Just when Internet music companies were starting to understand one set of royalties applicable to the use of music on the Internet through the controversy over the Copyright Royalty board decision on royalties for the public performance of sound recordings in a digital delivery system, the Copyright Office held a hearing on Friday to discuss an entirely different royalty – the "mechanical" royalty for the use of the "musical work" in making a "phonorecord."  In plain English, the copyright holder in the publishing rights in a musical composition (the underlying words and music in a song) is entitled to a royalty when a copy of a song using that composition is made.  While that doesn’t sound too complicated, when copies are made in the digital transmission of music over the Internet (and even in other digital media), all sorts of questions arise.  And in the conversations on Friday, questions were raised as to whether the obligation to pay a royalty for making a digital copy even applied to the streaming of a song on the Internet or possibly even the playing of a song on an HD Radio station.  These stations already pay (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) for the public performance of a musical composition, but the mechanical royalty is for a different right, and is collected by a different group, and the question being raised was whether a different royalty is also due when music is used a digital context.  This is also different than the SoundExchange royalty that is paid for the public performance of a sound recording (a particular song as recorded by a particular artist).

The Copyright Office held this Roundtable to update the record in a proceeding begun by a Notice of Inquiry issued in 2001 to try to determine how to apply in a digital world the mechanical royalty and the compulsory license for that royalty under Section 115 of the Copyright Act.  That section applies to the use of a composition in the making of a record or CD.  The artist or record company would have to pay the publishing company a flat fee per copy to obtain the rights to use the underlying song.  That fee is currently about 9 cents per copy, though the Copyright Royalty Board is is in the midst of a proceeding that is to determine whether that royalty should be changed.  When applied to the making of a physical copy, that concept is not hard to understand (though, as set forth below, it is not easy to administer).  But, in a digital world, questions arise as to when the obligation to pay a royalty arises.

Continue Reading Copyright Office Holds a Roundtable Discussion of the Mechanical Royalty – Another Confusing Royalty for the Use of Music on the Internet

With July 15 now less than a month away, the new Internet Radio music royalties are still scheduled to go into effect.  Congressional legislation is slowly being considered, and a Motion for Stay to put the regulations on hold pending appeal has been filed (see our post here).  Some discussions on settlement have also taken place, though no deals have been done.  Without some action, payments under the new rules will soon be due.  See our memo, here, for more details on the CRB decision, and all of our posts on this issue, here.  While the legal and legislative actions are still proceeding, and the clock is counting down, the coverage in the popular media continues to grow.  In two recent discussions of the issue, SoundExchange spokesmen seem to blame Internet Radio for the current woes of the recording industry and to justify the high royalty rates through comparisons to the illegal pirating of copyrighted music.  All of these issues will be discussed at a seminar that I am moderating later this week at the Digital Media Conference in the Washington DC area.

One example of SoundExchange’s recent claims can be found in a series of articles found on the Los Angeles Times website featuring a "Dust-up" exchange of viewpoints on the Internet radio issue,  between Kurt Hanson, owner of Internet radio broadcaster Accuradio and the publisher of the Radio and Internet newsletter, and Jay Rosenthal, a Board member of SoundExchange.  Mr. Rosenthal, in attacking the value of Internet radio as a promotional tool, said that while webcasters might excite people about new music, most new music is now illegally downloaded so that the promotion doesn’t actually help the artists.  But, as Kurt Hanson points out, that would essentially be an excuse for never promoting any music in any venue – in fact it seemingly would be an excuse for shutting down the recording industry.  If music promotion just leads to illegal file sharing sites, and little or no music is ever to be sold again, why bother?  Does the recording industry really expect to make up for lost sales by receiving royalties from Internet radio?  Yet the same point seems to be made by SoundExchange President John Simson in a piece done by the PBS program NOW.  That program focused on the Internet Radio station Radio Paradise and how its popular, eclectic music mix will be silenced if the new royalties go into effect.  In that story, Simson also points to illegal downloading as causing the woes of the music industry, seemingly implying that this justifies outrageous royalties – yet offers nothing to tie downloading to Internet radio.

