[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







 
                           FIVE YEARS LATER:
                      THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-31
                           

                               __________

         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 
 52-954                 WASHINGTON : 2023         
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND
                              THE INTERNET

                    DARRELL ISSA, California, Chair

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia, Ranking Member
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TED LIEU, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              ADAM SCHIFF, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               ZOE LOFGREN, California
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          GLENN IVEY, Maryland

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

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, June 27, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
  Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
  California.....................................................     1
The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 
  from the State of Georgia......................................     2
The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State 
  of Wisconsin...................................................     4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     4
The Honorable Ben Cline, a Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
  Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
  Virginia.......................................................     5

                               WITNESSES

Kris Ahrend, CEO, Mechanical Licensing Collective
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
David Porter, Award-Winning Songwriter, Producer, 2005 Inductee 
  to the Songwriters Hall of Fame
  Oral Testimony.................................................    19
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    21
Daniel Tashian, Award-Winning Songwriter, Producer, and Musician
  Oral Testimony.................................................    24
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    26
Garrett Levin, President & CEO, Digital Media Association
  Oral Testimony.................................................    30
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    32
Michael Molinar, General Manager, Big Machine Music
  Oral Testimony.................................................    43
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    45
Abby North, President, North Music Group, Co-Founder, Unchained 
  Melody Publishing
  Oral Testimony.................................................    50
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    52

                                APPENDIX

All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Courts, 
  Intellectual Property, and the Internet, for the record are 
  listed below...................................................    76

Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 
  from the State of California, for the record
    A letter from Michelle Lewis, Executive Director, Songwriters 
        of North America (SONA)
    An additional statement submitted by Abby North, President, 
        North Music Group, Co-Founder, Unchained Melody 
        Publishing
    Statement from Emily Shackelton, Songwriter, Board Member, 
        Nashville Songwriters Association International
    A letter from Till Janczukowicz (CEO, IDAGIO GmbH), Matt 
        Eccles (SVP, General Counsel, Napster), Daniel Hubbert 
        (CEO, Power Music, Inc.), Dan Mackta (Managing Director, 
        Qobuz), and Brandom Shevin (Chief Operating Officer, 
        General Counsel, The Beatport Group), June 26, 2023, to 
        the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
        Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the 
        State of California and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' 
        Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
        Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
        Georgia
    A letter from Ashley Irwin, President of The Society of 
        Composers & Lyricists, and Rick Carnes, President of The 
        Songwriters Guild of America, June 26, 2023, to the 
        Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
        Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the 
        State of California and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' 
        Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
        Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
        Georgia
    A letter from The musicFIRST Coalition, June 26, 2023, to the 
        Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
        Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the 
        State of California and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' 
        Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
        Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
        Georgia
    A letter from The MIC Coalition, June 27, 2023, to the 
        Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
        Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the 
        State of California and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' 
        Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
        Intellectual Property, and the Internet from the State of 
        Georgia
    A letter from The Black Music Action Coalition and Music 
        Artists Coalition
    A letter from Pierre Schwob, CEO, Classical Archives, LLC, 
        June 22, 2023, to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of 
        the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and 
        the Internet from the State of California and the 
        Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Ranking Member of 
        the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and 
        the Internet from the State of Georgia
    A letter from Elizabeth Matthews, CEO, ASCAP, and Mike 
        O'Neill, President, CEO, BMI, July 14, 2023

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 
  from the State of California, for the record
    Questions and responses from Garrett Levin, President & CEO, 
        Digital Media Association
    Questions and responses from Michael Molinar, General 
        Manager, Big Machine Music
    Questions for Kris Ahrend, CEO, Mechanical Licensing 
        Collective


                           FIVE YEARS LATER:



