the house examines the $48 billion merger of at&t and directv. the house hearing today looked at music licensing and copyright, in particular the legal issues surrounding broadcast music over the radio. roseanne cash testified along with paul williams and executives from pandora radio and national association of broadcasters. this house judiciary subcommittee hearing is just under three hours.

>> ladies and gentlemen the subcommittee of intellectual property of internet will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. we welcome our witnesses today. let me get my chair adjusted here. thank you. good morning and welcome to the second of two hearings on music licensing issues. two weeks ago this subcommittee heard from your fellow music industry representatives about their concerns with the state of music licensing copyright laws. look around the room i think we can conclude that you all have

more than a passing casual interest in this issue and we welcome all of you here today. at the earlier meeting i mentioned my fondness for old time blue grass country. i don't know that has bolstered the popularity across the country. probably hadn't but i'll don't try to do that and make my opening statement very brief because we have a long day ahead of us. although the witnesses on this panel may not agree on everything, i believe they all agree that music enriches the world in which we live. since this is part two of the music licensing hearings i won't repeat all of the outstanding music issues that congress needs to address. i simply hope that the effort to improve the music licensing system we don't lose sight of the fact that creators need to be paid for their work just like everyone else in this room. although our creative industries are the envy of the world, i'm not sure that our music licensing system is. it may well be time for a

change. and that will be exposed perhaps today as we go through this may maybe arduous journey. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this second hearing on music licensing under title 17. at the first hearing two weeks ago we flared a diverse panel of witnesses. although there are varying points of view about the specific problems most in need of legislative solution it was widespread agreement that the system is in need of comprehensive reform. as i stated at the first hearing, the current music licensing system is rife with

inconsistent rules. satellite and radio compete against each other under different rules. several of the service providers who play an important role in the music system are with us today. local broadcasters provide critical programming. often form strong public service partnerships with the communities they serve. we also have representatives of digital radio making music available to consumers in new and innovative ways. i look forward to productive discussion about how to come together to improve the music licensing system. as i noeptd at the first hearing our current scheme is so haphazard because in part large pieces were developed at different times in response to different innovations. rather than continuing to adjust the system in a piecemeal fashion i believe we must take a comprehensive approach. i'm not alone in my belief that

a comprehensive approach is needed. at this year's grammy on the hill event, ceo called for the industry to coalesce behind a single bill. it was later echoed by house majority leader and nancy pelosi who agreed the time has come for congress to address these issues. that's why i pledged our first hearing of music licensing to develop a comprehensive omnibus bill which some people have dubbed the music bill. the law should be platform neutral and old music created should receive fair market based compensation for their work. there's a growing consensus the system is in need of reform. the copyright office is conducting music licensing study. just this week it concluded a series of round-tables held around the country in nashville, los angeles and new york.

the commerce department issued a green paper for the digital age. the department of justice is conducting a much needed review. two of the performance rights organizations responsible for collecting and distributing royalties. i hope the doj review will be completed quickly as time is of the essence. today's hearing is another important step in this larger effort to review and update the music licensing system. i'm interested in hearing from today's witnesses about the specific issues they believe should be addressed and about how we can enact meaningful reform. i have no doubt that today's discussion will be just as informative and useful as a discussion in our first hearing. i thank you and yelled back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for your diligence in the number of

hearings and impressive array of hearings we've held on copyright issues and i can see we have another full house so good morning to you all and welcome to the subcommittee's second music licensing hearing. i see the size of the witness panel has grown with interest in this issue. two weeks ago a number of problems in the music licensing system that currently exists were highlighted. in reviewing the written testimony submitted in advance of this hearing, there does seem to be agreement that a morrow bust copyright ownership database is needed. there seems to be an interest by many in simplifying the diverse rate making. disagreement remains on whether all those who use music should pay for it and what specific rate standard should be used among other issues. as i mentioned two weeks ago as we consider challenges and potential solutions to the copyright laws relating to music we should keep in mind ideas that incorporate more free

market principles. we should be mindful of the tremendous role that digital music delivery services play in the music eco system for consumers and creators alike. i have long said that the content community and the technology community need each other. it is my hope that we can identify improvements to our copyright laws that can benefit both groups as well as consumers by maintaining strong protections for copyrighted works and strong incentives for further innovation. thank you and appreciate you all making time to be here this morning and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished gentleman from michigan, the ranking member is recognized for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman and welcome to our distinguished panel. i see faces that i've worked with before. and we welcome all the supporters of this subject matter that are here in the judiciary hearing room this morning.

since i agree with everything that's been said by my predecessor, the gentleman from new york and the chairman himself i'm just going to put my statement in the record. it would be largely repetitive. many of you know where i stand. i've supported music as an important and vital source in our national interest and it's in that spirit that i welcome you all to the judiciary committee this morning. i ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. and statement from other members will be made a part of the record without objection. let me introduce our panel of

witnesses as we proceed with the business at hand. our first witness this morning is miss roseanne cash. singer, songwriter, author and performer. i can hardly see you because of the impediment miss cash. she completed heresy dency at the library of congress in december of 2013 and was given the lifetime achievement award for sound recording in 2012. miss cash is testifying today on behalf of the american music association and miss cash your late dad also appeared before this subcommittee and we enjoyed having him here. our second witness, i can't see you either because of the impediment but i'm hold you harmless for that. mr. carrie sherman is chief executive officer of the recording industry of america. in his position mr. sherman

represents the interests of the 7 billion u.s. recording industry. he received his b.s. from cornell university and j.d. from harvard school of law. our third witness is mr. charles warfield senior adviser of wmf media. he's a 31 veteran of the broadcasting industry and here on behalf of national association of broadcasters. he received his b.s. in accounting from hampton university. good to have you with us, mr. warfield. our fourth witness is mr. darius armon. he's testified today on behalf of the american association of independent music also known as 821 m. he attended the university of virginia. our fifth witness is mr. ed

christian chairman of the radio music licensing committee. he teaches courses in media management, broadcast programming, and radio operations at central university of michigan -- central michigan university. he received his b.a. in mass communications from wayne state university and his m.a. in management from central michigan university. our sixth witness is mr. paul williams president and chairman of the board of american society of composers, authors and publishers. mr. williams is an oscar grammy and golden glove winning hall of fame composer and songwriter. mr. williams you'll be glad to know your friend, the congressman from texas admonished me to be easy on you today. we'll be careful to adhere to that request. our seventh witness mr. chris harrison vice president of

business affairs and assistant general counsel of pandora media. he's an adjunct professor, used to teach music law at the university of texas of law. mr. harrison received his j.d. from the university of north carolina. i'm pleased to say. his ph.d. in political science also from university of north carolina. pleased to have a fellow tar heel. our eighth witness is chief executive officer. he's responsible for establishing long term strategic plan and vision for the organization. he received his b.a. from the university of virginia and his j.d. from the harvard school of law. our final witness is mr. david frear.

