On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS

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
…

Washington DC is not the only place where there are regulatory or political decisions made that affect broadcasters and advertising for candidates or political issues.  We’ve written many times about state laws that govern the use of AI in political advertising, with more than 20 states already having laws on their books and more considering such legislation in legislative sessions this year (see our articles here and here).  We have also noted that there are a number of states that have laws requiring media companies, including digital media companies, to keep records of political advertising sales and, in some cases, to make those records available to the public (see, for example, our article here).  While there are few federal elections in 2025, there are state and local elections in many states – and most of these laws are targeted to those state and local elections, so broadcast stations and cable systems regulated by the FCC need to be aware of these state laws.  But most of these laws reach far beyond FCC-regulated entities and apply to digital and even print media – so all companies need to be paying attention to their requirements.  And a number of recent actions highlight these concerns.

No state has been as active in enforcing such requirements as Washington State.  In a December decision seemingly overlooked by much of the trade press, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a decision fining Facebook parent company Meta $24.6 million for its failure to comply with the extensive political disclosure rules adopted by that state.  This decision upheld a summary judgement by a state trial court finding Meta liable for a $24.6 million penalty for violating the state’s public disclosure rules that apply to political advertising (for more on the trial court decision, see our article here). Continue Reading Washington State Court of Appeals Upholds $24.6 Million Penalty Against Meta for Not Meeting State Political Advertising Disclosure Requirements – A Warning to All Media Companies to Assess and Comply with State Political Disclosure Rules

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?

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that comments and reply comments are due December 13 and 18, respectively, in response to
…

President-elect Trump this week selected sitting FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to be the new Chairman of the FCC starting on Inauguration Day, January 20.  As a sitting Commissioner, Carr can become permanent Chair immediately – no Senate confirmation is necessary.  Current FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced that, as is traditional, she will not only step down from her position as Chair on January 20 and will also leave the Commission on that date – leaving one empty seat on the FCC to be filled by the new President (to permanently fill that vacancy,  Senate confirmation is needed).  Until that third Republican seat is filled, Chairman Carr will be operating with a Commission split 2-2 on party lines, suggesting that initially any major Commission actions will need to be ones that are bipartisan.  However, when Commissioner Carr becomes Chair, he can appoint the heads of the Bureaus and Divisions at the FCC that do most of the routine processing of applications and issuing most of the day-to-day interpretations of policy.  As Carr has been at the FCC since 2012 and has served as a Commissioner since 2017, one would assume that he already has in mind people to fill these positions – and thus his team should be able to hit the ground running.  What policies should broadcasters and those in the broader media world be looking for from a Carr administration at the FCC?

Immediately after the election, we wrote this article about several of the specific FCC issues where we anticipated that a Republican administration would move forward with policies different than those that have been pursued by the current administration.  Since his nomination, we have seen nothing that would suggest that the issues that we highlighted earlier in the month will not be on the Carr agenda.  In our last article, we noted that the FCC could be expected to take a different tact on the reinstatement of FCC Form 395-B, the EEO form that would require broadcasters to break down their employees by employment position and report on the gender, race, and ethnicity of the employees in each employment category.  In one of his first tweets on X after his nomination was announced, Carr said that the FCC would no longer be prioritizing “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts – seemingly confirming, among other things, that a reversal of the action on the Form 395-B could be in the works (which could easily be done, as there are pending Petitions for Reconsideration of the reinstatement along with pending appeals in the courts).Continue Reading Brendan Carr to Become Next FCC Chair – What is Next for Regulation Affecting Broadcasters? 

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the opening of a filing window for construction permits for new
…
  • The FCC announced that it has corrected its CORES database which had overstated the regulatory fees to be paid by
…