                      THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 27, 2023

                        House of Representatives

           Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and

                              the Internet

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at 
Belmont University, Gabhart Student Center, 1930 Belmont Blvd., 
Nashville, Tennessee, the Hon. Darrell Issa [Chair of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Issa, Fitzgerald, Cline, Johnson 
of Georgia, and Nadler.
    Chair Issa. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses at any 
time.
    We welcome everyone here today to a hearing on the now 
five-year tendered Music Modernization Act. We are joined by 
several of our colleagues today who could not sit on the dais 
but may be joining us, and without objection they will be 
allowed to sit and participate as time permits.
    I will now recognize myself for a short opening statement.
    Today we are taking a look at the MMA, the Music 
Modernization Act, as it approaches its fifth-year anniversary. 
Just five short years ago, the still-active, still-performing, 
still-entertaining Sam Moore and Mike Love of the Beach Boys 
stood at a signing ceremony and enjoyed the fact that their 
music, 50 years after a reform that covered everyone post-'72, 
would now cover them.
    That portion of the act is settled law, and today we will 
likely not speak much about it. Much of the other reform in 
music modernization involved trying to get stakeholders who had 
agreed to enhance, modernize, and more quickly solve the 
critical problems of licensing musical works. Today we will 
explore what has worked and what has not.
    Music is important to America for many reasons, including 
it is, in fact, a multibillion-dollar business that employs 
millions of American. People around the world have been 
inspired by our music, have learned the English language as a 
result of our music, and we have enjoyed music from around the 
world and for decades have rewarded artists enough that some of 
them are not washing dishes.
    Recording artists, musicians, sound engineers, producers, 
and other professionals have, in fact, entertained the billions 
of people around the world since time immemorial. Five years 
ago, we knew that navigating the complex music licensing 
ecosystem was too difficult for many of the creators to do on 
their own, and legacy certainly impossible for the songwriters 
to do without congressional action. Too many creators were 
unable to collect the royalties they deserved because of legal 
and logistical obstacles, and the digital music revolution was 
proving to be too much for our outdated copy laws to handle.
    So, both parties came together to pass the MMA. I want to 
thank my fellow Members of the House and the Senate, many of 
whom are here today, for the work they did. I also want to 
thank and reward the stakeholders, some of whom did so without 
direct financial benefit, but in fact knowing that their 
industry could only thrive if they could improve that. 
Stakeholders came from all parts of it to help make a decision 
that was a compromise, and, in fact, an experiment into whether 
or not we could make the system work efficiently enough to 
reward the creators.
    We are here today to listen to some of those creators and 
other key stakeholders about whether the system we set up is 
working properly and what more needs to be done. We are here in 
Music City, home of The Mechanical Licensing Collective, to see 
if The MLC is solving the problems it was intended to solve. We 
are also here to further the work of this Committee and 
especially the needs of the creators. Our Constitution makes it 
clear that the rights that we statutorily give out come from 
the benefit we receive. The fact is, inventions, works of art, 
creative music, and, of course, our library of knowledge come 
from the copyrights and patents that this Committee has for 
decades caused to be available.
    If it is to succeed, we cannot just grant a right. We have 
to, in fact, make sure that right is rewarded in a predictable 
way that allows for two business plans: The business plan of 
those who take the license and the business plan of those who 
create the music we will be talking about today.
    With that I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from 
California for having this hearing and for bringing the 
Judiciary Committee, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 
Property, and the Internet to Nashville, Tennessee, the heart 
of the music industry. The panel before us today is comprised 
of individuals from many sectors crucial to the creation and 
dissemination of musical works. I am looking forward to hearing 
what they have to say about the State of the music economy five 
years after the passage of the Music Modernization Act.
    Music can be both an expression of culture shared across 
every member of a community and a deeply personal experience 
unique to the listener. It can come from both symphonies in 
marble concert halls and lone performers on city streets, and 
it can both lull us to sleep and inspire us to action. Music 
can be many things to many people, and this centrality to the 
human experience makes it even more important that the music 
industry is and remains healthy for every link in the 
production chain.
    Many music creators call my district home. Atlanta, 
Georgia, is the capital of hip-hop and R&B, with a vibrant 
network of creators, writers, music labels, recording studios, 
and music venues. That is just the beginning. Creators in 
Georgia are making music in everything from rap to bluegrass to 
gospel to classical music.
    Georgia Tech found that in 2016, the music industry in 
Georgia generated $3.5 billion and employed over 16,000 people. 
Today, Georgia's music industry supports an estimated 45,000 
jobs, with over 13,000 royalty recipients, and over 91,000 
songwriters.
    Five years ago, I joined Ranking Member Nadler and Chair 
Issa as an original co-sponsor on the Music Modernization Act, 
which passed the House unanimously in 2018. The MMA replaced an 
antiquated, inefficient licensing system that was not able to 
respond to advancements in technology where creators were not 
fairly compensated for their works and publishers, labels, and 
streamers were constrained by unclear licensing guidelines. By 
creating The Mechanical Licensing Collective, or The MLC, 
Congress sought to make it easier for digital services to 
obtain licenses and creators to collect royalties by creating a 
blanket license and coordinating royalty payments when a song 
is streamed online.
    The MMA would not have been successful if the entire music 
industry had not united in agreement that something needed to 
be done. That does not mean that we believe the solution to be 
perfect. I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses 
about how The MLC is working and what improvements they believe 
might be necessary.
    In addition to creating The MLC, the Music Modernization 
Act also sought to pay artists fairly for their work by 
expanding the circumstances in which copyright royalty judges 
apply a willing buyer, a willing seller rate-setting standard 
and extending Federal copyright protections to works created 
before 1972. Creators should be able to make a living, and I am 
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about their 
experiences under the new standards.
    The MMA would not have been possible without the 
participation of nearly every sector of the music business, and 
it is a success story that is instructive for how industries 
can adapt to changes in technology that completely 
revolutionize their medium. We cannot and should not want to 
stop innovation. So, the question before us is how Congress can 
work together with industries to protect intellectual property 
rights even as technologies advance.
    Finally, for the music industry, the challenges of the 
modern era are not limited to technological innovation. When 
COVID-19 made it unsafe to gather in large groups, many members 
of my community who were dependent on live music performances 
were left with no way to feed their families. In the Spring of 
2020, I fought for the inclusion of Pandemic Unemployment 
Assistance to help freelancers, gig workers, and others not 
traditionally covered by unemployment insurance gain access to 
those benefits, and later that year I co-sponsored a bill to 
Save our Stages, which was incorporated into a COVID-19 relief 
package and made $15 billion in grants available to live venues 
struggling to make ends meet during the pandemic.
    I am looking forward to hearing from the creators on this 
panel as to how the pandemic affected their business and what 
Congress can do going forward to keep their part of the 
industry going strong.
    Thank you again to all the witnesses for being here today, 
and I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say, and 
with that I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair Issa, for hosting and 
calling this field hearing. I always tell people being a Member 
of the House of Representatives sometimes is tedious and a 
little overwhelming because of the scope of issues, but every 
once in a while you get to do something really cool, and that 
is what this is here today. So, thanks to Belmont University as 
well for hosting us, and I yield back.
    Chair Issa. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing 
and for bringing the Subcommittee to Nashville, one of the 
great music cities of the world. Music nourishes the soul. It 
expresses powerful ideas and emotions, and it connects us 
across cultures. It is also an important driver of economic 
activity. According to one estimate, the music industry 
contributes $170 billion a year to the American economy, and it 
supports, directly or indirectly, $2.7 million jobs.
    It is clear that artists, consumers, and businesses all 
depend on a healthy music industry to thrive, and that is why I 
was proud to join with my colleagues five years ago to sponsor 
and pass the landmark Music Modernization Act.
    Prior to the MMA, the copyright laws governing music 
licensing had not been meaningfully updated in decades, with 
laws that, in some cases, were written when piano rolls were 
the dominant form of music, and that certainly did not 
contemplate the rise of digital streaming services.
    While music licensing remains a complex web of rights and 
responsibilities administered and enforced by a variety of 
different entities under a variety of different rules, the MMA 
helped address some of those glaring inequities and 
efficiencies in the music marketplace. I am pleased that we 
have the opportunity today to examine how the law is operating 
five years later.
    The MMA contained three main sectors, each aimed at a 
different segment of the music industry. The first part, the 
Musical Works Modernization Act, addressed concerns expressed 
by songwriters, music publishers, and digital streaming 
platforms related to the efficiency and fairness of the 
mechanical license for the reproduction and distribution of 
musical works. This measure created the blanket licensing 
system through the Mechanical Licensing Collective, based here 
in Nashville, to coordinate payment for these rights when a 
song is streamed online. This not only helped ensure that 
proper payment is made to songwriters and publishers, but it 
also helped provide certainty to digital platforms that they 
would not face liability for failing to acquire all the 
necessary licenses so long as they pay into the collective and 
follow its rules. I am interested to hear from our stakeholders 
here today whether The MLC is operating as intended and whether 
any improvements are
needed.
    The law also changed the standard for calculating royalty 
rates for songwriters by eliminating barriers that kept rates 
artificially low and made it difficult for songwriters to earn 
a living. I hope to learn more from our distinguished 
songwriters here today about the impact of this change.
    The second part of the MMA addressed an enduring inequity 
on the sound recording side. The CLASSICS Act, a bill that I 
originally introduced with Chair Issa, resolve the longstanding 
dispute over payment to artists for works recorded before 1972. 
In many cases, these legacy artists were collecting no 
royalties at all when their works were played on streaming 
platforms, a fundamental unfairness. The CLASSICS Act addressed 
this problem by bringing these pre-'72 works, which had been 
protected previously only by State laws, within the Federal 
copyright system. I hope that we will learn today whether this 
provision has benefited these legacy artists as we had hoped.
    Finally, the MMA contained a provision to help ensure that 
music producers and engineers receive, in an efficient manner, 
the royalties that they are owed for their important 
contributions to the creation of music. Each of these 
provisions was the product of debate and compromise by the many 
stakeholders involved, forged over the course of many years of 
tireless work.
    Although we are here today observing the passage of the MMA 
nearly five years ago, it was another moment 10 years ago that 
is also worth recognizing. That is when former Chair Bob 
Goodlatte first launched the Committee's comprehensive 
copyright review. Over the course of five years we held 
numerous hearings, roundtables, and listening sessions, and 
heard from dozens of stakeholders. It was this exhaustive 
bipartisan process that helped foster an environment in which 
the music industry could reach consensus on many important 
issues. Only then was critical legislation like the MMA 
possible.
    I hope that this hearing will serve as a reminder that 
meaningful change is possible when we all work together. One 
area in which I hope that agreement is possible is ensuring 
fair compensation for artists when their work is played on 
terrestrial radio. I consider this to be unfinished business, 
and I look forward to continuing to work with Chair Issa on 
this issue, but that is a matter for another day.
    We have much to be proud of in passing the MMA, but no 
legislation is perfect, and I appreciate the opportunity to 
hear from our distinguished witnesses today on whether any 
refinements are needed.
    I thank the Chair for convening this important discussion. 
I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chair Issa. I thank the gentleman. We will now go to the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Well thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing the 
Subcommittee to Music City. It is great to be here, and it is 
great to be with my colleagues. I thank the witnesses for 
appearing. I look forward to their testimony and to a great 
discussion about the MMA five years later.
    I came into Congress five years ago, so I have watched with 
interest how the MMA has been implemented, how The MLC has been 
developed and unfolded as well. There are many challenges that 
remain. I look forward to discussing those today, but these are 
challenges that we can meet, as former Chair Nadler said, if we 
work together. Bipartisanship exists on this Committee. It is 
one of the few areas we are an oasis, if you will, of 
bipartisanship in a sea of partisan rancor. So, I am glad to be 
here with all my colleagues and look forward to the discussion.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you, Gentleman.
    We will now introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses.
    Mr. Kris Ahrend is the Chief Executive Officer of 
Mechanical Licensing Collective. The MLC is a nonprofit 
organization designated by the Copyright Office pursuant to the 
Music Modernization Act to administer blanket mechanical 
licenses for copyrighted musical works and collect and 
distribute the royalties.
    Prior to joining The MLC, he worked for 20 years in the 
music industry, and is a former Warner Music Group and Sony/BMG 
music entertainment alum.
    Mr. David Porter is an award-winning songwriter, producer, 
and singer. He was introduced into the Songwriters Hall of Fame 
in 2005, and Rolling Stone magazine named him one of the 100 
Greatest Songwriters of All Time. That award is still elusive 
to me.
    Mr. Porter has written more, and co-written more hits, 
including ``Soul Man'' by Sam and Dave, a favorite of mine, and 
he continues to write, produce, and perform music for over 60 
years, with his credits spanning music from Aretha Franklin to 
today, the most modern and current stars. Mr. Porter is also 
the founder of a consortium known as MMT, a nonprofit 
organization designated to fostering the music industry in his 
hometown of Memphis, Tennessee, another hometown of another 
well-known artist.
    Mr. Daniel Tashian has been a songwriter, producer, and 
musician for nearly three decades, a short time by comparison 
to Mr. Porter. He has written or co-written songs for numerous 
artists, including Lee Ann Womack, Tim McGraw, my favorite, 
McBride, Josh Turner, and a host of others. His songwriting and 
producing talents were recognized by not one but two GRAMMY 
awards and an ACM award, and a CMA award, for his work on Kacey 
Musgraves' album, ``Golden Hour.''
    Mr. Garrett Levin is the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the DiMA, or the Digital Media Association, as we 
also know it, and has been an association leader, particularly 
in the streaming and streaming innovation. Mr. Levin previously 
served as Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for 
intellectual law and policy at the National Association of 
Broadcasters. Before that time, he served as the Senior Counsel 
for one of my all-time favorites and patent innovator, Senator 
Patrick Leahy, and as a copyright attorney at the PTO.
    Mr. Michael Molinar is the General Manager at Big Machine 
Music, the publishing arm of Big Machine Label Group. He has 
nearly 30 years of experience in the music industry and has 
recently been elected to a third term on the Board of the 
National Music Publishers Association. He also serves on the 
Board for The MLC, and as a result will get a lot of questions 
today.
    Last, and certainly not least, we have Ms. Abby North. Ms. 
North is the President of North Music Group, which is an 
independent music rights administrator, and she is a Co-Founder 
of Unclaimed Melody Publishing. She has also nearly 30 years of 
experience in music publishing catalog management. Ms. North 
also serves on the board of the Association of Independent 
Publishers and serves on the Los Angeles Chapter.
    We welcome all our witnesses, and pursuant to the rules of 
this Committee if you could please all rise to take the oath. 
Your photo moment, even if you do not work for Big Tobacco is 
now.
    Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or 
affirm, under the penalty of perjury, that the testimony you 
will give today will be the truth and correct to the best of 
your knowledge and information, so help you God?
    Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that 
all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    As you probably have heard or seen on C-SPAN over the 
years, all your exhaustive written statements, and quite 
candidly, additional ideas and information you want us to 
receive afterwards, will be placed in the record. It will be 
left open for at least five days after this hearing. Which 
means that your five minutes, your precious first five minutes, 
should be used for those things that may not fit neatly within 
your opening statement, but you want to get them out before we 
begin our line of questioning.
    So, with that, Mr. Ahrend. I have got these things in 
backward order. Mr. Ahrend.

