January 2012

Changing the city of license of an AM or FM station is getting more difficult, based on recent FCC decisions.  As we have written before, the FCC’s Rural Radio order changed the manner in which the FCC reviews city of license changes.  In connection with any proposed city of license change, the FCC reviews the proposal to make sure that the change will result in a favorable arrangement of allotments, making sure that the distribution of radio channels is in the public interest.  In making that decision, the FCC has relied on a series of priorities – first insuring that all areas of the country get at least two radio reception services (Priority 1 was to provide service to "white areas" that currently receive no radio service at all, Priority 2 was to provide a second reception service to all areas).  The next priority was to provide as many communities as possible with their first "transmission service", i.e. a station licensed to that community that would have a primary responsibility to address its needs and interests.  Finally, if there was no proposal to provide a first or second reception service or a first local transmission service, the FCC  looked at Priority 4 factors, i.e. other public interest matters.  In the past, service to a greater number of people itself was a Priority 4 consideration.  Based on a case released last week, service to a greater population apparently is no longer be viewed as justification for the change in the city of license of a radio station – even if the proposed move is from a rural community that already has a significant amount of service to a similarly well served urbanized area and results in a significant increase in the population served by the station.

The Rural Radio order changed the Priority 3 preference for a first transmission service by determining that any proposal for a city of license within an urbanized area would be viewed as being a proposal for service to the entire urbanized area (meaning that, instead of being a first local service to a named community, all the stations in the urbanized area would be considered as serving the same city). Thus, a proposal to take a station from a rural area (e.g. proposing to take the third radio station from some smaller rural town) to a city without a service in a urbanized area would no longer be viewed as providing the first local transmission service to the suburban community (but would instead be viewed as being a proposal to provide just another service to a metro area that probably already has many stations that are licensed to the various communities in the urbanized area).  Some had thought that, while Priority 3 would no longer justify such a move, a Priority 4 preference would be available if the move would allow the station to serve a much larger population, and if any loss area was already well served.  In the proposed move discussed last week, the Commission relied on language in the Rural Radio Order that stated that population increases alone would not be enough to justify a city of license change when a station proposed to move into an urbanized area.  In this case, the Commission’s staff found wanting a proposal to move from the well-served community of Boone, Iowa to a community in the Des Moines urbanized area – even though the proposed change would result in service to over 300,000 more people than are currently served by the station – increasing the number of people served by the station from less than 100,000 to over 400,000. The request was not denied outright, but instead the applicant was given another opportunity to supply additional information to demonstrate the public interest benefits that would result from the move. Continue Reading FCC Makes Changing City of License of Radio Stations More Difficult

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today (Jan. 10, 2012) in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which put squarely before the Court the constitutionality of the FCC’s current indecency enforcement regime.  The case came to the Court from decisions by the Second Circuit, involving broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards and NYPD Blue, which held that the enforcement regime at the center of the FCC’s “crackdown” on broadcast indecency over the last several years had become unconstitutionally vague.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Broadcast Indecency Case

The FCC has extended the comment deadline in two proceedings looking at imposing new public interest obligations on TV broadcasters (and potentially, at some point in the future, on radio stations as well).  Both proceedings are an outgrowth of the FCC’s Future of Media Report, that suggested that broadcasters be made to be more…

The Copyright Royalty Board has just announced that it is accepting petitions to participate in the next proceeding to set the royalty rates to be paid for the ephemeral copies made by "business establishment services" in connection with any digital transmission of sound recordings.  Business establishment services are essentially background music services who…

In addition to the normal FCC deadlines for routine filings, January brings the deadline for comments in a number of FCC proceedings, and a filing window for new FM applications.  For TV stations, the Commission recently extended to January 17 the Reply Comment deadline on its proposals (summarized here) for an online public inspection file. …

