we want that sampling but not sampling as a ring tone necessarily, those kinds of things? wouldn't we then empower all of you to come together, mr. williams, come together and decide to collectively you're going to offer your rights through pooling or individually you're going to retain your rights if you're just say, the beatles? . .

>> i don't 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 they're all younger. >> they're all younger too. [laughter] and they depend on those royalties that they're not getting. and, you know, lack of a performance royalty, i'll just say this quickly, is kind of, it's kind of a way of saying

music should be free. if music should be free, i'm willing to have that discussion when musicians aren't the only ones who aren't being paid. >> and i really do want to hear from the broadcasters, too, because you've inherited your business model. you didn't create it. your companies' owners bought based on a value that we put in that when mr. conyers and i try to change the law to a certain extempt, we're taking away -- extent, we're taking away value you've bought and paid for, and i want to be sensitive to everyone at the table has -- >> the red light has illuminated, so we'll hear from two witnesses, darrell. >> who's most motivated to answer? please. and mr.-- >> well, let me touch on what mr. marino was talking about. a fair market is a free market

with a level playing field that adequately compensates all creators but also serves the public interest. so if we scrap everything and start from scratch, that should be the guiding principle. how do we make sure that small creators, big creators and the public, all of their interests are well balanced. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. you know, i think it's something that the congress should consider, and, you know, and as part of that consideration, please take into account the concentration of ownership in the music industry. and as you think about who's sitting across the table to negotiate the right, who actually is that? and in many cases it isn't ms. cash, it's universal music, it's sony, it's warner. and on both the label side as well as the publishing side. the concentrations that -- i go

be out every day and try and negotiate direct licenses. and over the last six years, i've negotiated a hundred direct licenses with the music industry, none of them with major labels. so -- >> gentleman's time has expired. sorry to cut you off, darrell, but the -- >> my questioning time ran out, but answering time, i thought, was unlimited, mr. chairman. i'm only kidding, thank you. >> thank you. [laughter] the wished yes -- distinguished gentleman from florida. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thanks for holding today's hearing. it's really easy to decide, for some, that the way things work together today is the only way that they can work in the future or that what is by all accounts an absurdly complex system that's developed over the past hundred years deserves all the credit for the thriving cultural treasure that is the american music legacy. certainly, some aspects of the system have helped, but too many obstacles that the music industry has grown stronger by

simply working around. too frequently, revisions over the previous decades have ended up being both reactive and all too off parochial, preserving one element without making enough effort to look at music licensing as a whole. and while it's tempting to point fingers and there has been plenty of that today, i think it's helpful to recognize that everyone has the opportunity, everyone, everyone at this panel, our previous panel, has the opportunity to benefit from new growth in markets if, as mr. marino had said earlier, we can agree on a basic framework that incentivizes and rewards creators while giving companies who profit from music a fair and transparent way to do so. our goal's got to be to fix the system so that everyone has an opportunity to you can seed together. to succeed together. and new interests have a chance to continue transforming the way we listen to music in the future. so that's, i think, how we ought to approach this. there are somish i shoes that jump out at us, and before i get

into my questions, i wanted to throw out one example of what i think represents the failures of the patchwork system, specifically, the pre-'72 distinction. this, for the youngsters in the crowd, is an album. [laughter] >> yea. >> this album is neil young's "harvest" which includes legendary songs like "old man" and "heart of gold." it was released on february 14, 1972. the precise cutoff for pre-'72 recordings is february 15, 1972. that means that think track from this album of 1972 can be played without paying for it. but if it had been recorded on february 16th, released on february 16th, just a day after its release, neil young's songs from this album would be covered with full federal copyright protection. now, mr. frear, you said earlier

in an exchange with mr. nadler that you believe everyone should be paid. why shouldn't that include legacy artists? >> well, i believe it should. i think congress has had two shots at this and has rendered its opinion both times, first back in 1972 when it decided to distinguish -- for reasons i'm not familiar with -- between recordings before that date and after it, and then the second time 20 years ago when it granted the sound recording performance right and did not extend that right to pre-'72. >> so if the congress acted today, you would acknowledge that that's consistent with what you said earlier, that everyone should get paid? >> well, i -- >> you're supportive of those efforts? >> i would be supportive of closing the loophole that mr. conyers referred to, that loophole includes terrestrial radio as well as -- >> i appreciate that. let me get to mr. christian who said something earlier i appreciated, mr. frear. i think it helps us focus a lot on what we're dealing with. you said in your testimony that

with particular reference to the recurring demand by the recording industry for sound recording performance right to be imposed on terrestrial radio, understand, you said, that the radio industry is not some vast pot of riches that can tapped as a bailout for a recording industry that's failed to execute a digital strategy that addresses a decline in its own brick and mortar income. congress unambiguously intended that in exchange for unique support, terrestrial radio should be treated differently from other platforms, and you say that premise hasn't changed. and then you go on to explain that any change in our approach will be met with opposition because it would cripple a radio industry that's been financially treading water for years now. i'd respectfully suggest that this is what we're trying to get at today. the going from the claim that there shouldn't be a performance right because the music guys haven't been able to figure out their industry and we shouldn't impose it on the radio industry which you acknowledge is, as you

put it, treading water, has been treading water financially for years now, that doesn't help us solve the rob, help us address -- the problem, help us address this position that we're in. and when you as was included in this document that was referenced, i think, mr. warfield, in your testimony that says that conventional wisdom is that radio air play stimulates record sales and it quotes a study from a law review article in 1974. and you talk about, it talk abouts about a survey of rock music buyers that found that 80% of albums were purchased because a particular track was first heard over the radio, but that survey was conducted in 1972. i acknowledge the role that broadcast radio plays, the important role that it plays in our communities, but for us to go at this issue as if where we stand today in 2014 is somehow

unchanged from the industry as it existed decades ago, i don't think is appropriate, and i don't think it's fair for all of the rest of us new market entrants, musicians and the rest. i hope that as we go forward in this debate, we can acknowledge the important role that everyone on this panel plays in furthering the music industry and providing unbelievable music and outlets for ms. cash's work and for mr. williams' work and for all the members. but let's do it in a way that recognizes that if we only take the parochial view of our industry, then we're never going to come up with something that works for everyone. we're probably going to fail, and that might satisfy some of you for a short time, but we're going to be right back at this again in a couple of years if we haven't had a chance to take that full correction. i yield back. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, gentleman. >> thank you, chairman. glad to see so many of you are having this discussion.

i particularly have a keen interest in internet radio. i happen to believe that's a big part of our future, it's where i see my kids enjoying music that they probably never would have seen or heard over wise. they wouldn't have gotten it, quite frankly, on terrestrial radio, wouldn't have been able to buy the albums we did in the past. i personally have been exposed to a whole host of artists that i now enjoy on a regular basis, but i would never have herald of before. i'm also deeply concerned that the marketplace for internet radio really isn't working. we can point to one who's been highly successful in the pandora, i enjoy them, but it does concern me it's not much more prevalent than that, and even under their model they're not making the kind of money even toe some people want -- even though some people want to attack the ownership for making money along the way. the reality is the copyright royalty board has twice tried to set the royalties, and twice the

united states congress needed to come in at the last hour and help save the deal and change it and make it so it would work. and so we don't want to keep doing that. anytime you have to go to congress to get a fix, it's probably not going turn out the way anybody wants it to attorney out. concern to turn out. so with that, i have deep concerns about how do we make this a viable business model going forward so that everybody can win along the way? and everybody can get paid along the way. we have two standards; the 801b and the willing buyer, willing seller which i think is grossly misnamed and not have all the information at your fingertips to enter those discussions is grossly misleading. so my question, let's go to mr. sherman, if i could. from what i've seen and my limited view point, you've been a little inconsistent. on one hand, you sort of like the 801b and sometimes you don't like it depending on which side of the situation you're on.

can you help clarify that for me? >> we're fine to change it to a willing buyer/willing seller platform, we don't want to pay on one standard and not get paid on the same standard, but we think that the right standard is willing buyer/willing seller for all creators across all platforms. >> and would that include in the negotiation having all the information available for all parties? is there anything you would withhold from those negotiations? >> well, certainly the crb process has all the information available to all parties. how information can be disseminated when there are a lot of private deals with nondisclosure agreements and so on becomes more complicated, obviously -- >> that's what i'm asking you, what would you do? it seems to me you've got to come to the table with all the information and not just hide parts of it, which is what's happened in the past. would you agree or disagree with that? >> i don't think anything's been hidden because all of the information becomes available to all of the parties, and all of

the lawyers who are litigating the cases have the information. a lot of the settlements take place after that information has completely circulated. you know, one other thing i'd like to comment on is you talk about whether internet radio is profitable and so forth, but you look at a company like amazon which has a $75 billion profit, excuse me, capitalization rate, everybody would consider them a huge success, but their profit last year was 1%, $274 million on $70 billion -- >> well, this is part of the concern. some of biggest players into this music world on the one hand it's a good thing to see amazon and apple get into this part of it, but when you saw rolling stone and mtv and you saw all these other organizations try to get into this space whose forte is in the music industry, they've never been able to make it a go. and they started into this, and then they had to let go of it.

