american, mona and the promise land, and whose irish. watch our special series sunday live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> the senate judiciary committee heard from musicians and songwriters including smokey robinson and also a music industry executives about updating federal music licensing copyright and royalty payment laws. iowa senator chuck grassley chairs the judiciary committee.

>> would our witnesses please be

seated. >> you really have to bang it. it's california, trust me. >> okay. >> thanks, everybody, for the -- everybody for being here, as we have an opportunity to settle a lot of issues that we've been finding, trying to find a solution for, for a long, long period of time. so once again, good morning. thanks for coming to our hearing on music policy and legislation to improve the current music licensing framework. today industry stakeholders and artists will testify about how to protect and promote music creation for the 21st century.

we're fortunate to have talented artists on the panel, and several more in our audience and we stand a warm welcome to all but particularly those that are here because of what you contribute to the society that we have in america that benefits from our copyright laws and other protections. these laws have helped to make the united states a tremendous force of creativity and artistry in the music world. the exclusive rights and protections that are copyright laws grant are the foundation upon which america's creators and artists stand and thrive. it's important that singers, songwriters, musicians, technical engineers, producers and all the men and women who support the creativity and

artistry behind american music be rewarded for their efforts and incentivized to continue producing their invaluable work. music enriches our lives and inspires our world. every one of us has had a special song that touched our heart or linked to a fond memory. the magic of music has always been and will never change. but the way people enjoy and listen to their music has evolved, times have changed from the days when people couldn't wait to get to their local record store or purchase their favorite album. today, many stream their music, their favorite music, using services like amazon, spotify, pandora, apple music, music lovers can access their favorite songs anywhere, and any time, on

a variety of devices. what's critical is that consumers are able to access their music legally and that our laws do not thwart people's ability to legally enjoy their music and for artists to be compensated for their creativity. while the music industry has continued to adapt to reflect technological developments and changes in consumer preferences, the licensing framework, however which governs the music industry has not. instead, the law has attempted to play catch up as the industry has changed resulting in a patchwork of music copyright and licensing laws that often fall short. the current statutory scheme applies inconsistent rules that

place certain technologies at a disadvantage and result in an inek tabl compensation for music creators. music copyright and licensing laws have been criticized for being too difficult to comply with and for not adequately rewarding the artist and professional who create our music. there's been lot of discussion on how to improve the music licensing and copyright regime to the benefit of the stakeholders involved in the creation and distribution of music. in the house of representatives, chairman goodlatte of the judiciary committee held hearings on copyright issues including those affecting the music industry. we colab bratsds with many -- collaborated with many interested parties and the copyright office to find a path forward for music licensing.

multiple bills were introduced in the house and senate, songwriters, artists, publishers, producers and distributors have coalesced around three bills introduced in both the house and senate. these brils, these bills are, number one, the music modernization act which would create a mechanical licensing collective for all digital music to streaming entities can compensate artists for their work. two, the classic tax which would add copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings and three, would allow the payment of performance royalties to producers, mixers, and sound engineers of sound recordings. chairman good lat combined these three into one package, hr-5447 the music modernization act and

was able to successfully shepherd the comprehensive bill through the house of representatives 415-0. here in the senate, senator hatch, once chairman of this committee and now the president pro tem of the united states senate, has introduced 2823 which contains identical text to the house passed bill. that bill currently has 17 cosponsors including this senator and that's where we are today and that's why we're here today. a lot of hard work went into crafting and negotiating these three bills that were combined into comprehensive package after which there was more negotiation and compromise resulting in the text of s-2823. we've tried to reach consensus on what will work best for the music industry. some concerns remain. that's kind of natural around this place.

i'm hopeful that we can resolve outstanding concerns, but i think that the 415-0 vote in the house is instructive on how much support there is for this bill. most importantly, the package is supported by music stakeholders on both sides, by digital service providers, as well as music creators. they've coalesced around the comprehensive bill. i'm encouraged by the momentum behind the unified package and the possibility of congress finally passing meaningful reform in this area. today, we will hear from a diverse panel of witnesses including some very talented singers and songwriters, mr. robinson, what a pleasure having you here with us, a legend in your own right, and you're on this panel and you bring great prestige to it.

who are in the audience and supportive of this effort we don't often have so much artistic talent in this room so we're lucky to have you all here as well. of course don't forget, he writes a lot of music here as well. i look forward to hearing from our panelist about how the music licensing system works for creators and users, whether the legislation that we have before us will help address problems and whether there are issues or concerns that we consider. i'm about ready to end let me say music licensing issues are ripe for reform. it's my sincere hope that today's discussion will start

our process of moving this legislation forward in the senate and getting it to the president. senator feinstein. [ applause ] sd . >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. we haven't had a chance, ladies and gentlemen, to hear copyright issues for several years because patent issues have been our main consideration. i've been on this committee a while, but i have never seen anything more difficult than the patent issue. so i look forward to what senator grassley said as being correct and that is, that we may well have in hand some bills which offer good solutions to these copyright issues. i'm delighted to welcome another californian to this issue and that's way over here on the end, every time i look over i think that's where i started, and that's senator kamala harris.

our state has a long tradition of supporting creative arts. southern california is home to the music industry where countless young musicians, songwriters, vocalists and composers have created music that's enjoyed all over this world. and with the growth in northern california, there's come a well spring of new technology, with innovative new companies developing apps and websites to deliver music to the public in ways never before possible or even thought about. technology is making it possible for the small, independent singers and songwriters to bypass traditional channels entirely. but the laws governing how they get paid haven't always kept pace. music may be a source of enjoyment for us, but for artists, it's their livelihood.

so it's important that singers and songwriters are paid fairly for their work. 25 years ago, i helped pass the digital performance right and sound recordings act. that was 1995. believe it or not. we -- some of us have previously called for the adoption of a willing buyer, willing seller standard, across all platforms that ensures that artists are paid fair market rates. i'm proud to sponsor the amp act with chairman grassley which would for the first time provide federal copyright protection to the sound engineers and producers for the royalties to which they are entitled. i know smokey robinson is here, but we'll do a more formal introduction in a few moments. but i want everybody to know that i'm pleased to support legislation to ensure that

artists are paid for their works that were recorded before 1972. one of the bills before us today would erase an arbitrary distinction under current law l and provide the same copyright protections for digital streaming for all artists. i also strongly support establishing new blanket licenses that will make it easier for digital music companies to broadcast more music to larger audiences. at the same time, it's important that we pass legislation that we don't create unintended consequences. with the music modernization act, congress is delegating a government activity to a private entity and then establishing how that entity is controlled. this bill would give control over new collectives to music

publishers, publishers that already directly license with digital music companies. whereas a comparable current model that's already in place, sound exchange, a successful music licensing entity established by congress, has a 50/50 board structure. this bill also seeks to address what to do with unclaimed royalties when an artist cannot be found. it establishes that after three years, royalties that go unclaimed will be split 50/50 between music publishers and other songwriters. different songwriters than the ones that are due these royalties. i've heard some estimates that this could be un -- that these unclaimed royalties could be as high as hundreds of millions of dollars. so this indeed is a very big

deal and requires a good long look. when looking at how to treat such a significant sum, we need to ensure that legislation does enough to find the songwriter who wrote the music and has claim to these royalties. are these individuals properly protected, and are there sufficient incentives in place to find the people that the money belongs to? and that's a great question i have in my mind. in conclusion, i support the general policies of all three bills given that one of the bills we are considering is in response to mistakes that were made in earlier legislation. i believe we've got to perform our due diligence to ensure the legislation doesn't result in problems that will require an act of congress to fix. so holding this hearing is both

important and a first step. so thank you, chairman grassley, i'm pleased to be working with you to ensure our singers and songwriters are paid what they deserve. >> normally we would introduce the witnesses, but since senator hatch has played such a key role in this legislation, i'm going to give him an opportunity to make a short statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i'm very pleased to be here today to discuss this legislation we've proposed. as a songwriter myself, i have a particular interest in ensuring we have fair, well-functioning, music licensing laws that ensure songwriters are paid fairly for their work. for too long, our licensing laws have disadvantaged content creators and sowed uncertainty. song-by-song licensing may have worked well enough in the days of the player piano or vinyl record, but in the digital age where the catalog of a service provider like pandora or spotify

or apple music runs into the millions of songs, it's no longer practical. that's why we've titled our bill the music modernization act. our bill will bring our music licensing laws into the 21st century to ensure that songwriters are compensated fairly for their work and that digital music services are able to operate without constant legal uncertainty. the bill already has 21 bipartisan cosponsors, and i look forward to adding many more. i would be remiss if i didn't thank the many groups and supporters who have brought us to this point. our bill passed the house 415-0 late last month, a remarkable feat that owes much to chairman bob goodlat. i'm grateful to our many supporters here in the senate as well. i thank senator grassley for joining me on our recently introduced package bill and for all he's done to bring this

issue to the forefront. his is an essential voice in this conversation. i also thank ranking member feinstein for her leadership on the amp act and her strong interest in this issue. no one knows better than senator feinstein how absolutely critical music licensing is to her home state of california, which houses both the recording industry and the tech industry that today brings music to so many of our homes. senator feinstein is a master legislator. i look forward to working with her to move this legislation which will do so much for her home state industries across the finish line. i'd also like to thank senator whitehouse, who's been with me on this journey from the beginning when we first set out to ensure songwriters are paid a fair market rate. senator kuhns and kennedy likewise deserve recognition for their work on the classics act. i've been fortunate to partner

with senator kuhns on a number of important bills these last few years. he really does know his stuff, and senator kennedy is a rising star on our committee who's making important contributions and showing a serious interest in passing serious legislation. i'd also like to thank senators harris, durban, leahy for sponsoring the recently introduced package bill as well as others who have co-sponsored prior versions. of course, i need to thank senator alexander, who's not on our committee but a very talented man whose leadership has been absolutely essential. senator alexander truly understands the need for the music modernization act and has been a tireless advocate for this legislation. i want to thank you again mr. chairman, for allowing me to make this short statement. >> i'm going to call on senator feinstein to introduce mr. robinson and senator harris wanted to say a few words

