80 FR 58201 - Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 187 (September 28, 2015)
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 187 (September 28, 2015)
| Page Range | 58201-58207 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24506 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 187 (Monday, September 28, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 58201-58207] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24506] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 380 [Docket No. 2014-CRB-0001-WR (2016-2020) (Web IV)] Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges publish final regulations that set the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by certain noncommercial educational webcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary to facilitate those transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2020. DATES: Effective: January 1, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658, or at crb@loc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a joint motion from SoundExchange, Inc. (SoundExchange), and College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) in which they announced a partial settlement of the above proceeding for certain internet transmissions by college radio stations and other noncommercial webcasters.\1\ SoundExchange and CBI requested that the Judges adopt their agreement as a partial settlement of rates and terms under Section 112(e) and 114 of the Copyright Act (Act) for eligible nonsubscription transmissions by noncommercial educational webcasters (NEWs) over the internet, and related ephemeral recordings. The Judges published the proposed settlement and requested comments from the public.\2\ For the reasons discussed below, the Judges hereby adopt the proposed settlement, with the exception of a single provision that would identify SoundExchange as the designated Collective for the upcoming license period. The Judges defer designation of the Collective for the upcoming licensing period until the conclusion of the proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 2014- CRB-0001-WR (2016-2020) (Oct. 7, 2014) (Joint Motion). \2\ See 79 FR 65609 (Nov. 5, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background The proposed SoundExchange/CBI settlement (Settlement) generally continues in effect, with certain adjustments, the extant rates for eligible NEWs that were codified in 37 CFR part 380 Subpart C. The Judges adopted those rates and terms pursuant to Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act as part of the prior webcasting determination. See Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings, 76 FR 13026 (Web-III). Under the proposed Settlement, an eligible NEW would pay a $500 annual fee for each of the individual channels, side channels, or stations through which it makes Eligible Transmissions. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a). The $500 fee would also serve as the minimum fee for eligible NEWs. All other NEWs would pay the royalties established under Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(c). To qualify for the rates under the Settlement, a NEW's total monthly per channel or per station transmissions must remain below 159,140 aggregate tuning hours (ATH). If a NEW's transmissions exceed that threshold, the NEW must pay royalties for the relevant month, and for the remainder of the relevant year, in accordance with the otherwise applicable noncommercial rates to be determined in this proceeding. In subsequent years, a NEW that wishes to pay the rates under the Settlement must take affirmative steps not to exceed the 159,140 ATH threshold. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(b). Commercial webcasters are required to make detailed, census reports of all sound recordings they transmit. NEWs with limited listenership may pay the Collective a proxy fee to avoid the burden of census reporting. The Settlement increases the listenership cap (from 55,000 ATH to 80,000 ATH) for services electing the proxy fee in lieu of the census reporting option provided in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1). See Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(g)(1).\3\ A NEW electing the reporting waiver in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1) must pay a $100 annual proxy fee to the Collective. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Settlement also ``makes a handful of further minor changes to the current rates and terms for NEWs.'' [SoundExchange's] Comments Concerning Proposed Settlement at n.1 (Nov. 26, 2014) (SoundExchange Comments). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment Summary The Judges received nearly 60 comments--some supporting and some opposing adoption of the Settlement--in response to their request for comments published in the Federal Register. Many of the comments appeared to be form letters; hence, the number of commenters exceeded the number of substantive comments. Some of the comments came from affiliated entities. The Judges considered the views of all commenters in reaching their decision and all comments are posted to the CRB's Web site. The Judges discuss illustrative examples here. Comments Supporting Adoption of the Settlement In its comment supporting adoption of the joint proposal, CBI noted that the Settlement contains the same terms that NEWs have been successfully using for several years to comply with the statutory license for webcasting copyright works. Keeping these rates and terms in place will prevent disruption of their operation and ensure the noncommercial educational webcasters [remain able to provide] creators of musical recordings access to the noncommercial educational listener market. Comment by College Broadcasters, Inc. in Support of Adopting The Joint Settlement Between College Broadcasters, Inc. and SoundExchange at 1 (Nov. 26, 2014) (CBI Comment). CBI further noted that [T]he current Settlement continues essentially the same recordkeeping terms that have been integral for NEWs to be able to comply with the statutory license. In particular, these recordkeeping terms include an optional proxy fee, which allows NEWs to pay an additional $100 in lieu of complying with ordinarily- applicable recordkeeping rules, which are frequently impossible for NEWs to comply with due to their more limited budgets, older broadcasting technology, and other operational limitations. [T]he new Settlement makes this extremely necessary reporting option available for more stations than the previous one did. It also continues to provide recordkeeping relief for those stations whose audience size makes them ineligible for this [[Page 58202]] proxy option by allowing them to provide recordkeeping data consistent with what is feasible for them to produce. [T]his Settlement also leaves room for webcasters to grow without fear that if they inadvertently grow even the tiniest bit too large they will suddenly incur recordkeeping requirements that are impossible to comply with without first making a significant and unaffordable investment in their station technology and operations. CBI Comment at 3-4. WSOU Seton Hall University--not a participant in the proceeding-- stated: Since the current agreement has been in place for several years and has worked to the satisfaction of a large number of college stations, it is prudent to extend that fair and successful arrangement into the future. The proposed settlement is affordable for our station, easily implementable, and relieves WSOU from burdensome reporting requirements while allowing royalties to be paid to the rightful recipients. WSOU Comment at 1 (Nov. 17, 2014). Wayne State College--also a nonparticipant--stated: The proposed agreement . . . serves our station well. In the past, when reporting requirements were more demanding, it threatened our ability to continue streaming commercially recorded music [because] the station is operated by students, with faculty oversight, and thus has no actual paid employees. The opportunity to make an additional payment in lieu of reporting makes an overwhelming difference for us.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See also WRFL-UK Student (Univ. of KY) Radio Comment (Nov. 25, 2014) (the settlement will ``allow us to comply with the regulations and provide artists the royalties they deserve while preventing us from having to drastically change our format and recordkeeping methods. Such a change would create a huge cost to us as well as a full overhaul of our training program for students.''); and WRST-FM (Univ. of WI Oshkosh) Comment (Nov. 25, 2014) (``[m]aintaining the current rates and terms for the statutory license for noncommercial stations like us best serves both the educational needs of [our] students and allows us to serve the online listener''). Wayne State College Comment (Nov. 18, 2014). Comments Opposing Adoption of the Settlement Those opposing adoption of the Settlement argue, among other things, that doing so before issuing a final determination in the proceeding would be premature. This position is discussed illustratively in a comment from the Dayton Public School District in Dayton, Ohio (``Dayton'')--not a participant to the proceeding--which contends that ``[n]o other commercial or noncommercial agreements have been reached [and] 99.5% of the [SoundExchange] royalty revenue is commercial, 0.5% noncommercial. CBI [represents] only a small fraction of the 0.5% noncommercial. Other rates should be determined before such an insignificant agreement should be considered.'' Dayton Public School District Comment (Nov. 26, 2014). Dayton also claims that the proposed rates in the Settlement are higher than those paid by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting- qualified webcasters and those paid by Live365 in 2009 and 2010. Accordingly, according to Dayton, the CRB ``needs to determine all noncommercial `willing buyer-willing sellers' before approving the rate in the CBI/SoundExchange Settlement.'' Id. Dayton further contends that the payment of a proxy fee in lieu of reporting requirements precludes accurate allocation of royalties to the artists that earned them. Lastly, Dayton argues that ``[m]any, if not most, of the web streams covered under the CBI agreement would be from public [entities] like public schools, community colleges, and State colleges/ universities.'' According to Dayton, ``[m]ost State statutes forbid payments from State entities to lobbying organizations. SoundExchange is a lobbying organization . . . The CRB should de conflict [sic] State and Federal law, perhaps through an aggregator payment like is done through CPB, Live365 and is proposed for IBS Members.'' Id.