gentlemen, before we begin hearing from you, i would like for each of you to stand if you will. i'll swear you in. do you hear by testify that the testimony you say will be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show that all responded in the affirmative. we will start with miss cash. folks, i'll remind you if you can try to comply with the five minute rule. when the timing light on your table goes from green to amber, that's your warning that you have a minute to go to reach the five minute opinion cal. you will not be punished if you don't comply with that. we try to comply with five minute rule. i don't think there will be a vote until afternoon so we won't

be interrunted by floor votes. miss cash you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman, ranking members, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the americana music association. i want to address a few obstacles to making a living as a songwriter and recording artist today. everything i say is guided by one principle, all creative people are entitled to fair market compensation when their work is used by others regardless of the platform. i have been both a professional musician and songwriter for 35 years. i grew up in the music industry. in the age of major record labels and brick-and-mortar record stores. i've been signed to major label since 1978 and am currently on the esteemed blue note label.

the climate among musicians at the moment is disspirited. we feel marginalized and devalued although our passion for our work remains unchanged. every artist i know says regarding their work they have no choice,er with don't create out of whimsy. we are fueled by an artistic sensibility that can be ruthless in its demand for discipline and in some ways we are in a service industry. we are here to help people feel, to inspire, to reveal the secrets of the heart, to entertain and provide sustenance for the soul. creating music is a collaborative effort in the creation of recorded music co-writers, producers, fellow musicians, recording engineers,

background singers and various support people come together with the single purpose to create one work. i am a fan of new technology. and i'm excited about the potential in see and the new ways of distributing music that are being offered to music lovers. my enthusiasm is tempered, however, by the realization that these new services are all cast against the backdrop of crushing digital piracy. and licensed under out dated and byzantine laws which stand in the way of creators being paid fairly for their work. among the problems facing us are, one, the lack of a public performance right for terrestial play for recording artists. the united states is one of a few countries including china, north korea and iran that lack a

radio performance right for artists. the failure to recognize this right means that performers cannot collect royalties for their work even when it is broadcast in countries where the right exists. because the treaties the u.s. has signed are reciprocal. two, issues concerning how rates are set for licenses that songwriters offer for their work. currently the law prevents courts from considering all the evidence that might be useful in setting the fare as straight for license performing rights organizations offer and royalty rates are not set on a fair market basis. this makes no sense. the songwriter equity act introduced by congressman collins and jeffries would address these issues and i thank them for that. three, the lack of federal copyright protection for pre-'72 sound recordings. there is a gap in copyright

protection for sound recordings created before 1972, which digital services use as an excuse to refuse to pay legacy artists. i thank ranking member conyers and congressman holding for derogatory the respect act to treat the work of legacy musicians fairly. for example, if my father were alive today he would receive no payment for digital performances of his song "i walk the line" written and recorded in 1956. but anyone who re-recorded that song today would receive a royalty. the injustice defies description. these are a few of the many challenges we face as performers and songwriters and i understand ranking member is considering legislation to comprehensively address these and additional concerns. thank you, congressman.

bottom line copyright law should not discriminate among individual music creators. each should be fairly compensated for their role in the creation and delivery of music to audiences. i see young musicians give up their dreams every single day. because they cannot make a living doing the thing they most love, the thing they just might be on the planet to do. they deserve our encouragement and respect. musicians and artists of all kinds should be valued members of american society. compensated fairly for honest hard work. i believe we can find solutions so that artists and musicians can succeed together with both new and existing music services and i thank you for this time. >> thank you, miss cash. mr. sherman. let's start with you. recognize you for your statement. >> chairman and ranking members

and members of the subcommittee my name is car sherman. i represent columbia, motown, capital, atlantic to name a few labels. our members have worked hard over the past two decades to balled viable, diverse and consumer friendly digital music market place. millions of music lovers can find whatever they want whenever they want it. digital models account for two thifrds our revenue and that number is growing. before the music market place can realize its full potential there remains serious systemic issues to address. records are the economic engine that drives the entire music industry. it's the recording in vested and marketed and promoted by record labels that produces real revenue for the artist, digital music service. record labels invest not just their financial capital but human capital, years of experience and expertise from

the likes of clyde davis, and others who work with artists to bring out their very best resulting in music that not only captivates fans but drives revenues for the benefits of everyone. yesterday we released a report on the investments in music made by major record companies. in embracing digital distribution record labels have revolutionized the business and streamlined their operations, all while revenues have plummeted even in tough times, however as a percentage of u.s. net sales revenue over the last decade major label paints for artist royalties have increased by 36%, mechanical royalties for song writing have increased by 44%. impediments to licensing impact the ability of record labels to sustain the investments that benefits the entire music eco system. today's antiquated, complex and time consuming licensing regime

undermines that system and that's why we believe music licensing must be fixed because behind the seamless experience provide to consumers lurks an inefficient and frankly broken system. we've got to rethink it. here's what we suggest. first, grant performance right for sound recording. frankly inexcusable that the u.s. still provides a special interest exemption for the benefit of am/fm broaders, a subsidy which is taken out of the pockets of artists and their record labels. it's time for that to end. second, make sure artists who recorded before 1972 are paid. because sound recordings are covered by federal law after february '72 and state law before that date some of our most cherished artists are not being paid by businesses who take advantage of the compulsory license.

