Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty Introduced In Congress

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.

The summary of the bill says that it would make other broadcasters not
covered by these flat fees subject to Section 114 of the Copyright Act
-meaning that their royalties would be set by the Copyright Royalty
Board. But the summary does not make clear what standard would be
used. Would it be the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard that
is used for (and produced such controversially high rates for
webcasters - see the various discussions of those issues, here), or
the more lax 801(b) standard that just resulted in a 6-8% of revenue
royalty for satellite radio and has resulted in a 7% royalty for cable
audio services (see our post here)? That may well be a crucial issue.

Already, opponents of the performance royalty have signaled their
opposition, suggesting that the low, introductory rates for small and
noncommercial broadcasters are just that - an opening rate that will
allow the royalty to be imposed, but will quickly be raised. They
point to a similar experience in Canada, where there was a low
starting rate for smaller broadcasters that grew over time at the
request of the recipients of the fees. In fact, when one compares the
proposed royalties for small broadcasters with those paid by small
webcasters, even those paying under some form of the Small Webcaster
Settlement Act, an Internet radio station with $1.25 million in
revenue would pay over $130,000 in royalties for sound recordings -
which would seemingly raise questions either of fairness (why is the
Internet radio company paying so much if a similar broadcaster only
pays $5000), or suggests that SoundExchange will try to have the rates
raised in the future. And imagine what a $130,000 royalty would do to
a small broadcaster's business.

SoundExchange and the Music First coalition have also issued their own
press release supporting the bill. With a bill finally introduced,
the battle will really begin. Watch for the fireworks in 2008.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arch...-congress.html

Yea, baby - let's kill that ******* HD Radio!

On Dec 19, 10:38 am, IBOCcrock wrote:
Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty Introduced In Congress

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.

The summary of the bill says that it would make other broadcasters not
covered by these flat fees subject to Section 114 of the Copyright Act
-meaning that their royalties would be set by the Copyright Royalty
Board. But the summary does not make clear what standard would be
used. Would it be the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard that
is used for (and produced such controversially high rates for
webcasters - see the various discussions of those issues, here), or
the more lax 801(b) standard that just resulted in a 6-8% of revenue
royalty for satellite radio and has resulted in a 7% royalty for cable
audio services (see our post here)? That may well be a crucial issue.

Already, opponents of the performance royalty have signaled their
opposition, suggesting that the low, introductory rates for small and
noncommercial broadcasters are just that - an opening rate that will
allow the royalty to be imposed, but will quickly be raised. They
point to a similar experience in Canada, where there was a low
starting rate for smaller broadcasters that grew over time at the
request of the recipients of the fees. In fact, when one compares the
proposed royalties for small broadcasters with those paid by small
webcasters, even those paying under some form of the Small Webcaster
Settlement Act, an Internet radio station with $1.25 million in
revenue would pay over $130,000 in royalties for sound recordings -
which would seemingly raise questions either of fairness (why is the
Internet radio company paying so much if a similar broadcaster only
pays $5000), or suggests that SoundExchange will try to have the rates
raised in the future. And imagine what a $130,000 royalty would do to
a small broadcaster's business.

SoundExchange and the Music First coalition have also issued their own
press release supporting the bill. With a bill finally introduced,
the battle will really begin. Watch for the fireworks in 2008.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/arch...ormance-royalt...

Yea, baby - let's kill that ******* HD Radio!

"Want to Kill HD Radio?"

"Let's say that radio companies have to start paying royalties on the
music that they play. Even if it is a flat percentage of all revenue
like other outlets are going to be charged, HD Radio streams would do
nothing more than serve to drive up royalty payments for NAB members.
The overwhelming majority of terrestrial listeners ARE NOT listening
to HD Radio. Ads on HD Radio will be dirt cheap for a very long time.
The HD streams may not be able to cover royalty on music from ad
revenues. Do you think that Clear Channel will continue to pump money
in to HD Radio equipment, expanding services and coverage if the
payoff in the end is an INCREASE in copyright royalties and nothing
more?"

http://dualsub.wordpress.com/2007/11...kill-hd-radio/

Yea, Eduardo!

On Dec 19, 7:38 am, IBOCcrock wrote:
-
- Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty
- Introduced In Congress
-

DOH ! - It's I B OC'D and Half-Crocked Again !

It would be an Across the Board Fee 'collected' by
Radio Stations and Paid for by the Advertisers;
who in-turn would jack-up the Price of their Goods
and Services. - Effectively a Tax on Consumers.

Once Again a Democrat Congress Raising Taxes On Consumers.

The Democrats Want To : Tax "All-Things" Internet Next !

Plus there are Plans to Tax All File-Sharing of CopyRighted
Materials done on the Internet - YourTubes Days are Numbered.

DOH ! - I B OC'D and Half-Crocked Again - Explain to Me
Again How This Hurts Radio... it boggles the mind ~ RHF

I B OC'D - Your Are The Poster Child for Posting Convoluted
Drivel that is "Out-of-Contect" with Invalid ASSumptions.

Wishing You and Everyone - The Enjoyment of Listening
to your Shortwave Radios this Christmas Season and
Good DX in the coming New Year.

ho ho ho - hy dee ho de ray-dee-oh ~ RHF