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Comments substantially identical to those submitted by Dayton were also submitted by RMU Radio Robert Morris University; WCAS Radio Metropolitan State University of Denver; WLMU Le Moyne College Syracuse, NY; XTSR Towson University; and Zumix Radio East Boston, MA. RMU Radio Comment (Dec. 2, 2014), WCAS Radio Comment (Nov. 30, 2014), WLMU Comment (Nov. 26, 2014), XTSR Towson University Comment (Nov. 26, 2014), Zumix Radio Comment (Dec. 1, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBS--a participant in the proceeding--``takes no position on whether the [CRB] should approve the rates [set forth in the settlement] for signatories'' but, IBS contends, the proposed rates are not reasonable for the majority of educationally based broadcasters and webcasters that do not have paid staffs. According to IBS, CBI's membership is not representative of a majority of educationally-based broadcasters and webcasters, implying, without offering supporting evidence, that CBI member stations have paid staffs. IBS Comments on SX-CBI's Joint Rate Proposal at 5 (Nov. 27, 2014). IBS implies, again without offering supporting evidence, that the majority of noncommercial webcasters do not have paid staff, and, therefore, presumably would be less able to pay the rates set forth in the Settlement.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ IBS makes an unsubstantiated accusation that SoundExchange indirectly funds--through ``CBI convention sponsorship or some such by [SoundExchange]'' the salary of CBI's Executive Director. Id. See also Affidavit of Fritz Kass in Support of IBS' Comments at 2 (Nov. 27, 2014). The Judges place no weight on accusations that are unsupported by credible evidence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHRB--a participant in the proceeding--highlights certain ``inadvertent drafting anomalies'' in the proposal, which, if uncorrected, ``might render the proposed rates inapplicable to WHRB's simulcast stream.'' WHRB's Comments on SX-CBI Rate Proposal at 1 (Nov. 27, 2014) (WHRB Comment). In particular, WHRB notes that the proposed provision addressing the certification requirement would eliminate the word ``officer'' and substitute ``representative of the applicable educational institution.'' Id. at 1-2. According to WHRB, the existing wording authorizes ``student officers of the corporation with personal knowledge of the facts to certify usage.'' Id. at 2. Yet, none of these student officers ``sits as a representative of the President and Fellows of Harvard College.'' Although WHRB has a faculty adviser, he is not broadly involved in the operations of the radio station so as to be able to certify under proposed Section 380.23(f)(9). Id. at 3. WHRB continues that the Librarian of Congress cannot compel Harvard to appoint such a representative; nor can the station or the Collective. WHRB contends that, as a result, ``the Board should not adopt the rules in the form proposed in SX and CBI's joint petition without correcting the foregoing drafting anomalies.'' Id. at 5. Other Comments The NRBNMLC--a participant in the proceeding--believes that a $500 flat fee and a complete reporting exemption constitute ``workable rates and terms for NEWs.'' NRBNMLC Comment at 2 (Nov. 26, 2014). At the same time, however, the NRBNMLC raised certain issues with the proposal. For example, the NRBNMLC noted that the ATH definition does not unambiguously exclude . . . programming that does not include sound recordings at all, such as news, talk and sports programming. NEWs receive no benefit under the Statutory Licenses from transmitting such programming, so their transmission of that programming should not adversely affect their fee liability under the Statutory Licenses in any way. Where ATH thresholds are used to affect the fees that NEWs must pay and the reporting requirements that they must follow, discrete programming blocks that do not include sound recordings subject to the Statutory Licenses should not count toward meeting these thresholds. [[Page 58203]] Comments of the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee to the Proposed Rates and Terms for Noncommercial Educational Webcasters Submitted by SoundExchange and CBI at 2 (Nov. 26, 2014) (NRBNMLC Comment). The NRBNMLC ``merely points out this flaw in the definition but does not formally object to it.'' Id. at 3. NRBNMLC states that it ``appears that NEWs will not be adversely affected by the ATH definition even if it is construed to include talk and other programming that does not include recordings in the ATH count'' given that ``all of them stream at levels below the 159,140 monthly ATH eligibility threshold.'' Id. at 6-7.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See also WHRB Comment at 4, noting the same issue and indicating that this definition of ATH could result in a ``potential overstatement of ATH in Subsections 380.21(c) and (g) and 380.22 with all the attendant consequences.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NRBNMLC also notes that not a single NEW paid more than the minimum fee over the past three years, which means that all NEWs streamed at levels below the ATH threshold of 159,140--the threshold for determining whether a station owed fees in excess of the minimum fee for those years. Id. NRBNMLC suggests that, as a result, NEWs have no economic incentive to negotiate the 159,140 ATH threshold and 80,000 ATH threshold to the highest level that SoundExchange would accept.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ The settlement would increase the listenership cap for services electing the proxy reporting option from 55,000 ATH per month to 80,000 ATH per month, with certain conditions. Although not opposing the thresholds in the settlement, NRBNMLC asserts that ``[t]here are strong indications that these thresholds actually should be set higher than the proposed levels.'' NRBNMLC Comment at 8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) noted in its comment on behalf of National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) --a participant in the proceeding--(among others) that: ``NPR and Public Radio do not object to the proposed Settlement with the understanding that it does not apply to NPR/Public Radio.'' Comments Concerning Proposed Settlement of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at 1 (Nov. 26, 2014). CPB noted further that NPR/Public Radio ``has proposed terms and conditions for SoundExchange's licensing of NPR/Public Radio that are reasonable and appropriate for NPR/Public Radio; and the proposed Settlement does not and should not have application to same.'' Id. at 1-2. Analysis and Finding The Judges' authority to adopt proposed settlements as statutory rates and terms is codified in Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act. That provision of the Act authorizes the Judges to adopt as a basis for statutory terms and rates an agreement concerning such matters reached among ``some or all of the participants'' in a proceeding ``at any time during the proceeding'' except that the Judges must provide an opportunity to comment on the agreement to those that would be bound by the agreement. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). The Act authorizes the Judges to decline to adopt the agreement for participants that are not parties to the agreement if a participant to the proceeding objects to the agreement and the Judges conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). Section 801(b)(7)(A) limits the circumstances under which the Judges are able to decline to adopt aspects of an agreement, but it does not foreclose the Judges from ascertaining whether specific provisions are contrary to law. See Review of Copyright Royalty Judges Determination, 74 FR 4537, 4540 (Jan. 26, 2009). In the context of the statutory requirements regarding adoption of settlements, the Judges find that--notwithstanding the objections of some of the commenters--this partial Settlement provides a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates and therefore the Judges adopt the partial Settlement, with one exception discussed below. Objections to the proposal can be summarized as follows: (1) Adopting the Settlement before conclusion of the proceeding would be premature; (2) rates paid by certain other parties in previous agreements are lower than those in the proposed Settlement; (3) payment of a proxy fee in lieu of reporting precludes accurate allocation of royalties to artists; (4) colleges and other public entities may not pay royalties to SoundExchange due to applicable state laws prohibiting public entities such as colleges from making payments to lobbying organizations; (5) CBI member organizations are not representative of NEWs because they generally have paid staffs and non-CBI member NEWs generally do not; (6) the proposed ATH definition, which includes programming other than sound recordings, is too broad; (7) because NEWs' streaming activity is far below the thresholds set in the proposed settlement, they have no incentive to negotiate higher streaming thresholds; and (8) the proposed, amended certification requirement might be unworkable for some NEWs. The Judges address