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

Unlike the old deal, this deal also covers other New Media revenues that arise from other Internet music uses. Under the old deal, if you launched a “side channel” on your website (i.e. a web-only internet radio channel) or made other use of music on your website, you had to get licensed separately for this activity under an ASCAP web license. Only simulcast streaming was covered by the old broadcaster's deal with ASCAP.  Under this new deal, New Media revenues that are more than just simulcasting your over-the-air signal are also covered, and are also subject to the same 1.7% of revenue fee, but there is a 25% deduction from that fee (presumably due to the higher commissions customarily paid for online revenues, but subject to adjustment back to 12% if the total of the higher new media deductions would cost ASCAP more than $5,000,000 than if the deductions had been at the 12% level). 

Other good news includes that the broadcast industry has been paying too much from January 1, 2010, when this rate period began, until now, and the radio industry is owed a $75 million refund by ASCAP. As we wrote in 2010, radio has been paying under an interim fee arrangement since the old deal expired.  The interim fee represented a discount off of the old fees, but it was a discount that was not as steep as that which the new deal represents.  The overpayment will be paid back to radio broadcasters in $15 million yearly installments, allocated to the stations that paid those royalties by being applied to their obligations in 2012-2016 using a formula set out in the agreements.

The deal also provides for fees to be paid on a per program basis for station that use little music in their broadcasts (or on their websites). Formulas for calculating these fees are provided in the agreements.

Recordkeeping is also addressed in the agreement, providing for reporting only one week per year for music stations. More frequent reporting is required for stations paying on a per program basis. Records of what music was played on the station will be reported electronically on forms to be developed by ASCAP and approved by the RMLC.

Minimum annual fees for any station are $588.

Finally, the Judge’s order approving the agreement provide for payment to RMLC to support its enforcement of the agreement and its efforts going forward to work with broadcasters on licensing issues. Fees range from $12 per station for those with less than a $6500 annual obligation to $510 per year to stations that pay over $20,000 per year to ASCAP. 

Obviously, this summary just hits the highlights of the deal.  Radio stations should be receiving a copy of the agreement, and should review it carefully to determine how it applies to their operations.  And remember, this is but one part of the adjustment of the radio music licensing rates, as the RMLC still has to reach an agreement with BMI on the rates that they will charge.  This agreement may set a benchmark for RMLC’s proceeding with BMI to set rates covering the same period. Watch for developments in that case in the coming months. 

Senator Feinstein also identified another issue.  Under the manager's amendment (as in the House version of the bill), a provision of the law would prohibit any use of these royalties as evidence in any proceeding to set the royalties for ASCAP and BMI in a way that would reduce the royalty paid to those organizations to compensate songwriters for the public performance of the musical composition or musical work (the sound recording royalties addressed in this bill go to the performers and the copyright holders in the recordings - usually the record companies).  Presumably, the songwriters' organizations are concerned that high performance royalties for sound recordings could be used by broadcasters or other companies that pay these royalties (webcasters, satellite radio, cable radio or other digital music services) to argue that they could not afford to pay ASCAP and BMI royalties at the levels at which they are currently paid (see our article here, about the potential for contentious proceedings to determine new ASCAP and BMI royalties for broadcasters, where the sound recording royalty is not even a factor yet ).  However, the provision that is now in the bill could be read as prohibiting music services from introducing any evidence about the sound recording royalties to argue that the composer's royalties should be reduced, but would allow such evidence to be introduced by the songwriters to argue that the royalties should be increased.  In other words, the songwriters could argue that, as the sound recording royalties were higher than the composition royalty, and that the composition royalty should be increased - while the music service would be helpless to defend themselves against such evidence as the use of such evidence by the services would be prohibited by the law.  Senator Feinstein suggested that this one way street might constitute a denial of due process to the services, and that a more even-handed provision should be worked out before the final bill is adopted.  There is currently a provision in Section 114 of the Copyright Act, the section that first extended the sound recording royalty to digital services, that prohibits either party from introducing evidence of the sound recording royalty in proceedings dealing with the musical works royalty.

