Posted on February 25, 2009 by David Oxenford

Rallies on Capitol Hill on the Performance Royalty - Who Will Pay?

In the last two weeks, we have seen Capitol Hill rallies by the Free Radio Alliance, opposing what they term the “performance tax” on radio, and yesterday by the Music First Coalition, trying to persuade Congress to adopt a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings for the over-the-air signal of broadcast stations. We’ve written about the theories as to why a performance royalty on sound recordings should or should not be paid by broadcasters, but one question that now seems to be gaining more significance is the most practical of all questions – if a performance royalty is adopted, how would broadcasters pay for it?

 The recording industry and some Congressional supporters have argued in the past that, if the royalty was adopted, stations could simply raise their advertising rates to get the money to pay for the royalty. While we’ve always questioned that assumption (as, if broadcasters could get more money for their advertising spots, why wouldn’t they be doing so now simply to maximize revenues?), that question is even harder to answer in today’s radio environment. With the current recession, radio is reporting sales declines of as much as 20% from the prior year. Layoffs are hitting stations in almost every market. In this environment, it is difficult to imagine how any significant royalty could be paid by broadcasters without eating into their fundamental ability to serve the public – and perhaps to threaten the very existence of many music-intensive stations. And the structure of the royalty, as proposed in the pending legislation, makes the question of affordability even harder to address.

Broadcasters obviously already pay for music that they play – to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. And the rates that are being paid to these organizations may well be going up in the coming year, as both the ASCAP and BMI deals with the radio industry are to be re-negotiated this year. Of course, this money goes to the composers of the music, not to the performers (and the copyright holders in the performances – the record companies) who would be receiving the proposed new performance royalty on sound recordings. The proposed legislation states that the imposition of the performance royalty on sound recordings is not to have any effect on the amount that broadcasters pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Thus, the money would by necessity have to come from other station operations. Some broadcasters have suggested that one way of paying a sound recording royalty would be to simply pay what they are paying now to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC into a pot, and let the artists, composers and labels fight for it. This, of course, is opposed by the composers who rightly see the royalty as one of the principal ways in which they are compensated, as they do not share in the profits from the sale of CDs and downloads, but instead get a flat fee for a “mechanical royalty” established under Section 115 of the Copyright Act, and the composers do not typically get money from concert tickets or merchandise receipts that performers may enjoy.

 

This is not, as suggested by royalty proponents, a simple matter of broadcasters getting more money to pay for any royalty. It is a zero sum game, and if the money can’t come from the composer’s royalty, it has to come from station operations. Given the high fees sought (and received) by the recording industry for the performance royalty in sound recordings from digital services (where the least that has been paid is 6-8% of gross revenues by satellite radio, and that was only after the computed "willing buyer willing seller" royalty was found to be twice that amount but adjusted down to preserve the stability of the industry, and after having been initially adjusted based on the finding that half of the gross revenues of satellite radio were the result of talk programming not subject to the royalty), broadcasters could be asked to pay a huge bill (see our post here on computing that bill). And, with the FCC poised to potentially impose new localism requirements on broadcasters that would entail even more operational costs, something has got to give. Broadcasters hope that it is not their economic viability that is the thing that does the giving. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 23, 2008 by David Oxenford

Settlement Reached on Certain Aspects of Section 115 Royalty - Contrary to Press Reports, This Has Nothing to Do With Internet Radio Royalty Dispute

Today, the National Music Publishers Association ("NMPA"), DiMA, the RIAA and other music publishing groups issued a press release announcing a settlement of certain aspects of the current Copyright Royalty Board proceeding to determine the royalties due under Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the mechanical royalty for the reproduction and distribution of the musical work (i.e. the composition - the words and music of a song).  According to the Press Release issued by the parties, this agreement covers interactive streaming and limited-time downloads, setting a royalty of 10.5% of revenue, less any amounts due for performance royalties (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, which also reimburse composers of music).  While many press reports (at least some of which have already been pulled) have concluded that this is a settlement of the Internet Radio royalties proceeding - that is wrong.  The Internet radio royalty proceeding involves Section 114, not Section 115, of the Copyright Act.  Section 114 deals with a royalty paid to the performers, not the composers.  Section 114 compensates performers and the copyright holders in the performance for the public performance of their works, not for the mechanical royalty for reproduction and distribution covered by Section 115.  And Section 114 covers non-interactive streaming - where users cannot dictate the songs that they want to hear - unlike the services, on-demand streams and limited time downloads, involved in this settlement which allow users to select the songs that they want to hear.  So don't believe what you read - the Internet radio royalties are still very much a subject of dispute, and services like Pandora are not yet saved by any sort of settlement. 

