with SoundExchange over the rates that would cover the industry for the digital noninteractive performances of sound recordings.  The statutory rates were arrived at by a decision of the Copyright Royalty Judges after litigation which took place last year. 

The differing royalty rates for these three groups of webcasters can be summarized as set forth below.

Broadcasters Per Performance Royalties

• 2011 - $.0017 per performance 
• 2012 - $.0020 per performance
• 2013 - $.0022 per performance
• 2014 - $.0023 per performance
• 2015 - $.0025 per performance

Statutory Webcasting Per Performance Royalty Rates

• 2011 - $.0019 per performance
• 2012 - $.0021 per performance
• 2013 - $.0021 per performance
• 2014 - $.0023 per performance
• 2015 - $.0023 per performance

Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates

• 2011 - $.00102 per performance
• 2012 - $.00110 per performance
• 2013 - $.00120 per performance
• 2014 - $.00130 per performance
• 2015 - $.00140 per performance

As set forth above, there are different aspects to each of these rates that bring different benefits and costs.  Pureplay webcasters pay the higher of the per performance royalties set out above and 25% of their gross revenue for all business lines - hence the name "pureplay", as only businesses that do virtually nothing but webcasting can benefit from these rates.  Broadcasters actually get an additional benefit from their rates that is not available to other webcasters - where they are simulcasting their on-air signals, they need not abide by the Performance Complement - which limits the number of songs from the same artist that other webcasters can play within specified periods (see the details on this waiver here).

What do these rates mean?  On a cost per thousand basis, services playing 10 songs an hour to 1000 listeners would be paying $10.20 per hour under the Pureplay deal, $17.00 an hour under the Broadcaster deal, and $19.00 an hour under the rates set out in the CRB decision.  By 2015, those rates would be $14.00 under the Pureplay deal, $25.00 per hour under the Broadcaster deal, and $23.00 per hour under the CRB decision.  Obviously, to pay for such royalties, broadcaster and statutory webcasters will either need to sell more commercials, or sell at a higher CPM than would a Pureplay webcaster. 

There are other rates available under these and other deals to smaller entities who cannot afford the per performance royalties set out above (though there is always some question about whether the services that pay these per performance royalties can really afford them). For small commercial webcasters with less than $1.25 million in annual revenue, they can pick a percentage of revenue royalty of 10-12% of gross revenues for services with less than 5 million aggregate tuning hours per month, or 12-14% for those with more monthly hours.  Noncommercial services can pay at several different rates - including a royalty structure with limited reporting requirements and higher per performance fess if certain minimum listening levels are exceeded, or one with more reporting but lower royalties after the minimum levels are exceeded (see our comparison, here).  NPR stations have their own deal - where streaming is paid for all affiliated stations by CPB.

It is a confusing royalty world - with services paying differing amounts for essentially the same service.  These rates will be in place until the end of 2015.  After that, who knows what rates will apply - as there will either be new negotiations for new rates, or another CRB proceeding to set rates for the industry. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The big news in the music world this week is that Apple finally is able to sell digital downloads of the Beatles catalog in its iTunes music store.  For years, the copyright holders who control the Beatles master recordings have withheld permission to use the Beatles recordings on iTunes and other digital download and on-demand streaming services, seemingly afraid of diluting the value of their copyrights.  There are other bands who have had a similar reluctance to make their recordings available on-line.  While this impasse has now been broken by the biggest name among these digital holdouts, at least as to iTunes, some have asked why it is that the Beatles were never missing from Internet radio, while they were absent from these other services.  The answer is the statutory license under which Internet Radio operates.

While there have been many disputes over the royalties that have been imposed under the statutory license created by Congress which allow non-interactive digital music companies to use sound recordings to provide music to their customers, there is no question that the license has fulfilled one of its primary functions - making sure that there is access by Internet radio operators to the entire catalog of sound recordings available in the United States.  One of the principal reasons that the statutory license was created was the inherent difficulty, if not the impossibility, for a radio-like digital service operating under the sound recoding performance royalty first adopted in 1995 to secure permission from all of the copyright holders of all of the music that such services might want to use.  Thus, Congress adopted the statutory license which requires the copyright holder to make available its sound recordings to non-interactive services, in exchange for the service agreeing to pay a statutory royalty - the royalty now set by the Copyright Royalty Board.  But only non-interactive services, where listeners cannot select the songs that they hear, are covered by that statutory royalty (see our summary here of one of the cases dealing with the question of what is and what is not a non-interactive service).

