[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
        RESPECTING ARTISTS WITH THE AMERICAN MUSIC FAIRNESS ACT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-52

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        
         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
               
                            ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-512               WASHINGTON : 2022                
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

          AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------   
                                 
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 2, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     7
The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia...........    23
The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California.........................    23

                               WITNESSES

Ms. Gloria Estefan, Singer, Songwriter, Musician, and Recording 
  Artist and Founder, The Gloria Estefan Foundation
  Oral Testimony.................................................    32
  Prepared Statement.............................................    34
Mr. Barry Massarsky, Partner and Music Economics and Valuation 
  Services Practice Co-Leader, Citrin Cooperman Advisors LLC
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Statement.............................................    42
Mr. Lawrence ``Boo'' Mitchell, Engineer, Producer, Musician, and 
  Owner, Royal Studios
  Oral Testimony.................................................    53
  Prepared Statement.............................................    55
Mr. Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO, National Association of 
  Broadcasters
  Oral Testimony.................................................    59
  Prepared Statement.............................................    61
Mr. Dave Pomeroy, International Executive Officer, American 
  Federation of Musicians
  Oral Testimony.................................................    73
  Prepared Statement.............................................    75

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Materials from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the 
  record.........................................................     6
Materials submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the 
  record
  A Dear Colleague letter from Chair Jerrold Nadler and Ranking 
    Member Doug Collins of the Committee on the Judiciary........    10
  An article entitled, ``Radio Ink (Op0Ed): Will Ethnic Radio 
    Survive In The U.S.A.?'' RadioInk............................    11
  A letter from W. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator of FEMA....    13
  A letter from the National Association of Black Owned 
    Broadcasters (NOBOB).........................................    15
  A letter from representatives of all 50 state broadcast 
    associations, plus those forthe District of Columbia and 
    Puerto Rico, to support the Local Radio Freedom Act(LRFA, 
    H.Con.Res. 33) and oppose the American Music Fairness Act 
    (AMFA, H.R. 4130)............................................    17
Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, 
  for the record
  An article entitled, ``A Performance Right is Not a Tax, 
    Congress should Exit the Music Business,'' Americans for Tax 
    Reform.......................................................    28
  A letter entitled, ``CCAGW Urges House Judiciary Committee to 
    Support H.R. 4130,'' Tom Schatz, President of Council for 
    Citizens Against Government Waste............................    30
An article entitled, ``Is Old Music Killing New Music,'' The 
  Atlantic, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for 
  the record.....................................................    98
A letter from Peter Leathem, CEO of PP, submitted by the 
  Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the 
  record.........................................................   130

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted for the record by the Honorable Henry C. 
  ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the record
  A letter entitled, ``CCAGW Urges House Judiciary Committee to 
    Support H.R. 4130,'' Tom Schatz, President of Council for 
    Citizens Against Government Waste............................   142
  A letter from Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel of Public 
    Knowledge....................................................   143
  A letter from the children/relatives/rights holders of deceased 
    legacy artists...............................................   149
  A letter from the Society of Composers and Lyricists (SLC).....   152
  A statement from Michael Huppe, President and CEO of 
    SoundExchange................................................   153
  An article entitled, ``American Music Fairness Act Is a Step in 
    the Right Direction for Creating a Level Playing Field in US 
    Copywrite Law, Says ITIF,'' Information Technology & 
    Innovation Foundation........................................   155
  A letter from Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax 
    Reform.......................................................   157
  A letter from CCAGW coalition of organizations.................   159
  A letter from supporters of community broadcasting.............   161
  A report entitled, ``Copyright Policy, Creativity, and 
    Innovation in the Digital Economy,'' The Department of 
    Commerce Internet Policy Task Force..........................   162
  A letter from Dolly Parton in support of the Performance Rights 
    Act legislation..............................................   283
  A statement from Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy   284
  A letter from Frank Sinatra to Bruce Springsteen...............   285

             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD

Question to Barry Massarsky, Partner and Music Economics and 
  Valuation Services Practice Co-Leader, Citrin Cooperman 
  Advisors LLC, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, 
  for the record.................................................   288
Question to Barry Massarsky, Partner and Music Economics and 
  Valuation Services Practice Co-Leader, Citrin Cooperman 
  Advisors LLC, submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for 
  the record.....................................................   289
Question to Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO, National 
  Association of Broadcasters, submitted by the Honorable Steve 
  Chabot, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Ohio, for the record..................................   290
Question to Gloria Estefan, Singer, Songwriter, Musician, and 
  Recording Artist and Founder, The Gloria Estefan Foundation, 
  submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the 
  record.........................................................   291
Responses to questions from Barry Massarsky, Partner and Music 
  Economics and Valuation Services Practice Co-Leader, Citrin 
  Cooperman Advisors LLC, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York, and the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the 
  record.........................................................   292
Responses to questions from Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO, 
  National Association of Broadcasters, submitted by the 
  Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the record...............   294
Responses to questions from Gloria Estefan, Singer, Songwriter, 
  Musician, and Recording Artist and Founder, The Gloria Estefan 
  Foundation, submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for 
  the record.....................................................   297


        RESPECTING ARTISTS WITH THE AMERICAN MUSIC FAIRNESS ACT

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, February 2, 2022

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson 
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, 
Cicilline, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Garcia, 
Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Ross, Chabot, Issa, 
Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Steube, 
Tiffany, Massie, Fischbach, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, and 
Owens.
    Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff 
Director; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, 
Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; 
Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams, Parliamentarian 
and Senior Counsel; Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; Kayla 
Hamedi, Deputy Communications Director; James Park, Chief 
Counsel for Constitution; Jamie Simpson, Chief Counsel for 
Courts & IP; Atarah McCoy, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Courts & IP; Tyler Grimm, Minority Chief 
Counsel for Policy and Strategy; Ella Yates, Minority Member 
Services Director; Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk; and John Lee, Minority 
USPTO Detailee.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without an objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome 
everyone to this morning's hearing on Respecting Artists with 
The American Music Fairness Act.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating any exhibits, motions, or other 
written materials that Members might want to offer as part of 
our hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, 
please send them to the email address that has previously been 
distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials 
to Members and staff as quickly as possible.
    I would also ask all Members to please mute your 
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent 
feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute yourself 
any time you seek recognition.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Music has the power to bring people together. Now, more 
than ever, as we continue to seek means of staying connected 
amid a global pandemic, people are turning to music to enjoy 
and to participate in a sense of social belonging. Music has 
also brought us together today to reflect on one of the most 
long-standing injustices, but unfortunately has been a feature 
of the music landscape for decades, the ability of AM/FM 
broadcasters to play music without paying the performing 
artists a royalty.
    Unlike all other music platforms, terrestrial radio is 
allowed to use and to profit off the creation, the intellectual 
property of the artists, for absolutely free. I am aware of no 
other instance in which this is allowed, and it is time for 
this unfairness to end.
    While granting this exemption to broadcasters has been 
grossly unfair for decades, its impact is becoming increasingly 
inequitable over time as the shape of the industry has changed. 
Four years ago, Congress and the music community came together 
to pass the bipartisan Orin Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music 
Modernization Act, a landmark piece of legislation bringing 
much-needed updates to many aspects of the copyright systems 
governing music. It is time to complete that project by passing 
another bipartisan measure, the American Music Fairness Act, 
introduced by Representatives Deutch and Issa, which would at 
last require AM/FM radio stations to pay royalties for the 
recordings that they broadcast.
    I thank both Mr. Deutch and Mr. Issa for their leadership 
on this issue and as a long-time advocate for closing this 
unfair loophole that harms the artists, I am proud to join them 
in this effort.
    For years, broadcasters have argued that they should not 
have to pay a performance royalty because their airplay holds 
promotional value that leads to artists' fair compensation 
through album sales, tour interests, and publicity. Although 
this has always been a dubious claim, the advent of popular 
digital media and streaming platforms has now made this 
argument progressively less relevant.
    Terrestrial satellite and digital radio all play the same 
music to the same audience on the same speakers. Critically, it 
is also clear that it is through these new digital platforms 
that a lot of new music discovery takes place today. In other 
words, these new services play just as important a role in 
music promotion, yet only they are required to pay this 
performance royalty. This puts the streaming services and 
especially satellite and internet radio, at a competitive 
disadvantage to terrestrial radio. Simply put, similar 
businesses should be treated similarly under the law.
    Additionally, the failure of U.S. law to establish a 
performance right on terrestrial radio means that our singers 
and other musicians miss out on royalties when the music is 
broadcast overseas. Nearly every other developed Nation in the 
world compensates performers for playing their music on 
terrestrial radio, but since we do not have a similar 
performance right at home, American artists do not receive 
royalties when their music is played abroad. This deprives U.S. 
artists of up to $200 million annually.
    The lack of a performance right costs our economy millions 
of dollars each year, but at bottom, this is an issue about 
fairness for artists which is why I am so thankful that we will 
be hearing from three accomplished artists today to help us 
better understand how this issue impacts our country's enormous 
and diverse body of musicians.
    While every artist deserves to be paid when the music is 
used by broadcasters, this royalty stream would be particularly 
meaningful for the thousands of working-class artists who are a 
critical part of our country's vibrant music industry. It would 
also be particularly meaningful for artists who are not readily 
able to tour and perform and this, unfortunately, has been the 
case for all artists over the past two years during the COVID 
pandemic.
    It is time once and for all to create a system that is 
platform neutral and that respects artists. We have an 
impressive range of Witnesses here today and I look forward to 
their testimony as we explore this critical issue.
    Before I yield back, without objection, I will enter into 
the record several statements of support we have received about 
the American Music Fairness Act including from the Department 
for Professional Employees of the AFL-CIO; Keith Kupferschmid, 
CEO of the Copyright Alliance; Meredith Rose, Senior Policy 
Counselor of Public Knowledge; Mike Huppe, President and CEO of 
Sound Exchange; and six organizations representing community 
broadcasters.
    Without objection, I will also enter into the record 
documentation from each Administration going back to President 
Carter showing that all of them advised that the creation of 
this performance right would be in the best interests of the 
United States.
    [The information follows:]

?

      

                      CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

Materials from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the 
record is available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
CHRG-117hhrg48512/pdf/CHRG-117hhrg48512-add1.pdf
    I understand that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, 
Mr. Jordan, will be unable to participate in today's hearing 
and that the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, will serve as 
Ranking Member for this hearing. Therefore, I now recognize Mr. 
Chabot for his opening statement.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding 
this morning's hearing and thank you to the Witnesses who will 
be testifying.
    This Committee handles some of the most contentious issues 
facing Congress. Now, on many of those issues, abortion, gun 
control, how to deal with illegal immigration, you can count on 
virtually all the Democrats lining up on one side and all the 
Republicans lining up on the other side. The topic of 
discussion today, intellectual property rights, specifically 
with respect to the music industry is different. You really do 
see a lot of bipartisanships, cooperation, and even compromise. 
I hope that trend continues as we consider legislation which 
could forever change the way in which music is enjoyed on the 
radio.
    Back in 2019, Mr. Chair, you and then Ranking Member 
Collins circulated a Dear Colleague letter which noted that 
radio royalties need to be handled through ``consensus-based 
proposals that move the American marketplace forward and market 
realities should be taken into account.'' I would ask unanimous 
consent to that Dear Colleague letter be entered into the 
record, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Currently, the nine largest radio 
stations combined have a market cap at less than $4 billion 
while the three largest record companies have a market cap over 
$200 billion. As this Committee and Congress considers this 
issue, we need to be cautious that our actions don't further 
endanger broadcasters, particularly when it is estimated that 
they provide billions of dollars of promotional value to 
artists like Ms. Estefan, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Pomeroy, who 
will be testifying before the Committee this morning.
    I will also note that absent from this morning's discussion 
are broadcasters who represent small and minority-owned radio 
stations. Amador Bustos, the President and CEO of Bustos Media, 
owns many Spanish-language stations throughout the United 
States. He offered to testify before the Committee to provide 
that perspective this morning, but he was not given the 
opportunity. In lieu of his testimony, I would ask unanimous 
consent to enter his January 26th Radio, Inc. op-ed into the 
record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Additionally, unlike 
other platforms, local broadcasters don't only play music. They 
also serve a public interest. They serve communities across the 
United States, local news, community-relevant programming, 
critical life-saving emergency alerts, and are often a vital 
partner with local charities and public causes.
    When the power and internet stop working, radio continues 
to broadcast life-saving notices and they have been especially 
helpful during the on-going coronavirus pandemic. For example, 
WKRC, in my congressional district back in Cincinnati, 
partnered with the Hamilton County, Ohio Health Department to 
focus on COVID education and vaccine awareness. WIZF, also in 
my congressional district, has featured and promoted three 
minority-owned businesses each week that have been struggling 
during the pandemic, free of charge. In the last year alone, 
one other station in my congressional district, WREW, has aired 
over 2,000 public service announcements and donated over 4,000 
promotional spots to local organizations and raised over 
$800,000 for charitable causes. Radio stations throughout the 
country have contributed in similar ways to their respective 
communities.
    Finally, I would like to note that in times of public 
emergencies like floods or hurricanes, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, relies on radio as well. Because of 
its reach and resiliency, radio services--they serve as the 
backbone of the nation's emergency alert system. FEMA has 
invested tens of millions of dollars in hardening radio backup 
facilities around the country, including WLW in Cincinnati 
where FEMA constructed a hardened site from which station 
personnel could broadcast critical information to the public 
for months on end if necessary. Some, like former FEMA 
Administrator Craig Fugate, are concerned that imposing royalty 
fees on radio stations could put public safety at risk by 
diverting resources from emergency alert capabilities.
    I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter from former FEMA Administrator, Mr. Fugate.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Finally, I would ask 
unanimous consent to enter two letters into the record, one 
from the Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, and another 
signed by all 50 State broadcast associations, noting their 
concerns with the legislation like this particular legislation, 
the American Music Fairness Act. So, I would ask that--
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. CHABOT FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. So, with that, I look forward to 
this morning's discussion and testimony from our panel of 
witnesses. Thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields. I recognize the 
gentleman from Georgia, the Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Mr. Johnson, 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this hearing on this very important topic. We are in a much 
different world today than we were in 1972 when Congress first 
created a performance royalty. That was back when everyone 
listened to the radio and bought records based on the music 
they heard on their local station. This is far different than 
the variety of ways that people listen to music today.
    In this vibrant, complex, ecosystem, it is clear now more 
than ever that we must work together to address the issue of 
radio broadcast performance rights. It goes without saying that 
artists should be compensated for their work and as the COVID 
pandemic has made painfully clear, working-class artists need 
steady royalty streams because they can't always rely on other 
ways of making money from their craft such as through touring 
whether due to pandemic or simply the fact of getting older.
    I commend the work of my colleagues, Mr. Deutch and Mr. 
Issa, on crafting the American Music Fairness Act in a way that 
approaches this issue thoughtfully, with different and much 
lower royalty rates for small and independent radio stations, 
while ensuring artists are compensated when their songs are 
played on the radio. In addressing the issue of radio broadcast 
performance rights, we must also be sure that we are addressing 
the concerns of the broadcasters and all those involved in 
local radio. It is local radio which raises important health 
and social issues, support local journalism, and provide much 
needed information on emergency services during natural 
disasters. Obviously, all the different parties involved in 
this issue are differently situated with respect to being able 
to accommodate change. I believe it is through hearings like we 
are having today that we can work together to resolve this 
long-standing issue and explore how to fairly compensate 
creators.
    I am pleased that we are joined today by such accomplished 
artists and other industry professionals to help us further 
consider this important issue and I look forward to their 
testimony. So, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
the gentleman from California, the Ranking Member of the Courts 
and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Issa, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I would like to note that today, the 
reason the Ranking Member is not here is the funeral of Budd 
Brown who served in this body from 1965-1983 and hopefully, we 
will remember him for two reasons, a fine legislator and a man 
who came in 1965 after Frank Sinatra had already asked for some 
sort of compensation and at 94 when he passed away and is being 
buried on Groundhog Day, yes, we are here again and we do not 
have a solution.
    I say all of that not tongue-in-cheek, but because we have 
been here for over half a century arguing that industries at 
that time paid nothing and made billions. Now, are gone to 
paying everyone we can think of except this one loophole.
    My friends in the broadcast industry will always find a 
freshman and tell them, please, do not support this tax. I 
would ask unanimous consent that the Americans for Tax Reforms 
and Citizens Against Government support--sorry, Against Tax and 
Protection Reform, which supports this bill--it ain't a tax. As 
a matter of fact, when we look at it, if it was a tax, then 
public broadcasting would not be paying for streaming because, 
of course, if it is a tax on terrestrial, it is a tax on 
streaming.
    So, I am here today to echo what the Chair said because he 
said most of what is needed to be said, but perhaps did not 
take this on in the way I am going to today. After more than 20 
years of being told that you can't afford a penny, I am here 
today to say this bill is a hand to effectively say all we are 
asking for is a penny.
    There are about 5,000 stations in the United States that 
make less than $1.5 million. Whether they fell within the lower 
amount or the higher amount, they would pay no more than $500. 
That means that 5,000 plus stations would pay about $2 million 
total, a fraction of what they probably pay in NAB Membership 
every year, and certainly a fraction of what they pay in income 
taxes, and most importantly, a fraction of what they pay in 
streaming for the exact same material going, as the Chair said, 
over the same
speaker.
    So, I am looking forward to this, but I on Groundhog Day, I 
would have to say we have been here before, we have debunked 
the statements of why no money can be paid, and I hope that 
people on the broadcast side after this hearing will come 
together and simply ask the question, are you better off 
telling us that the only way you will support this is if you 
get a reduction from what you are already paying in streaming? 
Or are we better off simply never giving fairness as your 
industry more and more is paying on the streaming side and not 
paying on the other side?
    Today, where NAB's 5,000 smallest stations, I would reach 
out and say if you pay just $500, you could be locked into 
never having to pay anything more than that. Your entire cost 
of music for the vast majority of small and intermediate 
stations would be so small that you pay NAB more in dues than 
you would, in fact, pay to have the music that allows the world 
to enjoy a better life and allows you to make a living. So, I 
would suggest that.
    I would say that Congressman Deutch and I stand ready to 
find creative compromises, but zero continues to be a number 
that denies hundreds of millions of dollars to our performers 
around the world and for no particular purpose because we are 
talking a very small amount as streaming continues to grow.
    So, Mr. Chair, I know I have gone on a little long, but I 
appreciate that you are holding this hearing and you are not 
giving up on something that the late Frank Sinatra and the not 
late, but getting up in years, Dionne Warwick, both champion, 
and I would ask that their statements both historically and 
this past year be placed in the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. ISSA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Without objection, 
all other opening statements will be included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses. Gloria Estefan is a 
multi-Grammy Award winning singer, a singer-songwriter, 
musician, and recording artist. Known as the Queen of Latin 
Pop, she has sold over 100 million albums worldwide and 
released 38 number one hits across the Billboard charts. In 
2015, she and her husband Emilio, receive the Presidential 
Medal of Freedom for their contributions to American music. In 
2017, she became the first Cuban-American to be named a Kennedy 
Center honoree. Today, she continues to work with the Gloria 
Estefan Foundation on multiple causes including education, 
health, and cultural development.
    Barry Massarsky is a Partner and the Co-Leader of the Music 
Economics and Valuation Services Practice at Citrin Cooperman 
Advisors, LLC. Previously, he served as a Senior Economist at 
ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and 
Publishers. Through his work, study, music copyright, 
economics, Mr. Massarsky has worked with a wide range of 
artists. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston 
University and an MBA from Cornell University.
    Lawrence ``Boo'' Mitchell is a Grammy Award winning 
engineer, producer, composer, and the owner of Royal Studios in 
Memphis, Tennessee. The son of the well-known music producer, 
Willie Mitchell, Boo began his musical career at the age of 16 
writing songs and playing keyboard for such artists as Al 
Green. Later, he worked as manager and talent coordinator at 
his family's club on Memphis' Historic Beale Street bringing in 
a range of iconic performers. As the owner of Royal Studios, he 
has been a producer and engineer working with a wide range of 
popular and award-winning artists.
    Curtis LeGeyt is the President and Chief Operating Officer 
of the National Association of Broadcasters. He previously 
served as Executive Vice President for Government Relations 
before being named to his current role in 2020. Prior to 
joining NAB, Mr. LeGeyt served as Senior Counsel to Senate 
Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy. He received his B.A. from 
Providence College and his J.D. from Cornell University Law 
School.
    Dave Pomeroy is a bassist, writer, and producer. He is the 
President of the National Musicians Association and is an 
International Executive Officer of the American Federation of 
Musicians. As a studio musician, Mr. Pomery has played bass on 
more than 500 albums including six Grammy-winning recordings 
with a diverse range of artists. He has, also, released more 
than a dozen projects on his label, Earwave Records, and is a 
long-time columnist and advisory board member for Bass Player 
Magazine. He has served as President of the National Musicians 
Association, AFM Local 257, since 2008, and serves on the 
International Executive Board of the American Federation of 
Musicians since 2010.
    We welcome our distinguished Witnesses and we thank them 
for participating today. I will begin by swearing you in. If 
you would please turn on your audio and make sure I can see 
your face and your raised right hand while I administer the 
oath.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
    Let the record show the Witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in their entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you 
stay within that time, there is a timer on your screen.
    Ms. Estefan, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF GLORIA ESTEFAN

