Broadcasters beware – podcasts with music may be dangerous to your economic health.  In recent weeks, I’ve come upon more than one incident where a broadcaster was providing podcasts containing music on their website, or allowing listeners to download or stream on-demand some new, hot song.  I’ve even seen certain articles in the trade press advocating that stations do podcasts of their morning shows, or otherwise provide some sort of programming containing music on their websites in a manner in which the listener can listen over and over again to the same program or song.  Broadcasters need to know that they are asking for trouble when they provide services like podcasts, downloads and on-demand streams containing music without getting specific permission from copyright holders to do so, as these uses are not covered by the SoundExchange royalties paid for webcasting, nor (in most cases) by your ASCAP, BMI and SESAC royalties.  

The royalties paid to SoundExchange are for the right to publicly perform sound recordings in a noninteractive manner.  In other words, they only cover streams where the user cannot get a specific song when they want it, and where listeners do not know the order in which songs will be played.  ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (the "PROs") also cover public performances, but of the underlying musical compositions (the words and music of the song, as opposed to its recording by a particular singer or band).  By contrast, “podcasts,” ( and here I mean an on-demand program that can be downloaded onto a digital device for later replay, and which can also usually be played immediately on someone’s computer) are much like downloads – and involve a different right in music – the right to reproduce and distribute the music.  The rights of reproduction and distribution are different from the public performance right, and the permission to make reproductions and distributions are granted by different groups than are the public performance right.  SoundExchange and the PROs have nothing to do with granting this reproduction and distribution right (with the limited exception of ephemeral rights in streaming granted through the SoundExchange royalty – a concept too technical to be discussed here, and one that does not affect this warning.  But, if you are interested in these rights, you can see our article that discussed ephemeral rights in a bit more detail, here).  Podcasts, downloads and on-demand streams require a specific grant of rights from the copyright holders of the sound recordings and the musical compositions for each piece of music that is being used. 

Continue Reading Beware – Music Use in Podcasts, Downloads and On-Demand Streams are Not Covered By Your SoundExchange Royalties

The FCC has granted a short extension for Reply Comments on the implementation of the CALM Act.  The new deadline for Reply Comments is August 1, 2011.  We wrote about the issues in this porceeding here,  The CALM Act ("Commercial Announcement Loudness Mitigation" Act), which must be implemented by the end of this year, is meant to require broadcasters, cable companies and other MVPDs to eliminate loud commercials – commercials that are substantially louder than the associated programming.  As we set out in our previous article, the Commission looks to establish compliance based on a series of recommended best practices developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee.  As the ATSC is about to release an updated version of this protocal (to be released on its website on July 26), a short extension was deemed to be appropriate so that interested parties could review the updated standards.  If you are concerned about compliance with the proposed new rules, take this extended opportunity to review the new ATSC recommended practices, and file your comments on or before August 1.

The deadlines for the digital conversion of LPTV stations, TV translators and Class A TV stations were announced on Friday, in an Order where the FCC also provided some indication of their expected timetable for the reclamation of some of the television spectrum for broadband use – and that expectation is nowhere near as aggressive as originally announced two years ago in the FCC’s Broadband Report. The digital conversion of LPTV and translator stations will happen by September 1, 2015.  The FCC also ordered an earlier December 31, 2011 deadline for the digital conversion and clearing of the reclaimed spectrum by those stations still operating in parts of the  former television band (Channels 52 through 69) that have already been reclaimed and mostly auctioned for wireless uses. The digital conversion of Class A stations and other operational issues were also discussed in the order.  The details of the order may also reveal the Commission’s thinking on the proposed reclamation of other portions of the TV spectrum for broadband use, and of the use of Channels 5 and 6 for radio.  Details on the deadlines and other actions by the FCC in this order are set out below. 