third, allow rights to be bundled and administered together. owners of every other type of copyrighted work are able to license all the copyrights necessary for all uses. movie streaming service doesn't have to go to one entity to license the performance and a different enat any point to license the making of a server copy so it should be for musical works. it goes without saying every one deserves fair value market rate for their work. finally, consider a one stop shop for musical work license. we filed with the copyright office one possible way for it network. ate potential path towards simply figure the complicated way music must be licensed. but we understand as we stated repeatedly no vision to the music licensing regime can move

forward unless all the relevant stakeholders in the music community come to a solution on which they agree. the goals of any solution should be to align the economic interests and incentives of music creators. ensure songwriters and publishers receive a fair portion of licensing of the sound recording. avoid competition between record labels and music publishers. speed the licensing process making it quicker and easier for consumers to enjoy new music services and make royalty payments to songwriters and publishers more efficient and transparent. we welcome with the opportunity to engage with our partners on our idea as well as any other ideas they may have to improve the status quo. the music business has reinvented itself but our work is not done. we hope by working together with our music industry colleagues we can find the consensus necessary to simplify music licensing and ensure all creators are paid

fairly. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sherman. mr. warfield. mr. warfield, pull your mic closer to you. >> my name is charles warfield and i'm the joint board chair of the national association of broadcasters. over my 37 year career in and around broadcasting i served as president of one of the country's first wholly minority owned radio station groups. i ran day-to-day operations and i even worked as an executive at a record label. over that time i learned broadebroad e broadcasters in many ways. we're local, involved in our communities and serve the public interest. for those reasons i'm proud to testify today on behalf of the thousands of free local over the air radio stations across the

united states. the supreme court has held that the core objective of copyright laws is for the public good. not the creator's interest, user's interest but the public at large. unfortunately in testimony before this committee some are asking to fix a copyright law that serves a different goal. that their constituencies receive greater compensation. they don't emphasize the need of balance. anyone of which would promote the public good. in contrast stepping back from any one piecemeal legislative proposal it is clear taken as a whole the time tested laws that govern the relationship between music and broadcast industries promote the public good in three important ways. first, the existing law has enabled locally focused radio industry that's completely free to listeners. anyone with an am/fm antenna can

access our programming free of charge. radio is unique among entertainment mediums and there's no subscription, no broadcast package or expensive wireless data connection needed for access. second the resulting popularity of radio has significantly contributed to usa recording industry that's the envy of the world both in terms of size and scope. while u.s. copyright law macon taken critical differences from its international differences it has also fostered one of the largest recording industries in the world. our unique system of free air play, free promotion have served the broadcaster and recording industry for well for decades. the fact is in all 37 years of my career i have never had a record executive come to my station and say why are your playing all of my music. i've never had a promotion department refuse to provide with us their newest record on the day it comes out.

they see the value and realize that we're the greatest promotional tool for their artist and we're happy to provide them with that. third and most importantly the community based nature of local broadcasters driven our industry to extra levels of public service. for example in the wake of hurricane sandy new york city's wqht, hot 97 put its music on hold and broadcast steadily through multiple power outageses, providing life-saving information. it provided critical information about disaster relief locations and assistance. further hip-hop has heart foundation provided blankets, clothing, hd radios to residents in the afflicted areas. this is one example. it's the norm not the exception. each of you know this as you see the value of local broadcasters back in your distribution every day. but make no mistake the unique community focus of broadcast

radio is only enabled by the current legal framework. i would urge this committee to tread carefully and resist piecemeal changes to law that would disrupt this delicate balance that enables us to serve the public good. turning brief lifr to straemg i agree with others the currents framework poses obstacles on every music eco system that prevents our businesses to serve the public good. today whether you're a large or small broadcaster the revenue again rapisted from streaming does not and cannot offset the cost. so many of our members don't do it. i urge this subcommittee to focus its license review to changes on law that promotes to benefit of song artists and consumers. in conclusion we stand ready to work with you. now and in the future. that serves the public good. i am pleased to answer any

questions and welcome your invitation to me this morning. thank you. >> thank you, mr. war field. mr. tarman. >> thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the small and medium size businesses that make up the american association of independent music. i am dary us a van arman and an entrepreneur. co-founder and co-own of a group of independent labels headquartered in the midwest of the united states. we currently employ 70 u.s. employees. we have multiple gold albums and singles and one much our recording artist from the state of wisconsin has won multiple grammys. i'm on the board of hym a not for profit organization. of all shapes and sizes from all over the u.s. from hawaii to

florida. our sector compromises 34.6% of the u.s. recorded music sales market. first and foremost the american independent sector wants nothing more than a free market with a level playing field. however, there's one thing standing in our way. big companies using their power and resources to take what is not fairly due to them. large technology companies use our music but because of the safe harbors our current copyright laws provide to them artist creators and independent labels are not being fairly or adequately compensated. broadcasters are not paying anything at all to broadcaster sound recording on am/fm radio. this is not only unfair to us on the creator side but unfair to digital side. within our music industry there's one imbalance that's primary threat to music creative enterprise, market

concentration. today just three major label groups exist compromising about 65% of the u.s. recorded music sales market based upon copyright ownership the largest two are subsidiaries of foreign corporations. congress intend copyright would simulate new creative work for consumers. indict not intend for it to enable a handful of private interests the ability to make huge profits unfairly on the backs of creators. while we like the idea of a comprehensive approach to music copyright legislation this music bust must be driven by all members of the music creator company not steered by a few maj major private interests. we need stronger copyright protections. the shape is subsidizing large technology companies. we need a broad pass performance right. broadcasters must fairly compensate all creators so the process can continue.

broadcast performance right will also give us international reciprocity. we need more transparency and efficient is in our music licensing system. our industry can't afford to unfairly take value away from artists creators and those who invest in those creators. finally we need a stronger statutory license for noninteractive performances as it's the best friend of a level playing field. creator pay must be based on actual music usage. current music license system is broken. large companies take advantage of whatever inefficiencies exist in the marketplace to make an extra buck. so we need copyright law revisions that do the following. increase the value of music. make copyright more equitable. reduce inefficiencies. enable creators to create what

consumers desire. we hope to come to these revisions with all participants. the vast majority of small and medium enterprises that compromise the independent sector or american companies employing american employees. almost every dollar owned by independent copyright has a much greater impact on the u.s. economy than every dollar owned by a foreign controlled entity. as a american copyright should primarily to the benefit of american consumers, american creators and american enterprises. in the end all the independent sector wants is a free market with a level playing field. we want to compete to provide the economic growth and job creation that our american economy needs. thank you. >> thank you. mr. christian. >> mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee

i'm ed christian and i'm chairman of the radio music licensing committee. we have been in existence for well over 50 years and is a nonprofit that represents some 10,000 local radio stations in the united states with respect to music licensing matters. over the years we have been involved in extensive music licensing negotiations with two largest performance rights organization. the mission has been to provide a competitive market for music licensing in which radio station operators pay a fair price and copyright owners receive equity compensation. we have historically achieved fairly senses. through a combination of industry wide negotiation and asness federal rate litigation. recently we found ourselves involved in antitrust

litigation. in order to curb this company's anti-competitive licensing practices. i'll start by saying that licensing redistribution concepts that rely upon the radio industry for funding are misguided. with particular reference to the recurring demand by the recording industry to be imposed on terrestial radio. the radio industry is not vast that can be tapped for a recording industry that fails to address a decline in its own brick-and-mortar income. congress intended an exchange for unique promotional support afforded record labels and artists, radio should be treated differently from other transmission platforms. that premise has not changed. local radio station operators are responsible for attending license for the public performance of copyrighted

musical works. for the vast majority of operators this is a blanket license that permits a station to air music from a particular repertoire without accounting for actual usage. the administrative benefits of a blanket license that's you outweighed antitrust aspects. given the large scale of the rye industry, the rmlc believes collective licensing the advisable. in this regard the independent and experienced judges have enabled to deliver appropriate rapist setting oversight. a purely free market approach to music licensing coupled with the absence of consent decrees monitored by the department of justice would invite market abuse and represent a step back ward from a system that has served parties well for decades.

indeed the fact that there are currently two antitrust cases in federal court is a testament to what's happened in the absence of government supervision of entities that wield the leverage of aggregated musical works combined with the club of copyright infringement. if congress is dedicated to bold reform and enhanced royalty payment to creators, it might want to explore the prospect of a super licensing collective along the lines of what's been proposed by other stakeholders. outside of brazil, it is hard to identify another country in the world that supports multiple licensing entities that administer a single right such as the public performance right in the musical composition. this sets up an yes for mousily

complicated and redundant licensing system and precious royalty payments due creators are being diminished in their journey from the licenseee to the copyright own. indeed this example doesn't even account for the role of other licensing agencies such as the sound exchange but further contribute to the music licensing morass. we really need to carefully scrutinize the royalty distribution process. it dictates how and what creators are paid relative to incoming license fees. rmlc is a long standing expertise and stand ready to work with other stakeholders in fashioning a pragmatic licensing regime. thank you. >> thank you, mr. christian.

mr. williams? pull that mic closer to you if you will. >> there we go. good morning. my name is paul williams and i am a songwriter, an american songwriter. i have the great pleasure and honor of being president and chairman of the board of american society of composers, authors and publishers. we are ascap. songwriters had an idea. they believed they could protect their rights as music creators more effectively if they joined together rather than going i want alone. so thank god they formed ascap. today more than 500,000 song write e-composers and publishers trust and depend on ascap to negotiate license, monitor public performances and

distribute royalties all on a not for profit basis. i'm honored to appear before you today to speak on their behalf. we're here because technology is changing in wonderful ways. we're moving into a world where people no longer own the music they love, they stream it. whenever and wherever they want. at the same time the federal regulations that govern how music is licensed and thus how songwriters like myself are compensated for our work do not reflect the way people listen to music today. in fact they are stuck in the distant past and threatening the very future of american music. ascap is governed by a consent decree greeted in 1941 and updated in 2001. that's before the ipod ever hit a store. we all know the music marketplace has changed dramatically since then and new music services are finding ways to take advantage of this outdated regulatory system.

consider the fact that it takes 1 million streams on pandora for a songwriter to earn $90. one of the most popular songs in 2011 was lady antebellum's hit "need you now." for 72 million streams the four songwriters earned less than $1 $1500 a piece. such an imbalance would not happen in a free market where real competition exists and songwriters have more of a say over how our music is licensed, how our music is licensed. but under the current consent decree congress writer compensation reflects the true value of our work less and less even as our music is performed more and more. there's now a very realistic

major publishers will withdraw from ascap entirely as a result of that voluntarily collective licensing could soon collapse. i want would make the system more complex, more inefficient and more expensive for everyone including music fans, the people that love our music. unless we do something to fix it. now i sit here surrounded by representatives of multibillion dollar corporations that frost our songs and i find it beyond perplexing that american songwriters like roseanne and myself are subject to the heaviest government regulation. i believe all of us working together to modernize the music licensing system will allow songwriters and composers to thrive alongside businesses that revolve around our music. we want you to be a giant success. you are delivering our songs to the world. to that end we're proposing several updates to our consent decree with the department of

justice. we believe these updates can save voluntary collective licensing from the serious risks facing to it the benefit of music users, consumers and creators alike. first, we need a faster less expensive process for settling rate disputes with businesses that use music. one reached in the free market. songwriters need flexibility. we should be allowed to grant ascap to license our music for some uses wild maintaining the right to license the music ourselves. doing so would foster greater come petty show in the marketplace. finally we can stream line the licensing process for thousands by giving ascap the ail built to license the composition of all rights to operate their music in one transactions. passage of the songwriters

equity act is another crucial piece of this puzzle. it is a simple and reasonable fix which will enable a court to consider sound recording royalty rates as evidenced when establishing songwriter royalty rates. working together to make these changes i'm confident we can preserve the immense benefits of voluntary collective licensing. this will benefit businesses that license music and listeners who enjoy it while ensuring songwriters and music publishers are compensated for the true value of our music. the true value our music brings to the marketplace. thank you for the opportunity to share this with you today. thank you so much. >> mr. harrison. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. chairman. other members of the committee. pandora appreciates this opportunity to testify at this important hearing. without question pandora is delivering

listeners, artists, song writers and the music industry. 77 million listeners tuned into pandora last month and listened for an average of 22. . every month pandora performs more 1.5 million socks, 80% of whom were not played on radio. pandora contributes hundred hundreds of millions of dollars. we celebrate a major milestone. $1 billion in total royalties paid. as this committee considers opportunities to improve music licensing, pandora hopes the committee will appreciate the central aspects of our current system of statutory blanket licenses including the consent decrees which encourage innovation through simplified licensing procedures, protect music users from the anti-competitive behavior of big

