Internet Radio

Subscribe to Internet Radio via RSS

There is now a vacancy in the top position at the Copyright Office, the Register of Copyrights, and the Librarian of Congress, who appoints the Register, has asked for comments on the role and qualifications for the new Register. These comments are due by January 31, 2017. While setting copyright law has…

On Saturday, RMLC announced that it has reached an “interim” agreement with the new performing rights organization Global Music Rights (GMR) for a license to perform musical compositions controlled by GMR.  This agreement (available on the RMLC website here) is an interim agreement for radio stations that elect to participate, and covers only the first 9 months of 2017.  To be covered by this license, a station must make an election by January 31, and pay the first month’s assessment to GMR by that date.  GMR has promised not to sue any stations in January while stations are deciding whether to opt into this agreement.  The amount to be paid by any individual station can be ascertained by communicating with GMR at an email address furnished by the RMLC in the notice distributed on Saturday.

This is an interim agreement as it removes the threat of a lawsuit for playing GMR music after January 1 that could potentially be faced by any radio station that does not have a license.  The rates paid by any station that opts in could be adjusted retroactively, up or down, based on the results of further negotiations between RMLC and GMR, or based on the results of the lawsuits currently being litigated between the two (see our article here on RMLC’s suit against GMR, and the article here about GMR’s follow-up lawsuit against RMLC, each accusing the other of violating the antitrust laws).  It would seem obvious that RMLC believes that the amounts being paid under this interim deal are higher than justified based on the percentage of music played by radio stations that is controlled by GMR.  If it was believed that the interim fee represented a fair price, then it would seem that RMLC would have entered into a permanent license at these rates – but instead the litigation continues.  What is a station to do?
Continue Reading GMR and RMLC Agree to Interim License for Commercial Radio Stations – Providing 9 Months to Reach Final Deal for Public Performance of Musical Compositions

The New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has ruled that there is no public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings in the state of New York. The decision (available here in a version subject to revision) was reached after the US Court of Appeals certified the question to the state court as being necessary to resolve the appeal of a US District Court decision which had found such a right to exist in a lawsuit brought by Flo & Eddie of the band the Turtles against Sirius XM Radio. We wrote about the District Court’s decision here, and the certification to the state court here. Certifying a question from a Federal Court to a State Court is a rare matter, done when a Federal Court needs guidance as to the state’s treatment of a legal issue under state law where there is no clear precedent, and where the state law issue is central to the resolution of the case. The NY Court of Appeals did not have to accept the certification, but it did to resolve this somewhat obscure issue of state intellectual property law (most of which is governed by Federal law).

The NY Court’s decision was not unanimous, as there was one dissenting Justice who would have found that a performance right does exist. The dissenting justice thought that there should be a state performance right – but a right co-terminus with the Federal right, thus applying only to digital services and not to terrestrial radio and presumably not to retail outlets, bars and restaurants and other businesses that may play music. That Justice seemed to be motivated by a desire to keep pace with current developments in the music industry, suggesting that common law should evolve with the times and, as streaming is now becoming more important to the music industry, there should be a royalty for such streams. Another justice concurred with the decision that there is no performance royalty in noninteractive services like that offered by Sirius XM, but there should be for interactive services like that offered by Spotify and Apple Music. The majority of the court disagreed with these justices.
Continue Reading NY State’s Highest Court Finds that There is No Public Performance Right in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

Almost every week, we write about some legal issue that arises in digital and social media – many times talking about the traditional media company that did something that they shouldn’t have done in the online world, and ended up with some legal issues as a result. Two weeks ago, I conducted a webinar, hosted by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters and co-sponsored by over 20 other state broadcast associations, where I tried to highlight some of the many legal issues that can be traps for the unwary. Issues we discussed included copyright and trademark issues, a reminder about the FTC sponsorship identification rules for online media, FCC captioning obligations, privacy implications, as well as discussions about the patent issues that have arisen with the use of software and hardware that makes the digital transmission of content possible. Slides from that presentation are available here and, for the full webinar, a YouTube video of the entire presentation is available below which can be reviewed when you have some spare time over this upcoming holiday or at any other time that you want to catch up on your legal obligations.

Some of the specific issues that we talked about are familiar to readers of this blog. We discussed the many issues with taking photographs and other content found on the Internet and repurposing them to your own website without getting permission from the content’s creator (see our articles here and here). Similar issues have arisen when TV stations have taken YouTube videos and played them on their TV stations without getting permission from the creator. Music issues arise all the time, especially in producing online videos and creating digital content like podcasts, as your usual music licenses from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR and SoundExchange don’t cover the reproduction and distribution rights involved when content is copied or downloaded rather than live-streamed (see our article here). The presentation also cautioned companies to be careful about trying to rely on “fair use” as there are no hard and fast rules on when a use of copyrighted materials without permission is in fact fair (see our articles here and here on that subject).

