Music Rights

Subscribe to Music Rights via RSS

September is one of those few months of the year where there are no regular FCC filing deadlines – no quarterly issues programs lists, no children’s television reports, no annual EEO public file reports, and no ownership reports or renewal deadlines.  For TV stations that recently filed a renewal, or which are about to file one, there are the pre-or post-filing notices.  But for most broadcasters, the one routine regulatory deadline in September (which has, in the past, sometimes fallen in August), is the obligation to pay annual regulatory fees.  But, so far, the FCC has not released the Order officially stating what those fees will be, or the Notice setting the filing deadlines – though we expect these notices any day (perhaps any moment).  As the fees need to be paid before the start of the FCC’s new fiscal year on October 1, expect that those fees will be due at some point before the end of September.

While there are few of these routine filing deadlines in September (though broadcasters should, of course, be preparing for the due date for many of these reports in early October), there are a number of important proceedings with September comment dates, appeal deadlines or other important milestones.  And there is the start of the Lowest Unit Rate window for the November election.  Some of the September deadlines are summarized below.
Continue Reading September Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Regulatory Fees, Lowest Unit Rates, and Comments on Multiple Ownership, Online Public File for Radio and MVPDs, Music Licensing and Class C4 FM Stations

As we wrote in our previous articles on the music licensing issues being considered during this summer of copyright (here, here and here), one of the concerns driving many of the proposed reforms is the current demand of songwriters and publishing companies for a larger share of the music royalty pie.  In licensing the public performance of musical compositions, ASCAP and BMI represent the vast majority of songwriters, with SESAC representing far fewer writers (together ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are referred to as the “PROs,” the performing rights organizations).  ASCAP and BMI, having such a significant representation of musical compositions, have for over 50 years been subject to antitrust Consent Decrees that limit their operations and oversee the rates that they set for the use of their music.  Among the many requirements under the consent decree are those that obligate ASCAP and BMI to license all users of music who are similarly situated under the same rates and standards, and the oversight of a “rate court” to determine whether rates are reasonable whenever either of the PROs can’t agree on the amount of those rates with a class of music users.  In June, the US Department of Justice asked for public comment on several aspects of the consent decrees, and whether modifications of the decrees were called for.  Comments on the DOJ notice are due today.  Why was this proceeding started, and what is the DOJ looking at?

In two recent hearings examining music licensing, the motivations for ASCAP and BMI to seek changes in the consent decrees were discussed.  The first proceeding was a Copyright Office roundtable held in Nashville in June, in which I was a participant.  There, representatives of ASCAP discussed potential changes to the laws dealing with music licensing. The second was at the two part House Judiciary Committee hearing on music licensing held in late June.  ASCAP and BMI representatives in these forums suggested that there were several objectives in their seeking these reforms, and several specific changes that were requested in the Consent Decrees.  These include the following:

  • Replacing the rate court judges who determine rates when ASCAP or BMI don’t reach an agreement with a company that uses music (currently US Federal District Court Judges in the Southern District of NY) with an arbitration panel.
  • Instead of setting “reasonable rates” as required under the current consent decrees, the PROs request that a new standard be used to set rates – the willing buyer willing seller standard currently used in setting Internet radio sound recording performance royalty rates.
  • Allow publishers to withdraw some of their compositions from the PROs for licensing to certain classes of companies – specifically to withdraw so that the publishers can negotiate with digital media companies at rates that are not overseen by a rate court, while still leaving those same compositions with the PROs to collect from business establishment services (retail businesses that use “background” music) and potentially over the air radio stations – companies where there are lots of licensees who pay small amounts, making it difficult for anyone but a large, well-established company like ASCAP or BMI to pursue
  • Allow ASCAP and BMI to do more than simply license the public performance rights to music services – most likely allow them to provide reproduction and synch rights to the music that they license.
  • To impose interim royalties on any service that asks to be licensed, until an appropriate rate for that service can be set

What prompted this desire to change the consent decrees, and what will the DOJ be doing with the information it collects?
Continue Reading The Summer of Copyright Part 4 – The Department of Justice Reviews the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees – What Should Broadcasters and Music Services Know?

Extensions of time were just announced in two proceedings affecting music licensing – one a Copyright Office proceeding studying music licensing generally, and another a Copyright Royalty Board proceeding on webcasting recordkeeping.  Only a week after announcing that it would take another round of comments on its music licensing study, the Copyright Office announced an …

Time flies, and more regulatory requirements and comment deadlines in regulatory proceedings are upon us in the month of August.  The regular regulatory deadlines include license renewal for TV and LPTV stations in California, and EEO Public Inspection File yearly reports for stations in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.  Noncommercial TV stations in California and North and South Carolina all have ownership reports on Form 323E due on the August 1, and noncommercial radio stations in Wisconsin and Illinois have ownership report obligations too.  We can also expect that the deadline for submission of Annual Regulatory Fees will be set this month but, as we have not yet heard about that date, the deadline for the fees to be paid may not be until sometime in September.

