Public performances, synch and master use licensing, sound recordings, musical compositions – what are all these terms, and how does a digital media company make sense of them and figure out where to go get permission to use music in their business?  These issues were discussed in a webinar that I did with my partner Rob Driscoll from our firm’s New York office for the Texas Association of Broadcasters.  The slides for that presentation are available here.  A revised and updated version of our memo on the Basics of Music Licensing in the Digital Media, giving more information on many of the subjects discussed in the presentation, has also just been published, and is available here. 

During the presentation, we talked about the broadcaster’s royalty deal with SoundExchange for Internet radio streaming.  Details of that settlement are here.  The performance complement waivers that are associated with that agreement are detailed here.  In the presentation, we also mentioned that stations with websites featuring user-generated content may avail themselves of a safe harbor from liability if they take certain precautions.  Website operators must register with the Copyright Office the name and contact information of a person with responsibility to receive notices from copyright holders that users have posted infringing content, and to take down any content that is in fact infringing.  The Copyright Office instructions for registration can be found here.   These materials may not answer every question, but they may start you asking the right questions as you use music in connection with your digital properties.

Just two weeks after rejecting a claim that the FCC’s rule against the broadcast of a telephone conversation without permission was unconstitutional, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau made clear that it would not hesitate to enforce that rule – and enforce it vigorously.  In a recent decision, the Commission proposed a $25,000 fine to a broadcaster who ran two different telephone conversations on the air without the prior permission of the people at the other end of the phone line.  The broadcasts were carried on three different stations, and the licensee involved in the case (Spanish Broadcasting Systems) had been fined before for violations of this rule (Section 73.1206 of the FCC’s rules), so the FCC felt that it needed to issue a fine that would make an impact – thus the significant fine that is far in excess of the fines normally seen in these kinds of cases.

Here, the violation was one of those traditional stunts with which broadcasters so often have had trouble in the past – prank calls to unsuspecting people, where the station employee pretends to be someone else until he springs the joke on the person being called – sort of a Candid Camera for radio.  While the calls were apparently made at the suggestion of some friend or acquaintance of the person being called (with personal information about the person being called so that the call was geared to the person’s real life to have maximum surprise and impact) – the fact was that the person being called had no idea that the call was being broadcast until after the prank had been played.  While it may have made for entertaining radio in some people’s eyes, it was a significant issue for the FCC resulting in this large fine.  Broadcasters obviously need to be cognizant of the prohibition on broadcasts of this type, and avoid situations where the rule could apply, as the serious fine proposed here demonstrates that the FCC does not get the joke – and is prepared to make the broadcaster pay.  Brief your on-air personnel.  Violations of the rule can be very serious. 

Last week the FCC rejected a request by a low power television broadcaster seeking an experimental license to test a technology that would allow broadcast television stations to provide broadband access.  The brief decision, available here, was issued by the FCC’s Media Bureau and rejected the request primarily on the grounds that the technology the LPTV broadcaster sought to test is inconsistent with the existing ATSC standard for transmission of digital television signals in the U.S.  This decision brought about a rebuke by a Wall Street Journal columnist, suggesting that the FCC was not fully exploring one way to rapidly deploy broadband through existing TV licensees, in fears of foregoing the revenues that would come from an auction of reclaimed television spectrum.   This issue arises while the FCC considers the digital conversion of LPTV, and the future of the television spectrum generally.

As has been well known and discussed for at least the last decade, the ATSC standard chosen for digital television broadcast service in the United States is not ideal for mobile service and is not well suited for two-way broadband service.  The current ATSC standard was designed to provide a signal to fixed locations for traditional in-home television watching.   As we have written before, in 2000, in the early days of the digital television conversion, some broadcasters suggested that the system be changed to accommodate a more robust signal allowing better mobile reception and other services that maximize the capacity of the digital channel. That proposal was rejected for fears of slowing the digital conversion, but is seemingly being revisited now. 

Continue Reading FCC Rejects Request by Low Power Television Broadcaster to Test Technology to Enable Broadband Service Over Broadcast Spectrum

FCC tower lighting and marking violations are among those treated most seriously by the FCC, given their potential for tragedy should there be an incident with an aircraft due to improper tower maintenance.  Today, in two Notices of Apparent liability, the FCC proposed fines against tower owners for such violations.  In one case, where the lights were apparently not functioning and the FAA had not been notified of the outage as required, the proposed fine is $10,000.  In that case, the FCC cited the owner for failing to observe the lighting and painting requirements, and not observing the tower to determine if the lights were operational, and not having an automatic monitoring system to check on those lights (see our post here about how the FCC allows such systems to, in many cases, substitute for routine visual monitoring).  In a second case, where the issue was only with the painting of the tower, the fine was $4000.  In either case, these fines are significant, and serve as a reminder to tower owners to observe the mandatory tower painting and lighting requirements attached to their communications tower.  Remember, FCC fines pale in comparison to potential liability if the failure to observe the marking requirements lead to some more serious incident. 