afterwards. so proceed, senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to just briefly introduce on behalf of camela harris and myself some distinguished -- well, the whole committee -- some distinguished californians who are joining us here today. i'm so pleased to introduce smokey robinson. he's truly an american icon. while he was still in high school, he formed the group the miracles and gave us such hits as "shop around," "tears of a clown" and "i second that emotion." his later solo work earned him a grammy for the song "just to see her." smokey robinson has amassed 37 top 40 hits over the course of his illustrious career. he's a recipient of numerous accolad accolades, including the grammy living legend award, the kennedy center honors, and the national

medal of arts award from the president of the united states. as a singer, songwriter, and producer, he is uniquely positioned to speak about the impact of all three of the bills we're discussing today. how the music modernization act will impact songwriters, how the classics act will impact singers, and how the amp act will impact producers. so smokey, we look forward to hearing what you have to say. i also want to recognize some additional great california singers in the audience. mary wilson, one of the founding members of the supremes, who was inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame of 1988. there she is. it's great to welcome you, mary. darlene love also has been inducki

inducted in the rock and roll hall of fame and is listed in "rolling stones's" list of 100 greatest singers. let's see a wave. where is she? there she is. and also with us, and special for me, is grammy award nominee deon warwick, who is second only to aretha franklin for most hits of any female vocalist of all time. would you stand and give a wave? there she is. and of course karla redding andrews, daughter of the iconic soul and r&b singer otis redding and executive director of his own foundation. [ applause ] so i will yield to my colleague, senator harris. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and senator feinstein, you are a prolific legislator. thank you for the work you do. i'm very happy to be a part of this important discussion on how

we are going to protect and promote music creation for the 21st century. i think we can all agree that even though some of our best and greatest music comes from previous decades, that should not mean that our music licensing laws should only be in those previous decades. so i'm proud to join senators, hatch, alexander, kuhns, durbin, kennedy, and grassley to co-sponsor bipartisan legislation to modernize how we compensate artists and distribute their music. the music modernization act will benefit both the artist who produced today's hits and the innovative technology companies who bring that music to their fans. and it is my great honor to introduce someone today who knows more than just about anyone about the music industry. he is a friend. he's an incredible californian. he's an icon. and he is the incredible smokey

robinson. so smokey was born and raised in detroit where he founded the miracles as a high schooler. it was smokey who suggested that bar barry gordie start mo town records and he spent several decades as vice president of mo town. smokey's songs were part of the sound track of our nation. "shop around," "my girl," "tracks of my tears." the sound of mo town influenced everyone from the beatles to the civil rights movement. it's something that united us as a country and across the globe. and because of all those incredible songs that we know and love, smokey has been inducted into both the rock and roll hall of fame and the songwriters hall of fame. he has received the grammy living legend award, the national medal of arts, kennedy center honors, and the library

of congress' prize among many other awards. and throughout his career, he has lifted his magnificent voice in support of civil rights and justice for all. so mr. chairman, if you will indulging me and our colleagues, i will ask that our colleagues vote in favor of this bill and bring music creation into the 21st century. if you'll indulge me, i'm going to ask our colleagues second that emotion. thank you. >> david israel is president and ceo of the national music publishers association, formerly chairman of the justice department task force on intellectual property, serving as chief of staff for a former senator, earning a b.a. in political science and communication from william jewel

college and j.d. university of missouri. meredith rose is policy consult at public knowledge, where she specializes in intellectual policy property. ms. rose worked on issues at the fcc. an a.b. in english language and literature. justin roberts, whose parents i know very well for 50 years, is an award-winning singer songwriter who has released 13 albums and received three grammy nominations. mr. roberts currently serves as a trustee of the chicago chapter recording academy and runs an independent label based in chicago. he formerly, obviously, lived in iowa, as i indicated.

chris harrison served as ceo of digital media association, previously served as vice president of music business affairs at sirius xm and vice president of business affairs at pandora. mr. harrison has a j.d. and ph.d. in political science from the university of north carolina. david is president and ceo and founder of music choice, previously he was vice president new business development at general instruments communication division, division of harris international. he is graduate of stanford, bs and ms in industrial engineering. mitch glazer, president of the recording industry association of america. previously served as chief

console house judiciary committee and practiced commercial litigation at a chicago law firm. bs in social policy, northwestern university, and jd vanderbilt law school. josh kier is a nashville based songwriter for big yellow dog music where he's built his reputation as one of the country's hit makers. he's the only songwriter to win country song of the year grammy three times. he serves as an advocate for songwriters' rights. mr. robinson, then from my left to the right. go ahead, mr. robinson. >> oh, okay. thank you, senator grassley and ranking member feinstein. thank you so much. and all the members of the committee here today. i want to say to you, senator feinstein, that those hundreds

of millions of dollars that you're looking for the writers, i claim mine today. but it's really an honor to be here. i'm very happy to come and represent this proposal. i'm going to focus my remarks on title two of the music modernization act. the so-called classics act. as a member of the recording academy and sag after, my message is simple. musicians who recorded by february 15th, 1972, deserve to be compensated the same way as those who recorded after that date. i will add to that as i'm saying this the fact that i know a lot of musicians and producers and writers who have fallen on hard times and who could really use that money. it's a livelihood thing. it's not just about -- music is

about lives. so they could really use that money, and i'd like everybody to keep that in mind. the classics act is designed to fix the quirk in the law that created this loophole. back in 1972, congress decided to protect sound recordings under federal law going forward. state law protected sound recordings made before then. this worked well back in the day my miracles records were being sold in stores. when digital radio came along in the late 1990s, thanks to senators hatch and leahy, congress passed a law so that artists and their labels were paid when their recordings were performed on those surfaces. me and my fellow artists are thrilled, or we were thrilled and are still thrilled, about that. it was a great deal for the digital radio companies too. a single license to cover all recordings. no negotiation with every owner of every recording.

no need to ask permission to use it. a government set price, it was a win/win. but some digital radio companies' lawyers found a loophole. those corporate lawyers ask, what if we don't pay for pre '72 recordings because they are covered under the state law? then what if we argue the laws are too old -- that state laws are too old to cover digital radio? that would allow them to profit off some of the most valuable recordings of all time, paying legacy artists nothing at all. for those of us who are avid radio listeners, i listen to the radio all the time, especially in my car, most of the music that's been programmed now, or i would say at least 60% of it, is pre-1972 music. so that should be taken into

consideration. the records of the '50s and '60s aren't called classics because of their age. they're called classics because of their greatness. they still resonate today. they define the american sound. and their financial value to the companies that play these recordings is clear. that's why there are dedicated channels on satellite radio like '50s on five, '60s on six, and you get the idea because they're still playing that music that's attracting listeners to their stations. let me put this into perspective. the miracles was one of the very first acts signed to mo town in 1957. we recorded the label's first million-selling hit, "shop around" in 1960. "tears of a clown" in 1970. those happen to be some of the biggest records i've been ever associated with. to not be paid because they were prior to 1972 is ludicrous as

far as i'm concerned. a lot of work went into making those songs, not just from the artists, but from the musicians and the writers and people, the producers and people who were involved in making them and they deserve to be compensated. so i get paid when a digital radio service plays my solo hits "cruising" or "being with you" from 1979 and 1981, but under the federal law, me and my brothers in the miracles aren't paid when they play any of our recordings. but those recordings are valuable to these services. altogether, the miracles and smokey robinson's recordings are streamed by folks who use this federal license over 50,000 times a day every day. an arbitrary date on the calendar should not be the arbiter of value. and i hope that we can all here today recognize the value of

what we're trying to accomplish here today because it's very important, especially like i said for me who know these people personally who could use this. i recall going to bed on the night of february 14th, 1972, and saying, okay, tomorrow i start making it count. and i don't believe the people of this country have ever made that distinction either. in fact, more than three-fifths of rolling stone magazine's top 500 songs of all time were released before 1972. these records matter to people, and they malter to digital radio services. if they earn a profit and attract listeners because they play these recordings, it's only fair that they should be paid. now, i recognize i have been lucky, and i really have. not only have i been lucky, i've been very, very blessed because

i'm still able to perform and to earn a living doing my craft and making records and songs. but there are a lot of people, and i mean a whole lot of them, who are not as fortunate or as blessed as i am to have a continuing career which allows them to still be earning money to that degree. we need to take them into conversation because we just should. it's only right. for many, especially at this point, their careers -- if thn r careers, this is how they make ends meet, so that's very important. of course as a songwriter and producer, i'm thrilled that the music modernization act isn't just about classics. it also includes mechanical licenses, reform for songwriters, and a mechanism for music producers to be paid.