these concerns in turn. Adopting the Settlement Now Would Be Premature Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act is clear that the Judges have the authority to adopt settlements between some or all of the participants to a proceeding at any time during a proceeding so long as those that would be bound by those rates and terms are given an opportunity to comment. Requiring that the adoption of all proposed settlements wait until the conclusion of the proceeding would undercut the policy in Section 801(b)(7)(A) to promote negotiated settlements. Such a position would unnecessarily require those participants that have agreed to a settlement to continue to participate in the proceeding until all interests were resolved. No such requirement is in the Act and the Judges see no reason to impose one. Rates Paid in Previous Agreements Are Lower Some commenters claim that certain rates agreed to by certain participants in other contexts are lower than those agreed to in the Settlement. Even if true, such a fact would be irrelevant to determining whether the current proposal forms a reasonable basis for rates and terms with respect to the entities to which it applies in the current proceeding. Indeed, in most material respects, the rates and terms of the Settlement merely extend current rates and terms for another five years. The Judges have been presented with no evidence to suggest that the current rates and terms, which the Settlement would extend, have been disruptive or overly burdensome for the entities to which they apply, notwithstanding that some entities during some previous years may have paid lower rates. Proxy Fee Payment in Lieu of Reporting Precludes Accurate Allocation of Royalties The Judges are also unconvinced that the provision regarding proxy fee payment in lieu of census reporting provides a reason not to adopt the settlement for the upcoming rate period. The extant regulations include this provision. The parties to the agreement have acknowledged that the costs of census reporting may outweigh its benefits to the webcasters covered by the Settlement. The current proposal merely continues a practice that has been in place for the last several years. [[Page 58204]] Although the threshold to qualify for proxy fee payment in lieu of reporting would rise from 55,000 ATH to 80,000 ATH, such an increase would affect few if any qualifying NEWs.\9\ Indeed, the higher threshold frees more webcasters from the burdens of census reporting. The proposal also provides additional, reasonable safeguards to ensure that webcasters that do not exceed the threshold in subsequent months will not lose their NEW status (and privileges). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See SoundExchange Comment at 6 (in 2013, no NEW reported exceeding the 55,000 ATH threshold in any month). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SoundExchange confirms that ``the proxy reporting provisions in Section 380.23(g)(1) have proven to be a reasonable solution to the problem of distributing on a fair and cost-effective basis the relatively small pool of royalties paid by NEWs.'' SoundExchange Comment at 6. The Judges see no reason to disrupt a reporting method that appears to be operating fairly and efficiently. Public Entity Payments to SoundExchange May Be Prohibited by State Law Concerns about state laws as they relate to royalty deposits with SoundExchange as the Collective \10\ go to SoundExchange's capacity as the Collective rather than to the merits of the CBI/SoundExchange Settlement. It is worth noting, however, that SoundExchange has served as the Collective since the Judges issued their first webcasting determination and SoundExchange has never been challenged based on its organizational status or activities. Moreover, the Judges are unaware of any instance in which a state or local government has challenged a royalty payment to SoundExchange based on applicable lobbying laws in that state. Therefore, such concerns are speculative at best. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ This opposition to the proposed regulatory provision assumes SoundExchange to be the designated Collective. The Judges' decision assumes, without deciding at this point, that SoundExchange continues in that role. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- That being said, the Judges decline to adopt at this point the proposed definition of ``Collective'' in the settlement that expressly designates SoundExchange. Designation of the Collective is an issue that the Judges will decide in the final determination.\11\ Therefore, any royalty payments made under the Settlement as adopted, will be paid to the Collective the Judges designate in the final determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ No party to the proceeding has suggested an alternate or additional Collective. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBI Members Are Not Representative of NEWs Because They Have Paid Staffs The Judges find no persuasive evidence in the record before them to support the argument that CBI members are not representative of NEWs generally. Even if the Judges were presented with such evidence, that fact alone would not convince the Judges that the current Settlement is not a reasonable basis for setting rates and terms for those entities that wish to avail themselves of the Settlement. The underlying argument appears to be that NEWs that do not have the resources to pay a staff should be entitled to more favorable terms and rates than those available under the Settlement. Even if that were true--a contention upon which the Judges need not opine at this time--that fact would not suggest that the Settlement as proposed does not form a reasonable basis for rates and terms. Proposed settlements need not be the best possible outcome for all concerned; they need only form a reasonable basis for rates and terms, and the Judges find that the current proposal meets that standard. Proposed ATH Definition Is Too Broad NRBNMLC notes that the definition of ATH in Sec. 380.21, which would carry over under the Settlement, ``does not unambiguously exclude . . . programming that does not include sound recordings at all, such as news, talk and sports programming.'' NRBNMLC Comment at 2. Although NRBNMLC does not object to the ATH definition, it believes this aspect of the definition is a ``flaw,'' albeit not one that would adversely affect NEWs since, according to NRBNMLC, NEWs stream at levels well below the 159,140 ATH level. Id. at 6-7. WHRB also expresses nebulous concern over the ATH definition, noting that it potentially overstates ATH and would have ``the attendant consequences.'' WHRB Comment at 4. Neither commenter's concerns about the perceived scope of the ATH definition are of the magnitude that would suggest that the Settlement does not form a reasonable basis for setting rates and terms. Indeed, the Settlement merely carries forward the current ATH definition, which has applied without incident over the current rate period. Therefore, the Judges adopt without change the proposed ATH definition. NEWs Have No Incentive To Adopt Higher Streaming Thresholds NRBNMLC notes that during the current license period all NEWs streamed at a level below the 159,140 ATH threshold, and therefore they have no incentive to negotiate a higher threshold for the upcoming license term. The Judges view this statement as an affirmation that the proposed Settlement, which carries forward the current ATH threshold, is a reasonable basis for rates and terms applicable to NEWs. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Judges do not mean to imply that in other contexts, with respect to entities that stream at levels beyond those that are typical for NEWs, a different streaming threshold might not also be reasonable. Proposed Changes to the Certification Requirement Might Be Unworkable for Some NEWs WHRB takes exception to a provision in the Settlement dealing with the category of persons authorized to certify a NEW's status in statements of account. Currently, the certifying person must be an ``officer or other duly authorized faculty member or administrator of the applicable educational institution.'' 37 CFR 380.23(f)(9). Under the proposal, the certifying person could be any ``duly authorized representative'' of the applicable educational institution.\12\ WHRB contends that the current provision authorizes student officers of WHRB to certify statements of account whereas the proposal would not. The Judges need not opine on whether WHRB's interpretation of the current (or proposed) certification provision is correct. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ For the sake of consistency, the Judges will also make a corresponding change to 37 CFR 380.23(f)(4) (requiring the signature of the certifying representative). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Judges find that the proposed change to Sec. 380.23(f)(9), viewed in the context of the proposed Settlement as a whole, is a reasonable means of ensuring that the statement of account is certified by a person who is duly authorized to represent the applicable educational institution for this limited purpose. Nothing in the provision expressly precludes that duly authorized person from being a student, independent auditor, counsel, or other person, so long as the applicable educational institution ``duly authorizes'' that person to perform the required task as the institution's representative. To be sure, the by-laws of a particular institution may dictate who may or may not serve as a duly authorized representative of a particular educational institution. Nevertheless, the Judges find the proposed amendment to Sec. 380.23(f)(9) to be reasonable in the context of the [[Page 58205]] Settlement as a whole and adopt it unchanged. Impact on Proposed Rulemaking On May 2, 2014, the CRB published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the CRB sought comments on a motion from CBI, IBS, and American Council on Education.