Yesterday, SoundExchange sent to many small webcasters an agreement that would allow many to continue to operate under the terms of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act as crafted back in 2002, with modifications that would limit the size of the audience that would be covered by the percentage of revenue royalties that a small webcaster would pay. A press release from SoundExchange about the offer can be found on their website by clicking on the "News" tab.  This is a unilateral offer by SoundExchange, and does not reflect an agreement with the Small Commercial Webcasters (the “SCWs”) who participated in the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding to set the rates for 2006-2010 and who are currently appealing the CRB decision to the US Court of Appeals (see our notes on the appeal, here). The SoundExchange offer, while it may suffice for some small operators who do not expect their businesses to grow beyond the limits set out in the SWSA (and who only play music from SoundExchange artists – see the limitations described below), still does not address many of the major issues that the SCWs raised when SoundExchange first made a similar proposal in May, and should not be viewed by Congress or the public as a resolution of the controversy over the webcasting royalties set out by the CRB decision (see our summary of the CRB decision here).

The proposal of SoundExchange simply turns their offer made in May, summarized here, into a formal proposal.  It does not address the criticisms leveled against the offer when first made in May, that the monetary limits on a small webcaster do not permit small webcasters to grow their businesses – artificially condemning them to be forever small, at best minimally profitable operations, in essence little more than hobbies. The provisions of the Small Webcasters Settlement Act were appropriate in 2002 when they were adopted to cover streaming for the period from 1998 through 2005, as the small webcasters were just beginning to grow their businesses in a period when streaming technologies were still new to the public and when these companies were still exploring ways to make money from their operations. Now that the public has begun to use streaming technologies on a regular basis, these companies are looking to grow their businesses into real businesses that can be competitive in the vastly expanding media marketplace. The rates and terms proposed by SoundExchange simply do not permit that to occur. 

Continue Reading Another Offer From SoundExchange – Still Not a Solution

On Friday, in a number of publications, a story was carried questioning the claims made by the NAB that the broadcast performance royalty being sought by the music industry could amount to 10-35% of the revenue of the radio industry.  A post on the Wired Listening Post blog seemed to have started the story.  This is the royalty which would be paid to the copyright holders in the sound recording – and would be in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the composers of music (see our post on the topic, here and here) .  Wired quoted a spokesman for the Music First Coalition (the music industry coalition seeking the performance royalty) claiming that the NAB’s claims are overstated – and that any broadcast royalty to be paid to sound recording copyright holders would be similar to those paid in Europe for the use of sound recordings, and similar to the amounts currently paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the use of the musical compositions, in the range of 3-5% of revenues. Only the Radio and Internet Newsletter seemed to question this statement.  From looking at the history of SoundExchange’s claims made in other royalty proceedings, the questions raised by RAIN seem entirely justified.  SoundExchange has consistently argued in connection with all of the other on-going royalty proceedings that the sound recording royalty is far more valuable than the composition royalty – asking for a royalty over 6 times the amount of the composition royalty – 30% of gross revenues.  How can Music First now contend that the royalty will be only a few percent of revenue, when their representaives have consistently requested royalties many multiples of that amount?

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the broadcast performance royalty (see our post, here), when committee members asked how much the royalty would be, Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, suggested that it could a simple matter of applying the "willing buyer, willing seller" criteria of Section 114 of the Copyright Act to broadcasting.  That standard is exactly the same one that led to the current Internet radio royalties which have been so controversial (see our coverage here).  In that proceeding, SoundExchange had asked for royalties of the greater of the per performance royalty that the Copyright Royalty Board imposed or 30% of gross revenue.  While the Copyright Royalty Board did not adopt a percentage of revenue royalty because they feared that it was too difficult to compute for services that had multiple revenue streams, most observers have estimated that the pe performance royalty exceeds 100% of revenue of the small commercial webcasters, and are close to 100% of revenue even for the Internet radio services provided by the major Internet content companies.  In making their offer of a "special deal" to Small Commercial Webcasters on May 23, with royalties between 10 and 12% of gross revenue, SoundExchange specifically stated that it thought that the 10-12% rate was "a below-market rate to subsidize small webcasters … to help small operators get a stronger foothold" in developing their businesses.  While 10% is suggested to be a "below market" rate in an immature industry still struggling to find a business model, the Music First Coalition now suggests that a royalty less than half that amount is what they would request for broadcast radio.

Continue Reading Broadcast Performance Royalty – Getting Fooled Again?

