Posted on August 12, 2009 by David Oxenford

Webcasters Settlement Act Agreements Published in the Federal Register - Dates to Elect These Deals Set

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 1, 2009 by David Oxenford

David Oxenford Discusses Legal Issues at the Christian Music Broadcasters Momentum '09 Conference

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. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 10, 2009 by David Oxenford

Court Rejects Webcaster Challenge to Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Royalties - And Does Not Rule on Constitutional Issue of CRB Appointment

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. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 17, 2009 by David Oxenford

SoundExchange Fees Don't Cover SESAC Obligations

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.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on January 30, 2008 by David Oxenford

Reminder - Internet Radio Royalty Minimum Fee Due on January 31

Each year, Internet radio stations must pay a minimum fee to SoundExchange, and that fee is due by January 31.  These minimum fees are applied against  the obligations of a Internet radio service to pay royalties for the use of sound recordings on their stations.  SoundExchange does not send bills, so webcasters must remember, on their own, to make the payments.  For commercial webcasters (including broadcasters who stream their signals on the Internet), under the Copyright Royalty Board decision released last March, a minimum fee of $500 per channel is due.  While SoundExchange and certain large webcasters agreed to cap this minimum fee liability at $50,000 no matter how many channels a webcaster transmits (see our post here), this agreement has yet to be submitted to the CRB for approval.  Minimum payments are also due from noncommercial and small webcasters.

Under the CRB decision, noncommercial webcasters also owe a minimum fee of $500 per channel.  Small webcasters, who earlier this year accepted the SoundExchange offer about which we wrote here, owe a minimum fee of $2000 if they had 2007 revenues of less than $50,000, and minimum fees of $5000 if their 2007 revenues exceeded $50,000.  Note that details about these minimums are difficult to locate on the SoundExchange website.  Nevertheless, the current rules require that these payments be made.  Future settlement negotiations may adjust some of these minimums but, as of this moment, the failure to pay the minimum fees could, at a minimum, subject an Internet radio service to penalty fees and interest payments. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
Posted on November 20, 2007 by David Oxenford

Briefing Dates Set on Internet Radio Royalty Court Appeal

The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia has set the briefing dates on the appeal filed by various webcasting groups seeking review of the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting Internet radio royalties for the period 2006-2010 for the use of sound recordings (see our coverage of this controversy here, and a detailed summary of the CRB decision here).  The briefs of the various webcasting groups who appealed are due on February 25.  The brief for the CRB (represented by the Department of Justice) is due on April 25, and that of SoundExchange (the "Intervenor) will be filed on May 15. Reply briefs are due on June 12, and oral arguments are yet to be scheduled. As the Court usually takes a summer break in July and August, the argument is likely to be held in the Fall of 2008, and a decision would likely not come until very late in the year or, more likely, in 2009.

Appeals were filed by the a number of groups including large webcasters (including AOL, Yahoo and DiMA), the small commercial webcasters (who I have represented), various noncommercial groups (including two collegiate broadcasting groups and the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music Licensing Committee), and various commercial broadcasters who also stream their signals on the Internet.  A group called Royalty Logic, which is seeking to become a collective that is competitive with SoundExchange, also filed an appeal of the CRB decision. 

Already, there has been a settlement announced on one narrow aspect of the case, the minimum fees for companies that stream multiple channels, limiting the per company minimum fee to $50,000.  Obviously, if there are other settlements, these appeals could become unnecessary in whole or in part.  See our summary of the remaining issues to be resolved here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments (2)
  • Share Link