music

Subscribe to music via RSS

The Copyright Royalty Board has asked for comments on proposed royalty rates for the use of sound recordings by "Preexisting Subscription Services."  In adopting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress divided digital music services into various categories, each of which are assessed different royalties for the use of sound recordings. Preexisting subscription services were those digital subscription music services in existence as of the date of the adoption of the DMCA. Basically, these were the digital cable music services that were in operation in 1997.  In the proceeding now being resolved by a settlement between Music Choice (the one remaining service that was in existence in 1997) and SoundExchange, the companies propose a royalty of 7.25% of gross revenues of the service for the period 2008-2011, and 7.5% of gross revenues for 2012. A $100,000 minimum payment is due at the beginning of each year.  Comments on the settlement are due on November 30.  As set forth below, this settlement sets the stage for the upcoming decision on satellite radio royalty rates – as these two services are both governed by a royalty-setting standard that is different than that used for Internet radio.

The Copyright Royalty Board announced the proceeding to set the royalties for Preexisting Subscription Services at the same time as they initiated the proceeding to set new royalties for Satellite Radio Services – which were also considered to be preexisting services at the time of the adoption of the DMCA – not because they were actually operating, but as their services had been announced and construction permits to construct the satellites had been issued by the FCC.  No settlement has been reached with the satellite radio services (except as to limited "new subscription service" that XM and Sirius provide in conjunction with cable and satellite television packages where, according to the CRB website, a settlement has been reached), and a hearing was held earlier this year to take evidence on what the rates for those services should be.  As we’ve written before, SoundExchange has requested royalties that would reach 23% of a satellite radio operator’s gross revenues.  The satellite radio case has been completed, briefs filed, and oral arguments were held in October.  A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Asks for Comment on Music Choice Royalty – Satellite Radio is Next

Over a year ago, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on amendments to the FCC’s multiple ownership rules.  Issues from newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, to local TV and radio ownership limits are all being considered.  Our summary of the issues raised in the NPRM is available here.  The FCC has been holding field hearings throughout the country on its proposals, gathering public comment on the proposals – the most recent having been held in Chicago last night.  Only one more field hearing to go and the Commission will have conducted the six hearings that it promised.  Many, including me, had felt that the timing was such that no decision in this proceeding could be reached until 2008 and, as that is an election year, the decision could quite well be put off until after the election to avoid making it a political issue.  However, there are now signs that some at the FCC are gearing up to try to reach a decision late this year or early next – presumably far enough away from the election for any controversy to quiet before the election.  With this push, others are expressing concern about a rush to judgment on the issues, and may well seek to delay it further.

Evidence of the FCC’s increasing attention to the multiple ownership issues include the recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking questions about minority ownership and making proposals on how that ownership can be encouraged (proposals we summarized here).  The FCC has also asked for comment on several studies that it commissioned to look at the effects of ownership consolidation in the broadcast media (the public notice asking for comments is here, and the studies can be found here).  Comments on the Further Notice and the ownership studies are due on October 1, with replies due on October 15.  Some have suggested that this time table is unnecessarily accelerated, especially as certain peer review documents on the ownership studies were just recently released.Continue Reading A New Push to Address Multiple Ownership?

SoundExchange yesterday announced that it had signed agreements with 24 small commercial webcasters.  Contrary to what many press reports have stated, this is not a settlement with Small Commercial Webcasters.  In truth, what was announced was that 24 small webcasters had signed on to the unilateral offer that SoundExchange made to small webcasters, about which we wrote here.  Essentially, this is the same offer that SoundExchange made in May, which was rejected by many independent webcasters as being insufficient to allow for the hoped for growth of  these companies, and insufficient to encourage investment in these companies.  These larger Small Commercial webcasters, including those that participated in the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding, rejected that offer and instead have sought to negotiate a settlement with SoundExchange that would meet their needs.  Instead of reaching a true settlement with these companies that had participated throughout the CRB proceeding and now have an appeal pending before the Court of Appeals, SoundExchange instead announced that their unilateral proposal was accepted by 24 unnamed webcasters.  Thus, rather than negotiating a settlement, if anything this announcement shows that SoundExchange has not been willing to negotiate – as it has not moved substantively off the proposal they announced over 4 months ago.