yahoo! -- my time so short. i need to go to mr. harrison. i want to understand what would happen to pandora if congress had not stepped in and fixed what happened at the copyright royalty board. >> well, the crb rates are, obviously, part of the public record. they are multiples of what the negotiated settlement was, the pure play rates. i guess you just have to do the math. obviously, if we're paying 60-70% of our revenue under the pure play rates, if the crb rates are two or three times that, i'm not very good at math, but i don't think at 120% of revenue we can make it up on volume. >> what do we need to do to insure more transparency, and why don't you have more competitors? >> it's an interesting question. i think you've touched on it a little bit. the rates certainly are an issue. the entrants we've seen recently are all engaged in other lines of business -- apple, google,

amazon -- and music is really an ancillary product that's designed to sell the primary service. we've had east village radio which is a longstanding internet radio service in mr. conyers -- i'm sorry, mr.ed thatler's district, and -- nadler's district, and that recently went out of business because they couldn't afford the royalty rates. certainly, if you look at the comments that came in from the copyright office's notice of inquiry, from a large number of constituents including mr. frear, there is some process improvements that needs to be made in the copyright royalty board that would improve the process and potentially improve the outcome. >> i wish i had an opportunity to hear all of your answers but, mr. chairman, thank you for your indulgence and the extra time. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chair. my colleague, mr. issa, had asked a question, and i'm not sure everybody got a chance to respond, i just want to ask it slightly differently. i believe he said if we were to scrap copyright and start over, what would you like to see

changed. my question is, is could you briefly explain one provision that you would amend in the current law? and i know that several of you didn't have a chance to respond, so those of you that didn't, maybe you would like to take the opportunity now. mr. warfield. >> from the radio -- [inaudible] i'm sorry. i know mr. christian and i represented radio. we haven't had much to say here. a lot has been said about us, we have not had an opportunity -- >> well, take the opportunity now. >> -- to say much. you know, i'm hearing a lot of comments about, you know, the industry that provides free play for free promotion and has done it for 80 years. and we're talking about what's driving it, radio itself is driving it. i've heard comments here that radio because not drive record sales. congressman deutsche left, but there's a 2013 study recently issued that does indicate very clearly air play radio does drive sales, even in digital

platform they drive sales. we've got an industry here that has really helped put these other businesses, give them the opportunity to go out and create a new business model. unfortunately, even on the radio side, we're not able to participate on the digital side. we pay into the system as it is now. we pay hundreds of millions of dollars to ascap, bmi and csac. we pay tens of millions of dollars to sound exchange, and we do participate on the digital side. many broadcasters, unfortunately, cannot make a go of that as other entrants in the digital arena have found. with the way the laws are written today, we cannot make money. that is not a model that's going to be a healthy one for any of the participants here. so from a nab perspective, we would very much like to see changes made in the streaming rate standards so that all of the participants here who all have concerns there can participate more fully and grow a platform that will benefit artists, writers, performers,

labels, all apartments here. all apartments here. >> other examples? anybody else? >> i think one of the things that we'd also like to see from congress is at some point in time if you all can define what a performance is. nobody has yet been able to tell us what a performance is. if you listen to sound exchange, they'll tell you that it's three seconds long. they won't tell you whether it's beginning, the middle or the end of what it is, so we're subjected to royalties that we can't even get a consensus as to what a royalty payment is for -- especially on the digital streaming part of it. on the other part, we really must ask for oversight, especially in the advent of new performing rights organizations that are forming right now. there are no barriers to entry for a performing rights organization. you need a catalog, composers, whatever. and unless those rights are protected for the aggregators or some oversight, we run the risk

of finding as we have with csac where there are antitrust things. which is why the 801b is more 40 knowledge -- homogeneous than willing buyer/willing seller. we really do need this oversight for the industry. we've got 10,000 different licenses to be administered which is why the blanket license is important that we keep it in place, which is why the concept decree is important. otherwise you can imagine the madness of trying to find a way to deal with individual radio stations in your home district and every district up hear -- up here the give them a license, recordkeeping, everything else. and wal -- >> thank you, and then i want to move on before my time runs out. >> we do need transparency in terms of a definition of catalogs. we need to be able to find out on a tailly basis or whatever -- daily basis who owns what. >> thank you, and mr.-- i believe -- >> mr. williams, you look like

you'd like to respond. >> i'd like to respond to our friends at ray radio. first of all, i'm not so sure that the proper image has been presented to this committee. the fact of the matter is it isn't just pandora who last year alone noticed a nongap profit, but the head of clear channel, mr. bob pit match, announced just a few days ago that the i heart radio, terrestrial radio simulcast online, has 50 million users and has made several hundreds of millions of dollars, i believe, which i assure you is vastly in excess of the content costs from where we sit. >> thank you. >> secondarily, we have 500 more services now using the statutory licenses that sound change administers, 500 more than were there when i first testified before this committee. the majority of those 500 are broadcasters like those that mr. warfield is speaking about. >> mr. williams? >> going online.

>> you asked what we would change right now, it's thanks to, thanks to representative collins and jeffries, it's been offered to you right now which is the song writers' equity act. it fixes a small part of a really large problem for us, it fixes it immediately. i agree with what mr. christian says about the value of the blanket license. it's a wonderful way the come together and simplify this system for -- and for somebody like pandora, that's 70% of their income that is rolling out for royalty payments. i have to remind everybody that ascap is getting about 1 or 2% of that. i'm not sure -- i'm under oath, i won't say it's 1%, but it's very close to that. it's a tiny, tiny part of that. so i wouldn't pretend to tell you how to adjust your business model, but there's some way to do this so that music creators who create the one product you have can be properly compensated. >> thank you. >> gentlelady's time's expired. >> okay. >> the distinished gentleman from georgia, mr. collins.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one is sitting here today, one thing i have tried in this whole process and many of you on this panel but many of you in the second, third and fourth rows back have been in our offices, and we've talked many times. and, yes, the songwriter equity act is a issue that we have brought forward. there's been other issues from performance rights to others. i have tried to be very consistent is the one thing that i feel is that the creator in this process, there is a valuable, inherent property right there. i applaud the supreme court this morning for inherently seeing that there is a creative property right. now, that does not mean that the broadcasters and i will always get along. probably not. but that's okay. there are things in this debate that we can all look at. i was thinking about it just a few minutes ago as i listened to all of you, and one thing i've tried to do in this whole process is i've had interesting comments not to me.

i've heard about it when you go to other places so, yes, it comes back, is that i want to take an arm from one and a leg from another and fix this altogether. but what i have found in the last little bit is that what has to happen in this process is one bad business model five years ago could now be the business model today. and you don't need congress to come in and prop up either one of you. you need a process in which we can look at this, and we fix it from a holistic approach that says that everybody is included. that everybody has a stake at the table. the pie is enlarging. now, i thought it was interesting to hear just a second ago from my friend from pandora, a lot of these went out because they couldn't afford the rates. there's a lot of businesses in this country that go out of business because they can't afford their cost. that's an issue we have to deal with on both the broadcaster side and the digital side.

the performers and the copyright holders are in the middle. that's the one thing that i am looking at. one of the things that concerns me here though is that we're wanting many times to fix today's problem. and i've shared this with you when you come in. that's not my goal. my goal is to fix this problem when pandora was, wow, i used to remember when -- no offense to them, but i think the radio and my first listening to an eight-track tape was to her dad listening to "a boy named sue" live from san quentin. it all develops. so the thing you've got to understand here is that we come together, you've got to remember that the bottom line there is a property right interest that many of you at this table make very good money off of. and that has to be rewarded. at all levels. and i appreciate bringing in those background musicians and others.

