Photo of David Oxenford

David Oxenford

Subscribe to David Oxenford's Posts

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Follow:Read more about David OxenfordDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile

In several recent cases, the FCC issued big fines to stations that had significant gaps in their public inspection files – fines of between $10,000 and $14,000.  Unlike many other recent public inspection file fines, these fines did not arise from self-reporting of violations in a license renewal application, nor were they discovered as a result of a complaint from a disgruntled listener or competitor.  These fines also did not arise in connection with the discovery of other violations at the stations.  Instead, these fines were the result of FCC inspections – inspections that seemingly did not turn up other significant violations.  Thus, these cases serve as a warning that broadcasters need to ensure that their file is complete and up-to-date at all times.  Curiously, these large fines come at the same time that the FCC is about to consider comments on whether the public file paperwork burden is justifiable.

These fines were large – demonstrating a seeming trend to ever-higher fines for public file violations.  The $14,000 fine issued today went to a Class A TV station that had no quarterly programs issues lists in its public file for the entire license renewal term – 34 reports were missing at the time of the inspection.  Based on this egregious violation, the FCC decided that an increase over the base $10,000 fine was in order.  Two AM stations, which had pretty much the same violation as the Class A station – no QPIs for the same period of time – received $10,000 fines (see decisions here and here).  A third AM station received a $10,000 fine for having no new information in its public file since 2006.Continue Reading FCC Fines Of $10,000 to $14,000 for Broadcast Public File Violations – Discovered By FCC Inspections

Legal issues regarding privacy have long been an issue for broadcasters and other media companies.  Traditionally, privacy concerns for media companies have arisen in the context of news gathering, advertising or other on-air content that either was gathered in a way that intruded on someone’s privacy, or which used private facts or personal images, without consent, for commercial…

As part of the Local Community Radio Act which, among other things, repealed restrictions against protecting full-power FM stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFM stations, Congress required that the FCC conduct a study of the economic impact that such stations will have on full-power FM stations.  The FCC began the process of conducting that study, asking for public comment on a series of questions designed to look at that impact.  Comments are due on June 24, 2011, with reply comments to be filed by July 25.  The Commission asks for comments in two general areas, asking what impact LPFM will have on full-power stations’ revenues and on their audience share, but tentatively decided that it would not look at any economic impact that interference from LPFM would have on full-power stations.

What led the FCC to this tentative conclusion?  The FCC said that the Act did not specifically require any study of the economic impact of interference and, since the principal purpose of the Act was to set out how the FCC should deal with interference remediation, Congress had already addressed all that needed to be considered about any potential interference.  This view was bolstered by the inclusion in previous legislation of a specific directive to study interference, which led to the report from the MITRE  Corporation.  That report concluded that there would be no substantial interference from LPFM to full-power stations, which opened the door to the passage of the Act.  Thus, the Commission reached the tentative conclusion that no additional study of the economic impact of LPFM was necessary, but they seek comment on that tentative conclusion.  We expect that there will be such comments.Continue Reading FCC to Study Economic Effect of LPFM on Full-Power FM – But Not the Economic Impact of Any Interference that May Be Caused

Just as webcasters thought that they had their royalty obligations figured out, there comes news that the already complicated world of digital media royalties may well become more complicated.  Last week, EMI, which in addition to being a record label is a significant music publishing company, has reportedly decided to withdraw portions of its publishing catalog from ASCAP – which had been licensing the public performance of these songs. The withdrawal from ASCAP applies only to "New Media" licensing.  What is the impact?  As of today, webcasters pay ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the rights to play virtually the entire universe of "musical compositions" or "musical works" (the words and musics of the song).  By withdrawing from ASCAP, EMI will now license its musical compositions itself, adding one more place that webcasters will need to go to get all the rights necessary to play music on an Internet radio type of service.  In addition to royalties paid for the musical composition, webcasters also pay SoundExchange for public performance rights to the sound recordings (the song as recorded by a particular singer or band) – and by paying this one organization, they get rights to perform all sound recordings legally released in the US.   But any Internet radio operation needs both the musical composition (except for those compositions that have fallen into the public domain) and the sound recording performance rights cleared before they can legally play the music.

