Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

Indecency: After the Supreme Court decision in June, upholding the FCC's right to regulate indecency but questioning the current procedure for doing so, the FCC's regulation of indecency is up in the air. Many license renewal applications for both radio and television stations are held up because of pending complaints, and many sales of stations happen only when the seller's agree to escrow funds to cover any indecency fine that may occur at some point in the future – when the Commission decides what standards to apply to the pending complaints. With so many applications held up, it would seem that the FCC should deal with this issue soon.

EEO Rules: There are fundamental issues about the FCC's EEO policies that have not been addressed in the 9 years since these rules were first adopted. Proposals to extend the rules to part-time employees, and to require the filing of FCC Form 395 (the form that classifies all employees by race and gender), are still pending from that long-ago proceeding. Also pending are proposals sought in requests for reconsideration of the adoption of the EEO rules that would make the EEO rules comport with today's reality - such as the proposals to allow Internet-based EEO recruiting. Maybe this will be the year that some of these outstanding issues are finally resolved.

Privacy Issues: As the digital operations of broadcasters become more and more important, they will face many of the same issues that trouble many of the pure digital media companies. Chief among these issues is that of privacy. Congress, the FTC and other government agencies all are looking at issues as to how to protect the privacy interests of individuals while still allowing digital media companies to use information that allow the functioning of the digital systems, including the placement of advertising targeted to particular individuals based on their interests, as shown through their online habits. The FTC recently issued a report looking to update its enforcement of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and expect that this will be but one of many attempts to impose new regulation on online services in an effort to protect the privacy of individuals.

Political Rules: In the recent election, we saw the effects of the Citizens United case in the significant political spending on broadcast commercials by third-party organizations. While there have been calls for more regulation on such ads, we don't expect action in that area this year. Instead, though, there may be some minor tweaking of the political broadcasting rules, as there are outstanding issues remaining before the FCC – including appeals of the decision of the FCC, issued just before the election, holding that TV stations have to give candidates equal access to certain single-issue candidates – even though such candidates are qualified only in the distant reaches of the station's coverage area, and even when such candidates are "running" for office not with any expectation that they will be elected, but instead simply so that they can get access to television stations to run some controversial commercials not primarily intended to promote their candidacy, but instead to promote their position on some other issue. In an "off-year", this might be the time to address some of these outstanding issues.

Public Interest Programming Reports: At the same time as it began its proceeding to adopt an Online Public File, the FCC began a proceeding to look at the adoption of a new form on which broadcasters would report the public interest programming that they do. This form would replace the Quarterly Issues Programs list, and the Form 355 adopted 5 years ago for television but never implemented. The proposal released in 2011 was simply a Notice of Inquiry, meaning that the FCC would need to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to move further on this proposal. While we have not heard much about the status of this proposal lately, with some of the complaints about the usefulness of the Online Public File, this proceeding could bubble up at some point this year although, as no Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has yet to be released, before any new rules were adopted a whole new set of comments would need to be received. So don't expect a new form this year.

Television Issues

Spectrum issues have been the dominant TV concerns in past years, first with the digital transition, and more recently with the "white spaces" rulemaking and the proposals advanced as part of the FCC's Broadband Plan to reclaim part of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband uses. As in past years, these issues remain on the FCC's agenda, as do issues dealing with the carriage of television stations by cable and satellite television providers. Issues about accessibility to video programming and the implementation of other consumer protection issues are also on the agenda. Specific issues for TV include:

Spectrum reclamation: The FCC has issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing methods to implement a "reverse auction," where certain TV stations would bid to be able to sell their spectrum to wireless companies and either go out of business or move to a VHF channel or share spectrum with another station. This proposal has been a high priority of the FCC, and FCC staffers have been spending significant time working to convince broadcasters that there are real opportunities for some broadcasters in this proposal. Much consideration will be given to this proposal this year, and there will be a push to move toward finalizing these rules, as the Commission would like to actually hold the auction in 2014. Part of this process will also involve the "re-packing" of the current TV band, by trying to squeeze the remaining TV stations into less of the TV band, in order to provide more contiguous spectrum to the wireless companies. Look for more details on those proposals as the year rolls on.

