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

Does this action reflect a new aggressiveness on the part of SoundExchange?  We have noted before that, from time to time, there seems to be a flurry of collection activity by SoundExchange.  We have heard from several streaming companies that they have recently received notices from SoundExchange inquiring about various compliance issues.  SoundExchange has been staffing up, and they have an attorney on staff whose principal job is enforcement.  Perhaps, with a new President, and with the last webcasting royalty proceeding done but for the appeals, this is a time when SoundExchange feels comfortable enough to act to ensure compliance with its royalty requirements. 

We've summarized the Internet radio royalty rates recently, and reminded webcasters not to forget their minimum fee payments and yearly election requirements.  If you are streaming, this might be a good time to check your royalty compliance to make sure that you are doing all that is expected by SoundExchange.  They may be watching!

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

Broadcasters Per Performance Royalties

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

Statutory Webcasting Per Performance Royalty Rates

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

Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates

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

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

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

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

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

The election forms are available on the SoundExchange website, though they are not easy to find. The forms that must accompany the annual minimum fees are also on the SoundExchange website.  Note that in some cases there are forms that cover both webcasters who paying under a particular settlement, as well as under the special provisions for small entities that are covered by these same agreements (e.g. Small Pureplay webcasters file a different form than other Pureplay Webcasters even though both are governed by the same agreement.  Similarly Small Broadcasters file a form different than other broadcasters, though both are covered by the same agreement, and soon by a CRB decision adopting those rates as the default rates for all broadcasters who stream programming on the Internet). 

These forms can be found at the links below.  Click on the name of the category of webcasters for a link to our article that summarizes the particular settlement or CRB decision, the minimum fees required, and the qualifications for small webcasters under that deal (if there is such a provision):

• Broadcasters minimum fee form - here.
• Small broadcasters election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Pureplay webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small pureplay election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small commercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Microcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Noncommercial educational webcaster.  Minimum fee payment form - here.  Note that, under the recent CRB decision, when that decision becomes effective, these will be the default rates for noncommercial webcasters for 2011. 
• Other noncommercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.  Note that, under the agreement covering these webcasters, if you opted into the deal in previous years, and do not wish to opt out, you may continued to be covered without filing a notice of election - but check to make sure that you are indeed covered by this default. 
• Noncommercial microcasters election form - here. Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Satellite radio (for their webcasting operations - a deal that may also fit other commercial webcasters who are not covered by other agreements and who do not choose the 2011 CRB rates) minimum fee payment form - here.
• Commercial CRB rates - minimum payment form - here.

Note that there is no specific form for NPR affiliates covered under the NPR settlement, as an organization set up by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting handles all payments and SoundExchange filings.  Other companies providing Internet radio services need to pay attention to these dates - and file the necessary papers and make the required payments by the upcoming deadline. 

So pay attention and meet the filing deadlines!

Webcasters can find much information about the royalties on the SoundExchange website.  We have also written extensively on the subject.  Some of our posts of particular interest include the following:

• A summary of the meaning of these royalties, here.  Note that this summary was written before many of the settlement agreements listed below were arrived at, so it mentions only the royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Judges in their 2007 decision. 
• A summary of the provisions of the broadcaster-SoundExchange settlement setting special royalty rates for broadcasters who stream, with additional posts about the waiver of the "performance complement", allowing broadcasters to play more songs from an album or by the same artist than might otherwise be permitted,here, and a summary of recordkeeping obligations, here and here.
• A summary of the provisions of the Small Webcaster deal, an option for companies who, with all of their affiliates, have less than $1.25 million in annual gross revenues, allowing payments based on a percentage of revenue.
• A summary of the royalties for noncommercial operators, here, and special royalties for stations affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (including NPR affiliates), here. 
• Summaries of deals for "Pureplay webcasters", those whose only business is streaming, here, and another deal for other webcasters who do not fit these categories, here.
• A reminder about annual election requirements and minimum fee obligations, with links to SoundExchange forms.

Check out these posts, and other items that we have written about the SoundExchange royalties for Internet radio, here, and make sure that, if you are streaming, you are paying what you owe.  SoundExchange now seems to be looking for those who have not paid, so to avoid any unpleasant legal surprises, don't get caught not being in compliance. 

But, beyond the question of whether the parties are even willing to participate, could these sorts of negotiations actually be successful?  Copyright issues, as they are so detailed and technical given the complexity of the mechanics of the Copyright laws, are often resolved through negotiations - often at the urging of Congress.  Congress tends to believe that a negotiated solution is more likely to anticipate the issues that could arise than is an imposed legislative solution where one side totally prevails over the other.  But here, there are many parties involved who may not see eye to eye on the kinds of issues that might be discussed in any negotiation. 