Similarly, there are many other potential pitfalls for digital media companies. We’ve written about some of the FTC rules on requiring sponsorship identification on sponsored digital content – even tweets and Facebook posts (see our articles here and here). Plus, there are always issues about privacy and security of personal information that sites collect – and particularly strict rules for content directed to children. And, as many stations found out when a company asserted patent infringement claims about digital music storage systems used by most radio stations (see our articles here and here), patent issues can also arise in connection with any companies use of digital media.
Continue Reading Legal Issues in Digital and Social Media – Identifying the Landmines for Broadcasters and Other Media Companies – A Video Webinar

While the new Congress will not begin until after the New Year, already copyright reform has been teed up to be on the agenda.  Posted last week on the website of the House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee was an announcement that the committee would be posting policy proposals for copyright reform from time to time, and asking for public comment.  The first proposal was posted with that announcement, looking at suggestions for reform of the structure of the Copyright Office.

The initial proposals are modest, suggesting that the Register of Copyrights be independently appointed (rather than being selected by the Librarian of Congress), that the Office has greater independence to appoint advisory committees and over its technology budget, and that there be authority to set up a small copyright claims adjudicatory process.  We wrote about the small claims proposal that was advanced in Congress last year, here.  We also have written about more sweeping changes that have been proposed for the Copyright Office, here, which apparently are not yet on the table.  However, as this policy proposal solicits public comment by January 31, 2017, other ideas for the reform of the Copyright Office may be advanced in the comments that are submitted. 
Continue Reading The Next Congress Has Not Yet Begun, and Already Copyright Issues are Poised for Comment – First Up, Copyright Office Reform

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) filing a lawsuit against Global Music Rights (GMR) alleging that GMR was violating the antitrust laws by offering an all or nothing blanket license for rights to play the songs written by certain songwriters now represented by this new performing rights organization. RMLC was seeking to impose some oversight over the rates being charged for GMR royalties. This would be similar to the controls over the rates of ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, whose rates can only be imposed following an agreement with a copyright holder or, where there is no voluntary agreement, by a determination by a court (for ASCAP and BMI) or an arbitration panel (for SESAC) that the new rates are reasonable. Now, GMR has filed its own lawsuit against RMLC (though it claims that its suit is unrelated to the one that RMLC filed against it) alleging that it is RMLC that is violating the antitrust laws (and certain California statutes) by forming a “cartel” of buyers, i.e. commercial radio stations who are refusing to deal with GMR individually but instead are looking to RMLC for the negotiation of a license agreement that will cover the entire industry. What are the issues presented by this dueling litigation?

The RMLC suit is premised on the concept that any time multiple products from independent marketplace competitors (in this case the songs of multiple songwriters) are packaged together and sold at an all or nothing price, there is the potential for obtaining prices higher than would be obtained on the open market. For example, while a contemporary hits formatted radio station could potentially decide that the price of Adele songs are too high and pull those songs from its playlists, it is not able to do so if that song is bundled with songs written by Pharrell Williams, Bruno Mars, Beyoncé, Kanye West, Brittany Spears and Katie Perry (all of whom are listed on the GMR website as being part of its repertoire) so that the radio station either takes all the songs from all of those writers or none at all. While it might be able to get away with not playing one or two of these artists, if it has to pull them all, listeners will notice. If the station wants to keep playing in the format that it has selected, it has to pay the bundled rights fee asked by the representative performing rights organization.
Continue Reading GMR Sues RMLC – Claims Antitrust Violations for Negotiating Royalties on Behalf of the Radio Industry – What Are the Implications?

A year ago, when the Copyright Royalty Board adopted the rates for webcasters (including broadcasters who simulcast their programming by online streaming) to pay for the sound recording performance royalty (see our summary here and here), one difference from previous decisions is that there was a single per-song, per-listener royalty adopted. In the past…

RMLC, the organization that represents most commercial radio stations in the US in negotiating music license agreements for the public performance of musical compositions, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against GMR (Global Music Rights). GMR is a new performing rights organization (PRO), founded by music industry heavyweight Irving Azoff.  As we wrote here and here, GMR has signed agreements to represent songs from the catalogs of many prominent songwriters, including Adele, Taylor Swift, some of the Beatles, Madonna, Jay Z and many other big names.  RMLC (the Radio Music License Committee) is asking in its lawsuit that, initially, GMR be enjoined from licensing its catalog of songs for more than a rate that represents the pro rata share of its catalog to those of the other PROs while its broader antitrust action is litigated to establish an appropriate mechanism for determining those rates in the future.