Retransmission Consent Reform: There has been much talk in Congress, and a proceeding initiated at the FCC, to determine if the rules governing the negotiation of retransmission consent agreements should be changed. Some multichannel video programming distributors and some public interest groups argue that the FCC should protect viewers who may have their broadcast TV service disappear if a TV station does not reach a deal with a MVPD, while the broadcasters argue that the ability to remove the station from an MVPD is the heart of the negotiation, and removing the risk of the MVPD losing the right to carry the station would hobble the negotiation process. MVPDs also object to TV stations operating through a JSA or Shared Services agreement negotiating jointly, while TV broadcasters see that as a way to equalize their bargaining position, especially for stations not affiliated with the Top 4 networks. Look for some movement in this very controversial proceeding later in the year.

Accessibility: Each year, accessibility issues play a more and more important role in video transmissions – with this year bringing further obligations for video providers to caption television programming that has been repurposed for the Internet, including mobile applications. We would also expect that the FCC will rule on many of the waiver requests that are on file from independent programmers who had received closed-captioning waivers that were revoked when the FCC decided that it had been using the wrong standard for such waivers. The Commission also has a proceeding in which comments have recently been filed that seeks to impose rules requiring that TV broadcasters provide a second audio channel to convey to the blind emergency information that is presented visually on-screen. This would be to aid the blind, in the same way that the current requirements for on-air video captioning is required to aid the hearing-impaired. Look for more action in this area later this year.

White Spaces: The FCC has authorized the operation of wireless devices in the television spectrum, and permitted these operations throughout portions of the east coast of the United States. Expect that the roll-out of authorizations for full-implementation of white spaces to continue this year.

LPTV/Class A TV: As these stations look toward a mandatory digital conversion in 2015, expect that there will be more examination of the qualifications of Class A TV stations to retain their protected status. As the FCC looks to the spectrum auctions, Class A TV stations may tie up spectrum that will otherwise be available for the repacking of the TV band or auction to wireless companies. Thus, expect the FCC's scrutiny of these stations to continue through 2013 – especially with the license renewals of many of these stations coming due.

Radio Issues

Radio has fewer unique issues on the front burner in Washington, but something always comes up. Here are some of the issues we see coming to the fore in 2013 for radio broadcasters:

Performance Royalty: Even though things were relatively quiet on the performance royalty in the last Congress, we would not be surprised to see the issue resurface in 2013. SoundExchange, for the first time in a long time, will not be directly fighting a royalty proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board. As, as described below, the issue of the streaming royalty rates will likely be in front of Congress, giving more opportunities for this issue to be considered.

Streaming Royalties: In 2012, the Internet Radio Fairness Act  was introduced in Congress, looking to apply a single standard for deciding the royalties to be paid by all digital music services. With a new proceeding to determine Internet radio royalties to begin in 2014, we expect that this bill will be back on the table early in 2013, and there will be significant pushes to get it through Congress this year – and significant push-back from SoundExchange and the record labels.

SESAC Antitrust Action: Broadcasters affiliated with the Radio Music Licensing Committee has filed an antitrust lawsuit against SESAC, seeking to bring it under the same kind of consent decree as ASCAP and BMI so as to try to rein in the rates that SESAC is able to command. Expect lots of litigation on this case this year, but no resolution, as these cases are very long and complex.

LPFM/FM Translator Issues: At the end of 2012, the FCC issued its long-awaited order finally dealing with the processing of FM translators left over from the 2003 FM translator window, and setting up procedures for processing LPFM applications once the translators are dealt with. The FCC has already issued an order setting January deadlines for translator applicants to pick the translators that they will prosecute under the application processing limitations imposed in last month's order. Expect the FCC to push hard to deal with all 2003 translators this year, and to open an LPFM window at the end of the year (October being the projected time, but it could potentially slip to later in the year).

These are but some of the legal and regulatory issues that will be facing broadcasters in the upcoming year. Each year, we make these predictions, and there are always numerous other issues arise that we did not anticipate. So watch the trade press and the pages of this blog to see what other challenges may be coming from Washington for broadcasters as this year progresses.