In addition to the regular filings, there are numerous proceedings in which various government agencies will be receiving comments in proceedings that could impact broadcasters.  Next Wednesday, August 6, the FCC will be taking comments on it Quadrennial Review of the multiple ownership rules. The issues to be considered include the TV ownership rules (including the question of how to deal with Shared Services Agreements) about which we wrote yesterday.  Also to be considered in the proceeding are questions about the radio ownership rules, and the cross-interest rules – including whether to change the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules.  But the FCC is not the only one who will be receiving comments on issues that can affect broadcasters.
Continue Reading August Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Renewals and EEO, and Comments on Multiple Ownership, Music Rights, New Class of FM, and Much More

We’ve already written twice about the copyright issues being considered this summer before various agencies and branches of government – all dealing with music licensing issues (see our previous Summer of Copyright articles here and here).  The pattern continues, as the Copyright Office has now requested further comments on music licensing issues, following up on its roundtables held across the country during the month of June to discuss its music licensing inquiry begun in the spring (see our summary of the initial Copyright Office notice on its study, here).  In yesterday’s Federal Register, there is a notice asking a series of questions about specific issues that were raised in the roundtables which the Office apparently finds to be of significance.  Additional comments on these issues, and on any related issues affecting music licensing, are due on or before August 22.

What are the questions being asked by the Copyright Office, and what do they portend for its ultimate recommendations to Congress who, as we recently wrote, is itself considering music licensing issues and the potential for a comprehensive reform of music licensing in this country?  The areas in which the questions are being raised are not new ones, but instead continue the themes raised in other forums this summer.  They include questions as to how withdrawals of major publishers from the Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP and BMI in particular) could affect those organizations.  We first wrote about potential publisher withdrawals and the impact that could have on music services back in 2011.  Also, on a related question, they ask why, when these organizations have collected record amounts of money in recent years, songwriters are complaining that they are economically struggling.  In addition, questions are asked about the procedures used by the Copyright Royalty Board in their rate-setting process and whether those procedures should be revised, how better identification of musical works and sound recordings could be adopted to make recordkeeping and royalty administration easier, how a system of setting mechanical royalties could work without a statutory license, and whether there are international licensing models that might be adaptable to the US market.  Some details below.
Continue Reading The Summer of Copyright, Part 3 – The Copyright Office Requests Further Comments in its Inquiry on Music Royalties and Licensing

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee last week finished its second hearing on music licensing (written witness statements and a link to the webcast can be found here).  Congressional hearings usually are not in-depth proceedings looking to establish detailed facts as done in a hearing in a court proceeding.  Instead, they are formalized proceedings where parties get to make their canned statements setting out positions on issues.  Congressional representatives themselves make statements setting out their positions on the issues, and ask pointed questions to selected witnesses to reinforce those positions.  Minds are rarely changed, and the truly undecided are rarely illuminated on the issues.  But the hearings do serve to set out the issues that are going to be considered by the Committee in ultimately crafting legislation.  And last week’s hearing did just that – highlighting the issues likely to be considered in legislation promised by the Committee Chair, Representative Goodlatte, who promised an omnibus bill on music licensing, dubbed the “Music Bus,” to address the many issues on the table.

Note that any bill that is ultimately introduced will address many seemingly minor issues – details of process and procedure that don’t make the headlines.  But the big issues are the ones that will cause the most industry argument before the lawyers work out the details.  It’s also important to note that it is very late in the legislative calendar right now, with the Senate not putting the same emphasis on copyright issues as it the House.  With elections coming up in the Fall, and scheduled upcoming summer recess, Congress has much must-pass legislation that will fill up their legislative days before the next Congress is sworn in in January.  The start of a new Congress means that all legislation will have a fresh start.  Thus, any Omnibus bill that is introduced this year will most likely not become law, but instead will set the agenda for discussions for next year in the new Congress.  Certainly, there may be more limited bills that sponsors may try to get stuck on other legislation that must move before the end of the Congressional session, so interested parties will remain vigilant during the final days of this session of Congress.  But what are the issues that are on the table for inclusion in any Music Bus?
Continue Reading The Summer of Copyright, Part 2 – The House Judiciary Committee Plans Omnibus Music Licensing Bill – The “Music Bus”

This is the summer of copyright – as seemingly every government agency with any connection to media issues is looking at music licensing and other copyright issues.  Much press was given to the House Judiciary Committee hearing held last week.  But the Congressional committee’s consideration of copyright issues is but one of the many places where issues of importance to broadcasters and digital media companies are being reviewed.  The Copyright Office is doing its own review of the music royalty landscape (see our articles here and here), and I had the privilege of participating in their first roundtable discussion of these issues in Nashville the week before last.  Also holding hearings on copyright issues is the Commerce Department in connection with their Green Paper, which we summarized here and here.  The Copyright Royalty Board is starting its consideration of the recordkeeping requirements for webcasters and other digital music users (here and here), and also has begun the proceeding to determine the rates to be paid by webcasters for the public performance of sound recordings for the period of 2016-2020 (here and here).  And there is proposed legislation on pre-1972 sound recordings (the RESPECT Act), songwriters’ royalties (the Songwriters Equity Act) and another bill proposing to limit the collection of retransmission consent fees by TV companies that also own radio stations and don’t pay performance royalties to musicians.  On top of all that, law suits are pending in various courts on these and related issues, and the Department of Justice just announced a proceeding to review the consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI that have been in place for over 50 years. I could easily cover nothing but music issues on this blog, and still not have enough time to write about all the pending proceedings, much less any new ones that may arise as I’m trying to catch up on all that has gone before.  But let’s start with one of the fundamental issues driving a significant part of this review.