    Ms. Estefan. Good morning, everyone. My name is Gloria 
Estefan. Thank you for that wonderful introduction, but I am a 
singer, songwriter, musician, recording artist for over 46 
years, an actress, businesswoman, and proud member of SAG--
AFTRA. Although, I would never toot my own horn and for the 
benefit of those of you that may not have a clue as to who I 
am, I am also an eight time Grammy winner and recipient of the 
Ellis Island Medal of Island and the Ellis Island Family 
Heritage Award, the Gershwin Prize for Popular Songs from the 
Library of Congress, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and in 
2018, had the incredible honor of having one of my songs added 
to the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress 
as one of only 500 titles out of nearly three million of the 
Library's recorded sound collection that were of cultural, 
historic, and aesthetic importance to the American soundscape 
and those are not my words. Those are theirs.
    Thank you so much, Chair Nadler, Congressman Chabot, and 
all the Members of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to 
speak here today.
    Committee Members, I want you to think of a song that is 
deeply meaningful to you. It doesn't have to be one of mine, 
although I secretly hope it is. Maybe it was a song that played 
during your first kiss, or the favorite tune of late relative, 
or lyrics that helped you get through a difficult time in your 
life, or maybe a song that was playing that time that someone 
dragged you onto the dance floor to do the conga at some 
wedding.
    Music speaks to the soul. It evokes emotion. It inspires. 
It brings us solace in challenging times and as the late, great 
Dick Clark who was a friend, so wisely said it is the 
soundtrack to our lives. Music has value. That is why I am here 
today to encourage you to vote in favor of the American 
Fairness Act.
    Each of the songs that are precious and meaningful to you 
was a labor of love for the songwriters, the artists, the 
musicians, and producers that brought it to life. They poured 
their own hearts and souls into its creation. When their music 
is played on the radio, artists don't get paid, only the 
songwriters do. The radio stations benefit from the advertising 
dollars, but the artists that breathe life into a song, the 
featured artist, the singers, producers, and studio musicians 
are left out. This could be particularly problematic for older 
artists whose songs are not in the top 40, but still get air 
play. I would venture to guess that many of the songs that mean 
the most to you are ones from these music legends, and I, in 
fact, raised my children listening to the local oldies station 
as I drove them to and from school. At that time, the '50s, 
'60s, and '70s were considered oldies. Those things have 
changed now.
    My son and daughter loved not only hearing the beautiful 
and catchy songs, but were also able to learn a deep 
appreciation for the varied styles of music that American 
artists have been creating through the years.
    While I am the one testifying before you today, I represent 
hundreds of thousands of Americans who endeavor to make a 
living making music. Each of us has passion, talent, and drive. 
I was blessed to be able to make a full living doing what I 
love. You know these artists. They are your families, your 
friends, and neighbors. They sacrifice so much to pursue their 
passion for music often having to take on multiple jobs to pay 
the bills.
    The American Music Fairness Act is for them. For so many 
American music creators, life has become dire since the start 
of the pandemic. As a result of COVID, they have had to 
drastically cut back on live performances or cut them out 
altogether, eliminating an important and often sole source of 
revenue. These hard-working, middle-class Americans cannot pay 
the rent with the exposure offered to them by broadcast 
companies. It simply doesn't make sense that artists are not 
being paid when their music is played on one specific platform, 
AM/FM radio. Why hasn't this been rectified sooner?
    Traditional AM/FM radio is the only platform that does not 
compensate performers for the sound recordings they use to fuel 
often billion dollar businesses. This corporate radio loophole 
makes broadcast radio the only industry in America that can use 
another's intellectual property without permission or 
compensation. Every industrialized country, except the United 
States, provides a performance right. Moreover, when American-
made music is played overseas, other countries collect 
royalties for American artists and producers, but never pay 
those royalties because we don't reciprocate. This inequity 
costs the American economy and artists more than $200 million a 
year as was stated before.
    I want to take a moment to point out that although we are 
asking radio stations to pay their fair share, I am a very big 
fan of radio and its place in music. As a child, it was the 
only place--
    Chair Nadler. The Witness's time has expired, so please sum 
up.
    Ms. Estefan. Okay. Well, I am gratified that it is going to 
include exceptions for small and local broadcast stations that 
are important institutions in our communities and what it will 
do is ensure that all competing music platforms are treated 
equally.
    Thank you for having me here today. Your dedication to all 
artists is so deeply appreciated. I hope you will continue your 
efforts along with many champions across the Capitol, like 
long-time supporters, Senators Leahy and Blackburn, to move 
this bill forward to ultimate success. We are counting on you 
to make this right. Though life isn't fair and we can't change 
that, the payment of music royalties should be because that is 
what respect is all about. Thank you for allowing me to 
represent my fellow artists.
    [The statement of Ms. Estefan follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
       
    Chair Nadler. We thank you.
    Mr. Massarsky, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF BARRY MASSARSKY

    Mr. Massarsky. Thank you. Good morning to all.
    I've been asked to appear before this Committee to render 
my expert opinion as to the status of performance rights sound 
recording exemption for terrestrial radio performances in the 
United States.
    First, I've spent my entire 40-year career as a music 
industry economist studying the relationship between music and 
commercial radio. First, I was the Senior Economist for ASCAP, 
which is a music rights organization for songwriters and 
publishers.
    I then became an economist for one of its competitors in 
Nashville with SESAC. Since 1992, I've been the consulting 
economist on this issue for the Recording Industry Association 
of America and continue with my work with SoundExchange 
actually since its origin.
    Then, finally, I continue to provide consulting on this 
subject to major music publishers and have so since 2006.
    My analysis of radio has determined that it relies on an 
extraordinary amount of music as its core input to drive $7.6 
billion of available music formatted revenue per year.
    Seventy-nine percent of radio revenue is attributable to 
stations whose purpose is to provide music to its listening 
audience. In fact, based on that number of stations utilize 
their music format as its chief programming input, I estimate 
that over 714 million nonlicensed sound recordings are 
performed each year on commercial radio stations.
    In fact, music is so important that radio itself promotes 
their use of music to attract listenership and its chief 
purpose for their slogans and taglines to attract audience 
attention.
    Most essential to this discussion and the nexus of radio 
station programming and record promotion value, which was the 
reason and cause for the exemption to begin with, is now 
shattered as that association between radio and promotion is 
counterfactual to the new radio music economy.
    I study this every day and I've done studies on what music 
provides to radio and what's the inventory that radio relies on 
to sell itself to its audience.
    When we look at the actual airplay of what was playing on 
radio, only 36 percent across all formats of radio station 
spins can be classified as newly released and, therefore, 
sensitive to promotion play.
    In actuality, 53 percent of all spins listed as gold that's 
a determination by radio itself. This is a concept that's been 
growing over time, as older music is already very well known to 
the music fan community and, in fact, now represents the 
majority of the record industry. The recent trends show that 
new music is now well discovered on other platforms, which is 
social media and digital services.
    Despite this pervasive need for music to provide this 
revenue, only a tiny fraction of radio's operating costs are 
allocated for the right to perform all this new content. On a 
time-based measurement, 67 percent of a music-formatted radio 
station is occupied by the playing of sound recordings--67 
percent. Against that backdrop of usage, only four percent of 
stations' operating costs are relatable to this amazing input.
    I must [inaudible] absence of right for using sound 
recordings on terrestrial radio is no longer rational on 
economic terms, given the radio stations' use of music in its 
programming.
    I would end here by saying that there are only really two 
issues at hand--just two issues.

        (1)  Does the loophole that radio has been provided, which is 
        the promotional thing, still valid? Answer? No. [inaudible]
        (2)  Will small stations suffer as a result of this impact of 
        new costs? The legislation protects those stations.

    So, the two most important driving considerations that you 
would have through this law they're both well understood.
    So, thank you very much for your time today. I'm happy to 
answer questions about my data, and I appreciate your time 
today. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Massarsky follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman--we thank the gentleman. We 
thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Mitchell, you are now recognized for five minutes.

             STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE ``BOO'' MITCHELL

    Mr. Mitchell. Good morning.
    Dear Chair Nadler, Congressman Chabot, and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Lawrence ``Boo'' Mitchell. I'm a Grammy 
Award-winning recording engineer, producer, composer, musician, 
and the co-owner of historic Royal Studios here in Memphis, 
Tennessee. I'm also a member of the Board of Governors of the 
Memphis chapter of the Recording Academy. Thank you for giving 
me an opportunity to testify.
    In 2014, I was visited here at Royal Studios by songwriters 
and producers Mark Ronson and Jeff Bhasker. After visiting the 
studio, Mark told me that he wanted to record his album here, 
including a track with Bruno Mars.
    Over the next several weeks, some of the finest musical 
talents from Memphis and around the country teamed up to record 
the song ``Uptown Funk.'' It became the number-one song of the 
year and, eventually, the number-one song of the decade.
    In 2016, it won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year, 
the first record made in Memphis to win this honor. ``Uptown 
Funk'' was a huge radio hit. To this day, it's one of the 20 
most played songs of all time on American radio.
    No one involved in the recording of ``Uptown Funk'' has 
ever been paid by radio broadcasters who profited from their 
work.
    Because of a loophole in the copyright law, radio 
broadcasters are allowed to play records without asking for 
permission and without paying compensation. They can play 
records on the air for free and use our music to sell billions 
of dollars' worth of advertising.
    I can't think of another industry in America where you are 
allowed to take someone else's property and use it without 
permission or compensation.
    ``Uptown Funk'' was also a huge radio hit around the world. 
The track reached number one in Australia, Canada, Israel, New 
Zealand, and the U.K. In every one of those countries, 
broadcasters pay royalties for radio play.
    American musicians didn't get paid for ``Uptown Funk.'' 
Almost every other country in the world recognizes a 
performance right for records played on the radio and they 
require broadcasters to pay royalties to the artists and 
musicians. Foreign countries won't pay American artists and 
musicians until the U.S. fixes the law and reciprocates.
    Every year American artists are losing hundreds of millions 
of dollars in international royalties. Fortunately, there's a 
solution to fix this injustice, the American Music Fairness 
Act.
    It is a bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Ted 
Deutch and Darrell Issa. Under this bill, artists, performers, 
vocalists, producers, and other music makers involved in the 
creation of a sound recording would receive compensation for 
their music played on radio stations across the U.S.
    Importantly, the bill safeguards the royalties received by 
songwriters and publishers for radio play. It also contains key 
protections for small broadcasters to ensure that local and 
community radio stations continue to thrive.
    This week is the 50th anniversary of Reverend Al Green's 
legendary ``Let's Stay Together'' album, which was produced, 
recorded, and mixed here at Royal Studios by my father, the 
late Willie Mitchell. The title track was a number-one hit and 
has been added to the National Recording Registry at the 
Library of Congress.
    My father, who passed away in 2010, tragically, never 
received a penny from radio for his work and, shamefully, 
neither have the other great Memphis musicians and vocalists 
who created this work, like the Hi Rhythm Section, Rhodes, 
Chalmers, and Rhodes, the Memphis Horns and Strings, James 
Mitchell.
    This is a gross injustice and a stain on the legacy of our 
great nation. Some things have not changed from the time my dad 
started at Royal Studios until today. We still produce and 
record great music. Radio stations still pay no royalties to 
performers.
    Time is running out to fix this injustice for the artists 
of my dad's generation like Reverend Al Green and Reverend 
Charles Hodges of Hi Rhythm. These artists aren't looking for a 
free promotion to sell records or to go on tour. They simply 
want to be compensated for their work.
    The pandemic continues to disrupt touring, live, and 
recorded music. The lost royalties from radio could make the 
difference in whether a musician can focus on their career or 
has to take a second or third job to make ends meet.
    Royal Studios is the fourth oldest recording studio in the 
world. My sister, Ana Mitchell, and I have struggled to 
maintain this place. If we had been able to collect my dad's 
royalties from radio over the past 50 years, our small business 
and our family would be in better shape today.
    Those who create music answer to a unique calling. It takes 
God-given talent and an extreme amount of hard work and 
dedication to your craft to be successful in this business.
    Today, I'm calling on Congress to help us keep the music 
playing. America has given the world popular music. It's time 
we honor our music creators the way other countries honor 
theirs. Please pass the American Music Fairness Act because 
musicians should not be penalized for being Americans.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. LeGeyt, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF CURTIS LEGEYT