In its Public Notice setting out the rules governing the upcoming filing window for applicants seeking new noncommercial FM stations or major changes in existing stations, which we wrote about here, the FCC has put applicants on notice of the many requirements that must be met in order to have an application considered in the upcoming process.  This is the first opportunity in this century for the filing of applications for new noncommercial FM stations. In order to participate, all applicants must make sure that they follow the rules set out by the Commission.  Applications will be due in a filing window that will open on October 12 and close on October 19.

Fundamentally, the FCC’s Public Notice reminds interested parties that, to be eligible, an applicant must be a noncommercial entity – a nonprofit corporation or a governmental organization.  Individual applicants or profit-making entities cannot participate.  As eligibility to participate and the comparative qualifications of all applicants are assessed at the time of filing, applicants need to assure their nonprofit status is in order before the upcoming filing window.

The Commission also sets out a number of other requirement for the applications that may be filed during the window. Applications submitted during the window will be filed electronically on FCC Form 340, and must contain very specific technical descriptions of the service they plan. The proposal must specify facilities that don’t interfere with other existing stations or pending “cut-off” noncommercial applications. The applicant must have received reasonable assurance of the availability of its proposed transmitter site (i.e. a legally binding contract is not necessary, but a commitment from the site owner that the site will be available and an idea of the terms on which that availability is premised must be obtained). 

Continue Reading Details on the Noncommercial Filing Window

In July, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting specific requirements for publicizing the digital television transition and the February 2009 deadline for broadcast stations to convert from analog to digital operations.  We wrote about some of the Commission’s specific proposals, including the possibility of mandating public service announcements on television stations, here.  The FCC today released a Public Notice setting the dates for the filing of comments on those proposals.  Comments are due on September 17, and reply comments are to be filed on October 1.  Broadcasters, cable companies, consumer electronics retailers and others who are potentially affected by the Commission’s proposals should consider filing comments by the deadlines that have just been announced. 

The FCC late today released its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to allow FM translators to rebroadcast the signal of AM stations – and potentially to originate programming during those nighttime hours when a daytime-only AM station is not permitted to operate.  The proposal is to permit AM stations to operate FM translators in an area that is the lesser of a circle 25 miles from their transmitter site or within their 2 mv/m daytime service contour.  In proposing the changes in its rules, the Commission raised a number of questions on which it seeks public comment.   These include the following:

  • Is allowing the rebroadcast of AM stations on FM translators in the public interest?  What would its impact be on other stations including AM and FM stations, as well as LPFM stations?
  • How many translators should each AM station be permitted?
  • Should daytime-only AM stations be allowed to originate programming on an FM translator during hours when they have no programming to rebroadcast?
  • Should the FCC permit AM stations to begin operating translators all at once – or should the use of these translators be phased in – perhaps permitting daytimers or stations with minimal nighttime power to operate translators first for some transitional period.
  • Should there be a restriction on an AM station’s use of an FM translator if the AM is co-owned with an FM station in the same market?
  • Can an AM station "broker" time on a translator to provide the type of service proposed in this proceeding?

In addition to these operational issues, the FCC poses a few technical issues about these operations.  These include:

  • Should any extension beyond the 2 mv/m contour be permitted?  If so, how much and in what circumstances?
  • How should the 2 mv/m contour be calculated – using standard FCC predictions, or allowing the measurement of the actual reach of that signal?
  • Should the 25 mile zone be extended to 35 miles in Zone II (essentially the less populated areas of the country)?

Comments on the Notice will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days later.

Continue Reading FCC Finally Releases Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Allow FM Translators to Rebroadcast AM Stations

The FCC announced today that the Office of Engineering and Technology will be hosting a meeting to describe and discuss the findings announced recently regarding the testing of prototype equipment proposed for use in the so-called TV "white spaces".  As we reported yesterday, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology recently issued two reports finding that the prototypes of these TV white spaces devices that had been made available for testing appeared to interfere with television signals.  The FCC has asked for comment on its reports, with initial comments are due by August 15, and reply comments due by August 30.  

Given the significance (and contentious nature) of the issue, the Commission has now announced that it will hold a meeting to answer questions, provide an overview of the tests it conducted, and consider suggestions for further testing to evaluate the performance of TV white space devices.  The FCC’s meeting will be held on Thursday August 16, 2007 at 1 PM at the Commission’s testing lab in Columbia, Maryland.  Parties interested in attending the meeting should send an e-mail to Patricia.Goff@FCC.gov, identifying the organization and how many individuals plan to attend.  According to the FCC, space is limited.   A copy of the FCC’s public notice with the full details is available here.