We recently wrote about the agreements between SoundExchange and various groups of webcasters, which became effective under the terms of the Webcasters Settlement Act.  These rates act as a substitute for the rates set by the 2007 Copyright Royalty Board decision  setting Internet radio royalties for the use of sound recordings in the period from 2006-2010.  The deal with broadcasters set lower rates than the CRB for 2009 and 2010, and also waived certain requirements otherwise applicable to webcasters, limiting the number of songs from the same artist that can be played in a given period of time (see our posts here and here).  There is also a deal that SoundExchange unilaterally advanced to certain small webcasters which allows for a percentage of revenue royalty, but limits the amount of listening to these webcasters allowed at these rates, and imposes significant recapture fees if a webcaster sells its service to another company that would not qualify as a small webcaster (see our post here).  April 30 is an important date under both deals, as it is the date by which small webcasters must elect the deal, and the date by which all broadcasters who elected the broadcaster deal earlier this month are to pay any back royalties which they owe for streaming from 2006 through the date of the agreement.

In talking to Internet radio operators, both broadcasters and small webcasters, many seem to be unaware of the records that need to be maintained to remain in compliance with the requirements of the deals.  Both the small webcasters agreement and the NAB-SoundExchange settlement require "full census" reporting of  all songs played by the service, which will include information for every song – including the name of the song that was played, the featured artist who performed the song, the album on which the song appeared, and the label on which the album was released.  In addition, the webcaster must report on the number of times each song was played, and how many people heard each transmission of the song.  Only very small broadcasters and "microcasters" under the small commercial webcaster deal, are totally exempt from these requirements.  Under their deal, broadcasters need not provide all the information for up to 20% of their programming, but this percentage of the broadcast week that can avoid full reporting will shrink every year (see our post here for details).

Continue Reading Internet Radio Royalty Reminders – April 30 is the Last Date to Elect Small Webcaster Agreement and for Broadcasters to Pay Past Fees, and Don’t Forget the Recordkeeping Obligations

Rural communities – do their radio stations need government protection? The FCC seems to think so, proposing a series of new rules and policies that restrict the ability of the owners of rural radio stations to move their stations into Urban areas. These rules would make it harder for entrepreneurs to do “move in” applications – taking stations from less populated areas and moving them to communities where they can serve larger populations in nearby cities. The Commission states that it is making these proposals to attempt to live up to its obligations under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act to ensure a “fair, efficient and equitable” distribution of radio services to the various states and communities in the country. While this may be a noble goal, one wonders if it is a solution in search of a problem. Are there really rural communities that have an unmet demand for missing radio services – and which can economically support such services? And do these proposals conflict with other goals of the new Commission, by effectively decreasing the opportunities for minorities and other new entrants from acquiring stations in major markets – by taking away move-in stations that are often the only stations that these broadcast station owners can afford in urban markets?  These are questions that the FCC will need to resolve as part of this proceeding. 

A Section 307(b) analysis is done by the FCC when it faces conflicting proposals, specifying different communities of license, for new AM stations or requests for new FM allotments. It is also required when an applicant proposes to move a station from one community to another, as the applicant must demonstrate that the move to the new community would better serve the objectives of Section 307(b) than would the current location of the station. In the past, the 307(b)  analysis looks at several factors, or “Priorities.” These include:

 

  1. Service to white areas – when a proposed station will serve “white area,” an area where residents currently receive no predicted radio service (no “reception service” in FCC parlance). 
  2. Service to gray areas – when a proposed station will serve areas that currently receive only a single reception service
  3. Provision of a first local “transmission” service – where the proposed station will be the first station licensed to a particular community, and thus the first station that has the primary responsibility to serve the needs of that community
  4. Other public interest factors – usually meaning which proposal will provide the service to the most people (with service to “underserved areas,” i.e. those that receive 5 or fewer “reception services,” getting somewhat more weight).