Conversion Deadline and Process for Stations in Core TV Band

LPTV, translator and Class A stations (referred to in the rest of this article simply as "LPTV stations" except with respect to the specific Class A rules discussed below) will have a hard deadline for digital conversion of September 1, 2015.  As of that date, all analog television operations in the US will cease.  If LPTV stations do not already have a construction permit authorizing digital operations, they must file for such a permit by May 1, 2015. All existing construction permits for a digital flash-cut on the LPTV station’s current channel are automatically extended by this Order until the September 15, 2015 deadline. This does not extend outstanding construction permits for digital companion channels. Extensions of those permits must be requested by the permittee. 

Continue Reading FCC Sets Deadlines for LPTV, TV Translator and Class A Stations To Convert to Digital – And Gives Hints When Television Spectrum May Be Reclaimed for Broadband

ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has approved the use of .xxx as a domain (like .com) for the adult entertainment industry. In September, broadcasters and others with registered marks will have an opportunity to reserve their marks defensively in the .xxx domain.   

While adult-oriented website operators may be interested in reserving spots in the .xxx top level domain (TLD), broadcasters may be just as eager to prevent their call signs and other marks from being used in that TLD where they may be associated with adult content. The ICM Registry, which will operate the .xxx domain, will allow those who own registered trademarks to reserve .xxx domain names to prevent others from using their marks in that domain.

Continue Reading Protect Your Call Signs and Other Marks in the .xxx Domain

As our colleague Brian Hurh wrote today on our sister blog, www.broadbandlawadvisor.com, the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee has released its Report to the FCC on the closed captioning of IP-video programming as required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act passed last October.  A copy of the report released today is available here.  As we explained earlier here, the Accessibility Act directed the Commission to enact rules that would require that once a television program is published or exhibited on television with closed captions, any subsequent distribution of that programming on the Internet must include closed captions.

The Accessibility Act requires that the FCC revise its closed captioning rules within 6 months of the Committee’s report, thus, new FCC closed captioning rules must be in place no later than January 13, 2012.  (The report is dated July 13, 2011, though it appears to have been released July 11.)  The report proposes the following compliance schedule based on the date the FCC’s revised rules are published in the Federal Register:

  • Within 6 months: programming that has been prerecorded and unedited for Internet distribution;
  • Within 12 months: live and near-live programming
  • Within 18 months: programming that has been prerecorded and substantially edited for Internet distribution.

In addition, the report sets forth the Committee’s recommendations for performance objectives, technical requirements, and technical capabilities and procedures related to closed captioning on the Internet.   The report also contains a discussion on new technological developments such as emerging protocols and other innovations that may affect the delivery of Internet closed captioning in the future.

While today’s Report makes certain recommendations, it is up to the Commission to now act expeditiously in order to commence a rule making proceeding, solicit comments, and actually promulgate new rules regarding captioning of video over IP.  The Advisory Committee’s report is an important (and necessary) step towards captioning rules for certain types of Internet video, and we will continue to follow the Commission’s actions in this area.

At today’s FCC open meeting, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") to begin the process of implementing the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, passed by Congress last year, and to chart a path to the licensing of new LPFM stations.  (See our earlier posting here regarding the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.)  While today’s item does not attempt to address all of the issues raised by the Act, it starts the implementation process and seeks to develop processing policies for FM translator applications, resume the licensing of pending translator applications, and establish a framework for licensing new LPFM stations.  

One of the most significant aspect of the NPRM is the Commission’s tentative conclusion that the earlier "ten application limit" that it previously imposed on pending FM translator applications would not further the statutory mandate of licensing new LPFM stations, as the limit does not take geographic or market differences into consideration and the remaining translator applications would still block new LPFMs in numerous markets, according to the Media Bureau’s analysis.  In today’s item, the Commission proposes to eliminate the earlier ten application limit and consider other alternatives for potentially dismissing previously filed translator applications in order to ensure that new LPFM applications can be granted.  Specifically, the FCC seeks comment on several options, including:  1.) Dismissing all pending FM translator applications and make plans for a new joint window for both LPFM and FM translators; 2.) Not dismissing any FM translator applications, but rather establish a priority for future LPFM applications; and 3.) Adopting a market-specific translator application dismissal processing policy to clear out pending FM translator applications in certain markets. 

