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

SoundExchange claims on its website that webcaster SWCast.net was shut down when SoundExchange complained to its ISP that the service was not paying royalties for the use of the music played by the site.  SWCast was an aggregator of webcast channels created by other individuals, who paid the company - allegedly for the streaming and for the royalties that were due for that streaming.  According to the SoundExchange press release, the webcaster was shut down when SoundExchange "sent a letter requesting that the hosting ISP disable access to the SWCast site."  SoundExchange's statement says that, despite repeated attempts to engage the webcaster, SWCast neither paid royalties nor filed reports of use for the songs streamed by the service, leading to SoundExchange's action.  As far as we know, this is the first time that SoundExchange has taken such an action. 

How did this work?  While we have not seen the letter that SoundExchange sent to the ISP, we can assume that it alleged that SWCast was infringing on copyrighted materials by not paying the required royalties.  ISPs have a safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, protecting them from liability for the infringement of users of their services, if the ISP does not encourage the infringement, registers an agent with the Copyright Office, and agrees to take down infringing content when properly notified by a copyright holder (see our post here).  We can only assume that SoundExchange or the copyright holders themselves notified the ISP that the material streamed by this webcaster was infringing as no royalties were being paid and, to protect itself, the ISP blocked access to the site.

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!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The four settlement agreements between SoundExchange and different groups of webcasters were published in the Federal Register today, setting the dates by which Internet radio operators need to opt into the terms of certain of these deals by filing a Notice of Election with SoundExchange.  The deals each have different opt in dates, so it does get confusing.  For larger webcasters interested in taking advantage of the rates set by the Sirius XM deal (which we summarized here), their notice must be filed on this form with SoundExchange within 15 days.  For noncommercial webcasters wishing to take advantage of the deal struck with the Northwestern College on behalf of Religious Broadcasters, but open to any noncommercial webcaster (a deal we summarized here), the option to be included in this deal must be made by an existing webcaster by September 15 (on this form for most noncommercial webcasters, but on this one, and similar forms for 2006 - 2008, for those eligible for the microcaster provisions).  Noncommercial webcasters affiliated with educational institutions who want to take advantage of the record-keeping breaks contained in that Noncommercial Educational deal, also summarized here, apparently need not submit a form until it pays its minimum fee for 2010, but the end of January.  As the fourth deal, with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, does not even affect periods until 2011, affiliated stations need not file a notification with SoundExchange at this time, though CPB may have its own opt-in requirements for its member stations.

As we've written before (here and here), these deals are on top of the Pureplay settlement, summarized here, where an Internet radio station can still opt in by submitting this form by August 17 (or a small pureplay webcaster can file this form by that same date).  Broadcasters have had their own settlement (summarized here and here), where the opt in dates have passed, as have the dates for opting into the  "microcasters" deal for small commercial webcasters (see our summary here).  New stations just launching have the option to select from any of these alternative rate structures.  It is a confusing jumble of regulations that a webcaster needs to carefully sort through to determine which set of rates would best fit their own business model.  Read these deals carefully, as all have details that must be observed to insure full compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 10, 2009, David Oxenford addressed the Christian Music Broadcasters' Momentum '09 Conference in Orlando, Florida.  Dave' s presentation was titled 18 Issues in 18 Minutes: What a Broadcaster Should Worry About From Washington DC.  In 18 minutes, Dave discussed topics including the FCC's proposed localism rules, sponsorship identification and noncommercial underwriting issues, contest fines, FCC technical operating and public file rules , FCC EEO obligations, and copyright issues including streaming fees and the proposed broadcast performance royalty.  The 18 minute presentation to a general session of the conference was followed by a one-hour "Digging Deeper" session where conference participants asked for more details on many of these issues.

A copy of Dave's PowerPoint presentation used for the 18 minute session can be found here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today released its decision for the most part rejecting the appeals of webcasters of the 2007 decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting Internet Radio royalty rates for the use of sound recordings.  The Court generally upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issues raised by the appealing parties did not show that the decision was "arbitrary and capricious" - a high standard of judicial review that the Courts accord when reviewing supposedly "expert" administrative agency decisions.  On only one issue did the Court have concerns with the CRB's decision - that being the question of the $500 per channel minimum fees that it had required that webcasters pay.  The Court found that per channel fee, which could result in astronomical fees for some webcasters regardless of their listenership, was not supported by the record evidence, and remanded that aspect of the case to the CRB for further consideration.

The Court surprised some observers by not reaching the constitutional issue of whether the Copyright Royalty Judges were properly appointed.  As we wrote before (see our posts here and here), issues were raised by appellant Royalty Logic, contending that these Judges should be appointed by the President, and not by the Librarian of Congress.  In the recent Court decision on the CRB rates for satellite radio, where the issue had not even been raised, one Judge nevertheless wrote that he questioned the constitutionality of the CRB.  The Court here decided not to decide the issue - finding that it had been raised too late by Royalty Logic, and raised too many fundamental issues (including whether the Register of Copyrights should herself be appointed by the President, potentially invalidating many copyrights) to be decided on the minimal briefing accorded it by the parties.

This decision really just delays the consideration of the issue of the constitutionality of the CRB.  Now that this issue is on the table, it is bound to be raised by other parties in other CRB proceedings.  Thus, as the CRB embarks on its consideration of the webcasting royalty rates for 2011-2015, there is a cloud hanging over its existence - one that may take another Court decision, or some corrective action by Congress, to remedy. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent months, SESAC has been writing letters to broadcasters who are streaming their signals on the Internet, asking for royalties for the performance of SESAC music on their websites.  More than one broadcaster has asked me why they have any obligation to SESAC when they are already paying SoundExchange for the music that they stream.  In fact, SoundExchange and SESAC are paid for different rights, and thus the payments to SoundExchange have no impact on the obligations that are owed to SESAC.  SESAC, along with ASCAP and BMI, represent the composers of music in collecting royalties for the public performance of their compositions.  SoundExchange, on the other hand, represents the performers of the music (and the copyright holders in those performances - usually the record companies).  In the online digital world, the SoundExchange fees cover the public performance of these recordings by particular performers (referred to as "sound recordings").  For an Internet radio company, or the online stream of a terrestrial radio station, payments must be made for both the composition and the sound recording. 

To illustrate the difference between the two rights, let's look at an example.  On a CD released a few years ago, singer Madeleine Peyroux did a cover version of the Bob Dylan song "You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go."  For that song, the public performance of the composition (i.e. Dylan's words and music) is licensed through SESAC.  The actual "sound recording" of Peyroux's version of the song would be licensed through SoundExchange, with the royalties being split between Peyroux and her record label (with backing singers and musicians receiving a small share of the SoundExchange royalty). 

One reason for the confusion about SESAC may be that the other performing rights organizations representing composers, ASCAP and BMI, cover the costs of streaming a broadcast station on the Internet as part of the same process that broadcast stations use to pay their over-the-air royalties.  Thus, broadcasters do not see a separate invoice for their streaming royalties due to these organizations.  SESAC, on the other hand, has determined that streaming (and HD radio channels) are potentially independent revenue sources, so they charge a separate royalty for the music used by broadcasters providing these services.  However, it should be noted that both the ASCAP and BMI agreements with broadcasters are up for renewal this year, so these issues could conceivably be up for consideration in the negotiations about the new royalties to be paid by broadcasters in the future.

But for now, broadcasters who are streaming their signals on the Internet should understand that the rights covered by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are different from those covered by the SoundExchange royalty, and thus there are obligations to all of these organizations for music royalties.  Thus, don't ignore that letter from SESAC asking for Internet radio royalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link