The MTTLR Blog

The topic of music royalties has come up time and again in 2009, from the introduction of the Performance Rights Act, currently making its way through Congress, to various digital performance royalty rate disputes, from Internet broadcasts to satellite radio.

To end the year in music royalties and law, and to help open up 2010, on the week of December 21, 2009 the owners of about 1,200 “local” television stations filed a lawsuit against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) seeking “lower broadcast fees to reflect declining television viewership and advertising revenue,” according to a report from music industry news publication Billboard.  The suit, WPIX v. BMI, was filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs, who have periodically renegotiated the rates with BMI, now state that a federal judge should “set reasonable fees and terms” because of a decline in television viewership and advertising revenue, according to Businessweek.  According to the Businessweek article, the “television industry will end the year with lower-than- expected revenue of $15.6 billion, a 22.4 percent decline from 2008.”

A three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld the injunction against Microsoft that goes into effect January 11, 2010.  The panel also upheld the nearly $300 million in damages from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  The injunction will bar Microsoft from selling versions of Word that contain the ability to open documents with “custom XML.”  The injunction does not affect any versions of Word sold before January 11, 2010, but does prevent Microsoft from “instructing or assisting new customers in the custom XML editor’s use.”  Technical support can still be offered by Microsoft from versions of Word sold before January 11.  Regardless, Microsoft has said that it is ready to remove the infringing feature from copies of Word and Office that will be sold after January 11.  The upcoming 2010 versions of Word and Office should not have the infringing feature, and thus should be unaffected by the injunction.

The only changes to the injunction by the panel were a modification of the effective date of the injunction, from the original 60 days (stayed during appeal) to 5 months from the original issue date of the injunction.  This was because the panel determined that the district court erred in setting a time frame of 60 days, when the only evidence concerning time to remove the infringing XML functions from Word was “at least” 5 months.  As Microsoft has said, it initiated steps in August to remove the infringing feature, so the change in the effective date of the injunction should have little practical impact.

In regard to the damages, most significant is the $200 million damages for royalties.  The panel even admitted that, “Given the opportunity to review the sufficiency of the evidence, we could have considered whether the $ 200 million damages award was “grossly excessive or monstrous” in light of Word’s retail price and the licensing fees Microsoft paid for other patents.”  The opinion makes it sound as if the panel, if able to review sufficiency, would have significantly reduced the royalty damages.  This is because the baseline royalty rate used by i4i’s expert witness to calculate damages was $98, when certain Word products could sell for as low as $97.  On a sufficiency review, it seems entirely possible that the baseline royalty used was grossly excessive and monstrous, since it could be greater than the entire selling price of a single copy of Word.  Further, Microsoft told the court the typical license it paid to use a patent was in the $1 – $5 million range, something completely out of line with the i4i calculations of $200 million.  But the panel stated it was unable to review the sufficiency of the evidence, as Microsoft had failed to file a pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law motion, restraining the panel’s review to the standard of a clear showing of excessiveness.  The panel even seemed to question Microsoft’s failure to file a pre-verdict JMOL motion as to the sufficiency of the evidence for the damages, stating, “Had Microsoft filed a pre-verdict JMOL, it is true that the outcome might have been different” because then the panel could decide “whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s damages award.”  Given the panel’s statements, Microsoft might have blown its chance to have the damages significantly reduced on appeal by deciding not to file a JMOL motion for sufficiency of the evidence as to damages.

It also seems as if i4i’s decision to file in Texas has paid off, after gaining some measure of approval from the panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  I don’t know if I would go so far as to call the panel’s opinion “a complete and utter vindication of the judgment,” given the statements of the panel regarding the royalty calculation and the limited level of review available for the findings of the jury, but it does give some credence to the inability of an appeal to alter the jury verdict.  While Microsoft’s loss on appeal may not make the district court’s decision completely right, it may well signal the verdict’s irreversibility.  The Federal Circuit may well refuse a request for a full hearing, as the decision clearly sets out the limits of appellate review in this case.

