Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

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?

If you are a broadcaster, you know that it’s not going to be a good day when you walk into a hearing on the possible extension of the performance royalty in sound recordings to over-the-air broadcasters and see buttons saying "I Support a Performance Right NOW" on the lapels of every other witness on the panel – including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters.  But that was the scene in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing as to whether the right to collect a royalty for the public performance of a sound recording (the actual song as sung by a particular artist, as opposed to the underlying musical composition) should be paid by broadcasters.  Broadcasters in the United States have paid only a royalty on the public performance of the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC), and have never paid a royalty for the public performance of the sound recording.  The lack of a sound recording royalty has always been justified in the past on the theory that the artists and copyright holders in the sound recording benefit more than composers through the airplay of the sound recording, as they receive the bulk of the proceeds from CD sales, and the performers benefit from the promotion of live performances.  As they benefit from the promotion provided by the airplay of the song, there is no need for any sort of performance royalty.  As the music and radio businesses have both thrived in the United States – more so than anywhere else in the world – it seemed that this arrangement was mutually beneficial.

But, in recent years, the consensus over this mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have broken down.  Starting in 1995, a performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services, including the royalty on Internet radio which has recently been so controversial (and about which we have written so much, here).  And, with the recent downturn in the record companies’ business, additional sources of revenue are being sought – thus the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collective that receives sound recording performance royalties, have started a Congressional push to require the collection of royalties from over-the-air radio.  And that push was reflected in the hearing held on Tuesday before a House Committee that seemed clearly to favor the imposition of this royalty on broadcasters.Continue Reading House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Broadcast Performance Right – No Breaks for the Broadcasters

As reported in Digital Music News and other publications on Friday, Clear Channel Communications dropped its waiver of music royalties from its on-line agreement signed by musicians submitting songs to the Company in hopes that their music would be played on the Company’s radio stations.  In writing about this decision, most publications attribute the decision to the petition filed with the FCC by the Future of Music Coalition and other public interest groups arguing that the waiver requests constituted a form of payola – the giving of something of value (the waiver of the right to receive a royalty) in exchange for the playing of music.  However, on close inspection, that would appear to be a misunderstanding of the royalty, as there would seem to be no royalty that would be affected by the waiver in connection with the playing of this music by radio stations, and therefore there would be no payola over which the FCC has any jurisdiction.

According to the Future of Music petition, Clear Channel’s promise to play new music was made in connection with the payola settlement that it and other companies entered into with the FCC, and was apparently contained in a side letter filed with the FCC, as it was not spelled out in the settlement agreements themselves. See our analysis of the settlement agreements, here.  The side letter promised that the Company would dedicate a certain amount of radio airplay on the Company’s radio stations to new local music.  However, such play would not implicate any music royalties – so a waiver of royalties would not confer any benefit on the Company.  Broadcast stations pay no royalty for the use of a sound recording – thus the waiver that Clear Channel requested was without any value as there was no royalty to waive.  While broadcast stations do pay a royalty for the composition (the underlying words and music of a song), stations play flat fees to ASCAP and BMI that are a function of the station’s market size and power – not a function of how many songs are played.  Thus, as there is no sound recording royalty and a flat fee for the composition royalty unaffected by any waivers, the waiver did not confer any benefit to the Company in connection with its broadcast operations.  Thus, there where would appear to be no payola issue over which the FCC would have any jurisdiction.Continue Reading Music Waivers Dropped Amid Payola Allegations – What’s the Impact for Future Waivers for Webcasters?

Should artists waive their rights to performance royalties in order to get airplay on broadcast or Internet radio stations? That questions has come to the fore based on a click-through agreement that Clear Channel included on a website set up to allow independent bands to upload their music for consideration for airplay by its stations. While artist groups, including the Future of Music Coalition, condemned that action, there are always two sides to the story, as was made clear in a segment broadcast on NPR’s Morning Edition, in which I offered some comments. As set forth in that segment, artists may be perfectly willing to allow unrestricted use of a song or two in order to secure the promotional value that may result from the airplay that might be received. For the broadcaster or Internet site seeking such permission, getting all rights upfront may well be an important consideration in deciding whether or not to feature a song – especially in the digital media.

Critics of the waiver made much of the fact that the site was set up at least partially to meet Clear Channel’s informal commitment made as part of the FCC payola settlement to feature more independent music, even though that commitment was not a formal part of the settlement agreement.  (See our summary of the payola settlement, here).  Even to the extent that the informal commitments made by the big broadcasters encompassed making time available to more independent musicians, the critics ignore the fact that the companies do not need any waiver of any sound recording performance royalty in connection with the over-the-air broadcast of those songs, as there currently is no public performance right in a sound recording for over the air broadcasting (though artists and record lables are now pushing for such a royalty, see our story here). Thus, the use of the waiver was only for the digital world – which was not covered by the FCC’s jurisdiction over payola promises or the promises to increase the use of independent music. So, effectively, the company is being chastised for trying to minimize their costs on giving the music even greater circulation through their digital platforms than they initially promised.Continue Reading Musicians Trade Waiver of Royalty Rights in Exchange for Exposure – Maybe Not Such a Bad Idea

The battle over performance royalties for broadcast stations seems to have been officially joined. We wrote last week about the rumors of a coalition of record companies and musicians that was reportedly forming to lobby Congress to enact a performance royalty on broadcast radio for the use of sound recordings, and the NAB’s immediate reaction, writing a letter to Congress to oppose the new royalty. Now, the press reports that the pro-royalty group has responded with their own letter to every Congressman, asking that immediate action take place to impose the royalty. Two letters in one week indicate that this summer may be a hot one for broadcasters on Capitol Hill.