it creates certainty and efficiency for digital services. it stops litigation and starts cooperation. the legislation has brought together parties who don't always see eye to eye but who see clearly the need for a fair and modern system that works for everyone. i would like to give special thanks to all the members of this committee who supported the comprehensive music legislation, especially senators kuhns, kennedy, and booker who were the first to champion classics. my fellow songwriter, senator hatch and senator whitehouse, chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein, senators graham -- just one second. cornyn, flake, durbin, harris,

klobuchar, and leahy, thank you for your support of these important issues. this is an unparallel feeling of accomplishment that comes from creating music. there is an unparallel feeling that comes from creating music. the reward that knowing the hours and effort that went into writing, recording, and producing is something that will truly make an impact on the world for generations to come. i wish for you all to share in that experience, to be creators of something innovative, constructive, and enduring, something that will make a profound difference in the lives of so many. the music modernization act will make that difference. thank you for making it a reality, and i really appreciate everyone who is here and all of you senators who are supporting this particular act and this

particular subject because it's very, very important. it would be like if you went to the grocery store or the supermarket and the owner was in there and you said, okay, i'm going to get groceries from you for the next ten years, but i'm not going to pay you. so it's the same thing. when people do things or create or create a business to make a living for themselves, they should be compensated for that. and the music business is no different than that. if we stop paying people because it's only music, well, that's ludicrous because of the fact their time and effort and creativity went into creating this music that people are getting pleasure from and listening to and having forever and ever. and i don't think there should be a time limit on that. people are going to be creating music forever. those who have created it in the past should not be not compensated for their works

because it was prior to 1972. i appreciate all of you being here. thank you. >> thank you, mr. robinson. could i ask each of the rest of you to stay within the allotted time so that we can -- we have some questions we want to ask everybody. it's four minutes. mr. israelite. >> thank you. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, my name is david israelite, and i'm the president and ceo of the national music publishers association, which represents all music publishers and their songwriting partners in the united states. songwriters are the most essential members of the music industry, yet they're often the least visible and the least compensated. they are also the most regulated small businesses in america. 75% of their property rights are regulated through compulsory licenses and federal government rate setting. this is true because of a world war i era law designed to

regulate player piano roles and world war ii era consent decrees imposed by the justice department that never end. the result of this stifling government regulation is the value of songwriting has been diminished and songwriters are not paid anything that remotely resembles the economic benefit that they provide to the commercial interests who use their songs. i'm proud to be joined on this panel by my friend and one of america's best songwriters, josh kier. i had the honor of presenting josh with the first ever golden platinum award for his hit song "before he cheats" recorded by carrie underwood. "before he cheats" was the best-selling country song of all time. it has been streamed millions of times on digital music services, yet last year josh earned just a little over $3,000 in mechanical royalties from streaming. it is unacceptable for songwriters like josh who

achieve such commercial success to be prevented from seeing their fair share of that success. i believe that songwriters should be in a free market, but i also understand that removing the chains of a 1909 law and 1941 consent decrees would be opposed by those who pay songwriters and thus would have little chance of becoming law. so if forced to live under these repressive government regulations, it's in the best interest for all that the compulsory licensing system works, and if by improving the licensing system, we can also improve how much songwriters are paid, then this is a major step forward. the music modernization act was conceived as a win/win for songwriters and digital services because it solves practical licensing challenges while also improving fairness and determining rating for songwriters. the mma creates the first transparent music copyright database that's paid for by digital services at no cost to the songwriters.

digital music services often don't find the correct copywrite owners and take advantage of a shortcut that allows them to use songs without paying properly. the mma replaces that flawed process with a streamlined system allowing digital companies to use all music and to pay fully. but the process by which songwriters are paid is not as important as how their songs are valued. in addition to improving how songwriters receive their royalties, the mma improves the standard for calculating them. it also calculated how hearings are conducted, allowing them to put on the most effective case possible for their songwriters and publishers. if songwriters are to remain in a compulsory license prison, let's at least improve the conditions of their confinement. the mma passed the house unanimously 415-0 because it involved compromise by all sides and is a private-sector solution

to a government problem. the mma is the best hope and helps songwriters living in extreme world but still regulated by a role for player p piano roles, which is why the music community is asking the senate for its spoupport. >> ms. rose. >> thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, for inviting me to testify on the bills currently before you. i'm here to focus on title two of music modernization act, previously known as the classics act, and the harm that it would cause to the copyright ecosystem as a whole. classics is a flawed and frankly deeply controversial attempt to put a band-aid over one of the biggest gaping wounds in copyright law. i agree wholeheartedly with mr. robinson that legacy artists are in desperate need of relief and must be compensated for their work equal to their modern counterparts. however, contrary to many statements that i have already heard put into the record, the

classics act does not actually grant copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings. instead, it puts on an additional right on top of the already existing chaos surrounding 1972 and pre-1972 recordings. what nonprofits, consumers, and o archives need is not a new federal right throw on top of the pile, but a complete har monoization with these works with their modern counterparts. the united states copyright office its opposed the framework advanced by classics in its 2011 study, saying, quote, pre '72 sound recordings should either be part of the statutory keep or should not be part of that scheme. quote, when only a fraction have economic value, particularly when it would be a significant public benefit to make the others widely available for study and research. i have with me today a '78 rpm

record pressed in 1929. there are a lot of remarkable things about this record, but i want to draw attention to a few in particular. first is that the grooves on this are actually pressed from shellac, which is made by beetle resin. it's exceptionally brittle, which makes this a difficult item to preserve. second, the overwhelming majority of the works pressed in this era have never made it to any subsequent format. they exist only on 78 rmm records. this record, for example, contains a recording of a song, a fox trot called "there's a girl in the blue ridge mountains" by a composer who's only listed by the name moore. one name. it is entirely possible that this is one of the few remaining captures of this recording left in existence. classics would actively prevent archives from preserving this record and making it usefully available to members of nufutur generations. as you can also see on the chart down to the left there, classics

would also exacerbate the discrepancy and treatment. however, if enacted, classics would ensure a sound recording from that year is kept out of the public domain for a staggering 144 years after its creation. literally no other category of copyrighted work is locked away from the public domain for such a substantial amount of time. even modern sound recordings enjoy shorter periods of protection. congress must not exacerbate this gap by adding new federal rights to the mix. classics is by no means a consensus bill. in addition to public knowledge, the structure that this bill proposes is opposed by a wide array of nonprofit and nonindustrial users of recorded music, including the library copyright alliance, the association of recorded sound collections, and more than 40 intellectual property law professors from harvard, berkeley, stanford, and others

as an unnecessary and unreasonable impediment to preservation and access. congress should replace this with a bill that actually harmonizes these works complete with the artist protection currently enjoyed by modern recording artists or at a minimum limit the term of protection to 95 years from the date of fixation. thank you. >> mr. roberts. >> thank you, chairman grassley and members of this committee. my name is justin roberts. i'm a grammy nominated children's musician. the recording academy is known internationally for the grammy awards, but here in washington, it's known as the trade association that represents music's creators. the songwriters, performers, and studio professionals who make the music we all love. i thank you for inviting me to testify this morning alongside my fellow academy members smokey robinson and josh kier. while the academy's members include people like these wildly successful creators sitting beside me, many of our members, in fact most of america's music makers, are just like me.

middle-class americans and songwriters who are not household names. except in my case, maybe with certain 3 to 6-year-olds. these middle-class artists use their training an talent to bring music to the world. perhaps least recognized among us are the music producers, us this -- thus the amp act. it's an important component of comprehensive music legislation. as an artist, i can tell you that most of us rely on the structure, steady hand, and technical talent of a producer. as a child growing up in des moines, iowa, i'm told that in preschool i loved music so much, i just sat in front of the record player all day. my teacher tried to direct my love of music into something a little bit more productive. might have been my first producer. learning piano and clarinet in iowa's public schools, my love of music continued. i play in bands in high school and college and began pursuing a career in music upon graduating. while working at a preschool in

my early 20s, i started writing songs for children. i never thought of making a living as a children's musician until a producer, liam davis, convinced me to make a professional recording of those songs. he's been my producer ever since, as my 13 albums have grown creatively and sonically, they've sold over 100,000 copies and garnered three grammy nominations. quincy jones once said a producer's role is to capture lightning in a bottle. i guess the best way to demonstrate what a producer can do is to show you. a producer can take something like this -- ♪ and there's no doubt there's no doubt ♪ ♪ that school's out school's out ♪ -- and turn it into this. ♪ there's no doubt no doubt that school's out ♪ ♪ it's time for new beginnings ♪

>> the recording academy's producers and engineers wing has worked tirelessly for producers. part of that was their landmark arrangement with sound exchange. they pay royalties directly to producers. we're grateful to sound exchange for this creator friendly approach, but now we need protections for producers in the law. the amp act codifies sound exchange's policy of paying producers directly and creates a mechanism for a small royalty when the artist cannot be found. this bill is supported by every major organization representing music. it has no opposition. so one might expect producers to ask congress to pass the amp act on its own, but that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the heart of a producer. the producer works with artists but also songwriters, studio owners, nearly everyone associated with the creation of a record. the producer takes care of all of us, so it's no wonder that they want to see the amp act passed as part of the broader mma so that songwriters and legacy artists receive their fair share.

in closing, try an experiment. listen to the 1969 version of the song "i second that emotion" by the supremes and the temptations. reflect on the smooth sonic quality created by producer frank wilson. appreciate the incredible vocals, including those of mary wilson, who's here with us today. and enjoy the emotional truth in the songwriting by none other than smokey robinson. each contributor combined efforts to make this classic track. now we ask you to pass this combined comprehensive bill to protect all the music makers who've given us so much. thank you. >> thank you, mr. roberts. now mr. harrison. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, for inviting me here to testify this morning. my name is chris harrison. i'm the chief executive officer of the digital media association. members, which include amazon, apple, google, microsoft, napster, pan dodora, spotify, a

youtube promote distribution. an identical bill recently passed out of the house on a unanimous 415-0 vote, a truly remarkable showing of bipartisan support for long overdue music copyright reform. while the mma includes several notable changes, my comments focus on reforms of section 115 of the copyright act. simply put, the current section 115 license does not work for songwriters, music publishers, or digital music providers in the digital streaming age. the mma, by creating a blanket license and a new mechanical licensing collective, improves licensing efficiency and encouraging digital music providers to invest more in creating compelling music experiences for consumers. with the support and encouragement of members of this

committee, digital music providers, music publishers and songwriters came together in a spirit of compromise and cooperation to advocate for reform of section 115 that will benefit consumers, creators, and copyright owners alike. we look forward to continuing to work in this cooperative spirit with members of this committee and the entire senate to move the mma forward. the music industry has been transformed by digital technology. while the earliest days of digital disruption were marred by music piracy and declining recorded music revenue, legitimate providers invest the in these new technologies to bring a wide variety of innovative services that provide consumers with greater access, more choices, and better value. today's consumers have lawful access to a virtually unlimited catalog of music accessible across a multitude of devices. digital music providers give