    Mr. LeGeyt. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Congressman Chabot, 
and Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee.
    My name is Curtis LeGeyt and I am proud to join these 
impressive panelists and testify today on behalf of the NAB's 
more than 5,200 free, local, over-the-air radio stations that 
serve your communities every day.
    Broadcast radio recently celebrated its 100-year 
anniversary, and our 239 million weekly listeners demonstrate 
that our unique appeal remains as strong today as ever.
    The reason is simple. We are always on, we are local, and 
we are completely free to all listeners without expensive 
subscription or data charges, and in spite of decades of 
technological advancement, no other platform combines these 
qualities.
    This enduring value has never been more apparent than in 
the current pandemic where local radio is fulfilling its 
mission of keeping listeners connected, safe, and entertained 
in the face of its own significant challenges.
    Mr. Chair, four years ago, I sat with you and several of 
your Judiciary colleagues, Democrat and Republican, in this 
Committee's library. At that time, in the aftermath of our work 
together in support of the Music Modernization Act, you made a 
straightforward request of the broadcast and music industries, 
all whom were represented in that room.
    You asked us to work together to develop a proposal on this 
terrestrial performance royalty issue that could represent a 
win-win for music creators and local broadcast listeners.
    In response, NAB worked for more than 18 months and offered 
numerous proposals to our industry partners behind closed doors 
that aimed to achieve that goal. Our approach was tethered in 
the belief that both artists and listeners could benefit from a 
change in law that didn't simply create a new burdensome 
royalty for broadcast stations, but instead enabled 
broadcasters to innovate, incentivize them to play more music, 
and benefitted artists by compensating them for that increased 
airplay whether it took place over the air or through a stream.
    When our concepts were rebuffed, we came back to the table 
with new ideas time and time again. Unfortunately, the music 
industry was unwilling to do its part in these negotiations. 
Our proposals were legitimate, made in good faith, and NAB was 
committed to seeing whether common ground might be possible.
    Beyond lip service, at no point where we even met with a 
formal counter offer from the music industry. That was 
disappointing to me and other broadcasters at the time and, as 
a result, we find ourselves in this hearing room today debating 
a performance fee proposal that is strikingly similar to its 
predecessors, one whose introduction the music industry 
advocated in spite of knowing that it does not strike the 
balance that you and your colleagues requested of us during 
that meeting four years ago.
    Mr. Chair, at a moment when local stations are doing their 
best work, when in the face of a global pandemic we are 
connecting communities rather than dividing them, informing 
them rather than misleading them, and providing our critical 
service free to all listeners when many Americans are 
struggling financially, the American Music Fairness Act would 
impose a new royalty on local radio that is financially 
untenable for broadcasters of all sizes and unjustified as a 
matter of policy.
    Broadcasters thank Representatives Kathy Castor, Steve 
Womack, and the 234 House and Senate co-sponsors of the Local 
Radio Freedom Act, which recognizes our unique value and 
opposes any new performance fee on broadcast radio.
    I want to be clear. NAB remains committed to discussions 
that would further our partnership with the music industry and 
enhance our unique value to artists without diminishing our 
ability to serve your communities.
    Make no mistake, artists and their labels recognize this 
value in the real world, even if not in their Washington, DC, 
advocacy, through countless awards show acceptance speeches, 
social media posts, and direct station outreach seeking 
airplay.
    We are proud of that partnership, but the American Music 
Fairness Act would undermine it.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. LeGeyt follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. LeGeyt.
    Mr. Pomeroy, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DAVE POMEROY

    Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, Congressman Chabot, and Members of the 
Committee, I'm honored to speak to you today in support of the 
American Music Fairness Act.
    I'm a bassist, songwriter, and producer and a longtime 
resident of Nashville, Tennessee--Music City. As President of 
the Nashville Musicians Association and an International 
Officer of the AFM, I've been advocating on this issue for more 
than a decade.
    This long-overdue legislation is critically important for 
backup musicians and vocalists, the unsung heroes of the music 
industry, and will end decades of unfair exploitation of their 
intellectual property.
    I fell in love with music at an early age and I moved to 
Nashville at the age of 21 to follow my dream. I have played 
bass on hundreds of albums and dozens of hit singles with 
artists like Don Williams, Emmylou Harris, Elton John, Willie 
Nelson, and Trisha Yearwood, including her biggest hit, ``She's 
in Love with the Boy.''
    Billboard Magazine recently gave Trisha an award for that 
record being the most played song on radio by a female country 
artist over the past 30 years. Trisha has never been paid a 
penny for those millions of radio plays and neither have I or 
any of the other musicians and singers who made that song into 
a hit record.
    How is that fair? Backup musicians and singers play a 
critical role in the creation of the final product you hear on 
the radio. Every situation is unique. Orchestral recording 
musicians are under extreme pressure to perfectly execute a 
written part in one or two takes, and rock bands may camp out 
in a studio for months at a time looking for that one moment of 
magic.
    Some records are put together by one or two musicians, one 
part at a time, using constantly evolving recording technology. 
In many cases, like ``She's in Love with the Boy,'' musicians 
are presented with a song in a raw form and work with the 
producer and artists to create a collective musical arrangement 
on the spot.
    There are countless examples of an improvised musical 
figure or backup vocal part that adds that special something to 
a song that makes it a hit. That's what we do.
    After all the work that goes into making a hit record, when 
it is played on AM/FM radio, it generates revenue for the 
broadcasters, but they only pay the songwriter and the 
publisher.
    For perspective, the only other countries on the planet 
that do not pay artists, singers, and musicians for the use of 
their work on terrestrial radio are Iran and North Korea. Do we 
really want to be on that list?
    This is a balance of trade issue, or more correctly, an 
imbalance of trade issue. We create the vast majority of the 
world's music, but it's almost impossible for American 
musicians to get the money they are rightfully owed from 
overseas radio play.
    Every year $200-300 million of our money is being held by 
foreign collectives, who use the poor excuse that the U.S. 
doesn't pay foreign musicians for their small share of our AM/
FM air play. The money we have earned is trapped overseas until 
Congress passes legislation that will unlock that ongoing 
taxable revenue stream for American musicians. This will make a 
huge difference in the lives of creators who are struggling to 
feed their families.
    Music is one of the United States' greatest exports, and 
its positive impact on our economy and the everyday lives of 
Americans is immeasurable.
    What is measurable is the billions of dollars that U.S. 
terrestrial radio makes on the backs of those who create the 
content that drives their advertising revenue. In just three 
months, in the third quarter of 2021, five of the biggest 
broadcasters made $1.6 billion dollars in revenue, an average 
increase of 20 percent from the previous year. Yet, they claim 
they can't afford to pay anyone.
    The changes the bipartisan AMFA proposes should have been 
part of the Music Modernization Act of 2018. The broadcasters 
were the only major part of our industry to refuse to 
participate in this collective effort.
    Satellite and digital radio, TV commercials, and film all 
pay musicians when their work is used to create revenue, and it 
is time for terrestrial radio to do the same.
    The AMFA will not put small stations out of business or 
hurt songwriters, as the NAB claims. The bill has several 
provisions to ensure that small, independent, and community 
radio stations will not be unduly burdened and will pay as 
little as $10 a year and stations that make less than $1.5 
million a year will only pay $500. We appreciate the services 
that local radio provides, but this bill will not put them out 
of business.
    Technology has changed the music industry in ways that are 
making it very difficult for musicians to earn a living wage. 
The pandemic has only made this worse.
    This is not about superstars and labels making a money 
grab, it's about helping working-class American musicians who 
deserve respect, just as Aretha Franklin, Spooner Oldham, and 
all the musicians and singers who worked on that iconic record 
deserve.
    We urge you to pass the American Music Fairness Act. Thank 
you very much.
    [The statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Chair Nadler. I thank all the Witnesses for their 
testimony. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule for 
questions. I'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    Ms. Estefan, I understand that it takes many artists to 
create the popular sound recordings you hear on the radio 
today. How does the lack of a public performance right affect 
the nonfeatured working-class musicians and sound engineers who 
work on these songs? Do you think the failure to fully 
compensate music creators hurts musical innovation?
    Ms. Estefan. Absolutely. It makes it impossible to make a 
living out of it. I know that I've been very fortunate because 
I am a songwriter. So, in instances, for example, like the song 
``Conga''--that was my idea but written by my drummer--anytime 
it was played on AM/FM radio, which was the only place it was 
played when it came out because this was in 1985, he was 
compensated, and I'm glad for that because he's a person that's 
been able to make a living from writing this song.
    Neither Miami Sound Machine or I made money in that 
respect. Fortunately, we have been able to tour in the best 
years that music had. There were--as long as you were selling 
records--actual physical copies, which no longer exist--there 
was an amount and we were paid 7.7 cents per song per side, and 
whether it be a vinyl record or a CD you were selling a 
physical copy of that music.
    Now, that is no longer the case and, thankfully, the Music 
Modernization Act helped that a bit by creating some streaming 
revenue, which still has a way to go.
    This loophole that has been around since performers were 
performing live on radio or being paid at the moment that they 
perform live but there were no recordings, that loophole has 
stood forever and people, like singers that don't write music, 
haven't made a penny for their songs being played on this.
    So, yes, it becomes difficult for them to be able to take 
that up as a career when you know that you're not going to be 
able to make a living at it.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Pomeroy, you represent the 80,000 Members of the 
American Federation of Musicians. Is the promotional value of 
airplay enough to compensate the musicians you represent? Why 
or why not?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Absolutely not. That is a trickle-down factor 
that is--the promotional value for the main artist is becoming 
more and more negligible, but for the backing musicians, 
there's absolutely no--they get no discount at the grocery 
store and exposure is not a form of commerce.
    Musicians are having to take other jobs. If it weren't for 
the other residual funds that are paying musicians as they 
should, we would see even more people walking away from this 
industry that is one of America's greatest exports.
    So, yes, this has put our--not only our Members, but 
musicians from one end of the country to the other under 
extreme pressure to figure out a way to feed their family. It's 
getting more and more difficult.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Massarsky, you are an expert in the economics of the 
music marketplace. Based on your research and expertise, could 
broadcasters afford to compensate musicians for the performance 
of the intellectual property on AM/FM radio?
    Mr. Massarsky. The quick answer is absolutely yes, for two 
reasons.

        (1)  We really should be talking about the right here, not the 
        rate.

    So, the establishment of the right is important because the 
only reason it doesn't exist is because of this no longer 
relevant consideration of promotion on commercial radio. When 
we talk about the rate, that is, perhaps, a subject for another 
discussion. This legislation takes care of the small 
broadcasters and only allows for a fee of $500 for the majority 
of stations to play millions and millions of songs.

        (2)  It is very likely trading on the small station side. It 
        does leverage the value of the license fee on the large station 
        side.

