On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS

July brings a number of new regulatory dates for broadcasters – including the effective dates of two new compliance obligations for small market TV stations, as well as numerous routine regulatory filing dates.  July 10 brings one deadline for all broadcast stations – it is the date by which your Quarterly Issues Programs lists, setting out the most important issues that faced your community in the last quarter and the programs that you broadcast to address those issues, need to be placed in the physical public inspection file of radio stations, and the online public file of TV broadcasters.

Full power TV and Class A TV stations by January 10 also need to have filed with the FCC their FCC Form 398 Children’s Television Reports, addressing the educational and informational programming directed to children that they broadcast.  Also, by that same date, they need to upload to their online public files records showing compliance with the limits on commercials during programming directed to children.  And there are other new obligations for smaller TV stations that are effective this month.
Continue Reading July Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – New Captioning Obligations, Online Political File for Small TV Stations, Issues Programs List and Children’s Television Reports, and More

The Supreme Court decided the Aereo case (decision here) and, if I can brag a little, the decision was pretty much what we predicted here after the oral argument – a relatively narrow decision finding that there is a public performance of the broadcast television signals retransmitted by Aereo as part of their service.  The Court looked at the service, and concluded that it effectively does what a cable system does with broadcast television stations – it takes their signals off the air and transmits them to the public, and charges a fee for doing so.  The only meaningful difference with Aereo for purposes of the decision was that it did not get the broadcasters permission to retransmit their signals.  Because its performance of the television stations’ signals was not authorized, the Court concluded that the service had violated the rights of the copyright holders, and remanded the case to the lower courts to finalize decisions which will presumably stop the retransmission of station signals unless Aereo gets permission from the TV broadcasters.

The decision was a 6-3 vote of the Court, with the dissenters adopting Aereo’s position that it was not the service that was making the performance, but each individual user, and thus the performance was a private one for which no permission of the copyright holder is necessary (akin to turning on the TV and performing its programming to yourself in your living room, or singing to your family in the car).  The dissenters, led by Justice Scalia, looked at three principal reasons for their conclusions that the majority missed the boat – (1) The statutory provisions and legislative history cited by the majority did not support the decision; (2) Aereo’s technology is different from cable as it sends one signal to one individual when the individual asks for it, as opposed to a cable system which is always sending all the TV signals to its subscribers, and (3) There was no volitional conduct by Aereo to infringe on copyrights – all the conduct actually seeking any infringing content was that of the users (going so far as to suggest that, while Aereo may not have violated the public performance rights of the copyright holders, it might still be contributorily infringing on their copyrights by encouraging the infringement by users).  The majority dismissed these complaints, for many of the same reasons that we have written about before (as summarized below).
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds Aereo Infringes on Broadcasters’ Public Performance Rights – Why the Court Got it Right

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

The Campaign Legal Center and Sunlight Foundation filed FCC complaints against 11 major market TV stations across the country alleging that these stations had inadequate online political files.  The Center issued a press release about its filings, stating that these complaints “exposed widespread noncompliance with the disclosure requirements” of the law.  The press release went on to say “[w]ithout this information, viewers are denied important information about the organizations and individuals seeking to influence their vote through these ads.”  While the complaints ask that the FCC take appropriate action against these stations, including fines, and begin an education campaign to make sure that other stations don’t repeat these mistakes as the political file goes online for stations in smaller markets on July 1 (see our article here about the FCC’s reminder about this obligation), just how serious were the discovered deficiencies?  As discussed below, many of the issues raised seem to be minor, but they put stations on high alert that their online public files will be scrutinized and must be kept up to date with the utmost care. 

The complaints themselves (which are available through links in the press release) do not reveal widespread systematic violations of the FCC rules.  Instead, each complaints cites a single instance where the station named in the complaint in some way evidenced some noncompliance with the rules. And many of those instances of noncompliance are quite minor.  In each case, the complaints were about disclosures made about the sponsors of issue advertising.  The ads were from non-candidate groups.  In some cases, the ads named a specific political candidate, and alleged that they had voted the wrong way on some specific issue.  Other ads urged viewers of the station to call that Congressman to tell them to vote in a particular way on some issue of importance pending in Congress.  The complaints did not allege that the public file did not contain the names of the sponsors, or the amount that was spent on the ads, or the times at which the ads were to run.  Instead, the allegations in many of the complaints were that, in a single instance, the public file disclosures identified the candidates who were being attacked, but not the issue on which they were attacked.  Is this a violation of the rules?
Continue Reading Complaints Filed against 11 TV Stations Alleging Deficiencies in their Online Political File – Warning to Stations, Your File is Being Watched!

Last week, the Copyright Royalty Board published in the Federal Register its decision on Internet radio royalties for 2011-2015.  The question that I received many times since the publication last week is “huh, didn’t we already see that decision a long time ago?”  Indeed we did – the original decision setting the rates was reached in December 2010 (which we wrote about here and here).  But, as many will remember, there was also an intervening decision finding that the CRB had been unconstitutionally established.  The Court remedied the unconstitutionality by changing the law’s provisions dealing with the ability of the Librarian of Congress to remove the Judges, and sent the decision back to the CRB to redo the 2010 decision.  The redo is the result that was released last week.  While the new decision did not change the rates for webcasters, it did contain some new analysis that presents some interesting insights into the Judge’s thought processes that may be relevant to webcasters who will be affected by the recently started proceeding to determine rates for 2016-2020.  As the three Judges on the CRB have all arrived on the CRB since the 2010 decision, this rewritten decision provides some insight as to how they are approaching the new proceeding. 

