October 2013

This is the 75th anniversary of the Mercury Players broadcast of the Orson Welles production of the War of the Worlds – a radio broadcast that seemingly scared many Americans into thinking that the country was under attack by Martians, that my home state of New Jersey had been overrun, and that the rest of the country would be soon to follow.  PBS’s American Experience just ran a great documentary about the production – talking about Wells’ decision to delay an announcement that the program was a fictional production, not a real invasion, long after his network superiors ordered that announcement after the phone lines of the network were tied up.  Also tied up were the phone lines of emergency responders, and it supposedly even caused people to leave their homes to flee the path of the oncoming invaders.  The PBS program talked about how the FCC opened an investigation of the program, and how Congress demanded that laws be passed to prevent such a broadcast from happening again.  Essentially, through some well-publicized apologies by Welles and others involved in the program, and a promise by the network to take steps to prevent it from happening again, the FCC closed its investigation and no law was passed by Congress.  Even though the government did not act 75 years ago, it is interesting to look at how the FCC has changed since that time, and why such a broadcast would not fly under FCC rules today.

Most prominent among the FCC rules adopted since the famous broadcast is the FCC’s rule against “hoaxes.”  As we’ve written before (usually just before April Fools’ Day), this rule (Section 73.1217) forbids broadcasters from airing programs that are false where it is foreseeable that the broadcast will tie up the resources of first responders or that the broadcast will otherwise cause harm to people or damage to property, and where such harm is in fact caused.  Applying that rule to the War of the Worlds broadcast would mean that the radio network (and its affiliated stations) could likely be looking at big fines were such a broadcast to be made today. While a broadcaster could certainly argue (as was done at the time) that no rational person would believe that the Martians were really invading, the fact that the network was deluged with calls, and that the network warned its director to air a disclaimer (which was delayed for dramatic effect) would likely defeat any such arguments.
Continue Reading Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds 75 Years Later – What Would the FCC Do Now?

At its November 14 meeting, the FCC is tentatively scheduled to consider the relaxation of its limits on the ownership of broadcast stations by foreign entities or citizens.  Under the current “alien ownership” limitations, US citizens or entities must own 80% of a broadcast licensee, or 75% of a licensee’s parent company.  In the broadcast world, the 25% alien ownership limit must be analyzed both as to equity and voting interests.  In the modern financial world, where companies are often owned by many diverse investors (or funds with widely diverse ownership), these rules can be very burdensome in assuring compliance and managing the potential investment in US broadcast operations by foreign sources of capital. 

Under the governing statute, Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, the FCC can’t allow a licensee in any service that it regulates to be more than 20% foreign owned.  But the statute allows a parent company of a licensee to be 25% foreign owned, and even allows that parent company to exceed that “limit” unless the FCC finds that the public interest would be compromised by foreign ownership greater than 25%.  Thus, the rules are actually written to presume that the “limit” can be exceeded, unless the FCC sees a problem.  The principal concern that would raise a question under the law would be one of national security – the government does not want crucial communications infrastructure, or the means of dissemination of information to the public, to be controlled or unduly influenced, by foreign interests in the event of some emergency.   As we wrote just 6 months ago, in non-broadcast services, the FCC has routinely allowed foreign ownership to exceed the 25% threshold, and recently made it easier for companies to demonstrate their compliance with the rules.  This clearly shows that national security issues can be addressed in other ways.  How about in the broadcast services?
Continue Reading FCC to Consider Allowing Increased Foreign Ownership of Broadcast Stations at Its November Meeting

The deadline for filing applications in the LPFM window has been extended as a result of the Federal government shutdown – with the new filing deadline being November 14 at 6 PM Eastern Time.  The FCC filing system is open now, so parties can go ahead prepare and actually submit their applications now. But as, during the shutdown, the FCC’s system was not available for research or application preparation, and as the FCC staff was not available to answer questions, the Commission gave applicants additional time in which to submit their applications.

During the shutdown, the FCC had been scheduled to have a webinar to further explain the application process and to answer questions about the rules applicable to LPFM.  Obviously, the shutdown prevented that from happening, so the FCC has now rescheduled the seminar for October 24 at 1 PM.  The webinar can be accessed here. Continue Reading FCC Extends LPFM Filing Window, New Dates for LPFM Webinar and Changes in LPFM Protections to FM Translator Inputs

The FCC issued further guidance on FCC filing deadlines for regulatory submissions that were due during the 16 day Federal shutdown. The FCC has essentially given most applicants and filers a 16 day extension of time to file anything that was due during the shutdown. They note, however, that there are certain deadlines that they cannot…

The battle over services that record and stream over-the-air TV without compensation to TV broadcasters has become even more confusing, with a US District Court judge in Boston denying an injunction to stop the Aereo service in Massachusetts in a suit brought by Hearst Corporation, which owns a local TV station. This decision comes on the heels of a decision the decision by the US District Court in Washington DC finding that Aereo-like service FilmOn X was violating the copyrights of TV stations by operating a similar service in the DC area (see our discussion of that decision here). Joining decisions in NY favoring the streaming services (a decision we initially wrote about here), and one is California favoring broadcasters, the decision appears to be headed to an ultimate resolution before the Supreme Court to reflect these conflicting points of view. In fact, TV broadcasters have already announced the likelihood of their filing a Supreme Court petition asking the Court to resolve the matter. 