    Remember, as I've said to you, two-thirds of the time--two-
thirds of an operating hour--you're hearing the sound of a 
sound recording. This is the major reason why they can collect 
up to $8 billion in revenue and it should be something that 
should be taken care of today.
    Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to, again, thank 
the Witnesses for their testimony here today.
    Mr. LeGeyt, let me begin with you. In addition to being a 
Senior Member of this Committee and the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, I served for six years as the lead Republican--part 
of that time Chair, part of that time the Ranking Member, 
depending on which party was in the majority--Chairing and 
leading the House Small Business Committee, and small 
businesses, most people realize really are the backbone of the 
American economy.
    Half of the people who work in America work for a small 
business. About 70 percent of the new jobs created in the 
economy are created by small businesses, and local radio 
stations, for the most part, are, by definition, small 
businesses, and I've already indicated in my opening statement 
some of the various services that they provide.
    So, let me ask you this. Some proponents of the AMFA argue 
that small local radio stations really won't be burdened all 
that much by imposing on them a small royalty fee.
    With that in mind, could you provide some insight into the 
impact that you believe this legislation would have on those 
small radio broadcasters?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you very much for the question, 
Congressman. Let me start by saying that the impact of this 
legislation on our industry is being somewhat misrepresented by 
its advocates.
    There's a lot of focus on one or two very large station 
groups, but there are close to 200 radio groups across the 
country who would fall outside of any of the exemptions of this 
legislation, more than 4,000 stations.
    So, those are stations that every Member of this Committee 
knows in their local communities that you view as small 
business, they will be touched by the core of this legislation.
    Your specific question in terms of the truly small 
broadcasters, those with two or three employees who would fall 
within the exemptions in this legislation, and we very much 
appreciate the bill author's attention to them.
    Five hundred dollars is a significant fee for those station 
owners. That is the difference for a small business, as you 
know, Congressman, between camp for your children during the 
summer, between a family vacation. This is real money. It's 
real money that they are already paying when they are 
simulcasting their stations over a stream.
    This would add real economic impact on top of that. So, 
it's very, very significant and meaningful for those stations. 
It is why small stations have come out and raised concerns with 
this legislation, as well as some of the larger groups.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. If this legislation were passed, how 
would it affect the public, the average person, in your view?
    Mr. LeGeyt. What local radio is doing in communities is so 
unique, especially in today's media ecosystem. The hyper-local 
focus, the fact that we are free. Now, there is a large 
demographic, as you are all aware, that simply can't afford all 
these new subscription services. Local radio is there for them, 
it is a lifeline.
    The last two years have only underscored it, right. When 
you need local information, what's going on with your schools, 
what's going on with local businesses, where can you get a 
COVID test, communities are turning to those local stations. 
Higher costs would undermine that reinvestment in that local 
service.
    I also think it would have a dramatic impact on music air 
play. So, the value that the creative community does see in 
radio, you're going to see less music air play. I don't think 
that's good for anyone at this table.
    Mr. Chabot. Okay, and then finally before I run out of 
time, relative to our nation's emergency response 
infrastructure, I mentioned in my opening statement about the 
importance of broadcast radio to agencies like FEMA, for 
example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    It's my understanding that in case of disaster, radio 
stations are equipped to broadcast critical messages to the 
public for months on end, if necessary. Would you describe how 
the nation's public warning system could be impacted if new 
royalty fees were imposed on local community radio stations?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. Local radio 
stations are the backbone of the emergency alert system. So, as 
the financial model for local stations large and small across 
the country breaks down, that is going to jeopardize those 
stations' ability to serve as that backbone.
    I would say the impact in times of emergency goes much 
broader than that. Broadcasters are core in those emergency 
communications, not just because of the EAS system, but because 
of our architecture.
    We have a resilient, redundant system that ensures that 
when cell services go out, you're dealing with a wildfire, 
you're dealing with a hurricane, cell towers are down, local 
radio stays on the air.
    It is also a hyper-local focused message, one that you're 
not getting through any local medium. So, as you undermine the 
economics behind that, the investment that those stations can 
make, both in that architecture as well as that localism, 
you're undermining those public safety benefits.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the 
Witnesses. This is really an important hearing, and I've 
learned a lot from each of the Witnesses.
    Ms. Estefan, I appreciate your explaining the origin of 
this loophole. I never knew that, that it really began when you 
were--when radios were recording live performances. Here we are 
today, long ago. Very interesting.
    I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Massarsky. In terms of--I 
do think it's important, and the legislation recognizes, that 
when you really have a small, locally owned radio station, we 
want to make sure we're nurturing that. I think everybody 
agrees.
    So, my question is what factors went into the calculation 
of what is that small business? I come from the State of 
California, where salaries, schedules, everything is different 
than in other parts of the country. Was that factored in in 
terms of revenue and the like to find what is that small 
business?
    Mr. Massarsky. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. The 
factors that went into determining a small station was simply 
looking at the concentration of revenue that is organized and 
controlled by the top tier of this industry. This legislation 
wanted to protect the smaller broadcaster who might have a hard 
time making this cost to transition.
    Please keep in mind something. We're talking about a 
loophole that only existed through Congress because of the 
notion--
    Ms. Lofgren. I'm not arguing that, but I'm just saying we 
have a rough time in some parts of this industry. I'm thinking 
specifically about a very tiny radio station in California that 
is completely locally owned, but because they're in California, 
they have to raise more money because the staff salaries are 
very different than you might find in Tennessee or in 
Mississippi.
    So, I'm just hoping that we've incorporated that varying 
price structure as we take a look at the definition of what's 
small.
    Mr. Massarsky. Congressman, those stations are protected 
under this legislation.
    Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask, Mr. Pomeroy, your testimony was 
important and fascinating. One thing caught my attention, in 
particular, and I'm hoping you can explain how it works. You 
said that because of our current legal system here, that the 
revenues that are generated abroad for our artists are stranded 
there. Can you explain how that works?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Yes, absolutely, I appreciate you asking. In 
2012, we went to Beijing for the World Intellectual Property 
Conference and helped pass a treaty with 131 countries that 
contained the phrase ``No collection without distribution,'' 
establishing that principle.
    All around the country, especially, all around the world, 
especially in Europe, collectives are getting the money, as 
they are allowed to do under their rules, where AM/FM 
terrestrial radio does pay royalties. They're holding our 
royalties on the pretense that we don't pay Bulgarian and 
Czechoslovakian musicians for their work.
    It's completely an imbalance of trade. We make the vast 
majority of the world's music, and they're holding our money 
that they've made using our music because we don't pay them for 
the much smaller amount of foreign music played over here.
    It would open up a floodgate of new, taxable income for 
musicians so they can feed their families and see whether or 
not they might be able to afford send their kids to summer 
camp. Because right now, we've got musicians who can't feed 
their families, and they're not worried about summer camp right 
now.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I appreciate, and that's really 
outrageous. I didn't know about that until this hearing today, 
and I think it's very important that we fix that. Because 
that's just so terribly unfair to the artists in America. 
You're right, America is the origin of most of the creative 
music in the world.
    I'll just mention, I think Ms. Estefan referenced this, but 
I'm also a--I listen to oldies, I'm an old fogey. The idea that 
this is promotional value for those oldies. People aren't going 
out and buying those old recordings.
    We're thinking back, we already have them, we're thinking 
back. Especially the artists of yore that may not have been 
able to get the revenues that are available now. How unfair to 
them. So, I'm hoping that we can make progress on this.
    Mr. Chair, my time has expired, but I really appreciate the 
hearing, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. 
Gohmert. All right, Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Boy, there's so much and so little time. I'm going to do a 
couple of things.
    First, I thought that Ms. Lofgren did a very good job of 
describing our generation. Ms. Estefan, your husband and I were 
born the same year. So, he too, perhaps, the time in which the 
idea that a young artist needs to be recognized. As, to a 
lesser extent, are you.
    This is the 60th year of Mike Love and the Beach Boys 
touring, 60 years. Yet, to get paid for any time AM/FM played 
with them.
    Normally when you do this, you call on your Witnesses. In 
this case, I would like to call on our NAB witness again for a 
moment. You said something that I really have to challenge.
    You said that somehow $500 was going to put a station 
making a million dollars of gross revenue a year out of 
business because they could pay for their kids' summer camp. Is 
that your statement on the record, under oath?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Issa. Just please a yes or no, is that your statement?
    Mr. LeGeyt. No, that was not my statement.
    Mr. Issa. Well, I heard they pay for summer camp and $500 
as though $500 was going to be a problem. I want to say 
something to you on the record.
    I was talking to the--this is Sam and Joyce Moore. They 
have a foundation that has offered to pay for any station that 
could ask for relief the $500 under this bill for those 
companies making less than 1.5 million. So, let's set that 
aside for a moment.
    I just want to get two things out that were in your 
statement that I think are good to have on the record. One, you 
talked about negotiating in good faith, and it was rejected. 
That negotiation basically was to reduce the revenue of 
streaming as part of a deal.
    Isn't that always being part of the NAB's position, they 
want to pay less in something that the Copyright Board has 
already established these are streaming royalties? Is that 
correct?
    Mr. LeGeyt. No, our goal has been to grow the pie overall 
and incent more streaming--
    Mr. Issa. Wait a second, has that (Simultaneous 
speaking.)--look, I have very limited time. Has that been part 
of your negotiations? Have you ever had a deal where you said 
no, we're fine paying that, and now we'd like to talk about an 
incremental amount that we could pay elsewhere?
    Or has it always included bringing up the fees paid under 
the streaming? Just yes or no.
    Mr. LeGeyt. It has always involved a holistic approach, 
yes.
    Mr. Issa. Okay. So, when we're discussing it today, I just 
hope everyone understands that the reason that was a non-
starter is that is the revenue that Emilio and Gloria are 
currently getting, okay. They're getting it because of revenue, 
and I'll just give you an example, $800,000 was paid by public 
broadcasting for their streaming.
    Okay, it's real money, and it's growing. So, let's 
understand that for some reason, and this is the Committee of 
Antitrust, for some reason, you can afford in these startups, 
these divisions of your companies, including iHeart, you can 
afford to find a way to pay the streaming.
    I'm using public broadcasting because it's a figure I could 
easily get. All of your companies are paying growing revenues 
for it. You can afford to do it, but somebody's child isn't 
going to be able to go to summer camp if we charge even $500. 
So that, I just want to make sure we have that out.
    Mr. Mitchell, one more thing, and I think you're the expert 
in this case, can you tell me the difference between a digital 
broadcast, AM/FM, and streaming when it comes out of a typical 
speaker with the recording quality that you know exists and 
comes through various speakers?
    Is there any real difference? Are we dealing today in the 
digital world with identical sound, simply two different ways 
of being delivered?
    Mr. Mitchell. It's identical sound in two different 
delivery methods. The same Al Green coming off Spotify sounds 
the same as Al Green coming--
    Mr. Issa. Lastly an economics question, very quickly, very. 
Is there any reason that we would not, in our arms' length 
negotiation, fairly give some benefit and reduction in 
royalties for any and all the things that Mr. Chabot had named 
that broadcasters do that might, in fact, affect the offset of 
what the fair royalty should be? Is there any reason that--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired, the Witness 
may answer the question.
    Mr.Massarsky. A proper rate receipt would take all factors 
into account, and the broadcasters make that value. It would be 
considered by those that were part of the rate-setting 
mechanism.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Good morning to everyone and 
thank you so very much.
    Just a ride down memory lane. I remember being part of 
these battles in the introduction of this legislation in 2009, 
and they were battles, and the scars are there. I think we came 
out with recognizing the importance of what we're doing here 
today.
    I want to maintain by citing the numbers that we are also 
very concerned about our radios of all levels, AM/FM, because 
they are important vehicles and vessels in our community. 
Likewise, the humanity of our artists are very important.
    If I might put into the record, my work with Dionne 
Warwick, Sam and Joyce Moore, and so many others during that 
era. We were wrapped together with each other, because as I 
said, the scars were deep, and the work was hard. I think we 
came to some valid compromise.
    Today, let me specifically cite your great work, Ms. 
Estefan, and ask you the question, in your testimony you refer 
to older artists who are not in the Top 40 but still have air 
play. Help us understand how this impacts those artists 
differently than those within the Top 40.
    My time is short and I want to get other--thank you so much 
for being here and your leadership and your talent and how 
much--
    Ms. Estefan. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How much you've given to America. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Estefan. Thank you so much, that's lovely for you to 
say. By the way, I'm also one of those older artists. So, I 
can't exclude myself from that.
    The thing is this, when you put your life and work into 
music that is entertaining everyone else, you would at least 
want to be able to pass onto your children this work that 
you've done, especially if it's still being enjoyed. Like Frank 
Sinatra for example.
    He's having entire channels devoted to him on internet 
radio, which he is going to get paid for. He still gets paid 
on--he still gets played on many, many stations that harken 
back, that are AM/FM that harken back to the time.
    So, as an artist, he will not receive, or his heirs, any of 
that music. I think it's important, the legacy that an artist 
leaves behind, especially when it's something that has lasted 
for decades and continues to be enjoyed by people everywhere.
    They may be gone even physically from the earth, but their 
children and their grandchildren certainly deserve to benefit 
from the music and art they put into the world.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Sam--I'm sorry, 
Barry, Mr. Massarsky, how often is it that sound recordings are 
in play for which no compensation is provided?
    You might also comment on the poverty that many of our 
artists, I'm reminded of Jackie Wilson, who preceded, if you 
will, many artists and was destined to a not-so-happy ending in 
his life. Would you answer that, please.
    Mr. Massarsky. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Just in 
a big picture, radio is pumping out about 12 songs per hour, 
okay, constantly. It represents two-thirds of their program day 
is the playing of the sound recording.
    What's unfortunate for those that are just artists and not 
writers is there's no compensation vehicle for all that air 
play that takes place on AM/FM radio.
    I just want to also say briefly that this is nly unique to 
the United States, but there have been well-formed license 
agreements and rates that have been agreed to by other 
jurisdictions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and France and 
Germany that does take into account these artists that really 
relied on that type of revenue.
    Guess what, the stations that accommodate the license were 
able to afford it and there's compensation and it still works 
with those radio markets abroad.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me just put into the record 
the commercial and public stations that make less than 100,000 
a year will pay ten dollars. Public stations that make between 
100,000 and 1.5 million a year will pay $100, and commercial 
stations that 100,000 to 1.5 million a year, per year, only 
500.
    I just want to put into the record that there are dying 
stations that are African American, in particular, and other 
ethnic stations. In this legislation, we must find that 
balance. I will advocate for them because they are instruments 
of information, they're a family in our communities.
    I think we can make this happen and work with those 
beautiful artists who are American treasures and preserve 
radio, in particular Black radio and Hispanic radio that are 
treasures as well in our community.
    I'm going to part of that. I know this bill is going 
through Committee, but I want my Members to know that this is 
something very important that I think we can do together and 
respond to our artists, which I totally agree with.
    With that, I yield back at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Johnson of 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry for 
the delay. I thought somebody was ahead of me in the order.
    I was just jotting some notes down here, collecting my 
thoughts. Because I, like most of us, am benefitting from the 
discussion here and all the discussions we have on this 
important issue. We've got to a solution and the right balance.
    There are competing interests here. There are fundamental 
principles juxtaposed to one another. I'm a conservative, I 
believe in the inherent value of the fundamental property 
right, which is a foundational premise of our country. We want 
the market to be fair to artists who produce it.
    At the same, I'm genuinely concerned about the survival of 
terrestrial radio and the vital importance that local 
broadcasters play in our communities. So, it's not an easy one. 
I don't think it's easy for many of us, but we're struggling.
    I got my start in--I was a constitutional law attorney and 
all that, but I was a talk radio host as well. I was a local 
broadcaster, I mean a talk show host, and so I know the 
struggles they have.
    I know the very tight margins that they work under. I've 
been in those studios; I've spent a lot of time in those 
places. So, I see their argument here, so.
    What's been covered I think is one of the vital points and 
one of the real values I think that local broadcasters have in 
our communities. I come from northwest Louisiana. We are 
natural disaster prone.
    We deal with hurricanes and tornadoes and all sorts of 
things. Our local broadcasters are an essential component of 
emergency preparedness.
    The idea, the thought that they may not there one day is of 
great concern to me and to many others. So, I really appreciate 
my colleague, what Mr. Chabot said, bringing up the importance 
of radio in emergencies and some of the comments that have been 
made.
    Let me just ask Mr. LeGeyt, can you elaborate a little bit 
more on how passage of the American Music Fairness Act might 
affect emergency radio broadcasting?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you, Congressman, for the question as 
well as for your comments in recognition on the value of our 
local stations in your district and across the country.
    This legislation, which deals with one aspect of stations' 
relationship with the creative community and would result in 
substantial fees across our industry, will have a direct effect 
of leading to less reinvestment in the service that we're 
providing the communities.
    So, in times of emergency, hurricanes, wildfires, that just 
simply means less boots on the ground, less investment in our 
infrastructure, the emergency alerting system that was alluded 
to earlier. That takes real time and resources, work with the 
FCC.
    All of these are costs, it's less dollars to drive into 
that. I think that has a real bottom line impact on the 
communities that all of you serve.
    Let me also say that the advocacy and the way that this 
issue is being characterized I think is somewhat misleading in 
the following way. The broadcast industry has grown up for 100 
years around a legal framework where we are paying when we play 
music over the air, as Ms. Estefan said it earlier.
    When our music is played over the air, we are paying 
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to ASCAP, BMI, these 
performing rights organizations. Those PROs distribute those 
dollars to songwriters, those songwriters have publishers. The 
publishers' partner with labels.
    This is a business relationship that has enabled decades of 
growth in the broadcast industry and growth in the music 
industry and produced industries that are the envy of the 
world. So, to just look at one fee on one aspect of this 
without looking at how the dollars trickle across all this--I'm 
absolutely committed to ensuring that artists have more dollars 
in their pocket.
    If the current system's not working to do that, let's work 
on that instead of just imposing a fee that's going to 
undermine those emergency services that you're asking about, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate that. I only have a 
couple seconds left. Let me just say that for those of you that 
don't live in a tornado area, hurricane or whatever, there are 
many, many times in my life when I've been huddled in a hallway 
with my family as child, and now as a parent with my four kids 
and my wife.
    The power's out, we're in areas with a lot of--they don't 
rural broadband that's reliable. The only thing you have, the 
only connection you have in a weather emergency like that is 
the voice on that radio. We all have battery-powered radios for 
emergencies in Louisiana, it's an essential part of our life.
    So, I'll close with that and yield back. I appreciate 
everybody's time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate your holding 
this hearing and all your work for music and fairness in this 
area, and all the Witnesses who have testified here today.
    The American Music Fairness Act will restore balance to the 
music industry, ensure artists are properly compensated for 
their labor. I'm proud to co-sponsor it.
    I'm a friend of Mr. LeGeyt's, I look forward to him coming 
to Memphis and touring the rural studios, getting an 
appreciation of some of the grit and grime that goes into those 
records.
    It's not an easy thing, and a lot of the people that 
perform there didn't make a lot of money when they were 
recording them, and they didn't--they got old. A lot of the 
older performers had to go back on tour, and that wasn't easy 
for them either.
    Boo, it's great to have you here. I'm proud to have a 
Memphian with me and my friend Boo Mitchell, you're on my hall 
here in Congress, a picture of you and me and Thomas Boggs and 
Amy Levere from Memphis Magazine. So, you're on the wall out 
there, along with BB and Albert and Isaac. So, we've got our 
Memphis music collection out front.
    You and your father, William Mitchell, did so much for 
music, for artists in the industry. Hi Records and Royal 
Studios, if it weren't for you, we wouldn't have love and 
happiness.
    The world goes around with love and happiness. President 
Obama wouldn't have been able to sing Let's Stay Together. You 
need to get him into the studio to do a cover of Let's Stay 
Together. I think you all would have a big hit, and I think 
Curtis would play it, it would all be wonderful.
    Your family spent generations of music contributed to a 
host of acclaimed projects, different capacities. Can you talk 
about the role of producers and engineers in the creative the 
process--
    Chair Nadler. If the gentleman will--the will gentleman 
will suspend--someone is not muted. I'm hearing music, but 
someone is not muted, so please mute. Mr. Cohen, go ahead.
    Mr. Cohen. I don't know how that happened. Al Green just 
appears magically.
    Boo, would you tell us about what producers and engineers 
can contribute to the process?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes, it's a very tedious process. Producers 
have to have the vision and producers--a part of that vision is 
the music, choosing the musicians to play the song. In my 
father's instance, he chose the Hi Rhythm Section, Charles 
Hodges, Leroy Hodges, Archie Turner, Howard Grimes, and Al 
Jackson, Jr.
    Howard is a drummer on Love and Happiness and half of Al 
Green's hit records, and he lays in a hospital bed here in 
Memphis, Tennessee, still living in the same zip code because 
he simply can't afford to tour. He can't afford to perform 
music, but his music is being performed all over the country 
via FM--AM radio.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, not so much AM, AM's has gone the way of 
talk radio. DA and LFMK(phonetic), they don't do a whole lot of 
music these days.
    The public performance license is the sound recordings that 
are already used for internet and satellite performances to 
terrestrial broadcast would help to fairly compensate all 
artists involved in musical work. What would that additional 
revenue stream mean for you and other artists at the rural 
studios?
    Mr. Mitchell. That additional revenue stream would mean the 
world to me and all the backing artists. This isn't just about 
the featured performing artist. It's about the people that--the 
backbone of the people that make the music, the session 
musicians that you've never heard of.
    Like, I don't get a promotion. When they play Uptown Funk, 
they don't mention Boo Mitchell. So, it's not just about the 
featured artists, it's about the people--the blue collar that 
go into making these great records.
    If I was a British citizen, I would be compensated. If I 
was Canadian, I would be compensated. Since I'm American, I'm 
not compensated. That's just not right.
    Mr. Cohen. Let me ask this question. Mr. Pomeroy may have 
anticipated the question. He has his hand up. I don't know. 
Whoever can answer it, how did it come to be that 
screenwriters, excuse me, songwriters got paid when their songs 
were on radio and performers didn't? I mean, songwriters, the 
tremendous Harold Arlen and all that, but without Sinatra or 
Elvis or it wouldn't be the same thing. Why was it that 
songwriters got it and performers didn't?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Well, without going into all the historical 
details, I think essentially the artists, musicians, and 
singers did not have the leverage to insert themselves in that 
equation, so they got left out. They were never put back in. 
Everywhere else around the world we get paid except for the 
United States where the music comes from.
    So, these royalties will have a huge effect on our ability 
to continue to be the leader in the world's music, as opposed 
to having a whole bunch of part-time musicians who have to work 
down at the car wash to make a record like Car Wash.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you, everybody. My time is up. I 
just want to say to Ms. Estefan, I don't believe you have been 
performing for 46 years. You look like you were born 46 years 
ago--Ms. Estefan. Thank you for that.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the hearing. 
I appreciate all the Witnesses being here today. This has been 
very informative.
    Mr. LeGeyt, streaming services, satellite radio, and radio 
stations around the world all pay performance royalties to 
artists. I am just curious, how are they able to make it work 
without suffering the severe negative consequences that you 
have described for on-air radio broadcasts?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question, Congressman. None 
of those services do what we do, which is that we are hyper-
local, which requires real boots on the ground resources, and 
we are completely free. Our competitors are charging 
subscription services. Local broadcast is not based on that 
model. So, I think there are fundamentally different businesses 
at play here.
    The role that we play in communities across the country as 
a result of that local responsibility and the fact that we are, 
as an audience, serving those who can't afford those other 
services makes us unique. The economics are just very, very 
different.
    Mr. Biggs. Let me ask you this question. So, you said that 
you had participated in negotiations for 18 months, and you had 
offered real concrete proposals. I am curious, what, if any, 
was the royalty proposed, because I wasn't part of that? I 
don't know anything about that. What, if any, was the royalty 
proposal for performers offered by NAB?
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, our conversations were more centered around 
frameworks. Frankly, to the extent we did discuss numbers, it 
was done under an NDA to have a free exchange of ideas.
    Our concept as an industry has been that if you incent 
broadcasters to invest and innovate by taking care of what we 
feel like is a very burdensome structure for streaming 
simulcasts of local stations and you attach to that some 
compensation for air play, that will result in more air play 
overall, higher royalties overall. There are a lot of different 
ways--
    Mr. Biggs. Would that have included royalties for 
performers?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay. I would be interested in seeing what that 
looks like, if you can get out of your NDA so you can share it 
with Members of Congress so we could look at that. Thank you so 
much.
    Mr. LeGeyt. I would be very happy to have that 
conversation.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell, I appreciate you being 
here. Uptown Funk was--even I liked Uptown Funk. That was a 
good song and got a lot of play. So, here's my question for you 
is, did the playing of Uptown Funk on broadcast radio help lift 
Uptown Funk and make it even more commercially viable and 
successful?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I think back. I know a number of people who 
live in Nashville that are artists, and they would love to get 
something on broadcast radio because they think it would 
actually facilitate sales of their songs, streams, and get them 
more notoriety, which is what they want to do, and they feel 
that that's necessary to succeed.
    Is there some kind of synergism between broadcast radio and 
the artist who is performing that particular piece of music? I 
guess I'll ask Ms. Estefan. Can I ask you that question?
    Ms. Estefan. Absolutely, radio has been instrumental in the 
past decades in promoting a song. It led to more sales. Right 
now, there are no sales. There is rarely--vinyl records are 
made for collectors mainly. CD sales are practically non-
existent, because there is a whole new streaming and internet 
way that music is getting put out.
    So, what was there before to benefit from the promotion on 
broadcast radio is no longer there. That is gone. So, whereas 
before, getting played on radio might get you the ability to 
sell more records, right now it really doesn't help in that 
respect. Maybe it would help if you are touring, but now nobody 
can tour. So, it has really changed very much.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I want to 
introduce into the record a piece by Ted Gioia, who is a music 
writer from The Atlantic from a week ago. It is called, ``Is 
Old Music Killing New Music?'' If I can introduce that in the 
record, and then just read--
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD
                        
