Posted on August 3, 2009 by David Oxenford

Broadcast Performance Royalty - What Would It Cost? The Congressional Budget Office Says A "Substantial" Amount

One of the fundamental questions that surrounds the proposed broadcast performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by over-the-air (or the "performance tax" as it has been labeled by the NAB) is how much it could it cost a broadcaster?  Right now, that question is difficult to determine, as the pending bills do not themselves provide any details as to what the fees would be, except for noncommercial entities and for small broadcasters for whom fixed yearly fees are proposed.  For a broadcaster with a station having over $1.25 million in yearly revenues, the current Congressional bills leave the amount of the royalty to be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board.  In the current Senate draft of the bill, the amount to be paid would be based on the "willing buyer willing seller" standard that has been so controversial for Internet Radio companies. But the hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow will address, among other issues, the question of "platform parity," i.e whether all companies subject to the sound recording performance royalty should pay a comparable rate, so we may see that proposal change as it did in the House version, to some form of the 801(b) standard (about which we wrote here and here).

We will write about the differing rates paid by differing music services in the next few days, especially as it becomes clear as to what rates for Internet radio royalties were agreed to under the most recent settlements with webcasters pursuant to the Webcaster Settlement Act.   But even without a detailed analysis of all of the rates that have been agreed to, certain trends can be seen as to what SoundExchange, on behalf of the artists and copyright holders, believes to be a fair royalty for the use of their music.  And that number is likely to be a "Substantial" one, as suggested by a recent Congressional Budget Office review of the cost to broadcasters of the proposed performance royalty.

We have written before how, using the Copyright Royalty Board decision that was reached for XM and Sirius in 2007 (and recently upheld by the Court of Appeals), it could be concluded that the "willing buyer willing seller" standard could lead to a broadcast performance royalty as much as 25% of gross revenues.  We reached that conclusion by looking at the CRB decision which set a royalty for XM and Sirius (at that point separate companies) of 6% growing over a six year period to 8% of gross revenues (with some adjustments subtracting those revenues clearly attributable solely to non-music programming).  The CRB reached that decision after finding that a fair market rate (essentially what the willing buyer willing seller standard is supposed to determine) would be approximately 14% of the XM/Sirius revenues (principally their subscription revenues as their music streams were commercial free).  This value was adjusted down to the final royalty to preserve the stability of the industry, a factor required to be taken into account by the 801(b) standard that applies to the determination of the satellite radio (but a factor left out of the House version of the broadcast performance royalty bill).  That 14% of revenue was computed on the assumption that about half of the subscription revenue could be attributed to non-music programming (e.g. news, sports, Howard Stern and Oprah, etc).  So, if the perceived market value of the music in Sirius XM programming was 14% of the total subscription revenue, and half of that value came from non-music programs, then the value of a pure music service would be double that number, or something in the vicinity of 25%.

At the House hearing on the performance royalty held in March, an RIAA witness seemingly implied that the royalty would actually end up being closer to the 6-8% of revenue that Sirius XM now pays.  But recent royalty decisions give one pause about such a claim.  Look, for instance, at the recent settlement between the Pureplay webcasters (some of whom I represent) and SoundExchange, where the percentage of revenue royalties range between 12 and 14% of revenue for small webcasters to 25% of revenue (at a minimum) for large pureplay webcasters.  And this rate is deemed an experimental rate, reached as a compromise and not reflecting the true value of music, according to the SoundExchange press release.

In other services where there is no adjustment made for the preservation of the industry subject to the royalty, the royalty has been high - though perhaps not quite as high as in the webcasters' case.  For instance, in connection with "new subscription services", the audio services provided with DISH and DirecTV video services, the parties planning to provide those services and SoundExchange reached an agreement for a royalty rate of 15% to avoid a CRB hearing.  Even in connection with Business Establishment Services (like Muzak) that do not pay for the public performance of music, but only for the ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process (the most insignificant part of the webcaster royalty - assumed to be about 8% of the total royalty), the parties agreed to pay a royalty of 10% of gross revenues.  In no case of which I am aware has the royalty for the public performance of sound recordings been set at less than 10% of gross revenues, and then only in connection with "small webcasters," who have revenues similar to those of radio broadcasters who would pay a flat fee under the pending legislation for the broadcaster performance royalty. 

Thus, the conclusion of the CBO, that the broadcast performance royalty would be substantial, seems right on target, unless the new legislation adopts the full 801(b) factors. These factors would have to include the factor looking at the preservation of the stability of the industry which was so important in the Sirius XM decision - the one factor omitted from the standard proposed in the revised House bill. 

Of course, even at 6-8% of revenues, broadcasters will probably find the royalty significant).  But at 25%, in today's economic climate, it would virtually drain the radio industry of its profit margins.  We will be interested in seeing if these factors are discussed in tomorrow's Judiciary Committee hearing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 31, 2007 by David Oxenford

House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Broadcast Performance Right - No Breaks for the Broadcasters

If you are a broadcaster, you know that it's not going to be a good day when you walk into a hearing on the possible extension of the performance royalty in sound recordings to over-the-air broadcasters and see buttons saying "I Support a Performance Right NOW" on the lapels of every other witness on the panel - including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters.  But that was the scene in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing as to whether the right to collect a royalty for the public performance of a sound recording (the actual song as sung by a particular artist, as opposed to the underlying musical composition) should be paid by broadcasters.  Broadcasters in the United States have paid only a royalty on the public performance of the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC), and have never paid a royalty for the public performance of the sound recording.  The lack of a sound recording royalty has always been justified in the past on the theory that the artists and copyright holders in the sound recording benefit more than composers through the airplay of the sound recording, as they receive the bulk of the proceeds from CD sales, and the performers benefit from the promotion of live performances.  As they benefit from the promotion provided by the airplay of the song, there is no need for any sort of performance royalty.  As the music and radio businesses have both thrived in the United States - more so than anywhere else in the world - it seemed that this arrangement was mutually beneficial.

But, in recent years, the consensus over this mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have broken down.  Starting in 1995, a performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services, including the royalty on Internet radio which has recently been so controversial (and about which we have written so much, here).  And, with the recent downturn in the record companies' business, additional sources of revenue are being sought - thus the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collective that receives sound recording performance royalties, have started a Congressional push to require the collection of royalties from over-the-air radio.  And that push was reflected in the hearing held on Tuesday before a House Committee that seemed clearly to favor the imposition of this royalty on broadcasters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,