Music Rights

Subscribe to Music Rights 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

Last week, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced the American Music Fairness Act (see their Press Release for more details), with a companion bill to follow in the House.  If adopted, this legislation would impose a new music royalty on 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 new legislation is virtually identical to that introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills 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.

As in the version of the bill introduced in the last Congress, in an attempt to rebut arguments that this royalty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on small broadcasters, the legislation proposes relatively low flat fees on small commercial and noncommercial radio stations, while the rates applicable to all other broadcasters would be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board – the same judges who set internet radio royalties payable to SoundExchange by webcasters, including broadcasters for their internet simulcasts.  Under the bill, the CRB would review rates every 5 years, just as they do for webcasting royalty rates.Continue Reading It’s Back!  American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalties for Over-the-Air Broadcasting Introduced in the New Congress

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

It’s a new year, and as has been our custom at the beginning of each year, we dust off the crystal ball and take a look at what we think may be some of the significant regulatory and legislative issues that broadcasters will be facing in 2025.  This year, there is an extra layer of uncertainty given a new administration, both in the White House and at the FCC.  Already, it appears that a new administration will bring new priorities – some barely on the radar in past years – to the top of the list of the issues that broadcasters will need to be carefully monitoring.

One of those issues has been a possible FCC review of the meaning of the “public interest” standard under which all broadcasters are governed.  As we wrote when President-Elect Trump announced his pick for the new FCC Chair starting on Inauguration Day, Chair-Designate Brendan Carr has indicated that this public interest proceeding will be a high priority.  In his opinion, broadcasters, or perhaps more specifically the news media, have suffered from an erosion of trust, and it has been his expressed opinion that a reexamination of the public interest standard might help to restore public trust.  We noted in our article upon his selection that this is not the first time that there has been a re-examination of that standard.  It has traditionally been difficult to precisely define what the standard means.  In the coming days, we will be writing more about this issue.  But suffice it to say that we are hopeful that any new examination does not lead to more paperwork obligations for broadcasters, as seemingly occurred whenever any broadcast issue was addressed by the current administration.  As we note below, there are several paperwork burdens that we think may disappear in the new administration, so we are not expecting more paper – but we will all need to be carefully watching what develops from any re-examination of the public interest standard.Continue Reading Looking Into the Crystal Ball – What Legal and Policy Issues are Ahead for Broadcasters in 2025?