artists greater creative freedom, provide valuable information about how consumers engage with their music, facilitate direct communication with their fans, and even sell tickets to upcoming concerts. after nearly two decades of declining revenue, music streaming has saved the music industry. as detailed in the recent streaming forward report in 2017, digital music providers paid labels, artists, publishers, and songwriters approximately $7 billion in royalties, accounting for nearly 80% of the total u.s. recorded music revenue. and since interactive streaming entered the u.s. market, music piracy is down nearly 60%. these successes, however, occurred in spite of, not because of, the section 115 license, which does not meet the needs of the digital streaming era. antiquated procedures for yut lie liezing this section 115 license disincentivizes digital music providers from investing in new products and services and

discourages new market entrants. for music publishers and songwriters, the archaic process of issuing section 115 licenses has frustrated the timely and transparent payment. the mma establishes a new blanket license that will enable digital music providers to efficiently and transparently obtained the rights to distribute musical works, so-called mechanical rights that, are necessary to operate in interactive or on-demand music service. these mechanical royalties will flow more quickly and transparently. the mma also establishes a much-needed publicly accessible database of music copyright ownership to facilitate this. thank you again for inviting me to testify today. we look forward to working with you to see that the mma is signed into law this year. >> thank you, mr. harrison. now mr. delbakar. >> members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to

testify as ceo of music choice, the first and olders digital music service which i started in 1987. i want to explain why section 103, which was added to the original mma bill, will put us out of existence. i hope you'll agree to delete this provision, since it would save our company. if you have comcast, verizon, directv, or similar service, you may recognize the 50 or so cur curated channels. we're a small company, but 70 million americans listen over 20 hours a week. a half million in iowa, half million in utah, 7 million in california, 4 million in texas, to name a few states. they disproportion nagnatly com from multicultural homes. 103 e lim 103 eliminates the royalty standard from the act.

now that the record companies are no longer selling cds or downloads, they no longer want 801b because it will further squeeze the remaining service was such as music choice. 103 will subject companies to the newer willing buyer, willing seller standard established 20 years ago. the problem is that the judge's interpretation of this standard has been a disaster because this is not a free market. all licensees must contract with all three record companies, and none of their music can be instituted f substituted for the others. the result is rates that are so unreasonable that in over 20 years of licensing on the willing buyer, willing selling standard, not one of thousands of market entrants on the buyer side ever made money for even a single year. i am here today to ask that the

committee remove 103, which will simply legislate our company out of business. unlike willing buyer, willing seller, 801b permits judges to consider a broader range of evidence to set fair and balanced rates. this flexibility can result in massive increases when warranted. two recent rate decisions using section 801b increased sirius xm's rate by 41%. in fact, numerous companies have gone out of business. 801b is not a discount or subsidy rate. that's just rhetoric from record companies that have never seen a rate they felt was high enough even though they're experiencing years of double-digit growth. 103 will not result in a uniform rate setting standard since radio is exempt and the streaming services that were invited to negotiate this bill negotiate direct licenses and will not be subject to this fee setting process. 103 simply means that music

choice and other companies will be subject to a theoretical free market rate in name only that has never led to a sustainable rate structure. 103 will result in artists being worse off because radio and even record company research clearly shows our listening will shift to radio, which pays the record companies and artists nothing. eliminating 801b is our primary concern, but we recommend others. this will make it difficult for smaller music companies to enter the on-demand streaming market, stifling expressway tig stifling competition, and leaving only a few companies. congress should structure the 115 collected the same way that the 114 license has been working without a problem for 20 years. at the very least, please delete the provision, prohibiting the judges from considering the administration fee whien settin

the mechanical rate. thank you. >> thank you. mr. glazer. >> good morning, chairman grassley, senator feinstein, members of the committee. my name is mitch glazier. i've been asked to focus on the classics act and the willing buyer, willing seller standard. while most digital music services do pay under a statutory license created by this committee for all the music they play, including for pre '72 recordings, some companies have targeted classic recordings. they argue that they don't have to pay to digitally perform classics because though recordings are subject to state protection and the license is a federal creature. they also argue, however, that state laws do not apply to digital performances of pre '72

works, so it's a circular argument that creates a windfall for some digital services at the expense of legacy artists and their labels. to illustrate the need for this new forward-looking solution, look how current practice has led to nonsensical results. some digital services refuse to pay for frank sinatra's recording of "my way" but they do pay when they play the versions of that song recorded by elvis presley in 1973. it doesn't make any sense. artists sued these services to protect themselves in several states so they could receive just compensation. the results have been inconsistent, causing uncertainty for both creators and digital services who may have to face dozens of lawsuits for several causes of actions in numerous states with no exceptions and limitations, potential punitive damages, and unclear rules on secondary

liability. out of this uncertainty, the classics part of the music modernization act was born. it's a practical, real world, narrowly tailored solution with overwhelming support that does not extend or change the term of copyright that currently exists for these works and that sets one set of rules for all. the music modernization act includes provisions to apply as well the willing buyer, willing seller rate standard that was created 20 years ago and apply it to both song writers and artists in the music licensing sections. the rates for music should seek to reflect a true competitive market to the greatest extent possible. the music modernization act finally moves the industry forward. it favors no one platform or company over another. it doesn't discriminate based on the year that the company came into existence. it encourages robust competition. it looks to the market as a

benchmark for what creators should be paid. and it allows the music and technology industries to finally move forward together. this bill is supported by americans for tax reform and the naacp. it's supported by the american conservative union and the aflcio. when does that happen? it contains common sense solutions, and its time has come. there are some who want to use the momentum behind this bill as leverage to attach controversial provisions that reduce artist protections and where there are always going to be a few outliers on any piece of legislation. there has never been such consensus on a copyright bill as we have today. we have an opportunity to catch up legislatively to technological developments that have fundamentally altered our world. and with your help, the music modernization act will ensure that brilliant creators are rewarded for their jgenius. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good morning. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, and members of the committee, my name is josh kier. i'm a songwriter and member. thank you for inviting me to testify as a voice for professional writers. i realize most of you have no idea who i am. but i am part of a special community that works in the shadows of the spotlight to create the music we all love. i wrote my first song about a crush i had on a girl in my high school english class, and i knew then i had found my calling. over the course of my 22-year career, i've written thousands of songs, most of which will go unheard. i was a ten-year, overnight success, culminating in my first number one hit, carrie underwood's "before he cheats," which also brought me my first of four gram m awards. la lady antebellum was my next.

while creating music is my passion, it is also my job. i go into an office every day and i write song after song because writing one or two hit songs these days does not forever pay the rent or feed your family. unlike recording artists, songwriters make no revenue off concert tours, t-shirt sales, or endorsement deals. it used to be a songwriter could make a decent income from sales of albums or cds, but that income is a relic of the past. people don't buy music anymore. they stream it. and that means our public performance royalties, which include streaming, are our livelihoods. while streaming has certainly increased the reach of our music, our work is now valued less. we're talking fractions of pennies on the dollar due to outdated government regulations. this is why songwriters are asking for your help in washington. my songwriting colleagues and myself have been to many of your offices over the years, sharing our struggles and ideas for bringing our outdated laws into

the digital age. finally we have some real momentum with the mma. i want to thank chairman grassley, senators hatch, alexander, and whitehouse, and all of you who have cosponsored this important bill. the mma includes key provisions that will help music creators have a fair chance at getting a fair deal for the use of or work. the mma will make the bmi rate court proceedings more consistent with other federal litigation by randomly assigning a federal judge to hear each rate setting case. it will also repeal section 114-i of the copyright act. this will enable the rate court judge to consider royalties paid to recording artist when is determining what streaming services will pay songwriters. currently recording artists can make up to eight times more than songwriters for the exact same performance. these two provisions combined with elimination of the bulk noi loophole and adoption of a willing buyer, willing seller for mechanical royalties will

improve fairness for songwriters. while songwriters wait for the situation to be resolved, we write. we write unspeakable truth. we write whimsical fiction. we write three-minute screenplays and four-minute novels. we write the fears and dreams of childhood, the adolescent howl of our teenage years. we write the resolve of adulthood, the march of time, and the wisdom of age. and with your judicious assistance, we will continue to write the sound track of all of our lives. the mma represents an historic coming together of a large array of stakeholders. it's a truly comprehensive bill. reaching agreements between songwriters, publishers, pros, record labels, artists, streaming companies, and broadcasters is a colossal task. but we have achieved precisely such a compromise. on behalf of american songwriters, i ask this committee to swiftly adopt this

historic legislation. the time is now, and songwriters, both present and future, depend on it. thank you. >> thanks to all of you for your outstanding testimony. i have two things that i want to do before i start questioning. one would be we have a series of letters here about the legislation. so without objection, i would put them in the records. hearing no objection. secondly, senator hatch, when i get done asking my questions, will chair the hearing. i do that, number one, so he's helping me get to another event. number two, he ought to be doing it because of the respect he has of all the work he put into this bill. mr. harrison, i have questions about mechanical licensing collecting. two questions i want to ask you, so i'll ask them both at the same time and you answer them both at the same time. can you tell us, what are the

digital media association's estimate of the expected cost of the new collective? are members concerned that they'll be responsible for excessive and unreasonable costs, or does the bill prevent that from happening? and then the second question, do you believe the oversight and accountability requirements in the bill are adequate, or do you think they can be improved? >> so senator, it's difficult to know what the cost of operating the collective will be. we saw estimates come out of the cbo when revealing the house legislation that said the number was somewhere between $20 million and $30 million a year. certainly my members don't want to pay unnecessary costs. the way the bill is structured does provide opportunities for services to have visibility into how those costs are determined. we have a nonvoting seat on the

board. there's also provisions that allow the royalty judges to review projected costs when determining what administrative assessments are for digital providers. so we don't view mma as writing a blank check. with respect to oversight and accountability, i would note there are a number of provisions in the bill that do provide oversight. i mentioned the royalty judges' oversight over the collectives cost is one. certainly songwriters have the ability to audit the collective. i also think it's important to know that the register of copyright has broad regulatory authority in this under subsection d-12. so to the extent the register believes that part of the ecosystem isn't working

efficiently or transparently, the register has the ability to promulgate roles to address those. having said all that, our goal is to have the music modernization act in section 115 reform enacted this year. so we will continue to operate in the spirit of compromise that we've exhibited throughout this process and address any concerns that members have with this legislation. >> okay. and for mr. israelite, i have questions about the board of directors created in the bill. three questions. i'll give them all at once. how do you expect board members of the new collective to be chosen? who actually does that? how should interested parties express concern with anyone identified as a potential board member? and what happens in the event of a tie vote on one of the collective subcommittees should the legislation address that possibility, and if so how?

