Broadcast Performance Royalty

Subscribe to Broadcast Performance Royalty

The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved the bill to impose a performance royalty (or the "performance tax" as the NAB had called it) on radio broadcasters for the public performance of sound recordings on their over-the-air stations.  As was the case in the House of Representatives when its Judiciary Committee approved their version of the bill, the Committee acknowledged that there was still work to do before a final bill would be ready for the full Congress.  Nevertheless, this is the first time that the Judiciary Committees in both Houses of Congress have approved the performance royalty, serving as a warning to broadcasters that this issue may well be moving to a showdown before the full House and Senate during the current session of Congress. 

There was only limited debate on the bill at the Committee hearing, yet several open issues were identified.  The Committee made clear that, even though it was approving the bill in the form introduced and amended by its managers, there were still changes that would be made in the future before any legislation was ready to be finalized.  Senator Feinstein of California discussed several of the issues.  First, the bill as amended by the Senate managers (Senators Leahy and Hatch), the bill provided relief for small broadcasters so that any performance royalty would not impose an undue burden on them.  The bill proposed the following royalty structure for small broadcasters:

(I) revenues of less than $50,000 – a royalty fee of $100 per year;

(II) revenues of at least $50,000 but less than $100,000 – a royalty fee of $500 per year;

(III) revenues of at least $100,000 but less than $500,000 – a royalty of $2,500 per year;

(IV) revenues of at least $500,000 but less than $1,250,000 – a royalty of $5,000 per year.

Senator Feinstein, who stated that she favored parity between all music services that pay a royalty, suggested that this same royalty structure should be applied to small webcasters who, under current settlement agreements, can pay almost 30 times the amount that a small broadcaster with the same revenues would pay under this bill – and those settlements were an improvement on the royalties that would have been paid under the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board.  Senator Feinstein stated that "the parties" were working on an agreement that would amend the bill to extend these rates to small webcasters.Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Broadcast Performance Royalty – With Issues Yet to Resolve

While we have written much about the battle over the broadcast performance royalty (or the "performance tax" as broadcasters call it) – whether broadcasters will have to pay artists and record labels for the right to play their music on the air – we have not written much about another looming issue with the royalties that broadcasters must pay to play music on their stations.  While broadcasters are very familiar with the ASCAP and BMI royalties, they may not be fully aware that there is a looming dispute over the amount that broadcasters will pay to these organizations in the near future.  At a panel that I moderated at the NAB Radio Show, Bill Velez, the head of the Radio Music Licensing Committee, talked about the current negotiations for the renewal of the royalty agreements between radio stations and these two Performing Rights Organizations ("PROs").  Both of the current agreements expire at the end of this year, and the RMLC is in the process of trying to negotiate new agreements.  However, because many broadcasters feel that the current deals charge more for these music rights than is justified in the current economic environment, while the PROs are reluctant to decrease the royalties that the composers they represent currently receive, the differing perceptions of the value of these rights could lead to litigation over the amount that should be paid by broadcasters for the use of this music.

First, it is important to understand what rights ASCAP and BMI are providing. These organizations, along with SESAC (about which we have written here), provide the copyright license for the "public performance" of the "musical work" or the composition, the words and musical notes to a song.  This is in contrast to the rights to the sound recording (the song as performed and recorded by a specific artist), which is licensed by SoundExchange.  Webcasters have to pay ASCAP and BMI for the use of the composition, as well as paying SoundExchange for the use of the sound recording when streaming music on the Internet.  Broadcasters only have the obligation to pay ASCAP,BMI and SESAC for the composition in connection with their over the air broadcasts but do not, under the current law (unless the broadcast performance royalty is passed), have to pay SoundExchange.  Because the current ASCAP and BMI royalties have been in place for several years, most broadcasters probably don’t think much about them, but they may have to in the near future.Continue Reading ASCAP and BMI – Another Royalty Battle for Broadcasters?

The NAB today announced that it has selected Gordon Smith, a former Republican Senator from Oregon, as its new President.  He succeeds David Rehr, who left the NAB last Spring.  Smith has been practicing law in Washington since leaving the Senate after being defeated in his reelection bid in the 2008 election.  While in the Senate, he served on the Commerce Committee that oversees the FCC.  From a quick on-line search, it appears that he was active in the push for the "broadcast flag" sought by broadcast program producers to identify copyrighted video content broadcast by digital television stations.  Other than his Congressional background, it does not appear that he has other direct broadcast experience.  I would be interested in any knowledge that readers of this blog have about other connections he may have to the broadcast media and any past positions that he has taken on broadcast issues.