The Copyright Office last week issued its Report to Congress on pre-1972 sound recordings (with an Executive Summary), addressing whether to bring these recordings under Federal law.  As we wrote last year when the Copyright Office solicited comments on the issues raised by this report, sound recordings (i.e. aural recordings embodied in some fixed form like a CD, record or digital file) created in the United States prior to 1972 are not protected under Federal copyright law.  Instead, any protections accorded to these sound recordings are under state laws.  Congress, at the request of a number of archivist and music library groups, asked that the Copyright Office review the issues that would be raised by bringing these sound recordings under Federal law.  Some archivists and librarians feared that, in preserving old recordings, they could run afoul of state copyright laws, and that a unified set of rules under Federal law might be easier to follow.  Why is this issue more broadly important to the music community?  For internet radio station operators, it is because the proposals to Federalize all such recordings could have an impact on digital performance royalties (as there does not appear to be any public performance right in sound recordings under state laws and, under current law, these recordings would not be covered under the SoundExchange royalties that most noninteractive services play).  The Report is also significant in that it raises questions about copyright laws dealing with user-generated content, specifically whether the DMCA safe harbor provisions protecting the operators of Internet service companies from copyright liability for the content posted by third parties apply to pre-1972 sound recordings.

This is only a report to Congress, and such reports have no binding impact.  Instead, they merely set out the position of the authors of the report from the Copyright Office.  Such reports are also cited as evidence in court cases as to what the Office believes the current state of the law to be.  The Office has written a number of reports over the years making suggestions about how copyrights should be administered and, given the complexity of copyright law and the competing interests affected by any revisions to the laws, many of their proposals have never been implemented.  This report suggests that pre-1972 sound recordings be brought under Federal laws.  Specifically, the report suggests that current copyright holders get protection for most pre-1972 works until 2067 (when state law protections are to run out under the current law, allowing the works to move into the public domain).  The protections would be accorded to works that are used by the copyright holder (sold at some reasonable price) and registered with the Copyright Office at some point after a law implementing its proposals became effective.  Works from prior to 1923 would be subject to a similar use and registration process, but would only get 25 years of additional protection.  Seemingly, protections for works that are not registered would pass into the public domain after the applicable registration period expires.  For some webcasting companies, this change could have an immediate impact.Continue Reading Copyright Office Report Recommends Federalization of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings – Possible Implications For Music Royalties and User-Generated Content

Fines of $14,000 and $8,000 were proposed by the FCC for violations of its EEO rules in two cases (here and here) released on the FCC’s last business day of the year.  In both cases, the fines were issued as these clusters of stations, on the FCC Form 396 EEO Reports filed with their license renewal applications, publicized a number of job openings without adequate recruitment.  In the cases faulted by the FCC, the stations’ recruitment relied solely on either internal station sources (e.g. word of mouth, referrals from existing employees, ads on the stations or on their own websites) or on on-line resources.  The Commission concluded that this was inadequate dissemination of the information about these openings.  Based on the failure to engage in broad outreach for all of their job openings, these fines were issued by the FCC – perhaps the first of more to come as the FCC reviews license renewal applications during the current license renewal cycle.  Perhaps coincidentally, the FCC will be conducting a webinar on its EEO rules on Wednesday, January 4, which is intended to help explain the obligations of broadcasters and other FCC regulated entities under these rules.

 The January 4 webinar will feature two panels.  The first will be a panel of FCC and private attorneys (I will be one of the participants) who will outline the legal obligations of broadcasters under the FCC’s EEO rules and policies and discuss how these rules are applied .  A second panel will feature industry representatives talking about EEO compliance best practices at their stations.  The webinar is free, but requires registration (here).  The FCC public notice of the webinar can be found here, and a further description of the seminar is available on its blog (here).  No doubt, the issues leading to the two fines announced on Friday will be discussed during the legal session.Continue Reading FCC Fines Up to $14,000 Proposed for License Renewal EEO Violations, Commission To Hold Webinar to Explain Its Rules