After a series of FCC meetings where the only mention of broadcasters was in connection with taking TV spectrum for wireless broadband, the tentative agenda for the next FCC meeting, to be held on March 3, 2011, is full of broadcast issues – issues that could have broadcasters wishing that they were ignored once more.  The biggest issue is the initiation of a proceeding to re-examine the retransmission consent process by which television broadcasters negotiate with cable and satellite companies for payment for the carriage of their signals.  But also on the agenda are proceedings to look at rural radio services and whether the Commission should limit the ability of broadcasters to move stations from rural to urban areas, and the initiation of a proceeding to require that television programmers provide audio descriptions of the action taking place on the video portion of their programs to aid those who are visually impaired.

The retransmission consent proceeding is one which arises after several well-publicized cases where television stations and multichannel video program distributors (like cable and satellite television providers) have had disputes about the amount to be paid to the television broadcaster for the carriage of their signal by the MVPD.  In a few cases, this has resulted in the television station being pulled from the MVPD for some period of time until the dispute can be resolved.  Some MVPDs have argued that there should be more oversight over the process by which television stations can force the MVPD to pull the station’s signal until the retransmission negotiation is completed.  MVPDs argue that viewers, who can get the signal over the air as it is made available by the TV station for free, should not be held hostage to the negotiations and should not suffer when the station is pulled from the MVPD to further the TV station’s negotiation posture.  Broadcasters, on the other hand, argue that the system is working, that the number of stations who have been pulled from an MVPD is few, and that the MVPD should pay for the valuable television signal, just as it pays for other programming that it carries from cable networks.  The FCC is expected to ask whether some reform of the process, and perhaps some government oversight or mandatory mediation, should be required.

Continue Reading Next FCC Meeting Full of Issues for Broadcasters – Retransmission Consent, Moving Rural Radio Stations Toward Urban Areas, and TV Video Description

Fines for noncommercial broadcasters who air acknowledgments of their donors and contributors that sound too much like commercials have been a problem area for many noncommercial educational radio and television stations, and have resulted in significant fines from the FCC.  The FCC allows "enhanced underwriting announcements" that identify a sponsor, what their business is, and where they are located, but such information must be provided in an objective, non-promotional manner.  Earlier this week, I conducted a seminar for noncommercial broadcast stations who are members of the Maine Association of Broadcasters and the Connecticut Broadcasters Association.  During the seminar, we discussed the FCC rules that govern fundraising done on such stations.  The PowerPoint slides from that presentation are available here, and provide an outline of the FCC rules on underwriting, promotions, fundraising and related issues, with samples of announcements that have led to FCC fines for noncommercial stations.

We have written many times about FCC issues related to fundraising and other matters relevant to  noncommercial stations.  We have written articles about cases where the FCC fined stations for enhanced underwriting announcements that were too enhanced, and violated FCC standards by containing prohibited calls to action, inducements to buy, price information or qualitative claims (see, for instance, articles here and here).  Another article discussed fines issued by the FCC for improper underwriting announcements where the announcements were of excessive length, and where the announcement ran in programming that was not originated by the station and from which the station received no consideration.  Another article discussed the FCC prohibition on noncommercial stations interrupting their regular programming to raise funds for charitable groups other than the licensee.  You can scroll though other articles we have written on other legal issues for noncommercial broadcasters by clicking here.  Watch our blog for other issues that relate to noncommercial broadcasters to stay up-to-date on the latest developments about which you should be aware. 

The FCC today issued fines of as much as $12,000 for public file violations.  Together with the fine issued earlier this week for a station that did not allow unrestricted access to its public file, these actions make clear how seriously the FCC takes the obligations of broadcast stations to maintain and make available their public inspection files.  The fines issued today went to both commercial and noncommercial stations, with two noncommercial stations each receiving fines of $8000 for not having complete public files.  Violations are expensive – even if your station is owned by a noncommercial entity.

The largest fine, $12,000, went to a commercial station that, when inspected by FCC Field Inspectors in March 2010, could not produce anything in its public file more recent than 2006.  While the licensee claimed that the documents were kept at the office of the station owner several hundred miles away, the FCC found that the violation of having nothing from more than 3 years of operation was so egregious that an upward adjustment from the standard $10,000 public file fine was warranted.  The two fines issued to noncommercial stations were not as egregious, but still resulted in significant fines.  A review of the details of those cases are instructive as to the excuses and mitigating circumstance that the FCC rejected when the licensees tried to argue for a significant reduction or elimination of the fine.  

Continue Reading Big FCC Fines for Public File Violations for Commercial and Noncommercial Stations

On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  While the Act had significant impact throughout the communications industry, the impact on broadcasters was profound, and is still being debated.  The Act made changes for broadcasters in several major areas:

  • Lengthened license renewals to 8 years for both radio and TV, and eliminated the "comparative renewal"
  • For radio, eliminated all national caps on the number of radio stations in which one party could have an attributable interest and increased to 8 stations the number one party could own in the largest radio markets
  • For television, raised national ownership caps to having stations that reached no more than 35% of the national audience, with no limits on the number of stations that could be owned as long as their reach was under that cap.
  • Allocated spectrum that resulted in the DTV transition