The NPRM also raises questions regarding how the Commission should assess the needs of the local community — which the Act instructs it to consider when making licensing decisions between LPFM and translators.  These questions go to the fundamental nature of each class of station and the type of service they can, and/or must, provide to the public consistent with their respective licensing rules.  In addition, the NPRM seeks input on how to interpret the Act’s requirement that translators and LPFMs are to be afforded "equal status".  Here, the Commission starts with the question of whether the Act’s mandate that it treat LPFM and translator "stations" co-equal allows it to give priority to later-filed LPFM "applications" over pending FM translator "applications".  Reading the NPRM it is clear that the broadly worded Act was big on goals and short on specificity, as today’s item now seeks to put the rubber to the road and figure out how to balance the two services, and how exactly to process applications from the two services while ensuring opportunities for new LPFM stations on the one hand, and yet treating FM translators on a "co-equal basis" on the other hand.  

The Commission also seeks comment on processing policies to deter the potential for speculative abuses among translator applicants, and comment on the use of FM translators to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations.  Both the NPRM and several of the Commissioners support the use of FM translators to rebroadcast AM stations, however, the current policy only authorizes such rebroadcasts on FM translators that had licenses or permits as of May 1, 2009.  The FCC asks whether it should extend that policy to permit AM rebroadcasts on FM translator applications that were on file as of May 1, 2009.  The FCC is moving quickly on this proceeding, and Comments will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due 45 days after publication.  

 

The FCC has issued a Forfeiture Order, confirming a $4000 fine levied against a Minneapolis TV station for airing a video news release ("VNR") without sponsorship identification.  This case was previously discussed in our March 25th blog entry, when the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") against the station for this violation.  The primary lesson to be learned from this decision is that video supplied for free may require sponsorship ID if furnished for the purpose of identifying a product or furthering a sponsor’s message beyond any independent (i.e., newsworthy) reason a station has for airing it.

In arguing against the NAL, the station put forth several arguments, all of which were rejected by the FCC.  The station argued that its use of a video supplied by General Motors for a story about the popularity of convertibles in the summer was equivalent to use of a company press release, which the FCC has found acceptable in the past.  But the FCC said that use of a press release without sponsorship ID is permitted only if references to products or brand names are "transient or fleeting."  Here, by contrast, the FCC found the identification of GM cars to be "disproportionate to the subject matter of the news report."

Continue Reading FCC Confirms $4000 Fine For Televising Video News Release Without Sponsorship ID

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has once again questioned the FCC’s determinations on broadcast ownership issues. In a decision just published, Prometheus Radio Project v FCC, the Court reviewed the FCC’s 2007 actions relaxing the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules and adopting policies to increase diversity in broadcast ownership.  These FCC decisions had followed a prior decision of the Third Circuit determining that the FCC’s 2003 Ownership Order, relaxing many FCC ownership rules, was not adequately justified.  The FCC’s subsequent actions on cross ownership were set out in its 2007 order, relaxed the newspaper broadcast cross ownership rules in larger markets through a policy based on certain presumptions that, when met, justified the common ownership of newspapers and radio and television stations in larger markets (and, in some cases, in smaller markets too)( see our summary of this order here and here).  The diversity order, released in 2008 (summarized here and here), adopted a number of rules and policies meant to encourage diversity in media ownership.  In this new decision, the Court found that both the decision as to the newspaper cross ownership rules and the one dealing with diversity policies were wanting, and sent these matters back to the FCC for further consideration. At the same time, the Court upheld the FCC’s decisions not to change the local television ownership rules (allowing common ownership of 2 TV stations only when there are at least 8 independently owned stations in a market, and where the combined stations are not both among the Top 4 in their markets) and to retain the sub-caps for radio ownership (the rules that allow one entity to own up to 8 stations in a single market, as long as there are no more than 5 in any single service, i.e. AM or FM).