\13\ In the notice, the Judges announced that the motion--which sought ``clarification'' of certain amendments to CRB notice and recordkeeping rules in 37 CFR part 370--was not properly before them, thereby effectively denying the motion. Nevertheless, the CRB sought comments on various proposals from the moving parties to expand the categories of entities that could qualify for exclusions from the census reporting requirements of 37 CFR 370. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 79 FR 25038. The CRB also sought comments in the notice on a rulemaking petition from SoundExchange that proposed a number of amendments to the CRB's notice and recordkeeping requirements. That petition is still pending. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response, the CRB received a number of comments from NEWs requesting that the reporting waiver in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1) (i.e., the provision permitting payment of a proxy fee in lieu of census reporting) be extended into the next license term as a viable alternative to amending the CRB's reporting requirements.\14\ Moreover, in its comment, SoundExchange implied that amendment to the CRB reporting requirements for a significant number of affected parties was unnecessary since NEWs with the lowest intensity of usage may elect to pay a proxy fee of $100 and forego providing reports of use altogether.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See, e.g., the following comments filed in docket number 14-CRB-0005 (RM): ACRN Comment (June 9, 2014), KBCU-FM Comment (May 22, 2014), KBHU-FM Comment (May 19, 2014), KSSU Comment (June 18, 2014), KUIW Comment (June 2, 2014), KWSC-FM Comment (June 23, 2014), KXUL Comment (Aug. 11, 2014), Lasell College Radio Comment (May 22, 2014), SCAD Atlanta Radio Comment (May 22, 2014), WBSU Comment (June 10, 2014), WGSU-FM Comment (June 29, 2014), WJCU Comment (May 21, 2014), Comments of WKNC-FM North Carolina State University (June 9, 2014), WRFL-UK (Univ. of KY) Comment (June 25, 2014), WSDP-FM Comment (June 25, 2014), WSLX Comment (June 19, 2014), and WSOU-FM (Seton Hall University) Comment (May 28, 2014). \15\ SoundExchange Comment at 3. SoundExchange opposed expanding the reporting exclusion to include noncommercial, noneducational webcasters. Id. at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many if not most of the comments responsive to the proposed recordkeeping provisions were filed by NEWs that apparently would qualify under the proposed Settlement to pay the proxy fee in lieu of census reporting in the upcoming license period. Extension until December 31, 2020, of the proxy fee in lieu of census reporting does not, however, address the precise issue raised in that rulemaking proceeding. The Judges shall address this issue along with a number of other issues relating to Part 370 in a separate publication focused directly on the May 2, 2014, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Judges find that the agreement reached voluntarily between SoundExchange and CBI establishes a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates for noncommercial educational webcasters for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. The Judges adopt the proposed regulations that codify the partial Settlement with the one exception discussed above, i.e., the reference to SoundExchange as the designated Collective.\16\ In adopting the partial Settlement and proposed regulations, the Judges in no way suggest that they are more or less inclined to adopt the reasoning or proposals of any of the parties' remaining in the proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ As discussed above, the definition in Sec. 380.21 that the Judges adopt cross-references the Collective definition in Sec. 380.2. The Judges also have adopted certain nonsubstantive changes to enhance consistency and accuracy with respect to references in the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster definition in Sec. 380.21. In all other respects, the settlement is adopted as proposed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 380 Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings. Final Regulations For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows: PART 380--RATES AND TERMS FOR CERTAIN ELIGIBLE NONSUBSCRIPTION TRANSMISSIONS, NEW SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL REPRODUCTIONS 0 1. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3). 0 2. Amend Sec. 380.20 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Subpart C--Noncommercial Educational Webcasters Sec. 380.20 General. (a) Scope. This subpart establishes rates and terms, including requirements for royalty payments, recordkeeping and reports of use, for the public performance of sound recordings in certain digital transmissions made by Noncommercial Educational Webcasters as set forth herein in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 114, and the making of Ephemeral Recordings by Noncommercial Educational Webcasters as set forth herein in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 112(e), during the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. * * * * * 0 3. Amend Sec. 380.21 by revising the definitions for ``Collective'' and ``Noncommercial Educational Webcaster'' to read as follows: Sec. 380.21 Definitions. * * * * * Collective is the collection and distribution organization specified in Sec. 380.2. * * * * * Noncommercial Educational Webcaster means a Noncommercial Webcaster (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i)) that (1) Has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and the implementing regulations therefor to make Eligible Transmissions and related ephemeral recordings; (2) Complies with all applicable provisions of Sections 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations; (3) Is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of which are staffed substantially by students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution; (4) Is not a ``public broadcasting entity'' (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 396; and (5) Takes affirmative steps not to make total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month, if in any previous calendar year it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month. * * * * * 0 4. Revise Sec. 380.22 to read as follows: Sec. 380.22 Royalty fees for the public performance of sound recordings and for ephemeral recordings. (a) Minimum fee for eligible Noncommercial Educational Webcasters. Each Noncommercial [[Page 58206]] Educational Webcaster that did not exceed 159,140 total ATH for any individual channel or station for more than one calendar month in the immediately preceding calendar year and does not expect to make total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any calendar month during the applicable calendar year shall pay an annual, nonrefundable minimum fee of $500 (the ``Minimum Fee'') for each of its individual channels, including each of its individual side channels, and each of its individual stations, through which (in each case) it makes Eligible Transmissions, for each calendar year it makes Eligible Transmissions subject to this subpart. For clarity, each individual stream (e.g., HD radio side channels, different stations owned by a single licensee) will be treated separately and be subject to a separate minimum. The Minimum Fee shall constitute the annual per channel or per station royalty for all Eligible Transmissions totaling not more than 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours in a month on any individual channel or station, and for Ephemeral Recordings to enable such Eligible Transmissions. In addition, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster electing the reporting waiver described in Sec. 380.23(g)(1), shall pay a $100 annual fee (the ``Proxy Fee'') to the Collective. (b) Consequences of unexpectedly exceeding ATH cap. In the case of a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster eligible to pay royalties under paragraph (a) that unexpectedly makes total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any calendar month during the applicable calendar year: (1) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, for such month and the remainder of the calendar year in which such month occurs, pay royalties in accordance, and otherwise comply, with the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters; (2) The Minimum Fee paid by the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for such calendar year will be credited to the amounts payable under the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters; and (3) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, within 45 days after the end of such month, notify the Collective that it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on a channel or station in a month; pay the Collective any amounts for such month due under the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters; and provide the Collective a statement of account pursuant to Part 380 Subpart A. (c) Royalties for other Noncommercial Educational Webcasters. A Noncommercial Educational Webcaster that is not eligible to pay royalties under paragraph (a) shall pay royalties in accordance, and otherwise comply, with the provisions of Part 380 Subpart A applicable to noncommercial webcasters. (d) Estimation of performances. In the case of a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster that is required to pay royalties under paragraph (b) or (c) on a per-performance basis, that is unable to calculate actual total performances, and that is not required to report actual total performances under Sec. 380.23(g)(3), the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster may pay its applicable royalties on an ATH basis, provided that the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall pay such royalties at the applicable per-performance rates based on the assumption that the number of sound recordings performed is 12 per hour. The Collective may distribute royalties paid on the basis of ATH hereunder in accordance with its generally applicable methodology for distributing royalties paid on such basis. In addition, and for the avoidance of doubt, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster offering more than one channel or station shall pay per-performance royalties on a per-channel or -station basis. (e) Ephemeral royalty. The royalty payable under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) for any ephemeral reproductions made by a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster is deemed to be included within the royalty payments set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section and to equal 5% of the total royalties payable under such paragraphs. 