Copyright Royalty Board Sets Comment Date on Internet Radio Minimum Fee Settlement

Last year’s Court of Appeals decision on Internet radio royalties for 2006-2010 remanded one issue to the Copyright Royalty Board for further consideration – the issue of the minimum annual fee to be paid by each webcaster. The Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”) had decided on a $500 per channel minimum fee – a fee that created much concern in the Internet radio community as there was no clear delineation of what a channel was. For services, like Pandora, where there is a unique stream created for each listener, by some definitions there could be an almost infinite number of channels all subject to the $500 minimum fee. Following the CRB's initial decision, a number of the larger webcasters and SoundExchange entered into a settlement capping the minimum fee obligation at $50,000 per webcaster per year. Thus, services with more than 100 channels would only pay a minimum fee of $50,000 at the beginning of each year. However, this settlement was never extended to all webcasters - it applied only to those webcasters who signed the deal.  Following the Court remand, SoundExchange and DiMA (the Digital Media Association which represents many webcasters), submitted the 2007 settlement to the CRB to be codified into the rules that govern webcasters generally. Just before Christmas, the CRJs asked for comments on that settlement. Comments are due by January 22. 

In many cases, this settlement has been superseded by subsequent events – namely the settlements with webcasters that were entered into in February and then later in the summer under the provisions of the Webcaster Settlement Acts. Settlements with broadcasters, pureplay webcasters, small commercial webcasters and various noncommercial groups all set their own minimum fees (and, for the most part, cover the periods through 2015), and thus this proceeding is largely irrelevant to these webcasters. If this settlement is approved, the only remaining question before the CRJs on the remand of the 2006-2010 proceeding will be the minimum fee for some noncommercial groups that did not enter into any settlement, as this agreement on minimum fees applies only to commercial webcasters.

It is interesting to note that these minimum fees will finally be set in 2010 – the last year of the current license term, and will establish minimum fees that are due in January of each year (though these fees will no doubt be set after the last January in the term). The whole issue will have to be revisited for the 2011-2015 period in the proceeding that is currently underway to set the royalties for that period.   Stay tuned for more information about that proceeding, which should be decided later in 2010.

Webcaster Settlement Act - What Does It Mean?

Both the House and the Senate have now approved the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, which will become law when it is signed by the President. Just what does this bill do? It does not announce a settlement of the contentious Internet Radio royalty dispute, about which we have extensively written here. It does not change the standard for judging Internet radio royalties, as had been proposed in the Internet Radio Equality Act, introduced last year and now seemingly dead in the waning days of this Congress, and in the Perform Act, about which we wrote here (the IREA and the Perform Act proposed different standards – the first more favorable to webcasters and the second more favorable to SoundExchange). These issues will seemingly be left to be disputed in a future Congress. Instead, the Webcaster Settlement Act seems to only adopt a simplified process for the approval of settlements that may be reached by the parties on or before February 15, 2009 – a settlement process that had been previously used in the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (the language of which this bill amends).

What is the significance of these new settlement processes? Under current law, any settlement between any group of webcasters and SoundExchange could only be binding on the entire universe of sound recording copyright holders if that settlement was approved by the Copyright Royalty Board. If an agreement is not binding on all copyright holders, then the reason for the statutory royalty - being able to pay one entity and get access to all the music in the world - would not be met.  The current procedures for approving settlements seem to contemplate such settlements only before a decision on royalties is reached by the CRB.   While some have speculated that the Court of Appeals that is currently considering the CRB appeal could remand the case to the CRB to effectuate a settlement and force the CRB to address it, that is by no means certain. For instance, the large webcasters, through their organization DiMA, reached a settlement with SoundExchange to cap minimum fees at $50,000 per webcaster. In their briefs filed with the Court of Appeals, both DiMA and SoundExchange have asked the Court to remand that aspect of the case to the CRB for adoption – yet that request has been opposed by the Department of Justice acting on behalf of the CRB. Thus, voluntary settlements may not be easy to obtain.

In 2002, faced with a similar issue when the RIAA and a group of small webcasters with which I worked tried to reach a deal, Congress stepped in and passed the Small Webcaster Settlement Act.  SWSA allowed a settlement to bypass what was then the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (the "CARP") and go into effect simply upon submission of the settlement to the Library of Congress by a set deadline, and the Copyright Office publishing it in the Federal Register.  The Webcasting Settlement Act adopts that same system. If any group reaches a settlement with SoundExchange by February 15, 2009, they need only submit it to the CRB, which will then publish it in the Federal Register, and it will become effective and binding on all copyright holders as part of the statutory royalty. Unlike pre-hearing settlements, no notice and public comment is necessary on this settlement. 

 

The bill allows for settlements to be entered into for an 11 year period, starting with the end of 2005 when the last set of rates expired.  This would allow the settlement to displace the CRB decision from last year, and eliminate the need for a CRB proceeding for the next 5 years (the current CRB decision is to run through the end of 2010).