Senator Specter raised another issue.  At Senator Feinstein's urging, the bill proposes to use a single standard to set royalty rates for all services - whether they be broadcasters, webcasters, satellite radio or cable radio.  As we've written before, webcasters have had to pay under a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard, while satellite and cable radio have ended up with far lower royalties because their royalties were decided based on the standards of Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act.  The bill proposes to extend the coverage of 801(b) to all services but, like in the House Bill, the entire 801(b) standard would not be adopted.  As Senator Specter observed, the last of the four factors set out in 801(b) is omitted in the bill - the factor that looks at the royalties to determine if they at levels that will preserve the stability of the industries involved.  That factor was the factor relied on by the Copyright Royalty Board to cut the royalties that would otherwise have applied to satellite radio by half (see our analysis, here).  As we wrote, if the broadcast royalty were adopted, this would be a very important factor to take into consideration in setting a royalty rate for broadcasters.  According to Senator Feinstein at today's session, the record companies objected to the inclusion of this fourth factor, and certain webcast groups agreed to the 801(b) standard without the fourth factor.  Obviously, broadcasters and other services concerned about the lack of the final 801(b) factor will need to push to have this factor included in any final legislation that may be adopted.

Two amendments to the bill were offered by Texas Senator Cornyn, who said that the revisions to the bill with the small broadcaster provisions were a move in the right direction, but he was still concerned with whether the bill went far enough.  One amendment proposed to postpone the effective date of any royalty until the FCC held a rulemaking proceeding and determined that the royalty would not decrease diversity in the broadcast media.  This amendment was rejected by the committee with little discussion. 

The second amendment  proposed that, instead of the royalty, the FCC should establish a "do not play list", a list of artists who did not want their music played without a royalty.  This would address the claims of the royalty supporters that artists are exploited, as they have no right to tell broadcasters that they don't want their music played without a royalty.  Senator Leahy objected to this proposal, saying that it did not provide that artists who were included on this list could negotiate for compensation to be played - that instead it was an all or nothing proposal - either the artist could have its music played for free, or it would not be played at all.  Leahy did acknowledge that the idea was an interesting one that he would work with Senator Cornyn to modify.  The amendment was rejected without much further discussion, but should be considered for the future as debate over this issue progresses, as it may present a potential alternative to the royalty.

All of the Senators who spoke at the session urged the broadcasters to come to the table to negotiate the royalty.  This has been a common refrain at all of the hearings held on the bills in both the House and the Senate.  With a new NAB leader, will the broadcasters actually come to the table?  Time will tell.  But, there is no need to look into the crystal ball to determine that this issue is a real one that the proponents of this royalty will continue to aggressively push forward.   Broadcasters need to stay on the alert, and stay in touch with their Congressional representatives, to counterbalance this aggressive push on a bill that has cleared committees in both Houses of Congress, and may one day come to a vote which will finally resolve whether these bills will become law.

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. 

Broadcast representatives are also afraid of another tactic being used - tacking this bill onto some other legislation making its way through Congress.  Often riders are added to major pieces of legislation having nothing to do with the subject of the rider, as the sponsors know that some controversial issues may never pass if considered on their own.  But, if attached to major legislation that the majority of the Congress supports and the President will not veto, the controversial legislation can be enacted.  Some broadcast representatives fear that the performance royalty can be slipped into some pending legislation and cleared by Congress without ever being subject to an up or down vote on its own merits.

The hearing on Tuesday is but one more demonstration that the issue is not dead yet.  The Senate would not be wasting its time if there was not still an active attempt to get the legislation through the current Congress.  The hearing will feature singer Shelia E on behalf of the royalty proponents (continuing a parade of artists visiting Congress on behalf of the royalty), a representative of Rounder Records (a small record label - rarely have major label representatives testified on behalf of the royalty though they will get the lions share of the benefit - perhaps because NAB supporters would ask about past record contracts and whether they were fair to artists), Steve Newberry (a radio broadcaster and the Chair of the NAB's joint board), and Jim Winston (counsel to the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters - a major opponent of the royalty because of its potential impact on minority-owned stations).  The hearing will also examine whether all music platforms should have parity in their rates, presumably why a Vice President of Real Networks is testifying.  Finally, Ralph Oman, a law professor and former Register of the Copyrights, will be on the panel appearing before the committee.  The current Copyright Office chief has testified in favor of the performance royalty in past proceedings.