0 5. Amend Sec. 380.23 by: 0 a. Revising paragraph (c); 0 b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d); 0 c. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text; 0 d. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(2); and 0 e. Revising paragraphs (f)(4), (f)(9), (g)(1), and (g)(3). The revisions read as follows: Sec. 380.23 Terms for making payment of royalty fees and statements of account. * * * * * (c) Minimum fee. Noncommercial Educational Webcasters shall submit the Minimum Fee, and Proxy Fee if applicable, accompanied by a statement of account, by January 31st of each calendar year, except that payment of the Minimum Fee, and Proxy Fee if applicable, by a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster that was not making Eligible Transmissions or Ephemeral Recordings pursuant to the licenses in 17 U.S.C. 114 and/or 17 U.S.C. 112(e) as of said date but begins doing so thereafter shall be due by the 45th day after the end of the month in which the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster commences doing so. At the same time the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster must identify all its stations making Eligible Transmissions and identify which of the reporting options set forth in paragraph (g) of this section it elects for the relevant year (provided that it must be eligible for the option it elects). * * * * * (f) Statements of account. Any payment due under Sec. 380.22(a) shall be accompanied by a corresponding statement of account on a form provided by the Collective. A statement of account shall contain the following information: * * * * * (4) The signature of a duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution; * * * * * (9) A statement to the following effect: I, the undersigned duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution, have examined this statement of account; hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence; and further certify that the licensee entity named herein qualifies as a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for the relevant year, and did not exceed 159,140 total ATH in any month of the prior year for which the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster did not submit a statement of account and pay any required additional royalties. (g) * * * (1) Reporting waiver. In light of the unique business and operational circumstances with respect to Noncommercial Educational Webcasters, and for the purposes of this subpart only, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster that did not exceed 80,000 total ATH for any individual channel or station for more than one calendar month in the immediately preceding calendar year and that does not expect to exceed 80,000 total ATH for any individual channel or station for any calendar month during the applicable calendar year may elect to pay to the Collective a nonrefundable, annual Proxy Fee of $100 in lieu of providing reports of use [[Page 58207]] for the calendar year pursuant to the regulations Sec. 370.4 of this chapter. In addition, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster that unexpectedly exceeded 80,000 total ATH on one or more channels or stations for more than one month during the immediately preceding calendar year may elect to pay the Proxy Fee and receive the reporting waiver described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section during a calendar year, if it implements measures reasonably calculated to ensure that it will not make Eligible Transmissions exceeding 80,000 total ATH during any month of that calendar year. The Proxy Fee is intended to defray the Collective's costs associated with this reporting waiver, including development of proxy usage data. The Proxy Fee shall be paid by the date specified in paragraph (c) of this section for paying the Minimum Fee for the applicable calendar year and shall be accompanied by a certification on a form provided by the Collective, signed by a duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution, stating that the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster is eligible for the Proxy Fee option because of its past and expected future usage and, if applicable, has implemented measures to ensure that it will not make excess Eligible Transmissions in the future. * * * * * (3) Census-basis reports. If any of the following three conditions is satisfied, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster must report pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this section: (i) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster exceeded 159,140 total ATH for any individual channel or station for more than one calendar month in the immediately preceding calendar year; (ii) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster expects to exceed 159,140 total ATH for any individual channel or station for any calendar month in the applicable calendar year; or (iii) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster otherwise does not elect to be subject to paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section. A Noncommercial Educational Webcaster required to report pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall provide reports of use to the Collective quarterly on a census reporting basis in accordance with Sec. 370.4 of this chapter, except that, notwithstanding Sec. 370.4(d)(2), such a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall not be required to include ATH or actual total performances, and may in lieu thereof provide channel or station name and play frequency, during the first calendar year it reports in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section. For the avoidance of doubt, after a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster has been required to report in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section for a full calendar year, it must thereafter include ATH or actual total performances in its reports of use. All reports of use under paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall be submitted to the Collective no later than the 45th day after the end of each calendar quarter. * * * * * Dated: August 3, 2015. Jesse M. Feder, Copyright Royalty Judge. Approved by: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress. [FR Doc. 2015-24506 Filed 9-25-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58201
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet noncommercial educational webcasters for services electing the proxy fee in lieu
above the surface bounded by a line (NEWs) over the internet, and related of the census reporting option provided
beginning at lat. 46°30′29″ N., long. ephemeral recordings. The Judges in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1). See Proposed
124°06′51″ W.; to lat. 46°30′29″ N., long. published the proposed settlement and Rule 37 CFR 380.22(g)(1).3 A NEW
120°29′40″ W.; to lat. 45°42′49″ N., long.
121°06′03″ W.; to lat. 44°15′10″ N., long.
requested comments from the public.2 electing the reporting waiver in 37 CFR
121°18′13″ W.; to lat. 44°29′59″ N., long. For the reasons discussed below, the 380.23(g)(1) must pay a $100 annual
123°17′38″ W.; to lat. 44°29′59″ N., long. Judges hereby adopt the proposed proxy fee to the Collective. Proposed
124°08′036″ W. to a point 3 miles offshore; settlement, with the exception of a Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a).
thence along a line 3 miles offshore to the single provision that would identify
point of beginning. SoundExchange as the designated Comment Summary
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on Collective for the upcoming license The Judges received nearly 60
September 21, 2015. period. The Judges defer designation of comments—some supporting and some
Christopher Ramirez, the Collective for the upcoming opposing adoption of the Settlement—in
licensing period until the conclusion of response to their request for comments
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center. the proceeding. published in the Federal Register. Many
of the comments appeared to be form
[FR Doc. 2015–24434 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am] Background
letters; hence, the number of
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The proposed SoundExchange/CBI commenters exceeded the number of
settlement (Settlement) generally substantive comments. Some of the
continues in effect, with certain comments came from affiliated entities.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS adjustments, the extant rates for eligible The Judges considered the views of all
NEWs that were codified in 37 CFR part commenters in reaching their decision
Copyright Royalty Board 380 Subpart C. The Judges adopted and all comments are posted to the
those rates and terms pursuant to CRB’s Web site. The Judges discuss
37 CFR Part 380 Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act as part illustrative examples here.
[Docket No. 2014–CRB–0001–WR (2016– of the prior webcasting determination.
