Pay artists for radio air play. She thought, perhaps, finland was an exception in paying artists and that the rest of the world didnt pay artists. Their radio royalties. But it turns out that it was the other way around. The u. S. Was the exception in not paying radio royalties. There are two other countries, iran and north korea. Well, last summer, yanita proudly became a u. S. Citizen but in doing so shes now a citizen of a democratic country that doesnt honor am fm radio pay for its artists and she suffers a loss of significant income. This is not the American Dream that she envisioned. Her story shows that we need to fix the disparities in the current music licensing system to make sure artists are fairly compensated. If we dont, we risk losing the innovation from creators like her because they will no long very the incentive to create for the public. And so, id like to ask a question to Paul Williams. One area of agreement between you and the music licenseees on the panel appears of the importance of reserving the collective license mog tell that they pioneered. You made a compelling case that this is at risk of crumbling. Clearly that would be a bad result for music licenseees. What would that mean for the songwriters and composers, particularly youre smaller independent and upandcoming members . It would be devastating. First of all, thank you, congresswoman chu, for your advocacy. Youve been a great friend and we appreciate that. If the dissent decree is not modified our publishers are looking to withdraw their rights and this h if they do that it fragments the system and it becomes more expensive and less fsht. What we have to do is to look at the very, very quick adjustment to this system. But essentially, the entire Consent Decree is, at this point, is not like going into battle with one hand tied behind your back that youre going to fight where. One hand behind your back that youre going to feed your family with. As far as if performance and the sound recording, i absolutely believe that everybody should its a sad, sad story hearing of someone having a loss of income when they become an american citizen. We believe that everybody that contributes to the performance of music and creation of music should be honored. Its not an excuse to pay less to the people who create the music. We need to find a balance. And i think the trick is to let the fair market decide that for us. Thank you for that. My next question is, for both Chris Harrison of pandora and rosanne cash. Last year pandora embarked on a campaign to rally artists to sign a petition to congress in support of Internet Radio but it was during the time the Internet Radio freedom act was being debated in congress would have actually resulted in a cut to artists royalties. Pandoras letter to artists stated they simply wanted to have the artists voices heard and what some artists discovered this was not the actual intent. The implication for the artist signing the petition at that particular time is they were supporting cuts to themselves so mr. Harris, can you tell why pandora enlisted the help of artists and miss cash can you tell us what you and the Creative Community felt when this was happening . Part of my opening remarks i noted that pandora plays 100,000 recording artists every month. And 80 of those dont get played on terrestrial radio. A large part of singer and singer songwriters who value pandora because it is the only outlet or Distribution Platform available for them to find an audience that loves their music. Miss cash . That is what a lot of us are calling the exposure argument. That were seduced into thinksing that if we allow these performances without pay, that well get exposure. Therefore, drive consumers to buy our records. That may or may not be true. But the point still remains that we dont have control over those copyrights and were not paid fair compensation. Were not paid fair market rates. And as i said before, theres to transparency about this. Its somewhat ma may nip tip. They use our music as a loss leader to draw people in and they make the money. And to confirm what mr. Williams said, the place that artists have the most control are sync licenses. Ive given my songs for free, my choice, to College Students making their first film who want to use my song. Thats great. I want to support them. Ive negotiated a fair rate with Popular Television show that wanted to use my song. I have control over those things and thats the bottom line. That and fair compensation. Thank you, i yield back. I would like to give each member a chance to respond to this in writing, because theres too many. And i wont get through. If you would be so kind to tell me in your opinion, what a free market is. And what a fair market is. Comparing the two. Because i hear that those terms thrown around. Free market. Fair market. I asked the last panel to do this and im asking you to do the same and get that to me in writing if you care to do so. Ive been having meetings. My staff and i have been meeting with people have that a dog in this fight continually. Weve been doing it for months. If someone has not been invited to a meeting contact my office. Congressman tom or anybody the vice chair of this committee, let us know because i think we covered all the bases but theres many, many people involved in this. Im trying to get a consensus. I dont Want Congress to sit down and have to sort this out and ill show you why in a minute. This is very complex. Ive been studying this for months and talking to many people and heres the reason i dont Want Congress to sit down if we can get a consensus among everyone who has skin in the game. Ill read you a list of those individuals and i probably missed one or two. These are the partys that weve come to the conclues that are involved in this, excludeing the public. Songwriters, movie score composers. Performance rights, organizations, pros, skuch as bmi, and ascaff, royalty collectors for digital music, sound exchange, artists performers. Terrestrial radio, broadcasters. Satellite radio, cable tv radio. Digital radio, streaming, digital