Interactive services, where the listeners have the ability to set up playlists or otherwise direct which songs will be heard, or a download service, where the pick specific songs to add to their music library, are not covered by the statutory royalty.  That means that the operator of a service that wants to provide listeners the ability to direct the songs that can be played, must first secure the permission of the copyright holders (usually, for major label releases, the record companies).  And the copyright holders are free to refuse to provide permission for the use of some of their catalog for some or all interactive purposes - such limitations sometimes set out in the record company's agreements with some of their artists.  Not only can the record company withhold permission for the use of certain sound recordings, but the company can also charge different amounts for different songs - effectively letting a "must have" band like the Beatles withhold their music until their terms are met.

These are only some of the issues that come up in setting up a digital music service.  The line between an interactive service and a non-interactive service is not a clear one, as shown by the arguments in the case we summarized last year.  In addition, non-interactive services must meet the performance complement (or get a waiver, as broadcasters have done for simulcast streaming) or, to some extent, they don't qualify for the statutory royalty.  And we're dealing here only with the sound recording copyrights - and there are a whole different set of rules for the copyright in the musical composition.  Obviously - it's not easy to operate a digital music service - much less a profitable one.  For more information about some of these issues, see our guide to the Basics of Music Licensing in Digital Media, here.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The NAB Radio Board today voted to adopt a Terms Sheet to offer to the musicFirst Coalition which, if agreed to by musicFirst and adopted by Congress, will settle the contentious issue of whether to impose a sound recording performance royalty (the "performance tax") on over-the-air broadcasters.  If adopted, that will mean that broadcasters in the United States, for the first time, will pay a royalty to artists and record labels, in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC that go to the composers of the music.  What does the Term Sheet provide, and what will this mean for broadcasters, webcasters and others who pay music royalties?

The Term Sheet sets out a number of points, including the following:

• A 1% of gross revenue sound recording royalty to be paid to SoundExchange
• A phase-in period for the 1% royalty, that will be tied to the number of mobile phones that contain an FM chip.  A royalty of one-quarter of one percent would take effect immediately upon the effective date of the legislation adopting it.  The royalty would rise in proportion to the number of mobile phones with enabled FM chips.  Once the percentage of phones with FM chips reached 75%, the full royalty would take effect.
• The 1% royalty could only be changed by Congressional action.
• The royalty would be lower for noncommercial stations and stations with less than $1.25 million in revenue - from a flat $5000 for stations making between $500,000 and $1.25 million in revenue down to $100 for those making less than $50,000 per year.
• Broadcasters would also get a reduction in their streaming rates - but only when FM chips in mobile phones exceed 50% penetration.  The reduction would be tied to the rates paid by "pureplay webcasters" (see our summary of the Pureplay webcasters deal here), but would be set at a level significantly higher than pureplay webcasters, rising from $.001775 in 2011 (if FM chips were quickly deployed) to $.0021575.
• Future streaming royalties would not be set by the Copyright Royalty Board but by a legislatively ordered rate court - presumably a US District Court similar to that which hears royalty disputes for ASCAP and BMI.
• An acknowledgment by AFTRA that broadcasters can stream their signal on the Internet in their entirety - apparently agreeing to relieve broadcasters from any liability for the additional amounts due to union artists when commercials featuring union talent are streamed
• An agreement that broadcasters can directly license music from artists and reduce their  liability for the new royalty by the percentage of music that the broadcasters is able to directly license
• Agreements to "fix" issues in Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act in making the provisions of these laws regarding ephemeral copies and the performance complement consistent with the waivers that major record labels gave to broadcasters when the NAB reached its settlement with SoundExchange on streaming royalties last year.  See our post here on the provisions of those waivers.
• musicFirst would need to acknowledge the promotional effect of radio in promoting new music, and would need to work with radio in attempting to secure legislation mandating the FM chip in mobile phones.