the problem is, though, if you continue and if we continue in this route of saying, well, i've got to protect my model, and you've got to protect your model, and we don't get to that point, then my question is where are we at 20 years from now when this panel looks completely different? where are we at? so i open up a question to you. i don't want your answer for today where broadcasters say protect our terrestrial radio, pandora says look at our rates. where are we going to be so that we're not coming back, as my friend from utah said, every time there's a problem at the rate board we run to congress to fix it? the last thing you wanted to do, and i did counseling and divorce work. the last thing you wanted was the judge to make a decision. because in the end when the judge makes the decision, both parties are unhappy. when you make the decision, then we go -- so, mr. warfield, we've got a minute and ten. you've got 30 seconds, mr. williams, you've got 30 we coulds. tell me what you -- seconds. tell me what you envision so

we're not propping up bad models either way. >> i think there needs to be a close look at the digital rates to be this charge. we think that helps all of the stakeholders that are here. the one thing i would ask this committee to keep in mind is the consumer, the user. we talk about terrestrial radio, it is free. it remains free. no additional costs we have to incur. let's keep them in mind as we talk about what these other businesses, how this is going to be more efficient for them and more cost worthy. but the consumer needs to be considered here also. >> time. mr. williams. >> we have an expression in recovery, progress, not perfection. great progress is the songwriters equity act. that's a great beginning. the people we need to think about today are the young songwriters who are trying to have the life that i've had. i have a daughter who's a social worker. she got that because i was properly paid for the hard work i was doing. we can give more control back to the songwriters. yes, we don't want the judge to make all these decisions, but we

can move back to an arbitration panel which makes it a speedier, more efficient way to deal with our problems. i think that it's a process that is going to take longer than any of us want it to take, but if we don't fix, if we don't step into it and make that first little adjustment, people are going to wind up getting day jobs instead of writing songs for a living. >> the industry is moving forward. we're not moving backwards. it's not going to be automatic, as the song say, but overgot to move forward. you've all got to come to the table and talk about this. >> i thank the gentleman from georgia. the statement of the gentleman from louisiana, and i say to mr. richmond, if you promise not to show up at the ball game tonight, i'll give you ten minutes. [laughter] >> i think with ten minutes all i can do is get in trouble anyway, so i'll take the five. but thank you -- >> and the pitcher's mound. >> let me just pick up where my colleague, mr. collins, left off, and that is, you know, and i think mr. frear mentioned that

congress had two chances to get it right with the 1972 and the legacy royalties, and we did. all i can promise you is if we solve this problem, nobody be's going to like it, and it's probably going to be wrong. because we're not the subject matter experts on it. the technology moves so fast, and we will probably screw it up. but i say that to you all are at the table, you all should be in the room trying to figure out who can give and come to some sort of solution, and the other thing i would tell you all just to be honest is that nobody has a better bargaining position. because if we do, we'll probably start from scratch, and nobody will like the result. so that would just be my recommendation, and, you know, the comment was made earlier that for every mick jagger there's 10,000 arttists in the trenches? i think they all live in new orleans, by the way. [laughter] and i want to make sure that they have an opportunity to

continue to do and follow their passion and their dreams, but at the same time be compensated for it. and i tell people all the time when i go speak at schools, follow your dreams, do what you love. and if you do it well, you'll make a living doing it. and i want to be able to look those kids in the face in our performing arts schools and all those things in new orleans and actually mean it. and it has benefited so many people this new orleans, and i would just like it to continue and to be there for the long term. mr. warfield, let me just ask you a very direct question because we beat around the bush and nobody says -- what impact would it have to your industry if you all had to pay the performance -- i mean, to pay all the rights and royalties for what you play on the radio? ..

that i've have stationed. the communities in washington, d.c. continue to do that. not necessary to serve the stakeholders whether they'll benefit from what we do as broadcasters free. >> let me ask you a question. the station to talk about the closed, closed anyway. do you think that this would put, for example, clear channel at a business? >> there are many different sized broadcasters.

>> i'm using clear channel. >> i don't know -- their contributing and participating in the digital arena. we cannot afford to do the intimate way. we cannot afford the cost of participating, and i think everyone would like to see the pie grow, like to see the digital platform grow but not that expense of our companies. >> mr. frear, you mentioned if everybody contributed, 1972 was a number that congress picked, and are using if we decided to pick another number that went back further, as long as everybody had to pay, you all are okay with that? >> quite honest on this issue we been open to any number of solutions or years. ipad mini discussions with major labels over the years about whether not they don't want to find a way to compromise on this issue. i'm happy to work with the congress, happy to work with soundexchange and the major labels to find some appropriate ground in the middle that as a said before i don't know why the

choices were made and maybe there are other business reasons, policy reasons why the choices were made, ma were made and we are wide open to discussion. >> i see that my time is about to expire and i would just say again that i would love to have balance on this and make sure everybody at the table continues to thrive. would want to put anybody out of business and we don't want to send anyone to bankruptcy or influence anyone to stop following their dreams. so help us help you and that means get in the room and figure out ways to come to some sort of conclusion. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the distinguished gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been interesting participating in these review hearings for the last year. serving on this committee, and one common ground i think that i've heard from all of you and the folks that i've been begin

with, the music industry throughout, is that we all love music. we've just got to find more common ground. and i look forward to working with all the stakeholders to try to get that common ground, but i do have a few questions. mr. huppe, i think it would be helpful, at least to myself, for you to lay out for us the standards that are used for determining royalties with respect to each copyright for performance of a song. for instance, who is the willing buyer, who is set by the rate court? could you tell me briefly was subject to which standard for each of the two copyrights? >> thank you, congressman. it's a great question and a couple get a question. i think the best way probably to answer that is to give you an example. an example is this. lets you are driving your car down the road and you're listening to actually rosanne cash recording.

if you happen to listen to that of your cell phone through internet radio station, chances are most of those are set according to the fair market standard value, and the rate that the service will pay for that would be set by the crv, and would be anywhere between an eighth or a quarter of a penny for that stream. let's say you decided to stop doing it on your cell phone and you decide to switch instead to get that excess same awesome rosanne cash sound through satellite radar. that is set by completely devastated, which we believe is below market value. so the compensation flowing from that would be set according to different rules, and they would be about 9.5% of their revenue per rat across all the strings. let's say for whatever reason you got out of your of satellite and you had to go with good old am/fm. that would be easy because in

that case there is no right, there is no rate, there is no crb and the answer there is zero. that's the same recording coming out of the same speakers in your car, each one of those three is set differently according to different roles and that's just not right. >> mr. harrison, you mentioned in your testimony that pandora has paid $1 billion in royalties. is that correct? >> yes. this summer we will have paid in total 1 billion royalties. >> okay. then my next question is how is it that songwriters and claim they're not being paid the? >> we pay higher percentage of revenue than either terrestrial or satellite radio. we will pay north of $400 million in royalties this year alone. to the extent that copyright owners belief there's a different or better allocation of that revenue, certainly we would say that copyright owners themselves are better situated

to make that relative evaluation. >> mr. williams, would you like to respond to that? >> i totally agree the people themselves make the decisions and all. i said indian and again, i sit down opening statement, the fact we are a tiny percentage of it costs so we need to find balance in this. when the song of the year, the grammy-winning song of the year from 2011 is performed 72 million times on pandora and the forerunners each get less than $1500 apiece, there's something terribly broken in the system. you could take from my comments that we have a major, major problem with pandora. we have a major problem with pandora's balance of payment. we're not going to suggest how they adjust that, but fair market will tell, give us a chance. we don't have the right to say no. this case, we don't want to. we want our writers and

copyright owners to be properly compensated. >> the song in 2011 was that need you know? >> i'm going to turn to my -- >> the song of the year. >> it was need you know. >> 72 million -- >> 72 million performances. >> what was -- >> in other words, to give the exact rate of exchange, we get 9 cents for 1000 streams at pandora, roughly i think it's a less than 9 cents. you know, you just, you just don't know the kingdom on those kinds of dollars. dollars. >> ms. cash, would you respond any differently? >> i'm sorry, if all that money was paid out of endor, i don't come it was paid in an aggregate undergo how it was distributed. it certainly didn't come to artists. and notwithstanding my hard work towards them, i want them to succeed. i see the future. i want all of us to succeed, but

i just have to point out that all of these gentlemen on the panel would not be here had songs not been written. and it's in their best interest to get a spade so we are inclined to give them more songs. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished lady from washington state. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to all of you for being here for all of your time. i think we seem to be clear recognition across the board here that we are seeing a change in business model, definitely towards digital transmission of music, and that's where the industry is headed. and even broadcasters are talking about the need to move, to streaming -- to streaming, et cetera i wanted to ask you, mr. warfield, you have folks who are also streaming content and digitally providing content. how are you seeing the business model move, even for some

terrestrial stations into the digital world? >> we would certainly like to participate more. the rates that we pay for digital streaming is probably double what some of the participants do pay. and as i've indicated to the panel here it is not economically feasible for most broadcasters, particularly the mom-and-pop broadcasters, and not the big guys that edwin tends to focus on but what makes up most of the broadcast industry in this country, have not been able to find a way in paying those kinds of rates to be profitable. so many broadcasters have made a decision not to stream. >> so you not sing folks move that direction, and seeing more of the air, you know, their audience moving or -- >> we still reach, congresswoman, we reach over 249 people a week with radio. we still have -- 240 million. the largest audience which is why radar is the number one driver of music sales, whether it be sales and a retail outlet or digital downloads. so our audience is still loyal