Perhaps surprisingly, one of the principal drivers of much of this review of the Copyright laws is not whether there should be a performance royalty for sound recordings paid by broadcasters to record companies and performers for music played over the air, or even issues about the amount of royalties paid to recording artists and labels in the digital world – though much of the trade press (particularly the broadcast trade press) seems to focus on these issues, and to present them as the drivers of all of these reform proposals.  Certainly these issues are alive and important – but the area where there seems to be the most passion, and the strongest lobbying effort for copyright reform of music licensing deals not with performers and labels, but instead with the amounts that songwriters get paid for their use of music – with the debate focusing on how much they get paid by digital services for music streaming, and by the record labels for making “reproductions” of their compositions.
Continue Reading The Summer of Copyright and Music Licensing Part 1 – Songwriters Demand A Bigger Share

The Copyright Royalty Board has extended the deadline for comments on proposals to change the recordkeeping obligations of webcasters and others who use music under the statutory license granted by Section 114 of the Copyright Act.  Some of the proposed changes include requiring that services provide ISRC codes for all songs when filing their Reports…

On Friday, the Copyright Office extended by one week the deadline for comments on its wide-ranging proceeding on the current music licensing regime and whether reforms are necessary or appropriate.  We wrote about the proceeding and the many questions that it raises here.  Comments are now due on May 23.  Comments can be filed on the Copyright Office website, here. 

In addition, the Copyright Office announced a series of three roundtable discussions to be held at different sites across the country – in Nashville, Los Angeles and New York.  At these roundtables, stakeholders in the music industry and interested members of the public can address the issues raised in the Inquiry.  Interested parties who want to be considered for guaranteed participation in the round table discussions need to sign up by May 20, using the form available here.  At that same link, the discussion topics for these roundtables are set out – covering the broad range of music royalty and licensing issues raised in the Inquiry.  Clearly, this is an important proceeding in which many in the music and media industries will want to participate – but it is just one of many proceedings that may affect the way that broadcasters and digital media services use music in the future.
Continue Reading Copyright Office Announces One Week Extension for Comments on Music Licensing Inquiry and 3 Roundtable Discussions of the Issues – Just One of Many Proceedings Affecting Music Rights and Royalties

This week brings news that a Virginia broadcaster has brought suit to have a court declare that broadcasters who stream their signal on the Internet, but limit the reception of the signal to within 150 miles of their transmitter site, should not have to pay royalties to SoundExchange.  As we have written before, when Congress adopted the digital performance royalty for sound recordings in the late 1990s, there was an absolute exemption from the sound recording performance royalty for broadcast transmissions, embodied in Section 114(d)(1)(A).  That exemption is not limited by the 150 mile rule.  However, there is another section of the law, Section 114(d)(1)(B), that also exempted from royalty payments retransmissions of broadcast transmissions.  The law exempted from the 150 mile limit those retransmissions done by other broadcast stations.  Thus, FM translators, for instance, can rebroadcast their primary station beyond the 150 mile rule without triggering a sound recording performance royalty.  So what was the section on the 150 mile zone for retransmissions intended to cover?

This issue was raised back in the early days of webcasting, when questions were raised as to whether simulcasting of broadcast transmissions were covered by the 150 mile rule.  There was some thought that it was in the early days of Internet radio.  In the first webcasting decision (the one conducted by a Copyright Arbitration Panel – or CARP, before the Copyright Royalty Board came into existence), evidence was cited that Yahoo! Music, growing out of Mark Cuban’s Braodcast.com which built its business on the retransmission of broadcast station’s over-the-air signals, had set up its royalty structure negotiated with the record labels to take into account that broadcast simulcasts would be exempt.  But the Librarian of Congress issued a ruling rejecting that premise for a number of reasons.  See the decision here.  These included that, because Internet retransmissions of broadcast signals could not be geographically limited, they could not be encompassed within the 150 mile exception of 114(d)(1)(B).  The Librarian read the exception as encompassing only retransmissions that could be limited to being wholly within the 150 mile zone.  The Librarian also looked at Section 112, and did not find a similar exception in that section which grants a statutory license for the ephemeral copies made in certain transmissions, and thought that such an exemption would be necessary for the retransmission of broadcast signals on the Internet. (We have discussed ephemeral rights before, see e.g. here and here). There the issue sat until the case filed last week.
Continue Reading Broadcaster Asks Court to Declare that Internet Simulcasts of Radio Station Exempt From SoundExchange Royalties If Geo-Limited to a 150 Mile Zone