>> thank you, senator. the way that the initial board will be chosen is very similar to how sound exchange came about. a very similar process. the music publishers will choose the publishers that will sit on the board, and a collection of songwriter groups are choosing the four self-published songwriters that will represent songwriters on the board. once that first board is appointed, that board will then come up with operating rules about how to deal with succession. similar to how it has worked very well with sound exchange. for people that have concerns about the board itself, all legal rights remain available to anyone that was specifically put in the bill on purpose so that we could make sure that there was in addition to the oversight that the copyright office has, federal court as a remedy, and with regard to the question about the tie, it is true that the subcommittees on this entity have half songwriter, half publisher, and they currently are listed as an even number.

if that committee were to result in a tie, my expectation is that the full board that oversees the committee would deal with any kind of a tie vote. >> okay. senator feinstein. >> just following along withisr evenly divided between artists and record labels, 9-9? so, how does that solve the problem? >> no, senator. the board is a 14-member board. it includes four self-published songwriters and ten music publishers. it is an even number on the board. >> is that the board of sound exchange? >> no, senator. if you're asking about sound exchange, that is not an even divide between artists and labels. there are also representatives of the unions as well on that board and managers of creators as well. >> so, there's no board where there's an even divide. the problem is solved by the board, is that right? >> the board that's proposed in the mma is an even number of 14

board members. i can't speak to the sound exchange procedure for what they do in the case of a tie. >> okay. i'll look into that. let me ask mitch glazier -- my staff -- i've been trying to follow this in bill language, which is difficult, but on page 126 of the bill, what i was just told is that your problem is solved, or part of it is, by the language, the copyright royalty judges shall establish rates in terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller. is that adequate language to handle what you were mentioning to us? >> it is, and it's language that has been around for 20 years, has been applied by the copyright royalty board many, many, many times, and the importance of that language here is that it actually will apply for the first time to both

songwriters and artists, and it will apply across both licenses, and it will apply to all services in both licenses. so, no longer will we have a patchwork of laws and standards based on when you came into existence or whether or not you get a special rate or whether or not if somebody came in after you, they get the benefit of a -- you get the ben dsh. >> so the organization you represent is a happy camper? >> we are thrilled. it is about time. >> good. thank you. one problem solved. would you go into the new copyright protections that the act gives to authors of works prior to 1972 in simple english so we all understand them? >> yes. it basically aligns with the current structure that exists today. today, states protect pre '72

works. it is clear the states will protect the reproduction and distribution of those works for the time that congress said they could do so, until february 15th, 2067. that is the law today. classics does nothing to change that it. if classics did not go into law, the term for those works would still be february 15th, 2067. but there is question about whether or not digital performances are currently covered in a consistent way. and so, what this bill does is fills in the cracks and it aligns it right next to the rights and structure that exists so that there's no fear of a constitutional taking, and you're not cutting the reproduction of distribution rights that currently exist, but you are allowing artists to also benefit from digital performances in the same way that post '72 artists are able to benefit. >> so, the copyright protections

in this are adequate. how would the pre '72 determinations be made? how would you find people that you obviously haven't found? >> right. >> what criteria are used? >> so, the compulsory license that currently exists for all digital radio services will be apply to pre '72 works under this. and sound exchange, which is the agent that collects the money, will divide the money 50/50 between artists and record companies, and their job is to find all of those artists. >> well, what would they legally have -- because i imagine this is subject to lawsuit. how -- what in the bill do they have to do to meet the legal terms of the bill and not be subject to lawsuit? >> the bill preempts state law when it comes to digital performances, and it aligns it all under federal law, subject

to that compulsory license. so they no longer have to worry about litigation in the states. that's the exchange in the bill. business certainty, lack of liability and licensing efficiency on one side in exchange for fair rates for the term of copyright on the other. >> well, what kind of obligations do they -- quickly -- do they have? what kind of a hunt do they have to make for people who would qualify? how do they know they're alive -- >> right. >> -- or producing or where they are? >> right. the services don't have to do any hunt at all. they just report what they play and then they pay the rate to sound exchange. sound exchange has a whole team that is responsible for finding every single artist that is owed royalties, whether they're post '72 or pre '72. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> thank you, senator. mr. kear, let me just ask you a question. i'd like to start with you. i mentioned in my opening statement how our current music licensing laws are disadvantaging songwriters.

in what ways have the problems with the current licensing regime impacted you in your work? and do you believe our current licensing laws treat songwriters fairly? why or why not? >> i would love to address that. but before i do, i should probably take a moment and say thank you. songwriters are fortunate to have someone, one of washington's finest as part of our community here on the hill, and we thank you for paying attention to our issues over the years. >> okay. >> now to address your concerns. and to answer your question. as a display of how songwriters are hurting -- since the year 2000, the number of professional nashville songwriters has declined by 80%. we have lost our entire middle class of songwriters. they're gone.

that statistic is due directly to the shift from the way we used to listen and acquire our music to the way we listen and enjoy our music now in the digital era. the world has completely changed under our feet. we are still operating on old and outdated laws. our music is being used more than ever and valued less. the mma will specifically help these outdated regulations and ensure fair outcomes for songwriters. i hope that answers the question you're asking. >> well, it does. let me just follow up to this last question. how can our licensing laws be improved? and what sorts of changes can we make to ensure that songwriters are paid at a fair rate? >> the answers that you're looking for are in the mma. they're here in front of you

now. >> so, you're satisfied with it? >> i am more than satisfied. the mma is going to update those outdated regulations. and a couple of examples of the way it's going to help songwriters specifically. we're going to gain rate court reform with rotating judges that will hear our cases. and for the first time, they will actually be able to listen to all relevant evidence in those cases, including what artists are paid for the same usage. we're going to receive mechanical licensing reform. we're going to update laws that were in 1909 to regulate piano -- player pianos that are still regulating a huge amount of songwriter revenue today. and just as importantly as what it's doing, it is the way it's doing it. i've been in many of your offices, and i know that my fellow songwriters have been in many of your offices over the

years, and we keep hearing the same thing over and over. it's always been, we want to help you, we know this is outdated and wrong, but what we really need from you is a consensus bill. we need you to bring us something where the creative community and the tech community come together. that's what this is. for first time since we've been coming to you, we have a situation where real help can come to creative community without having to fight further battles with the tech community. please, i beg you, pass the mma and bring us the relief we've been asking for. >> thank you so much. mr. israelite, i'd like to ask you this question. music licensing is an incredibly complex subject with all sorts of jargon and technical mumbo jumbo. can you explain to the committee what the key problems are in our current licensing laws and how the music modernization act

fixes those problems? >> i'll do my best in a short time, senator. songwriters basically make their money in three ways -- they have mechanical reproductions, which used to be sales of copies, they have public performance, which used to be just radio, and they have synchronization, which is when you marry the song with video, like in a movie or in a tv show. that third part is not regulated by law. it's not regulated by consent decree. it's a free-market right, and songwriters do very well when paid for synchronization. the first two parts is what's broken. on the mechanical part, we are licensing in a system that was built for licensing individual albums, 10 at a time, 12 at a time, and using it to try to empower digital companies to put up 40 million songs overnight. it doesn't work. it's led to lawsuits. it's led to lost revenue. and this will fix that problem and do so in a trade that allows the songwriters to get more money in exchange for helping the digital companies fix the way they license the music.

on the performance side, because of the consent decrees that never end -- since 1979, the justice department has had every new consent decree sunset within ten years, but for some reason, it didn't apply to these 1941 consent decrees. while it doesn't fix the consent decrees completely, it does help, because it gives the two parties who have been living under these consent decrees since 1941 the ability to put on a real case in court and to have a fair trial in front of a new judge. and so, for those ways, songwriters are significantly helped by the bill. >> well, thank you so much, that's very clear. senator coons, we'll go to you. >> thank you, senator hatch. and senator hatch, i just want to say thank you so much for being such a great leader in intellectual property legislating here in the senate. you are a classic, and it's an honor to join with you in this legislation today, as someone who is himself a songwriter. i think we needed your leadership to pull this resolution together and to move this forward today.