Congress has called on the parties to bring people who can make decisions to participate in the sessions, yet who would that be?  On the recording industry side, it would seem that the 4 major labels, the association of independent labels, and the artist union representatives would be able to easily fit into a room to negotiate.  On the other side, while it might seem that the NAB is the appropriate party, the NAB itself does not pay royalties - its members do.  And its members are a diverse group.  There are many public companies that own stations, and hundreds of private ones. There are large market stations and small market ones - differing constituencies that have differed on performance rights issues in the past.  And, perhaps most importantly, there are many stations with differing interests as to what might be included in any negotiations.  Some groups have evolved digital operations while others are still focused almost solely on their broadcast operations.  Some have interests in waivers of the performance complement (which was an issue in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement on Internet radio royalties) while others don't.  Some do significant amounts of talk or news, while others are much more music intensive.  All these diverse interests would have to be taken into account in reaching any deal that would cover broadcasters - and two weeks with Thanksgiving in between does not seem to provide the time to reach a deal.  In fact, given that broadcasters for the most part believe that the issue is all but dead given the majority of the Congress signing on to the anti-performance royalty resolution, how do you then convince broadcasters nationwide that a deal is in their best interests when they have been so adamant against even talking about a deal.  Given all these obstacles, it simply does not look possible to have a deal in this time period - even were the parties to actually sit down and try to work something out.

So, if the parties are not sure to negotiate, and if the prospects of a deal in two weeks in late November are so slight, why bother with the letter?  One thought is that the letter is another well-orchestrated publicity move by royalty proponents.  Just like the MusicFirst petition filed at the FCC complaining about broadcasters supposedly boycotting musicians who supported the royalty (with little or no evidence of any real boycott by any commercial station), this letter has already generated press attention putting a spotlight back on the issue - attention that has perhaps flagged somewhat since the NAB had signed up its majority of the House of Representatives onto the resolution opposing the royalty.  Perhaps by trying to make the NAB look bad, the supporters of the royalty are trying to pry some of the legislators off their positions in favor of the NAB and against the performance royalty (see our post here about the potential for ways that the bill could move even with a majority now signed onto the anti-performance royalty resolution).

So, will any of this work?  Watch and see, as we should know whether negotiations take place very soon.

These rates are two one-hundredths of a penny per performance lower than the CRB rates in 2009 and 2010, but one one-hundredth of a penny higher than the rates agreed to by the NAB for these years.  The CRB has yet to set what is in effect the default rate - the rate that a party pays if they don't elect to be covered by one of the other available deals - for 2011-2015.  Under the NAB deal, the rates remain one one-hundredth of a penny cheaper than this Sirius XM deal in 2011.  The NAB rates are identical to this deal in 2012, but the NAB rates are one one-hundredth of a penny more expensive than under this settlement for 2013-2015.  Seemingly, webcasters electing this deal trade a slightly higher royalty now for one slightly lower in the future.

The deal also requires a yearly $500 per channel minimum fee, capped at $50,000. As in all other deals, this minimum fee is applied to the per performance royalties that the service incurs.

The deal must be elected by a webcaster currently in operation within 15 days of the date that this Agreement is published in the Federal Register - a shorter period than allowed under some of the previous deals.  Once it is elected, a webcaster is bound for the remainder of the period through 2015, and not able to opt out should some lower rates be available under a future CRB decision  (note that this is different than under the Pureplay deal, where a webcaster can opt out at the end of any year).  Any party making the election to be covered by this deal must drop out of any litigation over the rates for 2011-2015.  As is becoming standard on many of these deals, royalty payments and reports of use are due 45 days after the end of each month of operation. 

One other important aspect of this agreement is that it can be used as precedent in the upcoming CRB proceeding for rates for 2011-2015.  The NAB deal also has a similar provision, allowing it to be considered to be of precedential value.  On the other hand, lower rates agreed to in the Pureplay and Microcasters deals are specifically labeled nonprecedential.  We wrote about the concerns expressed to the Senate Judiciary committee about the ability of SoundExchange to dictate which deals are precedential and which are not, here.

Finally, it is important to note that this deal covers Sirius XM's Internet streaming of its programming, not its satellite delivered music programming from which it received the bulk of its revenues.  Royalties for the use of music in that programming is paid on a percentage of revenue basis of between 6 and 8% of revenues - a rate set by the CRB and recently upheld by the Court of Appeals.  As we have written, the difference in these royalties is due to the difference in the standard applied under the Copyright statute to the determination of royalty rates for different services - leading to calls for "platform parity", as considered by the Senate last week.

All in all, for those webcasters who are not broadcasters and not pureplay webcasters, and don't qualify as small webcasters under the Microcaster or Pureplay deals, this agreement may present some options for the future.  Watch for its publication in the Federal Register in the near future. 

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. 

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.