Continue Reading FCC Proposes to Encourage Rural Radio By Making it More Difficult to Move Radio Stations to Urban Areas

Last week, the FCC fined yet another broadcaster for violations of its contest rules, issuing a fine of $4,000 to a station that had not disclosed to its listeners all of the material terms of a contest that it conducted on the air. In this case, the station promised a give-away of three cars, but in reality it was only awarding to winners a two-year lease for the cars, not actual ownership of the vehicles.  This is another in a series of recent fines for contests, so stations should be aware of the attention that the FCC is giving these issues. And this case should again remind broadcasters that they must disclose any practices that may affect the odds of winning of potential contestants – including any benefits that certain listeners, like members of loyal listeners clubs, might get that would improve their chances of winning a contest (see our post here on the Commission’s discussion of what are the material terms of a contest). 

I recently attended a seminar put on by a noted broadcast program consultant, who was running through a series of great ideas for broadcasters to better connect with and retain their audience. In giving suggestions about how to build up a database of loyal listeners with whom the station could be in regular contact, the consultant suggested that stations tell their loyal listeners that they will get advance notification of the time to call in for certain station contests and give-aways, i.e. they would be alerted in advance when the station was getting ready to do a contest that would award a prize to a caller at a certain time.  While that certainly may provide an enticement to join the listener club, if that advance notice is not revealed to all potential contestants – both in written rules and, more importantly, in those rules that are announced on the air – those contestants who are not members of the listener club may well complain about the conduct of the contest. Reveal all aspects of the contest that might affect the odds of winning or the ease of entry – or, in addition to the prize given to the contest winner, the FCC may be getting its own award – in the form of a fine.

The dates and minimum bids are set – and the next auction for new FM stations is a go for September 1, 2009. Applications to participate in the auction are due during the period June 16 to June 25, and must be filed electronically at the FCC, specifying on which of the 122 available channels an applicant is interested in bidding. Full, detailed auction instructions can be found in the FCC’s Public Notice, and the list of available channels and the minimum bids for each is available here. To give time for applicants to prepare their applications, the Commission has also initiated a variety of freezes on the filing of certain FM applications.

A freeze on any application or Petition for Rulemaking seeking a change in the channel of any channel proposed for use in this auction has been imposed effective immediately. Applications that shortspace any of the reference points for any of these stations are also barred. A subsequent freeze on the filing of any minor change application by an FM licensee will also be imposed during the June window. These freezes are to give applicants for channels the opportunity to evaluate which channels are worth bidding for, and to specify specific transmitter sites for certain channels (different than the reference coordinates) which will be protected during the auction process. Thus, applicants who see the potential for an increase in value of one of these channels that may come through the location of the station at a particular transmitter site can specify that site, protecting it and the value that they see. 

Continue Reading Rules for September Auction for New FM Stations Set – Application Filing Deadline Is June 25

This weekend, the Broadcast Law Blog is scheduled for a makeover, with a new look that goes with the new Davis Wright Tremaine website and other changes in our firm’s branding materials.  But, for our loyal readers, the look may change, but the content will remain the same – covering legal issues and developments of interest and importance to broadcasters, webcasters and other media companies. As always, we hope that you find the information that we post to be informative and useful, and welcome any comments that you may have. 

At its meeting today, the FCC decided to revamp its Ownership Report filing process – requiring all stations to file Biennial Ownership Reports on FCC Form 323 on November 1 of this year – even stations that have just filed those reports in the normal course in the last few months.  All stations will have to file every two years thereafter – on November 1 of every other year.  Reports will also be required from Low Power TV stations and Class A TV stations, which have not in the past had to file reports.  Reports will also be required from stations that are owned by an individual, and by general partnerships in which all of the partners are individuals (or, in the FCC’s legalese, "natural persons").  In the past, such stations did not have to file reports as any change in ownership would have required, at a minimum, the filing of a Form 316 short-form assignment or transfer application.  Finally, the Commission will require the reporting of the interests of currently non-attributable owners who are not attributable simply because there is a single majority shareholder in the licensee.