>> thank you. >> to chairman grassley, to senator feinstein, to senator whitehouse, to senator kennedy, it's been an honor to play a small part in trying to move forward this very complex piece of legislation. as the entire panel has just detailed, this is a very complex area. for most of us, music is an absolutely magical part of our lives. as, smokey, as i was studying for the bar, there was a little, old tape in my little, old honda that i listened to every day on my way to study for the bar that had some of your most beautiful classic songs on it that inspired me and kept me going and lifted me up. i know dionne warwick's also been with us today. we've also had folks from the supremes with us. those motown hits were literally the soundtrack of my life, and they inspired me and lifted me up. [ inaudible ] >> the day we get to say i love you back and forth to smokey robinson in a judiciary committee hearing is a very good day. >> i doubt we ever say that at

all in anything. >> i'll also say that when digital services came out, like spotify and pandora and the opportunity to download and to stream music, that seemed magical as well. and when i first became a senator eight years ago, i started taking meetings, with songwriters, singers, music publishers, sound engineers, with folks from the digital and innovation communities, and realized that these things were really badly misaligned, that there was a trickehicket of iss around the badly executed consent decrees and that the laws in this area were incredibly complex, and as you pointedly shared with us, the folks that were losing were the creative community, that the songwriters and the singers were really not getting compensated fairly and that there wasn't any path towards resolution. i think we should just take a moment, senator hatch, and other members of this panel, and recognize that we have right in front of us a chance for the senate to solve a longstanding problem. it is not a perfect solution. it does not address every

question or issue, but it moves this forward. i'll focus for a moment, if i could, on the classics act. i first introduced it with senator kennedy. it was our first bill together as a stand-alone bill, because i was particularly concerned about fixing a loophole in federal law that has kept artists on pre '72 sound recordings from receiving royalties when their music is enjoyed. i think, smokey, you said 50,000 times a day your recordings are being enjoyed on digital platforms. but without your being compensated for it. some of your biggest hits are pre '72, as you said. "i second that emotion" is a song so powerful, it's playing in my head even as we're talking right now. could you start for us, mr. robinson, by just saying what would the passage of the classics act mean for pre '72 artists, and what would you say to those who say this bill is just a boondoggle to record labels and doesn't help artists? >> well, it would mean a great deal, because you're talking

about people who are writing and producing and doing musical things before 1972, which means now they're up in age, and your chances to make another living for yourself or get another kind of job, when music has been your life for your entire life, it's frightening to me, you know what i mean? because here it is, what if i want to retire? what if i don't want to perform anymore? well, i don't want to perform now. my income that i depended upon, other than that, as far as writing and producing and whatever, has dwindled down to nothing. >> it's very limited. >> so, people who were recording or doing those things before 1972 are at an age right now where as that's more important to them than ever -- >> thank you. >> because you're at the age where you're trying to wind down. so, that's very important. >> thank you. fairly compensating those who made some of these most iconic

recordings was a big motivation for me. if i might, mr. chairman, i wanted to ask mr. glazier just two questions. some of the criticisms and concerns we've heard raised today about the classics act suggest the bill will shrink the works available in the public domain and give pre '72 recordings protection for far too long, compared to post '72 recordings. are those criticisms accurate, in your opinion? how would you respond to them? and how would you suggest that we not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this particular legislative resolution? >> thanks. they're absolutely not accurate. congress decided what the term of pre '72 sound recordings would be in 1976 and then again in 1998. there were many groups who didn't like the term that congress decided, and they challenged it, and they took it to court in the eldred case, and the court upheld what congress decided and classics doesn't change was congress decided. the term was set a long, long time ago. the problem is not the term.

the problem is that the law surrounding copyright is behind the technology. and so, during the term that congress set, artists are not able to actually get the reward that they were promised for that term. and there are some who never liked that term, who want to use the fact that artists need to be paid as leverage to have a redo and to retroactively try to shorten the term and to send things into the public domain early, before the congress said they would be thrown into the public domain. the great thing about this bill is that it does something that hasn't been done before -- it applies all of the exceptions and limitations that don't necessarily apply in that term in the states right now, and it applies it to digital performances -- archives, library collections, lack of liability, fair use, all of those things that are uncertain. so it's a win-win-win. >> thank you, mr. glazier.

in closing, i want to repeat a comment made by mr. israelite earlier, that there's compromise on all sides, that this is a bill that can really move us forward. i hope we will pass this before turning to other issues that face the music industry, and i really hope that we can make progress together on this. thank you so much for your leadership on this, senator hatch. >> thank you, senator. senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first associate myself with remarks my colleague, senator coons. he was very eloquent, and as you can tell, he's very passionate about this issue, he and many others, including senator hatch have worked hard on this subject. chris' comments kind of brought a tear to my eye, but it's not the tears of a clown. that would be senator tillis, who you haven't met yet.

who doesn't know his way to santa fe, i can assure you. you know, a smart person once said that art makes us more humane. it helps us find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time. and you can't be a civilized society if you don't appreciate and protect art and artists. the system that we have now, both the public and the private system, looks like something i tried to draw with my left hand. i mean, it just makes no sense. this, as you know, this bill is the amalgamation of three bills -- the classics act, which we've talked about, the amp act, and the music modernization act. it's not perfect, as some of you

pointed out, but it helps all artists. it helps singers, songwriters, engineers, producers. i think it helps the digital music industry, because our world has changed, and the world of music that we know so much has changed as well. mr. glazier, let me ask you a question. what digital music companies right now are paying pre 1972 artists, if you will? >> there are actually thousands of digital music services that, unlike some of the few -- >> what are some of the main ones? >> that are paying pre '72 artists? right now, iheart and pandora, who were subject to litigation originally, came to the table to

negotiate this bill as a solution to move the parties together so that they could have business certainty. and so, they have pledged to move forward to pay pre '72 artists. those are the main ones, but there are also thousands of smaller companies who use the federal license and who have said, we know that there was no intent here to find a gap. there are a couple big ones who had a couple very clever lawyers who brought us to this place today. >> now, who are they? >> sirius xm is the major one. >> they did not pay pre 1972 artists? >> they did not. >> they chose to litigate instead? >> they chose to litigate instead. >> who else? >> there are pandora at the time was the other major service who decided not to pay, mainly because their competitor, sirius xm, didn't pay, and they didn't

want to be put at a competitive disadvantage. and so, between them, they give a huge overwhelming percentage of royalties that go to pre '72 artists under the compulsory license, which is why artists had to go to courts in the states to try to protect themselves. >> okay. all right. what are the royalties that are paid right now to post-1972 artists? how is that computed? >> the copyright royalty board sets those rates for different types of services, and so, internet services that pay under a willing buyer, willing seller standard have to pay a percentage of their revenue, and they report the songs that they play, and then they write a check to sound exchange, who's in charge of collecting and then distributing that money, 50% to artists, 50% to owners. >> okay. in my 25 seconds left, i just

want to say, mr. kear, i appreciate your testimony. i can tell you buring a lot of passion to this subject and you persevered. and i thank you for that. >> thank you. >> i know it hadn't been easy. i'm going to yield back my seven seconds, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you. thank you, senator. senator blumenthal. >> the artists in this group can do a lot with seven seconds, right? i can't. but i've got five minutes, and i want to thank all of you for being here. i'm a longtime supporter of this measure, the omnibus bill, and i want to thank senator hatch and my colleagues on this committee and all of you for being here. as this committee considers legislation that aims to bring more certainty and fairness to the music licensing marketplace, i understand that the head of

the department of justice antitrust division macon deller home, is considering terminating the ascap and bmi consent decrees. as you know, these consent decrees form the foundation of the public performance licensing marketplace. they are extremely abstruce and incriminal to most of the fans who consume these products, but they are central to the structure that we have right now, and i have serious concerns about the department of justice undertaking that kind of action. particularly if it does not first work with congress to ensure we have a framework in place to prevent market chaos. so, let me ask you, ms. rose -- i saw that you had begun shaking your head in an affirmative way.

what benefits do these consent decrees afford to the music economy and listeners? >> so, i was actually a participant in the panel, but general delrahim held on this particular issue. there are certain aspects of music as a product, which fundamentally -- you'll forgive me if i get a little wonky. >> it's important to be a little technical here, because you have the opportunity to give the lawyers on this panel a little education, including myself, and we're here to make laws. so, we are all fans of the music, but we need to make sure the lyrics in the law make sense as well. >> so, there are certain aspects from an economic perspective of music as a product that tend to lend itself to collective bargaining. and while collective bargaining is not anything that the law prohibits and is in fact often

beneficial in many circumstances, the structure of the current inter pros as such when combined with the functional process of music creation in the marketplace, pros generally represent individual songwriters. music is often written collaboratively across songwriters who are members of different pros. as a result, in order to fully license any given song, essentially, all delivery services become equivalent to a captive market. and so, this raises the risk of having anticompetitive behavior. and because these are fundament fundamental market characteristics, the existence of the pros and the consent decrees and being able to offer blanket licensing reduces uncertainty, it allows for more fair negotiations between various parties, and it increases access for consumers. >> as you know, the department of justice concluded a review in 2016.

it concluded that no modifications to the consent decrees were warranted. has anything significant changed since then? >> not to my knowledge. >> so, that conclusion would seem to still have validity, and the message to the assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust should be keep the consent decrees in place, correct? >> correct. >> does anyone on the panel disagree? mr. israelite. >> thank you, senator. it's very important to note that the property right of a songwriter, of josh, smokey, their public performance right is not regulated by law. it is a free-market right. it is just these two companies that happen to be trapped in a consent decree that never ends. there are two other pros besides ascap and bmi, csac and gmr, not regulated by consent decrees. they operate in a free market. and so, songwriters who belong to ascap and bmi are now in a

competitive disadvantage against writers who are at the other two pros because there are different rules that apply. and so, if there is a desire to regulate this right, then congress should do that, but absent that, the justice department has no justification for a perpetual consent decree that never ends, when it was clear in 1979, the department concluded that consent decrees should sunset every ten years. and for some inexplicable reason, they didn't apply that retroactively. >> well, my time is expired, but i would just make the point that the review was conducted in 2016. the determination was made that the consent decrees still were justified by the facts existing then. the facts have not changed since then. and so, the message for me, at least, to the department of justice is to keep these consent decrees in place while congress is hopefully going to legislate. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator cornyn.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to each of you for being here today. our job isn't always this enjoyable, but this has been a delightful hearing and a great opportunity for us to learn not only about the creative side, but the incredible complexity of the music business. and i think senator hatch made some comment about the complexity of the business, on the business side, and it reminds me of prescription drug pricing, which maybe it's intentionally designed to be difficult to understand. i don't know. but i do believe that the intellectual property that you create is just that, is property, and you ought to be protected in the property that you do create and that we all enjoy. in texas, where i come from, i live in austin, texas, which is the live music capital of the world. at least that's what we call it.

and there are about 15,000 business and music industry professionals, including about 8,000 recording artists. it is big business. it creates a lot of jobs. 95,000 permanent jobs, according to the texas music office, $3.6 billion in annual earnings, and over $8.5 billion in annual economic activity. so, it's not only a job-creator, it's something that has made our lives more enjoyable and more pleasurable. i'd be interested, mr. robinson, since we don't always have somebody like you, with your long career, testify at these hearings, if you could just spend about 30 seconds or a minute and talk about how much the industry has changed, just over your career. >> well, the industry has actually done a 360. it's not nearly what it was when i started.