2020) (Web IV)] See Digital Performance Right in Sound Comments Supporting Adoption of the
Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings, Settlement
Digital Performance Right in Sound 76 FR 13026 (Web-III). In its comment supporting adoption
Recordings and Ephemeral Under the proposed Settlement, an of the joint proposal, CBI noted that the
Recordings eligible NEW would pay a $500 annual Settlement contains
fee for each of the individual channels,
AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, the same terms that NEWs have been
side channels, or stations through which successfully using for several years to comply
Library of Congress. it makes Eligible Transmissions. with the statutory license for webcasting
ACTION: Final rule. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a). The copyright works. Keeping these rates and
$500 fee would also serve as the terms in place will prevent disruption of
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges minimum fee for eligible NEWs. All their operation and ensure the
publish final regulations that set the other NEWs would pay the royalties noncommercial educational webcasters
rates and terms for the digital established under Part 380 Subpart A [remain able to provide] creators of musical
performances of sound recordings by applicable to noncommercial recordings access to the noncommercial
certain noncommercial educational webcasters. Proposed Rule 37 CFR educational listener market.
webcasters and for the making of 380.22(c). Comment by College Broadcasters, Inc.
ephemeral recordings necessary to To qualify for the rates under the in Support of Adopting The Joint
facilitate those transmissions for the Settlement, a NEW’s total monthly per Settlement Between College
period commencing January 1, 2016, channel or per station transmissions Broadcasters, Inc. and SoundExchange
and ending on December 31, 2020. must remain below 159,140 aggregate at 1 (Nov. 26, 2014) (CBI Comment).
DATES: Effective: January 1, 2016. tuning hours (ATH). If a NEW’s CBI further noted that
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: transmissions exceed that threshold, the [T]he current Settlement continues
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, at NEW must pay royalties for the relevant essentially the same recordkeeping terms that
(202) 707–7658, or at crb@loc.gov. month, and for the remainder of the have been integral for NEWs to be able to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The relevant year, in accordance with the comply with the statutory license. In
Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) otherwise applicable noncommercial particular, these recordkeeping terms include
received a joint motion from rates to be determined in this an optional proxy fee, which allows NEWs to
proceeding. In subsequent years, a NEW pay an additional $100 in lieu of complying
SoundExchange, Inc. (SoundExchange), with ordinarily-applicable recordkeeping
and College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) in that wishes to pay the rates under the
Settlement must take affirmative steps rules, which are frequently impossible for
which they announced a partial NEWs to comply with due to their more
settlement of the above proceeding for not to exceed the 159,140 ATH limited budgets, older broadcasting
certain internet transmissions by college threshold. Proposed Rule 37 CFR technology, and other operational
radio stations and other noncommercial 380.22(b). limitations. [T]he new Settlement makes this
webcasters.1 SoundExchange and CBI Commercial webcasters are required extremely necessary reporting option
requested that the Judges adopt their to make detailed, census reports of all available for more stations than the previous
agreement as a partial settlement of rates sound recordings they transmit. NEWs one did. It also continues to provide
with limited listenership may pay the recordkeeping relief for those stations whose
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
and terms under Section 112(e) and 114 audience size makes them ineligible for this
of the Copyright Act (Act) for eligible Collective a proxy fee to avoid the
nonsubscription transmissions by burden of census reporting. The
3 The Settlement also ‘‘makes a handful of further
Settlement increases the listenership
minor changes to the current rates and terms for
1 Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket cap (from 55,000 ATH to 80,000 ATH) NEWs.’’ [SoundExchange’s] Comments Concerning
No. 2014–CRB–0001–WR (2016–2020) (Oct. 7, Proposed Settlement at n.1 (Nov. 26, 2014)
2014) (Joint Motion). 2 See 79 FR 65609 (Nov. 5, 2014). (SoundExchange Comments).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM 28SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58388/page/1.svg)
![58202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
proxy option by allowing them to provide 0.5% noncommercial. Other rates WHRB—a participant in the
recordkeeping data consistent with what is should be determined before such an proceeding—highlights certain
feasible for them to produce. [T]his insignificant agreement should be ‘‘inadvertent drafting anomalies’’ in the
Settlement also leaves room for webcasters to considered.’’ Dayton Public School proposal, which, if uncorrected, ‘‘might
grow without fear that if they inadvertently
grow even the tiniest bit too large they will
District Comment (Nov. 26, 2014). render the proposed rates inapplicable
suddenly incur recordkeeping requirements
Dayton also claims that the proposed to WHRB’s simulcast stream.’’ WHRB’s
that are impossible to comply with without rates in the Settlement are higher than Comments on SX–CBI Rate Proposal at
first making a significant and unaffordable those paid by the Corporation for Public 1 (Nov. 27, 2014) (WHRB Comment). In
investment in their station technology and Broadcasting-qualified webcasters and particular, WHRB notes that the
operations. those paid by Live365 in 2009 and 2010. proposed provision addressing the
CBI Comment at 3–4. Accordingly, according to Dayton, the certification requirement would
CRB ‘‘needs to determine all eliminate the word ‘‘officer’’ and
WSOU Seton Hall University—not a noncommercial ‘willing buyer-willing
participant in the proceeding—stated: substitute ‘‘representative of the
sellers’ before approving the rate in the applicable educational institution.’’ Id.
Since the current agreement has been in CBI/SoundExchange Settlement.’’ at 1–2. According to WHRB, the existing
place for several years and has worked to the Id. wording authorizes ‘‘student officers of
satisfaction of a large number of college Dayton further contends that the
stations, it is prudent to extend that fair and the corporation with personal
payment of a proxy fee in lieu of knowledge of the facts to certify usage.’’
successful arrangement into the future. The
proposed settlement is affordable for our reporting requirements precludes Id. at 2. Yet, none of these student
station, easily implementable, and relieves accurate allocation of royalties to the officers ‘‘sits as a representative of the
WSOU from burdensome reporting artists that earned them. President and Fellows of Harvard
requirements while allowing royalties to be Lastly, Dayton argues that ‘‘[m]any, if College.’’ Although WHRB has a faculty
paid to the rightful recipients. not most, of the web streams covered adviser, he is not broadly involved in
WSOU Comment at 1 (Nov. 17, 2014). under the CBI agreement would be from the operations of the radio station so as
public [entities] like public schools, to be able to certify under proposed
Wayne State College—also a community colleges, and State colleges/
nonparticipant—stated: Section 380.23(f)(9). Id. at 3. WHRB
universities.’’ According to Dayton, continues that the Librarian of Congress
The proposed agreement . . . serves our ‘‘[m]ost State statutes forbid payments cannot compel Harvard to appoint such
station well. In the past, when reporting from State entities to lobbying
requirements were more demanding, it a representative; nor can the station or
organizations. SoundExchange is a the Collective. WHRB contends that, as
threatened our ability to continue streaming lobbying organization . . . The CRB
commercially recorded music [because] the a result, ‘‘the Board should not adopt
should de conflict [sic] State and the rules in the form proposed in SX
station is operated by students, with faculty
oversight, and thus has no actual paid Federal law, perhaps through an and CBI’s joint petition without
employees. The opportunity to make an aggregator payment like is done through correcting the foregoing drafting
additional payment in lieu of reporting CPB, Live365 and is proposed for IBS anomalies.’’ Id. at 5.
makes an overwhelming difference for us.4 Members.’’ Id.5
IBS—a participant in the Other Comments
Wayne State College Comment (Nov. 18,
proceeding—‘‘takes no position on
2014). The NRBNMLC—a participant in the
whether the [CRB] should approve the
Comments Opposing Adoption of the rates [set forth in the settlement] for proceeding—believes that a $500 flat fee
Settlement signatories’’ but, IBS contends, the and a complete reporting exemption
proposed rates are not reasonable for the constitute ‘‘workable rates and terms for
Those opposing adoption of the NEWs.’’ NRBNMLC Comment at 2 (Nov.