The size of the verdict against Microsoft makes you wonder why they didn’t just license the patent from i4i back in 2000, when Microsoft was aware of i4i’s presence in the market, or even at the start of litigation in 2007.  At this point, there appear to be very few reasons for i4i to consider talking with Microsoft about licenses or settlement, as i4i looks to have a winning case and a firm hold on nearly $300 million from Microsoft.

Congressional hearings this week focused on whether or not traditional radio stations should have to pay royalties for the music they play. Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins, was among those who testified in support of H.R. 848, The Performance Royalties Act. Radio stations argue that the value of promotion they give artists outweighs the costs of any royalties due. That’s an argument that sounds familiar, and may explain some of the impetus for copyright holders to come forward now to reject such a rationale.

by: Adam Denhoff, Associate Editor, MTTLR

Image this is podcasting by Thomas Kamann. Used under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 license.

Internet radio broadcasters were given renewed hope of long-term stability when President Bush signed the Webcaster Settlement Act in October. The Act allows webcasters and record labels to continue negotiating for a reduced performance royalty rate while Congress is in recess, as it extends the deadline for a new deal to February 15, 2009. The issue stems from a March, 2007 decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which would force webcasters to pay for each song streamed to each user at a retroactive rate as follows:

2006: $0.0008 per song, per listener
2007: $.0011
2008: $.0014
2009: $.0018
2010: $.0019

SoundExchange, the organization that represents artists and record labels, favors higher performance royalties because it believes that musicians deserve their fair share of Internet radio profits. The Digital Media Association (DiMA), a trade organization that represents a number of prominent webcasters including AOL Radio and Yahoo! Music, believes that the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board would bring about the end of Internet radio by forcing webcasters to pay outrageously high performance royalties at rates that they simply could not afford.

The Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN) calculates that, assuming the average Internet broadcasting station plays 16 songs per hour, a webcaster would have a royalty obligation of 1.28 cents per listener hour in 2006 (which would skyrocket almost three-fold by 2010). These royalties would only cover use of the sound recording, and webcasters also have to pay an additional fee to holders of copyrights in the composition. Using the CRB’s proposed royalty structure, it would be nearly impossible for an Internet radio station to remain profitable, and most, if not all webcasters would be forced out of business. Tim Westergren, the head of Pandora (one of the nation’s most popular Web radio services), believes that its royalty fees for this year could represent 70% of its projected $25 million dollar revenue. According to David Oxendide, a lawyer representing many smaller webcasters, CRB’s royalty structure would be a fatal blow to small and medium sized stations whose royalties would be between 100% and 300% of annual revenues.

Traditional radio broadcasters, like those represented by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), have seen web-based radio as a serious threat to their dominance. They lobbied against the Webcaster Settlement Act. However, they retracted their aggressive opposition to the Act when the negotiating deadline was extended to February 15; the extension will allow the NAB to negotiate its own performance royalty structure with SoundExchange. Today, terrestrial radio broadcasters pay licensing fees only, but SoundExchange is working to change that.

What does all this mean for Internet radio? Well, even SoundExchange acknowledges that the royalties in CRB’s model might be unworkably high. Nonetheless, SoundExchange officials complain that Internet radio stations have done too little to turn a profit from streaming music on the web. Webcasters counter by arguing that advertisers have yet to embrace Internet radio which makes it nearly impossible to get investment funding.

Although the music is industry is in shambles and record labels are desperate for new sources of revenue (i.e. performance royalties from online radio stations), perhaps biting the hand that feeds is not the right approach. A thriving source of online music is essential for the survival of the music industry. Surely record companies would prefer that new music be spread via web-based radio rather than on illegal file sharing networks? Introducing performance royalties into both the digital and terrestrial radio schemes makes sense; why should radio stations be required to compensate the songwriter, but not the performer or record label for use of copyrighted material? However, the Recording Industry Association of America, SoundExchange, and DiMA should negotiate a performance royalty rate that benefits all parties by ensuring that Internet radio lives on. The impossible-to-interpret “willing buyer, willing seller” model utilized by the CRB is not a transparent approach. The Webcaster Settlement Act, which allows the parties to negotiate further, is a step in the right direction.