copyright owners and make sure supreme their royalties. in today's highly concentrated music industry with fragmented and opaque copyright ownership, statutory blanket licensing is the most efficient means for digital music services to license the millions of copyrights owned by tens of thousands of copyright owners and are necessary to offer a compelling service to consumers. as the future of music coalition recently stated ", the incredible growth of internet radio would have been inconceivable had fledgling web casters been compelled to negotiate with all the music publishers individually. without an easier way to obtain permission of songs, internet radio might never have happened." that being said, pandora's recent experience reflects the very real and continued anti-competitive behavior of major music publishers of societies reflecting a continued

need for government protection. as concluded by the federal judge who oversaw pandora's proceeding withes a cap, "the evidence at trial revealed troubling coordination between sony, universal music publishing, and ascap which implicates a core antitrust concern underlying the ascap consent decrease." statutory blanket licenses provide important transparency into how royalty payments are calculated and enable direct fiemt recording artists and song writers. without them, the royalty payment process would be controlled by record labels or music publishers who where unrecouped advances are dedetectived and a smaller percentage of the royalty -- if any -- is passed through 2 artist. while pandora believes it should remain a central feature of copyright law, congress can improve the efficiency of determining the reasonable fees for such licenses.

for example, several respondents to the copyright office's recent notice of inquiry noted the expense and burden of the current copyright royalty board rate setting process highlighting, number one, the need for the application of the federal rules of civil procedure and evidence. two, the establishment of a unitary proceeding with ample time for discovery and presentation of evidence, and, three, the application of the so-called 801b standard. we would also recommend in order to foster greater transparency the creation of a sung l database of record hosted by the copyright office and housing all relevant copyright ownership information. participation need not be mandatory but congress could incent robust participation. for example, just as chapter 4 of the copyright act prevent answer copyright owner from seeking statutory damaging unless the work is registered, congress could include a requirement that entitlement to statutory damages would be contingent on registering and

keeping accurate ownership information in this database. this would help prevent copyright owners from holding services such as pandora hostage during negotiations, something we experienced directly in 2013 when a handful of major publishers threatened our business with massive copyright infringement penalties while refusing to disclose their repertoire. in addition to enabling services to quickly ascertain who owns which rights to a work, a single datas by of record would also enable services to identify the owners of the songs it performs which would encourage real competition among owners for distribution across all platforms. it's important to note that while transparency would help mitigate anti-competitive behavior, it would not alleviate such abusive practices in entirely. that's why the protection of statutory blanket licensing and consent decrees must be preserved. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommit tee, i'd like to

start by telling the committee something you probably don't hear very often -- congratulations to congress on getting it right. for over ten years now, sound exchange has administered the statutory license for sound recordings on digital radio that this committee created in 1995 and that decision shines as a true legislative success story. it provides transparency and efficient they makes possible the digital radio services enjoyed today by over 100 million americans. it has led to a critical and growing revenue stream for sound exchange's 100,000 account which is represent featured artists, back ground musicians, labels and rights owners large and small. and the statutory license has provided a huge commercial ben pitt to the 2500 services who have used it to build their businesses -- some of america's best-known and fastest-growing companies with household names like pandora, sirius xm, providing them easy access to the product they needed to get off the ground. congress greased the tracks,

removed the barriers to entry and a burgeoning multibillion dollar industry grew. and while you've heard many parties discuss problems elsewhere in the industry, mr. chairman, everyone, everyone connected with the sound exchange world, which includes the entire recorded music side of the business, artists, labels, union, even the digital services themselves, everyone uniformly supports the fundamentals of the system. but as we move forward, there's one core principal that should guide everything we discuss and this is this -- all creators should receive fair pay on all platforms whenever their music is used. period. everyone who has a and in the creation of music deserves fair market value for their work and i mean everyone, mr. chairman, song writers, publishers, studio producers and engineers, the artists who give compositions life and record companies who help artists full their creative vision. pair pay would ensure justice for creators whose contributions formed the soul of these

services, fair pay would level the playing field for radio services and fair pay would ensure a healthy, vibrant, ecosystem for listeners and fans. with that guiding principle, i'd like to propose a few modifications to make this good system work even better. first, congress must address the current royalty crisis facing legacy artists with recordings made before 1972. the refusal of some radio services to pay royalties for this era of music makes no sense as a matter of policy and is surely not what this committee ended when it created the digital radio license. it's wrong to pay nothing to artists who created the most iconic era of music in american history. on behalf of sound exchange and all of the artists we represent i extend our thanks to congressman holding and ranking member conyers and all of this committee who joined them in supporting the respect act. i urge the committee to act now on this critical piece, pre-1972 artists simply cannot afford to wait. second, congress must ensure

that all radio platforms pay all creators. this means eliminating the ancient and unfair loophole that allows the $17 billiona.m./fm industry to pay nothing for the source of its lifeblood. fm radio draws the crowd and ignores the performers at the center of its stage. fm's tired and stale justifications for taking advantage of artists rings hollow and are unfair to other services seated with me here today. and third, mr. chairman, once all platforms start paying creators, they should pay according to the same fair-market standard. it makes no sense that similar radio platforms played by different rules, especially in today's world where those platforms may compete against one another in the same places over the same speakers to the same listeners. to quote ranking member nadler's opening statement, the government must get out of the

business of picking winners and losers in this industry. if we want innovation, the law shouldn't give favorable rates to some companies or breaks to older formats. stated another way, mr. chairman, these businesses should compete based on their legal appeal and economic value, not on the strength of their legal loopholes. so, mr. chairman, what would success look like for music licensing going forward? it would be a system where many of the challenges we're talking about here today would fade into the background where the back office would work seamlessly and invisibly. where we are focused on business models and consumer offerings rather than rate standards and inequity. success would mean a system where the entire music community worked cooperatively to address these issues for the collective good and most importantly success would mean a system based on the guiding principle that i set forth earlier -- all creators receive fair pay on all platforms wherever their music is used. in closing, mr. chairman, the

american music industry represents some of our best talent and our most cherished assets. all we're asking for is something pretty simple -- that those responsible for bringing these treasures to life be treated fairly when someone else profits off of their work. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> chairman goodlatte, ranking members conyers and nadler and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, my name is david frooer, i'm the executive vice president and chief financial officer of sirius xm. sirout xm is one of the largest radio providers in the united states, we have over 25 million subscribers. subscribers residing in every congressional district in the continental u.s. and we employ 2,100 people around the nation. sirius xm is well positioned to offer testimony on these copyright issues. in 2013, we paid approximately $325 million in royalties to record companies, publishers, song writers and artists.