                    STATEMENT OF KRIS AHREND

    Mr. Ahrend. Good morning. Chair Issa, Ranking Member 
Johnson, and Members Cline, Fitzgerald, and Nadler, my name is 
Kris Ahrend. I am the Chief Executive Officer of The MLC, and 
it is my pleasure to share with you today the progress we have 
made toward fulfilling the vision and statutory mandates set 
out in the MMA, which as several of you have already noted this 
morning, Congress passed unanimously in 2018, with the support 
of an historically broad coalition of industry stakeholders.
    The creation of The MLC was a key part of Congress' vision 
to modernize the compulsory licensing system for musical works 
in the United States and to usher in a new era of more 
effective, accurate, and transparent royalty administration. 
That system assigned specific responsibilities to each of our 
key stakeholder groups. The MLC often refers to this framework 
of shared responsibility as ``playing your part,'' and reflects 
a key tenet of the MMA, that improving the system would depend 
on the continued participation by, and collaboration among all 
stakeholders.
    So how are things working? Happily, I can report that after 
only 2\1/2\ years of full operations The MLC is making things 
better, just as Congress intended. Here are just a few of the 
metrics that evidence our progress to date.
    We have enrolled more than 28,000 members, the large 
majority of whom are smaller, independent publishers and 
administrators, as well as self-administered songwriters, many 
of whom were likely not participating in the system before the 
MMA was passed.
    We have established and maintained a public data base that 
contains ownership information for more than 31 million musical 
works.
    We have helped nearly 60 digital services secure the 
blanket license.
    We have completed 27 monthly royalty distributions on time 
or early, and we have never missed a distribution.
    We have distributed well over $1 billion in royalties, and 
we have achieved historically high match rates and high 
distribution rates while providing this unprecedented level of 
transparency.
    We have accomplished all this while seeking to engage as 
many stakeholders as possible, and we have done that in a 
variety of ways, including by hosting or attending hundreds of 
virtual and in-person events, which have enabled us to reach 
nearly 30,000 stakeholders from every State in the country, by 
providing one-on-one support through our support team, which 
has responded to nearly 60,000 inquiries to date, by regularly 
meeting with songwriters, publishers, administrators, and other 
CMOs of all kinds to help them better understand how our 
processes work and how to use the tools we have created for 
them more effectively. Finally, by meeting regularly with a 
wide variety of groups that represent the many different 
stakeholders we serve, to ensure that we are always receiving 
direct and unfiltered feedback from the broadest possible 
cross-section of our industry.
    That said, by no means are we done. Each month we continue 
to work hard to enhance and improve our existing operations 
based on the feedback we receive directly from our members. We 
are also actively preparing to tackle two significant 
challenges that involve the streaming rates for the five-year 
period between 2018-2022. These rates are just now being 
finalized by the Copyright Royalty Board and the Copyright 
Office. Once these final rates take effect, digital services 
will have six months under the existing regulations to deliver 
any new data and adjusted royalties required by the final 
rates. Once The MLC has received that new data, the first thing 
we will be able to do is begin distributing matched historical 
royalties from 2018-2020, plus interest from the date we 
received those royalties from the services. That is because we 
have already matched nearly 70 percent of the historical 
royalties reported to us for those years. Taken together with 
the historical uses from earlier periods, we have already 
matched nearly 300 million of the historical royalties that 
DSPs were not previously able to pay, and we will continue our 
efforts to try to match even more of the remaining historical 
royalties in the months to come.
    At the same time, our members can continue to search that 
data themselves and propose matches to the works they have 
registered. This is possible because The MLC has fully 
illuminated the black box of digital audio mechanicals for the 
first time in history by making all the data for both the 
remaining unmatched historical royalties and the remaining 
unmatched blanket royalties that we have received available for 
any of our members to search and act on, using our matching 
tool.
    The second thing The MLC will be able to do is start 
processing adjustments for the blanket royalties from 2021-2022 
that we previously distributed at the lower interim rates. Once 
this very complex reconciliation process is completed, we 
expect to be able to distribute a substantial amount of 
additional blanket royalties to rights-holders for those two 
years.
    I will close my remarks by saying it has been both the 
privilege and the challenge of my lifetime for me to have 
played a part in helping build The MLC. Please know that our 
entire team, our board, our advisory committees, and countless 
others have worked tirelessly and in good faith over the past 
few years to try to make your vision for The MLC a reality, and 
we remain equally committed to building on the milestones we 
have achieved as we continue to support work in the future and 
make The MLC better.
    Thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Ahrend follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
     
    
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Porter.

                   STATEMENT OF DAVID PORTER

    Mr. Porter. Thank you, Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, 
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to 
speak to you today. I will skip over the credit information 
that you said about me and get to the guts of--
    Chair Issa. You have only got five minutes. You would never 
make it all.
    Mr. Porter. I will not even try.
    Thank you for coming to Nashville for this important field 
hearing. It is a great place, Music City, to hear firsthand 
what is happening in music from songwriters, musicians, 
executives, and experts. I would like you to check out my 
hometown, Memphis, Tennessee, as well.
    I understand one of the purposes of your visit is to learn 
more about the impact of the Music Modernization Act. Thank you 
for passing that landmark bill. Like a great song, the MMA 
benefits so many people in so many unique ways, many of whom 
have no idea just how much work it took to create. Whether you 
are a music creator or a legislator, the goal is to make 
something worthwhile that will endure and change lives, and 
that is exactly what the MMA has done.
    For recording artists, including many of the greats I have 
worked with early in my career at Stax Records, the key 
provision is found in Title 2 of the MMA, also known as the 
CLASSICS Act. Because of a quirk in copyright law, recording 
artists were generally denied streaming royalties for music 
recorded before February 15, 1972. That includes some of the 
classic music of all time--Motown greats like Smokey Robinson, 
Stax greats like Otis Redding, Al Green of Hi Records, country 
giants like Johnny Cash and Patsy Cline, and rock and roll 
legends like Chuck Berry and Wilson Pickett. It was totally 
arbitrary and unfair.
    In the mid-60's, I wrote a song called ``Soul Man.'' Sam 
and Dave recorded it and won a GRAMMY in 1968. When that 
classic recording was streamed before the MMA passed, neither 
Sam Moore nor Dave Prater's eState received any royalties. Even 
crazier, when later covers of that song ``Soul Man''--like the 
John Belushi/Dan Ackroyd Blues Brothers recording made in 
1978--when that was streamed there was a royalty payment for 
those performers. The CLASSICS Act section of the MMA changed 
that, protecting legacy artists, and ensuring they get paid 
when their timeless music is streamed.
    MMA made other changes benefiting artists and songwriters. 
It created the Mechanical Licensing Collective that is 
streamlining digital royalties for songwriters and making life 
a lot easier for streaming services too. It brought more music 
under fair market rate standards, replacing outdated standards 
that paid below-market royalties for satellite radio and other 
uses of music. Though that was needed, more still needs to be 
done. It certainly paved the way for producers to get their 
fair share of royalties, creating a process for artists to 
instruct SoundExchange to pay them directly.
    I do not have to tell you that the MMA's success was in no 
way assured. As we all know, copyright law, when not looked 
into, becomes permanent. It took the entire industry--artists, 
songwriters, labels, publishers, producers, collecting 
societies, digital platforms, and others--working together to 
make this historic change. It is testament to the fact that 
when the music community comes together, and Congress acts with 
certainty and strength it can make a real difference.
    That experience may serve us all well facing the upcoming 
challenges of artificial intelligence.
    Today, huge AI computer models are copying and analyzing 
virtually all the music ever made to generate what they are 
calling ``new'' songs from the music of yesterday. Hopefully, 
courts will see that copyright law does not allow this. AI 
platforms and services must get permission before 
rightsholders' work can be copied and used in this way though. 
So far, very few have done so. No one at any AI company has 
spoken to me, my label, or my publishing company. This is 
wrong.
    Our concerns extend beyond copyright. There is no greater 
honor than to have an audience enjoy my music. Key to that 
appreciation is that it is MY music. To have someone--or 
something--take my voice, my sound, my persona without 
permission and manipulate it or mimic my work is a personal 
violation and a threat to the good I have built up over the 
years. How can this be ``new'' when this has been taken from 
songs written years ago? How is that new? I know I speak for a 
great many songwriters who feel this way.
    I do believe there is a place for AI. We appear to be going 
down a path of appropriation, exploitation, and dehumanization. 
I have been the benefactor of a great number of people who have 
taken my songs and sampled them. They have my permission, they 
pay a royalty, and they create something that adds a fresh 
intention of my original work. This is not currently the case 
for the majority of AI-generated songs. It is not just a threat 
to existing works but to future generations of artists and to 
culture itself. If all we have is machine-made music copied 
from existing works there will be less and less creativity, 
artistry, and soul to go around. What a penalty that would be 
for future generations. What a shame.
    Congress and the courts must assure that guardrails are in 
place to protect creators' rights and their control over their 
own work.
    You have a model in the MMA process to make things right, 
bringing the music family together with your own policy and 
legal expertise to shape strong rules for healthy uses of AI.
    Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    Chair Issa. Thank you, with one second to spare, Mr. 
Porter. Mr. Tashian.

                  STATEMENT OF DANIEL TASHIAN

    Mr. Tashian. Hello, Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, 
Ranking Member Nadler, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Cline, and Members 
of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Music 
Modernization Act. My name is Daniel Tashian, and I am a 
songwriter, producer, musician, and artist. As you mentioned, I 
have worked with Tim McGraw, Demi Lovato, and the legendary 
Burt Bacharach. I won two GRAMMY awards for my work with Kacey 
Musgraves. I am also a member of the Recording Academy, which 
represents thousands of music creators like me.
    The MMA was a landmark piece of legislation that reflected 
years of work by Members of Congress, stakeholders, and 
individual music creators, and I have personally benefited by 
all aspects of the law.
    As a songwriter, I am grateful that the MMA changed the way 
that we are paid by streaming services. This bill reformed a 
previously unreliable and opaque system into one that provides 
transparency and accountability. Since 2021, the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective, The MLC, has paid out over $1 dollars in 
royalties, as you mentioned, and has achieved a matching rate 
of nearly 90 percent. These are remarkable outcomes that should 
encourage every songwriter. I am personally grateful for the 
work of The MLC. Even with this incredible progress there are 
still opportunities improve.
    First, The MLC is still holding on to hundreds of millions 
of dollars in historically unmatched royalties. They must 
continue their outreach efforts to identify every songwriter 
who has money owed to them. The MMA requires that any unmatched 
money will eventually be paid out by market share, but 
importantly it gives The MLC the flexibility to take the time 
necessary to match royalties to the correct songwriter, 
including those who may be unidentified because they are 
independent or unaffiliated with a publisher.
    Second, now that we have finally resolved the dispute over 
the Copyright Royalty Board's ``Phonorecords III'' rate 
decision, The MLC must work expeditiously to collect and 
distribute the back pay owed by the streaming services to 
songwriters. The law is clear that once the final ruling is 
published in the Federal Register, the DSPs have six months to 
pay the additional royalties they owe. Songwriters have waited 
long enough.
    Third, Congress should remember that the MMA contemplated a 
robust oversight role for Congress and the U.S. Copyright 
Office over the operations of The MLC. The MLC is an 
administrative body, not a policymaking body. Recent disputes 
over songwriter termination rights illustrate that Congress and 
the Copyright Office must continue to stay engaged to protect 
the rights and interests of songwriters.
    The MMA does more than reform royalty payments for 
songwriters. I am grateful to have ``letters of direction'' in 
place under the or ``LOD'' process under the AMP Act, which 
recognized the important role of producers, engineers, and 
mixers in copyright law. This provision codified the LOD 
process by which producers can collect their share of digital 
royalties directly through Sound-
Exchange, an important partner and friend to our community.
    To make it easier for producers and engineers who do not 
have management teams to help them navigate the paperwork, the 
LOD application process should be streamlined and improved, and 
additionally the artist community should be encouraged to more 
widely adopt these agreements and the payments SoundExchange 
facilitates.
    Finally, I want to briefly mention the last part of the 
MMA, the, the CLASSICS Act, authored by Chair Issa, which 
provides for the payment of digital royalties for recordings 
created prior to 1972. I have a personal connection because my 
father, Barry Tashin, led the epic records act, Barry and The 
Remains, who opened for the Beatles on their 1966 U.S. tour. I 
applaud Congress for ensuring that my family and other legacy 
artists are now fairly compensated for their tracks.
    In conclusion, the MMA represents a generational reform of 
music law. It also represents a sea change in the relationship 
between the music community and Congress. For music makers like 
me, we saw that you were willing to take the time to learn 
about our complicated and often messy business. I hope this 
work serves as a foundation, and we can continue to work 
together to solve the challenges that still face us. Whether it 
is resolving the historic inequity of performance royalties for 
artists on broadcast radio or ensuring a fair CRB rate-setting 
process for songwriters, I am hopeful for what we can achieve 
together.
    On behalf of the songwriters, producers, and artists like 
me, we are counting on you to look out for our interests.
    Thank you.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Tashian follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    Chair Issa. Thank you, Mr. Tashian.
    We will now go to Mr. Levin.