there were record companies, there were record stores where you could go and buy records and browse and whatever you wanted to do, and none of that exists anymore. and when mr. harrison was talking, he was saying that an artist or writer or someone like that, if they didn't feel that they were totally being compensated correctly, that they could always, you know, sue. now, the last -- starting at the beginning of 2016, i decided that i was going to audit everybody, which i did. i audited everybody that was a source of income for me. i audited everybody. two of the larger companies, i audited them. and one of them, it turns out that, according to the audit that was done by professional auditors, they owed me $250,000. they told me they would give me $12,000, okay? and if i wanted to fight them, then bring it on. so, now, even in my position economically and whatever, how

could i put myself to fight a company like that for 20 years? and you're talking about an artist who is not -- who doesn't have the financial wherewithal, threats that i would have or something, fighting a company like that or trying to sue somebody? that's out of the question. so, we need your help. we need the senate. we need you guys to come to the rescue and to take care of that, because most of the people who are under those circumstances cannot afford to sue or fight or anything, or even investigate, so, it's changed totally, because there was a time when, even if you weren't being paid correctly by a record company or a sound exchange or whoever is going to pay you, you were getting some money. but now that's not happening. . and he mentioned -- there's a really close friend of mine who had one of the biggest record -- or the biggest songs, probably in the history of the music business two years ago, and he

received $2,700 for the performance, and it was streamed -- i mean, it was just millions all over the world, okay? he received $2,700, okay? so, this is crazy, and we need your help. we need you guys to come and say, okay, enough. and solve it. >> well, that sure doesn't seem right. >> absolutely not. >> and i congratulate you for bringing us as near a consensus product as you can, recognizing that this is complicated and difficult. but as i mentioned, we have a lot of songwriters and people in the music business in texas who are paying attention here today, and one of them sent me a letter here that i'd like to make part of the record. this comes from -- >> without objection. >> -- bart mallard of mercy me, who writes in support of the classics act, mr. chairman. so, i'd ask consent that it be made part of the record. >> without objection.

>> so, mr. glazier, in the seconds i have left, is there such a thing as a willing buyer and a willing seller in the music business? it strikes me as so complex, i don't know how you could have that important relationship to develop a market-based price. >> there actually is, for interactive services, there definitely is a willing buyer and there is a willing seller, and that benchmark is often what the copyright royalty board will look to in trying to set a rate. there are also lots of market deals that they do look to, and it's not perfect by any means. it's very difficult. on the one hand, you can't argue for a compulsory license and not get permission to ask the government to set the rate and then say, because i got it, now there's no market and i shouldn't have to pay a market price. you can't really win both ways by making those arguments, so it's a compromise. we will have a compulsory license where the government sets the rate, so it's not a free market, but at least they have to look to benchmarks in the marketplace so that they can get insight into how to set the rate in the best way possible so

you can at least get as close as you can to a willing buyer, willing seller. >> thank you, senator. senate yoor hirono? >> thank you, mr. chair. thank all the panelists and all of the wonderful artists in the audience. this is a question for mr. israelite. the music modernization act would change a system of paying royalties to songwriters. that hasn't changed, as we all heard, in years. currently, the bill requires a licensing collective to create a database of copyright owners and vaguely quotes engage in efforts to identify the musical works embodied in particular songwriters, end quote, and quote, identify and locate the copyright owners of such works, end quote, but the bill will not help musicians if the artists are not aware that the system has changed. so, i have several parts to my questions. how are you going to make sure that the smaller artists or

players know about the new collective and what steps at minimum do you think the collective should be taking to ensure that these artists are found and paid the royalties that they are due? >> thank you, senator. it's a great question, and it highlights the problem with the current system. today, when a digital company is unable or unwilling to find the owners of the songs, there are loopholes in the law that allow them to use the song without paying and without being liable for infringement. it's been a huge problem in the industry as interactive streaming companies have grown, this problem has grown. it's why we've gotten together with those companies and partnered on a solution. the solution is not perfect, but it is the best system, i think, that will exist in the world, because first, you will have a search for the ownership that is paid for by the people that are using the music. what that means is that for the first time anywhere in the world, songwriters will get 100% of their royalties and not have the commission taken off the top

that is the expense to find them. that is a major part of this bill supported by songwriters and a major thing that the technology companies are doing to help solve this problem. after you try to find the right writers, you, of course, are not going to be perfect. you're going to have mistakes. and what this bill does for the first time in the world is create a transparent, public database of what was found and identifies what could not be matched so that any songwriter, any publisher, anyone can look into this database and claim what is theirs over a period of time. that gives us a second check on the problem. and in terms of educating small songwriters or publishers, it's a huge concern of ours, and i'm very proud that every mainstream songwriter group has endorsed this bill and is working to help educate their own writers. here in this room, we have leaders of the national songwriters association and the songwriters of north america, who are committed to making sure that their membership is aware of how the system works and making sure that all these

royalties get paid to the proper owner. >> so, as far as you're concerned, that the idea is to use the best practices for finding these songwriters and making sure that you have various ways that you can assure that you've got everybody. >> we need to work in partnership with the digital companies. today they're matching somewhere in the neighborhood of between 70% and 90% of the revenue that they're generating from playing these songs. when they can't find the owner, that creates a problem for both sides. it's a liability problem for the digital company, and it's a problem for the writer that's trying to make a living. and so, by coming together to partner in this process in the way that we have, it's why you've achieved such consensus. there's practically nothing else that we all agree on in the music industry and the technology industry, but we have come together on this bill. >> so, that's good. i want to be reassured that you use the best practices. and do you think that the collective should consider using or consulting with expertise in

the music industry in hawaii, we have a very vibrant native hawaiian music industry. to ensure that the names of the artists and their works are correct in the database, because it is very easy to get hawaiian artist names wrong. try israel kamavikaolei as an example, and there is specific outreach to make sure as many people as possible are aware of the new system. so, the question is whether someone who is familiar with hawaiian music, for example, should be part of this collective, licensing collective. >> this new collective would benefit from anyone's help who can provide input. and one of the great things about this new collective is that today, if you have problems finding an owner of a song, if one service gets the answer, none of the other services know that answer. so, for example, if apple figures out who owns the song, it doesn't mean that spotify or amazon do know who owns the song. with a centralized collective, once you have solved the puzzle

piece, it is solved for everybody. and that, combined with the fact that we are for the first time in the world taking a music database and treating it not as confidential, not as proprietary, but rather, as a public document that anyone can look at and correct, it will be a major step forward. >> that's reassuring. mr. chairman, may i ask one more question? >> sure. >> my time is up, but anyway, this is short. >> go ahead. >> in 2015, the "wall street journal" noted that some believe that streamlining services typically fail to pay songwriter loyalties on 15% to 20% of the songs. so, these are identified, you know, writers. what would you consider to be a successful rate of identifying and paying songwriters from this new -- for this new licensing collective? because you say that there will always be mistakes, but you know, 15% to 20% of songs not being played without paying any royalties, is that an acceptable percentage for you? >> it's not. our goal will be 100%. i know that we'll fall short of that. our goal is to get as best a

matching as we possibly can. there are some actors in the industry that do a fairly good job in the 90 percentile, but i think by working collectively the way we're doing and by making the data public, we have a chance to improve upon what any individual company is doing today. and so, i'm confident that we're going to be able to reach a match rate that is higher than has ever been achieved in the marketplace. >> to the question, just to make sure that happens, do you think we should increase the time frame to claim royalties from three years to five years? >> i don't. remember, the time frame only starts after you've tried to match. so, once the data is received by this new collective, they're going to do their best job to match it with all available tools. it is only when they fail to match it does the clock start running for that three-year period. >> i see. >> and the three-year period was chosen because it mirrors the statute of limitations on copyright infringement. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator klobuchar. >> thank you, senator hatch, and thank you for your work on this,

and thank you to all of you. if it wasn't for this bill, i'd be in trouble in minnesota, given that i am the home of prince and bob dylan. we miss prince dearly. he was a fierce advocate, as all you know, for the rights of musicians and the rights of songwriters. i literally went and dressed up as purple rain once for a halloween party. took second. bathroom wall won. but also, i live on -- i live two blocks from positively fourth street. so, i was trying to think of, to compete with senator kennedy, some lyrics that i could quote from prince, but i decided i didn't want to freak out senator hatch. and so, i -- >> i resent that. >> okay. i just thought i'd try to oop it down a little bit. so instead, i went with something i thought you could use for some of our colleagues, if you want to, from a famous bob dylan's song, "times they

are achanging," come senators, congressmen, please heed the call, don't stand up the doorway, don't block up the hall. you can say that to them, if you want to. >> glad to have that knowledge. >> okay, so, i was going to ask you just about competition and what you think how these reforms, mr. israelite, would affect competition in the music industry. >> well, the best way to have true competition is to remove the compulsory license, remove the consent decrees, but we know that's not happening any time soon. so, the competition that's allowed for it within the bill basically doesn't change the nature of how you license the mechanical royalty. it just changes the nature of how you find the owner and how you compensate them. and with regard to the performance space, you do still have two actors that are regulated by the justice department, two actors who are in a free market, but at least it puts those actors who are regulated in a position that when they go to court and when a

single federal judge gets to tell a songwriter, like smokey, the value of their intellectual property, at least that judge can take into consideration evidence about what that entity is paying for the other copyright, which today they're not allowed to even consider. so, we think it improves on the competition, but there's still more work to do. >> you think it could make more works available, if the legislation is passed? does anyone have views on that? >> for digital services, it clearly gives them permission to use all works immediately, which is a great improvement in the current law. if you're a smaller interactive streaming company today and you're responsible for finding fractional owners of every song in your database, that could be a huge disadvantage against a giant technology company who has more resources to do that. the blanket license gives everybody the ability to use all music with no worries about infringement. so, it's one of the reasons why the internet association and dma have both endorsed this bill. >> very good.