Having someone with experience on Capitol Hill was clearly crucial to the NAB given how many controversial issues broadcasters are now facing from Congress and from the FCC.  When David Rehr departed, we wrote about the many issues facing the NAB, most of which are still pending.  These include: 

  • The potential broadcast performance royalty – i.e. the recording industry’s attempts to, for the first time,  impose a sound recording royalty on broadcasters for their over-the-air transmission of music

  • The FCC’s implementation of their White Areas order allowing wireless users to use parts of the TV spectrum – and the appeals and other attempts to overturn or modify that decision

  • The reauthorization of SHVERA, to continue to allow satellite companies to beam local television signals into local markets – where parties are raising all sorts of extraneous issues about carriage rights and retransmission consent, possible changes in TV market boundaries, and changes in the rights of satellite carriers to import distant signals.

  • The FCC’s localism proceeding, which could impose new obligations on broadcasters at a time when broadcast competition has never been so intense – when the marketplace should dictate how broadcasters best serve their communities

  • Potential Congressional effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another

  • A number of FCC proceedings that could affect new methods of advertising meant to combat technological changes – like embedded advertising and product placement that are meant to partially overcome the effects of DVRs.

  • Congressional attempts to regulate advertising and programing – including potential efforts to restrict prescription drug ads, ED treatments, violent programming and programming that promotes unhealthy foods

  • FCC attempts to reign in technical changes in FM stations to allow them to take steps to increase power and to move into larger markets

  • Congressional moves to remove restrictions on LPFM stations on channels that are third-adjacent to full power facilities – and to potentially give these new stations rights to replace existing FM translators

Continue Reading NAB Selects Gordon Smith as New President

Last week, the FCC released a decision denying objections to the sale of the NY Times-owned radio station in New York City – objections based on the fears of certain listeners that the sale would mean the loss of the station’s classical music service.  In rejecting the petitions, the FCC relied on the long-standing policy of the FCC not to get into format questions, citing a thirty year old policy statement, upheld by a Supreme Court decision, which found that such review "would not benefit the public, would deter innovation, and would impose substantial administrative burdens on the Commission."  In other words, the Commission concluded some thirty years ago that it had no place in making programming decisions for broadcasters.  It is ironic that this decision was released on the same date as comments were due at the FCC on the MusicFirst petition arguing that broadcasters should be compelled to air specific content – commercials that advocate the adoption of a performance royalty and music from performers who supported the royalty. 

It appears from a review of the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System that, while the FCC solicited comments on the MusicFirst petition, MusicFirst itself did not choose to file anything in response to that request.  A few musicians’ groups did file comments, echoing the concerns originally raised by MusicFirst, but with very little specificity to support the implication that there was a nationwide conspiracy of broadcasters to boycott music from royalty supporters.  And, while most of the comments stated that they did not want to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, they nevertheless went on to say that broadcasters who did not air statements in support of the royalty should have sanctions imposed.  Maybe I’m missing something, but that sure seems to be an invitation to government compelled speech.   The NAB filed extensive comments addressing the First Amendment implications of the complaint. Continue Reading FCC Says It Will Stay Out of Programming Decisions – On Same Day MusicFirst Petition Comments Were Due

David Oxenford provided a legal update on Washington issues to the Kansas Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention in Topeka on October 19, 2009.  His presentation – What Broadcasters Need to Know About What to Expect from Washington in 2009-2010 – discussed issues including the proposed broadcast performance royalty, localism and multiple ownership proceedings at the FCC, LPFM changes, and advertising and sponsorship…

On October 6, 2009, David Oxenford participated in a panel called "Post-Millennium Analysis: The DMCA in the 21st Century" at the Future of Music Coalition’s Policy Summit in Washington, DC.  Other panelists included David Carson, General Counsel of the US Copyright Office, and Mitch Glazer, Executive Vice President, Government and Industry Relations for the RIAA.  The…

On September 25, 2009, David Oxenford moderated a panel at the NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia called "The Day the Music Died – Streaming, The Performance Tax and Other Copyright Issues."  In addition to the music royalties involved in webcasting and the possible broadcast performance royalty, the panel discussed other copyright issues, including…

The FCC today asked for public comments on the petition of the MusicFirst Coalition asking the Commission to take action against broadcast stations who did not fairly address on air the proposed sound recording public performance royalty for terrestrial radio.  The Petition, about which we wrote here, alleges, with very few specifics, that some radio stations have taken adverse actions against musical artists who have spoken out in support of the royalty, and also that stations have refused to run ads supporting the performance royalty while running their own ads opposing the royalty (opposing ads which MusicFirst claims contain false statements).  MusicFirst submits that these actions are contrary to the public interest.  The FCC has asked for comment on specific issues raised in the Petition.  Comments are to be filed by September 8, and Replies on September 23.  