Continue Reading 30 Days And Counting Down to the New Internet Radio Royalty Rates

In our recent summary of the Commission’s order on Digital Radio, we wrote about the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that raised specific proposals to adopt new rules regulating the public interest obligations of radio broadcasters.  These proposals included the possible requirements for a standardized disclosure form for a stations public service programs, limits on a station’s ability to originate programming from locations other than the station’s main studio, and possible limitations on the current ability of stations to operate without manned studios.  A recent Commission decision reminds television broadcasters that there is another proceeding – one six years old – that proposes many of the same restrictions on television broadcasters.  Does the recent mention of this proceeding that so closely parallels the recent radio proposals indicate that some action may soon be forthcoming on the TV proceeding?

The TV proceeding was mentioned in an FCC decision released last week rejecting Petitions to Deny that had been filed against a number of license renewal applications for television stations in Wisconsin and Illinois alleging that the stations had not adequately served the public interest through the broadcast of issue responsive programming, especially programming covering election issues.  In rejecting those Petitions, the FCC stated that its ability to second guess the editorial discretion of a licensee was limited by the First Amendment and by the Communications Act’s prohibition against broadcast censorship.  In this case, the FCC said that the showing made by the Petitioner was not sufficient to demonstrate that the stations had not served the public interest of their communities.  However, the decision noted that the Commission was considering quantitative standards for evaluating the public service of broadcast licensees, citing to the long-pending rulemaking proceeding, and implying that the evaluation of these licensees might have been at least somewhat different had these proposed standards been in place.

Continue Reading Enhanced Public Interest Requirements for TV Too?

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see February Legal Deadlines for Broadcasters – Online Public File, Review of Incentive Auction Comments, Filing Deadline for FM Auction, and Lots of Renewals and EEO Public File Reports

The FCC today announced another round of EEO audits of broadcast stations throughout the country.  The FCC’s Public Notice of the audits, and the list of the stations that are affected, can be found here.  Broadcasters should review this list carefully, both by call letter and licensee name, as we have noted situations where the FCC’s list of licensee names used in this audit is not accurate, even though the licensee is correct elsewhere in the FCC’s databases.  The audit letters were dated June 12, and responses are due in 30 days.  These letters usually require answers to an extensive list of questions, as well as the submission of supporting documentation to show a licensee’s compliance with the FCC’s EEO rules over the last two years.  We have written a Guide to the FCC’s EEO requirements, which can be found here, to help broadcasters assure their compliance with these rules.  Whether or not a broadcaster is on this audit list, this opportunity should be used to review your EEO compliance, as the Commission conducts these audits on a regular basis – so you could be next. 

Last week’s announcement of the partnership between eBay and Bid4Spots and the impending full launch of Google’s service to sell online radio spots beg for FCC action to clarify how these services will be treated for lowest unit rate purposes. We have written about this issue before (see our note here), and the increasing number of online sales tools for broadcast advertising inventory highlights the issue. If advertisers can buy spots using these online systems on a single station, or if stations offer their spots to a particular advertiser at a set price for a specific class of spot, it would seem that these spots could have an effect on the station’s lowest unit rate if the spots sold through the online systems run during lowest unit rate periods (45 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.). For the peace of mind for all broadcasters, it would be worth the FCC clarifying the status of these services as we hurtle toward what will probably be the busiest political year ever.

In looking at some of these systems, it appears that some of these systems are premised on specific stations offering spots to advertisers on a cost-per-point basis, for specific dayparts as designated by the advertiser and agreed to by the station.  For instance Bid4Spots system advertises that it holds an auction to sell the spots on Thursday for the following week.  And it appears that spots must be sold by a station in specific dayparts on a non-preemeptible basis. For the week in which the spots are offered, the sale of such spots would appear to set a lowest unit rate for non-preemptible spots that run in the same time period. 

Continue Reading Will On-Line Spot Auctions Have an Impact on Lowest Unit Rate? – Only the FCC Knows For Sure

In April, the FCC agreed to Consent Decrees calling for fines totaling $12.5 million from four of the country’s largest radio broadcasters in order to settle allegations that these companies had engaged in violations of the FCC’s payola rules. Recently, another public radio company stated in one of its SEC filings that it had received an inquiry from the FCC about practices at its stations, and rumors have been heard in Washington that there have been letters of inquiry on the subject sent out to other broadcast companies.  With this atmosphere, we thought that an analysis of the terms of the Consent Decrees, which imposed very specific operating conditions on these broadcast companies, was in order.  Thus, we have just published a detailed analysis, A $12.5 Million Teaching Tool – The Payola Consent Decrees, here.  This memo details provisions of those Consent Decrees which impose conditions on these companies requiring, among other things: limits on gifts that their employees can take from representatives of record companies, reporting requirements about their dealings with music companies, and requirements for the education of these companies employees about the requirements of the payola rules.  As set out in the memo, these Consent Decrees can serve as a set of best practices for all broadcasters in complying with the payola rules.