to what we do. we are free. no additional cost and we provide a lot more than just playing music. so our audience is still supported of the business model that we have and we been able to develop with the record industry. >> but given we're talking about music today, do you see a change or would you say there is a change? were talking a lot about how folks are listening to music today. would you acknowledge there's a change in where things are heading? >> there's a change. i think all of us, all of us listen to different platforms. i've been in radio for 37 years. i've always listened to radio. i still buy music. so there is a change. we want to participate as that change occurs but they're still a basic broadcast industry here that our listeners, our audience is, our communities is to rely on and they still support. >> i have a question maybe for anyone who has an answer on this one, which is we talked a little bit about internationally how

our laws are definite versus around the world. are there particular models that you've seen in other parts of the world that you think are good examples of where we should be headed? >> international models pay almost in every country of the world, with very few exceptions, we should simply follow that model but it's really very simple. >> and beyond performance paying specifically, author of the unique aspects of models in of the countr country is? >> there are other models in which is the publishing rights are paid on a percentage basis instead of on a sense based system. we could learn from that. there are definite models we could be looking at to try and redefine something for the united states. a lot of the questions have been what specific changes would you make, but the real answer is we have to change everything. you can't pick one piece. that's what we've done for the last decades, was take one problem and fix one problem at a

time. we do really need a holistic solution. >> yes, mr. williams. >> if i may, one of the things the europeans have that we don't have is a limited grant of rights. for us, as rights holders to be able to license some of our rights directly would be a great improvement. >> yes, sir? >> and then just to echo what cary sherman was saying, it is that we don't have a broadcast right here that's the big difference. we do need a broadcast right, and it will also unlock lots of money from those international markets with reciprocity. our creators who will be able to get paid for their performances overseas. >> okay. thank you very much free time, and i yield back my time, mr. chair. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sensenbrenner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this brings me back to what i

attempted to do and succeeded in about 15 years ago with the fairness of music licensing act was is put in the copyright term extension law. and it was easy compared to this because the people who were for my dell were those who didn't have any content over music, like retailers and restaurateurs, but they ended up getting nailed with a licensing fee and everybody else was against it. i do remember very vividly that my good friend, mr. coble, had a hearing in nashville on the subject and the had to be drivn back to the national airport in the car of unites its marshal who was worried about my safety. he stayed with me until the wheels were out. now, i did have a long series of debates with our late colleague, sonny bono, and that ended when he was kind of shedding tears

about changing the music licensing law before an audience of the national restaurant association, which was very sympathetic to my standpoint, after he was very elegant, i got up and turned around and i said what mr. boone is bundle is telling you is called quote, i got you, babe. now, with this background, i hear everybody at the table has a different viewpoint on this issue. and i think that getting you all together and getting on one page will happen probably two days after the sun rises in the west. now, you know, that being said, let me ask mr. warfield a couple of questions. and it basically goes, under the current system of licensing and royalty payments, have record sales gone up? and do you believe that the free

over the air music that you and your members broadcast have a lot of people going and actually buying music and paying the royalty on the music that they by? >> from what has been recorded by the recording industry, music sales have gone down i believe in terms of hard copies. not through the fault of anything that radio has done. we continue to freely promote and play this music, and our audience does continue to go out and buy the music. within that system, between radio and records, we are still driving our consumers, our listeners to go out and buy music. there's no other way they can do. not recording what we're doing on the air, stealing the content and then listening to it. there are alternatives they can go to. they can go to digital platforms but it because it have to pay just for the right to listen to what is there. there's no charge to do what we

do. so there's a digital model out there that none of us is really found the way to make it work. and i think we can all sit to integrate that there's a challenge of their the website as a business model which can hopefully grow the first platforms, benefit all of the stakeholders, the recording industry also, not taking anyone away from radio. >> i'm kind of a simple country lawyer, and what you say that the existing system is that you give them free advertising by putting their music on the air, but you don't have to pay for giving them free advertising? >> free airplay, free promotion. >> promotion and advertising is kind of anonymous, are they? okay. so what i'm hearing from some of the other folks is that they want you to pay for giving them free advertising.

is that kind of a simplistic way to get to the bottom of this? >> i've heard that from some participants, but the one thing that i was a relative to what radio does, radio has helped develop, help the record industry develop being as vibrant as it is today even with the financial difficulties they have. we have always supported the writers of the music, but we also have to be develop the careers of the artists we are talking about in some cases today, to develop the careers that in many cases day they may not be supported by record labels because of airplay that we're doing over the air free, continue to promote what they do. they can still do were. whether they choose to tour or not that's a personal decision but they had opportunity to do that. we continue to support those artists in many ways. >> my time is almost expired so i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished gentleman from new york. >> i thank the chair and let me also thank each and every one of the witnesses for your presence here today, and in particular

mr. williams and ms. cash for your advocacy, for the creative community, and on the other fellow artists and your fellow songwriters. let me turn now to the subject of internet and/or satellite radio. let me first say that i believe the success of internet radio is critical for the overall music ecosystem in terms of providing a viable, meaningful alternative to the piracy that was previously taking place and was extremely rampant. and that's the point i believe cannot be overstated, but i do think that there are a few issues relative to the compensation structure and the business practices that i wanted to export. so let me start with pandora, and mr. harrison. now, i believe you testified earlier today that one of your business practices is to ensure that artists receive a fair share, is that correct? >> first of all, congressman

jeffries, thank you for the kind words about our service. what i was speaking about is the value that statutory blanket licenses have, not only for services like pandora that allow us to license content efficiently, but the songwriters and recording artist actually participate directly in the royalty streams. >> okay. now, am i correct that pandora, however, notwithstanding what you just indicated, currently refuses to pay for the use of pre-1972 recordings under either state or federal law? >> we do not pay under section 114 for the performance of pre-72 sound recordings, which is federal law? >> but you're also contesting the rights of recording artists receive any compensation in state court as well, correct? >> we do have pending litigation in the state of new york, and just we disagree with the claims

that the record labels make in that case. >> pre-1972 records are an important part of your business model, troop? >> yes, they are. >> you have a '60s oldies each outcome is that right? >> right spent and a motown's general? >> i believe so. >> fiftys rock 'n roll channel, to? >> i believe so. >> golden oldies channel. >> you are aging at my demographics but i believe that is true. >> doo-wop general? >> i believe so. >> a classic console channel, correct. and/or doesn't do anything for any of the sound recordings played on any of these six channels, to? >> if the recordings were made after 1972, that would be correct. >> okay. before 1972, correct? >> correct. >> okay. so for instance, respect which was recorded by a wreath of franklin in 1965, every time respect is played on pandora, aretha franklin doesn't receive

a time, correct? >> well, and/or would not pay performance royalties to the record label. she would be paid if she was a songwriter. >> okay. so my girl was recorded by the temptations i believe in 1964. the temptations don't receive a dime of compensation from pandora every time this extremely popular song is played, correct? >> again, if you're talking about a payment to the record label, that's correct. if they are songwriters they would get paid. >> the same and be true for soulman, recorded i say more in 1967, change is going to come record in 1964 by sam cook. stop in the name of love recorded in 1965 by the supremes. i would suggest that the failure to pay recording artist for pre-1972 recordings is not a fair business practice, and in the context of this overall

discussion, it's a problem that should be voluntarily resolve, but if it is not voluntary resolved, congress should act. let me turn quickly to series ex-im which i believe you also refuse to pay and recording artists for pre-1972 recordings, is that correct? >> there's no public performed rights under the law there is no amount speed is under federal law but under state law and are also in litigation i believe in california trying to prevent compensation under california state law, correct? >> it's clear from litigation there is no public performance right under state law either. >> in that california state court proceeding, i believe you stated that grantin granting a pre-connor company, granting a pre-1972 public performance right would produce a pure windfall to recording artists without any commensurate benefit to the public. that was in your filing in the california case, correct? >> under the way the post is written under copyright law,

that statement is true. >> i would suggest a windfall is defined as an unexpected, unearned or sudden gain or advantage and compensating artists for their creativity, even if it was recorded prior to 1972. it's not a windfall. but it's the american way. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the witnesses. i'm proud to come from the state of rhode island which was the birthplace of the creator of the national -- clayborne palko i think remind us that the strength of our nation was not simply the power of our military or economic resource but our ability to honor the creative artists and the culture of this country and protecting the work of our artists is an important part of protecting our democracy.