According to the press release, the one benefit to Internet radio under this agreement is that the parties conclude that there is no royalty due to the music publishers for any copies made in the transmission of non-interactive streaming.  The Copyright Office recently began a proceeding to ask if such royalties were due (about which we wrote here).  So, even  were the Copyright Office to determine that there was a Digital Phonorecord Delivery (a "DPD") made during the Internet radio streaming process, at least for the length of this agreement (assuming that it is approved by the Copyright Royalty Board), no royalty will be assessed.  We will write more about this settlement once we have seen the full terms - but wanted to post this notice to alert readers that, contrary to press reports, the Internet Radio proceeding has not been settled. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 8, 2008 by David Oxenford

Copyright Office Extends Comment Deadline on Proceeding to Decide if Section 115 Applies to Internet Radio, and Schedules a Hearing on the Issue

The Copyright Office today issued an Order extending the dates for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to determine if, in addition to royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of a musical composition, a royalty is also be due for reproductions of the composition made by real-time webcasting such as Internet radio.  Comments are now due on Thursday, August 28, and Replies on Monday, September 15.  This proceeding, about which we wrote here, is to determine if the statutory royalty of Section 115, dealing with the creation of Digital Phonographic Deliveries ("DPD") is implicated by the RAM and buffer copies made by real-time streaming.  The Order also announces that the Copyright Office will hold a hearing on the issue on September 19.

The Order states that the principal reason for the extension was the very recent decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, finding that Cablevision's proposal for a "remote DVR," providing the same services as a DVR but located at the cable headend, did not infringe on the program producers' copyrights.  That decision addressed many of the same issues raised by the Copyright Office in its NPRM as to whether "copies" are made, for purposes of Copyright Laws, by RAM and buffer copies.  The Second Circuit essentially determined that no copies are made as there is no "fixation" of copies in the RAM and buffers, essentially the opposite conclusion reached by the Copyright Office in its NPRM in this proceeding.  If fixed copies are made, then a Copyright holder has the right to receive royalties for the reproduction of its copyrighted work.  The seemingly contradictory conclusions of the Second Circuit and the Copyright Office demonstrate the complexity of issues in Copyright law, and we will no doubt see many further proceedings before this issue is finally resolved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 16, 2008 by David Oxenford

Copyright Office Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking That Could Make Section 115 Royalty Applicable to Internet Radio

Broadcasters and other digital media companies have recently been focused on the royalties that are to be charged by the record labels for public performance of a sound recording in a digital transmission (under the Section 114 compulsory license administered by SoundExchange).  In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued this week, the Copyright Office tentatively concludes that there could be yet another royalty due for streaming - a royalty to be paid to music publishers for the reproductions of the musical compositions being made in the streaming process under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.  This notice was released just as the Copyright Royalty Board is concluding its proceeding to determine the rates that are to be paid for the Section 115 royalty.  While there have been reports of a settlement of some portions of that proceeding, the details of any settlement is not public, so whether it even contemplated noninteractive streaming as part of the agreement is unknown.

How did the Copyright Office reach its tentative conclusion?  First, some background.  The Office for years has been struggling with the question of just what the section 115 royalty covered.  Traditionally, the royalty was paid by record companies to the music publishers for rights to use the compositions in the pressing of records.  This was referred to as the "mechanical royalty" paid for the rights to reproduce and distribute the composition used in a making copies of a sound recording (a record, tape or CD).  These copies were referred to as "phonorecords."  However, in the digital world, things get more complicated, as there is not necessarily a tangible copy being made when there is a reproduction of a sound recording.  Thus, Congress came up with the concept of a Digital Phonorecord Delivery (a "DPD") as essentially the equivalent of the tangible phonorecord.  But just what is a DPD?