                        

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. He says, ``Every week I 
hear from hundreds of publicists, record labels, band managers, 
and other professionals who want to hype the newest new thing. 
Their livelihoods depend on it. The entire business model of 
the music industry is built on promoting new songs.''
    Then he goes on to give the analysis that 95 percent of 
streams on Spotify and other streaming services are music that 
is considered old music. We are talking everything beyond 18 
months old.
    It is really a very dynamic--when Ms. Estefan points out 
the dynamic of the streaming services vis-a-vis broadcast 
radio, it is really a change that has happened over the last 10 
years. I am curious to see where we are going to go with this, 
Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing from Mr. LeGeyt to show me 
what he had proposed, because I am interested in seeing how 
this turns out. Thank you. Time has expired.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back to Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeGeyt, 
in your written testimony, you State that this bill would upend 
established business relationships under the copyright laws. 
Can you explain what you mean by that?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. The broadcast 
industry for 100 years has grown up and built businesses around 
this music licensing regime. What is unique about what is being 
proposed here is, in other areas of copyright, all areas of 
copyright, as new technologies emerge, whether it's the piano 
rolls, the VHS, the CD player, streaming, Congress has updated 
copyright laws to account for those new technologies and ensure 
the right incentives are in place for creators and for users.
    A change in law here would disrupt a legacy industry and 
its relationship with the music industry that is intertwined 
across all actors here. It starts with the direct royalties to 
ASCAP and BMI, the performing rights organizations, those 
organizations that are songwriters, relationships with the 
labels and artists, but also the value that we are providing 
and promoting, not just what would have been 20 years ago a 
conversation around album sales and live performances, but now 
on-demand streams. There is extensive data on the way that 
broadcast radio play drives on-demand streaming, especially for 
the legacy artists that have been mentioned here. So, this is 
all very much intertwined.
    You go and disrupt that with just an additional fee on one 
player in this ecosystem, and I understand the needs of the 
creative community who want to see more sources of revenue, but 
we need to look at this a little bit more holistically than 
just jumping straight from the creator to the user, because 
there are a number of different actors siphoning off dollars 
from this--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How do you suggest that the 
performers be compensated for their work that is played on 
broadcast radio?
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, from a broadcast radio perspective, I 
believe the best way that we can provide value to artists, not 
just today but going forward, is through a music licensing 
system that is incentivizing us to innovate, to ensure that our 
value, it continues to be provided through streams for 
listeners--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How can that be accomplished?
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, I think it can be accomplished through a 
more holistic discussion around these laws. We are open to 
having that, would eagerly have it. As I stated in my testimony 
earlier, we would like the other side to come to the table and 
have this more holistic conversation. We are being rebuffed by 
the music industry, who wants to look at this as a very, very 
narrow, singular issue that misrepresents it.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. The 
section 4 of the act that we are discussing today provides that 
broadcast stations that generated less than $100,000 in 
revenues in the preceding calendar year, the yearly fee would 
be $10. That is not asking a whole lot. For public broadcast 
stations that generated between $100,000-1.5 million in the 
preceding calendar year, the yearly fee would be $100. For all 
other broadcast stations that generated between $100,000-1.5 
million in the preceding calendar year, the yearly fee is $500. 
Can you explain how that $500 is so oppressive?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, for a truly small business, which are the 
very small radio stations, one to two employee stations, that 
would fall into those exemptions, $500 is real money. It is not 
just $500 in a vacuum. It is $500 piled on top of fees that 
they are already paying to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, to SoundExchange 
when they are simulcasting, to the FCC for their licenses. 
Again, they can't offset that by suddenly charging a 
subscription. These are free services.
    The bigger focus here is on the 4,000 radio stations, the 
180-or-so station groups, that in your local communities. I 
think you would characterize those as small- and mid-size 
stations who fall outside of those exemptions. These royalties 
can total hundreds of thousands of dollars if we assume they 
are going to follow a template of a per-play stream the way the 
CRB has set in the webcasting context. So, we are very 
concerned about this.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Let me stop you there. Mr. 
Massarsky, some argue that small broadcasters like the ones 
just described by Mr. LeGeyt cannot afford to compensate 
musicians for the performance of their sound recordings. In 
your opinion, does the American Music Fairness Act adequately 
account for that concern?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
Witness can answer the question.
    Mr. Massarsky. Those particular stations, Congressman, are 
well protected by the legislation.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To me, this is a 
simple issue of property rights. Somebody owns a right to a 
composition or a production, and that right can only be traded 
with the consent of the owner. For example, if I compose a 
song, that song belongs to me. I might choose to sell it to a 
recording studio or license it to individual performers or keep 
it for myself. Nobody has the right to use that composition 
without my consent. That composition can be traded in any 
number of ways. Let's say I sell it or license it to a 
recording studio. The recording studio then hires musicians and 
a performer to record their work for compensation. Now, they 
have produced a recording that they own.
    So, whether a broadcast helps to promote a recording to me 
is irrelevant. What matters is whether the broadcaster, the 
user of the rights, and the owner of the rights agree to the 
terms. It may be the studio would want to pay to promote it or 
at least allow the broadcaster to broadcast it for free to 
promote it. That is up to the owner of the rights and the user 
of the rights.
    In any event, the recording should only be used according 
to the conditions of compensation that have been agreed to by 
both sides, whether it is done by a direct license or more 
likely bundling collections of recordings under terms agreeable 
to the owners of the rights. In any event, one party owns the 
property, which can only be used under the terms that it has 
agreed to.
    To me, the government has a responsibility to protect the 
property rights of its citizens, including intellectual 
property. That is what copyright protection is all about. It 
needs to be applied and enforced according to these simple 
principles of voluntary agreements between the owner of the 
right and the user of the right.
    So, Mr. LeGeyt, if I recorded a talk show from a 
broadcaster and then played it on my radio station without 
compensation, would that broadcaster object?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, isn't that what is happening with 
respect to music recording? Somebody goes to the expense of 
creating and producing a hit song, and then somebody else 
broadcasts it without their permission.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, Congressman, I agree that if we were 
starting this conversation whole cloth from the outset, you 
would have a very different music licensing regime than you 
have today.
    This is an issue of property rights. For broadcasters who 
have been publicly performing music for 100 years, they have 
been paying the right that was established in the 1919 
Copyright Act, which is the copyright that is held by the 
songwriter.
    Mr. McClintock. To me, that is not serving the purpose of 
government, which is to protect the property rights of its 
citizens. Just because we have been doing it for 100 years 
doesn't necessarily make it right.
    I am reminded of the story that Lincoln told of going up on 
the Saginaw River where they hauled eels out of the river and 
skinned them alive right there on the dock. Lincoln totally 
thought that was a terribly cruel thing for them to be doing. 
One of the eel skinners says, now, son, just calm down. It's 
all right. We have been skinning eels this way for years, and 
they're used to it.
    Mr. Massarsky, this still seems to be a half measure. It 
provides some compensation, but not at a rate agreeable to both 
the owner and the user. For example, a hit song by a well-known 
artist is likely to be worth more than a new song by an unknown 
artist. That unknown artist might very much want to have their 
song broadcast on radio without compensation. The owner of the 
hit might want to be paid for its broadcast. Why shouldn't 
these arrangements be worked out between the owner and the 
seller?
    Mr. Massarsky. Well, they can be, Congressman. In fact, we 
have a mechanism, the Copyright Royalty Board, that can take in 
all these factors into consideration. I remind you that we have 
figured out these considerations around the globe. Now, there 
are jurisdictions in every country that the governing body have 
looked at the promotion value of one side, the size and scale 
and affordability of the other. They have all reconciled 
successfully.
    It is a companion right. It is not the rights, the right of 
the sound recording, the artist and the sound recording owner. 
They in every other country have worked comfortably side by 
side with the rights of the music publisher and the songwriter.
    All the questions that you raised, and some others have 
raised have all been fairly explained and judicially determined 
by these other sovereignties--
    Mr. McClintock. So, as a practical matter, these rights can 
be protected and can be enforced. It is simply that we choose 
not to. My concern is that we are assigning an arbitrary 
license fee without the consent of the owners of these 
products. Why can't we just do it the right way and protect the 
rights of the owners of all these productions regardless--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
Witness can answer the question.
    Mr. McClintock. Your mike is muted, Mr. Massarsky.
    Mr. Massarsky. Congressman, you are absolutely right, and 
we should be doing just that.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Mr. 
Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing. 
Thanks to all the witnesses, especially I want to thank Mr. 
Mitchell, Mr. Pomeroy, and Ms. Estefan for the insight that you 
have provided into--
    Mr. Cicilline. I think we lost Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chair, you 
are on mute, and you are speaking.
    Chair Nadler. Yeah, we have lost Mr. Deutch. So, we will 
come back to him. Ms. Bass. Mr. Cicilline, rather.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this hearing, and really thank you to all our Witnesses for 
being here today. This hearing has been very useful in really 
understanding these issues.
    On the one hand, of course, it is vitally important that we 
protect artists' rights to be adequately compensated for their 
work that they have produced. As so many have said, music plays 
such an important role in our lives. It comforts us in times of 
pain. It allows us to express joy in times of celebration, and 
often occurs during some of the most memorable moments of our 
lives. So, musicians and songwriters deserve to be paid fairly 
for providing us for this.
    It is also to underscore the importance of local 
broadcasters, who are not only a primary source of trustworthy 
news and entertainment, but also irreplaceable during public 
health and safety situations and weather situations, 
particularly because of emergencies. Also, broadcasters are 
facing really an existential threat to their survival.
    I think interestingly both the broadcasters' challenge and 
the artists' challenge really are a result of the harmful 
behavior of giant companies. For the broadcasters, it is the 
tech monopolies. For the artists, it is the studios. So, I 
think there is a larger problem here about the power of artists 
to negotiate and the power of broadcasters to be treated fairly 
by the big tech companies.
    I think we all recognize the value of local broadcasting 
and what it means and how essential it is for the providing of 
trustworthy, reliable sources of information and news, which is 
why I hope very soon we will mark up the Journalism Competition 
and Preservation Act. That would be real relief for local 
broadcasters. So, I think that this is a real challenge.
    I guess I'll start with Mr. LeGeyt, who is my friend too, 
because I hear what you are saying, and you are absolutely 
right. I am a champion for local broadcasters. What seems 
unfair to me is that, while what you are doing is really 
important as a local broadcaster, and we as a community should 
be responsible for making sure you survive because of all the 
value of your public services, your announcements, it does seem 
to me a little bit unfair to shift the burden for that to 
musicians, like musicians shouldn't be responsible for funding 
or subsidizing all the great work that you do.
    So, my first question is, does the provision--and why am I 
not wrong in thinking about it that way? Also, do the 
provisions about the small broadcasters cover most of the 
broadcasters? I have no sense of what group falls within that 
$500 range of local broadcasters. Is that 80 percent, 20 
percent? Like what is the magnitude of the problem?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you, Congressman, for the question and 
your comments about the value of local broadcasting. Let me 
take this in two parts.
    First, to be very clear, there is a pot of money that is 
economically tenable for local broadcasters to pay in royalties 
to rights-holders. We are not hell-bent on preventing artists, 
performers, for having a larger slice of that pie. This is a 
larger ecosystem that has grown over decades with one set of 
relationships that for broadcasters has started with the PROs, 
has filtered its way through the system.
    We are all for a holistic conversation. If that money needs 
to be divvied up differently, let's have that larger 
conversation. There is a reason that songwriters are 
complaining about how they are compensated by streaming 
services. They are not complaining about broadcasters. These 
dollars are distributed very, very differently depending on 
which platform is publicly performing the songs. Our concern is 
just picking out this singular issue of a terrestrial 
performance royalty and suggesting that it is economically 
feasible to pile that on top of a system that is already been 
in existence and that businesses have been built on, on both 
sides, broadcasters and music industry, for decades.
    To your question about the small radio exemptions, first, 
we very much appreciate the bill authors for recognizing the 
value of small radio. Those exemptions leave out a huge swath 
of the industry. Hearing the music industry advocate on this, 
you would think that this was an issue about one or two groups. 
There are 177 radio groups that own stations that would fall 
outside of these exemptions. So, this is not just about a 
couple of large radio groups. This is about the vast majority, 
close to half of broadcast stations across the country, more 
than 4,000, that would be impacted outside of these exemptions.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. 
Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. Mr. Chair, can you hear me okay?
    Chair Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. Thank you very much. First, I want to 
say to the artists and the producers that are on this, that 
were presenters today, thank you for your contribution to the 
great American songbook. We have had so much wonderful music 
that has been produced in America over the decades. Just thank 
you so much for doing that.
    I was a beneficiary of that with a business that I owned 
called Wilderness Cruises in northern Wisconsin. I had artists 
that came on our excursion boat regularly and produced music. 
Sorry, they did not use Ms. Estefan's music, but I sure wish 
they would have. It was terrific, though. I want to thank you 
so much for the work that you have done.
    Mr. LeGeyt, back to the whole issue of private property 
rights, someone who has been a strong advocate of that my 
entire legislative career, how do I navigate that, that we are 
not protecting people's private property rights by these 
artists being compensated by your radio stations?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Let me 
just say, that is something that we have to navigate constantly 
at NAB in the larger sense as well, which is that I represent 
within my Membership substantial content owners, content users.
    I think what makes this issue very, very unique is that you 
are delving into a set of property rights that was established 
100 years ago, has certainly been modified over time, but which 
the local broadcast business and, frankly, the music industry 
has grown up around. At this point, 100 years later, the AMFA 
would pull the rug out from under that and impose a wholly new 
cost.
    So, I appreciate, to the degree that this is about core 
intellectual property rights, let's have a holistic 
conversation about how we get more dollars in the pocket of the 
sound recording creators, the artists. There has to be a 
balanced way to do it.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Pomeroy, you alluded to 
in your--I went through all your written testimony. You alluded 
to the financial harm that was done as a result of the 
shutdowns and things that have happened over the last couple 
years. It seems like that has been significant for some. Is 
that accurate?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Absolutely. Here in Nashville, which has the 
highest per capita musician population of any city in the 
world, we have seen many people who just couldn't stay and had 
to go back home. We have seen a huge drop in our workforce. 
It's a trickle-down effect that we're not receiving anything.
    I heard a remark earlier about asking for a larger slice 
for artists, musicians, and singers. We don't have a slice. We 
can't make nothing larger.
    So, I really appreciate this chance. Musicians are under 
such hardship because of the live music problems, the touring 
problems. This is a crisis like we've never seen.
    If we want to undermine the ability of one of our greatest 
working groups that create exports that make this country the 
leader in the entertainment industry, if we don't do something, 
this infrastructure is going to fall apart. We will be 
listening to music from overseas.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Pomeroy. I 
would just say that I am concerned about, whether you call it a 
fee, a tax, whatever you want to call it, it does concern me, 
even for small stations. Is that the camel with its nose under 
the tent?
    As someone who has always been a limited government, small 
government legislator, it concerns me that we start that, and 
then where does it lead eventually? Because once a tax fee--
whatever you want to call it, once it starts, it does concern 
me in regard to that.
    I want to make one final point in regard to this hearing 
today. I am very disappointed that this Committee has went to a 
virtual hearing once again. This is so unfortunate.