[Clarification - 10/26/2010 - Upon a close reading of the Terms Sheet, it looks like the phase in of the 1% royalty and the delay in the streaming discount only kick in if Congress does not mandate active FM chips in cell phones.  If the mandate is enacted, then the full 1% royalty and streaming discount is effective immediately. Given the opposition of much of the wireless industry to a mandated FM chip, this may represent a recognition that the legislation requiring the active FM chip will not be enacted in the near future]

What does this all mean?

First, this is but an offer to musicFirst, which has to be accepted.  Today, musicFirst issued a cautious statement, saying that they were still studying the proposal, but expressing disappointment that the NAB did not accept the proposal that "both parties agreed upon in July."  That in itself is an interesting statement, as the NAB has been very clear to state that it has never agreed to anything in July - but that it instead needed to vet the musicFirst proposal with its members before agreeing to anything.  Presumably, musicFirst itself had to seek approval for any deal.  As any deal would need the blessing of Congress to become effective and binding on broadcasters and copyright holders, each party would need broad approval for any deal from all affected parties.  So how could the NAB member involved in the discussions and those representing musicFirst have "agreed" to any proposal back in July, when no such broad approval had been received for a deal that was not yet public?

And what has really changed in this Term Sheet from what was discussed in July?  Seemingly, very little.  While this Terms Sheet proposes a phase in of the 1% royalty depending on how many phones are FM enabled, the July proposal made the whole deal contingent on mandated FM chips in cellphones.  In effect, this proposal is more favorable to copyright holders than was the proposal on the table in July, as at least some royalty would be paid even without that mandate.  So how could the labels complain about that provision?

The only other substantive change appears to be the provision that allows direct licensing of music to reduce the liability of broadcasters.  But this too seems to be noncontroversial.  How can musicFirst, which claims to be standing up for the rights of copyright holders and musicians to be compensated for the use of their work, turn around and say that those copyright holders that want to exercize their rights by waiving the royalty be denied that right?

Other changes from the proposals set out in July seem cosmetic and insubstantial. 

So what comes next?  Obviously, musicFirst must formally respond.  Then the details of a deal must be worked out.  While the Terms Sheet may, at first glance, seem detailed and thorough, in fact it is but an outline of a deal.  Any deal will need to be written into statutory language and offered to Congress.  And this will not be easy, as each term will need to be defined, and the language will need to be carefully reviewed to make sure that there are no unintended consequences.  Many questions will need to be fleshed out.  How are the percentages of FM-enabled cell phone penetration measued?  What standard would a rate court use to determine the streaming royalty if that royalty is not set by the CRB?  How is gross revenue defined?  How are stations that are part talk and part music treated?  Issues that will need resolution.

Then, any agreement must be presented to Congress.  Adoption of the deal as proposed may not be all that simple, as there may well be attempts by other interested groups to latch on to any bill to attempt to remedy other problems with the royalty process.  Why should Internet radio pay royalties that are a minimum of 25% of gross revenues for large pureplay webcasters like Pandora, if radio is paying but 1%.  Why should smaller webcasters with revenues between $500,000 and $1.25 million be paying 12 or 14% of revenues, when a small radio station pays only $5000, less than a tenth of what the webcaster with the same revenues would pay?  Expect that others will attempt to use the process to raise issues such as these, so the Congressional process will not necessarily be quick and easy.

All in all, while this may seem like the beginning of the end of the performance royalty dispute, we will no doubt hear much more about these issues in the weeks to come.  We will write more about the issues in the days to come, especially as reactions to this proposal are made public by various parties either involved in the discussions, or from those that are affected by their outcome.  A no doubt very interesting debate is sure to play out in the coming days and weeks. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While all the details are not out yet, the trade press has been filled with announcements this evening reporting that SoundExchange and the National Association of Broadcasters have reached a deal on Internet Radio Royalties.  This deal will apparently settle the royalty dispute between broadcasters and SoundExchange for royalties covering 2006-2010 which arose from the 2007 Copyright Royalty Board decision, as well as the upcoming proceeding for the royalties for 2011-2015.  According to the press reports, the royalties are slightly reduced from those decided by the CRB for the remainder of the current period, and continue to rise for the period 2011-2015 until they reach $.0025 per performance in 2015.  According to the press release issued by the parties, there was also an agreement between the NAB and the four major labels that would waive the limits on the use of music by broadcasters that are imposed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