download. Providers like itunes. Record labels, copyrite owners. Music promoters, consumers, listeners, my cigarette publishers, collective music organizations. Music academy. Grammys. Recording engineers, copyrite offices. Groups that may hold exceptions likely prayers, universities, churches and im sure i missed someone. You see the litany of names and individuals and groups and entities we have involved here. Now what im going to show you for the record and without objection, id like this ask sche schematic that i have in front of me. I have a beautiful color display here on my ipad. You wont see it but ill hold it up. You may be able to understand some of it. This is an example of the breakdown and these are on both sides. So i have three documents here of the breakdown of the schematic, like a corporation would be set up. President , ceo, Vice President s, et cetera. This is the complication of the legislation that we have and those involved. Look at the subcategories underneath the subcategories underneath the subcategories on both sides of these documents. And the third one that i hold up here, as well. Then we get into issues such as payment. Whos going to be paid. How are they going to be paid . What are the courts going to do about it . And i do not even have the court schematic here showing the process one would go through if there are appeals. So i think i got my point across here about a complicated this is. How complex this is. But were also talking about in a fairness and unjust to songwriters and writers and individuals who are not being compensated, particularly those because of the legislation from 1972 prior to 1972, and that had something to do with state law, which is an issue that i think can be dealt with today. So as trying to be an individual that is learning as much as possible about this. Hearing from everyone. Some of you are a little disappointed because i havent said which way im leaning on the. As a prosecutor, i want all the information at my fingertips. Think about sitting down with us in a group, facetoface, looking at each other eyeball to eyeball, and say no instead of over the phone or an email. Maybe we can get together and you folks can help us get a consensus on this and that will retissue. I had a Monumental Task but well attempt it. My time has run out so thank you very much. Mr. Conyers. Thank you, chairman marino. Let me ask Paul Williams this question. Do you believe that the Consent Decree system severely limits ascaffs member from achieving competitive market rates for their works. Congressman conyers, you absolutely go to the heart of the reason that im here. To address something you just spoke about, one of the things were denied because the Consent Decree has the right to bundle rights. All these different places for all these wonderful uses of our music with one of the things about changing the dissent decree is we hope well be given at some point is the right to bundle it will rights. Its exhausting for people to go from one place to another to another for these rights. We can handle this there are two copyrites. A copyrite for the original material and a copyright for the recorded material. I think that it incredibly complicated what would be a great solution is to bring it back to us and let us let us control our future. Let us control our copyright. The last thing we need is to throw more of this into the governments lap to deal with it for us. So the decree hadnt accommodated the rapid and dramatic changes technologically that were all talking about . And we have to end up in a rate court on top of it all, and i think that this is the new situation that weve been in since the decree and im hoping that all of our members on the committee will take this into account. Now i want to say that broadcast radio has played an Important Role in the lives of people all across the country. Broadcasts have educated listeners to important event, emergencies, and a lot of new music. Including jazz, i might add. And well hear we want to work with the broadcasters to continue to do this work that just gets down to the community all the communities. Now, i just want if theres anybody of the nine witnesses here that oppose creating an am fm performance right, would you raise your hands so ill know who you are . We got a couple hands raised. And new that youve been identified and branded propertily, well know how to proceed but i thank you for your candor and frankness about this. Now, let me just ask, has the lack of im going to ask this to im going to ask one of the hand rangers, warfield, has the lack of a Public Performance right for terrestrial radio impacted the overall music marketplace . Mr. Conyers, i would say, ive been in this industry for over 37 years. Whats always been true during a period of time is the relationship that radio stations or Record Companies have had. We supported one another consistently through that period of time to the point that were looking at an industry here, Recording Industry, even with the challenges that it has like the radio industry has its challenges still the strongest Recording Industry in the world. I mean, ive heard remarksbility who we could be with that were not proud of but there are we have an industry Recording Industry here thats larger than any industry, any Recording Industry sthathank you. One question to miss cash before my time expires. Its about the respect act that i introduced with our colleague, congressman holding. Do you think it would address the payment disparity and do you think it important that we fix the loophole in the copyright protection for some recordings before a 1972 which refuses to pay the older artists . I thank you for introducing that bill. Of course i think that we have to fix that loophole. The example i gave you about my fair, his royalties, going to someone else, any father, who did a cover verse of his song, its hard to even understand how that could be possible. But these legacy artists, some of them, theyre growing older. Theyre ill, the ones that are still around, they would have to go on the road when they would rather not to make up for the money they would have received from their royalties. Its heartbreaking. I see this all the time. I know those people in that generation that are performing that are still around. Thank you so much. I yield back. Even though you exposed certain panelists i think you can walk the halls safely. Im more worried about them than me. I wont go there. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman had said he wants to do comprehensive copyright reform and im going to take this opportunity to challenge all of you since you sort of represent, no kidding, the spectrum with the width and breadth of the problem in music, both written and, obviously, the broadcast of the performance. And well go back as we often do here, especially for the nonlawyers who were here on behalf of the constitution, to the cause. And im leaving words out because i only want to have the part related to copyright not the part related to patent. The constitution clearly says we have to promote the progress of useful art for a limited time on behalf of the authors exclusive right to the respective writings. Now it doesnt talk about the performance but weve all come to appreciate that a performance, is, in fact, part of that structure of writing. The constitution is an interesting document to go back to because sometimes its the illustrative that all of the mistakes that we on this side and president s have made during their time doing our job. Weve totally screwed up your industry relative to the constitution. If i read the constitution very clearly, although to promote it says, in fact, what we do in the way of granting you exclusive rights for a limited time is for the purpose, of, in fact, enhancing commerce. I dont believe that the founders ever thought that the promote would be to exclude a performance from being paid if, in fact, the owner of that who had the exclusive right, which to me is the right to exclude, didnt want it to be played for free. And, yet, we dont have that right and i join with mr. Conyers for years in trying to rectify that. But i think theres a bigger problem here today and id like yall to comment on it from your respective positions starting with miss cash. If, in fact, the intent has always been exclusive right, and ill read that back, right to exclude, belongs to the author or to the performer, or to be honest, to the many people that are part of that collective process that well just call a right, if that right were to be restored, wouldnt we essentially eliminate all of these court decisions. All of these consent judgments and most of the laws that weve helped to perpetuate including the exclusions and wed be down to congress determining that there had to be a fair use under free speech and so on. Wed want to have sam. Ing but not simpling as a ring ton, those kinds of things and wouldnt we then empower all of you to come together, mr. Williams, come together and decide that collectively youre going to offer your rights through peopling or individually, youll retain your rights if youre just say, the beatles. Isnt one of the fundamental things we should consider here, scrapping generations of legislation that now causes us to infinitely try to figure out whether in fact, pandora can effectively compete against broadcasters and effectively compete against satellite or effectively compete . Im seeing all of you wanting to get a level playingfield but not give you can the playing advantage you have, if you have one. And i think congress do that. Ill start down at the end. How do you see the possibility of a scrapping . Almost everything weve done and then giving the industry an opportunity to rebuild against the original intent of the constitution . Can i say that the question itself gave me hope. Thank you. That was so well stated. I would hope that exactly what you just said. That restoring, although i dont know if restoring is the right word because it was never there, performance royalty, would solve so many of these problems that you could then build from the ground up to created a new paradigm. I dont know but i hope so. I know that for every mick jagger in the world, there are 10,000 musicians who are in the trenches. And theyre automatic i thinker. And theyre all younger, too. And they depend on those royalties that theyre not getting. And, you know, the performance royalty, ill say this quickly, is kind of its kind of a way saying music should be free. If music should be free and im willing to have that discussion, when musicians arent the only ones who arent being paid. And i really want to hear from the broadcasters, too. Youve inherited your Business Model. You didnt create it. Your Companies Owners bought, based on a value that we put in that when mr. Conyers and i tried to change the law, to a certain ebs stent were taking away value you already bought and paid for and i want to be sensitive to everyone at the table has inherited an unfair deal in some way, please. The red line has illuminated so well hear from two witnesses, darrell. Who is most motivated to answer . Please. Well, let me touch on what mr. Marino was talking about. A fair market is a free market with a level playingfield that adequately again states all creators but serves the public interest. So if we crap everything and start from scratch, that should be the guiding principal. How do we make sure that small creators, big creators and the public, all their interests are well balanced . I think its something that the congress should consider. And, you know, is part of that consideration please take into account the concentration of ownership in the Music Industry and as you think about who is sitting across the table to negotiate the right, who actually is that . And in many cases, it isnt miss cash. Its universal music or sony or warner and on both the label side as well as the publishing side. The concentration that i go out every day and try to negotiate direct licenses and over the last six years ive negotiated 100 direct licenses with the Music Industry and none of them with major lab