                   STATEMENT OF GARRETT LEVIN

    Mr. Levin. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking 
Member Nadler, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today at this important 
hearing on the Music Modernization Act at five years. My name 
is Garret Levin, and I am the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Digital Media Association, or DiMA, which 
represents the world's leading audio streaming services.
    The MMA was, and continues to be, necessary for today's 
music ecosystem. The key provisions of the law, including the 
blanket mechanical license, the centralized authoritative data 
base, limitation on liability, and extensive reporting 
requirements create efficiency in licensing and royalty 
payments and provide legal certainty. The law is fundamentally 
working.
    Five years is a key moment to step back, acknowledge the 
extraordinary resources and cooperation that went into creating 
The MLC and this new licensing system, and to examine where 
challenges remain. My written testimony provides more detail, 
but I hope to leave the Committee with two key takeaways.
    First, I applaud Kris Ahrend and the entire team at The 
MLC, as well as my colleagues across the industry, including my 
fellow The MLC board members here today, like Mike Molinar, who 
have been and remain committed partners to the success of this 
improved system. The results Kris cited in his testimony are 
truly impressive, and the MMA is a model of how together we can 
solve hard problems for the benefit of all.
    Second, we should continue to diligently identify areas for 
improvement to reach the full potential and intention of the 
MMA, including two I will focus on today--ensuring that 
regulatory and statutory positions reflect the MMA's critical 
balance, and ensuring that The MLC's budget is reasonable and 
cost effective.
    The MLC sits at the heart of the MMA's blanket mechanical 
license system. In its best form, The MLC can serve as a 
neutral, level seat of a three-legged stool, administering the 
blanket license system in an effort to balance the interests of 
three sets of stakeholders--songwriters, music publishers, and 
digital streaming services--a neutral administrator and best-
in-class back-office service provider that processes massive 
amounts of data provided by digital music services, provides a 
one-stop, authoritative shop for rights-holders to register 
their works in a centralized public data base, matches more 
works to sound recordings than previously possible, and 
effectively and efficiently pays out hundreds of millions of 
dollars in royalties every year to publishers who, in turn, pay 
songwriters.
    In the first year of operations, in particular, The MLC 
worked bilaterally with services to ensure they successfully 
transitioned to the new system. Unfortunately, on broad 
interpretations of the statute and regulations, we have seen 
several instances where The MLC has acted not as a neutral 
partner but rather as arbiter or advocate on behalf of the 
music publishers, just one leg of the stool.
    Instead of siding with any one stakeholder, The MLC should 
seek clarification from the Copyright Office and rely on the 
authority the MMA granted to the office. To do otherwise is 
contrary to congressional intent and produces results that 
distort the necessary balance of the statutory licensing regime 
in light of The MLC's power over all stakeholders. Guidance 
from this Committee to ensure that The MLC acts as a neutral 
administrator will help to advance the goals of the MMA and 
improve the system for all.
    This need for neutrality is paramount given the unique 
funding structure of The MLC, which requires that licensees pay 
for the costs of The MLC's operations on top of their royalty 
obligations. This structure has actually led to the absurd 
circumstances that the services are paying for both their own 
advocacy costs and The MLC's costs in advancing arguments 
indistinguishable from the music publishers. That was not the 
intention of the MMA.
    Twice now the services have agreed to fund the cost of The 
MLC at the amount requested, even as those costs increase 
significantly. The MMA explicitly provides that the services 
are responsible only for the reasonable costs of running the 
collective. The MMA did not hand The MLC a blank check.
    The true measure of reasonableness will be material 
improvements in efficiency and effectiveness in The MLC's core 
functions--are more royalty-bearing works registered, are more 
works matched, are more royalties paid through to the rights 
owners, and is all of that done with increasing efficiency and 
effectiveness over time.
    Regular review by Congress of budgeting and spending 
against ongoing performance improvements will help ensure that 
the law lives up to its full potential and help the parties 
avoid inefficient and expensive litigation over costs before 
the Copyright Royalty Board.
    The MMA was a major stride forward in improving music 
licensing for the digital market. DiMA and its members were 
proud to be a central part of the law's passage, and we 
continue to support the law. Our member companies interact with 
The MLC on a near constant basis, and we believe that they, 
like us, fundamentally want to improve the system. DiMA's 
members want The MLC to succeed. More than that, they need The 
MLC to succeed.
    When the MMA passed Congress, it was described on multiple 
occasions as a once-in-a-generation measure to improve the 
licensing system for all stakeholders. Five years in, we 
continue to believe that is true.
    I thank you and look forward to your questions.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Molinar.

                  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOLINAR

    Mr. Molinar. Good morning, Chair Issa, Ranking Member 
Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mike 
Molinar, and I am the President of Big Machine Music, a leading 
independent music publisher based here in Nashville. I am also 
a current and founding board member of the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective designated by the U.S. Copyright Office.
    I am honored to appear before you today to provide my 
perspective as an independent music publisher on the Music 
Modernization Act. As a music publisher, I am responsible for 
representing songwriters, the authors of musical works, and 
helping to develop their careers, exploit their songs, and then 
collect and pay them royalties when those songs are used.
    It was during my college internship 27 years ago, just down 
the street, where I discovered what a job in music publishing 
entailed. I was immediately hooked at the idea of working with 
the musical magicians who write the soundtrack of our lives and 
whose hits are the bedrock of the entire music industry. That 
fall, I began my first job in publishing as a catalog manager 
and worked my way up to a creative publishing executive, 
eventually starting my own independent music publishing 
companies.
    For the past 11 years, I have been proud to serve as the 
head of Big Machine Music, which I launched at the request of 
music industry titan, Scott Borchetta. Thanks to Mr. Borchetta, 
our dedicated staff, and most importantly, a roster of 
songwriter partners that are among the very best in the world, 
Big Machine Music has thrived and prospered.
    While developing songwriters and generating opportunities 
for their songs is a big part of the equation, ensuring that 
our songwriters receive royalties when their songs are used and 
reporting to our writers on a timely and accurate basis remains 
our core function.
    That is where the MMA and The Mechanical Licensing 
Collective that it created come into play. Musical work rights 
are complicated and many of our rights are regulated by the 
government. Prior to the passage of the MMA, the collection of 
royalties under Section 115 of the Copyright Act at times felt 
like an Easter egg hunt in a carnival funhouse maze of mirrors. 
The process required sending paper licenses, called NOIs, for 
every licensed composition. This worked when ten songs were 
licensed for a record or CD, but it became impossible to 
administer once ten million songs or more were licensed by 
digital music providers such as Spotify.
    Attempting to collect royalties meant registering with 
multiple third-party vendors. There was no transparency, so the 
system was ripe for abuse and unlicensed uses of our works were 
frequent. There was no guarantee of song data being correct, of 
timely payment of royalties, and virtually no recourse unless 
we were willing to bring a costly legal action. For an 
independent company, the administrative burden was stressful 
for us and harmed the financial welfare of our writers.
    Thanks to Congress' leadership and unanimous support, our 
industry was provided with historic changes in the MMA, 
including necessary reform to the way our rights are licensed, 
administered, and paid through the creation of The MLC. In 
exchange for a blanket license for all works played on their 
platforms, digital music providers now fully fund a 
centralized, transparent, and rightsholder-run collective that 
allows music publishers and songwriters assurance that they 
receive compensation for uses of their songs.
    As a publisher, I am here to tell you today that The MLC 
you helped to create is working and working well. Despite an 
aggressive timeline set by the statute and through a global 
pandemic, The MLC was developed from scratch and launched on 
time.
    Since April 2021, rightsholders have received monthly 
payments of our mechanical royalties, and these payments have 
been on time every month. With a fully public data base, we 
have critical transparency into song ownership data, song uses, 
and income sources for the first time. Through a centralized 
claiming portal, we can claim and match our works, giving us 
the control we need. Through their engaged customer service, we 
have help to guide us through the process.
    Finally, The MLC's right to audit to ensure proper payments 
and to bring legal action to enforce rights benefits all 
publishers, but especially independent publishers such as Big 
Machine Music.
    Make no mistake, there is effort necessary from each 
publisher and administrator to make The MLC and its new blanket 
license work. It is why The MLC promotes the slogan of ``Play 
Your Part.'' Through the onboarding process, publishers like me 
can maintain the fidelity of their ownership information, make 
corrections where necessary, and discover discrepancies. In 
short, it has made our data better and more reliable, which 
means better payments to our songwriters. I can attest that Big 
Machine Music has seen an increase in royalty collection due to 
the direct efforts of The MLC.
    As a founding board member, I am here to tell you that 
being a small part of building The MLC is one of greatest 
privileges of my career. It is rare to have an opportunity to 
start an entity of this magnitude from scratch and get it 
right, which is a responsibility felt by everyone involved.
    The MLC's board is a mix of songwriters, independent and 
major publishers, representing all genres of music and from 
across the United States. The contributions from all board 
members have been robust and respectful, in line with the 
statute passed by Congress and with recognition of the 
importance of the success of The MLC for the entire ecosystem 
of our industry.
    Thank you again for passing the MMA five years ago, and for 
your attention to it today.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Molinar follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Ms. North.