so i thank all the witnesses for this really important testament to i want to really begin with you, mr. frear. you mentioned can b use it in ft i believe everyone should be paid. and i seem to believe anyone should be paid because they have created a product and they are entitled to be compensated for it, and that argument applies to creators before 1972 and after 1972. based on this notion that people are entitled to value for what they have created. >> i'm not a copyright lawyer. i'm just a history major, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that the distinctions that were made in the past between pre and post 72 artists doesn't make a lot of sense to me spend you what a great -- >> let me just finish, congressman. when they granted the sound performance recording right that they did not ever to pre-'72 artists and makes no sense to me that your terrestrial radio gets a free walk. >> you agree it should be

compensated but done in a fair amount of and by the market's? >> yes, i agree. it has to be a working competitive market. >> and mr. harrison, you spoke about the value that pandora provides to hundreds of millions of americans as the result of your service, but would you agree that there is some danger that if that product is provided without compensation, that the very product you sell could be in peril? >> i don't think i understand your -- >> well, you rely on a product that you a lease part of your inventory, you don't compensate the artists for. >> if you're referring to sound recordings before 1972 -- >> the example in this cash used where someone we recording her father's songs would be compensated, but someone was playing the original recording

would not be required to compensate her. that strikes you as inconsistent, nonsensical, not good public policy i take it? >> i am a copywriter, and copyright next to sanctions like this all the time. eight musical work written by debussy handy in 1920 is part of the public domain and is encompassing and it is a modern-day recording artist were to record that song, that recording artist would receive a royalty. having said all that, and/or would be in favor of a following the copyright office's recommendation which is fully federalizing pre-'72 recordings to although both consumers to benefit from the protection like fair use under the copyright act, allow recording artist to exercise their rights to terminate their transfers. so i understand the argument, but if congress makes the decision to fully federalizing pre-'72, we would be happy to pay. >> does anyone think that is a

bad idea? does anyone think this distinction of 1972 makes any sense? >> we agreed that the distinction ought to be erased. there are competitions in terms of how to do it, and we have expressed a perfect willingness to figure out with the copyright office and other stakeholders how to federalize pre-'72. meanwhile, this legislation which deals with legacy artists who need money now is really no reason what action could be taken on that immediately while we figure out the federalization. >> mr. christian, if i may ask you, you argue that this existing model ought to continue with free use of music and am/fm. and it strikes me, i'm new to this committee, new to this issue, but it's a curious argument that i can't think of in another context where the kind of creative results of musicians, artists should whole scale be appropriated, used to build up a business and generate

revenues without any compensation. i'm wondering why you don't thinthink the marketplace, you , assuming there's some value to promotion which i'll concede, that the artists would have an ability to understand what the value of that is an negotiate a price that made sense for you as the consumer of that music, and for the creator and artist who created it, why with the marketplace not provide the kind of context for a fair exchange of that? and why would we ever permitted this practice to continue where that asset created, that created product created is just used for the revenue generation of a private enterprise at the expense of the people who created the product's? >> are state of the pre-1972? >> yes. ..

we do this in marketing and advertising but there's also promotion. >> no, i understand that but my question is i recognize your argument that it has promotional value but why is it not in the context of a free market and exchange between artist and u.s. the broadcaster to say this has some value for promotion so this is what i want to charge as an artist. this is the value to you because it generates revenue for your company. why will not result of that be some fair price for the artist is compensated and you make money? >> the gentleman's time has

expired. you can give a brief response. >> i want to do with you directly on that if i could. >> thank you. the gentlelady from texas ms. sheila johnson lay. >> i'm so excited to see many of you that i worked with. i almost feel like calling the roll. mrs. cash thank you for the music i enjoy every dad and your entire family. thank you so much. it's good to see mr. sherman and it's good to see mr. warfield. mr. van armen and mr. christian and mr. paul williams and i considered brothers and sisters we have seen each other so much. appreciated your work. thank you so very much for what you do for children in teaching children about music. chris harrison mr. huppe i believe the name as our did i add a p on it that should not abandon mr. frear thank you so much. let me put on the record that i hope this committee is appropriate will have a hearing on the directv at&t merger

just for the fact the content is included in that as well. to the witnesses here might delay was provoked by the fact that this is a year anniversary of the shelby case, united states supreme court case that my opinion dismantled the voting rights of this country and there's a hearing going on in the united states senate that is very important. i would almost say that many of the artist artists that you represent and performers benefited on their opportunities to vote because of the voting rights act so i apologize for my delay in coming to the meeting. but this is no less an important hearing and one of the reasons why i dashed in here to be here. we have gone through this before and i think i have made it clear that i think that we have an issue that should draw the interest of all and a recognition of the talent of the artist but also to understand, i

try to take some time to understand the workings of radio and the expense that they incurred and so i'm prepared to be in this fight for a way forward and i oppose my questions in that context. so i would ask both mr. warfield and a representative from ben -- pandora first of all does the exit deal sound attractive in its construct for the pre-1972 artists, the page structure and i will just say this in the early morning hours of coming here and listening to radio i heard that diana ross, i think she has music pre-1972, was going to be at one of our venues here in this area and apparently they said something about a national tour and apparently they felt very confident that there would be standing room only. these artists are attractive than they are still bringing in

crowds. we still love their music as we will lend the years to calm. so mr. warfield iffy weather i appreciate it. >> is a represent of the n.a.b. we have not taken a position on the pre-1972 but what i would would say is her members are participating and i would argue most of them are paying those fees in the digital arena. they are looking for ways to avoid that. we have concerns whether or not there may be unintended consequences as a result so we are sort of studying the issue but we have not taken a position to oppose the bill. >> would you continue to study it for me because i think your insight is going to be important to a lot of members so i would encourage you to do that. mr. harrison. >> if congress decides the protection for pre-72 is an issue that needs to be resolved we would support the position of the u.s. copyright office who has suggested full federalization so that not only do the, not only do consumers

get the benefit of the copyright law but artists potentially will get their rights to terminate transfers under section 3. >> you just opened a door with respect to how we construct what may be most effective so in a time that i have if we approach this from a comprehensive perspective i would like to have anyone to oppress their button and tell us what do you want in a comprehensive approach that will pass the house, passed the senate and get fined signed by the president which is what i want to see and not go another decade without a response that i think is so very important. i don't know who wants to start. i'm looking at mr. williams. what would be good if we just looked at the whole picture instead we want to answer everyone's concern. what would be good to have in a comprehensive bill? >> well i think first of all we have to work together. i mean we all support -- we create a product which you while

delivery and we are eternally grateful for that. incidentally thank you for your service. what you did this morning is incredibly important as well. we operate -- i i'm 73 years old and we operate under it to set decree which is a year younger than me and while almost everything on the 73-year-old body works pretty good they're part of that consent decree that need to be dealt with. they just simply don't work anymore. we have no right of refusal. somebody can begin using our music before they told us how they are going to use the music. to prepare an appropriate spill this is what your rate is going to be. we need information and people begin using our information before we have that information so that the centigrade has certain elements that can be changed for your support and our efforts doj are going to be incredibly important. we need a faster and cheaper rate-setting process. millions and millions of our

members money and arbitration would be so much simpler. it would be a huge part of that. to allow our members -- right now we are existing under it all and are all out rule of post upon us of the major publishers who want to be able to go directly and license certain rights separate and it's a right they should have and are not allowed to have that. >> let me say mr. chairman thank you for your indulgence and i'm ready for all of us to come together and craft a portion of what was said. i would appreciate if i could hear some of the comments in writing back to the committee so we can work on in the way that mr. williams has already laid out. i think the chairman of the ranking member and i yield back. >> you are indeed welcome and i want to thank the panelists. we have been here for almost three hours and by the way the room must be cleared by 2:00 because of a scheduled hearing for today's hearing has been concluded.

thanks to all for attending. without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses additional material for the record. the hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this weekend three projects launched to kickstart hours. one of these things where the drone follows you. you are biking or skiing or running whatever and the drone just stays back back 30 feedback and 30 feet up and keeps the camera focused on you but it gets that perfect cinematic hollywood view. that is on one level that is exactly what the youtube generation wants and it's incredibly complex autonomy function using gps and image, image recognition, spotting you and creatively trying to figure out what the right angle is looking at the sun in the shadows. this is the stuff that is kind of science fiction. this is the droid you're looking for.

and this is just this weekend there were three projects are launched and one of them just raised a half million dollars in a day. all based on our platform. so that is just, that was just today. tomorrow this mapping function we are talking about so what christian is doing is this notion of construction. construction is arguably the number two industry in the world. agriculture is number one. so what this 300-dollar copter can do is a one button mapper that those circles around the construction site takes pictures get sent to the cloud in this case autodesk and creates a new model. that 3-d model gets snapped onto the cavs model that the engineering companies already doing and then you get comments happening everyday in an augmented fashion tanks to the returning stations. you are the client and you want

to know what's going on at the construction site. you can drive to the construction site or watch on the cloud watcher building snapped onto the very cap model that you approved watcher building up digitally, digitized perfectly line. there is no. you have got air truth if you will. that's a 300-dollar copter is doing one button billing mapping. imagine what's going to happen in another five years.

