Internet Radio

Subscribe to Internet Radio via RSS
  • The NAB and SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the pending litigation over the 2026-2030
…

As we have noted, a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to set the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the public performance of music by a non-interactive commercial webcasting service for 2026-2030 started last year, and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.  SoundExchange and one of the major webcasting parties remaining in the case, the NAB, this week filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the current litigation over the royalty rates to be paid to performers and copyright holders (usually the record companies).  These are the royalties that commercial broadcasters pay to SoundExchange for streaming music online, including through mobile apps and to smart speakers.  The current rate is $.0025 per Performance (a performance is every time a song is heard by one listener – so, for example, if a station has 10 listeners during an hour and they each hear 10 songs, that is 100 Performances).  And, under the settlement, the rates will be going up, effective January 1, 2026.

The rates proposed in the settlement are as follows:

2026: $0.0028 per Performance;

2027: $0.0029 per Performance;

2028: $0.0030 per Performance;

2029: $0.0031 per Performance; and

2030: $0.0032 per Performance

The CRB case is currently set to go to trial on April 28, a week’s extension having just been granted, perhaps because of this week’s resignation of the Chief Judge of the CRB and the appointment of an interim judge (that announcement is on the CRB’s homepage).  The NAB had been advocating for substantially lower rates for broadcast simulcasts given their total lack of interactivity.  The argument is that simulcast streams, which simply rebroadcast the programming of a commercial broadcast station and are not influenced by “likes” or a user’s favorite songs or artists, should be charged less than those offered by services that allow some degree of user customization, tailoring the stream provided to the user based on their preferences, while still remaining a noninteractive service (see our articles here and here on the difference between noninteractive streams that pay SoundExchange at the rates set by the CRB and those offered by interactive services that must negotiate agreements with the record companies to play their songs).  See our article here on the Court decision upholding the 2021-2025 royalties which rejected a similar argument by the NAB. By settling, it appears that the NAB opted for certainty in establishing rates modestly higher in each of the next five years rather than incurring the substantial cost of litigating over what the rates should be and the uncertainty that comes with any litigation – as SoundExchange was asking for rates substantially higher than those set out in the settlement. Continue Reading Settlement Between NAB and SoundExchange on Webcasting Royalty Rates for 2026-2030 – Rates are Going Up for Broadcast Simulcasts

  • In an effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, including the FCC, President Trump signed an Executive Order
…

The Copyright Royalty Board this week published notice in the Federal Register that SoundExchange is auditing two broadcast companies who are streaming their signals online to assess compliance with the statutory music licenses provided by Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act for the public performance of sound recordings and ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process by commercial webcasters. A notice was published last month indicating an audit of five other broadcast companies.  Notices of audits are annual events.  But, as the number of broadcasters selected for audits this year is higher than in past years, we thought that we should republish some of the observations that we have made in the past about these audits. 

SoundExchange may conduct an audit of any licensee operating under the statutory licenses for which it collects royalties.  Such audits cover the prior three calendar years in order to verify that the correct royalty payments have been made (the notice issued this week audits the named broadcasters for 2022-2024, while the audits announced last month were filed in late 2024 and are for the years 2021-2023). The decision to audit a company is not necessarily any indication that SoundExchange considers something amiss with that company’s royalty payments – instead SoundExchange audits a cross-section of services each year (see our past articles about audits covering the spectrum of digital music companies who have been subject to these audits – here, here, here, here and here).  Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces SoundExchange Audits of Broadcast Companies Streaming Their Signals – How Do These Audits Work?

In the United States, performing rights in musical compositions (or “musical works” as the Copyright Act refers to them – the words and music of a song) are generally licensed by a “performing rights organization” or a “PRO.”  The U.S., unlike most countries where there is a single organization that collects these royalites, has multiple such organizations.  The recent doubling in the number of PROs triggered the Copyright Office to initiate a Notice of Inquiry last week requesting public comment on issues related to these organizations.  What are the issues that led to this inquiry? 

As set out in the Notice, in the U.S., performance rights in musical compositions have for over 80 years been licensed by three PROs – ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.  Yet, since 2013, three new PROs have begun (GMR, PRO Music, and AllTrack).  These new PROs are not all equal. GMR has compiled a roster of songwriters who wrote many well-known songs in many different musical genres, and it has aggressively pursued royalties for the music in their repertoire – see, for instance, our articles here and here on their aggressive efforts to compel the radio industry to pay royalties.  PRO Music, while it has sought to receive licenses from various businesses, is a newer organization with music that appears to be concentrated in certain musical genres.  AllTracks is the newest of the PROs and, at this time, their licensing strategy remains to be seen. 