With the hearing coming up, both sides of the issue are gearing up for the fight, soliciting expressions of support for their positions.  During the upcoming Congressional recess, the sides will also be exerting local pressure on their legislators.  Broadcasters who fear the royalty will need to solidify their Congressional support, and make sure that their advocates are careful to insure that no end around is attempted in the upcoming Congressional session.

We'll write about some of the issues likely to be raised at the hearing, and about the hearing itself, in coming days.

The Court decision rejected SoundExchange's challenges to the decision of the Board to apply the 801(b) factor which instructed it to take into account the impact of the royalty on the stability of the industry.  The application of this factor resulted in a royalty that grows from 6 to 8%, reducing what might have been a royalty in the range of 13% had the Board relied solely on its assessment of fair market value.  Among other issues, the Court rejected SoundExchange's claim that the XM-Sirius merger should have been taken into account to mitigate against any need for this factor to be taken into account.  The Court also rejected the Board's decision to exclude from revenues subject to the royalty those revenues that came from non-music services, like revenue from advertising on non-music channels or from equipment purchases. 

The only issue that the Court did not resolve was the value of the Section 112 ephemeral royalty - the royalty that is to compensate copyright holders for the temporary transitory copies made in the streaming process, such as those made on servers.  The Board found that no one had shown any value for those transitory copies, and thus the royalty had no real market value, so any residual value was subsumed entirely within the Section 114 royalty.  After the Board issued its decision, the Copyright Office issued an opinion that the Board needed to set a separate royalty for the ephemeral right.  While the satellite radio companies suggested the value was zero, and SoundExchange argued that it should be 8.8% of the total royalty, the Court could find no evidence supporting either position.  So the Court remanded this issue to the Board to determine what percentage of the royalty, if any, should be allocated to the ephemeral rights.

This decision, coming as it does on the date that webcasters announce a settlement with royalties that range from 12% of gross revenues to 25% or more of such revenues, demonstrates again the difference that a standard can make.  The 801(b) standard, taking into account the public interest factors, produces a rate that the music users can actually support (as the satellite companies did here, not appealing the decision of the CRB, but instead arguing in support of it), while the "wiling buyer, willing seller" standard produces royalties which, even after a settlement substantially reducing the royalty, brings only grudging relief.  This issue should be assessed by Congress when it reviews the Copyright Royalty Board's status if, as suggested by this Court, the webcasting court finds the CRB to be unconstitutional. 

Several companies including Ando Media, Abacast and Liquid Compass offer services that will count the number of listeners to a stream and synchronize those numbers with the songs that are being served by a station's music scheduling software to compute a number of performances.  Reports of use for filing with SoundExchange are also prepared.  We have not tested these services and cannot endorse them, but are providing this list for informational purposes for webcasters to explore further.  (There may well be other such services available that readers may suggest).  However, as I understand it (and perhaps some readers can correct me if I am not correct), not all of these systems are foolproof.   One of the biggest issues is what happens when music does not run through a station's music scheduling software?  For instance, if a station is picking up syndicated programming where the syndicator selects the music and the music does not run through the station's scheduling software, some of these services may not be able to track the performances that result from such the webcast of such programs.  Other glitches may also exist, e.g. for a radio station where the on-air announcer picks his own music that is never run through any scheduling software. 

These and other ambiguities will hopefully be remedied over time.  However, with the deadline so close, stations should be aware of the change in the rules, and make plans to comply as fully as possible by the new deadlines - which would mean planning right now, if they have not already done so.