Is A Settlement on Internet Radio Royalties Near? Will All Webcasters Be Included and Will They Be Able to Afford It?

The Webcaster Settlement Act, about which we write here, has been signed into law by President Bush, giving parties to the Internet Radio royalty dispute until February 15 to enter into a settlement and have it become effective, without the need for any public comment or any further government approvals.  Several recent articles have indicated that a settlement is close - for at least some of the webcasters.  In several recent statements, Tim Westergrin of Pandora has indicated that the webcasters in DiMA (the Digital Media Association), in their negotiations with SoundExchange and the record labels, were getting very close to results.  At a the Digital Music Conference held in Los Angeles last month, Jon Potter, the President of DiMA, seemed to echo that sentiment.  However, neither could state with absolute certainty when the deal would come, or what its terms would be, though in Westergrin's comments at that conference, available here, he stated that webcasters probably would not be happy with the likely outcome of the settlement, implying that there would be a high rate that would be agreed to by the parties, though it would be one less than what the Copyright Royalty Board ordered (and one which would allow companies like his to survive).  However, he indicated that perhaps not all webcasters would be able to survive at the rate being discussed, and some might have to try to enter into their own agreements to fit other types of webcast operations.  In fact, the Webcasters Settlement Act is not limited to a single settlement, so various other parties who participated in the CRB proceeding - including broadcasters who stream their signals online, small commercial webcasters, and NPR and other noncommercial groups - could negotiate settlements as well, though there have not been any recent public statements that these negotiations were close to bearing fruit.

At a panel that I moderated at the CMJ Music Marathon later in October, which included a SoundExchange representative and a member of its Board, there was a suggestion that further settlements with groups other than DiMA might follow if and when the deal with the large webcasters is concluded.  This approach may make some sense as the copyright holders don't want any deals that they cut with small webcasters or noncommercial parties that could affect their negotiations with larger webcasters, from whom the vast bulk of their revenues are derived.  Copyright holders naturally want to address the interests that will be the most lucrative.  However, this approach does put smaller parties, who are often most worried about potential liabilities and most sensitive to uncertainty, into a very uncomfortable position. As we've written before, the statutory license that is administered by SoundExchange was granted by Congress at least partially to make access to music possible, especially to smaller parties with little bargaining power and little ability to cut deals with thousands of copyright holders, which would be required without this license.  Yet these are the parties most in need of relief from the rates imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board, so we hope that the talks of future settlements in fact are accurate.

If and when the settlement is reached, the next major question will be how the Internet radio service will be monetized.  A recent New York Times article asks that question, interviewing a number of operators about the difficulties in attracting advertisers to the service.  A new blog, Audio4cast, covering the business side of the Internet radio and digital music industry, looks at the question of how the industry can benefit from the current economic crisis.  The New York Post has run an article highlighting the fact that, more and more, Internet-only webcasters are cutting back on their services due to the high royalties, while broadcasters are able to grow their on-line listeners by subsidization from their over-the-air business.  Recognizing that the industry still has not figured out how to make money from their operations is an important issue in any discussion of royalties, as royalties have to be realistic in light of the real-world business conditions for a vital Internet radio business to exist.  We will all have to see if any settlements which do result from the Webcaster Settlement Act recognize these realities and set rates that allow the Internet radio industry to survive and thrive.

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.