we have paid over $1.8 billion in music royalties since we launched service 11 years ago. i'd like you to take away four key themes from my testimony. first, parity. radio is radio whether it is am, fm, satellite. all companies should pay for the music they use on the same ba s basis. continuing to exempt the terrestrial radio companies that dominate radio listening with over 90% of the market and generate over $15 billion in revenue is bad policy. copyright law does not distinguish between am and fm radio based on technology and it should not distinguish between am, mf, satellite, or internet radio based on technology. second, today's copyright act creates an unfair digital disadvantage. drawing any distinction based on the claim that some radio services are digital while others are not is based upon a false premise and produces a distorted result.

terrestrial radio began broad katzing digital signals over a decade ago and they have routinely made digital companies in the ordinary course of their broadcast corporations since the 1980s. similar services, regardless of the mechanism or medium through which they are delivered should be treated similarly. with each rate-setting proceeding, the digital disadvantage between terrestrial radio and other radio services just gets wider. the two pending bills to songwriter equity act and the respect act will only further widen this digital disadvantage. third, protection from market power. the music business has never been more concentrated than it is today. three companies control nearly 90% of the market for distribution of music, the same three companies control nearly 70% of the music publishing market. two pros control over 90% of the musical performance rite and one collective controls the sound recording performance rights. the consent decreakreecrees are

to protecting against non-competitive rate demands. they don't interfere with competition, they prevent activities that would otherwise constitute clear violations of the antitrust laws. recent attempts by copyright owners to partially withdraw from ascap or bmi in an attempt to cherry pick entities relying on their pro license for access to those publishers' works are troubling. especially light of the publi publish publishers' refuse al to provide the catalog data that would allow the services to remove the catalog from the air in the event they couldn't reach agreement on the fees. fourth and finally, fair rates. the willing buy/willing seller standard can have meeting only where marketplace transactions reflect the workings of an actual free market. there is no functioning free market in music licensing because of the unprecedented concentration in the music industry and the aggregation of power in the pros. congress should instead adopt the 801b rate-setting standard for a broad away of music

licensing purposes. that standard provides the copyright royalty board with wide latitude to ensure that both copyright owners and users are treated fairly, including potential new users like terrestrial radio. the 801b standard is also a matter of simple fairness. congress adopted that standard in recognition that services subject to those standards founded their services at a time when there was no sound recording performance right at all. to change the standard now would fundamentally undercut the reliance interest of those services. so in summary, while the $15 billion am and fm radio industry pays the pros rocketly $300 million a year they don't pay a penny for sound recording. radio companies like pandora and sirius xm are less than one-third the size of am and fm in terms of revenue yet we'll pay more than two and a half times, nearly $800 million in music royalty this is year.

it is simply bad public policy to reward the biggest entities in the radio field with a competitive cost advantage while penalizing innovation and emerging services that increase economic activity and create jobs. as you consider new legislation, it's my hope you will recognize the unbalanced playing field for the music licensing today and craft an equitable and durable solution. i thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you mr. frear, i appreciate that. i want to thank the panelists and i don't want to abuse the five-minute rule and for that i'm appreciative to you. we try to comply with the five-minute rule, too, so if you all could keep your responses as tersely as possible we woeb appreciative to you. ms. cash, let me start with you with a simple question but i think it may be pertinent. do you believe that the music licensing system should be set up in such a way that makes it easier or at least more simple for artists to understand how they're being paid and who's paying them? >> i do.

i think that transparency is essential and that's the -- the lack of transparency is a huge part of the problem. for instance, that was petition going around not long ago from pandora asking musicians to sign it and it was very enthusiastic about how that would benefit us. we found that to be somewhat manipulative, not transparent and, in fact, they lobbied for lower rates for us. so if fans are confused -- which they are, they come to me all the time and say "how do i buy your record, what is the decent thing to do? how can i support you so you keep making records?" then if they're confused and we're a bit confused i think transparency would go a long way towards clearing some of this up. >> ms. cash, you opened the transparency door so let me walk through that door. i'm going to put this question

to mr. harrison and mr. williams. transparency a word this subcommittee has heard repeatedly. quite a bit of -- including transparency of ownership, transparency in who pays what and transparency in how royalties are divided. how should the congress in your opinion consider the issue of transparency as we consider potential changes to our music licenses laws? >> if i get the gist of what you said -- and my hearing is not the best -- >> nor is mine so i can relate to it. >> but your question i think as much as i could hear was related to transparency and ascap is very proud of our transparency. we have a database for our members at any -- if the "love boat" theme that i wrote is being played in lithuania right

now, i can jump on line and find out that east it's being played. we have -- i must -- i have to disagree with mr. harris. i think he was perhaps misinformed in something of what e involved in the pandora case with sony. i want to straighten that out first of all. we're very proud of the fact that we are open and transparent on all cases. when pandora requested information on licenses, for example, we -- two days before the end of their -- the trial, we immediately gathered that information and after two days when we had it all together we reached out to pandora and said "would you like that information?" we never heard back from them. i understand the communication in a multibillion organization sometimes is not the best, perhaps i didn't reach the head office. but we had the information that they wanted and we have it today and i have to tell you, mr. chairman, that i believe that any business that we do -- any licensee that we do business with has the right to know what

they're getting for their money so we have that information, it's open and available. we are proud of our transparency on all levels and incidentally there was never any finding of any improper coordination between ascap and any of the publishers. if there had been i'm sure the very capable judge would have brought it to our attention and would have filed on it. there was never any such filing. >> thank you, sir, mr. harrison? >> yes, transparency is a key part, as mr. frear indicated to any free and competitive market. the ability for users to understand who owns the content that is supposedly being licensed and our ability to access that information with due respect to mr. williams, i don't want to get into a debate about what happened in a trial, there's 136-page opinion that's very detail bid judge cote and if the chairman would like it

i'll be happy to provide it for you. >> let me try one more question. with the world going digital and the need to update our laws for the digital age is the time to finally resolve music license issues once and for all before us? >> definitely. the opportunity has never been greater. it's when the system is inn crisis that there's an actual opportunity to bring people together to actually try and make a difference. that time seems to be now. >> anyone else want to add very briefly to that? i'll open the door if you want to because my red light is about to illuminate. >> i've heard a lot of testimony about the -- what do you call it?

