Tag: house judiciary committee

The American Music Fairness Act Gets a New Hearing

American Music Fairness Act

Tomorrow afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee IP Subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled Radio, Music, and Copyrights: 100 Years of Inequity for Recording Artists. The subject of the hearing is—at least ostensibly—to compare and contrast the royalty granting American Radio Fairness Act (AMFA) against the royalty denying Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA). Witnesses to testify include recording artist Randy Travis; National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt; SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe; and Urban One Regional VP and General Manager Eddie Harrell, Jr.

As discussed in other posts, AMFA would, for the first time since radio was invented, require terrestrial stations to pay royalties to the artists whose sound recordings draw audiences and drive ad revenues. The United States is the only major radio market in the world that does not pay royalties to recording artists, and as a result, American artists are likewise not paid royalties when foreign radio stations play their music. And the only reason this unfairness has persisted is the lobbying power of NAB.

When AMFA was introduced in 2021 by Reps. Ted Deutch and Darrell Issa, the latter stated in a Capitol Hill press conference, “The broadcasters have become experts in muddying the waters.” Indeed. As we often see with the behemoths of Silicon Valley, the NAB is very adept at using the “little guy” to obfuscate and maintain the status quo of multi-billion-dollar advertising conglomerates that would rather not share even a fraction of revenue generated by the music they play. And although Mr. Travis is a star, the Subcommittee must remember that many of the beneficiaries of AMFA would be “little guys,” including studio musicians, producers, and engineers.

Granted none of the witnesses testifying tomorrow are “little guys,” though the presence of Mr. Harrell representing Urban One is interesting because I am hopeful that he does not conflate Black-owned with small. As the media conglomerate’s website states, “For more than 40 years, Urban One has been the leading voice speaking to Black America. First, as the largest local urban radio network. Then, as the largest syndicator of urban programming.”

Note the word largest appearing twice in two short sentences. And good for Urban One. They should be proud of their scope, reach, depth, and diversity of programming. But if Mr. Harrell testifies that Urban One cannot afford to pay royalties to musical artists—or worse, implies that AMFA would harm Black enterprise in media—that’s a moment to raise a skeptical eyebrow. And not just because more than a few of the musical artists drawing audiences to Urban One’s stations are also Black. As the company’s 2022 annual report states…

While a core source of our revenue has historically been and remains the sale of local and national advertising for broadcast on our radio stations, our strategy is to operate the premier multi-media entertainment and information content platform targeting African-American and urban consumers. Thus, we have diversified our revenue streams by making acquisitions and investments in other complementary media properties.

I wouldn’t want to take on new expenses either. But Urban One is a media giant looking to become a bigger media giant complete with television networks and, most notably, development of new and original content with licensing value. Content creators denying other content creators a fair deal is not a great look. As the above statement from the report makes clear, broadcast advertising remains foundational to the business, and the Subcommittee should not lose sight of the fact that musical artists continue to underwrite that revenue without any say or compensation in the arrangement.

Local Radio Freedom Act is the Missing the Fairness

As to actual little guys, while large broadcasters like Urban One would be subject to rates set by the Copyright Royalty Judges, the statutory “small broadcaster protections” of the AMFA should be sufficient to reject the central premise of the LRFA sponsored by Senators Hassan and Barrasso. On Sen. Hassan’s web page, NAB’s LeGeyt is quoted thus: “A new job-crushing performance fee on local radio stations would hurt stations’ ability to provide their free, essential service in communities across the country.”

In addition to the too-cute-by-half contrasting “freedom” against “fairness,” the LRFA simply ignores the fact that small, independent stations would pay fees that would not qualify as job affecting, let alone “job crushing.” A non-public, independent station with revenue between $100k and $1.5mm would pay $500/year; a public station with the same revenue range would pay $100/year; and a station with revenue under $100k would pay $10/year. Specifically, 72% of the 220 Black-owned radio stations (as of October 2021) generate less than $1mm in annual revenue and would be capped at the $500 annual fee.

