musicfirst

Subscribe to musicfirst

Last week, as we noted in our monthly look ahead at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in August, the reinstatement of the rule prohibiting the duplication of programming on FM stations went into effect.  The FCC Order reinstating the rule is interesting both for its substance, and for the parties pushing for that reinstatement – principally representatives of the music industry.  As we note below, even though the rule is now back in effect, the NAB has asked for reconsideration of that action.

First, let’s look at what the rule provides.  The reinstated rule prohibits any commonly owned or operated (e.g., through a time brokerage agreement) commercial FM station from duplicating more than 25% of its weekly programming on another FM station if there is overlap of the 3.16 mv/m (70 dbu) contours of the two stations, and that area of overlap constitutes 50% of the 3.16 mv/m predicted coverage area of either of the overlapping stations.  Program duplication is not limited to simultaneous transmission of the same programming – the rule by its terms defines “duplication” to include the broadcast of the same programming any time within a 24-hour period.  Continue Reading FM Programming Nonduplication Rule Goes Back into Effect – A Win for the Music Industry While the NAB Objects

The MusicFirst coalition last week asked that the FCC investigate broadcast stations that allegedly cut back on playing the music of artists who back a broadcast performance royalty, and also those stations who have run spots on the air opposing the performance royalty without giving the supporters of the royalty an opportunity to respond.  While the NAB and many other observers have suggested that the filing is simply wrong on its facts, pointing for instance to the current chart-topping position of the Black Eyed Peas whose lead singer has been a vocal supporter of the royalty, it seems to me that there is an even more fundamental issue at stake here – the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.  What the petition is really saying is that the government should impose a requirement on broadcasters that they not speak out on an issue of fundamental importance to their industry.  The petition seems to argue that the rights of performers (and record labels) to seek money from broadcasters is of such importance that the First Amendment rights of broadcasters to speak out against that royalty should be abridged.

While the MusicFirst petition claims that it neither seeks to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters nor to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, it is hard credit that claim.  After all, the petition goes directly to the heart of the broadcasters ability to speak out on the topic, and seems to want to mandate that broadcasters present the opposing side of the issue, the very purpose of the Fairness Doctrine.  As we’ve written, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished as an unconstitutional abridgment on the broadcaster’s First Amendment rights 20 years ago.  As an outgrowth of this decision, FCC and Court decisions concluded that broadcasters have the right to editorialize on controversial issues, free of any obligation to present opposing viewpoints.  What is it that makes this case different?Continue Reading MusicFirst’s Complaint to the FCC: The First Amendment and the Performance Royalty