Obviously, the DTV spectrum began the profound changes in the way television is broadcast, and led to the current debate as to whether over-the-air television should be further cut back in order to promote wireless broadband (see our recent post on the FCC’s current proceeding on this issue).  While the other changes have now been in effect for 15 years, the debate over these provisions continue.  Some argue that the renewal and ownership modifications have created too much consolidation in the broadcast media and lessened the broadcaster’s commitment to serving the public interest.  Others argue that, in the current media world, these changes don’t go far enough. Broadcasters are under attack from many directions, as new competitors fight for local audiences (often with minimally regulated multi-channel platforms, such as those delivered over the Internet) and others attack broadcasters principal financial support – their advertising revenue. Even local advertising dollars, traditionally fought over by broadcasters and newspapers (with some competition from billboards, direct mail and local cable), is now under assault from services such as Groupon and Living Social, and from other new media competitors of all sorts.  With the debated continuing on these issues in the current day, it might be worth a few looking back at the 1996 changes for broadcasters, and their impact on the current broadcast policy debate.

Continue Reading On the 15th Anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Effect on Broadcasters is Still Debated

The FCC released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture today, proposing a $10,000 fine against a public TV station in Los Angeles for requiring an appointment to view the station’s public inspection file. This case shows how seriously the FCC takes the requirement of open and unfettered access to a broadcast station’s public file.  An FCC agent visited the station’s main studio twice without identifying himself as an FCC employee.  Both times, the station’s security guard refused to let him see the station’s public inspection file or speak with the station manager without an appointment.

On the third visit, the FCC agent identified himself as such and was allowed to view the station’s public inspection file "after a thorough examination of the agent’s badge and several phone calls to [station] personnel." 

The public inspection file was found to be complete. However, the station was fined $10,000 for "willfully and repeatedly" failing to make the public inspection file available.  The FCC stressed that "stations cannot require members of the public to make appointments to access a station’s public inspection file."

Continue Reading FCC Fines TV Station $10,000 for Requring Appointment to View Public Inspection File

The FCC’s auction of new VHF TV channels in New Jersey and Delaware (about which we have written many times including here) has resulted in only three qualified bidders.  Despite this lack of interest in these VHF channels, the FCC seems to be looking at VHF as a way to facilitate its announced plans for the clearing of significant portions of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use.  The Commission this week set the comment date – March 18, 2011 – on ways to overcome the issues that have been posed to TV stations that have remained in VHF channels after the digital transition.  In the same proceeding, the FCC also seeks comments on allowing TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel, with both stations retaining their cable and satellite must-carry rights.  That same proceeding implies that we may well have seen the last new over-the-air television stations.  This crucial proceeding on the future of the television band requires careful attention by all parties who may be affected by the many proposals contained in this relatively compact Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The first part of the FCC’s proposal (about which we previously wrote here), is to look at ways to get some of the television stations to give up their current channel to allow the FCC to use it for broadband, and having that station share another station’s channel to continue to provide its program service on what is the equivalent of a digital subchannel.  The proposal to encourage multiple TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel raises many issues.  First, the FCC recognizes that the proposal may result in some television stations giving up their ability to broadcast in High Definition (one of the principal reasons for the initial transition to digital), but suggests that stations sharing the same channel could work out "dynamic arrangements" to allow sharing the spectrum flexibly, increasing the portion digital bandwidth allocated to one station when it has programming that would benefit from higher definition, while switching some of the bandwidth allocation to the other station at other times. 

While the Commission assumes that each station will continue to exist as an independent station even when sharing a channel with another station, many of its questions in this proceeding seem to signal uncertainty about this conclusion.  Issues on which the Commission seeks comment include:

  • What effect will channel sharing have on the deployment of HD programming and mobile television?  The Commission does not ask about 3-D television, which some broadcasters have begun to experiment with, and might be worth a comment if there are those who expect that to be part of the television future that could be affected by channel sharing arrangements.
  • In channel sharing, would each station be able to maintain a Standard Definition signal at all times?
  • The Commission assumes that each station sharing a single channel (and thus a single transmission facility) would retain a separate license, and be individually responsible for FCC-rule compliance (e.g. EAS, indecency, children’s television, political broadcasting, etc).  How would responsibility over the technical compliance be apportioned?
  • Should commercial and non-commercial stations be allowed to share the same channel?  Could commercial stations share channels that have, to this point, been reserved for noncommercial educational uses?
  • Will there be a loss in service to the public from such combinations?  Will there be television "white" and "gray" areas created, i.e. areas where there will be no over-the-air television service or only a single service?
  • Should cable and satellite service be included when evaluating questions of loss of service?
  • What impact should channel sharing have on other FCC rules, like the media ownership rules?

Perhaps the biggest issue with channel sharing is the cable and satellite carriage issue, which raised a number of issues for the Commission.  The issues, summarized below, also demonstrate the Commission’s tentativeness in its conclusion that two stations sharing the same channel are really independent stations.

Continue Reading While Few Vie for New VHF TV Stations in NJ and Delaware, FCC Sets Comment Date on Improving VHF Digital Reception and TV Channel Sharing With Must Carry Rights As Ways to Help Clear TV Band for Broadband Users