 

But such a settlement must be reached by February 15 ( the date was December 15 in the original draft of the bill, but it seems to have been changed in later versions).  Why wouldn't the period be unlimited?  Already, there was some unease with the adoption of this bill by broadcasters - as they have argued that they have not been involved in any settlement discussions with SoundExchange in a long period of time.  While that seems to have dissipated, perhaps others would object to an unlimited ability of copyright holders and webcasters to reach a deal without any opportunity to comment on a deal.   Yet why not?  If a group of webcasters and SoundExchange want to enter into a deal that would be available to any similarly situated webcaster, why do you need notice and comment?  If other webcasters don't like the deal, they can call for a CRB proceeding at the next opportunity to determine a rate for that objecting group.

 

In any event, the Webcaster Settlement Act makes it easy for settlements to go into effect - now we need to see if the hard part - actually entering into those settlements - will occur.

It's July 15th - What's a Webcaster to Do?

Monday, July 16th is the first business day after the effective date of the new Internet Radio royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Board.  As we wrote earlier this week, the Court of Appeals has denied the requested stay of the effective date.  And, while a bill was introduced in Congress this week to provide for a legislative stay, that will not be acted on by Monday, nor will action occur on the broader Internet Radio Equality Act.  Thus, many webcasters are asking what they should do on July 16.  Some have suggested that they should stop streaming, while others have wondered what will happen if they don't pay the higher royalties.  This decision is one that each webcaster should make carefully, in consultation with their counsel and business advisers.  But there are some practical considerations that should be taken into account when making the decision as to what should be done on Monday.

First, it should be noted that not all webcasters are equally affected by the royalty rate increase.  Larger commercial webcasters, including most broadcasters who are streaming their signals on the Internet, should have been paying royalties up to now that, while lower than those adopted by the CRB, have increased by "only" about 40%  - from $.00076 per performance (per song per listener) to $.0011 per performance.  These rates will continue to increase between now and 2010 so that they eventually will reach $.0019 per song per listener.  But for now, the increase is relatively modest (as compared with some of the other increases discussed below).  While there are reportedly at least some conversations going on between SoundExchange and groups representing broadcasters and large webcasters about reaching some sort of accommodation on royalties, there is no certainty that any deal will be reached, so these webcasters probably should be paying the higher royalties (and hoping for a credit against future royalties should there be an agreement reached in the future to reduce these royalties, a successful appeal, or future legislative action reducing the royalties).

For other webcasters, it is much more difficult (in many cases impossible) to pay the new higher royalties.  For instance, the small commercial webcasters that I have represented in the CRB proceeding, would in most cases be paying over 100% of their revenues in royalties under the new rates.   Large noncommercial webcasters who exceed the 157,000 monthly aggregate tuning hours that they get for a $500, end up paying royalties in some cases more than five times what they were paying in the past and, in the case of NPR stations, increases even greater than that.  But these are the parties with whom SoundExchange has made public statements that they are attempting to negotiate special deals.  In some press reports, for instance Friday's Radio and Internet Newsletter, it was reported that SoundExchange would withhold any action pending the outcome of these negotiations, and that they had made a similar statement to a Congressional meeting held by Congressman Markey and the House Telecommunications Subcommittee on Thursday.  As a participant in that non-public meeting, I cannot comment on any of those discussions, but as I wrote here before the meeting, one would hope and expect that SoundExchange would exercise restraint in its dealings with parties who continue to pay at rates at which they paid in the past, if those parties are actively negotiating in good faith on the SoundExchange offers to noncommercial webcasters and small commercial webcasters. 

It should be noted that any offer by SoundExchange is not legally binding until it has been finalized with the groups representing the webcasters involved, approved by the SoundExchange Board, and then ratified by the CRB or through some other form of government action.  And until that happens, copyright holders could take legal actions against those who have not met their legal obligations.  This is also true for the announced offer by SoundExchange to cap the per stream minimum fees at $50,000 - which will help those webcasters with multiple unique channels who were fearing crushing minimum fee liabilities.  But, again, the details of that "deal" need to be worked out.  Thus, there can be no certainty that any future action will protect webcasters who do not come into full compliance on Monday.  All webcasters need to take these facts into account in deciding how to act.

There are other considerations to keep in mind for webcasters contemplating what to do now that the 15th has arrived.  First, as these royalties are retroactive to January 1, 2006, if there is not some change in the royalties, many webcasters (particularly small commercial webcasters and large noncommercial webcasters) already have accumulated huge back liabilities that would technically exist even if they terminate operations today.  As these liabilities already exist, that may make some webcasters involved in negotiations with SoundExchange about a possible reduction in the royalty amounts consider whether the immediate cessation of streaming would significantly reduce their potential liability. 

Moreover, for those webcasters involved in appeals of the CRB decision, there is at least some language in the statute governing these proceedings that would suggest that these royalties are not due until the appeal has been resolved.  While the CRB regulations state that these royalties are due now, those regulations were written before any appeal was filed, and would not necessarily address that contingency.  Again, though, the statute is not a model of absolute clarity, so webcasters should consult with their own legal counsel to determine how to proceed before taking this position.

All of these considerations must be carefully evaluated in deciding what to do on Monday. For many larger webcasters, the answer would appear to be that the royalty should be paid.  For other noncommercial and small commercial webcasters, realities may require closer examination of their options.  But any decision should be made after careful thought and consultation with counsel.  Then - watch the developments as they occur in the upcoming weeks.