    We get so much better communication when we are live, when 
we are there in person, when there is that give and take that 
is going on. Once again, this Committee like some others has 
gone to virtual hearings, and that does not get us there. What 
I saw in the testimony that was written here today is this 
undertow of how shutting down our world over the last two years 
has had enormous consequences. We are just beginning to figure 
out what it is.
    It is time for us to get reopened. It is time for this 
Committee to go back to meeting in person. It is time to reopen 
the United States of America because the collateral harm is 
incredible, and you just heard about it from Mr. Pomeroy.
    Let's reopen America now. We should lead in the Congress of 
the United States of America. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are going to try this 
again. This is a piece of legislation we introduced because it 
is time that we respect music.
    It is time that we honor the creators of music. It is time 
that we treat them fairly. The fact that something has happened 
for decades that is wrong and unfair doesn't mean that this is 
what we should live with. That is why this legislation is so 
important.
    Mr. LeGeyt, of course we recognize how important local 
broadcasting is. I want to remind everyone again that our bill 
exempts radio stations with revenues under 100,000 dollars and 
allows them to pay 10 dollars a year for all the music in the 
world. Eighty percent of radio stations would pay 500 dollars 
or less to play all the music they want. Mr. LeGeyt, I think 
that 500 dollars is even less than the membership fee to belong 
to the National Association of Broadcasters.
    So, I want to go back. I want to touch on something you 
said multiple times which is that the thing we need to remember 
is that radio is free. I want to explore what that means.
    Is it a public service? Is there money involved? How does 
the business work? When do advertisers get involved, and how 
much was the total amount paid in advertising to broadcasters 
over the past year?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Advertisers are obviously the cornerstone of our business. I 
should point out, to this theme about how COVID has impacted 
all of this. I have extreme sympathy for the way it has 
impacted the music industry.
    For broadcasters who rely on local retailers, local car 
dealers, local restaurants, their advertising has had a 
dramatic impact. So, we are a 100 percent ad supported 
business.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. LeGeyt, do you know what the total amount 
was that was paid in ads last year in advertising?
    Mr. LeGeyt. I can get those dollars.
    Mr. Deutch. I would appreciate that, and here is why. There 
is this constant focus on small radio. What you said is you 
represented that there will be less investment made in the 
emergency alert system. You said there will be fewer boots on 
the ground, that there won't be innovation.
    I just want to make sure I understand. Are you representing 
to the Judiciary Committee that companies like iHeartMedia 
which earned close to 3 billion dollars is going to stop making 
those investments if this bill passes, that Cumulus which 
earned over 800 million dollars is going to stop investing in 
their business and in their community? Is that what you are 
representing?
    Mr. LeGeyt. No, I am not representing that it will stop. I 
am representing that this will have a real impact on that 
investment--
    Mr. Deutch. Right.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Deutch. So, you said it would have a dramatic impact on 
music airplay. Are you representing that these companies that 
play the music, that draws people in, that draws the 
advertisers in because they know there will be listeners, and 
they know there will be listeners because people want to listen 
to the music, when you talk about a dramatic impact, are you 
saying that they are going to stop paying--they are going to 
stop playing music? Is that what you are representing?
    Mr. LeGeyt. I am not representing that they are going to 
stop playing music.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Deutch. Okay. So, let me just ask you. I am sorry. Let 
me just ask one other thing because I don't have a lot of time.
    You talked earlier. You said that you acknowledged, in 
passing, that 500 dollars is significant when they are already 
paying for streaming. They are paying for streaming to artists, 
right? That is what you were referring to, when they pay 
artists when the songs are streamed on their stations online. 
Is that what you were saying?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Correct.
    Mr. Deutch. Right. Is it hard to understand why so many of 
us would be so offended at this notion that musicians should be 
paid in one context, but it is perfectly fair for them not to 
be paid here at all?
    I'll finish with this. You referred a couple of times 
earlier to the burdensome royalties. Is it burdensome when you 
pay DJs to play music, Mr. LeGeyt?
    Mr. LeGeyt. It is a cost of doing business.
    Mr. Deutch. Is it burdensome? Is it a burden? Is it a 
burden on the industry?
    Mr. LeGeyt. No, it's not.
    Mr. Deutch. Is it a burden on the industry to pay talk 
radio hosts who draw in listeners because they want to hear 
that? I am going to answer that for you. Of course, it isn't.
    Only the musicians who produce the music that make your 
radio stations be able to sell advertisers, only those 
musicians are not being paid. It is time for fairness in 
American music. That is why this legislation is so urgently 
needed, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up on a 
line of questions that Mr. McClintock had. This hearing is in 
the context of a bill, legislation. I have got a question about 
the legislation. Maybe somebody could help me answer it.
    Section 5 establishes that if a copyright holder directly 
contracts with broadcast stations to license terrestrial 
performance rights, the broadcast station must still pay 50 
percent of the direct license payment to the entity 
administering the royalty. If this were to become law, is it 
still the case that if performers wanted their material played 
for free on the radio to promote, for instance, their local 
appearances--which honestly for the small performers that I 
know, their appearances produce more revenue than the streaming 
revenue that they are seeing.
    Would it still be the case that it could be a completely 
royalty free production and nothing additionally would have to 
be paid over the status quo? Mr. LeGeyt, can you answer that? 
Is the licensing compulsory even if the artist doesn't want it?
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, thank you for the question. The licensing 
is compulsory. So, for the vast majority of stations across the 
country, they're paying a fee regardless of what airplay they 
would be putting over their airwaves.
    That having been said, it is extremely cumbersome when 
you're talking about thousands of broadcast stations, thousands 
of right holders. The bill, I believe, intends to allow a local 
station group to go and directly negotiate a deal with a rights 
holder that could potentially fall outside of that regime.
    Mr. Massie. Okay. What--
    Mr. LeGeyt. It is hard to say how that would work in 
practice. I think it would be extremely impractical and 
burdensome. I don't want to misrepresent what I think the bill 
intends.
    Mr. Massie. Right. Okay. So, we don't have to litigate all 
of that now. I just want to make sure that we are not--if it 
truly is the right of the artist, then the artist needs to 
still have the right to give that away if they find that the 
promotion is in their interest more so than some small royalty 
that they might receive. So, I just want to make sure that's 
not overlooked.
    Ms. Estefan, I enjoyed your music. I was in high school in 
the '80s and '90s, and it was very popular. You mentioned that 
the artist and their heirs should enjoy royalties for a long 
period of time. Right now, the term of copyright protection 
generally begins at the time of creation and lasts for the life 
of the author plus 70 years. Do you think that's an appropriate 
length of time?
    Ms. Estefan. Well, whether I think it's appropriate or not, 
at least it's a protection for the next seven years after I die 
for my kids and heirs. That is a separate conversation to have, 
but there is some protection. They will be getting those 
royalties from the songwriting that I did, but they will not 
receive any royalties from me as a performer. For example, when 
Conga or Get On Your Feet that I did, right, that I performed, 
when those get on radio, they won't receive anything from that.
    Mr. Massie. Then let me ask you a question. If somebody 
invented an insulin pump that saved lives and he was an 
inventor, how long should that inventor enjoy royalties? Should 
his heirs be entitled to those royalties as well?
    Ms. Estefan. Wow, you are giving me a lot of power here.
    Mr. Massie. Yes.
    Ms. Estefan. Is it whatever I say goes? I'll tell you what. 
Benjamin Franklin gave all his inventions for free because he 
thought that they were for the common good, and that's a 
wonderful thing. I did music because I felt it in my soul.
    Mr. Massie. Right.
    Ms. Estefan. I sing since I talked. I probably would've 
done it for free, although I needed a day job. Copyright law, 
you have judges, and you have laws that establish reason and 
lengths of time.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you very much. Let me summarize. Yes, I 
know inventors who would sell their blood plasma to keep 
inventing, but they can't make a living doing that.
    Ms. Estefan. Oh, absolutely, yeah.
    Mr. Massie. I just want to make sure we don't have a double 
standard here where we are trying to give patents only last 20 
years. People make inventors out to be evil people because they 
are trying to make a living.
    Ms. Estefan. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Massie. Here we are--yeah, and here we are with 
royalties for songs which they are enjoyable, but they don't 
save lives. They last the life of the author plus 70 years. So, 
I want to make sure that we don't call the inventors trolls, 
but we call them the backup artists--
    Ms. Estefan. Absolutely.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Estefan. Exactly. A nice analogy also for these 
broadcast places, they pay both their anchors and the writers. 
In essence, what's happening, it would be as if they were 
paying the writers of the broadcast but not the anchors for 
doing the job of anchoring the news.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Ms. Estefan.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Bass.
    Ms. Bass. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this 
meeting. Mr. LeGeyt, I wanted to congratulate you again for 
becoming the CEO of NAB, and it is nice to see you again. I 
wanted to ask the question about overall royalty fees that 
broadcasters pay. I wanted to know if you could discuss how 
broadcasters, including small minority broadcasters, are 
navigating the economic challenges such as fees being brought.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. It's extremely 
challenging. Broadcasters are paying as an industry hundreds of 
millions of dollars in fees to performing rights organizations, 
ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
    On top of that, you now have an emergence of these new 
performance rights organizations that are taking slices away 
from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. It doesn't seem to be a zero-sum 
game for broadcasters and other users. So, that's GMR, for 
example.
    When broadcasters are webcasting, they are paying royalties 
to SoundExchange on top of that. We pay our FCC license fees on 
top of the various vendors for our technology services. So, 
suffice it to say for a small broadcaster who just want to know 
that they have got the permission to play the music that they 
want to put out to their audiences, this has become extremely, 
extremely cumbersome.
    Ms. Bass. So, one other question. How is small defined? Is 
it by the number of stations that an individual or a company 
would own? Or is it by their value?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Within this legislation, or how would I define 
that?
    Ms. Bass. Yes, how would you define it?
    Mr. LeGeyt. I would define small in the context of 
broadcasting by level of community focus. I think too often we 
mistake scale as undermining small because your experience with 
your local broadcasters and I think your colleague's experience 
as well is that they operate very independently in local 
markets. If they are doing their jobs well, they are invested 
in that community.
    Ms. Bass. Okay.
    Mr. LeGeyt. They are small businesses within that 
community. Now, scale is helping them compete with the Googles 
and Facebooks of the world for advertising dollars.
    Ms. Bass. Okay. Let me move on before my time runs out. Ms. 
Estefan, I know that you are coming to this position--you are 
coming to this issue from a different position. I wanted to 
know if you could speak how the lack of a public performance 
right impacts the music marketplace and the overall economy. I 
heard your testimony before you talked about the individuals.
    Ms. Estefan. Okay. Let's start with the fact that foreign 
royalties which the American government would be taxing if the 
American songwriters would receive it is something that is 
being left on the plate right there. Also, taxes that those 
performers would be paying based on royalties they would be 
receiving is also left on the table.
    Look, I'm a songwriter and a singer. I'm fortunate that I'm 
a songwriter. I'm happy that I have been able to reap those 
benefits.
    There shouldn't be a difference for someone like a Dionne 
Warwick that may not have written her biggest hits because Hal 
David wrote them. She created those songs. She's the one that 
created the magic that people listen to and continue to listen 
to because these songs we still hear.
    I don't think it's fair that whoever wrote the song be 
getting compensated, but the woman that made the magic for that 
song doesn't get a penny. That's the only thing we're trying to 
establish here. There is a lot of money being left on the 
table.
    Tax dollars are being left on the table that we could be 
using also to fund all kinds of things. There are a lot of 
things written in that will protect the smaller radio stations. 
Believe me. I love radio. We would be nowhere without radio, 
particularly me in that era.
    Ms. Bass. In my last few seconds, Mr. Mitchell, if you 
could respond. In my district, I have an awful lot of artists 
who are concerned about this as well. Mr. Mitchell, could you 
respond how it impacts the individuals?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes, it impacts us very greatly. We're 
talking about COVID, now. Before COVID, we experienced the 
housing market crash in 2007 and 2008. With the advent of MP3s, 
record sales were cut in half or more.
    Having a performance royalty would just offset all of that. 
This is a small business. Gloria Estefan, she's a small 
business. You're talking about small businesses. That's what we 
are, the music creators. We're small businesses, and we're 
struggling to make ends meet because we don't have access to 
this money.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Mr. 
Roy? Mr. Roy?
    [No response.]
    Chair Nadler. Well, in that case, Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to 
all the Witnesses. It's extraordinarily interesting, and I wish 
I knew more about this space. I'm going to address just a 
couple of simple questions to Mr. LeGeyt.
    My understanding, limited though it may be, is that radio 
is a means of competition against streaming. As I understand 
it, the radio business model is selling advertising to pay for 
playing music or providing entertainment is paid for on a per 
plate standard. The streaming methodology, of course, is based 
on subscriptions.
    Radio is based on the amount of play with no regard to 
income. This is a problem because the risk to the business is 
squarely on the radio station. I guess the question as these 
smaller stations, particularly many in my district out in 
Oregon, find themselves more and more and more challenged by 
all the different multitude of platforms.
    I guess my question to you is, does radio--even as 
challenged as the circumstance may be, providing a competitive 
edge of some sort to drive down the cost of streaming to those 
who are artists that are negotiating for streaming's use? Or am 
I misunderstanding it completely?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, I think where radio can stand out and 
where it will still remain very, very viable in today's media 
landscape is with a hyper focus on local and a service to a 
demographic that simply can't afford those subscription fees 
through other services. A piece of that is our relationship 
with the music industry, the value that we're providing to the 
music industry. That value is extending to that listenership 
that I think remains very, very unique.
    So, I'm not sure if I'm answering your question on point. I 
believe that there's a really unique value and niche that we 
fill that none of our other competitors are hitting. I believe 
that the music industry benefits from that.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. I am sure that your answer is difficult 
because my question was poor. Let me put it a little more 
clearly. Does radio provide competition for streaming? If so, 
does that drive down the cost of streaming to the artist?
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, yes, radio is competing for listenership 
with other audio streaming services, no doubt about it. I, 
also, think when you're talking about on demand streaming, the 
Spotifys, the Apple Musics of the world, radio play is driving 
more downloads. It's driving more on demand streaming.
    So, artists are benefitting from that. That's the new form 
of what would've 20 years been album purchases. So, I think 
this is very much we're competing on one hand. I think what 
radio does is very different than what an Apple Music or a 
Google Play is doing in terms of that's the product that we're 
helping to promote.
    Mr. Bentz. Perhaps I said it backwards. In fact, I'm sure I 
did. What I should have said is, does the competition drive up 
the value to artists? That was really the proper way to put the 
question.
    So, I think you have answered it despite my challenge in 
presenting the issue to you. Mr. Chair, a super interesting 
conversation for many reasons to me. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for convening 
this very important hearing. I thank all the Witnesses, 
certainly thank my good friend, Congressman Deutch, for his 
leadership. Mr. Mitchell, as you testified, you worked on the 
song, Uptown Funk. Is that correct?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. That is one of the 20 most played songs of 
all time in terms of mainstream Top 40 radio. Would that be a 
correct observation?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jeffries. So, I appreciate your presence here today 
because this is an issue I hadn't fully thought through. The 
performer is incredibly important, and Ms. Estefan's presence 
here today is an honor for all of us. As a produce and an 
engineer, that's an additional dynamic that is pretty 
interesting to me.
    Your work on that song, I guess as I understand it, when it 
gets played on the radio, doesn't [inaudible] to you in the 
context of receiving any compensation. Is that right?
    Mr. Mitchell. That's correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Is that fundamentally sort of one of the 
glitches in the system that you think could be life changing 
for producers and for engineers?
    Mr. Mitchell. Absolutely. Because the simple fact that 
money is being collected around the world on behalf of 
Americans, but we can't receive it because there's no 
reciprocity. That money would be a huge impact to me and my 
family, this historic studio, and the rest of the musicians 
that aren't touring. You're not hearing their names mentioned. 