Yet, despite these facts, the language of the LRFA is so replete with worn-out rationales for the status quo that it’s hard not to assume the NAB wrote every word of the bill. For instance, this one is rather long in the tooth:

Whereas local radio stations provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers of music in the form of radio airplay, interviews with performers, introduction of new performers, concert promotions, and publicity that promotes the sale of music, concert tickets, ring tones, music videos, and associated merchandise.

The “free publicity” argument was weak 20+ years ago, but today it is simply unsupportable. The Subcommittee knows, or should know, that music discovery occurs in a complex landscape that includes every platform from traditional radio to Instagram. The broadcaster cannot reasonably claim that, in general, they provide more value by promoting music than that music provides them value by drawing listeners. Speaking anecdotally, what is the frequency of remaining tuned to a radio stations playing music one already likes versus waiting to discover something new?

Nevertheless, AMFA includes a provision under which the royalty judges may consider “whether use of the station’s service may substitute for or may promote the sales of phonorecords or otherwise may interfere with or may enhance the sound recording copyright owner’s other streams of revenue from the copyright owner’s sound recordings.” Thus, where a station can provide some evidence to support the “promotion” argument, that can be taken into account when calculating the royalty payment. But this would require the broadcasters to put their money where their rhetoric is—and nobody can blame them for not wanting to put their money anywhere they don’t have to. But that doesn’t make it fair. “100 years of inequity” is right. It’s long past time to make it wrong.

Is Site Blocking Finally Within Sight?

With all the talk about AI, one might think the problem of old-school media piracy has abated, but this week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled Digital Copyright Piracy:  Protecting American Consumers, Workers, and Creators. Although much of the conversation was familiar territory (i.e., the economic value of the creative industries and the cost of piracy), the legislative question in the room was whether the United States will finally adopt site blocking provisions as many other nations have done. In her testimony, Motion Picture Association (MPA) general counsel Karyn Temple stated:

…over the past decade, more than 40 countries, including leading democracies such as the U.K., much of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Israel, have enacted no-fault injunctive relief regimes that expressly authorize courts or administrative agencies to issue orders directing internet service providers (“ISPs”) and other online intermediaries to disable access to websites dedicated to piracy. Pursuant to these laws, courts and administrative agencies have disabled access to more than 90,000 domains used by over 27,000 websites engaged in blatant piracy after affording full due process.

“No-fault injunctive relief” and “full due process” is key language to keep in mind as Congress re-opens this discussion and the self-appointed defenders of the internet respond like Sauron’s orcs to the battle cry. After all, things got a bit heated “twelve years ago,” as noted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren in reference to the SOPA/PIPA legislation that was doomed by an extraordinary disinformation and fear-mongering campaign coordinated and funded by the internet industry. And although that story ought to be old news, the testimony of Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), rang the “Stop-SOPA” bell with statements like the following:

Content filtering by automation is not always effective or accurate. In particular, “off-the-shelf” filtering technologies tend to be focused only on specific classes of works, and cannot necessarily provide meaningful protection to content on sites whose users can create many different types of works. Automated tools are also unable to take into account context or nuance of individual uses, so may result in over-removal of non-infringing, fair uses. These false positives merit particular attention because any unjustified content filtering or takedown may suppress lawful expression.

That commentary is dog-whistling because it has nothing to do with the purpose of, or mechanisms inherent to, site blocking. Schruers is referring to imperfections in the DMCA notice-and-takedown provisions, exaggerating its effects on protected speech, and eliding the fact that a distinguishing aspect of a site blocking provision is that it requires a party to present evidence to obtain a court order and provides ample opportunity for both service providers and the allegedly infringing website to rebut the evidence. No party would be empowered to “automate” site blocking the way that, for instance, copyright owners can automate DMCA takedown notices.

Homing in on Schruers’s rhetoric, the highlight of the hearing was arguably Rep. Ted Liu, who used his phone to access the pirate site F Movies, which he confirmed with Ms. Temple cannot be accessed in most of Europe. Emphasizing the fact that the F Movies site has been available to Americans since 2016, Liu stated, “We’re trying to be reasonable here. This is such an unreasonable case. This is so clearly online piracy, copyright infringement, and you don’t want your organization, your members, defending something so blatantly unlawful and unreasonable. I just ask your members to block that site today.”