>> so i tell the story about how i ,-com,-com ma whose every aspect of whose identity is in one way or another a threat to israel, my gender is male, my religion is muslim, my citizenship is american but by nationality is -- my culture is middle eastern. everything about me sends off all the warning signals for israel and so the experience of an iranian american single man trying to get through ben gurion airport in the 21st century is a reminder to everyone that this despite the way globalization has brought us closer and has diminished the boundaries that separate us as nations as ethnicities and people and cultures despite all of that all you have got to do is spend a few minutes trying to get

through ben gurion airport to remember that those divisions, those things that separate us are still very much alive. >> best-selling author reza as long book take your phonecalls e-mails and tweets on islamic fundamentalism the war on terror and the current instability in the middle east live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on booktv's end up part of a three-day holiday weekend of nonfiction books and authors starting this friday on c-span2. >> a panel examines how robots may eventually replace judges by discussing their hypothesis. chief justice john roberts is a robot. speakers include two law professors at the university of bottle and get a law school professor jack balkin who founded the university's information society project. the forum is part of an annual conference on legal and policy issues related to robotics and is hosted by the university of

miami law school in coral gables florida. >> thank you very much. i was told that i am supposed to speak into the microphone so i will. this is a wonderful paper by ian and carissima. i will set up the premise. the premise is that at one point john roberts, chief justice john roberts is ambushed and they bring into the hospital and they discover all along he has been a robot, and the hypothetical is important because it's related to the argument that we make later which is that he was created sometime in the mid-70's and he was the latest in technology and somehow they got

them into harvard law school, where the rest of his career unfolded naturally just the way we know it to have. he did very well at the harvard law school. he was on the law review and he clerked for william rehnquist as chief justice of the supreme court and he got married to a woman and they adopted two kids. he became a very successful washington litigator. he became one of the finest oral advocates before the supreme court and then he was nominated first to the associate justice and then the chief justiceship and then he became chief justice and he basically brought all of those wonderful opinions. so that's the story. everything is the same and that's very important to their thesis except for the fact that it turns out that nothing really happened before 1975 because that is when he becomes a robot, he is a robot so that's the story. the paper is about the question

of whether or not it is adequate for him, he can be fit to be a judge. that is what the question is. now they have a very cute name for justice roberts as a robot. they call him jrr throughout the paper. i was just thinking we could actually do this a whole bunch of different names that we could come up with for the robert robot. i was thinking roberts bought, mr. robot roberts the chief robot of the united states. robots versus wade. [laughter] for those of you who are from the new york area j&r electronics. [laughter] and my personal favorite sheldon abelson's play toy, a remote control device. so in any case there's something

extremely timely about this paper because as we know the supreme court decided in the mccutcheon case yesterday or the day before demonstrating whether or not chief justice roberts is a robot on autopilot when it comes to campaign finance and also the fact that recently there was a controversy in canada over the qualifications of the nominated supreme court judge was rejected by the canadian supreme court for being insufficiently qualified to be one of the three representatives on the court. at which carissima has written about and seems to be the issues in that case are relevant to what you want to talk about in the paper as we will see in a

second. so anyway that's the name of the robot. now what is it exactly that dn and carissima have to tell us? there are three reasons why chief justice roberts is not qualified or fits. qualified as a legal question. fit is a more philosophical question, to be the chief justice of the united states. here are the three basic ideas. the first is that they argue that a jurist, a real jurist who is qualified have to be able to know how to follow the rules. and they argue that the robots, the roberts bought doesn't follow rules. he merely reacts to them or predicts the behavior of others and behaves accordingly. the second claim is that a

jurist, right, has to take what is called the internal perspective. that is he has to understand the legal norms of the society as being his norms as applying to him and as basically internalizing them. that's the whole idea. the external perspective they argue is the perspective that they associate with jrr the roberts bought in which infect the norms are not internalized. they are simply external to the entity. and it's related to the first claim. the third argument they make is based on the philosophy of -- and they have an elaborate discussion but the most important point for their purposes is bad he argues that what a jurist does in deciding cases is to articulate and apply

and be in sympathy with the norms of the community in which the jurist is and they argue that the john roberts bot being a robot cannot in fact be a member of the community and is not internalized the community's norms. so all of these arguments really revolve around it seems to me a set of assumptions about robots and their relationships to communities. indeed, if you look at the first couple, the first two arguments which are based on an interpretation their argument is that to follow a rule is not to simply presented with a rule and then to have a particular internal state in your head rather to follow a rule is to be messed matched in the community and to be disciplined and tutored and to sort of live a certain kind of life and because

you live a certain kind of life, because you enter into a form of life therefore you know how to follow the rules as an idea. what they want to argue with that a robot cannot enter into a form of life. it cannot participate in the community and therefore it can't really follow rules in the same way that a normal jurists can. similarly it owes something to the theories about language. they would argue again the internal perspective is not simply a state of mind. it comes from being an matched in an part of a community and therefore participating in its norms and seeing its norms. the dworkin idea is also related. this is the part where you want to ask questions to develop the thesis more. the way in which the paper perceives these three criteria or what it means to be fit to be

jurists are articulated at some length but then when they apply it to the john robert robot, they just conclusion early state that they do not believe they can follow rules. they do not believe that he can take the internal perspective than they do not believe that is a member of the community that he can internalized the community's norms. this is the part of the paper where i wanted to ask them questions because it was not clear, given the lead-up to the hypothetical that in fact these things could not be true. in the lead-up to the hypothetical, that in fact, these things could not be true. that is the argument is not made. let's start with the idea of what it means to be a member of the community and therefore be able to follow rules. john roberts graduated in 1981.

so we were both exposed to the same culture. we were both immersed in the same culture. he took exams. he went to study groups. he spoke to people. some of the people that i went to at the harvard law school and no-space struck me as being like space aliens but nevertheless they were able to take the exams and they could find. they were in study groups and some of them did better than i did. john roberts was clearly one of them and so it's very hard to figure out why he doesn't engage in the kind of training and discipline which is important to build a following of rule. what we needs the extra part of the argument. he's been exposed to essentially same environmental influences that i was exposed to. i probably ran into him and didn't even know at the time. he was probably part of the study group. in other words he was part of the community. he was part of the total institution known as the harvard law school.

so why then is the question, why couldn't he in fact be able to follow the rules? the second question is the perspective. similarly the internal perspective is to be part of a community and here i think there is a correction i want to make. i don't think in fact in order to be able to argue and practice law that one has to take the internal perspective in a way that ian and carissima c. -- say. i have many students who come from other countries and they do not regard american law as being binding on them. they do not understand themselves to be that american laws their project. they come to gail law school per year and learn law and some of them quite good at it and what i regard to be the internal perspective even though they are not part of the american

community and do not consider themselves to be bound by it. the reason i use the word hermeneutic perspective is that is all you really need for tests to occur. you have to sympathetically understand others and sympathetically understand the project and you will to participate without sympathetic understanding but of course the question i want to ask is why couldn't the john robert robot do that? after all once again he has been immersed in this culture not only in fact is he immersed in this culture that he is under the impression that he is a human being, and he believes the hype. he believes that he is human. he believes that money talks to other people he is talking to them as a human. when he gets married he thinks he is a human being marrying another human being and if one wants to know what else is necessary in order for him not to have either the internal perspective or the hermeneutic

perspective. finally the idea that in order to be a good jurist you have to understand, sympathize and use the norms of your community because that's part of the complicated relationship and work in spot between the fit between what he wants us to an existing norms and the justification of the norms and the issue of justification concerning the question of your relationship with these norms. here again i have some thoughts or suggestions after that. i don't think the way this point is made in the paper, i think it's a bit too strong. let me explain why think it's too strong. many people come to yale law school from many countries around the world. they are not american. they are exposed to american culture by television perhaps and they are able to engage in legal argument even though in fact they are not part of the community and do not share the community's norms of the mere

fact you do not share community norms does not disqualify you from being able to make legal arguments. secondly it's a very strange argument to canadians. after all canada as part of the british commonwealth and one thing we know about the british commonwealth is that the british commonwealth explored colonial love. what was colonial law? it was allow the british empire imposed on other countries which have different norms in different cultures and different religions. the idea was that that would become the love of particular british colony and even though in fact the judges who were deciding the law in the colony did not share much in terms of the norms and communities and ideas and values of the colonial powers. i mean if the people in the colony and indeed until recently several of the colonies it was still the case that he could take appeals to the council. in fact i think that's still

true in new zealand has gotten rid of theirs now? for many years many british commonwealth countries you could appeal in the judges who would sit on the cases often have very little connection to the norms of the community. so i don't think you can make a strong connection between norms and bellies of community to engage in law. even if i'm wrong about that and believe me i can be wrong about a lot of things it's very hard to argue that the john robert robot shared in his values and norms in the community. what else would you expect? he thinks he is human. he goes to an american law school. he does extremely well there. he lives a life in the united states. he adopts all of the customs and behaves at least as if he is engaged in them and he just looks like he's a member of the community. two other points that i think are quite worth and this is the thing we want to talk about.

