radio

Subscribe to radio via RSS

Here we are, almost a full month into the new year, and a number of important dates for broadcasters are already upon us.  As we wrote here, for instance, the payment of a minimum fee to SoundExchange by radio stations streaming their signals on the Internet is due today.  Lowest unit rates are in…

This week, the Copyright Royalty Board issued an Order denying a request by SoundExchange for rehearing of certain aspects of the decision released last month setting the royalties for satellite radio – XM and Sirius.  These are the royalties for the use of sound recordings by these services on their digital systems.  The decision, which set royalties at 6 to 8% of revenues of these services, and the denial of the rehearing motion, provide examples of how the CRB applies the 801(b) standard of the Copyright Act.  In setting royalties, that standard assesses not only the economic value of the sound recording, but also the public interest in the wide dissemination of the copyrighted material and the impact of the royalty on the service using the music.  The satellite radio decision sets a royalty far lower than that assessed on Internet radio – where the royalty is set using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard looking only at the perceived economic value of the sound recording.  That willing buyer, willing seller standard is also proposed for broadcast radio in the recently introduced performance royalty bills now pending before Congress (see our summary here) – so it could be expected that any royalty set using that standard would be higher than that set for satellite radio. 

The initial Copyright Royalty Board decision, the full text of which is available here, first made a determination of how to compute the royalty.  While both the satellite radio companies and SoundExchange initially suggested a percentage of revenue royalty given that satellite radio can’t count specific listeners, the parties later amended their proposals (after the Internet radio decision) to include a computation based on the frequency of a song’s play, to try to more closely approximate the Internet radio performance-based model (about which we wrote here).  In addition to the suggestion that this metric more closely approximated that used in the Internet radio decision, the satellite radio companies suggested that a metric based on the songs played would give them the opportunity to adjust their use of music to reduce their royalty obligation.  The satellite companies suggested that, if the royalty was too high, they could reduce the number of different songs that they played.  While not specifically referenced in the decision, it is possible that they also considered the possibility of getting waivers from artists to encourage playing particular songs, which could further reduce a royalty based on a per song computation.  The Board declined to provide that option, finding that the percentage of revenue option best took into account the business of the companies.  The Board also suggested that it doubted that satellite radio really had the ability to lessen the use of music in reaction to a high royalty rate.  (The Board does not discuss the possibility of royalty waivers, which are essentially worth nothing in a situation where the royalties are based on a percentage of a service’s entire revenue).  Continue Reading Satellite Radio Music Royalty Reconsideration Denied By Copyright Royalty Board – What a Difference A Standard Makes

With 2008 almost upon us, webcasters streaming music on the Internet need to remember that the way of computing and paying royalties to SoundExchange will shift on January 1- a change that may be especially important for broadcast stations.  Under the Copyright Royalty Board decision reached last March, webcasters must pay royalties computed on a per "performance" basis.  A performance is a per song, per listener computation.  In other words, if an Internet radio station plays a song and 15 listeners are logged into the station at the time that the song plays, there would be 15 performances on which the royalty would need to be paid.  While broadcasters objected that they did not (and in many cases could not) track the number of performances that were made by their stations on the Internet, the CRB, on reconsideration of their initial decision, only went so far as the give stations an interim rate based on the number of  "Aggregate tuning hours" that a station served (e.g. one listener listening for one hour, or two for a half hour each would both be the equivalent of one aggregate tuning hour).   See our post, here, on the CRB’s reconsideration decision.  The aggregate tuning hour (or ATH) metric is one that is more readily obtain from a content delivery network or other bandwidth provider, and a metric that has been used since the first royalties were established in 2002.  Yet as of January 1, as the interim ATH rate applied only to 2006 and 2007, that method of payment will no longer be available, and many webcasters are wondering what to do to compute the per performance royalty.