In response, Schruers first noted that the broadband providers were not testifying, but Liu pressed on, “You cannot defend this. This is not defensible.” Schruers stated that his members are also content creators, that piracy is a shared concern with other content creators, and then reiterated the argument that the best remedy to piracy is more widespread, legal, availability of more content.

This rhetoric, dating back to NAPSTER (1999), has not aged well in a time when, if anything, consumers often feel that there are too many channels requiring too many subscriptions. But that is a business narrative still evolving in the streaming market, and not one that justifies access to pirate sites. More to the point, the “more access” argument completely ignores the myriad reasons to finally adopt site blocking, even if the harm to content creators were minimal. 

For instance, Rep. Lofgren resurfaced the prospect of prohibiting payment processors (i.e., credit card companies) from doing business with the pirate sites, but as film producer Richard Gladstein noted, the pirate’s revenue is not derived solely, if at all, from traditional credit card transactions. Although Mr. Gladstein did not go into much detail, he did mention the use of cryptocurrency in illegal trade of this nature, and Rep. Lofgren failed to note that voluntary initiatives between copyright owners and payment processor companies to prevent known infringing sites from accessing payment networks have existed for years and only do so much to stifle piracy.

Moreover, as reported on this blog in several posts, Digital Citizens Alliance has provided extensive reports on the complex, malware-based, dark web market for which pirated media is merely used as bait. Thus, even if not a single professional in media production were financially harmed by piracy, the use of media piracy as a conduit to more dangerous forms of cybercrime is reason alone for Congress to finally block these sites from access to the U.S. market.

Of course, piracy is a threat to not only creators, but everyone involved in bringing entertainment, including live broadcasts of sporting events, to fans. As described Riché McKnight, general counsel for the Ultimate Fighting Championship, “UFC estimates that within hours of a single UFC event, hundreds of thousands of viewers may have already seen infringing versions of the event…UFC further estimates that due to piracy, multiple millions of dollars are diverted from legitimate purchases of UFC content each year,” McKnight states in his written testimony.

McNight’s testimony also highlights a major problem with the DMCA — that while it calls for service providers to take down infringing content “expeditiously,” there is no clear definition of that term. This is extremely problematic for industries broadcasting live sporting events, where the value of the broadcast may last minutes or seconds and then diminish greatly once the event concludes.

What About Felony Streaming?

In 2020, against the objections of the usual anti-copyright parties, the Protect Lawful Streaming Act was passed, which made enterprise-scale piracy by means of streaming a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The question as to how effectively the Justice Department has used this provision was raised in the hearing, perhaps as a distraction from site blocking, but there are at least two answers to why PLSA is not a complete remedy for piracy. One is of course the resources of the DOJ, and the other is that site blocking provisions exist to prevent access to the domestic market by sites operating outside U.S. jurisdiction.

As Chairman Darrell Issa noted at the end of the hearing U.S. Customs and the International Trade Commission are empowered to stop the importation of physical goods that violate intellectual property law. As such, he asks, “Today, aren’t we just talking about finding the equivalent of what for two-hundred plus years, our Customs and other agencies have done when there is due process and entities such as Article III courts have reached a decision, the execution of that protection is done by our government, or on behalf of our government, by orders to those who participate in brining things into the United States?”

Perhaps not the most concisely worded question, but it is exactly right. The U.S. bars illegal goods from overseas from entering the country, and there is no threat to constitutional principles for doing likewise when the means of “importation” is digital transmission. Moreover, as stated here many times, an infringing digital transmission of a work can cause immensely more damage than even thousands of physical bootlegs. Assuming the HJC proceeds toward site blocking legislation, I imagine we’ll hear some SOPA-like noise begin to rumble online. But based on my read of that hearing and the market overall, I wouldn’t expect that noise to make much difference this time.