Some webcasting companies have taken the position that there is no obligation to pay SoundExchange performance royalties for pre-1972 sound recordings, as these recordings do not fall under Federal law, and the various states have not specifically adopted any sort of performance royalty obligation (and, even if such a state right could somewhere be found, there is no agreement with SoundExchange to act as a collective for any such rights).  Many smaller webcasters may have continued to pay for these recordings as it may take too much trouble to figure out which recordings are outside the SoundExchange royalty structure (and it is particularly difficult as recordings from prior to 1972 first released outside the US are already covered under Federal law).  Others may be concerned about claims by the record labels that the digitization of pre-1972 works created a new copyrighted work subject to Federal copyright law.  However, other webcasting services have concluded that these works are not subject to any SoundExchange fees and reduced their royalty obligations accordingly. The Copyright Office report did not dispute the conclusion that no SoundExchange royalty is due on pre-1972 sound recordings, and did not conclude that there is any obligation under state law to pay a performance royalty, but nevertheless suggested that the Federalization would benefit webcasting services by clearing up any ambiguity as to whether they may owe some performance royalty, or any royalties for the ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process (as we've written before, the ephemeral copies made in the transmission process are included under Section 112 of the Copyright Act in the royalties paid to SoundExchange for post-1972 sound recordings). 

On another issue, the Report goes out of its way to suggest that safe harbor protections of Section 512 of the Copyright Act for User Generated Content do not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings.  The Report takes the position that the DMCA safe harbor is one that applies only to copyrights under Federal law, and since pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered under Federal law, then the safe harbor doesn't apply to them.  The Report takes issue with a recent US District Court decision in a case involving MP3Tunes that took exactly to opposite position - finding that the safe harbor was intended to protect website owners from liability for content uploaded by its users, and that excluding pre-1972 sound recordings from its coverage would be contrary to that purpose.  The Report did not take a position as to whether such user-generated content would be covered under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which provides a similar safe harbor to an Internet service provider for most user-generated content under other laws, but which specifically excludes intellectual property issues from its scope). Because of its position that Section 512 does not currently cover pre-1972 sound recordings, the Copyright Office saw the extension of Federal law to these recordings as protecting Internet service providers by extending Section 512 protections to any user-generated uses of these recordings. 

The Report even expresses some sympathy for the position taken by copyright holders that the current process for the safe harbor rules should be re-examined as they may be too cumbersome for copyright holders to use.  When copyright holders discover user-generated content that infringes on their rights, they must provide take-down notices to site owners asking that it be removed from the site.  Some copyright holders contend that sites with large amounts of content (like YouTube) and the number of sites hosting such content across the web make the notice and take down process too difficult and time-consuming to provide real protection for copyrighted material.  This is an issue much debated in other circles (see for instance the contentious debate over SOPA) that we'll tackle in a future post.  But it was interesting that the Copyright Office addressed this point in a report having little to do with that debate.

As we said in comments we filed for a client in the matter, the objective of this proceeding was both to protect copyright holders and to make it easier to preserve and disseminate pre-1972 sound recordings.  Does the proposed Federalization accomplish this, or does it provide more disincentive for the use of many of these recordings by webcasters and others who would have to pay performance royalties for content that currently have no such royalties attached?  Content creators prior to 1972 did not have an expectation of a sound recording performance royalty (which wasn't established in the US until 1995), and certainly the adoption of such a right can't (without the use of a time machine) create any financial incentive for the creation of more pre-1972 recordings.  This report is likely to be just one volley set in a series of debates over copyrights that is occurring in Congress and the Courts now, and will likely continue over the coming years as old and new media struggle to adopt to the implications of these increasingly digital media world. 

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. 

In fact, several trade press articles today suggest that the NAB is at least talking to record company executives about a way to resolve the issue in a "revenue neutral" manner.  This would presumably mean that broadcasters would pay no more for music than they are currently paying - seemingly meaning that ASCAP, BMI and SESAC would have to take less than they are currently.  As the current broadcaster negotiations with ASCAP and BMI may well be headed toward a trial, this may be a difficult negotiation.  But, in the world of copyright law, the negotiations all seem difficult, as the users of copyrighted materials and the copyright owners quite often seem to have vastly different views on the value of copyrighted materials, and their relative contributions toward the value of that material.  In the broadcast debate, broadcasters contend that copyright owners would have less value in their copyrighted material without the promotional value conveyed by broadcast airplay, while the copyright owners contend that broadcasters could not profitably operate their stations without the use of the copyrighted music.  Music composers and publishers (represented by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) also would argue with those who own the copyrights in the sound recordings (usually the record companies) about whether it is the song or the performance of that song that conveys more value.  These debates are not easy ones to resolve. 