mr. harrison, can you speak to the current uncertainty in the licensing system and how kk result in money spent on lawsuits or things like that, instead of money going to artists and songwriters and performers? >> sure. as david indicated earlier, it's often the case that a digital music service doesn't know who the copyright owner is of the musical work, when the music's first made available on the service. that can lead to services either deciding not to put music up, and so they go to market with a less-than-complete catalog, or in certain circumstances, potentially risk copyright infringement litigation. this is one of those situations where money that's spent on lawyers defending litigation suits is money not going into either paying artists, or frankly, into software engineers or sales people who can go build more compelling listening experiences for consumers, go

sell ads to generate revenue for artists and songwriters. so, part of the reason that dma is behind the music modernization act is to create that kind of business certainty, which will allow us -- allow our members to invest more in the products and services that we deliver to consumers. >> and how do you see the bills if and when it passes, how will it change the way the next wave of digital music producers can get started? >> so, i think, you know, again, because of this business uncertainty, certainly, there are smaller players that i talked to that aren't members of dma, who have said we don't invest much in the u.s. market because this business uncertainty makes it an unwise investment for us. and so, having a blanket license, removing this business risk, is going to cost not only my existing members to invest more in their products and services, but it's going to encourage that next wave of market entrants. >> right. just one follow-up on senator

kennedy's questions, mr. del beccaro. how important are these pre 1972 songs to music choice, pandora, and spotify? what percentage of digital performances are pre 1972 songs? >> well, i can't answer for the other companies. they are very important to us, and i should note that we have always paid on pre 1972 songs. we have never needed to be threatened by a lawsuit, and we support it fully. in fact, we support the full federalization of rights so artists do actually get paid. i will also note that our company has paid copyright to music companies since before the copyright law, and our beef with this bill is not related to anything anybody's talking about related to songwriters. we fully agree, songwriters need more and fair and better compensation. our problem is that this law has added a clause, section 103,

that wipes out companies like ours that has nothing to do with songwriter compensation. it actually is only related to music company compensation. none of it gets to artists whatsoever. and so, i would just ask that the senator considers that one clause. songwriters need relief. we agree fully. songwriters should be paid for pre 1972. we agree fully. >> okay. mr. israelite, i think i'll put some questions on the record for you about following up on senator blumenthal's questions about the consent decrees and he touched on the benefits of them, but there's also concerns about with nothing to replace them on the stability of the market. so, i'll ask you, because i'm the ranking on antitrust, and i hope it's something we'll be looking into going forward. but i'll end with you, mr mr. robinson. i'll note that "my girl" and "i'll second that emotion" were recorded before 1972, which means they didn't receive the copyright protection. and could you just speak the importance of having these recordings protected by federal

law to you personally, but more importantly, how this moves forward for less well-known artists for this kind of protection? >> well, it's very important to me as a songwriter, especially because you mentioned "my girl." and as far as internationally, i think "my girl" has become my international anthem. you know, we go places and we're putting "my girl" in places where the primary language is not even english and people know it, you know? so, to not be paid on a song like that, you know, is -- it just doesn't make sense. you know, i just think that it doesn't make sense and it should be rectified. and there are a lot of writers in that category -- >> i think one of your points here is that music is one of our best exports out of the united states -- >> i have yet -- >> and it literally brings money in all the time, and the money should also go to those that

wrote the song. >> absolutely. and i have yet to meet the person in my life who doesn't like any kind of music. >> well, there might be a few around here. you might need to look a little. >> so, i think music is an essential part of our lives. >> all right. >> and the creators should be compensated. >> i agree. well, i just want to thank you, to end the song that i started with. to thank you for shaking our windows and rattling our walls with this issue and coming to our attention year after year and finding a solution, but also just in general doing that with your lyrics and your songs. so, thank you very much. >> well, thank you, senator. i'd like to -- we've talked a lot about how the music modernization act will benefit songwriters. i would like to just ask you, mr. harrison, how it would benefit the digital music industry, which you represent.

how will the act benefit your industry and the tech industry more broadly? and what sort of difference will the bill make in the place of like california, washington, and elsewhere, that have strong tech communities and significant digital music presence? >> well, senator, top of my head, i think all but one of my members has a headquarters either in california or washington, and the one that doesn't have a headquarters in one of those two states has a large office there. so, with those two states in particular, yes, our membership is well represented. look, what the music modernization act does from the digital music providers' perspective is eliminate business risk in that business risk results in either reducing the catalog that gets made available to consumers, it reduces investments into the products and services that are provided to consumers, and so, by eliminating that business

risk, what we're doing is we're encouraging digital music providers to invest in new products, new services, create more compelling listening experiences for consumers, create more adoption of digital music services that ultimately ends up paying more money to copyright owners, artists, creators and songwriters, and that's what fuels the next wave of creativity. >> well, thank you. i don't see anybody else here, so i'm going to ask one more question to you, mr. israelite. why is transitioning from the 801a standard to the willing buyer-willing seller standard such a key point in all this? and how do you respond to critics who say the 801b standard is better than the willing buyer-willing seller standard because it's more flexible? >> i love that word flexible. what they mean is they get to pay songwriters less. the 801b standard is an insult on top of an insult.

songwriters have their intellectual property taken under a compulsory license. they have no choice. they're not in a market. they can't say no. then when you set their rates, they're told that the standard to set their rates ought to be done in a way that purposefully gives you a rate less than what they would be able to achieve if they were in a free market. and so, the willing buyer-willing seller standard is crucial to songwriters if you're going to keep them in a compulsory license, so at least the three judges who every five years sit in trial and tell songwriters what the value is of their songs, can take into account what they think a songwriter could achieve if they were like every other creator in copyright that gets to set their prices in a free market. and for those that are fighting to protect the 801b standard, i find it so interesting, because in addition to wanting to preserve a compulsory license, and in addition to wanting to preserve a bad rate standard for creators for themselves, they

want their competitors to pay willing seller-willing buyer. and so, if a competitor to xm sirius were launched today, they would pay willing seller-willing buyer. if a competitor to music choice were launched today, they would pay willing seller-willing buyer. it's just because of this quirk that in 1995, congress decided to somehow grandfather in existing companies that today is acting as a justification for it makes no sense. and so, we don't know what the outcome will be when three judges are told to now set songwriter prices under willing seller-willing buyer, instead of this four-part test, but we're hopeful that it will lead to more fair rates for songwriters. and i think most of the people on this panel, even those who may oppose the bill agree that songwriters deserve better compensation. >> well, thank you so much. i have to say this has been a particularly good panel in helping us to understand this. and if i have interpreted correctly, every member of this committee who has shown up here

today is for solving this problem, and i hope that we can move ahead and get this problem solved, because it is really unjust, the way the current system really works as far as i'm concerned. and i think we can make it a much better system with a lot more incentives than we have today and create a system where a lot of our talented people can get involved and we'll all benefit from more music, more talent, more opportunity, et cetera. i just want to thank you all for being here. each one of you has been an excellent witness here today. and we really appreciate it. do you have anything further? >> no, i just want to thank you. senator feinstein had to get pulled out, but she wants to thank you as well. and i think you see here some great bipartisan work that's going on, and i think that just shows how important this cause is. so, we look forward to getting

this done and resolving any differences that remain. so, thank you very much. >> but keep the pressure on, because we should get this up and -- >> yeah, keep rattling the walls and shaking the -- >> get that up to the committee. get the committee to pass it out, then get it passed through the senate. and i think we can do that, and in large measure, that will be because of the testimony of all of you here today. and we're just very appreciative that you've come helped us to understand this better. and with regard to you, mr. robinson, i've been a fan for years, and it's kind of nice to be able to meet a real talent like you. not that you others don't have talent. and to realize that you're just a regular judge, just like a lot of us, you know? >> well, thank you very much. and i was just going to say, i'm going to tell gladys you said hi. >> give her my love. >> absolutely. >> she's very dear to me. and all i can say is that the

little bit that i've done in the music world has been a lot of fun for me. and i didn't realize i could write lyrics until janice came to me and asked me to write with her. she was an inspirational writer, many children's songs, but a marvelous writer. and from that and a number of other people in the industry kept coming to me and saying would you write some with me. and i know that i'm not in your league, but -- >> what do you mean? i have your cds. i have your collection. >> i'd like to write one with you. i'm fraud -- >> i'll be the lyrics. >> i'm afraid it would be too racy, that's the problem. >> well, this is probably a good time to end the hearing. >> well, it's really wonderful to have all of you here. we appreciate you taking the time, and i think you've been very helpful to us, and hopefully, we'll get this bill passed and it will be a big step in the right direction, and then we can go work on some of the

things we still haven't done and really should do. but god bless all of you. we appreciate you. thanks for being here. with that, we'll close this hearing off.

later today on our companion network cspan, the future of race relations in america. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the u.s. senate race in utah, two

republicans, mitt romney and state lawmakers mike kennedy will debate each other for the seat being vacated by senator orrin hatch. that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch it live on cspan. cspan, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. tonight here on cspan 3 american history tv in primetime will look at political satire throughout u.s. history, beginning with the supreme court

decision in hustler magazine versus fallwell. they found that a parody was protected and no reasonable person would believe the satire was true. commencement speeches, all this week in primetime. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern, me too movement founder, clarence thomas, rosalyn gates brewer and nikki haley. wednesday, hillary clinton, rex tillerson, james mattis, and canadian prime minister justice trudeau. thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, tim cook, governor john kasich. governor kate brown and congressman liuis gutierrez. on friday, atlanta mayor keisha

lance bottoms. the u.s. conference of mayors recently met in washington, d.c. for a conversation on public safety issues facing cities in america. mayors and police chiefs discuss gun violence, school safety, the opioid epidemic and police community relations. thank you, mayor cranley. i am steve benjamin and i am so glad to see so many of our mayors and the chief of police and the fantastic partners with us here today as we address these issues, some that we've been addressing for far too long. we're discussing critical issues for our cities and for our great country. obviously, we're all around the table because we know we have to work