Settlement argue, among other things, majority of educationally based
broadcasters and webcasters that do not 26, 2014). At the same time, however,
that doing so before issuing a final the NRBNMLC raised certain issues
determination in the proceeding would have paid staffs. According to IBS, CBI’s
membership is not representative of a with the proposal. For example, the
be premature. This position is discussed NRBNMLC noted that the ATH
illustratively in a comment from the majority of educationally-based
broadcasters and webcasters, implying, definition
Dayton Public School District in Dayton,
Ohio (‘‘Dayton’’)—not a participant to without offering supporting evidence, does not unambiguously exclude . . .
the proceeding—which contends that that CBI member stations have paid programming that does not include sound
‘‘[n]o other commercial or staffs. IBS Comments on SX–CBI’s Joint recordings at all, such as news, talk and
Rate Proposal at 5 (Nov. 27, 2014). IBS sports programming. NEWs receive no
noncommercial agreements have been benefit under the Statutory Licenses from
reached [and] 99.5% of the implies, again without offering
supporting evidence, that the majority transmitting such programming, so their
[SoundExchange] royalty revenue is transmission of that programming should not
commercial, 0.5% noncommercial. CBI of noncommercial webcasters do not
adversely affect their fee liability under the
[represents] only a small fraction of the have paid staff, and, therefore, Statutory Licenses in any way. Where ATH
presumably would be less able to pay thresholds are used to affect the fees that
4 See also WRFL–UK Student (Univ. of KY) Radio the rates set forth in the Settlement.6 NEWs must pay and the reporting
Comment (Nov. 25, 2014) (the settlement will requirements that they must follow, discrete
5 Comments substantially identical to those
‘‘allow us to comply with the regulations and programming blocks that do not include
provide artists the royalties they deserve while submitted by Dayton were also submitted by RMU sound recordings subject to the Statutory
preventing us from having to drastically change our Radio Robert Morris University; WCAS Radio Licenses should not count toward meeting
format and recordkeeping methods. Such a change Metropolitan State University of Denver; WLMU Le
these thresholds.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
would create a huge cost to us as well as a full Moyne College Syracuse, NY; XTSR Towson
overhaul of our training program for students.’’); University; and Zumix Radio East Boston, MA.
and WRST–FM (Univ. of WI Oshkosh) Comment RMU Radio Comment (Dec. 2, 2014), WCAS Radio convention sponsorship or some such by
(Nov. 25, 2014) (‘‘[m]aintaining the current rates Comment (Nov. 30, 2014), WLMU Comment (Nov. [SoundExchange]’’ the salary of CBI’s Executive
and terms for the statutory license for 26, 2014), XTSR Towson University Comment (Nov. Director. Id. See also Affidavit of Fritz Kass in
noncommercial stations like us best serves both the 26, 2014), Zumix Radio Comment (Dec. 1, 2014). Support of IBS’ Comments at 2 (Nov. 27, 2014). The
educational needs of [our] students and allows us 6 IBS makes an unsubstantiated accusation that Judges place no weight on accusations that are
to serve the online listener’’). SoundExchange indirectly funds—through ‘‘CBI unsupported by credible evidence.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM 28SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58388/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58203
Comments of the National Religious 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act. That certification requirement might be
Broadcasters Noncommercial Music provision of the Act authorizes the unworkable for some NEWs.
License Committee to the Proposed Judges to adopt as a basis for statutory The Judges address these concerns in
Rates and Terms for Noncommercial terms and rates an agreement turn.
Educational Webcasters Submitted by concerning such matters reached among
SoundExchange and CBI at 2 (Nov. 26, ‘‘some or all of the participants’’ in a Adopting the Settlement Now Would Be
2014) (NRBNMLC Comment). The proceeding ‘‘at any time during the Premature
NRBNMLC ‘‘merely points out this flaw proceeding’’ except that the Judges must Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act is clear
in the definition but does not formally provide an opportunity to comment on that the Judges have the authority to
object to it.’’ Id. at 3. NRBNMLC states the agreement to those that would be adopt settlements between some or all
that it ‘‘appears that NEWs will not be bound by the agreement. 17 U.S.C. of the participants to a proceeding at
adversely affected by the ATH 801(b)(7)(A)(i). any time during a proceeding so long as
definition even if it is construed to The Act authorizes the Judges to those that would be bound by those
include talk and other programming that decline to adopt the agreement for rates and terms are given an opportunity
does not include recordings in the ATH participants that are not parties to the to comment. Requiring that the adoption
count’’ given that ‘‘all of them stream at agreement if a participant to the of all proposed settlements wait until
levels below the 159,140 monthly ATH proceeding objects to the agreement and the conclusion of the proceeding would
eligibility threshold.’’ Id. at 6–7.7 the Judges conclude, based on the undercut the policy in Section
NRBNMLC also notes that not a single record before them if one exists, that the 801(b)(7)(A) to promote negotiated
NEW paid more than the minimum fee agreement does not provide a reasonable settlements. Such a position would
over the past three years, which means basis for setting statutory terms and unnecessarily require those participants
that all NEWs streamed at levels below rates. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). Section that have agreed to a settlement to
the ATH threshold of 159,140—the 801(b)(7)(A) limits the circumstances continue to participate in the
threshold for determining whether a under which the Judges are able to proceeding until all interests were
station owed fees in excess of the decline to adopt aspects of an resolved. No such requirement is in the
minimum fee for those years. Id. agreement, but it does not foreclose the Act and the Judges see no reason to
NRBNMLC suggests that, as a result, Judges from ascertaining whether impose one.
NEWs have no economic incentive to specific provisions are contrary to law.
negotiate the 159,140 ATH threshold See Review of Copyright Royalty Judges Rates Paid in Previous Agreements Are
and 80,000 ATH threshold to the Determination, 74 FR 4537, 4540 (Jan. Lower
highest level that SoundExchange 26, 2009). Some commenters claim that certain
would accept.8 In the context of the statutory rates agreed to by certain participants in
The Corporation for Public requirements regarding adoption of other contexts are lower than those
Broadcasting (CPB) noted in its settlements, the Judges find that— agreed to in the Settlement. Even if true,
comment on behalf of National Public notwithstanding the objections of some such a fact would be irrelevant to
Radio, Inc. (NPR) —a participant in the of the commenters—this partial determining whether the current
proceeding—(among others) that: ‘‘NPR Settlement provides a reasonable basis proposal forms a reasonable basis for
and Public Radio do not object to the for setting statutory terms and rates and rates and terms with respect to the
proposed Settlement with the therefore the Judges adopt the partial entities to which it applies in the
understanding that it does not apply to Settlement, with one exception current proceeding. Indeed, in most
NPR/Public Radio.’’ Comments discussed below. material respects, the rates and terms of
Concerning Proposed Settlement of the Objections to the proposal can be the Settlement merely extend current
Corporation for Public Broadcasting at 1 summarized as follows: (1) Adopting the rates and terms for another five years.