the free -- the free air play for free promotion system has served the industry, served everybody well and it's -- you know, it's a good thing. let me say i find argument incredible. in a capitalist system, it may be somebody's judgment that not paying people for their performances because they get compensated through promotion, et cetera, that may be a judge. it may be correct. it may be equitable. but it should be the decision of the person whose services is being broadcast. you won't go into a store and say "i decide that the price of that is fairly such and such and therefore i'm going to take it far price." someone who perform cans not be told -- i don't know see how in any rational way they can be told "we have decided that for all these reasons you should be

happy with just promotion." i don't see how equitably or morally anybody has the right to make that decision. and certainly not congress. so all the arguments based on that are simply non-starters as far as i'm concerned. lots of debate on everything else and balancing considerations but there's no balance for saying "we're going to take your work and not pay for it." it's not a balance. it's not a consideration. mr. huffy, many have said it's time for a unified comprehensive approach to address the licensing problems of the music industry. do you agree? if so, what steps should congress take to help bring that about? >> mr. nadler, first off, thank you for your comments on promotion. i could not agree more. the concept that the broadcasters believe they can take that right and not pay for it is as ludicrous as suggesting a book could be made of a movie and yet the author of the book does not have to be compensated or that the nfl can broadcast games on national tv but yet the

nfl doesn't have to be compensated. in terms of unification, aagree with you. we need to streamline the system of licensing. one of the benefits of the statutory license that sound exchange operates is under that it is a system that is transparent and efficient. we are the most efficient at what we do. 90% of the royalties that come into our shop are out the door within 75 days. and we have the lowe esest ad m rate. >> and briefly, somehow the lack of a public performance impacted artists and the overall music place? >> artists are losing hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the past several years, not only in the united states where radio makes $17 billion but compensates artists zero but they also lose royalties overseas -- >> because of a lack of reciprocity? >> lack of reciprocity. >> if they got that money what impact would that have on the broadcast industry? >> the overseas money? >> here.

>> it depends on what the rate is, mr. nadler. but if they got that money it would go a long way towards compensating the artists who deserve to be paid for the central feature they play in these services. >> thank you, ms. cash, would you comment on that question? >> i agree. the idea that i'm patted on the head and said "well, it's promotional; it's good for you," is -- i would rather have control of my copyrights. and rather be paid for that. i'm a songwriter as well so i live in both worlds but the fact that they can use my songs on the radio, my sound recordings, to make billions of dollars for themselves and basically use my work to sell ads is not only ludicrous, it's insulting. an artist should have control of their copyrights. >> thank you, mr. frear, you said there's no reason satellite

ray owe and internet radio should pay while terrestrial radio enjoys an exempt from that obligation. should i take it that you would agree that everyone should get paid or that no one should get paid? >> i actually do feel everyone should get paid. >> thank you. let me ask -- there are different rate-setting standards applicable to different uses of music. some were established under the 801b standard which many argue produce below-market rates while others are set under the being buyer/willing seller approach. web castings rate are set according to the willing buyer welling seller standards. how will these different standards justified? i'm not sure who i should have ask that of. >> they really shouldn't be justified. everybody should be paying on the same rate standard regardless of the platform chon the music is appearing. it doesn't make sense to have different standards for different platforms. it's having congress pick winners and losers, which is not what congress ought to be doing.

>> would anyone on the panel disagree with that? >> if i may, the fact is there are so many different -- it's paul williams. down here. [ laughter ] you know,s ascap license miss different platforms or our music, radio, television, cable, satellite and happily now pandora. we operate -- we're one of the most efficient performing rights organizations in the world. we don't operate at the percentage that you do, sir, at sound exchange because we have a much rider group of people that we're servicing with our music. the fact is that trying to operate under the consent decree as it exists right now is crippling to us. we operate at 12%. 12%, which is -- would come down considerably if we could be relieved of some of the millions and millions and millions of dollars we spend in -- >> i'm sorry. what do you mean you operated a

12%? 12% of what? >> let me ask if pandora will be kind and help me on this 12% is our operating -- 8 cents of every dollar we collect goes to our writers. i'm a song writer so that 12% takes care of a large group of people trying to keep track of everything that is going on. we do it more efficiently than anybody probably in the world. we're one of the most efficient, this rigorous honesty is a part of my recovery and my oath today. but i'm proud of the way we operate. when you look at a system where, you know, the recording labels and the artists receive 12 to 14 times more for the exact same thing that we get, something is broken. you can do two things for us in congress. first of all, you can support our efforts with the department of justice and you can pass the songwriters equity act which will allow us to go into court and present both sides of -- both copyrights and the information around what they're both being paid. the huge, huge -- what congressman collins and jeffreys

have offered is not a comprehensive -- it's not going to fix everything but it's a beautiful in road to putting some balance into the way we operate. we're so grateful for that and i think that what we all want is to see -- i mean, i want want dora not to survive, i want them to thrive. i made albums even my family didn't buy. i love the idea that he'll make it available for anybody if they mightexpired. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'd first like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the hearing record house current resolution 16 which is the local radio freedom act which states in part that "congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty or other charge relating to public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over the air." local radio stations provide

promotion of the music they play at no cost to the listener. this concurrent resolution has 225 bipartisan co-sponsors, including myself which is more than a majority in the house and i think it's important to at least mention -- i know we've had some kind of disparaging remarks about the recording industry from some of our panel members and i certainly understand that but i thought that should be at least part of the record. i would also -- just a couple comments before i get to the question, mr. huppe -- is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> i just wanted to thank you. i think we're at something like 7% approval now and to say congress actually did something right, we don't hear that much around here. >> happy to oblige. >> thank you very much. >> and mr. williams, we've had