Neither the CRB decision nor SoundExchange, which collects the royalties, explained what a webcaster who cannot count performances is to do when the option to pay based on aggregate tuning hours disappears.   The royalty for January performances is due to be paid to SoundExchange on March 16 (45 days after the end of the month), and a webcaster preparing to file its royalty statement on that day will need to have a performance count to include on its statement.  Many Internet radio companies have been trying to determine how to count performances and, while there are some services that offer to provide software to do so, it is my understanding that none are foolproof and, in some cases, they may not be able to get a complete count of performances.  And many smaller stations may not be able to afford such systems.Continue Reading Internet Radio Reminder – No More Aggregate Tuning Hour Royalty After January 1

We wrote yesterday about the introduction of a bill in the House and the Senate proposing to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air signals.  At that time, we did not have a copy of the bill itself, but were basing our post on press releases and a summary of the provisions of the bill that was available on Senator Leahy’s website.  We have been able to obtain copies of the bill titled the  "Performance Rights Act" – or actually of the "bills," as the House and Senate versions are slightly different.  Reading those bills, many of the questions that we had yesterday are answered, and some new questions are raised as to how this bill, if enacted, would affect radio broadcasters.

One question about which we wrote yesterday was whether these bills would require that any royalty be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard or the 801(b) standard that takes into account more than a simple economic analysis in determining the royalty.  The 801(b) standard is used for services in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (essentially cable audio and satellite radio) and evaluates not only the economics of the proposed royalty, but also factors including the interest of the public in the dissemination of copyrighted material and the disruption of the industry that could be caused by a high royalty.  In connection with the recent CRB decision on the satellite radio royalties, the potential disruption of the industry caused the CRB to reduce the royalty from what the Board had determined to be the reasonable marketplace value of the sound recordings (13% of gross revenues) to a figure rising from 6 to 8 % of gross revenues over the 5 year term of the royalty.  In the Internet radio proceeding, using the willing buyer, willing seller model, no such adjustment was made.

In these bills, the proposal is to use the willing buyer, willing seller standard for broadcasting.  For a service that has been around far longer than any other audio service, it would seem that a standard that assesses the impact of a royalty on the industry on which it is being imposed would be mandatory.  Who wants to disrupt an entire, well-established industry that has served the public for over 80 years?.  But such a reasonable term is not part of the proposal here.Continue Reading More on the Broadcast Performance Royalty Bills

In a pre-Christmas surprise that most broadcasters could do without, identical bills were introduced in Congress on Tuesday proposing to impose a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings by terrestrial radio stations.  Currently, broadcasters pay only for the right to use the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) and do not pay for the use of sound recordings in their over-the-air operations of the actual recording.  This long-expected bill (see our coverage of the Congressional hearing this summer where the bill was discussed) will no doubt fuel new debate over the need and justification for this new fee, 50% of which would go to the copyright holder of the sound recording (usually the record label) and 50% to the artists (45% to the featured artist and 5% to background musicians).  The proponents of the bill have contended that it is necessary to achieve fairness, as digital music services pay such a fee.  To ease the shock of the transition, the bill proposes flat fees for small and noncommercial broadcasters – fees which themselves undercut the notion of fairness, as they are far lower than fees for comparable digital services.   

While, at the time that this post was written, a complete text of the decision does not seem to be online, a summary can be found on the website of Senator Leahy, one of the bills cosponsors.  The summary states that commercial radio stations with revenues of less than $1.25 million (supposedly over 70% of all radio stations) would pay a flat $5000 per station fee.  Noncommercial stations would pay a flat $1000 annual fee.  The bill also suggests that the fee not affect the amount paid to composers under current rules – so it would be one that would be absorbed by the broadcaster.  Continue Reading Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty Introduced In Congress

The FCC today adopted Commissioner Martin’s proposal for limited multiple ownership relaxation, adopting a presumption in favor of approving the common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the Top 20 television markets (we wrote about that proposal here).  But the grant of such combinations would not be automatic, but instead would be considered on a case-by-case basis, so opposition to any merger could be submitted to the FCC.  Under the rules announced today, newspaper-television combinations would not be entitled to the presumption in favor of grant if they involved one of the Top 4 ranked television stations in a market, or if there would be fewer than 8 independent media voices (full power TV or significant daily newspapers that are not commonly controlled) after the combination.  As for the other multiple ownership rules, from what was said at the meeting, no change at all will be made.  We addressed some of the many multiple ownership issues before the Commission that were apparently either not addressed or will not be changed in our post, here. 