(Nov. 26, 2014). CPB noted further that Settlement before conclusion of the The Judges have been presented with no
NPR/Public Radio ‘‘has proposed terms proceeding would be premature; (2) evidence to suggest that the current
and conditions for SoundExchange’s rates paid by certain other parties in rates and terms, which the Settlement
licensing of NPR/Public Radio that are previous agreements are lower than would extend, have been disruptive or
reasonable and appropriate for NPR/ those in the proposed Settlement; (3) overly burdensome for the entities to
Public Radio; and the proposed payment of a proxy fee in lieu of which they apply, notwithstanding that
Settlement does not and should not reporting precludes accurate allocation some entities during some previous
have application to same.’’ Id. at 1–2. of royalties to artists; (4) colleges and years may have paid lower rates.
Analysis and Finding other public entities may not pay
Proxy Fee Payment in Lieu of
royalties to SoundExchange due to
The Judges’ authority to adopt Reporting Precludes Accurate
applicable state laws prohibiting public
proposed settlements as statutory rates Allocation of Royalties
entities such as colleges from making
and terms is codified in Section payments to lobbying organizations; (5) The Judges are also unconvinced that
7 See also WHRB Comment at 4, noting the same
CBI member organizations are not the provision regarding proxy fee
issue and indicating that this definition of ATH representative of NEWs because they payment in lieu of census reporting
could result in a ‘‘potential overstatement of ATH generally have paid staffs and non-CBI provides a reason not to adopt the
in Subsections 380.21(c) and (g) and 380.22 with all member NEWs generally do not; (6) the settlement for the upcoming rate period.
the attendant consequences.’’ proposed ATH definition, which The extant regulations include this
8 The settlement would increase the listenership
includes programming other than sound provision. The parties to the agreement
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
cap for services electing the proxy reporting option
from 55,000 ATH per month to 80,000 ATH per recordings, is too broad; (7) because have acknowledged that the costs of
month, with certain conditions. Although not NEWs’ streaming activity is far below census reporting may outweigh its
opposing the thresholds in the settlement, the thresholds set in the proposed benefits to the webcasters covered by
NRBNMLC asserts that ‘‘[t]here are strong
indications that these thresholds actually should be
settlement, they have no incentive to the Settlement. The current proposal
set higher than the proposed levels.’’ NRBNMLC negotiate higher streaming thresholds; merely continues a practice that has
Comment at 8. and (8) the proposed, amended been in place for the last several years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM 28SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58388/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58207
for the calendar year pursuant to the year it reports in accordance with electronically through http://
regulations § 370.4 of this chapter. In paragraph (g)(3) of this section. For the www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
addition, a Noncommercial Educational avoidance of doubt, after a EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and
Webcaster that unexpectedly exceeded Noncommercial Educational Webcaster Regulatory Assistance, Air Program,
80,000 total ATH on one or more has been required to report in 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
channels or stations for more than one accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA
month during the immediately section for a full calendar year, it must requests that you contact the individual
preceding calendar year may elect to thereafter include ATH or actual total listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
pay the Proxy Fee and receive the performances in its reports of use. All CONTACT section to view the hard copy
reporting waiver described in paragraph reports of use under paragraph (g)(3) of of the docket. An electronic copy of the
(g)(1) of this section during a calendar this section shall be submitted to the state’s SIP compilation is also available
year, if it implements measures Collective no later than the 45th day at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/
reasonably calculated to ensure that it after the end of each calendar quarter. sip.html.
will not make Eligible Transmissions * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
exceeding 80,000 total ATH during any Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Dated: August 3, 2015.
month of that calendar year. The Proxy Environmental Protection Agency
Fee is intended to defray the Jesse M. Feder,
Copyright Royalty Judge. (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Collective’s costs associated with this Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
reporting waiver, including Approved by: 80202–1129, (303) 312–6142,
development of proxy usage data. The James H. Billington, ayala.kathy@epa.gov.
Proxy Fee shall be paid by the date Librarian of Congress. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
specified in paragraph (c) of this section [FR Doc. 2015–24506 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am]
for paying the Minimum Fee for the BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
I. Change in IBR Format
applicable calendar year and shall be This format revision will affect the
accompanied by a certification on a ‘‘Identification of plan’’ section of 40
form provided by the Collective, signed CFR part 52, as well as the format of the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
by a duly authorized representative of SIP materials that will be available for
AGENCY
the applicable educational institution, public inspection at the National
stating that the Noncommercial 40 CFR Part 52 Archives and Records Administration
Educational Webcaster is eligible for the (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket
Proxy Fee option because of its past and [EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0149; FRL–9931–73–
Region 8 ] and Information Center located at EPA
expected future usage and, if applicable, Headquarters in Washington, DC, and
has implemented measures to ensure Air Plan Approval; CO; Revised Format the EPA Region 8 Office.
that it will not make excess Eligible for Material Incorporated by Reference
Transmissions in the future. A. Description of a SIP
* * * * * AGENCY: Environmental Protection Each state has a SIP containing the
(3) Census-basis reports. If any of the Agency (EPA). control measures and strategies used to
following three conditions is satisfied, a ACTION: Final rule; administrative attain and maintain the national
Noncommercial Educational Webcaster change. ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
must report pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act
of this section: SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
(Act) requirements (e.g., visibility
(i) The Noncommercial Educational Agency (EPA) is revising the format of
requirements, prevention of significant
Webcaster exceeded 159,140 total ATH materials submitted by the state of
deterioration). The SIP is extensive,
for any individual channel or station for Colorado that are incorporated by
containing such elements as air
more than one calendar month in the reference (IBR) into its State
pollution control regulations, emission
immediately preceding calendar year; Implementation Plan (SIP). The
inventories, monitoring network
(ii) The Noncommercial Educational regulations affected by this format
descriptions, attainment
Webcaster expects to exceed 159,140 change have all been previously
demonstrations, and enforcement
total ATH for any individual channel or submitted by Colorado and approved by
mechanisms.
station for any calendar month in the the EPA.
applicable calendar year; or DATES: This action is effective B. How EPA Enforces the SIP
(iii) The Noncommercial Educational September 28, 2015. Each SIP revision submitted by
Webcaster otherwise does not elect to be ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Colorado must be adopted at the state
subject to paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this docket for this action under Docket level after undergoing reasonable notice
section. Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– and public hearing. SIPs submitted to
A Noncommercial Educational 2015–0149. All documents in the docket EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS
Webcaster required to report pursuant to are listed on the http:// must include enforceable emission
paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall www.regulations.gov Web site. Although limitations and other control measures,
provide reports of use to the Collective listed in the index, some information schedules and timetables for
quarterly on a census reporting basis in may not be publicly available, i.e., compliance.
accordance with § 370.4 of this chapter, Confidential Business Information or EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to
except that, notwithstanding other information the disclosure of determine if they meet the Act’s
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 370.4(d)(2), such a Noncommercial which is restricted by statute. Certain requirements. If a SIP meets the Act’s
Educational Webcaster shall not be other material, such as copyrighted requirements, EPA will approve the SIP.
required to include ATH or actual total material, is not placed on the Internet EPA’s notice of approval is published in
performances, and may in lieu thereof and will be publicly available only in the Federal Register and the approval is
provide channel or station name and the hard copy form. Publicly available then codified at 40 CFR part 52. Once
play frequency, during the first calendar docket materials are available either EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM 28SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58388/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-26 10:21:44
Document Modified: 2018-02-26 10:21:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | Effective: January 1, 2016. | |
| Contact | LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658, or at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 58201 | |
| CFR Associated | Copyright; Digital Audio Transmissions; Performance Right and Sound Recordings |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR