On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS

In the Federal Register last week was a notice that SoundExchange intends to audit the royalty payments of Pandora for its Internet radio service. As we wrote at the beginning of the year, SoundExchange routinely decides to audit representative companies in various segments of the digital music industry. In January, for instance, they issued notices of audits for a number of broadcasters, pure webcasters, and other digital music services (see our post here about the audit notices released in January). These audit notices are usually released at the beginning of the year though, from time to time, we’ve seen SoundExchange decide later in the year to audit a particular service (see our article here).

What is involved in an audit? We wrote about the royalty audit process here. SoundExchange issues notice of an audit, and that notice must be published in the Federal Register. SoundExchange selects an auditor who, under the rules of the Copyright Royalty Board, must be a CPA. The auditor reviews the books and records of the service and issues a report, to which the service can respond. Neither the audit report nor the response are filed with the government or otherwise made public. The results of the audit are provided to SoundExchange for any appropriate action they may take. Under the audit rules, if a service has underpaid SoundExchange by more than 10%, in addition to any late fees it owes, it also has to pick up the cost of the audit. This audit notice reminds all digital music services to accurately measure their audiences and properly report to SoundExchange, as it is always possible that their royalty payments can be reviewed. As this notice makes clear, just because they were not targeted in January does not mean that they will not be reviewed at some other point during the year.
Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces Additional Webcaster Audit by SoundExchange – Reminder to Carefully Maintain Your Royalty Records as They Can be Reviewed at Any Time

Broadcasters and advertisers should take note of the more than 90 warning letters that the FTC sent out this week as a reminder of the need to disclose material sponsorship connections in social media promotions and endorsements.  The FTC has since 2009 announced a policy that any online content for which anything of value has been received must disclose that consideration – even social media posts (see our article here about that policy).  This is in the nature of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules for broadcast content.   That same policy statement addressed the need for those making personal endorsements to make these sponsorship disclosures.  The recent warning letters are notable not only for their sheer number, but also because the warning letters were addressed to marketers and social media “influencers” – the individuals whose social media followings make their endorsements valuable.  To date, the FTC has only named marketers (Warner Brothers Home Entertainment and Lord & Taylor) in its social media endorsement cases.  Although the FTC did not say who received warning letters, its press release noted that the letters were “informed by petitions filed by Public Citizen and affiliated organizations” in September 2016.

By directing warning letters to marketers and influencers, the FTC is sending a firm reminder that both sides of a sponsorship arrangement need to disclose their connection, “unless the connection is already clear from the context of the communication containing the endorsement.”  Specifically, the FTC advises influencers that they must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose any material connection with a marketer; and marketers, in turn, should ensure that the influencers they sponsor disclose their material connections.
Continue Reading FTC Puts “Influencers” on Notice:  Disclose Marketing Relationships in Social Media Posts

In the last month, there have been two bills introduced in the US House of Representatives seeking to impose a performance royalty for sound recordings on broadcast radio stations in the US. The bill introduced yesterday, The PROMOTE Act (standing for the Performance Royalty Owners of Music Opportunity to Earn Act – whatever that may mean, can be found here), seems to have garnered more attention, perhaps as it was promoted by its principal sponsor, California Congressman Darrell Issa, as giving performing artists the right to decide whether or not their music is played by radio stations. In fact, it does not do that, instead merely setting up a royalty system similar to that in place for Internet radio operators, allowing broadcasters to play music only if they pay royalties on “identical” rates and terms as do webcasters.

The PROMOTE Act proposes to add to the Copyright Act’s Section 106 enumeration of the “exclusive rights” given to copyright holders a provision stating that sound recording copyright holders (for most popular releases, that is usually the record company) have the exclusive right to authorize the performance of recorded songs by broadcast radio stations. That is in addition to the existing right to authorize the playing of these songs by digital audio transmissions (e.g. webcasters, satellite radio and digital cable services). But, like with the right to play music by digital services, that right to prohibit the playing of recorded songs is not absolute. Instead, like for the digital services, through a proposed amendment to Section 114 of the Copyright Act, broadcasters will have the right to play the songs if they pay a royalty set by the proposed legislation at “rates and terms” “identical” to those paid by webcasters. Let’s look at these issues more closely.
Continue Reading New Congressional Attempts to Impose a Performance Royalty for Sound Recordings on Broadcast Radio, Including the PROMOTE Act – What Do They Provide?