HJC is Right to Want Internet Safe Harbors Out of USMCA

Remember the Trans Pacific Partnership?  The twelve-nation trade agreement that became an eleven-nation trade agreement when the U.S. pulled out?   As a general opinion, I will propose that when both a Bernie Sanders and a Donald Trump want to thrash a Fair Trade Agreement (FTA), it’s a pretty good indication that diametrically opposing ideologies have come to the same naïve conclusion.  Whether one’s anti-globalism is steeped in anti-corporatism or ultra-nationalism matters very little when the self-defeating result is not the abandonment of the world’s largest trade deal, but a decision that the United States will not have a seat at the table.  

But the reason I’m trotting out that diplomatic fiasco in this post is to remind readers why “digital rights” groups like the EFF, PublicKnowledge, ReCreate Coalition, et al campaigned so energetically against the TPP:  because they said it would “entrench” the status quo of copyright law, particularly the duration of copyright terms.  “One of the defining battles in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations,” began a typical EFF blog post in 2017,  “is whether its signatory countries will standardize copyright terms lengths to a minimum term of the life of the author plus 70 years.” While this post presents the urgency of six new countries adding 20 years to their copyright terms, I do not believe the duration of copyright in Brunei was the focus of the organization’s agenda.

Regardless of how one feels about term length, it was profoundly disingenuous to imply in that post, and others, that the USTR was working at the behest of major rightsholders to entrench the life-plus-70-year standard through an FTA. Further, in my view, this post was written to suggest that, if the U.S. did not ratify TPP, we just might to roll back our terms to life-plus-50 years. But that regime was already a global standard when the U.S. joined the Berne Treaty a century after it was first created; and the increase from 50 years to 70 in 1996 was the result of the U.S. matching its terms to those adopted by the new European Union.  So, there was never any logic to the implication that by withdrawing from the Pacific trade deal, this would have loosened the bolts on U.S. copyright policies, which are based largely on the history of Euro/American trade in copyrightable works.

With that preamble in mind, be prepared for much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the “digital rights” groups if the U.S. Trade Representative concedes to a request by the House Judiciary Committee to remove language from the USMCA (new NAFTA) mirroring the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  

Also referred to as Section 512, these are the provisions under which internet service providers (ISPs) are held immune from liability for hosting copyright infringing material that is uploaded by users; and safe harbor language has been echoed in FTAs since passage of the DMCA in 1998.  Why the change in doctrine?  In its September 17 letter to the USTR, the Committee stated …

“The U.S. Copyright Office is expected to produce a report on Section 512 around the end of this year, the result of a multi-year process that started in 2015.  Moreover, the European Union has recently issued a copyright directive that includes reforms to its analogous safe harbor for online platforms, which may have an impact on the U.S. domestic policy debate.  Without taking a position on that debate in this letter, we find it problematic for the United States to export language mirroring this provision while such serious policy discussions are ongoing.”  

Quite simply, the DMCA has been under review for several years because it is not exactly working as intended.  In fact, neither of the two internet liability shields—neither Section 512 nor Section 230—has resulted in platform operators taking adequate voluntary action to mitigate harm on their platforms.  To the contrary, absolute immunity for web platforms fostered a culture of smug, self-important rationales for irresponsibility.  

Until major Silicon Valley executives had to start answering questions about data breaches and trust violations, they were the self-proclaimed  “fast movers and thing breakers,” insisting that if we all want progress (see innovation), we gotta let them break a few eggs, right?  Except those eggs were privacy; civil liberties; personal safety; decency; the rights of authors and inventors to protect the fruits of their labor; other labor rights while we’re at it; and the foundations of democracy itself.  Small price to pay for Facebook and YouTube, I guess.

In contrast to the ginned-up fears of “entrenching” century-old copyright regimes in trade agreements, the “digital rights” groups will no-doubt recommend entrenching law through FTAs with a much shorter and dodgier pedigree.  It took less than 20 years after passage of the DMCA to recognize that ISPs will use their liability shields to avoid taking adequate voluntary measures to mitigate harmful or illegal conduct on their platforms.

The logical conclusion many constituencies are now coming to with regard to internet service providers—and this is hardly a revelation—is that tech corporations, like any other, will avoid incurring costs, either direct or opportunity, unless the potential liability will be even more expensive.  The House Judiciary Committee is right to put the brakes on safe harbor provisions in FTAs in order avoid calcifying demonstrably flawed policy.