We have also seen articles in trade publications that suggest that the broadcast performance royalty issue is dead for this Congressional session, given the other issues that Congress has to deal with, and the over 255 signatures in the House of Representatives on a resolution opposing the royalty.  But, as we have written before, there is still the fear that the bill could be added as a rider to some other piece of unrelated legislation that must pass Congress and against which some of the resolution's signers could not vote.  Clearly, given the Times article, and the continuing push given this issue by the Music First Coalition supporting the imposition of the royalty, broadcasters cannot sit back and assume that the issue is dead.  That was one reason why this was such an important issue on the agenda of broadcasters who visited Congress last week during the NAB's Leadership Conference in Washington, and behind ads that have run on stations over the last month bringing the issue to the attention of the public.  It is an issue that cannot be overlooked. 

The FCC will also have to complete the digital transition of TV translators and LPTV stations, which are not bound by the February 2009 conversion deadline. The FCC will need to set a digital conversion deadline – a conversion that many translator and low power licensees are not looking forward to paying for, but which may be necessary to preserve their over-the-air viewership as the analog tuner becomes an historical relic.

Radio, too, has its own technical issues to deal with. The Commission will be faced with resolving proposals for increased power for HD Radio operations (In-Band On Channel or IBOC digital radio), which some broadcasters have opposed as holding the potential for adjacent channel interference. The Commission will also be faced with resolving proposals for making the measurement of AM antenna patterns easier but, on a most fundamental level, it has also been asked to recapture some of the television spectrum, including Channel 6 and possibly Channel 5, and to use that spectrum for new radio stations. While some worry about the increased competition that new radio channels could bring, others see the expanded FM band as a way to eliminate congestion on the current band – giving LPFM stations places to operate without restricting FM upgrades or endangering FM translators – and others have even suggested that some or all AM stations could be moved onto these channels. This is likely to be a long-term project, but one that may get serious consideration this year.

Programming, too, may come in for more review this year. The Commission’s rules, adopted a full year ago, requiring TV stations to document in minute detail their public interest programming on Form 355, has never been implemented, as the form has never been approved by the Office of Management and Budget as being in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. As this form required so much new information, for no appreciable purpose, it seems unlikely that it could survive such a review. Thus, the Form may be revised before being implemented, or it may wait for new FCC programming rules to be adopted as part of the FCC’s localism proceeding, mandating some form of public interest programming, which could then be used to justify the collection of some data requested by the questions on Form 355.

Other aspects of the localism proceeding seem likely to be resolved in 2009. The proposal for a fully manned main studio during all hours of operation, located in the station’s city of license, seems to be less likely to be adopted as regulators realize the costs that such a requirement would impose. Yet requirements for some form of mandatory ascertainment of community needs, plus some enhanced disclosure of public interest programming, seem more likely. Some of the proposals rumored to be on the table include requiring that broadcasters be judged by whether they perform certain tasks set out on a menu of options by which they would demonstrate their service of the public interest. One would hope that any set of menu options would be broad enough to recognize all the diverse ways that broadcasters serve their communities, and not so restrictive as to make every station meet the public interest in the same cookie-cutter way, and thus eliminating diversity in approaches that has allowed the broadcast industry to flourish.

The return of the Fairness Doctrine, which many conservative pundits have predicted, is unlikely because of the constitutional and practical problems of implementation. Yet some fear that  mandated political coverage and issue-responsive programming, which is more likely,  may effectively take the place of the Doctrine. Restrictions on violent programming could also be at the top of the Congressional agenda, as Senator Rockefeller, the new head of the Senate Commerce Committee, has supported such regulation in the past. . 

In the advertising world, the FCC will be resolving its embedded advertising and product placement proceeding, where some “public interest” groups have advocated a total ban on such advertising, while others have suggested immediate sponsorship identification, through a crawl or superimposed caption, of any product for which consideration has been paid for its inclusion. The related issue of video news releases – whether stations have to identify on-air anything given them at no charge (e.g. a script, video footage, etc.) before its inclusion into a news report – will also likely be resolved. Some have also suggested that the Commission may be planning some adjustments to its payola rules, though what those changes would be, and how they would improve on the current rules, is hard to fathom.

There is also real concern that the Congressional committees which oversee the FCC may well push proposals for limits on prescription drug advertising. The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman, has favored a moratorium on such advertising while the industry works out rules that restrict various perceived abuses. If industry voluntary agreements don’t satisfy Congress, new restrictions on advertising directed to children are also possible, especially in connection with ads for food considered unhealthy (however that may be defined).

