Respect to a Music Production industry after the turn of the century, its no longer necessary and unjust few blee aggregates copyright owners rights today. Fortunately, legislation has been introduced to begin to address this and i thank members of the subcommittee for supporting the songwriters equity act. Public performance royalties represent the large income for song writers. Its inherently a free market right. Its not regulated by law. But because the department of justice imposed consent degrees in 1941, incredibly, those decrees are still in effect today. They do not sunset. Under these world war ii era decrees song writers and publishers may not negotiate their value in a free market t a federal judge in the Southern District of new york dictates how much a songwriter is paid. Last week they have announced they are undertaking a review of these decrees and we hope song writers will receive fair market compensation. Using music in movies, television shows, music videos and youtube, this is a free market right. It is not regulated by law. It is not regulated by Consent Decrees. Because the market is a free market, its a useful barometer for assessing the fair market value of songs. Not surprisingly, given both copyrigh copyrights, a negotiator in a free market, the practice is to pay both copyright owners under the same terms. Theres an amazing amount of Digital Content available to consumers on the itunes store, Google Play Store t amazon store, movies, books, video games, magazines, television shows, recorded music are all available and all of those copyrights are negotiated and licensed in the free market. Only the content produced by song writers is uniquely singled out and subject to heavy regulation. On behalf of those song writers, i ask you to let them be paid fairly by letting them be free. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Knife . Thank you. Members of the subcommittee, i thank you for inviting me to testify today. I currently serve as the executive director of the Digital Media association for dema for short. Were a nationally recognized trade association that represents many of the leading players in the Digital Music marketplace. Youre probably familiar with many of our larger members which include Companies Like amazon. Com, apple, itunes, google, youtube, microsoft and rhapsody. But there are several Additional Companies we represent that play an equally important part in the development of the Digital Music system. In little more than a decades worth of tile, the role our companies have grown to play within the Music Industry is simply amazing. With respect to consumers, our ingenuity has provided fans of online music with access to new services and offerings that satisfy almost every deceivable price point. From Online Music Stores to on demand streaming to Internet Radio and more recently, cloudbased offerings. With respect to copy wright owners, our efforts have meant the creation of new Revenue Streams that have rewarded content creators and their agents for their creative endeavors. Sound exchange, for example, recently reported a 312 increase in the total sum of royalties it paid to recording artists and labels in 2012 versus 2008. This is thanks to moneys paid by Services Operating under the section 114 compulsory license, many of which we represent. With respect to songwriter successes, as cap and bmi recently recorded record high revenues of 944 million each in 2013. Meanwhile, the smallest of the three, has witnessed its revenue grow from just 9 million in 1994 to 167 million. All of these accomplishments have come as dema members have been able to successfully convert would be pirates into legitimate users of paying Music Services. Its safe to say that if we were writing from a blank slate today, no one would develop the Current System were asked to operate under here. In the remaining minutes of my time, i want to offer just a few thoughts on what essential elements should be included in any future music licensing reform package followed by a quick evaluation of why i think two recently introduced proposals in particular constitutes a bad public policy. First, a 21est century regime thats properly suited to handle the needs of an industry and Consumer Base thats consistently demanding legal access to content when and where they want it has to include, one, efficiency, two, transparency, three, safeguards that adequately protect licensies from anticompetitive behavior, four, a level Playing Field among competitors, and five, it should shield licensies from risks when those licensies are acting diligently and in good faith. Greater efficiency has two parent benefits. For licensies it guarantees new products and services can be brought to the market sooner which helps us in our fight against online pirates. For creators, greater efficiency will mean less of the royalties we pay for the right to perform or district content will be used to cover administrative expenses. Last year alone, more than 200 million in royalties paid by music licensies was redirected to cover Pro Operating expenses. Greater efficiency would mean fewer middle men and more money in the pockets of song writers. The importance of transparency is robvious. The creator misses out on a royalty and the general public is deprived of the benefit of enjoying his or her creativity. Greater transparency provides full advise vilt into other services paid and the way theyre administered by the agencies and the affiliates that the artists rely on. This in turn will allow artists to make better informed decisions to maximize the net payments they ultimately receive. In the area of competition, the need to protect licensies