The specific questions on which the FCC seeks comment are as follows:

(i)      whether and to what extent certain broadcasters are “targeting and threatening artists who have spoken out in favor of the PRA, including a refusal to air the music of such artists";

(ii)    the effects of radio broadcasters’ alleged refusal to air advertisements from MusicFIRST in support of the PRA;

(iii)   whether and to what extent broadcasters are engaging in a media campaign, coordinated by NAB, which disseminates falsities about the PRA; and

(iv) whether certain broadcasters have evaded the public file requirements by characterizing their on-air spots in opposition to the PRA as public service announcements.

 While we were concerned about the fact that the Commission is seeking these comments potentially indicating that the FCC might feel that the broadcaster has some obligation to address all sides of all controversial issues, implying that there is life in some vestige of the Fairness Doctrine, we were heartened by the FCC’s acknowledgment of the First Amendment issues that the petition raises.  The Commission stated:

We recognize that substantial First Amendment interests are involved in the examination of speech of any kind, and it is not clear whether remedies are necessary or available to address the actions alleged by MusicFIRST.

Continue Reading FCC Asks for Comment on MusicFirst’s Petition Against Broadcasters for On-Air Activities Opposing Radio Performance Royalty

On Tuesday, just before the Senate recesses for its summer vacation, an abridged version of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed sound recording performance royalty for over-the-air radio.  Internet radio royalties were also encompassed in this discussion, principally concerning the issue of "platform parity", i.e. whether all music services subject to the sound recording performance royalty should pay a royalty determined by the same standard, or perhaps even the same royalty.  We’ve already written this week about some of the issues surrounding the broadcast performance royalty (why it’s still being considered given that a majority of the House of Representatives has already signed a resolution against the royalty, here, and discussing the likely amount of the royalty were it to be adopted, here).  Neither of these issues was discussed in depth at the hearing.  But a multitude of other issues were raised in the hearing. and we’ll address many of them over the next few days.  But first, today, a summary of the issues raised.

First, it should be made clear that there was not a full committee in attendance.  While a few Senators came and went without saying a word, questions were asked or comments made by only 5 Senators of the 19 on the Committee.  So judging how the full committee feels about the issues raised when only 5 Senators (4 of them Democrats) asked questions may not be a fair assessment of how the committee as a whole feels about the issues raised.  But, broadcasters should take warning that all of the Democratic Senators in attendance seemed to be sympathetic to the idea of adopting a broadcast performance royalty.  However, it must be noted that all also seemed somewhat sympathetic to the concerns about the financial impact of the royalty on broadcasters.  Just as members of the House have cautioned broadcasters to negotiate on a royalty before one is imposed on them, Senator Leahy of Vermont, the Chairman of the Committee, echoed those sentiments, promising that "legislation will move" on this issue – meaning that the issue will not simply fade away, despite the signatures on the NAB petition opposing the performance royalty.Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Radio Performance Royalty and Platform Parity for Webcaster Royalties

One of the fundamental questions that surrounds the proposed broadcast performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by over-the-air (or the "performance tax" as it has been labeled by the NAB) is how much it could it cost a broadcaster?  Right now, that question is difficult to determine, as the pending bills do not themselves provide any details as to what the fees would be, except for noncommercial entities and for small broadcasters for whom fixed yearly fees are proposed.  For a broadcaster with a station having over $1.25 million in yearly revenues, the current Congressional bills leave the amount of the royalty to be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board.  In the current Senate draft of the bill, the amount to be paid would be based on the "willing buyer willing seller" standard that has been so controversial for Internet Radio companies. But the hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow will address, among other issues, the question of "platform parity," i.e whether all companies subject to the sound recording performance royalty should pay a comparable rate, so we may see that proposal change as it did in the House version, to some form of the 801(b) standard (about which we wrote here and here).

We will write about the differing rates paid by differing music services in the next few days, especially as it becomes clear as to what rates for Internet radio royalties were agreed to under the most recent settlements with webcasters pursuant to the Webcaster Settlement Act.   But even without a detailed analysis of all of the rates that have been agreed to, certain trends can be seen as to what SoundExchange, on behalf of the artists and copyright holders, believes to be a fair royalty for the use of their music.  And that number is likely to be a "Substantial" one, as suggested by a recent Congressional Budget Office review of the cost to broadcasters of the proposed performance royalty.Continue Reading Broadcast Performance Royalty – What Would It Cost? The Congressional Budget Office Says A “Substantial” Amount