The Copyright Office is now a part of the Library of Congress, with the Register of Copyrights (the head of the Copyright Office) appointed by the Librarian of Congress. As part of its plans to review the Copyright Act, the House Judiciary Committee asked for comments earlier this year about structural reform of the Copyright…

In a decision released this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a District Court decision (about which we wrote here) that had found that a video service provided by Aereokiller was a “cable system” as defined by Section 111 of the Copyright Act. That decision had held that, as a cable system, Aereokiller was entitled to retransmit the programming broadcast by a television station under a statutory license, without specific permission from the copyright holders in that programming. The Court of Appeals, while finding that the wording of Section 111 was ambiguous, determined that the consistent position taken by the Copyright Office, finding that cable systems as defined by Section 111 had to be local services retransmitting TV programming, with some fixed facilities to a defined set of communities was determinative of the issue. The Copyright Office’s interpretation was given particular deference as Congress had been well-aware of this interpretation of the statute in other contexts, had in the past amended the Copyright Act to accommodate other new technologies that the Copyright Office found to be outside its definition of a cable system, and had taken no action to amend the statute to include Internet-based video transmission services.

The issue in the case is whether the broad definition of a cable system included in Section 111 would include an over-the-top system such as that offered by Aereokiller. The definition contained in Section 111 is:

A “cable system” is a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. For purposes of determining the royalty fee under subsection (d)(1), two or more cable systems in contiguous communities under common ownership or control or operating from one headend shall be considered as one system.

The question of whether this definition includes Internet-based video systems has been raised many times since the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision (about which we wrote here), which found that the retransmission of television signals by such systems were “public performances” that needed a license. After the Supreme Court’s determination in Aereo, which had language comparing these over-the-top systems to cable systems that need a statutory license to cover their public performances, these services argued that they were in fact cable systems entitled to rely on the Section 111 statutory license to cover their public performances of the TV station’s programming. These systems argued that they made “secondary retransmissions” of television signals “by wire, cables, microwave or other communications channels” – the Internet argued to be one of those other communications channels. While most courts have rejected this argument (see our articles here and here), a District Court in California was an exception, finding that the statutory language was broad enough to cover these Internet-based systems.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Rules that Over-the-Top Video Service is Not a Cable System Entitled to Statutory License to Retransmit TV Station Programming

This week, the US Court of Appeals essentially ended Flo and Eddie’s New York case against Sirius XM where it tried to establish a public performance royalty in pre-1972 sound recordings. The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the US District Court with instructions that it be dismissed, finding that a December decision by New York’s state Court of Appeals resolved all issues in the case. As we wrote just before Christmas, the New York Court of Appeals determined that there was no public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings under New York state law. That decision resulted from a certified question from the US Court of Appeals which was reviewing the decision of a federal District Court which had found that such a right exists. An issue in a Federal case is certified or referred to a state court when there are issues of state law that control the determination of the Federal case. As pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered under Federal law, state law controls the rights accorded to such recordings, thus the certified question was necessary in this case to determine the state of the law on this issue in New York state (see our article about the referral of the public performance issue in this case to the NY Court of Appeals, here, an article that also discusses more broadly the status of pre-1972 sound recording litigation and related issues).

This week’s federal Court of Appeals order was very direct, relying on the state court decision that there was no public performance right to end the case. It did briefly address the remaining arguments of Flo and Eddie by finding that no issues still remained as to liability for copies of the sound recordings made during the digital transmission process (server, buffer and cache copies) or on any claim of unfair competition. Basically, the Court found that any copies made in the transmission process were fair use necessary to engage in the legal performance, and there was no unfair competition issue as the performance was legal, hence not unfair in the eyes of the law.
Continue Reading Flo and Eddie NY Suit on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Ordered Dismissed By Court of Appeals – No Issues with Copies Made in the Transmission Process

The Copyright Office is scheduled to publish in the Federal Register tomorrow an extension of time for parties who wish to comment on the Request for Additional Comments in its study of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the “safe harbor” for those Internet Service Providers who host websites or run networks on…

Here we are at the start of a new year, and right away we have numerous regulatory deadlines for broadcasters. By the 10th of the month, all broadcast stations need to have placed in their public inspection files (online for TV and for those radio stations that have already converted to the online public file, and paper for the remaining radio stations), their Quarterly Issues Programs lists, documenting the issues of importance to their communities and the programs broadcast in the last quarter addressing those issues. TV stations have quarterly Children’s Television Reports due to be filed at the FCC by the 10th, addressing the programming that they broadcast to meet the educational and informational needs of children. Commercial TV stations should also add to their public file documentation to demonstrate their compliance with the commercial limits in programming addressed to children.

For TV stations, on the 1st of the year, new obligations became effective for online captioning. “Montages” of clips from TV programs, where all of those clips were captioned when broadcast, also need to be captioned when made available online. By July 1, clips of live and near-live programming must be captioned; however, they may be posted online initially without captions as long as captions are added to clips of live programming within 12 hours and to clips of near-live programming within eight hours after the conclusion of the TV showing of the full-length programming. For more on this requirement, see our article here.
Continue Reading January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television Reports, Ownership and EEO Comments, Copyright Issues and More

There is now a vacancy in the top position at the Copyright Office, the Register of Copyrights, and the Librarian of Congress, who appoints the Register, has asked for comments on the role and qualifications for the new Register. These comments are due by January 31, 2017. While setting copyright law has…