Copyright issues could also impact the broadcast industry this year – perhaps in ways more fundamental than any of those other issues listed above. For radio, we may see the webcasting royalties issue be resolved one way or the other. Congress has given webcasters and the recording industry until February 15 to settle the webcasting royalty issues and, if that doesn’t result in a resolution of the issue, the pending appeals will be argued this year and perhaps resolved by the end of the year. 

2009 will also bring about a renewed attempt by the recording industry to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters for their over-the-air signals, the “performance tax” as it has been labeled by the NAB. That performance royalty would require broadcasters to pay the recording industry and recording artists royalties for the use of music over the air – in addition to the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC royalties that are already paid to the composers. The recording industry was able to get that proposal through the House Judiciary Committee last year, and will make a renewed attempt to have it adopted by Congress. If such an attempt is successful, this could potentially result in the transfer of billions of dollars from broadcasting to the recording industry.

TV has its own copyright issues, as the law permitting Dish and DirecTV to import local broadcast stations into local markets must be renewed, and some have suggested that this might be the time to reexamine the must-carry and retransmission consent process for both cable and satellite. While nothing firm is on the table, this issue could arise just as retransmission consent fees are beginning to offer television broadcasters a meaningful new revenue stream.

All of these issues seem like plenty - but we haven't even discussed the resolution of the indecency cases currently pending before the Supreme Court that should come this year.  The Commission ended 2008 with several large EEO fines, and this year may bring the resolution of long-pending petitions for reconsideration of the current EEO rules, as well as resolution of whether the Form 395 Annual Employment Report  will make its reappearance and whether the information on the form should be available to the public to judge the EEO performance of broadcasters or should the information be used simply for industry profiling.  Commissioner Adelstein suggested that the information should be public in his concurring opinion on these recent fines.  The FCC's change in its multiple ownership rules to allow some broadcast-newspaper combinations is still on appeal as it becomes increasingly irrelevant (as newspaper companies don't have the money to buy broadcast station, and broadcasters probably don't want to buy newspapers), and other issues as to the local radio ownership rules and the attribution of TV JSAs are still pending and may be resolved one day - perhaps this year.  Even political rules may be revisited in 2009 - as the Commission has never issued rules implementing the BCRA requirements, and it also has a long-pending proceeding to determine how to assess spots sold by on-line auctions for lowest unit rate purposes. 

With these (and other) possible changes in the regulatory landscape, one can only hope that the government regulates with a light touch. While the Democrats who have been on the FCC during the Bush years have advocated tough, detailed regulatory mandates, the Obama administration has offered the hope of a less doctrinaire, more inclusive regulatory process. Given the economic outlook for the coming year, and the costs and likely disruptions of the digital transition, an administration that promises hope should deliver some to broadcasters simply by taking a break from excessive regulation to give everyone a chance to adjust to the new realities of 2009. But stayed tuned to these pages to see what develops in this new year. 

One last note - Colbert's program is, of course, on cable not broadcast stations.  Cable, like broadcast, pays royalties only to the composer, and not the performer of music.  Currently, only digital services like Internet and satellite radio pay royalties to performers for the "sound recording."  But even digital services don't pay performance royalties for "audio-visual performances," for instance when a song is included as background to a television program, or otherwise included in a program like the Colbert Christmas special.  Why?  Usually, it is because the producer of the program has already paid for the master recording license to include the song in the video program in the first instance.  Of course, synch rights have been paid to the composer for inclusion of the composition in the program, yet they still get a their public performance royalty.  So one wonders if the performance royalty is imposed on broadcast radio for the public performance of music, if broadcast and cable television isn't next.  But that's an issue to be dealt with after the holidays. 

Second, the FTC has in the last few years expressed concerns about viral marketing and other advertising schemes where the consumer is not aware that he or she is being subjected to advertising.  Whether it be the stranger in the bar who is paid to brag about the taste of some brand of beer or the chain email that endorses some product without revealing that the testimonial was bought and paid for, the FTC has been concerned that these techniques are false and deceptive trade practices.  Again, an all-payola channel would seem to trigger these concerns.

So is the idea a non-starter?  Not at all.  Just as in the broadcast world, the key is disclosure (see our Advisory on avoiding payola issues).  On a radio station, the FCC's payola rules are not violated if the fact that the plays are paid for is disclosed to the audience.  So disclosure that the "following 15 minutes of programming has been paid for by the Universal Music Group" and the playing of only UMG songs during that period would be fine under the FCC rules.  Under the NY State prosecutions, concerns were also expressed about notifications to automatic airplay monitoring services, so notice to such services might also be required.  The same would seemingly hold true for Internet radio.  If you wanted to create the Sony Music channel sponsored by Sony, and it was branded that way, it would seem as if it would be difficult to argue that there was any deceptive practice.  Disclosure in writing on the website in a manner where that disclosure was clear and conspicuous could also suffice.