While 24 webcasters may have signed on, it would seem that these must be entities that don’t expect to grow their revenues to $1.25 million, or grow audiences that reach the 5,000,000 tuning hour limit at which, under the SoundExchange-imposed agreement, the webcaster needs to start paying at the full CRB-imposed royalty rate.  Moreover, the agreements only cover music from SoundExchange members, excluding much independent music that many webcasters play.  For music from companies that are not SoundExchange members, a webcaster has to pay at full CRB rates.  For a small service playing major label music, the agreement may cover their needs, but for the larger companies playing less mainstream music, a different deal is needed.  Continue Reading SoundExchange Announces 24 Agreements – But Not One a Settlement With Small Webcasters

At today’s Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC, there has been much talk about issues of interest to broadcasters, including the performance right in sound recordings for terrestrial radio, multiple ownership, and many other issues. The Future of Music Coalition, whose website is here, is dedicated to bringing the voice of musicians and the public to Congress and other decision-makers in Washington. Thus, the Coalition is involved in music issues before Congress and the Copyright Office, as well as before the FCC and other agencies on issues including multiple ownership, net neutrality, and similar matters. Members of the Coalition have been involved in the Low Power FM debate. At the panel session titled "The Hill Was Alive with the Sound of Music," dealing with legislative matters affecting music that are pending or which may arise before Congress, only one issue was perceived as being likely to be considered and potentially resolved by this Congress, before the Presidential election.  That was the issue of LPFM, where bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate the restrictions that prohibited LPFM stations from causing third-adjacent channel interference to other stations.

The panel included staffers from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, who both indicated that, while there were many other issues of importance to those in the music industry that might be considered this year, LPFM was the one issue that had a chance of actually being adopted this year, given bipartisan support for pending bills.   The pending legislation, The Local Community Radio Act of 2007, has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.  This legislation would lift restrictions on interference to third adjacent channel stations – restrictions which were adopted by Congress about 7 years ago.  We wrote about this legislation, here.Continue Reading LPFM Set to Move?

With summer and the August Congressional recess drawing to a close, will consideration of the Internet Radio controversy over royalties be on the agenda when the September legislative session begins?  In recent weeks, there has been a settlement between the Digital Media Association (DiMA), representing the largest webcasters, and SoundExchange on the issue of the minimum royalty fee – agreeing that the $500 per channel minimum fee imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB"), which might have by itself driven many webcasters like Pandora or Live 365 out of business had it not been resolved, would be capped at $50,000.  SoundExchange has also extended a unilateral offer to small commercial webcasters allowing them to continue to pay a percentage of revenue royalty of 10-12% for use of the music produced by SoundExchange members – but limiting the offer to webcasters with under $1.2 million in annual revenue, and requiring that any webcaster with over 5,000,000 tuning hours in any month to pay at the CRB rates for all listening in excess of that limit.  We wrote about that deal, and some of the concerns that larger small webcasters have, here.  These adjustments to the CRB rates may resolve some issues for some webcasters, but they leave open many other issues as set forth below – but will these tweaks to the CRB decision be enough to take the Congressional heat, in the form of the Internet Radio Equality Act, off of SoundExchange?

What issues remain?  There are still many.  These include:

  • The issues of the larger independent webcasters who may currently fit under the Small Webcaster Settlement ("SWSA") Act caps – but may well go over those caps before 2010, and could not afford to pay royalties at the CRB-mandated rates if they exceed the SWSA limits.
  • The CRB mandated rates are themselves problematic for virtually all commercial webcasters – and DiMA made clear that the settlement of the minimum fee issue was the first step in resolving the issues that preclude a vibrant webcasting industry under the CRB rates (see the DiMA press release on the settlement, here)
  • Noncommercial webcasters have not announced any settlement with SoundExchange – even though many expressed concerns over the fees for large noncommercial webcasters  which will, by the end of the royalty period, increase about 9 times over the rates that they had been paying (and more for larger NPR affiliates), and over recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
  • Broadcasters who stream their over-the-air signal over the Internet have not been involved in any of the tweaks to the CRB decision, nor has SoundExchange responded to the NAB’s settlement offer made in June (according to the clock on the NAB homepage, the NAB settlement offer has been outstanding without response for 84 days at the time this post is being written). 

Continue Reading Congress to Return – Will Internet Radio Royalties Be on Its Agenda

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?

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?

Yesterday, a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. denied the Emergency Motion for a Stay of the Internet Radio Royalty rates set earlier this year by the Copyright Royalty Board.  Our coverage of the stay motion can be found here and here.  Coverage of the entire royalty issue and the surrounding controversy can be found in various posts on our blog, here.  The denial of the stay means that, absent Congressional action or some voluntary agreement of the parties, the new rates will go into effect with payments for the period since the CRB decision being due on Monday, July 16.

The Court’s decision was very brief – in essence three sentences which merely stated that the moving parties had not met the high legal burden necessary for the Court to impose a stay.  A stay is an extraordinary legal action, taken by a Court as part of its equitable powers to insure that justice is carried out.  In order to justify a stay, a party must show the Court that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case (in other words, it must prove in a 20 page stay motion the likelihood that it will eventually win its appeal after full briefing and oral argument), plus it must prove that there will be irreparable harm if the stay is not issued (more than simply a loss of money – but harm that cannot be remedied if the appeal is eventually successful).  Weighing those factors, and balancing the competing interests of the parties and the public interest, the Court decides whether or not to issue a Stay.  In this case, as there was no more than the pro forma Order, we do not know what shortcomings the Court perceived in the Motion seeking the Stay, but no reasons are required as the Court can merely decide not to exercise its equitable discretion in a case.Continue Reading Court Denies Webcaster Stay