The news reports quote EMI as talking about the efficiencies that will be created by its licensing the musical compositions directly – in conjunction with the licensing of other rights – like the rights to make reproductions of its compositions, or the rights to publicly perform sound recordings to which its record label holds the copyright. But the whole idea of a performing rights organization with collective licensing is that it provides to digital music services the efficiencies offered by a one-stop shop for the purchase of rights to all a very large set of musical compositions.  Up to now, a digital music service knew that, by entering into licensing agreements with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (the "performing rights organizations, or "PROs"), it had rights to virtually all the musical compositions that it would normally use (i.e. they received a "blanket license").  If these rights are balkanized, so that each significant publisher licenses their own music, the webcaster will have to make multiple stops to license all the music they need – which always leads to confusion.  The more places they have to go to license music, the more possibility that they will overlook a necessary rightsholder.  But there is even a bigger potential issue for webcasters – price.Continue Reading Another Royalty Payment for Webcasters? EMI Withdraws From ASCAP For New Media Licensing

Three recent FCC cases demonstrate how seriously the FCC views tower site issues – imposing fines up to $14,000 for various violations of FCC rules.  One $14,000 fine was in a case where an AM station’s tower was enclosed by a fence that was falling down and did not enclose areas of high RF radiation as required by Section 73.49 of the rules.  The station also had a main studio that was unattended on two successive days, and had no one answering the phone on those days – no one to respond to the FCC’s calls.  The FCC broke the fine down as $7000 due to the lack of fencing, and $7000 to the unattended main studio.

In the second case, the FCC, the FCC fined a station $10,000 for areas of high RF radiation that were not fenced or marked by signs when the FCC conducted its inspection, and $4000 for operating overpower.  The Commission measured the overpower operation on one day, inferred that it had been in place the previous day, and thus deemed the violation repeated.  The Commission found that the station’s tower was fenced, but that there was high RF outside the fence, leading to the fine.  The third case was one where the Commission found that the top flashing beacon on a tower was out on two successive days, even though the required steady lit obstruction lights on the side of the tower were operational.  While the licensee notified the FAA of the outage three days later (with no noted prompting from the FCC), and had the situation corrected two days after notifying the FAA, the Commission also determined that the the violation was repeated and willful, leading to a $10,000 fine.Continue Reading Tower Lights Out, High RF Radiation, Insufficient Transmitter Site Fences – FCC Fines Up to $14,000

In less than a month, a four year cycle of radio and television license renewal applications begins with the filing, on or before June 1, of license renewals by radio stations in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.  To help stations prepare for their upcoming renewals, I conducted a webinar, sponsored by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters and joined by broadcasters from 9 other state associations, discussing issues that broadcasters should be considering.   Slides from that presentation, setting out the renewal process, and various issues that should be considered by broadcasters, including: public file issues, technical matters, EEO and other nondiscrimination matters.  Copies of the slides used in the presentation are available here.

In addition to those slides, we have many other resources available for a broadcaster thinking about their license renewal application.  These include the following:

  • A primer on the issues to be considered in preparing for license renewal, available here.  In that memo, there are links to the texts of the required pre-filing and post-filing announcements that broadcasters must air to inform their listeners about the filing of the renewal application
  • A memo that sets out the materials that should be kept in a commercial station’s public file, and the retention period for those materials, here.
  • A memo generally describing the requirements of the FCC’s EEO rules, here, and a second memo, reminding broadcasters of their yearly EEO public file report obligations, a sample of which is here.  Remember, FCC Form 396 report must be filed with the license renewal application, and that form requires the submission of the station’s last two years public inspection file reports
  • An advisory, here, summarizing the requirements for a station’s quarterly programs issues lists.
  • Recent blog entries on the FCC’s requirement for a nondiscrimination certification in their advertising contracts, here and here.