With the FCC restarting its Localism proceeding, about which we wrote yesterday, which asked for public comment on payola practices of broadcasters, the FCC’s focus on payola has not abated with the $12.5 million fines imposed by the Consent Decrees.  So broadcasters should be assessing their policies to make sure that, if they get an inquiry letter from the FCC, they are able to provide responses that would lead to trouble.  We hope that this memo helps with that assessment.

The FCC, after taking two years off, is looking to finish their field hearings on Localism by scheduling a hearing in Portland, Maine on June 29.  This hearing is not one of the six hearings to discuss possible new multiple ownership rules, but instead a continuation of the hearings started by Chairman Powell after public controversy over the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  In an ironic twist of fate, this public notice was released on the Friday before the National Association of Broadcasters Educational Foundation hosts their Service to America Awards Dinner to honor broadcasters and the public service commitment that they have to their communities.  Thus, while the FCC is looking in the hinterlands for evidence of the responsiveness of the broadcast industry to the needs of their listeners, some of the best evidence of that service was on display some 12 blocks from the FCC’s headquarters.

The Localism hearings were part of a larger proceeding begun in response to the controversy after the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  When the Democratic Commissioners, Congressional legislators from both parties, and a variety of citizen’s groups from across the political spectrum complained about how the public’s input was not sought before the rules were adopted, the FCC tried to respond to some of those complaints by putting out a Notice of Inquiry on Localism.  The proceeding was to assess how well broadcasters were serving their communities, and the Notice asked for public comment on a grab bag of issues including the following:

  • whether a broadcaster’s public interest obligations should be quantified (bringing back obligations abolished in the 1980s that required specific amounts of the programming of broadcast stations to be devoted to news and public affairs programming), 
  • should broadcasters be required to play specific amounts of local music,
  • is payola a major issue,
  • whether more programming should be devoted to political campaigns, 
  • whether the voices of minorities were being heard on the airwaves.
  • if the FCC should authorize more LPFM stations and take other steps to make airtime available to new entrants

Continue Reading Another Localism Hearing and Service to America

In the last few months, attention of the broadcast press has been focused on the pressing regulatory issues of the day – matters such as content regulation (indecency, violence and junk food advertising), the digital conversion of radio and TV, and the new digital media landscape and its impact on broadcasters (XM/Sirius, You Tube and Internet video, and Internet radio).  Almost forgotten is the multiple ownership proceeding that began in earnest last summer when the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rule making (see our summary here), but which has really been pending in front of the Commission since the US Court of Appeals issued its Stay of the FCC’s 2003 Order adopting "new" ownership rules.  This week, at least some attention was brought back to the issue following the release by the organization Free Press of a study  that purports to document the effects that consolidation has had on minority and female ownership in the broadcast media.  Coupled with an electronic press conference featuring the two Democratic FCC Commissioners, the report merited an article in the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream press outlets.  It is a study that should be read by broadcasters, as it will likely form part of the debate on this most important issue.

While studies have been issued on and off throughout the debate over the multiple ownership rules, seemingly proving almost whatever the party providing the study wants to prove, this study should not be ignored.  Executive summaries and a full copy of the report can be found here.  The report purports to show that consolidation in the media holds down minority and female ownership.  And, unlike many other studies that have obvious design flaws and seem to be based on faulty assumptions, this one considers many of the obvious objections.  It does not under count minority ownership – in fact it takes the FCC to task for under counting such ownership, and actually reports higher amounts of minority and female ownership than the FCC itself had acknowledged.  The report also addresses the usual response to such studies – that it is a question of access to capital that results in the disparities – by doing a comparison of minority and female ownership in broadcasting to that ownership in other industries, and finding broadcasting very close to the bottom in diverse ownership.

Continue Reading Study Released Showing Effects of Broadcast Consolidation – Broadcasters Should Pay Attention