The Silicon Alley article does make one good point - that a pay for play scheme would limit royalties that a digital music service would pay - as it is likely that any service that is getting paid to play songs would also get a waiver of the royalties for those songs (see our post on waivers here).  When confronted with a proposal where artist would waive royalties in exchange for airplay, artist groups complained that the waiver of royalties without disclosure, in and of itself, constituted consideration for airplay and would be "payola" if not disclosed.  We'll save discussion of that issue for another day, but disclosure solves any issue that may exist.

This proposal for "payola radio" is not so far-fetched, even being suggested at a Congressional hearing on the broadcast performance royalty (or, as the NAB refers to it, the "performance tax").  In that hearing, a Congressman suggested that, if artists and labels really wanted a market system, it should be a full market system, where some artists may be able to hold out for payment for the playing of their songs, while others would have to pay to get on the air.  Broadcasters have had concerns about such a system, as small market stations might never get paid for play and might be forced to pay, while large market stations could be important enough to the promotion of a song to demand payment for its airplay.  For artists, small artists on independent labels would also be losers, as they could be cut out of the broadcast world if they couldn't afford to pay (see our post here about the Congressional hearing and the concerns about this issue).

Payola radio - an interesting idea - but be careful to execute it carefully.

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.

To some extent, the Business Establishment royalty reveals other inconsistencies in the law.  In the recent decisions on Internet radio and satellite radio, the CRB determined that the ephemeral copies had no value, allocating all of the royalty to the rights under Section 114.  This is consistent with other statements made by the Copyright Office suggesting that ephemeral copies, which are inherent in the transmission process but otherwise are of no real use to the consumer, have no value.  But, here, the royalty is valued at a full 10% of the revenue of the service.

Also, the law establishes that there is no performance right in the sound recording.  However, as in the over-the-air broadcast services, there is a royalty that must be paid for the use of the copyright in the composition.  Thus, the stores and other business establishments themselves have to pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the performance of copyrighted works (though the services often pay that royalty on behalf of the user). 

Comments on the proposed royalty are due on February 29.

Some commenters have suggested that the 7.5% royalty rate should be viewed as a precedent for the controversial Internet Radio royalties.  As SoundExchange has argued for "parity" and "fairness" in royalties in connection with its push for a performance royalty on broadcast stations, this argument certainly has an emotional appeal.  If, as SoundExchange claims, broadcasters should pay a royalty to insure "fairness" with other audio service providers, then Internet Radio should pay a rate that is equivalent to that of the Preexisting Subscription Services.  However, the decision will not provide any legal support, as the standard that applies to to Preexisting Services is different from that which applies to Internet Radio.  As we've written before, under the DMCA, the CRB is to use a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard to evaluate what the royalty should be for Internet radio.  Essentially, the willing buyer, willing seller standard evaluates a strict economic model of what two theoretical parties negotiating arms-length contracts would pay in a rational, competitive marketplace.  No public interest evaluation is considered - one of the reasons that the Copyright Royalty Judges felt constrained not to offer any special rate for small webcasters.

By contrast, the Preexisting Services (both cable and satellite radio) are evaluated under a different standard - the so-called 801(b) standard, which looks at a number of factors in determining the royalty.  Not only does this standard look at insuring a "fair return" to the copyright holder, but it also looks to maximize the availability of copyrighted works to the public, and to insure stability in the industries involved by minimizing the disruptive impact of royalty changes.  Finally, this standard looks to the relative roles and contributions of the parties in bringing the copyrighted materials to the public in terms of their "creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication."  One can easily see how this standard, if applied to Internet radio, would have resulted in a decision different than that which the CRB reached, and why Internet Radio companies have asked for the adoption of that standard as part of the Internet Radio Equality Act.

 The role that the comments that the CRB is seeking on the Music Choice settlement is limited, as only parties to the proceeding can "object" to a settlement under the terms of the statute governing CRB proceedings.  Other affected companies can offer comments, though the legal impact of those comments has yet to be tested.  Watch this space for information about the satellite radio royalty decision when it is released.