Music Rights

Subscribe to Music Rights via RSS

While most of the country is currently frozen, February promises to heat up with several regulatory dates and deadlines broadcasters need to be aware of.  But the possibility of another federal government shutdown looms.  To end the longest shutdown in history last November, Congress gave themselves until January 31 to pass a budget bill covering the…

  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters,
…

It’s the start of another year, so it is time to dust off the crystal ball and look at what we expect to be the big regulatory and legislative issues facing broadcasters in the new year.  Looking back on our forecast for 2025 that came out just over a year ago, I was surprised to see that we had predicted that the new Commission would be interested in defining the public interest standard, reviewing network-affiliate relations, and looking at the political biases that broadcasters allegedly exhibited.  All of these were in fact issues that came up this year but, as no conclusions were reached on any of these matters, these same issues will no doubt continue to be on the FCC’s agenda in 2026.

Public Interest Standard

Throughout 2025, FCC Chairman Carr has been talking about the public interest standard in most of his many public discussions of media regulation, and those comments have prompted much legal analysis from all corners.  We expect that, in the coming year, there will continue to be discussions about what the public interest standard really means– and just how far that standard goes in authorizing the FCC to act to regulate broadcast operations.

Network-Affiliate Relations

The FCC has also received preliminary comments on the relationship between television networks and their affiliates.  As we noted last week, reply comments were due December 29, so the pleading cycle has now closed.  In the Public Notice asking for these comments, there was a statement that the comments would be used to inform the Commission as to whether a formal rulemaking proceeding was necessary to further review the issues.  With the comments in, we will be watching to see if the FCC moves forward with any additional proceedings. Continue Reading Crystal Ball Time – What Are the Regulatory and Policy Issues Broadcasters Should Be Expecting to Deal With in 2026?

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

  • President Trump this week issued an Executive Order instructing various government agencies to take steps to move marijuana from Schedule
…

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the American Music Fairness Act bill which proposes to adopt a new music royalty to be paid by over-the-air radio stations.  The royalty would be payable to SoundExchange for the public performance of sound recordings.  This means that the money collected would be paid to performing artists and record labels for the use of their recording of a song.  This new royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid by radio stations to composers and publishing companies through ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR, which are paid for the performance of the musical composition – the words and music to a song. This legislation is very similar to a bill introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills proposing to establish a broadcast performance royalty that have been introduced in Congress over the last decade.  See, for instance, our articles here, here, here and here on previous attempts to impose such a royalty.

This past week’s hearing featured three witnesses.  A broadcast station owner from eastern North Carolina, Henry Hinton, spoke on behalf of broadcasters warning of the impact that such a royalty would have on the economics of broadcasting and the public service that broadcast radio stations provide.  His written statement is here, and a podcast where he further explained his testimony is here.  Michael Huppe, the CEO of SoundExchange, testified in support of the royalty arguing, among other things, that the US was an outlier in not imposing this royalty on broadcasters, and that the broadcast industry should not be able to make its tens of billions of dollars off of artist’s work without compensating them (that revenue figure must have been meant as a historical one, as even he admitted that total revenue for the radio industry was only $14 billion – and some of that comes from talk radio that presumably would not be affected by this royalty).  His statement is here.  Also testifying was Gene Simmons, the frontman of the legendary band Kiss, who argued that this legislation was needed to compensate the next generation of artists so that they get paid for radio play.  His statement is here.  The hearing was contentious at times as most of the committee members in attendance were supporters of the royalty (though at least 25 Senators and close to a majority of the House have signed on to an NAB resolution opposing the royalty).  The entire hearing can be viewed on the Committee’s webpage here.Continue Reading Congressional Hearing on American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalty on Radio Stations – What is Being Considered

  • The Radio Music License Committee announced settlements with both ASCAP and BMI of rate court litigation over the royalties to
…

This week it was announced that the Radio Music License Committee, the organization that represents the commercial radio industry in its negotiations with performing rights organizations over the public performance rights in musical works (the musical compositions – the words and music to any song), had entered into settlement agreements with both ASCAP and BMI to settle rate court litigation over the amount of royalties to be paid by the industry for the period from 2022 through 2029.  Rate courts, pursuant to the antitrust consent decrees under which both ASCAP and BMI operate, determine reasonable rates for music licensed by ASCAP and BMI if parties cannot voluntarily negotiate deals for the use of that music.  Agreements between RMLC and both ASCAP and BMI expired at the end of 2021, so the commercial radio industry has been paying interim rates at the level of the prior agreements since January 1, 2022.  Now both organizations have reached deals with RMLC for the rates for the next three years, and those deals include a “true up” for the difference between the old rates and the new rates for the period from 2022 through the end of 2024. 

The rates for BMI are increasing from approximately 1.7% of a station’s revenue to the following levels:

  • 2.14% for 2022 and 2023,
  • 2.26% for 2024,
  • 2.19% for 2025
  • 2.20% for 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029

The agreements also contain details about lower rates for stations that have significant talk or other non-music programming, and definitions of what constitutes “revenue” that is subject to royalties.  Under the BMI agreement, the difference between the rates from 2022 to the end of 2024 under the prior agreement (2024 being the last full year for which station revenues have been reported) and that specified in the new settlement must be made up by monthly payments over the next 18 months, starting with payments in October 2025. 

While the ASCAP rates have not been made public, we can assume that the increase is not as large as that for BMI, as BMI announced their rate increase as being one of “historic” size.  But the ASCAP announcement does reference an increase.  Stations should learn the details of that increase from private correspondence from ASCAP or the RMLC in the near term.  Why would RMLC agree to these rate increases?Continue Reading BMI and ASCAP Enter into Agreements with Commercial Radio Industry – Music Royalty Rates Going Up Retroactive to 2022

  • 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