from anticompetitive behavior may be greater now than at any time in history due to the recent consolidation in the recording and Music Publishing industries. Some, particularly in the context of licensing of musical works, have taken issue with this notion and even ask that certain requirements be modified. Before taking this considerable step, we would strongly urge policy makers to review the history of the Consent Decrees which is attached to my testimony and also recent federal court cases which have made note of continuing anticompetitive behavior carried out by various parties acting on behalf of the Music Publishing industry. Further on the subject of competition, a good Competitive Landscape requires a level Playing Field among competitors. For several years web casters have had one simple request. Namely, that the same rate setting standard thats currently used to determine performance royalties for cable and satellite radio be used for Internet Radio. Record labels have relied on this standard since the 70s while cable and satellite providers have relied on it while licensing sound recordings since the 90s. Your time is about expired. Excuse me . Your time is expired. Im sorry. Id like to close by saying we should consider the collective issues that i raised when we consider an omni bus approach to reform. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Mr. Oneil . Mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member, subcommittee members, thank you for inviting me today. I am honored to be here. Id like to thank congressman collins for sponsorship of the songwriter equity act. Its being well received by my members. The im Michael Oneil and president and ceo of bmi. Ive been working with song writers, composers and publishers and businesses for 20 years. We were founded in 1939 as a not for profit company, and bmi today is one of the worlds leading performing Rights Organizations. Under copyright law, whenever music is played in the public, the creators of that music, people like lee thomas miller, are entitled to be compensated. We represent over 600,000 song writers and publishers and license their over 8. 5 million works to businesses across the country. We also work with rights societies all over the world, wherever american song writers music is used to make sure theyre paid for it. Today through the marriage of technology and artistic creativity, Digital Media has democratized the industry. It has knocked down barriers and created more opportunities for creators than ever before. While this is promising, as these new innovations come out, bmis is to ensure that our song writers and publishers are paid fairly. That mission, however, is being frustrated by an out of date Regulatory Framework. Bmi is governed under a Consent Decree which dates back to 1966 and beyond. Essentially were locked into a model that might have been appropriate when the beatles first came to america. That might have been appropriate when you had to get out of your chair or sofa to turn the channel on your television, bull but it isnt property in todays modern world. Here are three proposals to bring it into the 20th century. First, publishers do not currently have the flexibility to decide when they choose to utilize bmi and when they can license those works exclusively for themselves. Bmis rate court has held that publishers must choose between giving their works completely to bmi for all uses or not joining bmi at all. A publisher that wishes to license one Digital Service on its own without the involvement of bmi must pull out from any other use, thus recreating what bmi does across the 600,000 businesses we license. Publishers should be allowed to decide what businesses and what rights they wish to convey to bmi to license and what businesses and which rights they want to license themselves. This will require a change to our Consent Decree. Second, we need to be able to license more than just a performing right. Under copyright law, businesses often need multiple rights, especially online. Why make them seek out multiple people to get those licenses . Given the expertise and experience and the relationships with both the Business World and the creative world, i believe bmi is that one stop shop, a single destination where businesses can secure every right they need. Our decree should make that clear. The bmi and rate courts should be modernized. We propose replacing the Current Court with an arbitration model. The result were seeking would be faster, less expensive, and be more market responsive for all parties. Finally, the Consent Decree should sunset when the basis for those decrees no longer exist. As bmis relative strength in a marketplace is reduced by many new entrants, new participants competing with bmi, we should be allowed to operate on behalf of our writers on the same terms and conditions as our competitors do. In conclusion, bmis song writers and publishers face a Competitive Landscape. In order to meet those challenges, all participants need to provide greater flexibility and operate more officially. When song writers are unable to make a sustainable living, we are all impacted. The department of justice is undertaking a look at our decree and we are very excited and look forward to working with them to make those changes. On behalf of all bmi song writers across all 50 states, i thank you for your time. Thank you mr. Oneil. Good morning. My name is will hoit and i am the executive director of the music licensing committee. We represent 1200 legal commercial television stations concerning Music Performance rights and has on behalf of its members been involved in negotiations, arbitration and litigation