Of course, the decisions outside of NY have been by District Courts, not US Appeals Courts. All except the NY decision are subject to review by the US Court of Appeals in the Circuits in which these District Courts lie. It is possible that the appeals could come out differently than the decisions by the District Courts, and either increase or decrease the likelihood of Supreme Court review, depending on whether the other appellate courts rule for Aereo or FilmOn X (decreasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review if the Circuits agree on the outcome) or against it (increasing the likelihood of review as the Court would be faced with conflicts among the circuits which is a usual ground for Supreme Court review). The Boston decision, while not as comprehensive as some of the other decisions on the topic, does raise some interesting issues that will no doubt be considered on appeal.Continue Reading The Courts Continue To Split on Streaming TV Services – As Boston Court Denies TV Broadcasters Request for an Injunction Against Aereo

We wrote about the Department of Commerce’s Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy that was released back in July. While our article principally addressed the music issues raised by the Green Paper, many other issues were discussed in its 120 pages. The questions raised by the Aereo case (about which we wrote here, and we wrote about the similar service, FilmOnX, here) were also discussed in the paper. Many other issues were also addressed, and the Commerce Department, through NTIA (the office within Commerce that advises the Executive Branch of the government on Telecommunications issues) and the Patent and Trademark Office, is now beginning the process of asking for public comment on some of the many issues raised in the Green Paper. The NTIA released a Public Notice, dated September 30 and still available on the NTIA website despite the Federal government shutdown, asking for comment on a number of these issues. 

The specific issues on which comments are sought (with our explanation of some of the issues involved) are the following:

  • "the legal framework for the creation of remixes" – the only music issue specifically teed up for comment.  The Green Paper had asked if consideration should be given to some sort of compulsory license for remixes, mash-ups and similar uses of music, or if other steps could or should be taken to allow for the creation of such works;
  • "the relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital environment." This is asking for comments on questions including whether consumers should be able to re-sell downloads that they purchase, as they have the right to do in a physical world;
  • "the appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the contexts of individual file sharers and of secondary liability for large-scale infringement."   This question seemingly stems from the issue raised by the huge statutory damage requests in mass-infringement cases, damages that in one case alone could exceed the entire revenue of many industries whose works are infringed. Questions have been raised as to whether the full amount of statutory damages should be available for each and every infringement, particularly where such infringement is done on a limited basis.  Obviously, though, copyright holders are concerned about large scale infringement, and want to preserve and even expand penalties in such cases;
  • "whether and how the government can facilitate the further development of a robust online licensing environment." It is unclear exactly what this question is looking at. Perhaps it is seeking comments on ideas such as the one the that government create some sort of copyright hub that would facilitate the identification of copyright holders and the licensing of their works; and
  • "establishing a multistakeholder dialogue on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." Next to the question on damages, this issue is likely to be among the most controversial of the proposals, and we’ll address that below in a little more detail below.

The reform of the DMCA notice and takedown system is looking to reform the current system where operators of websites generally have immunity from liability for copyright infringement for user generated content – unless the sites knew specifically about the infringing content and did not take steps to take it down, or unless they actively solicited or encouraged such uses. This is often referred to as the "safe harbor" for sites that feature user-generated content.  The safe harbor has allowed many of today’s most popular services, including YouTube and even Facebook to thrive, allowing millions of consumers to have an outlet for their interests through social sharing, without the sites having to review each and every post to determine if there is infringing content in the material that users have shared. We have written about this safe harbor before (see, for instance, our posts here and here).Continue Reading Comments Sought on Commerce Department Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy – Including Issues of User Generated Content and Appropriate Damages for Copyright Infringement

With the FCC closed because of the Federal government shutdown so no new decisions will be coming out for the time being, we get to look at some of the issues and decisions that we didn’t get a chance to write about when they first came out.  One of the cases we overlooked raised the question of whether the FCC cares about a broadcaster’s market share when it goes to buy a new radio station, or will it simply apply the numerical station ownership limits set out in the rules? Based on a decision released last month (note that the link to the decision may not work during the shutdown), the rules which set numerical limits on how many radio stations one party can own in a market are pretty much decisive in the FCC’s determination of whether or not a party can buy a station in a market. Even if the advertising or audience market share of the buyer is very high, the fact that there are other stations in a market providing competitive opportunities makes questions of audience share essentially irrelevant. The case also addresses two other interesting aspects of the FCC’s analysis of radio holdings in a market – which stations are included in the station count for a market, and when a station being silent means that it will no longer be counted as a competitive voice in the market.