These limits, referred to as the performance complement, set out requirements on how many songs from the same artist or same CD can be played within given time periods which, if not observed, can disqualify a webcast from qualifying for the statutory license.  If a webcaster cannot rely on the statutory license, it would have to negotiate with each copyright holder for the rights to use the music that it plays.  The performance complement imposed requirements including:

• No preannouncing when a song will play
• No more than 3 songs in a row by the same artist
• Not more than 4 songs by same artist in a 3 hour period
• No more than 2 songs from same CD in a row
• Identify song, artist and CD title in writing on the website as the song is being played

It will be interesting to see the details of this agreement setting out what aspects of these rules are being waived.

This settlement was apparently entered into as part of the Webcaster Settlement Act, about which we wrote here.  We'll see if any other settlements under this act are filed in coming days. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We wrote yesterday about the introduction of a bill in the House and the Senate proposing to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air signals.  At that time, we did not have a copy of the bill itself, but were basing our post on press releases and a summary of the provisions of the bill that was available on Senator Leahy's website.  We have been able to obtain copies of the bill titled the  "Performance Rights Act" - or actually of the "bills," as the House and Senate versions are slightly different.  Reading those bills, many of the questions that we had yesterday are answered, and some new questions are raised as to how this bill, if enacted, would affect radio broadcasters.

One question about which we wrote yesterday was whether these bills would require that any royalty be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard or the 801(b) standard that takes into account more than a simple economic analysis in determining the royalty.  The 801(b) standard is used for services in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (essentially cable audio and satellite radio) and evaluates not only the economics of the proposed royalty, but also factors including the interest of the public in the dissemination of copyrighted material and the disruption of the industry that could be caused by a high royalty.  In connection with the recent CRB decision on the satellite radio royalties, the potential disruption of the industry caused the CRB to reduce the royalty from what the Board had determined to be the reasonable marketplace value of the sound recordings (13% of gross revenues) to a figure rising from 6 to 8 % of gross revenues over the 5 year term of the royalty.  In the Internet radio proceeding, using the willing buyer, willing seller model, no such adjustment was made.

In these bills, the proposal is to use the willing buyer, willing seller standard for broadcasting.  For a service that has been around far longer than any other audio service, it would seem that a standard that assesses the impact of a royalty on the industry on which it is being imposed would be mandatory.  Who wants to disrupt an entire, well-established industry that has served the public for over 80 years?.  But such a reasonable term is not part of the proposal here.

Another issue that we did not address yesterday are the specific requirements imposed on digital music services that restrict their ability to pre-announce when a song is going to play, that prohibit them from making any efforts to encourage the recording of sound recordings, and require that they identify in text the song being played.  These requirements also mandate that services observe the "performance complement", i.e.the restrictions on playing more than a specified number of songs from the same CD or by the same artist within a given period of time (e.g. no more than 3 songs from the same CD in a 3 hour period, nor more than 2 in a row; no more than 4 songs by the same artist in a 3 hour period).  For details of these requirements, see our memo, here.  The question of whether or not to impose these requirements on broadcasters is where the House and Senate bills diverge - the Senate not requiring these efforts for broadcasters; the House proposing that they be observed.  Obviously, requiring some of these limitations could significantly change the way some broadcast stations are programmed.

Clearly, these bills are but the opening salvo in a battle that is certain to intensify.  Already, there is a bill pending in the House of Representatives, the Local Radio Freedom Act, with over 130 co-sponsors, that rejects the idea of a performance royalty for broadcasters given the potential for disruption to their public service programming.  Just as the FCC is suggesting the re-imposition of more stringent and detailed public interest requirements (see our summary here), broadcasters cannot afford to be hit by a new cost of doing business that could in theory take a large percentage of their gross revenue.  As we've written before, in other proceedings, SoundExchange has requested royalties of 20 or 30 per cent of gross revenues.  Imagine what a royalty even half that would do to broadcasters.  Certainly, it is not the modest royalty that would not impact broadcaster's public service, as initially suggested by the supporters of this royalty.  With Congress about to recess for its Christmas vacation, we will all have time to ponder these issues before they are considered again next year. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link