                    STATEMENT OF ABBY NORTH

    Ms. North. Mr. Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, I am an 
independent music publisher, songwriter advocate, and 
technologist.
    My husband's father was a composer named Alex North. With 
Hy Zaret, Alex wrote the 1955 standard, ``Unchained Melody.'' 
When our families had a worldwide recapture of rights in 
``Unchained Melody'' we joined various foreign collectives, and 
I learned global music publishing. I was able to view and 
correct data and increase our royalty collections. Soon other 
legacy songwriters and their families asked if I would 
administer their works as well.
    When I first heard about the MMA and blanket mechanical 
license I was pleased and hopeful. I believe, and was promised, 
that the intention of the MMA for a new, authoritative, gold-
standard data base to be engineered, with aggressively vetted 
musical work and sound recording data.
    The MLC, Inc., became the first The MLC and engaged the 
Harry Fox Agency as its data and operations vendor. HFA has 
been integral to the music because since 1927, but one dataset 
is not enough. The MLC must license data from many providers.
    To my knowledge, the promised new The MLC data base and new 
dataset do not exist. The MLC uses slogans like ``Play Your 
Part'' to drive music publishers to sign up with The MLC and 
confirm The MLC's data. It seems that playing our part means 
doing The MLC's job and devoting our own resources to the tasks 
that DSPs pay The MLC to do.
    A major part of The MLC's mandated role is to match sound 
recordings to musical works. If a recording is not correctly 
matched, the publisher and songwriter do not receive mechanical 
royalties. Per The MLC, ``Unchained Melody'' has been recorded 
by more than 30,000 artists. To perform due diligence, I asked 
The MLC for a list of those recordings but was told it was not 
possible to export. I was told if I had access to The MLC's 
data dump then I could go find the information.
    Well, fortunately I do have access to that data dump. I 
paid thousands of dollars to create a data base that allows me 
to analyze that data to identify gaps and errors. I review 
matches on behalf of my clients. For one well-known legacy 
song, 11 percent of the sound recording-to-composition matches 
were wrong. For another, 20 percent were wrong.
    After the MMA passed, the DSPs transferred roughly $424 
million in unallocated, black box royalties to The MLC. If I 
register my works with The MLC my money should not be in that 
black box, but sometimes I have co-publishers who deliver 
different data about our shared work that might overwrite my 
data. Sometimes I do not know about a recording of the work, 
and foreign and domestic songwriters, they may not know about 
The MLC.
    All CMOs have data gaps and errors, but by statute, The MLC 
is mandated to aggressively apply its resources to reduce that 
black box. We must prevent the wrong parties from receiving 
Photo-records III royalties, which apparently will soon be 
distributed.
    Some U.S. publishers are even engaging the Canadian 
collective, CMRRA, for a fee, to fix their problems at The MLC. 
I have never heard of one collective cleaning another 
collective's data.
    Another problem I have with The MLC involves misclaimed 
copyright shares by independent artists who distribute music 
and deliver data through aggregators. At least on a monthly 
basis, I must play Whack-A-Mole, searching The MLC's portal to 
find new registrations of our work that make no mention of Alex 
North, not Hy Zaret, and not our publishing entities. When I 
cleaned these infringing registrations at The MLC, my 
underlying registration goes into suspense. To make the above 
even more complicated, there is no claim overlap or dispute 
resolution portal within The MLC's website.
    The MLC has the opportunity to create truly innovative 
products, including at least a basic claim and overlap portal.
    The MLC must stop creating unilateral business rules. The 
terminations decision made by The MLC to ignore that the 
derivative work exception does not apply in the context of 
Section 115 would have benefited the major publishers, who 
control the bulk of legacy copyrights. It would have harmed 
songwriters and their families. Fortunately, the Copyright 
Office stepped in to correct.
    The MLC has made unilateral decisions regarding how it 
treats public domain works. It invoices the DSPs for streams of 
these public domain works, but no publisher is entitled to 
these royalties.
    I want The MLC to succeed, and we all need it to succeed. 
The MLC must perform its mandated duty to create an 
authoritative data base that is best gold standard. The MLC 
must stop making unilateral decisions that affect the lives of 
songwriters and music publishers. If there is a question 
regarding a law, regulation, or internal policy, the Copyright 
Office must be consulted.
    Until we have our gold standard authoritative data base, 
songwriters are being harmed. Thank you.
    [Prepared statement of Ms. North follows:]
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    Chair Issa. Thank you. We will now go to our first round of 
questioning, and I will go the gentleman from Wisconsin first, 
Mr. Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Molinar, I continue, and I think other people continue 
to believe that more can be done to improve data throughout the 
music industry, including the public performance rights. It is 
my understanding that performance and mechanical rights data is 
typically identical, or near identical, I think, which came up 
in the opening statements.
    From your perspective, do you think having PRO affiliation 
included in The MLC data base would help companies like Big 
Machine get accurate payments from the PROs and The MLC, and 
certainly probably enhance transparency as well?
    Mr. Molinar. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
think to touch on what The MLC is doing right, as we can 
attest, the publishers, as we are entering it in and cleaning 
up our data, this data base is heading toward being the 
cleanest data base that exists.
    Unfortunately, I think that the complicated landscape of 
these royalties--I was not around for the decision of when a 
streaming mechanical royalty was decided to be split into a 
performance and a mechanical, which just makes things all the 
more difficult and complicated. I wish I could answer more to 
the question of could we get that done, do I think that we are 
on the right path at The MLC of creating a pretty authoritative 
song data because of the way that publishers can interact with 
their own data and see what is being claimed.
    Much to Ms. North's comments, the reason she can play 
Whack-A-Mole on issues that come up from new songwriters via 
aggregators is because she can see it and that we have that 
ability to act on it.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. The transparency.
    Mr. Molinar. The transparency part of this is something 
that we have not had, particularly when we were, as I mentioned 
in my testimony, when you had third-party vendors representing 
each of the different streaming services. We just did not have 
that transparency into it.
    So, I cannot speak to the functions of some of our other 
organizations such as PROs. The MLC, by statute, is not allowed 
to collect performance royalties. So, I think we are just 
concentrated on getting the data right for the purpose that is 
under the statute.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Ahrend, I think we are aware that the different 
stakeholders may have different interpretations of the statute 
or regulations, and that, at times, The MLC has weighed in, 
obviously, on that. Rather than weigh in on those specific 
circumstances, has The MLC considered identifying, for the 
Copyright Office, that there are stakeholders with differing 
views, and asking the Copyright Office to share its position?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald, for the question. We 
speak regularly with the Copyright Office, and we talk with 
them about the operational challenges we face and the issues 
that we see and hear from our members. The terminations issue 
was a great example. The MLC raised that issue in regulatory 
proceedings the Copyright Office held in 2019 and 2020, and we 
pointed out that we did not see that issue addressed by the MMA 
and that there was not a clear answer on the law. We asked the 
Copyright Office to weigh in on that issue at the time. They 
declined to do so. We then sought a rule that would give us a 
data point that we could use to implement a policy. We 
ultimately did.
    So, I think we do try to flag issues for the office, and we 
welcome their guidance, where they are willing to give it. In 
the meantime, we try our best to put in place operational 
processes that do not decide questions of legal rights but 
simply serve to come up with an operational plan in the interim 
that will work for our members.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Tashian, how do record labels compensate their artists, 
and how does the money flow in and out of what can be seen, 
like the black box, that we were talking about earlier? Are 
artists receiving kind of reciprocal increases in their 
streaming and also in the digital service deals that currently 
exist?
    Mr. Tashian. Thanks for the question. I am really here as a 
producer and a songwriter. I am also an artist. The level of my 
streaming is not on the level of some of the artists that you 
might be more interested to see how it has benefited them 
financially. Does that answer your question?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. Look, I think what we are trying to 
establish is just the streaming portion of this functioning 
correctly.
    Mr. Tashian. I think in some ways. I think there is that 
five-year, 2018-2022, that I know, as a songwriter, I am still 
sort of waiting on the difference between what the rate was and 
what it is agreed on now. So yes, I am still waiting on that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The COVID-19 
pandemic was devastating for many Americans, but artists were 
some of the hardest hit in this country because live venues all 
shut down. This meant that artists had to rely largely on their 
royalties from streaming services to stay afloat.
    Mr. Porter, can you describe what this experience was like 
and whether artists can earn a living on streaming royalties 
alone?
    Mr. Porter. Presently, I do not feel that they can. I mean, 
the numbers clearly are not as fair as I feel that they should 
be as it relates to the contribution that artists make to the 
well-being and the balance that people feel about their daily 
lives. I think that there certainly should be much, much, much 
done to bring that kind of income level up to a point where 
people can feel comfortable with wanting to do it tomorrow, and 
the next day. So no, I do not feel that we are there yet.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Tashian, what can you add to 
that?
    Mr. Tashian. Yes, I think it is a good thing to be, well, a 
producer and a songwriter because the combined income of both 
of those things makes it possible for me to have a family. I 
think to be only a songwriter you would have to be in the top 
5-10 percent, wouldn't you say, to really make a living. So 
yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. What would you say has 
been the biggest success of the MMA, and what has been the 
biggest challenge that you have faced since the law came into 
effect. Ms. North?
    Ms. North. The success is really, in my opinion, to the 
blanket mechanical license. The previous method of one-by-one 
licensing absolutely did not work. So, the blanket license 
brings us in parity with the rest of the world licensing model. 
That was excellent.
    The MLC is doing many things right, but the statute 
requires it, or promises it, to be the gold standard, best in 
class. So, it is good, but we need better.
    The CLASSICS Act, no question that was a huge, huge benefit 
to performance and owners of those pre-1972 recordings, and the 
codification of the LOD process at SoundExchange unquestionably 
is a true benefit.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Molinar?
    Mr. Molinar. Yes, I would agree with Ms. North that The MLC 
has provided this opportunity to have one stop, one place for 
your data for all these services. Again, as we have repeated, 
being able to be in control of your data and having that 
transparency to it.
    Honestly, our challenges, as has been mentioned here, was 
the timing of the statute. We had a very short window. This is 
a technology company that meets creators. It is such a unique 
institution, and we put it up in a 1-2 years, through a global 
pandemic. So, it will continue to get better, but the fact that 
it is doing the match rates that it is doing--and Mr. Ahrend 