The case involved the purchase of a radio station in the Roanoke-Lynchburg, Virginia market. The Buyer already owned four FM stations in the market, and was buying a fifth. Another owner contended that the ownership of those stations would give the Buyer a share of the advertising market of more than 50%, which the petitioner claimed would impede competition and make it difficult for minorities and other new entrants to buy stations in the market. The Media Bureau rejected the arguments, finding that, as there are at least 45 stations in the market, ownership of 5 FM stations in the market is permissible under the rules established back in 1996, and revised in 2003. The numerical limits were found by the Media Bureau to represent the FCC’s judgment of what represented a sufficient limit on one party’s ownership of stations in a market. While a company that owns the maximum number of stations in a market may have a very large share of the advertising market, the decision concluded that the Commission, when adopting the numerical caps, made the determination that the numerical caps were more reliable than a market share analysis.  Even when an owner owns the maximum number of stations allowed under the rules, there are numerous other competitive outlets in the market.  As market shares can change over time, the numerical limits were found to be determinative. So the Media Bureau would not upset that policy decision in a case like this.Continue Reading Challenge to Radio Station Purchase Helps Define FCC Radio Ownership Limits in Arbitron Markets

Congressman Mel Watt from North Carolina this week introduced his long-awaited bill proposing that over-the-air radio broadcasters pay a royalty to sound recording copyright holders (usually the record label) and to artists. As we have written many times, currently, royalties on sound recordings are paid only by companies that make digital performances, including webcasters (see our summary of the current webcasting rates here) and satellite radio (see our summary of the recent decision on satellite radio rates here). While the bill’s proposals for a broadcast royalty has been covered in many other news reports, few note that the Watt bill, called the Free Market Royalty Act, goes far beyond past proposals for a royalty on over-the-air broadcasters. In addition to the over-the-air royalty, the bill proposes that the Copyright Royalty Board be taken out of the equation in setting royalties.  And the removal of the CRB from the process applies not just to the proposed new performance royalty on broadcasters, but also to the setting of royalties for all other noninteractive commercial digital music services. Instead of a CRB proceeding to set rates, commercial music users, including webcasters and satellite radio, would need to negotiate a royalty with copyright holders – principally with SoundExchange – a royalty not subject to review as to the reasonableness of the rates by the CRB or by the Courts.

And the proposal goes further than simply designating SoundExchange as the party with whom all noninteractive digital audio services would go to negotiate royalties. In addition, the bill provides that any copyright holder could opt out of the rates negotiated by SoundExchange, after they are set, and negotiate direct licenses for its music with music services, including radio broadcasters. Seemingly, a popular band, or a label with a number of hit acts, that thought that it could get more from its music than any rate to which SoundExchange agreed, could withdraw from any "deal" with SoundExchange, and negotiate on their own for what would presumably be higher royalties.  If the copyright holder withdraws its music from the SoundExchange royalty, broadcasters and other music services could not play that music unless and until a license deal was reached.Continue Reading Congressman Watt’s Music Royalty Bill – Performance Royalty For Over-the-Air Broadcasters And Other Fundamental Copyright Act Changes Impacting All Digital Music Services

The Federal government shutdown that we speculated about last week has now come to pass, and the clearest evidence is that, when you go to the FCC website, you are greeted by a special message essentially saying that the website is not available until after the shutdown ends. So, as we speculated last week, broadcast (and most other) applicants can’t even begin to prepare applications for filing when the government reopens, as the Commission’s CDBS database (as well as there other systems for filing electronic applications) is not available. Nor can you even access information about pending applications, pleadings that have been filed, or any of the other detailed information that is available on the FCC’s usually informative website. You’ll even note that links to FCC actions contained in many of the posts on this blog will not work, as the documents to which they link are resident on the FCC website. Similar notices are on most other government agency sites like, for instance, the Copyright Office site.

What is a broadcaster to do when they have an application or other deadline that falls during shutdown period? Stations sales will no doubt be closed, stations will be constructed with license applications due to be filed, there are license renewals that were due yesterday for radio stations in the Pacific northwest, Alaska, Hawaii and the Pacific territories, and other pleadings and filings that are either now due, or will become due if the shutdown persists. One of the few documents that is available on the FCC’s site is a Public Notice on the Procedure for Filing in the Event of a Lapse in Funding, which provides a minimal amount of information about what is next. Beyond saying that the FCC is essentially closed, the notice does say that filings due during the shutdown would be due the day after the FCC returns to normal operations. The notice gives the example that, if funding is restored on a Monday, the FCC would return to normal operations on Tuesday, and filings due during the interim would be due on Wednesday. The Notice also states that, if there are issues restarting the electronic filing databases after the government reopens, further public notices will be issued, which presumably could further extend filing deadlines.Continue Reading Now that the FCC Has Shut Down – What’s a Broadcaster to do?