The discussion of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules was entirely procedural.  While certain public interest groups had argued that the 2007 revision to the cross ownership rules allowed too many broadcast-newspaper combinations, a number of media companies argued that it allowed too few.  The Court didn’t address either contention, instead focusing on the process by which the FCC adopted the rules.  When the Court addressed the 2003 rule changes, it sent that decision back to the Commission questioning the basis for the "diversity index" that the FCC had adopted to measure when transactions resulted in too much concentration in a market, and specifically instructed the FCC to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the specifics of any new proposal that was adopted.  The Court felt that there were too many obvious flaws in the diversity index which could have been discovered if the public had been given a chance to review its details before it was adopted.  In asking for comments following the Court’s remand, the recent decision concluded that the FCC had given the public only a cursory description of the issues that it would consider on remand with respect to the cross-ownership issue when the FCC issued its request for public comment.  The substance of the Commission’s policies which were adopted, setting out presumptions in favor of cross-ownership in larger markets and against it in smaller markets, was not suggested in the request for public comment, but instead was first floated in a newspaper Op-Ed by then FCC Chair Kevin Martin.  While the FCC asked for comment on that proposal, parties were given less than a month to file comments, and a draft decision embodying the proposal was already circulating at the FCC before the comment period had even ended. This process prompted much outcry at the contentious FCC meeting at which these rules were adopted (see our summary here).  The Court looked at this process, and determined that the public had not been given an adequate opportunity to address the specifics of the FCC proposal, and had given the appearance of having pre-judged the outcome of the case.  Thus, this week’s decision sent the FCC’s 2007 order back to the FCC to seek more public comment, and to develop rules based on those comments. 

Continue Reading Court Tells FCC to Give More Consideration to Newspaper-Broadcast Cross Ownership Rules and to Policies to Promote Broadcast Ownership By Minorities

As an FCC Forfeiture Order issued today proves, even noncommercial educational college radio stations need to comply with FCC rules to avoid big fines.  The Commission confirmed a $10,000 forfeiture against Colby-Sawyer College in New Hampshire originally proposed in 2007.  The college argued that the forfeiture should be reduced based on the station’s noncommercial educational status, but the FCC said there is no policy justifying reduction on that basis.

We have previously noted Commission forfeitures in the range of $10,000 to $14,000 for public file violations.  Today’s decision confirms that the commercial or noncommercial status of the station is not a factor when it comes to compliance issues.  In this case, the station was missing 14 quarterly issues/programs lists from its public inspection file.

The Commission has become quite vigilant lately, issuing fines and forfeitures for numerous rule violations.  The bottom line is that all FCC rules must be followed to avoid monetary penalties, commercial or noncommercial status notwithstanding.

The FCC’s recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making outlining changes to the FCC’s Part 11 Rules governing the Emergency Alert System ("EAS") was published in the Federal Register today.  Today’s publication establishes the timing for submitting Comments in this proceeding.  Comments will be due by July 20, with Reply Comments due by August 4th.  By its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 26, 2011 (“NPRM”), the Commission suggested changes to its EAS rules intended to integrate Common Alerting Protocol or "CAP" based alert messaging into the existing EAS while laying the foundation for transitioning to next generation alert mechanisms. The current "SAME" protocol ("Specific Area Message Encoding") will continue to be used.  But CAP messaging, which allows for more information to be conveyed with each alert, would be overlaid on the system.  CAP is an IP based system, with messages delivered to stations by the Internet, and then converted into SAME for broadcast by the participating stations. 

Please see our longer article from last week, which can be found here, discussing in detail the specific questions raised by the Commission’s NPRM.  In addition, David Oxenford recently participated in a Town Hall Webinar on EAS and CAP issues, that was held on Thursday, June 16, 2011, sponsored by the National Alliance of State Broadcast Associations and the NAB.  More information about the webinar can be found here, including an archived copy of the June 16th Town Hall Webinar, which should be available shortly. 

Parties interested in filing comments with the Commission should gather their thoughts as the clock is now ticking.  Comments can be filed with the Commission in paper, or electronically via the Electronic Comment Filing System.