By the time the decision declaring the unconstitutionality of the “old” CRB was reached, the only party left fighting the decision was Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems, a group of college broadcasters.  All of the commercial broadcasters had either settled their royalty disputes, or dropped out of the proceeding (see our summary of the rates entered into by parties as part of the Webcasters Settlement Acts).  Thus, no commercial webcasters participated in the remanded proceeding before the CRB.  The CRB noted the lack of any challenge to the commercial rates, and given that they were not challenged, and that they fell in a zone of reasonableness, they were adopted.  But, in determining that the rates were in the zone of reasonableness, the CRB did not just pay lip service to reviewing the prior decision, but it instead did a full review of that decision.  And, some of the discussion that they offered may arise again in the new proceeding.
Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Reissues Decision on Internet Radio Royalties for 2011-2015 – Same Rates But New Analysis

The Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the Aereo case yesterday, it has received all the briefs, and now we all just wait for a decision – to probably be released late in June before the Court’s summer recess.  The transcript of yesterday’s oral argument has been released and is available here.  It makes for interesting reading, as the questions from the Court seemed to be dubious of Aereo’s claims that it can retransmit the signal of a broadcast television station over the Internet, to the public for a fee, without the consent of or any payment to the stations.  While dubious about the Aereo service, the Court was also concerned about the potential impact of any decision against Aereo on cloud services and even on other distributors of media content.  Lots of issues came up during the course of the argument, and it will be very interesting to see how the Court resolves these in its final decision.  Keep reading, and I’ll make my prediction. 

While Court arguments can never be relied on to predict the decision, they can at least provide insight into the questions that the Justices are considering.  One question that recurred throughout the argument was raised by Justice Sotomayor in the first question that was asked – why wasn’t Aereo a cable system under Copyright law, as it retransmits television programming to consumers for a fee?  Counsel for both parties contended that it was not a cable system, though neither gave an entirely satisfactory reason for that position.  The definition of a cable system in Section 111 of the Copyright Act, which governs the compulsory license granted to cable systems to retransmit over-the-air TV stations and all of the content that they broadcast, defines a “cable system” as:

a facility…that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or broadcast by one or more television stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals by wires, cables, microwave or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.

As the Justices said, this sure looks like what Aereo is doing.  As we have written before, the FCC is looking at whether an IP based video-programming service should be classified as a cable system.  It might well have been easier for the attorney representing the broadcasters to concede that Aereo was very much like a cable system, as if it was so classified, it would have proved the argument that they broadcasters were trying to make – that its retransmission of television programming was a public performance that required the permission of the broadcaster.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in the Aereo Case – A Summary of the Issues and a Prediction

This blog usually covers legal and policy issues, not product reviews.  And this article will at least try to relate policy decisions to a product review, but mostly it’s to share a cool new feature on my phone.  To explain, I am one of those holdouts still using a Blackberry.  In dealing with new media clients, I almost feel like I have to make excuses for still using a Blackberry, but as an attorney who travels frequently and writes many emails from the road, the physical keyboard really makes a difference – at least to me.  I can at least say that I did upgrade to the Q10 last year – the Blackberry that has the physical keyboard, but also has a new faster operating system that relies much more on touch commands for everything but the actual typing.  This week, I received what I consider a gift from Blackberry, as I’m also a big radio fan.  While I listen to Internet radio and use digital music services, I also still really enjoy listening to over-the-air radio.  This week, my Blackberry Q10 received an upgrade to its operating system and, with that upgrade, the phone’s FM chip was activated.  Now, my ATT phone gets over-the-air radio – becoming the modern equivalent to the transistor radio – a radio in my pocket at all times.  Of course, being a lawyer, the whole question of activating FM chips in mobile phones brings up policy issues, as it has been in and out of many policy arguments over the last few years.

First, a qualification must be made for international readers of this blog.  The question of an active FM chip in a mobile phone is an issue in the US, but not in many other countries of the world, where FM reception on mobile phones has been standard for many years.  In the US, that has not been the case.  While the chips are built into most phones, they are not activated.  Some suggest that the chips are not activated because the carriers want to encourage data usage through the use of online audio, but the carriers simply say that there is no consumer demand for the activation of the feature.  No matter what the reason, the chip has not been activated in most US phones, and thus policy issues from time to time arise as to whether it’s activation should be mandated or encouraged by government action.
Continue Reading Activating the FM Chip in Mobile Phones – As Blackberry Steps Up, a Policy and Product Review

In discussing music royalties, the controversy that usually makes the news is the dispute between music services and copyright holders – with services arguing that the royalties are too high and rightsholders contending that they are underpaid. The introduction of the Songwriters Equity Act in Congress earlier this year seems to point toward a new area of dispute – one between the various rightsholders themselves.  This issue was one that was much discussed on a panel that I moderated last week at the RAIN Summit West (audio of that panel is available here).  What is this conflict?

The Songwriters Equity Act, while not explicit in identifying the controversy, does point to the dispute. As we have written many times before, in any piece of recorded music, there are two copyrights – the sound recording copyright (also known as the “master recording,” the recording of a particular song by a particular artist, rights usually held by the record label), and the right to the musical work (or “musical composition,” the words and music to a song, usually held by a publishing company).  The proposed legislation suggests that the amount of the royalties for the public performance of sound recordings can be taken into account in setting the royalties that are payable to songwriters for the public performance of the songs that they have written.  This would amend Section 114(i) of the Copyright Act, which currently prohibits the consideration of the sound recording royalty in determining the rates to be paid for the public performance of musical works.  The proposed legislation would also substitute the “willing buyer, willing seller” standard for the 801(b) standard in setting rates under Section 115 of the Copyright Act, the mechanical royalty (see our discussion of the difference between these standards, here).  While this does not sound like a big deal, it may have a significant impact.
Continue Reading Raising the Royalties for Musical Works? A Discussion of the Potential Dispute between Music Rights Holders over the Value of Their Rights