can speak to this a little bit more--in some reprocessing they 
are getting over 90 percent match, and this just started in 
April 2021. It is an incredible job that has already been done.
    I think the other challenge is just, as has been touched 
on, is the timing of the CRB, waiting for five years and 130-
plus days to get final rates, which came in last Thursday after 
the period of time that this should have covered. We can spend 
more time on that if you prefer, but that is incredibly 
frustrating and incredibly disruptive to my business.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. OK, thank you. Mr. 
Levin?
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for the question. Let me just note, 
for 1 second on the streaming compensation question, if I 
might, that the services pay roughly 70 percent of their 
revenue out to their rightsholder partners across labels and 
publishers, and those entities then pay songwriters and 
recording artists. We are very proud to have been part of the 
settlement reaching the highest rates ever for mechanical rates 
going forward for this period and the next, and moving forward. 
So, the conversations around streaming economics are important 
to have, and have on a holistic level.
    From an MMA perspective, I think from the services I would 
join with Mr. Molinar's comments about the data base and the 
benefits of the data base. From the services perspective it is 
really that legal certainty of being able to know that you have 
that blanket license. The prior system simply did not work.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK, and the challenges?
    Mr. Levin. On the challenges front I really do think--sorry 
to steal a line from Mr. Tashian's testimony--I think it is 
navigating that line for The MLC between administering the 
license and setting policy and rules. One is what the MMA 
intended and the other actually goes beyond what they are 
supposed to do.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you. Mr. Ahrend, 
if I might, Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you for the question. Like the other 
panelists, I think the fact that we have been able to set up 
The MLC, begin operations, and to do that without missing 
deadlines, consistently month after month, is a huge 
accomplishment, and it is a huge shared accomplishment. 
Hundreds, thousands of people have been a part of that.
    On the challenges side there are many. You have heard 
already from other witnesses here today there are lots of areas 
where we can continue to do more to improve the system. We, as 
an organization, are committed to improving. That is why we 
talk so regularly with so many stakeholders. We want to 
understand what works and what does not so we can continue to 
make the organization better and to make it function more 
effectively for the benefit of those members.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. I thank the gentleman. We will go to the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to followup on 
this last line of questioning. Mr. Ahrend, we were talking 
about the data base error rates. Can you say, with certainty, 
over the last couple of years since you have started that the 
error rates have gone down or are they consistently in the 11 
percent range that Ms. North was talking about, and what steps 
are you taking to address those?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you for the question. Our ability to 
match data, we are matching at a higher rate, a higher 
percentage than ever before. There are errors in the data that 
we receive, and there are sometimes errors in the matches we 
make, and we monitor that actively. We give our members tools 
that allow them to see where those may exist, and then we do 
our best to fix them quickly.
    We manage a massive amount of data, 31 million works and 
data from well over 100 million sound recordings, and many, 
many more millions of products derived from those sound 
recordings. So, it is a massive undertaking, and we do monitor 
it to try to make it better.
    Mr. Cline. How do you respond to Ms. North's comments about 
needing to be that gold standard and having to utilize the 
Canadian system to address problems within our own system?
    Mr. Ahrend. We absolutely aspire to be the gold standard, 
no doubt, and that is not easy. One of the benefits of making 
our data so widely available--and we do that not only through 
the public search, the matching tool, but the bulk data 
subscription program that the MMA required us to set up. Close 
to 200 organizations around the world now regularly download a 
full snapshot of all the ownership data on the musical works 
side that we make available and the sound recording data. So, 
they essentially get all the information they need to look for 
errors and then to help people find and act on them.
    Those companies are using that access to create businesses 
where they can offer services to other companies that may 
prefer to utilize those services, as opposed to doing it 
themselves. So, organizations like the one that Ms. North 
mentioned are taking advantage of the very transparency that 
you sought to create to provide a richer, more vibrant 
marketplace where people have access to services like that. 
That is not a negative comment on The MLC. That just means that 
more people are involved in the process of making the data 
better, and that is, in fact, what is happening.
    Mr. Cline. Switching gears, I understand that royalty funds 
may be invested, but have royalty funds actually been used for 
this purpose, and if so, how will The MLC handle any profits or 
losses stemming from investments?
    Mr. Ahrend. Royalties are never used to fund our 
operations. One hundred percent of our operating costs are 
funded separately by the DSPs through an assessment process. 
The unpaid royalties that we have accrued we hold, and we hold 
them until we are able to pay out the underlying royalties, and 
then we pay those royalties with interest.
    The moneys that we hold are invested conservatively through 
institutional financial firms in financial investments intended 
to deliver the rate of return the statute requires while 
minimizing risk as much as possible. That is not an easy task, 
but it is one that we have undertaken. We monitor it carefully. 
We work with outside fee-based advisors who have no financial 
benefit in the process either, to ensure that we are doing that 
as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Cline. Are the board members participating in that 
process, in that decisionmaking process, or is that a 
decisionmaking process that you are solely in charge of?
    Mr. Ahrend. No. The board is fully involved in that 
process. They adopted a policy, an investment policy, that 
guides how we hold those moneys, and we update them regularly 
on our progress, as do the advisors that we have hired.
    Mr. Cline. Do you make public that information as well?
    Mr. Ahrend. We have not made public the investment policy 
because the policy contains not only the parameters that I just 
described but also the specific guidance that our advisors have 
given us on where to rest the money, and they have advised us 
that it is not good for security purposes or for market 
manipulation purposes to make public the information about 
where we are investing the money.
    Mr. Cline. Mr. Levin, I understand there is no mechanism 
other than litigation to resolve conflicts or adjudicate a 
substantive resolution or disputes. From DiMA's perspective, is 
there a legislative solution that Congress should be looking to 
resolve this issue?
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for the question. You mean disputes as 
between a service and The MLC?
    Mr. Cline. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Levin. It is a great question. I do not know that there 
are legislative improvements that need to be undertaken here. I 
think if there is guidance to The MLC about where there might 
be policy disputes as between the copyright owners, on the one 
hand, and the services, on the other hand, or between the 
publishers and the songwriters, that rather than impose kind of 
a unilateral decision that they instead seek guidance from the 
Copyright Office, which has broad regulatory authority under 
the MMA, explicitly granted to effectuate the purposes of the 
statute.
    We think that the tools are already there to avoid some of 
that costly litigation, particularly in a scenario where the 
services are funding The MLC's operations and might find 
themselves potentially in a litigation where they are paying 
for both sides of the litigation. That does seem to be contrary 
to what Congress intended through the MMA.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My question I would like to address 
to as many of the witnesses as can address it in the five-
minutes I have. New technologies like artificial intelligence 
can present great opportunities for creative industries to 
innovate, but they also present a set of challenges. Can you 
talk about how AI and other burgeoning technologies are 
affecting the music industry, and what do you think Congress 
can do to address these issues?
    We will start with Ms. North.
    Ms. North. Thank you for the question. I believe that there 
are tremendous opportunities with AI for creators--for 
songwriters, for performers--but there also are deep, deep 
challenges, and there is the threat of decimating their 
careers.
    To me, the greatest challenge, and maybe opportunity, we 
have right now is to come up with a compensation model that is 
different from anything that we have ever seen before, and I 
what is we all have works and sound recordings that are used in 
the ingestion to train these machine learning and AI generative 
tools. We need to make sure that not just the IP but the 
creators, that they are going to be paid for any derivative 
uses or any derivatives that are generated by this technology.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Molinar?
    Mr. Molinar. Thank you. I think we need to prioritize human 
creators as we look at everything. AI is still early, early 
days, but it is moving fast. AI training should not be 
considered fair use, should not be presumptively considered 
fair use.
    I saw an operation that had spit out songs in the style of 
Songwriter Hall of Fame Liz Rose. To be able to write like her 
the computer must have been fed her songs. That should not go 
unlicensed, nor should it be uncompensated to Ms. Rose. We need 
to make sure that where those examples happen that it is 
considered infringement, and we need to preserve this direct 
licensing market.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Levin?
    Mr. Levin. Thanks for the question. It is such a massive 
topic right now, and obviously a top of mind for everyone in 
the industry. From the DiMA perspective, a lot of our focus is 
on what happens on the output side, less on the kind of input 
side of the training models and ensuring that whatever rules 
are put into place and developed that we make clear that there 
is an important data element to this. We have talked a lot 
about data on this panel already today, and the music industry 
has long struggled with metadata challenges. MLC is actually 
bringing a lot of improvement in that area.
    One of the things that we hear talked about sometimes in AI 
is the idea that services like DiMA's members should somehow 
differentiate between AI-generated works and other works. I 
think absent information about what is AI generated, absent 
information about clear lines as between what truly counts as 
AI versus what counts as human conversations that we are seeing 
at the Copyright Office around registrability, all those things 
are fundamentally going to necessitate clear information that 
is available and included within the works as they arrive at 
the services.
    I think this is an ongoing conversation in the industry, 
and it is important that as we move forward that we are very 
clear about the elements of this massive topic that we are 
talking about and try to address them serially along that 
continuum.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Tashian?
    Mr. Tashian. Yes. I have been using AI for a long time. I 
mean, Cher's ``do you believe in life after'' was a first sort 
of AI hit because it asked the computer to specify what pitch 
she was on, which it did. It said, well, I think it should be 
on this, which is an algorithm that is built into the Antares 
software. So, AI has been assisting musicians for decades, and 
now we are sort of kind of wringing our hands a little bit and 
saying what do we do about it.
    Without taking too much time I have yet to sort of 
experience an artwork created by a computer that gives me 
goosebumps or gives me chills because it is so beautiful. So, 
until that happens, I am just going to keep my head down and 
keep doing my best at organic music and using computers when 