The FCC is not asking for this information because it wants to track improper transfers, but instead so that it can gather information about the racial and gender make-up of the broadcast ownership universe.  This information has been required on ownership reports for the last ten years, but the FCC did not believe that the system was extensive enough to capture all information about the ownership of broadcast properties, as so many stations were not covered by the requirements.  Why does the FCC want racial and gender information about the owners of stations?  To potentially take more aggressive actions to encourage minority ownership.  The FCC has considered such actions in the past, but has not felt that it take actions specifically targeted to minority and female applicants, as there was no record of past discrimination in the broadcast industry.  The government can constitutionally only make racial or gender-based decisions if these decisions are to remedy the effects of past discrimination.  To justify such acts, the government agency must demonstrate the past discrimination – and these new filing requirements are meant to gather that information through what is called an Adarand study.  In the recent past, when it adopted certain diversity initiatives for designated entities (like the ability of a designated entity to buy an expiring construction permit and get an extension, which we recently wrote about here), the Commission had to define a designated entity as a "small business" defined by SBA standards.  Chairman Copps today said that this definition did not truly benefit diversity as favoring small businesses "generally benefit white males."

Continue Reading FCC to Require New Ownership Reports from all Commerical Broadcasters on November 1

In January, the Copyright Royalty Board asked for comments as to whether it should require "census reporting" of all sound recordings that are used by a digital service subject to the statutory royalty.  This would replace the current requirement that services need only report on the sound recordings used for two weeks every calender quarter.  Most of the comments that were filed dealt with the difficulties of certain classes of webcasters – particularly small webcasters and certain broadcasters – in keeping full census reports of every song that is played by a service, and how many people heard each song.  In a Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register today, the CRB asked for further information about the cost and difficulties of such reporting.  Comments on the Notice are due on May 26, 2009, and replies on June 8.

The real issues, as identified by the CRB, were raised by smaller entities that argued that they do not have the ability to track performances.  Especially problematic are stations that have on-air announcers who pick the music that they want to play in real time, and don’t run their programming through any sort of automation system or music scheduling software.  Live DJs playing music that they want is a hallmark of college radio, but one that creates problems for tracking performances.  How can a DJ’s on-the-fly selection of music be converted to the nice, neat computer spreadsheets required by SoundExchange for the Reports of Use of music played?

Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Asks for Further Comments on Costs of Census Recordkeeping for Internet Radio Services

As part of its order in it proceeding to encourage diversity in broadcast ownership, the FCC adopted a number of new rules, including a rule allowing parties holding construction permits for new broadcast stations to sell those permits to "qualified entities."   The buying qualified entity would then then get 18 months to construct the new station, even if the construction permit would otherwise expire in less than 18 months.  Under prior policy, an FCC construction permit would expire 3 years after it is issued, with no real opportunity for extension (though the construction period could be "tolled" for the period that certain impediments to construction existed, i. e. litigation over zoning, FCC litigation over the validity of the permit, or Acts of God that temporarily stopped construction – but only for the limited period that such an impediment existed).   The new rule was adopted to encourage the sale to new entrants to broadcast ownership who could purchase construction permits that might otherwise expire.  Today, the FCC issued some clarifications of the new rule.

The clarification was issued principally to set out when the sale must take place in order for the buyer to qualify for the 18 month extension.  The FCC’s staff looked at the literal language of the new rule, and concluded that the sale must be approved by the FCC and consummated before the expiration date of the construction permit in order for the buyer to get the 18 month extension.  If the sale is not completed before expiration, the permit would expire.  Thus, the Commission warned applicants planning to take advantage of this new rule to file for the FCC approval of the sale at least 90 days before the expiration of the permit, to give time for the FCC approval of the sale and a consummation.  However, because of the uncertainty of the rule, the Commission decided that it would allow any party wanting to buy an unbuilt construction permit and who files to acquire that permit by May 31 to get the 18 month extension, even if the permit expires while the FCC application for approval of the sale is pending.  But after June 1, the buyer will not get the extension if the sale is not completed before the expiration of the permit. 

Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Rules on Extension of Broadcast Construction Permits Upon Sale to Qualified Entity

A recent FCC decision shows how important it is for an applicant for a construction permit for a new or modified broadcast station, which entails the construction of a new tower, to take all steps set out on the the environmental worksheets associated with FCC Form 301 before certifying that the tower will not create environmental issues.  In the recent case, the FCC did not find that any actual environmental issues existed with the applicant’s proposed construction of a new tower, but it nevertheless stated that it would have fined the applicant for a false certification if the statute of limitations for the fine had not passed.  Why?  Simply because the applicant had not touched all of the required bases before making its certification that the tower construction posed no threat to the environment.  The applicant had tried to argue that no environmental study was necessary as the site was a de facto tower farm given that there were already two towers nearby, but that claim was rejected by the FCC, finding that nearby towers do not necessarily constitute a tower farm.

The tower farm issue was interesting in that the applicant pointed to the fact that there were two existing towers within a couple hundred feet of his proposed tower, and thus the existence of these towers, plus the word that he received from local authorities that the site was a good one at which to build a site due to the lack of any perceived impacts, was not sufficient either to make the site a "tower farm" exempt from further environmental processing, nor was it sufficient to demonstrate that there was no need for further environmental study.  The FCC’s staff did a thorough review of the cases about what constitutes a tower farm and, while noting that there was no clear definition in the rules, found that the two nearby towers, as they were substantially shorter than the one proposed by the applicant, were not of the same "character" as that proposed by the applicant, and thus the site was not a tower farm.  Apparently, to some degree, the FCC adopted a "we’ll know it when we see it" approach to the definition of a tower farm, and concluded that they did not see it here.

Continue Reading When are a Bunch of Towers Really a Tower Farm – Only the FCC Knows for Sure

The week, Congressman Rick Boucher, a member of both the House of Representatives Commerce and Judiciary Committees, told an audience of broadcasters at the NAB Leadership Conference that they should accept that there will be a performance royalty for sound recordings used in their over-the-air programming and negotiate with the record companies about the amount of a such a royalty.  He suggested that broadcasters negotiate a deal on over-the-air royalties, and get a discount on Internet radio royalties.  Sound recordings are the recordings by a particular recording artist of a particular song.  These royalties would be in addition to the payments to the composers of the music that are already made by broadcasters through the royalties collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.   Congressman Boucher heads the Commerce Committee subcommittee in charge of broadcast regulation, and he has been sympathetic to the concerns of Internet radio operators who have complained about the high royalty rates for the use of sound recordings.  Having the Congressman acknowledge that broadcasters needed to cut a deal demonstrated how seriously this issue is really being considered on Capitol Hill.

The NAB was quick to respond, issuing a press release, highlighting Congressional opposition to the Performance royalty (or performance tax as the NAB calls it) that has been shown by support for the Local Radio Freedom Act – an anti-performance royalty resolution that currently has over 150 Congressional supporters.  The press release also highlights the promotional benefits of radio airplay for musicians, citing many musicians who have thanked radio for launching and promoting their careers.   The controversy was also discussed in an article on Bloomberg.com.  In the article, the central issue of the whole controversy was highlighted.  If adopted, how much would the royalty be?  I was quoted on how the royalty could be very high for the industry (as we’ve written here, using past precedent, the royalty could exceed 20% of revenue for large music-intensive stations).  An RIAA spokesman responded by saying that broadcasters were being alarmists, and the royalty would be "reasonable."  But would it?

Continue Reading Congressman Boucher to NAB – Accept Performance Royalty – How Much Would It Cost?