The royalty being discussed would be one new to broadcast radio in the United States, but one well known to non-broadcast digital music providers such as Internet radio – as it is the same royalty that has been the subject of so much controversy since the Copyright Royalty Board released its Internet radio royalty decision in early March, more than doubling between 2005 and 2010 the royalty that those stations pay for the use of sound recordings. The royalty on the use of sound recordings (the song as recorded by a particular artist) is in addition to the royalties that are paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the underlying musical composition. So, if imposed, this would be a new royalty for US terrestrial broadcasters.Continue Reading The Battle is Joined on the Performance Royalty for Over the Air Broadcasting

In recent years, patent issues have arisen in many areas affecting online media.  In a recent decision, the Supreme Court decided that lower Courts have more discretion to review whether a patent should be rejected for "obviousness."  To be valid, a patent must cover some degree of innovation, and should not be simply an…

A story in the Hollywood Reporter indicates that a coalition of record companies and associations representing performing artists are preparing to initiate a Congressional lobbying effort to push for a royalty for performance rights in sound recordings that would apply to broadcasters’ over-the-air transmissions, not just their Internet streams.  Broadcasters currently pay performance royalties  to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for their over-the-air music programming – royalties that are paid to composers (or music publishing companies) for the use of the underlying musical composition.  Digital operators (satellite radio, Internet radio, digital cable radio) pay royalties for the composition and also pay royalties for the sound recording, i.e. the actual performance as recorded on a record, CD, or digital download.  The copyright for the sound recording is usually held by a record company.  The performance right in a sound recording did not exist in the United States until 1995, and still applies only to digital transmissions.  Obviously, if extended to broadcasting, this could result in huge expenses to broadcasters – amounts for which they probably have not planned.

This is not the first time that such a royalty has been mentioned.  In introducing the PERFORM Act earlier this year, Senator Feinstein of California suggested that this legislation, which makes certain changes in the digital royalty standards that apply to various services as well as to other copyright license provisions, was only a first step in clarifying royalty issues.  In statements made at the time, there were indications that she favored further legislation to adopt a sound recording performance right for broadcasters.  At last week’s Future of Music Conference, David Carson, General Counsel of the Copyright Office, also spoke in favor of such a right – suggesting that if SoundExchange collected money from broadcasters they might not need to seek so much from Internet Radio companies (see our coverage of the Internet radio royalty issues, here).

Continue Reading Lobbying Effort to Make Broadcasters Pay Sound Recording Royalties in the Works?

As we wrote on Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board released to the parties their decision setting the sound recording music royalties for Internet radio for the years 2006-2010 – and the rates will be increasing significantly (absent success on appeal or in settlement discussions). The rates and appeal process are set out in our post on Friday.  The parties have until Monday, March 5 at noon, to request that the Board keep portions of the decision that contain confidential proprietary information out of the public record. Thus, the text of the decision is not yet public. Nevertheless, many parties are asking for more specific information about the decision and its impact. Certainly, when the decision is public, everyone will want to make their own judgments. But, until that time (which should be soon as the Board was careful to avoid using any significant amount of confidential information), I offer some observations about the decision (from my vantage point as a party who represented some of the webcasters involved in the proceeding), as well as thoughts on some of the questions that I have seen posted on various discussion boards this weekend.

First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo).  Also, the webcaster cannot notify their listeners when any specific song will play. The decision does cover the Internet transmissions of the over-the-air content of most broadcast stations. 

The royalties are paid to SoundExchange – a nonprofit corporation with a Board made up of representatives of artists and the record companies. The royalties go to the copyright holders in Sound Recordings and the performers on those recordings ( the copyright holder is usually the record label. Royalties are split 50/50 – and the artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording). 

The decision by the Board was the result of a long proceeding – which began in 2005. A summary of the proceeding can be found in our posting, here. Satellite radio also has to pay similar royalties, as do services that provide background music to businesses ("business establishment services"). Separate proceedings are underway to determine rates for these services.

With that background – here are some more thoughts on the decision – obviously in very summary form. The Board is charged with determining the royalty rates that would be determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller in a marketplace transaction. The Board was clear in the decision that it would look simply for evidence of what such a deal would be – it would not look at policy reasons why certain groups of webcasters (including small commercial webcasters or noncommercial webcasters) should get some special rate.Continue Reading More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties

I’ve just returned from this year’s Radio Advertising Bureau convention in Dallas.  In reflecting on the convention, and in discussing it with many who were in attendance, the consensus was that this was not your Father’s RAB convention.  I was surprised by how little discussion there was of traditional radio at the conference.  The sessions weren’t the typical…