FCC Sources of information for the renewal filing are also available.  A version of the FCC Form 303S – the license renewal form – can be viewed here.  The form contains a good set of instructions as to what information the FCC is seeking from licensees.  The FCC also has its own webpage on license renewal, here.  Dates for radio license renewals are available here, and the dates for TV renewals are here.Continue Reading Getting Ready for License Renewal – Slides and More Information from State Broadcast Associations’ Webcast

The advertising to children of food deemed unhealthy has been the subject of government concern for many years.  We wrote about the efforts of then-Senator Brownback to limit such ads – either by voluntary industry action or by government regulation.  These concerns led to the formation of a public-private task force to come up with voluntary actions to limit advertising unhealthy foods to children.  The FTC this week released a draft of that report – proposing prohibitions on advertising most unhealthy food to children that would be in place by 2016 (with certain additional restrictions becoming effective 5 years later).  These guidelines would apply not only to broadcast advertising, but also to marketing on the Internet and in many other media.  While the report talks about voluntary industry guidelines, the NY Times quotes some as asking just how voluntary such guidelines really would be – asking if the government might not step in to mandate compliance if industry was unsuccessful (see the Times article here, subscription may be required).  Comments on the FTC proposals are due on June 13, 2011.

The guidelines published by the FTC ask many questions about how to define what foods are considered unhealthy, and also about whether the timeline of 2016 for implementing a ban on unhealthy food advertising is reasonable (the later 2021 deadline would apply to certain restrictions on salt in food).  Advertising would be restricted for those up to 17 years of age, and extends to 20 categories of advertising including radio and TV, online ads, sweepstakes, ads in video games, and other marketing in traditional and digital media directed to children.  Broadcast programming that reaches an audience that is 30% children 2 to 11 would be deemed "targeted" to them, for children 12 to 17, the programming would be deemed targeted to children if there were a 20% representation of those age groups in the audience.  Internet ads would also use the 20% standard.Continue Reading FTC Requests Comments on Guidelines for Advertising Unhealthy Foods to Children

How do you determine who is control of a noncommercial broadcaster governed by a self-perpetuating Board of Directors?  That question was addressed in a recent FCC decision, dismissing an application for a new noncommercial FM station that had not properly disclosed its owners on its FCC Form 340 application. In that case, the applicant had reported to the FCC…

What should SoundExchange do with money that it collects for the performance of sound recordings, when it does not know what sound recordings were played by a particular service?  As we’ve written many times on this blog, SoundExchange collects royalties from digital music services , including satellite radio, cable radio and webcasters, for the performance of sound recordings (i.e. a recording of a song by a particular artist).  It is charged with the obligation to distribute these royalties one-half to those who hold of the copyright to the sound recording and one-half to the artists who perform on those recordings.  However, SoundExchange, according to a filing recently made with the Copyright Royalty Board, does not always know which songs were played by a particular music service.  Thus, it has had difficulty distributing all of the money it collects – currently holding $28 Million in royalties from the period 2004 to 2009 that have not been distributed.  Why?  According to SoundExchange much of the problem is that not all services report what they played and how often, and other information that is submitted is sometimes inaccurate or otherwise does not adequately identify the music that was played.  To deal with this problem, SoundExchange has asked that the Copyright Royalty Board authorize it to use proxy information to distribute these funds from 2004-2009.  The CRB has asked for comments on that proposal.  Comments are due on May 19.

What is proxy information?  Basically, SoundExchange plans to infer from the information that it does have what music was played by the services for which it has no information.  According to the SoundExchange filing, they would make these assumptions based on the type of service.  Thus, information from webcasters would be used to estimate what other webcasters were playing.  Information from background music services who did report would be used to determine what other background music services played, and so on.  The CRB, in its request for comments, asks if the proxy should be further broken down so that, for instance, noncommercial webcasters would serve as a proxy for other noncommercial webcasters, and commercial webcasters would serve as a proxy for other commercial webcasters.  The Copyright Royalty Judges are also seeking to assess whether SoundExchange has done all that it can do to get the required information, and if the proxy system is a fair way of determining distributions for the money that has not yet been awarded to rightsholders and artists. 

Does this proposal have any impact on the services themselves?  Apparently not, as SoundExchange is at this point only looking for this authority in order to distribute money collected for royalties that came in from 2004 to 2009.  It does not appear to be looking at imposing any new restrictions on webcasters or other digital music services.  Instead, it is only looking for the authority to distribute the money that it has already collected based on the information that it has available.  What should music services take away from this request?Continue Reading SoundExchange Seeks Permission to Distribute Royalties Based on Proxy Information