this is a real issue in the paper. john roberts is not just a fine lawyer. he's also one of the finest world advocates who appear before the supreme court in history. that is to say he is a great talent. the talent is a talent of persuasion. what we have learned from the history of rhetoric in a classical hearing today is that to have the gift and skill of persuasion rhetoric would almost require that you be able to have sympathy toward your audience. understand your audience and sympathize with their norms and values and articulate your ideas in ways that resonate with their values and norms and inspiration so with this guy he was supposed to be a robot is the greatest oral advocate of this generation is some most would seem to follow that he has all the characteristics that ian and carissima declared to be a fit jurist which leads to my last point and this is why the paper is important because it digs up

these issues. that's why want to know what they think about this. .. it's not merely behavior in any important sense. everything they could possibly want in terms of asking whether or not they can participate in a form of life. why? it talks to you. is before you.

not only that it understands itself as part of the. it understands itself as being him. it participates in forums and it develops the skills to a high degree of the skills of persuasion, a writer, all the things we associate with our ability to reason and persuade. a very important paper, the human ability to reason was not developed originally in order to know the truth but rather to persuade people and to get them to cooperate. he argued that's the reason why a lot of our recent faculty to fill. if that's the case then once again are john robert robot who is the persuader seems to pass any test we could devise. so the questions that are raised by their paper on our what are the features of living in a community that we think are necessary to be called sufficiently or it quickly human? and if we are going to accept

their hypothetical is to which i think my one advice is, you know, what does this tell us about this particular entity? so that's the question. >> great. thank you very much. i think i'll just start with a couple of brief remarks that help go to in particular the last points that you made, jack. we are conscious of the fact that this audience will have a lot to say and be interested in queuing up for questions as well. it's appropriate to spend some time willie trying to address what jack raised for us, but also at the same time leave space for others. i guess i would to start off by just may be speaking for a moment sort of autobiographical he about carissima and i in our decisions about how to cast the hypothetical. because we recognize when one

does an experiment one has to be extra careful because it conclusions one can derive from a thought experiment are asked strong as we could determine itself. what we tried to do which jack alluded to was we really wanted to build a hypothetical that stacked the deck in favor of j. r. r. we wanted to come as close as you can to making it a slamdunk for j. r. r. we called it passing a test on the steroids. but we wanted to do that with the goal of asking the question could be some problems that are raised to say that even if there was no doubt about the passing of the test that we still might find reason to say that even a robot come if a robot has reached this level of

functioning capacity that we still might say at the end of the that it is not adequate or not it. we are playing the role of a judge which is a very high level particularized role within human community. and for example, as i think we say in the paper quite clearly, very different from other human activities that involve rules, such as for example, driving cars, driving vehicles, center. so that was the sort of task we set for ourselves in trying to do this. and the idea was good we still, even if the robot could perform functionally that well, come up with some reason for thinking or at least trying to problematize the idea that it's not a slamdunk that we would just allow the robot to play the role of judge. and one of the reasons why at

least from a perspective that i think this is a worthwhile task is because the great emphasis that has been placed on the turing test, both formally for people who know the paperback words but also in formally. this idea that reaching a certain level of the functional capacity within an of itself convinced us that we ought to treat the robot in particular kinds of ways. and so sort of with that in mind i think a couple of responses that i would say at the outset is, i just want to be very clear that we, i think jack, the way i jotted it down too quickly is one of the last appeals you may to is alongside the discussion of the skilled rhetorician that jack roberts is, that jrr, the

robot, understood itself to be among us, and for us the mere fact that it understood itself, in fact, later cut open and found to be a robot, very interesting as we did not do in the paper to reflect on what would happen if they could have we animated him. that's a discussion i think we might want to have. but to me fact that jrr understood itself as being among us, the mere fact that jrr was a skilled restoration who was able to behave in accordance with rules doesn't necessarily instill that we as humans would understand jrr to have, to be among the unity of those who carry out these very articular eyes to kind of human activities. so one of the things that i with sort of question, all of the things you say that we quite

perfectly stacked the deck in jrr's favor, those are things which actually showed that jrr behaved in accordance with all of those rules. but the question is up for grabs, and not the question i think before us is to decide, for example, whether jrr was a follower. and so sort of with that in mind as just one of the opening sets of things, i just want to say that i don't think that what we're going to do in our paper, was to say that, the way you put it was you said that our argument revolves around a set of assumptions about robots. with our project differently. we saw our project as not making those assumptions but rather thinking about it the other way around. what would be the elements of proof that would be required to

say that jrr is actually carrying out these kinds of functions that we think are so important to judging? i will just take one more remark, sorry for taking so long to set up the first basic point. but for us i think it was really, it's important to see that the question we're asking is not a question about whether jrr is a number of the human community. it is not a question about whether jrr would be considered a person or some of these things that were raised in the final session of yesterday. ours is a question about whether jrr could any meaningful come in any meaningful sense be understood to be in a position to carry out the activity of human judge at the end of the day. pass it over to carissima to say a few other things. >> thank you very much.

thank you, jack, for really faceting questions and looking for two discussions. so i don't have too much else to say, but i do want to say that it's important that we can see that certainly at least in the appearance, i mean, you have legal arguments being made, legal reasoning being done, you have decisions being rendered. so we can see that from the outset, but this paper is fully focused on a particular practice, the practice of judging. what is it we expect of judges? want to the outlets? what is the relationship? i, for one, and i think ian would probably agree, there's a relational else aspect to judging in human society that we found extreme important and which is why we placed this robot on the institution that for many, you know, is seen as incredibly important and has long and storied history, as really being one of the defining actors in the history of particular communities.

i fully admit that our intuitions that i am expressing in this paper that when you're in confronted with the appearance, i use the term -- i'm sure will rub some people in this artist the wrong way but when confronted with that it's having to justify those intuitions again in a purely counterfactual sense because we can ask jrr the question. and we don't cover related jrr of the deception under which he has been laboring. an interesting point when jack was talking was whether we would be comfortable with having a robot of that stature, of that power, of that processing capacity, as long as we're sure that the robot did consider itself human. like that be a condition, a precondition under which we might be comfortable in investing it with certain kinds

of authority, and what would that say? we ar were not able -- and we we not able to get into the whole concept of law. so it's not solely about the deeper questions, what is the robot, how does it relate to us? but it is very much about the particular practice of judging. >> can i sharpen this by asking a question? you say is not about whether or not a robot is human but at the end of the day i think that's exactly what it's all about. i'll give you an example. when jewish immigrants come from eastern europe and russia around the turn of the 20th century, they start to go to auschwitz. law schools. many people say they are very clever, the jews. and their able to argue very well but they don't really understand the anglo-american

genius behind our constitution. and no matter how smart these jews are, they really live in a world they will never truly understand what america is and will never truly understand our institution. so when brandeis is now made the first jewish justice can you get a crumbling exactly of the sword cuts in the paper which is i don't care how smart he is, i look or how well they perform in glasgow. he will just never get it, never really be a part of our committee, we really can't trust him with the authority of the community. there's an important way to distinction from the john roberts robot. brandeis and frankfort were human beings and that john roberts robot is not a human being. but you don't want to take that answer, right? if you reject that as the justification, that i want to understand the difference between whether you accept the argument against frankfurter and

brandeis, right? that's what want to know. in other words, one way is to say is that human as long as you're not human we can't trust you with authority but if you reject that way out, then you face the frankfurter and brandeis problem and that's what want to know. >> i think it is been pretty clear to us since we first sort of conceived of the idea and wanted to work on it that the biggest challenge in this paper and, indeed, in answering this question is a way of trying to respond to it that doesn't invoke some form of a sensuali sensualism. whether it's human, et cetera, biological dna, et cetera. and, in fact, the path that we selected in the sort of inspiration was with the hope that the hope was that, in fact, those are ways of expressing why

at least this entity might not be said to be fit to be a judge because there's no way in which it, a diluted robot, could truly engaged in rule following. it didn't have prescriptive training, you know, it wasn't -- you make some points which are i think difficult for our hypothetical in terms of the fact that went to law school and performed. but in any event, the aspects were our attempt to really try not to debase the argument to something that i think falls from your example, which i think we are trying to clearly avoid that by saying that functional capacity is not enough, but it's also not just based on some particular cultural requirement

