Internet Radio

Subscribe to Internet Radio via RSS

Two press releases on the Internet radio music royalty controversy were issued late last week from groups appealing to musicians  – and they couldn’t have been more different in tone.  The Future of Music Coalition, a group dedicated to voicing the opinions of musicians and citizens on Washington policy decisions regarding copyright and technology issues, released a well considered  position statement finding that webcasters – especially small commercial webcasters and noncommercial entities – "represent a rich and diverse set of listening opportunities" which provide opportunities for musicians by exposing listeners to music that is not heard elsewhere.  FMC suggests that multiple tiers of licensing are necessary so that all kinds of webcasters can continue to exist (unlike the one size fits all scheme adopted by the Copyright Royalty Board).  FMC urges SoundExchange and the webcasters to come to a settlement that will preserve webcasting while fairly compensating musicians.

By contrast, SoundExchange argues in its press release that some webcasters are acting in bad faith in arguing that the rates are too high – and are "engaged in a campaign of misinformation about the process, the decision itself, and the impact of the decision on the participants."  The Press Release itself is subtitled "Suggests Some Webcasters Not Telling the Truth About the Royalty Process."  The release promises an attached summary of the Board’s decision but, at the time of this posting, that summary was not apparent on the SoundExchange website.  The only misrepresentation cited by SoundExchange is the claim by webcasters that the process which arrived at the rates was unfair.  However, as pointed out by editor Kurt Hanson (a client of mine in this proceeding) on the Radio and Internet Newsletter site, here, a decision that overlooks its real world effects can fairly be characterized as being unfair.  Information about the real economics of the industry, which SoundExchange may not have appreciated, demonstrates that unfairness.Continue Reading A Tale of Two Press Releases – Who Is A Musician to Believe?

Monday was the deadline for the filing of Motions for Rehearing of the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board decision on Internet radio music royalties for 2006-2010.  As we have written before, the decision proposes significant increases in the royalties, particularly for independent webcasters who have up to now paid royalties on a percentage of revenue basis, rather than on the per song per listener basis set out in the CRB decision.  In motions filed today, many of the webcasters challenged specific aspects of the CRB decision.  And at least one party raised an issue that seems to contradict the very foundation of the Board’s decision.  Plus, in virtually all of the rehearing motions, the parties noted that additional issues may be raised on appeal to the US Court of Appeals, which do not need to be filed for several weeks.  

In the Motion filed by the Broadcasters’ group, it was argued that an expert witness offered by SoundExchange in the proceeding which is now underway to determine royalty rates for satellite radio contradicted some of the basic assumptions used by SoundExchange’s witness in this proceeding.  If the assumptions used by SoundExchange’s expert in the satellite proceeding were to be applied in this case, the royalties would actually decrease from those that were in effect before the Board’s decision. The assumptions used by the expert in the satellite proceeding seemed to confirm the claims offered by the webcaster’s witnesses in this proceeding.  Could this be a smoking gun that could undermine the decision of the Board?  We’ll have to see if the Board accepts this new evidence which seems to challenge the very foundation of the webcasting decision.

As the appeals are addressed to the CRB itself, asking that it reconsider or review its own decision, most of the other issues focused on limited matters that the parties thought that the Board might want to clarify as to avoid unintended consequences.  For instance, the appeals of the DiMA group, representing large webcasters, and the appeal that I worked on for the small commercial webcasters, both addressed the issue of the $500 per channel minimum fee which, if it was to be paid on literally every unique channel streamed by a service, could mean that some webcasters could pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars as a minimum fee.  Some webcasters (like Pandora) serve up a unique stream for every listener.  Virtually all of the parties also addressed the question of whether most webcasters could even compute a royalty based on a per song per listener basis.  This is especially true for retroactive payments, when many webcasters did not keep such records (especially those small commercial webcasters paying on a percentage of revenue basis, or noncommercial webcasters who had payed on a flat fee basis).  Continue Reading Motions for Rehearing of Copyright Royalty Decision Filed – And the Foundation of that Decision is Challenged

We have been covering the controversy over the rise in the royalties for all those who are providing an Internet radio service, whether they be over-the-air broadcasters streaming their signals on the Internet or pure webcasters whose stations are only available on the web.  Our previous postings on the topic can be found here.  Today…

Following the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision, about which we have written several times this week, many individuals and companies have asked what can be done either to reverse the decision, or to operate in a world where the decision becomes effective.   While it is much too early to access all of the options, I thought that I would outline some of the possibilities.

First, Petitions for Rehearing of the Decision can be filed by the parties to the case within 15 days of the release of the decision – by March 19.   As such a Petition asks the Board to determine that the conclusions it reached after several months of deliberation were wrong, this is an uphill battle. There is, however, a much greater possibility that the Board will clarify some of the more onerous ambiguities of the decision – such as the issue of what constitutes a "channel" or "station" to which the minimum fee attaches. 

 After Petitions for Rehearing are dealt with, the Library of Congress must publish the decision in the Federal Register. Within 30 days of such publication, parties can appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The filing of a Notice of Appeal by that deadline merely starts the appellate process. The Court will establish a schedule for the case – setting dates for the filing of full legal briefs and responses to those briefs. The Court will have an oral argument after the briefs are filed. A decision will follow. In appellate cases, this process can easily take a year to complete.   In order to overturn the decision, the court must find that the decision was arbitrary and capricious – in essence that, when presented with the facts, no there was no reasonable way for the decision to turn out the way it did.  This is a high standard that must be achieved, but not one so high that appeals are never successful.  So there is always hope.