an opportunity to meet a number of times over the years, you're a national treasure, thank you for everything you've done to make life better. you've got some amazing songs, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. frear, being an old codger, i enjoy some of -- we've -- sirius was in our car when we got it, we kept the service and we enjoy it, especially when you're kind of traveling around the country. >> thank you, congressman. my daughters thank you as well. >> my cousin brucy in particular and her man herman's hermit's p noon, we can relate to that, that's interesting. and now to a -- i guess one question i have, this is a very large panel. we usually have four or something like that, we've got nine and a lot of interest. is there any particular interest that probably should have been

added or that we could have added that either got overlooked -- i'm -- anybody have any comment on that? on the panel? is there anybody else that perhaps we could that thought of that didn't get in? either overlooked or whatever? >> i want to say one thing congressman. we have obviously a large panel here and we have great performing artists, representatives, obviously two artists to my right, one very important constituency of sound exchange, the two leading unions in our industry, amf, the american federation of musicians and sagaftra. and they represent another important group of non-featured art itselves, background vocalists who have a very important voice in this debate. >> and during the copyright hearings that we've had, we've heard the term "free market" obviously used a lot from every

different side of the debate. i'd kind of like to hear how a recording artist views a free market system work iing. do artists believe a free market model to be a better alternative than the licensing system that we have today? with so much consolidation in the industry do you believe it's even possible for music to truly become a free market? mr. williams? >> it's exactly what we're seeking. we're seeking a free market because the free market will dictate what something is worth and the last thing you know -- the last thing we need is less control of our music. the one area where you could really get a sense of what the free market is is in one of our -- is in sync licenses. everything else is basically controlled under our agreement with the consent decree with the department of justice. but if you look at sync licenses which are straight ahead free market, it's about a 50-50

split. i think that we -- in a sense this is the united states of america, we can trust businesses to work things out. i want to thank pandora right now. you're getting a classic example of the two of us working together. i can't hear what you're asking and he's telling me and i'm trusting him to tell me the actual questions. [ laughter ] >> the question is what's the performance right? >> kind of a little david and goliath moment here sitting between giants of the industry i left my sling at home, what i brought is the truth and the truth is i represent 500,000 songwriter, composers and publishers and what an honor to share this time with roseanne. we reach into the center of our chest and try to write something that will affect people's lives, that will comfort them in sad times. all i wanted was to write something that would make a young lady say yes when i ask her to marry her and three times thankfully that happened.

[ laughter ] so we can all work together. i can turn pandora for help. i thank you so much for examining this system. the system is broken. most of our money has always come from traditional -- from bars and grills, radio, wonderful radio, amazing relationship we've had with radio through the years. they give us a piece of their advertising money in a fair -- and a system we've always been able to work out. you sit down, roll up your sleeves and strike a deal. it's a great way to work. but the fact is the world is changing. people don't want to own their music anymore, they want to stream it thanks to people like pandora and spotify i can hear my music anywhere in the world. i can -- in my car, whatever. it's -- it's a wonderful -- it's a wonderful time. it should be the golden age of music. for the music listener who is the person we care most about, this is a time that they should celebrate. the stream is a dream it should not be the nightmare for the men

and women who create music. >> thank you. paul, you should have brought the infamous stack of foam books that we talked about a couple times. >> yeah, exactly. that's right, i did, i conducted an orchestra for dick clark standing on a bunch of phone books. in this room i'd stand on the bible [ laughter ] >> thank you. as co-chair of the creative rights caucus i firmly believe that artists should be fairly compensated across all platforms but we know this is not the case in the u.s. in fact, let me tell you about the story of yanita who provides a contrast between finland and the u.s. she is a recording artist originally from finland who lived there for her first 18 years, became a professional singer at a young age in her home country. she was paid for her performances on the radio in finland which was about a third of her income. then she moved to new york when she was 17 to take the next step

to n her career. she achieved success with having two billboa"billboard" magazine u.s. radio hits but was shocked to find out that the u.s. didn't pay artists for radio air play. she thought perhaps finland was an exception in paying artists and that the rest of the world didn't pay artists their radio royalties but it turns out it was the other way around. the u.s. was the exception in not paying radio royalties. while there are two other countries -- iran and north korea. last summer yanita proudly became a u.s. citizen but in doing so she is now a citizen of a democratic country that doesn't honor am/fm radio pay for its artists. and she suffers a loss of significant income. this is not the american dream she envisioned. her story show we need to fix the disparities to make sure

artists are fairly compensated. if we don't, we lose innovation from creators like yanita. so paul williams, one area of agreement between you and the music licenses on the panel appears to be the importance of preserving the voluntary collective licensing model that ascap pioneered. you have made a compelling case that this is at risk of crumbling. that would be a bad result for music licensees. what that mean for ascap song writers and composers, particularly your smaller, independent, and up-and-coming members. >> it would be devastating. first of all thank you for your advocacy. you've been a great friend to music creators and we appreciate that. if the consent decree isn't modified we're looking to withdraw our rights and that fragments the system, it becomes more expensive and less

efficient i think what we have to do is look at the very, very quick adjustment to this system but e seine tlishl entire consent decree is at this point -- it's not like going into into battle with one hand tied behind your back that you'll fight with. it's one hand tied behind your back that you're going to feed your family with. incidentally, sparse the performance in a sound recording, i absolutely believe everybody should -- it's a sad, sad story to hear somebody losing their loss of income when they become an american citizen. you know, we absolutely believe that everybody that contributes to the performance of music, the creation of music should be honored. it's not an excuse to pay less to the people who create the music, though. we need to find a balance and i think trick is to let the fair market decide that for us. >> thank you for that. my next question is for both chris harrison of pandora and roseanne cash. last year pandora embarked on a

campaign to rally artists to sign a petition to congress in support of internet radio. but it was during the time when the internet radio freedom act was being debated in congress which would have actually resulted in a cut to artists' royalties. pandora's letter to artists stated that they simply wanted to have the artists' voice heard and yet from what some artists discovered, this was not the actual intent, the implication for the artists signing the petition at that particular time was that they were supporting cuts to themselves. so mr. harris can you tell us why pandora enlisted the help of artists and ms. cash can you tell us what you and the creative community felt when this was happening? >> part of my opening remarks i noted that pandora plays 100,000 recording artists every month and 80% of those recording artists don't get played on terrestrial radio. there is actually a large group

ofep