As the full text of the decision has not been released, details of how the Commission addressed every issue are not available.  From the comments of the Democratic Commissioners who dissented from the decision, changes were being made to the standards adopted today throughout the night and as early as an hour before the meeting was held (see Commissioner Copps’ impassioned statement against the new rules, here, where he details the last minute revisions).  Given the last minute nature of the final order, it may be a while before the full text is released.  However, from statements made today and from the Commission’s press release, some details of the decision are known.  They are summarized below.Continue Reading FCC Adopts Changes in Newpaper-Broadcast Cross Ownership Rules – No Relief For Broadcasters Under Other Ownership Rules

At last Tuesday’s FCC meeting, the Commission adopted a controversial order, over the objection of two Commissioners, that could limit the processing of some applications for improvements by some full power FM stations, and would restrict translator applications, all in the name of encouraging Low Power FM (LPFM) stations to provide outlets for expression by groups that cannot get access to full-power radio stations (see our summary of that action here).  In recent weeks, two ideas have received some publicity providing an alternative outlet for these prospective local broadcasters – and both provide a simple solution (one more immediate and ad hoc than that other), but both leading to the same result – why not just extend the FM band by using TV channel 6?

The current FM band begins at 88.1 MHz, a channel that is actually immediately adjacent to TV Channel 6.  The FCC has for years restricted operations of noncommercial FM stations (which operate from 88.1 to 91.9 on the FM dial) in areas where there are Channel 6 TV stations in order to prevent the radio stations from creating interference to the reception of the TV stations.  That’s while you will often find fewer noncommercial stations, or ones with weaker coverage, in communities that have TV Channel 6 licensees.  TV stations use an FM transmission system for their audio.  Thus, you will also find that most FM receivers (especially ones without digital tuners) will pick up the audio from TV channel 6 if tuned all the way to the left of the dial.  The short-term solution to expanding the FM band came from one broadcaster who noted that fact.Continue Reading Who Needs LPFM? – Why Not Just Expand the FM Dial?

The New York Times recently published an article about NBC’s owned and operated station in New York City acceptance of advertising for liquor.  While ads for beer and wine have been a staple on broadcast stations (though see our discussion of the limits on that advertising, here), ads for other alcoholic beverages ads have been less frequent.  Many broadcasters have for years believed that such ads were prohibited by the FCC or some other government agency.  In fact, alcohol ads have not been prohibited by law, but instead by voluntary actions of trade associations representing broadcasters and the alcoholic beverage industry .

Until the early 1980s, the National Association of Broadcasters had a voluntary code of conduct for broadcasters, suggesting good standards and practices for broadcasters: limiting some broadcast content while encouraging broadcasters to air other programming perceived to be in the public interest.  Among the conduct that the Code prohibited was the advertising of hard liquor. While the NAB Code was not mandatory for broadcasters, in filing many routine applications for new stations and for the acquisition of existing stations, the FCC in the past had requirements that the potential broadcasters explain how their programming would serve the public interest.  Most applicants would shorthand their compliance plans by simply promising to abide by the NAB code, in effect binding themselves to the code through those representations made to the FCC.  The Code was in place until the early 1980s, when the Department of Justice became concerned that code provisions suggesting maximum commercial loads and similar matters functioned as a restraint of trade in violation of the antitrust laws, and the NAB Code was abandoned.Continue Reading Will You Drink to That? – Advertising Liquor on Broadcast Stations

The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia has set the briefing dates on the appeal filed by various webcasting groups seeking review of the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting Internet radio royalties for the period 2006-2010 for the use of sound recordings (see our coverage of this controversy here, and…