Continue Reading What Next for Internet Radio In Light of the Copyright Royalty Board Decision

As we wrote on Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board released to the parties their decision setting the sound recording music royalties for Internet radio for the years 2006-2010 – and the rates will be increasing significantly (absent success on appeal or in settlement discussions). The rates and appeal process are set out in our post on Friday.  The parties have until Monday, March 5 at noon, to request that the Board keep portions of the decision that contain confidential proprietary information out of the public record. Thus, the text of the decision is not yet public. Nevertheless, many parties are asking for more specific information about the decision and its impact. Certainly, when the decision is public, everyone will want to make their own judgments. But, until that time (which should be soon as the Board was careful to avoid using any significant amount of confidential information), I offer some observations about the decision (from my vantage point as a party who represented some of the webcasters involved in the proceeding), as well as thoughts on some of the questions that I have seen posted on various discussion boards this weekend.

First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo).  Also, the webcaster cannot notify their listeners when any specific song will play. The decision does cover the Internet transmissions of the over-the-air content of most broadcast stations. 

The royalties are paid to SoundExchange – a nonprofit corporation with a Board made up of representatives of artists and the record companies. The royalties go to the copyright holders in Sound Recordings and the performers on those recordings ( the copyright holder is usually the record label. Royalties are split 50/50 – and the artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording). 

The decision by the Board was the result of a long proceeding – which began in 2005. A summary of the proceeding can be found in our posting, here. Satellite radio also has to pay similar royalties, as do services that provide background music to businesses ("business establishment services"). Separate proceedings are underway to determine rates for these services.

With that background – here are some more thoughts on the decision – obviously in very summary form. The Board is charged with determining the royalty rates that would be determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller in a marketplace transaction. The Board was clear in the decision that it would look simply for evidence of what such a deal would be – it would not look at policy reasons why certain groups of webcasters (including small commercial webcasters or noncommercial webcasters) should get some special rate.Continue Reading More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties

The Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties for to be paid by Internet Radio stations for streaming music during the years 2006-2010 was released to the participants in the proceeding today.  And the rates are going up significantly over the next few years.  More importantly, especially for smaller entities, there are no royalty rates based on a percentage of revenue as were in effect for small webcasters under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act.  Instead, all royalties are given as a per performance number, i.e. a payment for each song every time a listener hears that song

In a 100 page decision, the Board essentially adopted the royalty rate advanced by SoundExchange (the collective that receives the royalties and distributes the money to copyright holders and performers) in the litigation.  It denied all proposals for a percentage of revenue royalty (including a proposal that SoundExchange itself advanced).  The Board also rejected any premium for streams received by a wireless service, as SoundExchange had suggested.

The rates set by the Board for commercial webcasters, including broadcasters retransmitting their over-the-air signals on the Internet, are as follows:

2006 – $.0008 per performance

2007 – $.0011 per performance

2008 – $.0014 per performance

2009 – $.0018 per performance

2010 – $.0019 per performance

The minimum fee is $500 per channel per year. There is no clear definition of what a "channel" is for services that make up individualized playlists for listeners. Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Releases Decision – Rates are Going Up Significantly

At the NAB Broadcast Leadership Conference in Washington today, Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, announced that the subcommittee would hold hearings on the state of radio.  These hearings would examine not only over-the-air radio, but also Internet radio…

By now, everyone knows that XM and Sirius have announced plans to merge into a single nationwide satellite radio service provider.  This plan is, of course, subject to approval of the FCC.  The NAB has announced plans to oppose the merger, and Congress today scheduled hearings on the matter, to be held next week.  The obvious issues to be considered by the Department of Justice and the FCC will be whether the merger will be anti-competitive and whether it will serve the public interest.  But there are numerous other legal issues, possibly affecting other FCC proceedings, that may well come out of the consideration of this merger.

For instance, the merger raises the question of whether satellite radio is a unique market that should not be allowed to consolidate into a monopoly, or whether there is a broader "market" for audio programming encompassing not only satellite radio, but also traditional over-the-air radio, iPods, Internet radio, and other forms of audio entertainment.  While the opponents of the merger may argue that satellite radio is a unique market, such a finding may affect the broadcast multiple ownership proceeding, where some broadcasters are advancing arguments similar to the satellite companies in hopes that the FCC will loosen multiple ownership restrictions. 

Another issue that seemingly will be raised by the merger is how important a la carte programming is to FCC Chairman Martin.  The Chairman has been pushing both satellite and cable television companies to allow consumers to purchase only the channels that they want rather than whole packages of channels.  He has argued that consumers could save money by buying only the channels that they want, and consumers could also avoid programing that they don’t want (like adult oriented content).  Service providers have countered that forcing the unbundling of program tiers will make it economically unfeasible to offer many of the more niche program channels.  Published reports indicate that part of the merger proposal to be advanced by the satellite companies may include a proposal for a la carte pricing.  Thus, this case may show how important the Chairman really believes such offerings are – and whether that offering may help tilt the public interest considerations in the proceeding.Continue Reading XM and Sirius – The Issues Beyond the Issues