or biological requirement. and i don't know if you found it satisfying or not but i kind of feel like i want to push back against the example you give and say they aren't the same thing. but we are trying to achieve does not evolve into that kind of argument. >> i have been uncomfortable with the spreading of them perhaps occasionally fudging of the essential line and i agree it's absolutely fair. and i would just take a slightly different path and what are things that is raised by this paper is a lot of our choices around eventually around super advanced robots will essentially be questions of politics. and so come and you can critique the politics. so i talk in my brazen american

constitutional law, you know, i talk about the possibility that the relevant political actors in a state of full knowledge could decide to invest certain kinds of robots with certain kinds of decision-making power. and that's a very different question. that is i think a political question that can be subjected to both political considerations and also potentially foundational constitutional norms if you wanted to take that for which we did not an acerbic did not want to get into a detailed exploration of equal protection law. so i would say that i would agree with you and i want to push back a little bit on that slippery slope trajectory of skirting essentialist line to well, then we can exclude others. but also to say that i think the politics around it can be articulated in particular ways that would also make for me, would have appreciable

differences with the motivations and the reasons and the justifications for taking a decision not to invest ai with this kind of responsibility and authority. >> we could also add one other thing and i think we can open things up soon, but is maybe if, i'm trying to think of ways to simplify the approach to the kind of claim we are making and the way, there's always risks with supplication. one of the current debates that people are interested in automation and robotics will look at a debate going on right now in universities is the idea of using these robot grading systems, automated systems for grading students college essays which are of course important, particularly for universities that like the business model of the mass of open online courts because of the ticket vantage of

that unless you can actually get the grading done. and so when the debate was going on i was there interest in sort of a brief response that jonathan talked about, and his point in essence was that it doesn't matter whether the robot can perform more consistently than human beings, less biased and more coherent outcomes, that ultimate but allowing robots to great student essays this is the underling point of what writing is because writing is something a human being does for an audience. it does all these things nested in the proposition of what writing is that it doesn't matter how functionally successful the robot greater is but i think ours is an attempt to make a jurisprudential argument that speaks to those same underlying sort of

conclusions. >> i'm just going to bring to take a couple of his because i actually think that this is an interesting point in which to pick up the invitation by check to talk about the recent controversy in canada over the avoiding, the court held that the appointment of justice mark which occurred last october was void because is not consistent with the ordinary act, supreme court acted have subscribed how supreme court justice can be open. the issue there was there's a special reserve of three seats for judges from québec which have a civil law tradition and it is always since the supreme court was first enacted in 1875 always been considered important to have a special representation from that tradition. and historically the judges were either from québec for our current members of the bar, and being a member of the federal court of canada was neither. this was a departure from past president. is a very interesting debate

over whether it was right that they québec provisions in the supreme court acted should be read in that way so someone could clearly have been a part of the québec committee was no longer living in québec, no longer, not seem to be under the technical umbrella of the provision, could be kept off the corporate government arguments that it was unfair and you're narrowing the pool and this was making certain kinds of, casting aspersions on québec jurors. ultimately, the supreme court dramatically of the appointment was, in fact, void. that different from the trend for scenario is that the point was challenged very soon and so he had never been, never parts of any cases. by the dramatic as a sprinkle issued a release things would not be allowed in the building. he would not have access to his chambers and they would not be talking to him until this sort of quasi-banishment.

so it made the decision in terms there were no actual cases that need to be dealt with. but the way i think is interesting is that the issue is not about qualifications per se so wasn't about whether he was a qualified jurist, member of the community. it was taking a hard line about a particular statutory provision that did draw a bright line that some people would regard as not very sensible, but that you needed the bright line in order to constrain the process in a way that was predictable and would not lead to people with no connection to québec but you had, say, that current bar membership being appropriate representing québec on the supreme court. so i can when you have a hard line that can cause was perceived to cause unfairness to a particular individual the cold that all the but this is not about this individual, this is about maintaining a routine and

predictable group for appointments for these seats which fulfill a particular purpose. >> michael asked me to face a lamar this way. my name is ryan, and a law professor at university of washington. i do so greatly enjoy this and also greatly enjoyed your comments, jack. a couple different things that i noticed about the paper. jrr is a robot but jrr is a very specific robot, right? jrr is a robot but jrr is a very specific robot, right? the fact, made by the corporation which explained a couple of things potentially but is made by a corporation and the point of the matter is that he lives for a particular period of time in a particular community,

right? that is contingent. so he could have been born initially. he could've been a person up and delivery mode before he went on the court and the replaced by an exact replicate. all of these things are contingent. at the margin we can re-examine various filters. i wonder what you thought about an approach like that? the second thing, i just love the discussion that was there about hard and about dorgan but i thought the player who was missing in my mind was full or. so in my view, fuller, think a lot of the work come visit my dear editor and publisher by others though i haven't dug very deep on it, it, especially as laid out in natural lung revisited it actually flows from, right, a couple of different aspects of fuller, one of which is a non-management aspect but the other one is law in quest of itself.

even though it's not quite developed as a noticed -- justification. it is so much more deeply and hold it and it is so much more steeped in something in something normative that i wonder whether if you were to apply a forward thinking of the men upon by this but the work of von fuller instead of the work of dworkin. because dworkin i think hercules into some of his work because there's these pencils out there and exists in the world and you can gather them and sympathize them. what you're getting at is maybe you can't do what fuller wants to do which is -- do know what i mean? i just think looking at law in quest of itself and trying to use that as a potential lens might be for the. i'm wondering what everybody thinks about that speak with before we respond, before you

leave the mic, can i make sure i understood the first question was have come as you want us to respond to. i understood your point about the idea that jrr's spent -- specificity is innocent contingent. but then you sort of through in what can you comment on that approach. i took a picture i was clear on what you meant by that. >> imagine that the way that we decide whether or not -- this is responding to jack's coloring of everything. if what matters is the fact that jrr is a member of development community, right? is it sufficient for what we have in robotics generally i think is an opportunity to exclusively manipulate certain aspects, right, that we can do with people. robots are used to diagnose and treat autism in part because you can like figure out what the

child is as funny to by modulating particular things that you can't do with the person but he can't hold a person's voice perfectly state and change the gays and change the distance as you can with a robot. so similarly here you can manipulate with the hypothetical every aspect that you could ask whether it's not for person to come at the beginning of life, or harvard or right before the court and you can ask questions but what matters to him is a memory, the nature of identity. if there's an exact robot replicate, then is that enough? in other words, somebody with the relevant community and they got steeped in relevant community and they were copied exactly by -- for me it's the potential to exclusively manipulate the robot here -- exquisitely. i wonder if thought about maybe doing some of the manipulations and then applying the same task.

>> so, on that point, right, which i think is a really importance of the point and one which we thought about a lot, one of the things i've come to learn from this project is you o look to all the great thought experiments that been successful in philosophy and economics and you really see how hard it is to build a successful thought experiment t. i think one of the things that was happening with us was that we were sort of, on the one hand wanting the thought experiments have sufficient realism. quite fantastical still, but we imagine the idea of a robot coming into being as a corporate research and development experiment, et cetera, et cetera. and one of the realities of research and development in robotics is, i suppose it could be otherwise, contingent, right

is we don't raise every robot from birth, right? robots come in to being for particular issues at particular times and they don't have the normal human span of life. and that part of the hypothetical i think maybe, maybe works to our advantage a little bit in that i think it would be even harder to answer jack's question because, well, why can't we say the robot had prescriptive training if it had been born, if it had been raised from child, had all these bones. one might say the fact that we chose to do with the kind of realism about how a robot by coming to being stacks the deck in our favor or place toward advantage. it is interesting and believing with a very carefully about different ways to cast the hypothetical in that way. but i do think to the extent we're living with the hypothetical that we did, that the fact that this robot is a deluded into thinking it's

human, didn't have a child, all of these things does make it harder for us to understand it, to be in any sense a member of the community, let alone a full member of the committee. that's something on the first point. don't know if you want to add to that. >> i'll speak to the second point, right, thank you very much. so i realize that we could be regarded as having sneakily inserted at particular branches of legal theory. we do think there's an organic trajectory from liechtenstein to dworkin. and we have this opening very healthy provided by sun sting who is one of the few people we could find that actually address the issue of legal reasoning and ai and mentioned dworkin, as we tried to our ticket and paper. we thought that was a nice contrast between those two.

and when you're thinking of a robot judge and i was jotting down my nose from one of the first words i jotted down was hercules. so that's a good sign for we thought dworkin will be an interesting model. we have said i think of the paper that we're not in a position in the paper to do all of the work in analytical jurisprudence to justify our selections work, you know, 10 years later we could come up with an answer. that being said, absolutely. like, i think there are other scholars and there is that could be very helpful to us. to me, we just had a chance to get to them in distress but that's something that i will look at spent before, jack, i don't know if what is it anything in response to rise question about fuller and its value because i don't have that much to say other than this is something i will now go back to and think very