Currently, the two largest PROs, ASCAP and BMI, are subject to antitrust consent decrees that govern their operations – decrees that the Department of Justice recently refused to substantially modify at the request of these groups (see our articles here and here.).  SESAC recently entered into a settlement of with RMLC, following an antitrust action similar to the one filed Friday against GMR, imposing restraints on SESAC’s ability to unilaterally impose its rates on radio stations, requiring instead that such rates be set by arbitrators if they cannot be voluntarily negotiated (see our articles here and here).  The songs in the GMR catalog are covered by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses through the term of the current licenses with those organizations, but those licenses for radio all expire this year (see our article here).  Thus, RMLC argues that, if there is no injunction, starting January 1, 2017, a radio station will either be forced to pay whatever rates GMR demands for songs that are being withdrawn from the catalogs of ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, or risk being sued for copyright infringement (and potential damages of up to $150,000 per infringement). 
Continue Reading RMLC Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against GMR And Seeks to Enjoin New Music License Fees on Radio Stations

The NAB has announced agreements with Sony and Warner Music Groups to waive certain of the statutory requirements for broadcasters who stream their over-the-air signals on the Internet.  The NAB had entered into similar agreements with all of the major labels and major independent labels back in 2009 (see our summary here).  But those agreements expired at the end of 2015, giving rise to fears among some broadcasters that some standard broadcast programming could not be streamed on the Internet (see our article here about those concerns).  These agreements, at least as to Sony and Warner, mitigate those fears.  This article provides a summary of some of the most important aspects of the new waivers.

These waivers cover requirements set forth in the Copyright Act which broadcasters, especially those who stream, may have difficulty meeting.  Generally, the waivers provide the following:

  • Relief from the statutory requirements as to “ephemeral copies” of sound recordings that require that such recordings can be kept for no longer than 6 months.  If that rule was to be applied strictly, stations that make a copy of a sound recording in furtherance of their streaming (or for their over-the-air broadcasts), by for instance making a copy of a song so that it can be stored in their digital music storage systems, could keep those copies for only 6 months.  After that time, the station would be required to delete any copy of a song and re-record it if they wanted to keep a copy in their music library for another six months.
  • The agreements waive the performance complement, which would otherwise limit a station that is streaming its signal from playing more than 2 songs from the same CD or album in a row, or playing more than 3 songs in a row from the same artist, or from playing more than 4 songs from the same artist (or from the same box set) in a 3-hour period.  The waivers allow stations to exceed these limits, only if they continue to play music in a manner consistent with normal broadcast operations.  However, even with the waiver, no station can play more than half an album consecutively.
  • The waivers allow stations to announce upcoming artists, only if they don’t announce the specific times that specific songs will be played.
  • The waivers allow some relief from the obligation that a broadcaster streaming their on-air programming on the Internet identify in text on their website or mobile app the name of the song that is playing, the artist who performs the song, and the album from which that song is taken.  That relief is limited to circumstances where, from time to time, a station can’t easily provide such textual information.

Continue Reading NAB Announces Agreements with Sony and Warner to Waive Performance Complement and Other Statutory Requirements for Broadcasters Who Stream Their Signals

Once you have identified your marks and sought protection through registration for some or all of them, there are still going to be other issues that you will need to consider. Trademark owners have an obligation to police their marks and take steps to stop infringers. Otherwise, they may run the risk that someone else will profit off their marks or tarnish the reputation they have developed for those marks. In extreme cases, the failure to police one’s marks may result in losing them entirely. The biggest issues in trademark protection today arise from the use of trademarks on the Internet. In this blog, we identify some situations that you may encounter or want to think about.

Also, note that we have set a date for our free webinar – please join us on November 15th at 1pm Eastern Time for a live overview of the many issues we have discussed in this series. You can register here.

Cybersquatting

You undoubtedly have one or more websites to promote your services, to interact with your listeners or viewers or to make video or audio available for online viewing or listening. You have spent a fair amount of time and money promoting your sites. Then, you learn that someone else has registered and is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to your domain name or one of your trademarks to attract traffic to their site. There are numerous ways that these cybersquatters can register a variation on your domain name or mark: adding (or dropping) a hyphen, adding a generic term, misspelling a word, omitting a letter, and replacing the letter “o” with a “zero” or the letter “l” with a “one” are some of the most common.
Continue Reading Trademark Basics, Part Five: Trademarks on the Internet