for decades that represent composers and publishers. Based on tmlcs decades of experience, the Consent Decree restrictions must stay in place and consideration should be given to extending these types of restrictions to any entity that aggregates or bundles the power rightfully vested in individuals by congress. Local stations broadcast network, syndicated and locally produced programs. In most syndicated programs, stations do not selector control the music used in these programs. Theyre required to broadcast these programs precisely as produced and recorded by third Party Producers and then required to license the public performances embedded in the program. The stations license these performances through as cat, bmi or c sack. Each station must take a license from each pro. Historically, they have only issued licenses that permit the use of all of the aggregated copyrights in their respiratory without regard to the performance actually made by local stations. This is the socalled blanket license. Decades ago bmi entered into decrees with the department of justice to settle antitrust actions commenced by the department. These decrees have been instrumental in providing stations the right to reasonable license terms in light of the extraordinary market power that as cap and bmi enjoy by virtue of their Performance Rights and insist ans on licensing those copyrights on a selective or bundled basis. Independent federal judges have ruled that understand the Consent Decrees, some of the rights to perform music in the stations programming were licensed directly from the copyright owner. They have helped facilitate direct licensing within the industry and therefore more competition. These alternative Licensing Arrangements and fee structures were denounced by as cap and bmi, fought for and would not have been possible without the Consent Decree provisions. As explained in my written testimony, c sack is not subject to the restrictions and is the subject of a class action suit brought by local Television Broadcasters with support from the tmlc. The licensing practice of c sack demonstrated what any Performance Rights collected or any other organization will do without the types of restrictions contained in the Consent Decrees. The motion was denied in the class action antitrust case brought by television. The judge observed it is undispute that c sack possesses monopoly power and described the evidence of actions taken in recent years that are specifically banned by the as cap and bmi Consent Decrees. Attempts by tmlc to gain access to Music Performance information maintained by pros about the music contained have often been denied on the grounds that such music use information is supposedly proprietary. A general policy that requires collectives to publicly release information on which roadwayty distributions are based would help promote a more competitive market. We stand ready to cooperate with creators, collectives and other users to find Common Grounds on legislation that would promote competitive market values for the right to perform musical works. That is, legislation that will fulfill the constitutional provision to enhance the public interest. Thank you all very much for your time. Thank you. Mr. Griffin . Youre our cleanup hitter today, mr. Griffin. Excellent. I think im used to doing that. My name is is jim griffin. Im a media technologist which i think means im the panels geek. Thats appropriate. 20 years ago this coming saturday when i was the director of technology for geffen records, we released the first full length song online arrow smiths head first on june 14, 1994. Its been 20 years now. There are so many issues that are at the forefront of todays hearing. Im fascinated by all of them. But im going to focus on only one issue. Thats the growing need for registries, for databases, comprehensive databases of information related to creative works. Not just music, so my remarks, while they focus on music, really span the field of copyrights. Im going to make just a half a dozen fundamental points. The first point is that our goal should be to make it fast, easy and simple to pay for music, movies, books, art, other expressions of ideas such that the market can work with efficiency. If we make it fast, easy and simple to pay, more people will. Secondly, we need comprehensive public directories. It is unnecessarily difficult to pay or license from those difficult to identify or locate. We must work to record, e enumerate and update public databases that gets creators paid and works license. Two years ago i coauthored a paper for the law journal. The title tells the story, and thats all of the story you need to know without rights enumerated, theyre very difficult to respect. My third key point is that we should include all creators when we build these databases. [ inaudible ] mr. Griffin, you may want to pull that mic closer to you. Is this better . Okay. I guess i have two minutes to repeat a lot of what i said. So i will go very, very quickly here for you. Just to repeat that my name is is jim griffin. Im the panels geek, the media technologists here excuse me, sir, we heard it all. We heard it clearly. Got you then, thats fine by me. The fourth key point that im going to make is that we need geids and thats globally unique identifiers, no less than a bank check or a credit card. We have to have a number for each song, each book, each thing that we are trying to track. Simply using the title or the artist name is not enough. There are so many different ways to spell the creators name or the title that it makes matching extremely difficult, and yes, its true, we do rely upon semantics matching absent globally uniqu