With at least six PROs representing composers of musical works in existence, Congress has received complaints that businesses using music have been confused by demands for royalty payments from these new organizations, accompanied by threats of lawsuits if royalties are not paid.  The Notice of Inquiry does not even note that the landscape is even more complicated, as there are additional PROs claiming rights in the underlying compositions in spoken word recordings – see our article here – and, from time to time, PROs arise that purportedly represent certain foreign-language recordings.  There is, no doubt, confusion among those who publicly perform music and need to be licensed to play that music about who they have to pay, and what these users are getting when they pay their royalties. Continue Reading Copyright Office Commences an Inquiry into the Proliferation of Performing Rights Organizations – Looking at the Complexity of Licensing Musical Works in the United States

  • Payola on broadcast stations suddenly was in the news this past week.  Early in the week, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
…

For years, we have warned about the need to license music in podcasts – and how such licenses need to be obtained directly from copyright holders.  We’ve noted demand notices sent to podcasters causing those podcasters to pull their programs from various distribution platforms (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  We warned that, as podcasts are on-demand performances and are permanently “fixed” with other audio, the public performance rights given by the licenses that broadcasters and some other services obtain from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR, and even SoundExchange, are insufficient to cover broad uses of music in podcasts (see, for example, our articles here and here).  A Press Release yesterday from NMPA (the National Music Publishers Association that represents publishing companies that generally hold the copyrights in musical works – the musical compositions that provide the word and music in a song) announces that the organization has sent a take-down notice to Spotify asking it to remove from podcasts hosted by Spotify “thousands of unlicensed uses of NMPA members’ works.”  The Press Release indicates that over 2,500 notices have been sent, and that more are on the way.

This action should reinforce our concerns about the use of unlicensed music in podcasts.  But, contrary to the suggestion that the NMPA letter makes that licensing “is not hard to do,” for many podcasters, it is in fact hard.  There is no central organization, like the PROs or SoundExchange, that provides blanket licenses that cover all music uses in podcasts.  A podcaster who wants to use a popular song in a podcast has to find the copyright holder (or, more frequently, the copyright holders) to both the sound recording (the artist who recorded the music or their copyright holder, often the record company) and to the musical work (the composer or composers and lyricists or their publishing companies, which normally hold the copyrights) and get their permission to include the song in the podcast – most often at a price.  This often involves significant research to find the proper rightsholders. Continue Reading NMPA Calls for Takedowns of Spotify Podcasts Using Unlicensed Music – A Reminder to Podcasters of the Perils of Music in Their Productions

  • FCC Chairman Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to
…

In a Press Release issued on November 1, the Radio Music License Committee announced the results of its arbitration with SESAC.  Despite the arbitrators’ decision that rates for commercial radio broadcasters are going up modestly, RMLC declared the decision a win.  How can an increase in royalties be a win?  Let’s provide some background on this decision and why the radio industry may breathe a sigh of relief.

First, it is important to set the background for the decision.  As we wrote here, in 2015, RMLC and SESAC settled an antitrust lawsuit brought by RMLC, agreeing that rates for the public performance by commercial radio broadcasters of the catalog of SESAC music would be set by binding arbitration.  Every four years, a proceeding is held to set the royalties to be paid by a broadcaster for music used in its over-the-air programming and on internet streams of that signal. 

The royalty currently paid by commercial radio stations was set by a settlement between RMLC and SESAC before arbitration in 2020 (see our article here).  That agreement, under which music radio stations have been paying .2557% of revenue, expired at the end of 2022.  As RMLC and SESAC could not mutually agree to new royalties, the recent arbitration was held to set royalties for the period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026.  The decision announced on Friday set those royalties at .2824% of revenue.  Why is this increase from .2557% to .2824% considered a win?Continue Reading RMLC Announces Arbitration Decision on SESAC Royalties for Commercial Radio Stations for 2023-2026

With much of everyone’s focus on the outcome of the November 5 general election, broadcasters can’t forget the regulatory dates and deadlines in November and early December.  While the dates and deadlines in November are lighter than in many other months, many routine deadlines do fall in early December, and even the upcoming month does have dates worthy of note. 

The one broadly applicable deadline for AM stations that does fall early in the upcoming month is November 3, when Daylight Savings Time ends.  AM daytime-only radio stations, Am stations with different daytime and nighttime patterns, and those operating with pre-sunrise and/or post-sunset authority should check their sign-on and sign-off times on their current FCC authorizations to ensure continued compliance with the FCC’s rules.  Broadcasters need to note that all times listed in FCC licenses are stated in standard time, not daylight savings time even if it is in effect.

For television stations, there is a deadline later in the month. November 26 is the deadline for television stations to provide an aural description of visual but non-textual emergency information, such as maps or other graphic displays, conveyed outside of station newscasts.  This would include maps showing severe weather and other graphic depictions of emergency information during non-news programming.  Since 2013, stations must make textual information about emergency conditions that occur during non-newscast video programming (such as textual crawls about emergency conditions) audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired through having the textual information presented aurally on the station’s SAP channel – the secondary audio channel.  The 2013 rules required that visual maps and other non-textual information also be described on SAP channels but, as we discussed in articles here, here, and here, the FCC has extended this deadline numerous times because of the unavailability of workable technology that can automatically perform the functions required by the rule.  By the November 26 deadline, stations will either need to provide aural information about non-textual emergency information that runs outside of a newscast, or avoid airing such graphical alerts during non-news programming, or hope that there are new requests for FCC relief before the looming deadline.Continue Reading November 2024 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters: AM Stations Need to Adjust to the End of Daylight Savings Time, Deadline for Aural Description of Visual Emergency Alerts for TV, Final Rules for FM Zonecasting, and More