They're struggling every day to make a living. Yet, their music 
is being consumed.
    Mr. Jeffries. Appreciate your presence here today and your 
testimony. I think clearly this is an issue that we have to 
work through in terms of the music landscape being changed, but 
also balance the interests of our broadcasters, particularly 
those that do serve a niche, that do reach audiences that may 
not otherwise be reached, that do have specialty areas that are 
smaller broadcasters. I appreciate that dynamic as well that 
Mr. LeGeyt has spoken to.
    I am hopeful because many of us were involved in the effort 
to pass the Music Modernization Act. That was complicated. That 
was difficult. That was challenging.
    We addressed it because the landscape had changed over 
time. Because we realized that the way that people received 
music had changed. It went from phonographs to vinyl, vinyl to 
8-tracks, that didn't seem to last for a long time, 8-tracks to 
cassettes, cassettes to CDs, CDs to download, download to 
streaming.
    It takes a while for Congress to catch up. We finally did. 
We work with everyone: Musicians, creators, artists, internet 
platforms, and the broadcasters.
    I am thankful that the broadcasters were supportive of that 
effort. I'm just hopeful that similarly we can find a way to 
come together to address the changes in the landscape that have 
clearly occurred that are impacting the creative community who 
the constitution says to us we should support. That's why this 
Committee, Judiciary, not Energy and Commerce, has the ability 
and the jurisdiction over copyright and content and creativity 
because this was in our constitutional fabric and DNA.
    I am just hopeful with Ted's leadership, I am confident 
that as we came together with the passage of the Music 
Modernization Act in 2018 and did it in a bipartisan way, 
Democrats, Republicans, the left, the right, Progressives, 
Conservatives, all the industry stakeholders, that we can find 
a way forward here to accommodate all these important issues. 
So, thank you for your testimony and for your presence and look 
forward to working together on this issue. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Jayapal.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Jayapal. Did you call on me, Mr. Chair? Just making 
sure.
    Chair Nadler. I did call on you.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank 
you to our panel today. My home district has historically been 
fertile ground for some of the most influential music in 
America and served as a rich foundation for jazz artists in the 
1940s. It allowed new sounds like grunge and alternative rock 
to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s.
    Seattle is and remains a bedrock of music, its influence 
cemented through local and national radio airplay. During the 
COVID-19 pandemic, artists that rely on live performance for 
income are suffering significant economic hardship. Meanwhile, 
huge conglomerate radio stations continue to rake in millions 
of dollars in cash by playing their music.
    Artists attempting to earn money earned from radio's direct 
competitors online streaming services received minuscule 
profits. Last year, a local Seattle artist named Gabriel 
Teodros had over 80,000 streams for one of his songs. He only 
earned about 90 bucks from it.
    Mr. Mitchell, given this knowledge, can you talk about why 
it is especially important for artists to receive terrestrial 
performance rights?
    Mr. Mitchell. I think it's important and to note people, 
when we make music, it is a performance. It's just like buying 
a concert ticket. It should be treated no different. It's a 
public performance captured on medium. Every time you 
rebroadcast it, you're rebroadcasting a performance.
    So, it'd be like not paying for a concert ticket. You don't 
go to concerts for free and you're watching a performance. Our 
music is a performance, and we should be compensated for it.
    The impact that it would have, you know, not just to large 
artists but to the backing musicians, to the session musicians, 
to the producers, the background singers. The people that do 
this for a living, they would be impacted greatly. This is a 
business that you must have the heart to do it.
    Most people successful, they work hard for years to get 
where they are. It should be compensated. Music is a national 
treasure. It's our number one gift to the world.
    No country has influenced popular music the way that 
America has. There would be no British invasion, no Beatles. 
They were all listening to American music over the radio, and 
they all recognize their performers and their musicians. It's 
time that America does the same.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. As the mom of a 
musician, I also resonate very much with what you're saying. 
The Seattle-Tacoma area is the twelfth largest metro market for 
radio in the country, boasting over 30 stations. These stations 
of all sizes, many of them public, private, or independently 
owned, play a huge role in popularizing up and coming artists.
    They also have vastly different revenue streams. Mr. 
Pomeroy, can you elaborate on the contrast in revenue between 
big media conglomerate stations and smaller stations?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Well, certainly, we're talking apples and 
oranges, big conglomerates that are raking in billions and then 
small stations. No one wants to disrespect the services that 
local radio provides, especially during times of crisis. No one 
wants to see AM/FM radio go away.
    In terms of what the value of what we do represents, when 
someone else makes money from what you do and doesn't share, 
it's just simply not fair. So, it's an inequity that has 
shifted. The fundamental aspect of it has not.
    We're not asking for anything outrageous here. We're just 
asking for help keeping our industry alive from people who have 
been making money from our industry without paying us for 
decades.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. In Seattle, we just had the news 
that our very well-known radio station, KOMO, and two other 
local stations were recently acquired by Lotus Communications 
Corp., a privately owned broadcasting company that rakes in 
about 24 million dollars per year.
    Mr. Pomeroy, how would the American Music Fairness Act 
support smaller radio stations, for instance, the impact on 
their fees versus the fees of the larger conglomerate owned 
stations?
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Pomeroy. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Well, I just have 
to say that the impact of this law would change things 
drastically because there are things built in to make sure that 
the small stations are not unduly burdened. As long as they 
can--and even there are accommodations there for stations that 
are owned by conglomerates.
    There's a sliding scale that has been carefully thought out 
to make sure that there's a big difference between a small 
rural community station that is the lifeline in an emergency to 
iHeartRadio or any huge conglomerate that owns thousands of 
little, tiny pieces that they make money from. So, it's truly 
apples and oranges.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Raskin. Mr. 
Raskin, you are muted.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for calling 
this important hearing. Yeah, this whole thing is such a rip 
off, it boggles the mind. One person I spoke to in the radio 
industry said, well, music should be free. I said, groceries 
should be free. Rent should be free. As long as these musicians 
have to pay to live, how can we just rip off their music like 
this?
    Ms. Estefan, SoundExchange estimated that the failure of 
terrestrial broadcast radio to pay royalties for sound 
recordings costs artists and rights owners around 200 million 
dollars a year in performance royalties. What would that 200 
million dollars a year mean to artists, both well known, 
established artists, and new artists just starting out? How 
would you translate that?
    Ms. Estefan. Well, obviously it depends on how many times 
your song is played, because this is all going to go into a 
kitty.
    For example, from the question before, if this bill was 
enacted there would be a Copyright Royalty Board that would 
decide what is fair for the stations that make the bazillion 
dollars. It protects anyone making under $100,000--and between 
$100,000 and 1.5 would pay $500, I believe. So, they're 
protected.
    For the artist, it would boil down to how many times your 
song is played. Those 200 million are just in monies outside of 
the United States.
    For example, in France, they take the monies collected from 
American songs that are being played and they are using it to 
fund a French cultural organization because they are not giving 
it to the artists that created this music. So, in the meantime, 
those 200 million, which are just from outside, an estimate 
from outside the country, are being used by, by these countries 
for whatever they would like to use it for because we don't 
have reciprocal laws that protect their artists.
    It's just, like, the minuscule amount that we get from 
streaming is divided, depending on how many times your song is 
played compared to other artists, but at least it's something. 
Before, it was nothing. So, the Music Modernization Act really 
came through and established at least a minimal amount of money 
for artists to receive.
    I think an example was Coldplay had a song that had 6 
billion streams and they made $6,000 from it. Six billion 
streams. This is the, really, the amount of money. So, between 
COVID locking everybody down and those artists that have 
established performances, that is gone, too.
    So, this has been going on forever, and we feel it is only 
fair that performers get their share.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Massarsky, so, I guess I had that 200 
million figure wrong. That was just from overseas, according to 
Ms. Estefan.
    What is the figure in America? How much money will 
eventually get to the artists if we correct this gaping 
loophole?
    Mr. Massarsky. Thank you, Congressman.
    It depends, honestly, about what the rates the Copyright 
Royalty Board will decide that rate to be. I don't know that at 
this moment.
    I can tell you that the only reason we are even here today 
is because there was a consideration that radio was a 
promotional vehicle for the sales of recorded music. We now 
know that is not the case anymore. The data shows us that radio 
is relying much more on older music, not the stuff of 
promotion.
    So, we know that the rights should be reinstated.
    You are asking a question about how much will the pot be, 
and I would suggest to you that we have all these benchmarks 
around the world about what the share of revenue is, less the 
costs allowances for the station. All that data will come forth 
before the Copyright Royalty Board. I'm not going to tell you 
what that rate should be. I would like to prepare for that. I 
do think you need to do the rate first, what the rate should be 
considered finally.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Mr. Mitchell, let me ask you about 
artists and people in the music industry themselves. Do they 
experience this as an injustice, an indignity, and exploitation 
of their, of their work?
    I know it is hard to organize artists because artists tend 
to be free thinkers and everybody is doing their own thing, but 
is there reason to think that artists and musicians are 
weighing in on this to get the public's attention?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes. It is very, it became apparent to some 
of my artists when we worked with musicians from overseas, and 
the overseas musicians are, like, yeah, we get paid for radio 
play.
    All of my legacy musicians, like the Hi Rhythm section and 
others, they are shocked and amazed because these people have 
played on 27 gold and platinum records in a row and they can't 
afford to move out of their ZIP Codes, or can't afford to feed 
their families. They have knowledge that this money is being 
collected for other musicians of other national origins. It is 
striking and it is unfair.
    People just, we want to be paid for our property the way 
everybody else is.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    I think you are muted, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Demings.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all 
our Witnesses here today.
    Mr. LeGeyt, as we all know, the American Music Fairness Act 
includes a carve-out for small broadcasters not owned by a 
larger conglomerate. I know the time has been well spent today, 
but we want to make sure that we are doing our jobs as Members 
of Congress as it pertains to this critical issue.
    I would just love for you to talk more about do you believe 
these provisions adequately protect smaller broadcasters? If 
not, why not?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question.
    I don't believe that the provisions adequately protect 
small broadcasters in two ways. The first is there are more 
than 4,000 stations across the country who fall outside of 
those exemptions. I know there is a fixation on the music 
industry's advocacy by pointing to one or two large broadcast 
companies. I would also point out that even the largest 
broadcasters are dwarfed in size by the three major record 
labels.
    The reality here is I am advocating for nearly 200 radio 
groups across the country who would fall outside those 
exemptions, who have stations in all your districts that you 
would never characterize as large conglomerates. So, the bill 
is incredibly far-reaching, even with the carve-outs.
    Now, within the carve-outs you are truly talking about 
small broadcasters, one- or two-employee stations where even a 
$500 fee is substantial. I am not representing that a $500 fee 
is putting anyone out of business. If my previous testimony was 
taken that way, it should not have been. It is real money that 
diverts resources from localism.
    So, I believe this bill would truly undermine local service 
of the broadcast industry.
    Ms. Demings. You also indicate that the legislation would 
jeopardize jobs, require radio stations to cut back their 
involvement in local communities, and place more pressure on 
radio stations already struggling to survive. I mean, that is a 
pretty stark condemnation of the bill and its possible effects.
    Can you be more specific about the possible effects to jobs 
and communities you believe will occur if this legislation 
becomes law?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Absolutely. We have real concerns about the 
Copyright Royalty Board and what proceeding that sets rates 
under this bill would look like. Our concerns are well-founded 
because we have lived in that world for the last 20 years, 
setting rates for our simulcast streaming.
    Those rates have proven so burdensome that they have really 
hindered broadcasters' ability to innovate.
    So, as we look at this--and it is, of course, hard to know 
what would happen if this were implemented into law--but if 
past is prologue, you are talking about potentially hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in new royalty fees for local broadcasters 
that are already facing significant economic challenges, 
especially in this current environment where local advertising 
dollars from restaurants, retailers, car dealerships has been 
reduced as a result of COVID, there is just a lot of economic 
pressure that we have got real concerns about it.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you.
    Mr. Massarsky, how do you believe the carve-outs or the 
provisions in the carve-out protect smaller broadcasters?
    Mr. Massarsky. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    It completely protects the small stations. It gives them 
coverage over a necessity. We also have to remember something, 
okay, the top 20 broadcasters represent the lion's share of 
this revenue. They are large, and they are using an enormous 
consumption of music. In fact, 80 percent of the $9 billion a 
year commercial radio industry is dedicated to playing two-
thirds of their time sound recordings.
    We are talking about an enormous amount of use for no 
payment whatsoever to the deserving artists and to record 
company owners.
    So, the only thing on the table that I understand it 
currently is the value. That goes into the question of whether 
there is promotional value that is compensating the artists 
instead of the value of the license itself. We have breakdowns 
to show you that radio is no longer the promotional vehicle it 
once was. It aims to an older demographic who enjoy much more 
established music, not the kind that we promote. Therefore, if 
we are going to commercialize the music with a $9 billion a 
year revenue, it is time to pay for that.
    Ms. Demings. Again, I am out of time. Thank you to all of 
you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, everybody, 
all the Witnesses for hanging in there. I know it is kind of a 
long morning here.
    I just have kind of question unrelated to kind of the 
discussion back and forth about the royalties, but mainly the 
mechanics or the logistics of it.
    Ms. Estefan, I will ask you first, how reliable is it when 
you are talking about some of the foreign owned, the royalties. 
Do the mechanics of that work? Do you actually--are the 
royalties paid timely? What has been your experience with that 
part of the business?
    Ms. Estefan. You mean the royalties that they are holding 
that they aren't paying out to performing parties? Because I 
know that, for example, I am a member of BMI. They are a 
collection agency. They collect my written, the music that I 
write.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, because you are a composer. Right, 
yes.
    Ms. Estefan. I am a composer. Right.
    So, on the composing side I receive that. They know because 
it is being held, there are two cases, like there are for AM/FM 
radio, that spell out exactly what is being played, when it is 
being play. So, we know the amount of play going on over there 
and the rates. That is where they come up with those fees.
    They are not being paid as of now because we don't have a 
reciprocal way in the United States to pay for their artists. 
So, they just hold the money.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. It is reliable on the composer's side, and 
the revenues are transferred on a regular basis?
    Ms. Estefan. As a composer, yes. You always have the 
right--and we do sometimes, because we have our own publishing 
company, and we often audit.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes.
    Ms. Estefan. Because, like any business, you have to be on 
top of it and make sure that things are going. There are a lot 
of little places where money is held outside the country, but 
then you have to put out the money to audit. It is a balancing 
act.
    The American organizations that do collect for authors have 
been very good in my experience for the last 40-some years. For 
me. I can't speak for anyone else.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. I think because there is kind of 
this idea floating around out there that they are just trying 
to undermine any type of effort that, oh, this is kind of a 
reliable payment system, or the logistics or the mechanics of 
it doesn't always work.
    Maybe, Mr. Mitchell, do you have any comments in that 
regard?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes. I have a letter here from Mr. Peter 
Leathem, who is the President and CEO of PPL. That is in 
England. It is Phonographic Performance Limited. They are one 
of the largest collectors of Terrestrial Radio rights for the 
United Kingdom.
    He says, ``The making of payments and matching of 
recordings used to a database to identify the copyright owner 
and the performance on the recording is a very manageable piece 
of work. This is already conducted by Sound Exchange in the 
U.S. for various digital services and shows the work can be 
done.''
    Also, he says, ``Given the popularity of U.S. recordings 
around the world, this would result in a net inflow of money to 
the U.S. music industry and economy.''
    [The information follows:]