Section 115 contains the following definition of a DPD (with my highlights of specific terms or phrases that the Copyright Office addresses in it NPRM in some detail):

A “digital phonorecord delivery” is each individual delivery of a phonorecord by digital transmission of a sound recording which results in a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord of that sound recording, regardless of whether the digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording or any nondramatic musical work embodied therein. A digital phonorecord delivery does not result from a real-time, non-interactive subscription transmission of a sound recording where no reproduction of the sound recording or the musical work embodied therein is made from the inception of the transmission through to its receipt by the transmission recipient in order to make the sound recording audible. 
 

From that definition, the Copyright Office in its NPRM goes through a detailed analysis of the meanings of various words and phrases in coming to the conclusion that DPDs encompass not just digital downloads but also on-demand and noninteractive streams (noninteractive streams meaning Internet radio).  The Office first concludes that there is a "delivery" when a person receives a digital transition - seemingly pretty straightforward.

Then it looks at the language that seems to exclude noninteractive streams from the definition of a DPD.  However, the Copyright Office states in its NPRM that it believes that the exclusion only applies where there is no "reproduction" of the sound recording.  The Copyright Office looked at the buffer and RAM copies necessary to make the stream audible, and determined that these were in fact reproductions.  Thus, as the exclusion covered only services that did not make reproductions, Internet radio-type services that stream their music programming to their listeners were not within that exclusion.  .

The Office also looked to determine if these buffer copies were "specifically identifiable."  Essentially, the Office concludes tentatively that the computer being used by the ultimate recipient of the transmission (the listener) can decipher the buffer copies, so those copies must be specifically identifiable.  Essentially, the Office decided that, as the transmission can be heard, the copies must be specifically identifiable.

While the Office claims to be reading the plain language of the statute, one has to wonder if this is what was meant by Congress when the statute was adopted.  Seemingly, the statutory structure of the Copyright Act as amended to cover digital services was trying to equate real time, noninteractive streaming with radio type services, and creating a public performance royalty under Section 114 for the sound recordings and allowing the Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to take care of the composition rights for this real time streaming.  It would seem as if the concept of the DPD was meant to cover the digital equivalent of the pressing of a record or a CD - i.e. a download or similar one-to-one transmission that resulted in a fixed copy that could be used and re-used by the recipient.  To me, the concept of "specifically identifiable" would mean one that can be pointed to and identified, so that a listener can go find the song that they want when they want it, just as I can go to my CD collection, and find a Rolling Stones CD when I want it by looking at the label.  When I want to hear a particular song that is being streamed, I certainly can't go to my buffer copies to find that song (as, even if it played on an Internet radio station an hour before, it is not there now if I want to hear it again).  But certainly these are issues that will be debated. 

We have written about the recent Court decision that determined that ASCAP had no public performance right in connection with a digital download, as it was not a "public" performance.  Only the music publishers would collect for the composition used in the song being downloaded to avoid double-dipping.  Here, applying Section 115 to noninteractive streaming would seem to be the mirror image of the ASCAP case, yet the Office is reaching a decision that is exactly the opposite of the one reached by the Court.  Of course, that ASCAP case may be appealed, so these issues, too, are unresolved. 

The Copyright Office seemed to recognize that this could be very controversial, and states that it takes no position as to the value of the Section 115 right that it finds to exist.  That would be left to the Copyright Royalty Board to determine royalty rates under Section 115  in its current proceeding - and that the Board could well determine that the copies made in the case of noninteractive streaming have no value at all.  However, one wonders if the issue was fully argued in the case as most parties seemed to acknowledge that the Section 115 royalty would not apply to such activities (the Board even citing in a footnote that the publishers supported such an exemption in a Section 115 reform bill that was introduced and passed by the Judiciary Committee but not adopted by the full Congress in the last Congressional session).

Comments in the Copyright Office proceeding are due on August 15, and Replies are due on September 2. This is a very important proceeding in which parties should make their views known. 

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