they can help.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Porter?
    Mr. Porter. I can only speak for creators whose main 
emphasis is to try to do what they feel is a positive impact on 
the public at large about emotions that they do not know how to 
express through music, but these people do. Creators do not 
want to have to try to figure out what the mechanics are that 
would be correct for the fairness that they should receive in 
doing what they do. They rely on others. That is why the 
relationships that they have with companies, people who say 
they are the business side of what they do.
    I think that the fact that if we cannot safeguard the fact 
that this process can compromise the future generations, their 
creative motivations to feel that it can be appreciated, 
respected, and done in a way that will not be compromised by 
someone else's interpretation or what they feel it should have 
been, then it can become extremely risky to the value of what 
this whole process if AI can be. Because you want to have the 
next generation motivated to want to take a path to do this, 
and if you have a method that compromises the real legitimacy 
of that, based on what that creator feels, then you are doing 
something that is counter to what you may perceive as the good 
that it does.
    Mr. Nadler. My time has expired, but I would ask the Chair 
if he would allow Mr. Ahrend to answer the question.
    Chair Issa. Absolutely, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I will say briefly that 
I agree with the other witnesses. It is imperative that we 
ensure that whatever technological developments come down the 
pipe that we are always protecting the rights of the human 
creators from which all these works originate. Certainly, from 
our perspective we see a growing correlation between the use of 
technologies and fraudulent activities, so I think it is 
important that Congress be monitoring that and to make sure 
that we have clear and stiff penalties in place for people who 
choose to use technology for fraudulent or other inappropriate 
purposes rather than to elevate creative works.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you, and because of all the good work 
done so far, as long as I do not blow it, we will have a second 
lightning round. I want to announce for everyone to get your 
questions ready.
    This has been a good process so far, but I think Ms. North 
pointed out a number of deep concerns, and I want to cover a 
couple of them because I think in baseball if you hit a .700, 
they do not have a place in the Hall of Fame for somebody who 
is doing that well. A .900, amazing. If you are part of those 
hundreds of millions of dollars stranded, or you are finding 
yourself frustrated because you are entitled to money and not 
getting it, then the batting average does not matter.
    I want to start with one point, Mr. Ahrend. You are a 
neutral arbitrator. You are designed to be not in anyone's 
pocket but, in fact, to fairly match up the places where the 
dollars should go and getting them there. So, I have one 
question, which is you are currently using the same outside 
counsel as the NMPA. Do you think that, at least from a visual 
standpoint, that this was a good choice, and do you think that 
the appearance of not being in any one side's pocket needs to 
be taken further?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you for your question. We have relied on 
outside counsel with strong experience in this area to build 
the organization. That was imperative. The number of lawyers 
and law firms that work in this particular part of the business 
is very small. Outside the lawyers we use, there are a handful 
of others that digital services use. So, I think it would be 
very difficult for us to find lawyers with that level of 
knowledge and experience who were not already aligned with one 
group of stakeholders.
    That said, we do strive to implement the MMA in every day, 
to the best of our ability, in a way that serves the need of 
all our stakeholders, and I constantly talk with the digital 
services about that. We want this to work for them as well as 
for all the other rightsholders involved. So, I think we have 
done our best to, I guess, stay toward the middle of that road, 
recognizing, though, that there are times, and MMA does 
envision, that our job is to advocate for the process and to 
make sure that the digital services are living up to their 
obligations under the law.
    So, I do not think it is accurate to suggest that we should 
never be in a situation where we are averse to the services. I 
would like to think we are helping them meet the very high bar 
you have set, and we do that, in part, by being transparent 
with them about expectations and also making sure that where a 
few of them are doing things differently from the others that 
those outliers come into the fold and perform in the same way 
that the other services in the market are performing.
    Chair Issa. Ms. North brought up a point that I will key in 
on, and that is that when someone is doing what substantially 
you are doing, which is data base management, the accuracy of a 
data base and the fact that there will be--if we go back 1,000 
years to when I was writing software the first time, when the 
card pops out of that IBM and it says this did not work, and 
the whole thing shuts down, as fast as you can get it corrected 
and back in is important.
    Overwriting rather than showing a pairing error and a 
resolution process that is communicating back to both parties 
would seem to be the standard. Ms. North, if I see it 
correctly, that is not happening. They are not coming back with 
an error check saying we have a double claim and each of you 
knowing who the other is and a resolution process, but rather 
you can be overwritten. Is that correct?
    Ms. North. So, I think there are two parts. First, is that 
currently that process is entirely human, meaning there are 
emails, there is an email chain, and there is a timeframe. 
There is no actual software.
    Chair Issa. At high administrative cost.
    Ms. North. Correct, but also functionality. In terms of 
reducing friction, it takes too long because we could do it so 
much faster.
    Second, yes, if I have my registration and somebody--we 
test 30,000 sound recordings, right--and then somebody else 
comes in with their one sound recording, claiming that 
composition, mine goes into suspense and that just does not 
make sense.
    Chair Issa. It does not make sense. Can you make it make 
sense here, in 30 seconds?
    Mr. Ahrend. I will try. We are in the process of developing 
a disputes and over-claims module in the portal that will allow 
members to interact directly, in a more systematized way around 
disputes. That is something that we began developing more than 
a year ago, but based on the feedback we got from members we 
place the priority on continuing to enhance the matching tool, 
in particular, because that was a tool that members saw as most 
directly allowing them to improve data for the benefit of 
higher payments. We are going to complete, build, and launch 
this portal hopefully before the end of this year.
    In terms of the mechanism, if a work has been registered 
with us for more than, I believe, 90 days, and a new 
registration comes in that is not consistent with that, we do 
not automatically override that, and we do give a preference to 
the registration that has been in place.
    Ms. North is correct. We do seek the view of both 
rightsholders in that situation because we do not automatically 
know which of those views is correct. In the case of a song 
like ``Unchained Melody'' that is incredibly popular and is 
covered tens of thousands of times, that process can be quite 
challenging. So, I do appreciate that Ms. North has some very 
unique challenges in managing a legacy work like that.
    Chair Issa. OK. I will wait for the second round for 
myself, and I will back to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Ahrend, I do not think we touched on 
this. When foreign-owned record labels collect royalties on 
music when it is played abroad do artists see their share of 
the money on that right now? How is that working?
    Mr. Ahrend. If you are talking the sound recording side of 
the business, you said record labels?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, right.
    Mr. Ahrend. That is not a part of the business that The MLC 
is involved in. I know there are other organizations that work 
on the sound recording side, like SoundExchange. They do go and 
collect sound recording payments for rightsholders around the 
world. They would probably be in a better position to speak to 
how that works and where there are opportunities to improve it.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. Very good. Does anybody else have a 
comment on that? Yes, Ms. North.
    Ms. North. That is completely outside of the realm of The 
MLC, but I do want to raise AMFA, the American Music Fairness 
Act, and the opportunity. Currently, our performers, sound 
recording owners, do not receive a performing right for 
terrestrial radio and other broadcasts, of a sound recording. 
We are one of a few territories, like I think Saudi Arabia, 
that do not have this right.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it is just Cuba and Iran.
    [Laughs.]
    Mr. Nadler. So, because you provided this opportunity, I do 
have to plug AMFA, sound recording owners, and performers need 
to have that right.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Levin, can you talk about how public performance rights 
fit into what MMA did and did not do, and what remains to be 
done to keep music simply affordable for consumers?
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for the question. The MMA did very 
little in the public performance licensing space. There are 
some adjustments to how the dispute process can play out in the 
rate courts that govern the BMI and ASCAP consent decrees. 
There was also a provision about should the Department of 
Justice ever seek to do away with those consent decrees, some 
notice to Congress.
    In general, there was very little kind of at the heart of 
that licensing system, and it is one where, from the service 
perspective, it is one of the many rights that DiMA's members 
need to license to operate. The U.S. is unique in its number of 
performing rights organizations. I think we are up to about six 
now. That is not actually generally the way it works around the 
world.
    It is also, to kind of actually piggyback on Ms. North's 
comment, while there are entities that do not pay for the 
public performance of sound recordings, essentially anywhere in 
the United States that publicly performs music, from bars and 
restaurants to DiMA's members, need licenses from the PROs. So, 
it is certainly a marketplace and a licensing space where it is 
important to make sure that it is functioning properly.
    I know Congressman Fitzgerald and Congressman Issa, along 
with Representative Ross sent a letter last year to the 
Copyright Office about the potential improvements on 
transparency in this space. I think that remains an area--
again, we have talked a lot about data. It comes up all the 
time in the music industry. Every licensee wants to know what 
they are licensing. Every rightsholder deserves to get their 
money efficiently and effectively.
    So, finding improvements to make licensing more efficient 
through improved data I think is a real area for shared 
undertaking by the licensees, the PROs, and others.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. My last question had to 
do with successes and challenges, and thank you all for your 
answers to all our questions today. I would like to ask you, as 
our challenges that you noted, what do you see Congress' role 
being in meeting those challenges. Ms. North?
    Ms. North. I think the first one is oversight. We brought 
up a couple of things. One is there have been unilateral 
business rules applied regarding issues that are already 
defined by statute. Section 115 is clear about the derivative 
works exception. That should not have ever been an issue. We 
know how public domain works, are controlled, or not. That 
should never be an issue.
    So, I think that Congress and the Copyright Office need to 
pay attention to how The MLC is functioning, and most 
importantly, create guardrails so that The MLC remains a 
neutral, pass-through entity. That is what it is supposed to 
be. It is not supposed to be a judge or arbiter.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Molinar?
    Mr. Molinar. Yes. I think in terms of improvements my 
comments are less about The MLC but more about The MLC cannot 
pay out and the streaming services cannot pay the royalties if 
we do not know what the rates are and if we do not come to some 
market definition quicker and earlier. So, my improvements 