      

                 MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Fitzgerald. Okay, there you go. I mean, that is kind of 
what I was looking for. It sounds like there is confidence that 
it could mimic if the changes were made to work kind of the way 
it does now with composition. So, very good.
    That is all I have, Mr. Chair. I would yield back.
    Mr. Pomeroy. If I could just--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chair, I didn't know if Mr. Pomeroy 
sounded like he had a comment to make.
    Mr. Pomeroy. Yes, if I could.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Sure.
    Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I just want to say that, yes, the overseas collectives are 
very professional. They are, frankly, to some, some degree in 
disbelief that we are not playing by the same set of rules as 
they are.
    That is going to be a huge game changer to bring in this 
money from overseas, help these people feed their families, pay 
their taxes, put the money back into the U.S. economy. The 
money is definitely there and will continue.
    If we start paying them what we owe them, we are going to 
get many times that amount in return.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Correa is back on, on 
the screen.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Correa.
    Ms. Garcia. If you want to call him first.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Can you hear me okay, 
Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Correa. First, I want to thank all the Witnesses for 
being here today.
    I agree with a lot of the presenters today, my colleagues, 
that copyright, production is so important to not only for this 
industry but for this country. That is what we are known for, 
we are known for being creative.
    So, I am clearly disappointed that such an important piece 
of legislation cannot be negotiated. We want to make sure that 
our broadcasters stay in business. At the same time, I want to 
make sure that when my kids start writing songs and having 
proprietary things out there that they are paid for it.
    I am going to ask both Mr. Pomeroy and Curtis, why can't we 
just sit down and come up with a win/win situation? That, there 
has got to be a solution here that we can work on.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. You might have 
heard this in some of my previous responses.
    I am supremely frustrated here. The NAB has proactively 
offered time and time again, and worked for almost two years on 
a variety of approaches that we hoped would bring the music 
industry to the table to see if there might be a path forward. 
We have been completely rebuffed in doing that.
    So, I would certainly welcome the leadership of this 
Committee in reinitiating that conversation because I think it 
is extremely important to all the parties represented--
    Mr. Correa. Mr. LeGeyt, I think when you say you are 
rebuffed, it sounds like there is no meeting of minds yet. So, 
I would ask the other side what is it that we need to do to 
come up with a situation that is win/win for all involved?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Well, in answer to your first question, I am a 
bass player, I believe that the truth is always in the middle. 
There is always a way to get everybody to the middle if people 
are willing to participate in a functional fashion. That did 
not happen with the Music Modernization Act.
    I absolutely can say on behalf of the musicians that I am 
representing in the AFM, yes, of course we are willing to sit 
down and have a reasonable discussion. It has to be a reality-
based, reasonable discussion about how we are going to fix 
this. Because if we just kick the can down the road for another 
70 or 100 years, it is not an acceptable solution.
    We are ready to talk. It has to be realistic. We have to be 
able to actually move and not just talk about moving towards 
each other. I hope that we can do that. I am certainly going to 
do everything in my power.
    Mr. Correa. Any other comments from the panelists? Barry?
    Mr. Massarsky. I would like to take this on as well.
    Something Mr. LeGeyt said earlier I just need to demystify. 
He was talking about the payments that radio stations make for 
the right to play songs to composers and publishers, the 
publishing rights, their rights. I got the sense from his 
testimony that he thought that there should be a distribution 
of one side that would also include the artists and also 
include the sound recording.
    So, that is completely antithetical to the way the world 
operates. In every other industrialized economy, we have 
parallel rights and parallel institutions that recognize the 
fact that these are supported rights. They are not supposed to 
be able to interfere with one another.
    So, the right that we are looking for is not one that is 
already there. It has never been perceived by the radio 
industry. I think it is high time now that we sit down and talk 
about not the rights, because that should be established, but 
the rates. That could be determined by a Copyrights Board that 
we just spoke about.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Congressman, my focus as to what I have heard 
here is ensuring that dollars get in the pockets of the artists 
who are asking for it.
    My frustration is that there are so many elements of the 
system right now that are pulling dollars out of the pie. If 
you look at the first four pages of Mr. Massarsky's testimony, 
you see the various ways that dollars are being spent by the 
music industry away from incenting creation. I want to be at 
the table helping to ensure that artists get their fair share.
    Mr. Correa. If I may, in the last few seconds that I have I 
would urge all parties involved to sit down and figure this 
out.
    For full disclosure, I have a family member, one of my 
sons, that is a creator. So, I have a conflict of interest 
here. I want to make sure that he is well compensated, at the 
same time that some of these channels are still here.
    Boo, you have something in my last four seconds. Go ahead.
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes. I just want to make it clear that 
previous negotiations with the NAB and the ``music industry'' 
was a business deal and it not involving Congress. Only 
Congress can change the law.
    This is about copyrights and the law. It is not about some 
backdoor deal, business deal between the NAB and record 
companies. Only Congress can change the law. I am an American 
citizen. I believe in my Congress and I expect my Congress to 
believe in me and represent my rights and interests.
    Mr. Correa. I thank you very much, everybody, for your 
presentations today.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the 
Witnesses here today. Thank you to my colleague and friend, Mr. 
Deutch, for his leadership on this issue.
    As you all know, or may know, I am from Texas. I am a proud 
Latina. For us it is a district that is 77 percent Latino. We 
may listen to Frank Sinatra, but we also listen to Trio Los 
Panchos and Vikki Carr.
    We do look at and we do listen to oldies but goodies and 
some hits of the Beach Boys. I still think, Gloria, of the 
Miami Sound Machine. I still have all the cassettes. I haven't 
transitioned to any of your CDs, regretfully.
    So, for us it is Tejano music, salsa, cumbias, and it is a 
lot of different things. I think one that there is some concern 
in my area is what will this do to Spanish radio?
    What will this do to the many minorities and communities in 
Houston and Harris County where we speak 145 languages, 145 
languages? Thirty-one percent of us speak Spanish, but we have 
a very, very diverse community.
    What will this do, Gloria, what will this do to those 
smaller radio stations where communities rely on so many 
things, and it is part of what builds our community?
    Ms. Estefan. Well, what I can tell you is this: What is in 
the act now, were it to be passed, were that these small 
stations--and by the way, I think we need to differentiate 
between a local station because some of these conglomerates, 
the big ones, are considered local stations because they happen 
to be local, but they are part of a very big web of radio 
stations that make a lot of money. If you make less than a 
million point five a year and more than 100,000, you would only 
be paying 500 for the entire year of playing any music you 
want.
    If you make less than $100,000, you will only pay $10 for 
the entire music that you would play in the year.
    So, like streaming, the amounts may be minuscule, but what 
is important about passing this act is that it is establishing 
the fact that the performance rights--the performers are 
equally entitled to compensation, however small it is going to 
be. Because let's not make a mistake here, it is not that all 
of a sudden this is going to be passed and people are going to 
be, money is going to come pouring in. This is going to be 
little amounts.
    As you said, there are a lot of local stations. We love 
radio. Radio cannot go away. We don't want that to happen. That 
is why the act has made sure, this American Music Fairness Act, 
has made sure that these stations aren't unduly taxed or 
brought under a lot of pressure.
    Five hundred dollars a year for unlimited music, we 
probably pay that in subscription services because the most 
inexpensive one is $4.99 a month. So, and not everybody can 
afford that. So, thank the Lord for radio.
    Ms. Garcia. Do you think there is enough equity in the bill 
to protect all the small stations?
    Ms. Estefan. Absolutely. The big ones, there is nothing 
established yet. This would be established by a board of judges 
and royalty consultants that would hear both sides of the 
issue. They would establish what the ones that make over a 
million point five a year would be paying.
    I would imagine, comparing to the Modernization Act, Music 
Modernization Act, it is not going to be anything that is going 
to break anyone's bank. It is simply going to establish the 
fact that performers should share, they should share equally in 
the success of a song, and not just the writers because some of 
these incredible performers just didn't happen to write music. 
It is two different talents. If you are fortunate enough to 
have them both, then that is great. It is just as important the 
performer--the writer wouldn't make any money if he didn't have 
a performer that made the song a hit. So, it is important to 
establish the fact that they need--
    Ms. Garcia. Gloria, we asked the question because we, 
obviously, see that in broadcast and radio there already is an 
under representation of minorities in the ownership of many of 
these--
    Ms. Estefan. Absolutely. Yes.
    Ms. Garcia. So, we don't want the same thing repeated. So, 
you feel good that there is enough equity in the bill, not only 
the radio stations, but also the songwriters. There is an old 
saying that a rose is a rose is a rose. Somebody says a song is 
a song is a song, and every song will get a royalty.
    Ms. Estefan. Yes. Well, not just the song. The song's get a 
royalty, but they go to the writer. What who doesn't get, on 
AM/FM, the person that doesn't get any money is the singer.
    Ms. Garcia. Right.
    Ms. Estefan. If they weren't the writer or the performers 
that created that track, that created it.
    Ms. Garcia. It won't matter what genre? I mean, somebody 
who writes a salsa will get the same as your ``Conga''?
    Ms. Estefan. Yes. Absolutely. Which is the way that it was 
before.
    Now, whatever song gets played the most would benefit from 
the amount of plays, because that is how Music Modernization 
Act works. The kitty gets divided by the number of plays.
    Let's say there is $100 and there are 100 songs, whichever 
song got played the most gets an equitable amount. Everybody 
that gets played gets something.
    I think that is what is important, because up to now 
performers haven't received anything from AM/FM radio. By the 
way, the broadcast radio gets their bandwidth for free because 
they were established for that reason. Now, people have to pay 
for their space on digital, which is why a lot of these are 
subscription services. They really do have to pay for that.
    That won't change. I just think it is only fair that--
    Chair Nadler. The time has expired. The time has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    All our family radios always play the ``Conga,'' so you get 
a lot of royalties from us. Thank you.
    Ms. Estefan. Great. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much to each 
of our Witnesses that are here today, and especially Ms. 
Estefan.
    I have to just kind of reiterate what my colleague 
Representative Garcia said. I have listened to your music for 
years. I am sure I have listened to music that has been played 
by each and every one of you, that you have had some part in 
making the music that we are listening to today. Thank you all 
for taking the time to come before us.
    I thank the Committee for just continuing to shine a light 
today on the importance of this legislation. I am proud to be a 
co-sponsor of the American Music Fairness Act, a bill which 
really just kind of levels the playing field for music royalty 
payments by ensuring that our recording artists, singers, and 
musicians are all paid their fair share in this bipartisan 
piece of legislation. It really corrects what we deem as a long 
overdue inequity in the American economy, securing what is owed 
to thousands of hard-working artists.
    My State of Georgia, which I represent, is home to 969 
artists, and growing, that would immediately benefit from the 
AMFA. After two years of no touring for many performers, years 
during which many of these artists lost significant portions of 
their expected income, this bill really does help many 
Americans get back on track, get back on their feet again.
    I am pleased that this bill just really protects our small 
radio stations, such as those that are in our rural regions, 
and college radio stations, by establishing a carve-out which 
requires those stations pay as little as $10 a year.
    I urge my colleagues to please join me in co-sponsoring the 
American Music Fairness Act, and just ensuring that all our 
artists and American workers are paid their fair share.
    Mr. Mitchell, I am going to jump to you very quickly. Can 
you explain how many individuals go into making a song? I want 
to really pinpoint that today, because I think it would be 
helpful for the Committee to understand how many artists go 
into producing the music that we hear on the radio and, 
therefore, how many artists right now just aren't being paid 
for the work that they are producing.
    Mr. Mitchell. So, each song I produce typically has 
anywhere from 15-20 people: Background singers, horn players, 
string players, and the rhythm section. So, every song has at 
least 15-20 people on that song. Most of those individuals they 
don't tour, they play music in a studio for a living.
    Ms. McBath. So, in your testimony, thank you, you also 
mentioned that the ongoing pandemic continues to disrupt 
touring and the live music sector, which makes it all more 
important that artists are able to fully realize the value of 
their recorded music in order to make a living.
    Can you please speak further to the impact of the pandemic 
on the artists' income?
    Mr. Mitchell. The pandemic has not only encumbered artists' 
income from touring, but even the session musicians. In my 
studio, when the pandemic hit, we had sessions from Japan, 
Canada, U.K., and Australia, that were all scheduled to come to 
Royal Studios. My session musicians were all scheduled to play 
on those recordings.
    So, when the pandemic hit, that didn't happen. So, these 
musicians that play on records, they weren't able to get paid. 
It, obviously, had an impact on the touring musicians because 
you couldn't do shows. So, everybody's income was adversely 
affected.
    My income was affected. I couldn't rent the studio. I 
couldn't produce music.
    We are all still struggling to recuperate from that, and we 
haven't yet.
    Ms. McBath. I absolutely love Bruno Marsso, how many 
individuals really helped to record the hit song ``Uptown 
Funk''? Have any of them received performance royalties from 
the Terrestrial Radio?
    Mr. Mitchell. There are at least 20 individuals on that 
song. No one has received any Terrestrial Radio royalties. From 
Kameron Whalum, who is a Memphian; Jeff Bhasker, who lives in 
L.A., who is playing keyboard and one of the producers; just 
none of the session musicians, Steve Jordan who is playing 
drums on it, he's a New York native, none of these musicians 
have been paid for the millions or potentially billions of 
broadcasts of that song.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Stanton?
    Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I thank you and the whole Committee for bringing together 
this group of people I admire, have followed for decades, and 
some of whom I didn't understand I was admiring and following. 
So, it is a delight to be with you and to learn about this area 
of our life. Radio is so important. Music is so important, has 
been in my life, my family, and my entire life.
    So, Ms. Estefan, as I was preparing last night and reading 
over the testimony, I hope you will forgive me, I am a huge 
fan.
    Ms. Estefan. Thank you.
    Ms. Dean. Admirer of your work and your commitment to art. 
I think of you, whenever I think of you and your music I 
certainly think of performance, but I think of instruments, 
sounds, and your words, and, of course, your voice, and all 
those who make that possible.
    I think it would help the Committee to understand some more 
things, some very tangible things.
    One of the things that has been talked about is the value 
of exposure that AM/FM radio provides. Can you talk to that 
issue of exposure?
    Obviously, you are in one position. Many of the other 
performers are in different positions. Can you talk about the 
issue of exposure, particularly when we are playing oldies? Is 
it enough to support the background musicians and engineers who 
add to your music?
    Ms. Estefan. It may have been at one time where they paid 
at any moment. They have never been paid. The royalty never 
existed.
    Absolutely, radio was crucial in my career. Absolutely, 
there is no two ways about it. As a matter of fact, the first 
time we played ``Conga'' on Johnny Carson, you were guaranteed 
a Top 10 hit the next day because he was considered a 
kingmaker. So, many people saw you on that show that you were 
pretty much guaranteed a Top 10 record the next day.
    What is the difference? My musicians may have made money 
when we sold the record. Now, there is no more sales of records 
or CDs. Vinyls, a little bit, because it has come back. It is 
very popular among young kids. My grandson listens to vinyl 
because he finds it very romantic to put it on the turntable 
and put a needle on it.
    The advent of new music has been wonderful, because now the 
consumer can choose whatever they want to hear. When you listen 
to radio, the advertiser is going to choose what, what you are 
hearing because they are the ones that are paying for these 
things.
    Even in my day, a lot of the people that didn't want to 
play my music at the beginning, because advertisers didn't 
think that it would sell to their audience. We were convinced 
that it would. So, we had a battle there.
    There has never been an established fee to be paid for 
performers for performance on AM/FM radio. Only the writer got 
that.
    Yet, by the way, writers also benefitted. Because if you 
got Dionne Warwick, let's say, when Burt Bacharach did ``Walk 
On By,'' when he got Dionne Warwick with that unique voice to 
sing ``Walk On By,'' and he got other artists to do his music, 
he was more in demand as a writer.
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Ms. Estefan. The performers never got the music--never got 
the money for the air play on Terrestrial Radio.
    Ms. Dean. Well, I go back long enough to remember, and 
pride how I would save money to go down to the local store and 
buy a 45, and how exciting it was to do that. Then, of course, 
to albums and all the rest.
    So, I am one of the old school. So, I am just delighted to 
be a part of this conversation today.
    Mr. Mitchell, you and your work and your family, you said 
that more than two dozen people are credited with recording 
``Uptown Funk.'' What would performance royalties from that 
song alone, how would it make a difference in the life of a 
musician or an artist like you or others who performed, were 
part of ``Uptown Funk''? How would it make a difference?
    Mr. Mitchell. For a radio hit like ``Uptown Funk'' the 
impact would simply be enormous. It would probably increase all 
our tax brackets if we received that income that Uptown. That 
is such a huge global hit, it would mean hundreds of thousands 
of dollars to the backing musicians, producers, and engineers.
    Ms. Dean. It is not as though others didn't profit from the 
sale and recording and playing of that song; is that correct?
    Mr. Mitchell. That is correct. The songwriters profited. 
Mr. Mars and Mark Ronson, the artists profited from, from 
sales.
    Ms. Dean. Also, the radio stations who play it?
    Mr. Mitchell. Also, the radio stations who play it because 
people listen to radio because of the music they play. They 
don't listen to radio because of the ads they play. If they 
want to hear Top 40, they go to a Top 40 station. If they want 
to hear Pop, they go to a Pop station.
    We are saying--Oh, I am sorry. Go ahead.
    Ms. Dean. No, I see my time has expired. I also see Mr. 
Pomeroy's hand is up. I know I am not able to take advantage of 
that. So, maybe one of the next questioners will give you the 
chance, Mr. Pomeroy, to contribute to that question.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To the 
distinguished panel of Witnesses, thank you for taking time out 
of your very busy schedules to aid this Committee to work in 
its work, and to share your views on the American Music 
Fairness Act. To the chair and to Chair Johnson, thank you for 
holding this hearing today.
    Mr. Chair, I know this is an issue that you have worked on 
for many years. I am pleased that we are taking time to gather 
information and to study this issue closely.
    Briefly, Mr. Pomeroy, did you want to answer that last 
question?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Well, thank you. I just wanted to say that 
when it comes to this money and what is going to happen with 
it, musicians constantly have to upgrade their gear and 
purchase new gear to record with. That is, this would allow us 
to invest in ourselves and allow us to keep moving, moving the 
music forward as opposed to going backwards.
    I just want to make sure that you understand that when this 
money comes in, it is going right back out to the American 
economy, and helping everyone, and helping us take the music to 
the next level so we can stay in front of the wave.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy. Appreciate that 
answer.
    When I am in Washington, DC, I often listen to my local 
Phoenix, Arizona, radio station. I generally use an app like 
Tunein to do that. I believe that when radio stations 
simulcast, they are broadcast over the internet, they are 
required to pay performance rights to artists.
    Mr. LeGeyt, if Congress were to move on the American Music 
Fairness Act, would we be setting up radio stations to pay a 
double fee?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. Yes, you would be.
    I know there is a lot of discussion here about how much the 
economics have changed for the music industry. No doubt that it 
has. There are just so many financial pressures here that is a 
fee that is unsustainable for the vast majority of stations if 
they want to keep doing the level of local investment that they 
are doing today.
    Mr. Stanton. I really want to better understand how much of 
a royalty, such as one proposed, would directly benefit 
artists. I understand the royalties in sound recordings are 
generally collected by Sound Exchange and distributed to 
artists, music labels, and other rights holders.
    This is a question for Mr. Pomeroy or Mr. Massarsky. Can 
you explain what percentage of royalties would actually go to 
artists or, alternatively, what percentage of those royalties 
would go to other groups like record labels?
    Mr. Pomeroy. Right. A good example, a good example would be 
the American Music Fair--sorry, the AFM SAG-AFTRA Fund, which 
takes the money that is generated and paid to Sound Exchange, 
which is close to a billion dollars a year, when they pay out, 
50 percent goes to the label and the copy, copyright owner; 45 
percent goes to the artists and the producer, if the producer 
has made a deal with the artists to participate; 5 percent is 
what goes to backing musicians and backing vocalists.
    Last year we distributed over $60 million to over 400 
individuals who played on those--actually, excuse me, that 
number 400 is low. But, we distributed $62 million based on the 
airplay of these songs. This is a living wage when you spread 
it that thin. That is the model which we would expect AM/FM 
performance royalties to be based on.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Massarsky, you will have a chance to 
answer the same question.
    Mr. Massarsky. Oh, it was well answered by Mr. Pomeroy.
    I just want to emphasize that this is a benefit that will 
be equally distributed between the artists and the labels. We 
have a wonderful experience with Sound Exchange on how that 
distribution does take place. We have no concern about it 
because other jurisdictions have acknowledged the same 50/50 
split. So has ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
    So, the artist would get roughly half of that total. Sound 
recording owners would roughly get the remaining.
    Mr. Stanton. My final question is also for Mr. LeGeyt.
    For broadcasters subject to the full royalty, this may be a 
substantial additional expense. Based on your experience in the 
industry, how do you think most broadcast stations would 
compensate for those additional expenses?
    Mr. LeGeyt. I think it would undermine the investment in 
boots on the ground localism. One of the themes of this hearing 
is talking about some of the consolidation that has gone on the 
broadcast space. I would say, though, that we still remain one 
of the most competitive, dispersed industries in media.
    As Mr. Massarsky says in his own testimony, 20 groups 
occupy 65 percent of the industry revenues. There is no 
industry as diversified as that.
    These economic pressures are real. I think you are going to 
see more consolidation. We are competing for advertising 
dollars with the Googles, Facebooks, Amazons, Apples of the 
world, and there is just--this is going to take away from our 
investment in your community.
    Mr. Stanton. I ran out of time here. So, I yield back, Mr. 
Chair. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The time has expired.
    This concludes today's hearing. We thank all our Witnesses 
for participating.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses, 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





      

             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]