According to a joint letter posted on the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) website, GMR and the RMLC are discussing  a settlement of their long-running litigation over the royalties that the commercial radio industry will pay for the public performance of music written by GMR composers.  We last wrote about GMR here when, earlier this year, they last extended their interim license offered to commercial radio stations, with a substantial increase in the amount that stations needed to pay to remain licensed during the litigation.  The joint letter says that the interim license will be extended for another 3 months while the parties work on this possible settlement.  Stations will not receive any direct notice about the need to extend their licenses from GMR.  Instead, stations are to go to the GMR website at https://globalmusicrights.com/interimextension to complete a form to remain licensed after the end of December.

As background, GMR is a new performing rights organization. Like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, it represents songwriters and collects royalties from music users for the public performance of these songwriter’s compositions. GMR collects not only from radio stations, but from all music users – it has already reached out to business music services that provide the music played in retail stores, restaurants and other businesses, and no doubt has or will license other companies that make music available to the public. Most songwriters represented by GMR used to be represented by ASCAP or BMI, but these songwriters have withdrawn from ASCAP and BMI and joined GMR, allegedly to attempt to increase the amounts that they are paid for the use of the songs that they have written. For radio, these withdrawals became effective in January 2017, when the old license agreements between ASCAP and BMI and the commercial radio industry expired.  Since then, radio stations have been signing interim licenses to play GMR music.
Continue Reading Another GMR Extension Offered for Commercial Radio Music Licenses – And a Possibility of a Settlement of the Litigation with the RMLC? 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s nomination for another five-year term at the agency was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. The

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • In the last two weeks, many stations have discovered that links to their FCC-hosted online public inspection file no longer

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • President Joe Biden made official his permanent FCC Chair – selecting Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to fill that position. He

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • In a significant win for television broadcasters, a federal district court in New York determined that the nonprofit company Locast,

The saga of Flo & Eddie seeking performance royalties for the pre-1972 sound recordings of their old band, the Turtles, seems to be finally reaching its end. For years, they have sued both broadcasters and digital media companies trying to exploit an ambiguity in copyright law over the status of pre-1972 sound recordings – songs as recorded by a particular band or artist before February 1972 when sound recordings first became subject to federal copyright law. While federal law still only conveys a performance right in sound recordings when those recordings are performed as a digital audio performance (e.g., through a streaming service or digital cable transmission), Flo & Eddie had argued that pre-1972 sound recordings remained covered by state laws, that some of those state laws provided a performance right, and that this  performance right extended to all performances, not just digital ones. Courts in other states had rejected that argument (see our articles on decisions in New YorkFlorida and Georgia), but the question of the status of the law remained unresolved in California. A court decision last week helps to resolve that issue, though intervening events have lessened its impact, so the decision has gone relatively unnoticed despite the extensive prior coverage previously devoted to this subject.

The decision was one of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, specifically related to XM Sirius royalties. In the decision, the Court conducted a searching review of the history of copyright law’s treatment of sound recordings, and found nothing in that history that would suggest that the California legislature, when adopting its law giving a creator the “exclusive rights” in these recordings meant to convey a public performance right in a sound recording – noting that the first use of that exclusive right language was in the 1870s, before there were sound recordings. The Court analyzed all the decisions in the interim and found none that suggested that there was a common law or California statutory right that created a public performance right in these recordings.  There was no suggestion that the California legislature had intended to depart from the practices that have otherwise generally applied throughout the US where no performance right has been paid for sound recordings except for the digital performance right that was adopted by Congress in the 1990s. The Court did note that, since the case first began, the Music Modernization Act extended the federal performance right in digital performances to pre-1972 sound recordings. So, the Court’s decision was limited in its application to disputes about whether a digital performance royalty was due for performances before that extension.  But there was one other issue not mentioned by the Court that makes this decision relevant to everyone who performs sound recordings even in a non-digital context, including broadcasters.
Continue Reading Court Decision Finds No California Performance Right in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings – Why It Was Still an Issue

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • On Friday, the FCC released its decision setting 2021 annual regulatory fees. In a win for broadcasters, the NAB and

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The four television network affiliates groups have asked the FCC to clarify its new rules for sponsorship identification of programming

Last week, Congressmen Ted Deutch (D-FL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced the American Music Fairness Act ( see their Press Release for more details) which 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. The new legislation 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.

Each time this idea is introduced, it has a slightly different angle.  In an attempt to rebut arguments that this royalty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on small broadcasters, the new bill 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 recently released their decision to increase the 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 New Legislation to Impose Sound Recording Performance Royalty on Over-the-Air Radio – What Does It Provide and What Would the Royalty Cost?

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • Congressmen Ted Deutch (D-FL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced the American Music Fairness Act which would impose a royalty payable