would be focused on CRB reform and looking where we can support 
the CRB system, whether that is more funds or more resources 
for them so that we can have these decisions for our rates 
timelier, smoother, and quicker for the entire process.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Levin?
    Mr. Levin. Just to followup on Mr. Molinar's comment, the 
great news is that because of the settlement reached last year 
that the rates are set for 2023 and going forward, which allows 
for, I think, a more robust conversation about whether and 
where improvements might be needed in the CRB process.
    In terms of the challenges that we see with The MLC, I 
think that oversight and ongoing engagement from Congress 
around MMA and The MLC's operations, as well as from the 
Copyright Office, are vital. This hearing is an incredible 
opportunity to talk about it, to check in, to hear about the 
incredible progress, and to also identify where challenges 
exist. So, I hope this is not the last time that this Committee 
continues to engage, whether it is in a hearing or otherwise. I 
think The MLC exists solely as a creature of the Music 
Modernization Act and solely to effectuate the license that was 
created in that, so ongoing engagement is vital.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Ahrend?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you. I agree with Mr. Levin. I think the 
ongoing engagement is imperative. We have sought that out 
whenever we can. As a number of you know, we were up on the 
Hill earlier this spring, providing updates to staffers. We did 
a virtual update at the end of last year. Right before COVID I 
came up at the very beginning of the process. So, we welcome 
the engagement with Congress, we seek it out, and we enjoy 
regular conversations with the Copyright Office, and as I said 
in my remarks, we speak regularly with a number of groups in 
the industry that represent a large number of stakeholders so 
that we are constantly receiving as much feedback as we can. 
Then we take that back and we undertake the immense challenge 
of trying to reconcile all that feedback, from all the people 
that have been interested in what we do, and try to come up 
with policies and practices that meet the needs of as many of 
those stakeholders as possible. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Porter and Tashian.
    Mr. Porter. I do not have comments. I think challenges have 
already been addressed. I applaud this Committee and what you 
are doing, because for the future generations who have 
aspirations to do music, their whole thrust is doing what they 
feel is a contribution coming from their heart that hopefully 
will have an impact with people who listen to it. They do not 
go into the analytics of what the business process will be and 
all those kinds of things. They have hopes, the future 
generation would be, that there will be committees such as this 
and others who would have sensibilities to want to be sure they 
are treated fairly with their gifts, in a world that recognizes 
their value and would adhere to that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Tashian. Echoing what a lot of people have said, but it 
is just great to work together, and I hope that all of you will 
take your passion for music. You mentioned, Mr. Issa, Mike 
Love, and your enjoyment of the music of the Beach Boys. I am 
sure everybody has their own version of that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I am good with Tim McGraw too.
    Mr. Tashian. Tim McGraw. Yes. I hope you will think about 
your favorite artists, writers, and songwriters and then stay 
engaged with the community, and listen and hear people out. I 
think it is a good thing to just kind of stay connected to 
that. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and kudos to Chair Issa 
for bringing the hearing on the road, to Nashville.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. I echo those comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. North, I want to go back to the statement you made, how 
we want The MLC to be a neutral pass-through entity and not an 
arbiter. The MMA mandates that The MLC board of directors 
consist of 10 publisher representatives and four songwriters. 
Can you comment on whether you think The MLC is able to achieve 
that neutrality with its current makeup, and the interests of 
songwriters are balanced against those of publishers when they 
disagree?
    Ms. North. Well, I think the interests of songwriters are 
not balanced, just simply by makeup of that board. It should be 
more equal. It should be an equal number of songwriters to that 
number of publishers.
    More importantly, the major publishers, they have voluntary 
direct licenses with the services, so they do not even use The 
MLC in the same way that an independent music publisher does, 
who does not have the opportunity to enter into voluntary 
licenses. So, to me, we need fewer majors and more indies, and 
included in the Indies are self-administered songwriters. I 
think we do not have enough.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. Mr. Ahrend, do you want to comment on 
how The MLC balances the interests of stakeholders, and given 
the imbalance in its membership?
    Mr. Ahrend. Yes, thank you. I think as Ms. North just 
noted, independent publishers represent a unique set of 
stakeholders who often have interests that are very different 
from the largest publishers. So, our board is, in reality, 
divided among those three stakeholder groups. We have 
representatives of songwriters, independent publishers, and the 
larger publishers. In that respect I think we hear from all 
three of those stakeholder groups, and I do think the views 
that we receive from those reps reflect and effectively 
represent the interests of those three groups.
    I also would just note that the amount of royalties flowing 
through direct licenses now is only a few million dollars each 
month. It has dropped dramatically since the first distribution 
we did. So very little of the royalties that we administer flow 
through direct licenses. The overwhelming amount of royalties 
flow directly through The MLC. Several of the largest ESPs 
ended the practice of entering into voluntary licenses when The 
MLC began operation. So, again, voluntary licenses are a very 
small part of what we do today.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Let's talk about the termination 
rights. Can you explain The MLC's stance on termination rights 
and the payment of royalties to a publisher after its rights 
are terminated by the songwriter?
    Mr. Ahrend. As of today, we are holding royalties pending 
the outcome of the Copyright Office's rulemaking process, so 
that is where we stand at this moment.
    Mr. Cline. What has The MLC done now that the Copyright 
Office issued its proposed rule contradicting The MLC's view, 
and what are MLC's plans with respect to getting involved with 
the Copyright Office's process for issuing a final rule?
    Mr. Ahrend. The Copyright Office did not contradict our 
rule so much as it weighed in and offered a proposed rule that 
would clarify what previously the law had not clarified, which 
was the answer to the ultimately question. In doing so we 
recognized that the best thing for us to do right now is to 
hold moneys pending that outcome. We participate in the 
process. Our only view in participating in the process now is 
to ensure that the office has the operational perspective that 
we can provide so that whatever rule they ultimately issue we 
can effectively implement it.
    Mr. Cline. The Copyright Office has issued a notice of 
inquiry regarding when late fees are triggered for payments by 
DSPs. What is The MLC's position with respect to whether late 
fees should be paid when a DSP's estimated royalty payments 
turn out to be short, and how did The MLC go about deciding 
that?
    Mr. Ahrend. Our view is that late fees should be paid, and 
we based that, in part, on the fact that there are digital 
services that have already been paying late fees on that basis. 
So, again, this is an area where we provided a perspective of 
what the current practices are, and our belief for how those 
practices should be normalized so that all DSPs are adhering to 
a consistent standard.
    Mr. Cline. OK. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tashian and Mr. Porter, one of the changes contained in 
the MMA was to require the Copyright Royalty Board to use a 
willing buyer or willing seller standard in determining royalty 
rates for songwriters. Can you explain what it means to you to 
be recognized for the value of your music and why it is 
important to artists that they are paid on a free market basis?
    Mr. Tashian. This landscape is changing all the time. I 
listened in on the call a little bit yesterday. Mr. Issa, you 
were talking about how hard it is to determine the value and 
for stakeholder to make those decisions.
    I think it is something that we just have to stay on top 
of, but was the question about how do you do that? What was the 
question about, how do you do that?
    Mr. Nadler. No. The question was sort of the balance of 
money of willing buyer, willing seller. Is it making a 
difference to you?
    Mr. Tashian. Yes. Well, I have not sold my catalog yet. It 
is something that I hope to do, but I know a lot of people who 
have. So, at that point I will let you know.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Porter?
    Mr. Porter. Well, I feel that--to be honest, I have sold my 
catalog--I think for the future generations--I am 80 years old, 
so for me, I am more concerned about what happens to the next 
set of creatives who have a passion to be in this business 
called music, and to do it from their heart, and to be sure 
that what they are going to be given in the future will be 
comparable to the lifestyle should be for those times.
    I just feel like it is an ongoing process. For me, I always 
feel that the writers and artists have never gotten the kind of 
fair royalties that they should have gotten from the beginning. 
It is always a positive change that is happening, and what this 
Committee is doing and what you are doing is so vitally needed 
for people to be motivated to want to continue to do this. I 
applaud you for doing that, and I think it is an ongoing 
process for the next generation to see examples of this, such 
as sensitivities to what they are doing and being compensated 
in a fair and equitable way.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Porter, the CLASSICS Act, which 
provided protection under the Federal copyright laws to music 
recorded prior to 1972 was an important component of the MMA, 
obviously. Can you talk about the impact this provision has had 
on legacy artists, and has it made a difference in your ability 
to be fairly compensated for your work?
    Mr. Porter. Without a doubt. I know of Sam Moore, who is an 
artist that I worked with, he and Dave. I know what this 
feeling is about, and I know, Chair Issa and others, he has 
made this point known.
    Chair Issa. I hear from his wife.
    Mr. Porter. I can understand. It is just so, so important 
that artists who--I remember years ago, artists were happy to 
be the star singing up on the stage, and they did not realize 
that the songwriter was getting royalties, and royalties would 
happen when someone else would record the song in an ongoing 
way. That was a plus for the writer whose name was in small 
print on a record. They wanted to continue to do that.
    If you are going to do this you want to be sure that 
everybody is treated fairly, and prior to 1972 that was not the 
case. The fact that so many artists have suffered because of 
that, and this is a means of correcting and making some amends 
to make a positive change for that in what you have done. It 
has to be a better feeling, and in only five years for people, 
in an ongoing way, to see what it is going to do for those 
people that are still around to appreciate it, and certainly 
for their estates, that they will be able to evaluate it.
    It has been such a suffering of talents for many, many 
years prior to this happening, that I applaud you for taking a 
step to correct it.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Ahrend, The MLC is responsible 
for distributing statutory royalties at rates that are set by 
the Copyright Royalty Board. Can you discuss the importance of 
those rate determinations being made on a timely basis?
    Mr. Ahrend. Thank you for the question, Mr. Nadler. It is 
imperative. Quite simply, we cannot pay out royalties 
correctly, if at all, if we do not have the rates. It is a 
fundamental component to the process. So, the lack of finality 
around the rates for the 5-years leading up to the launch of 
The MLC and the blanket license has been incredibly 
challenging. We will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and 
countless hours of time putting together processes that we will 
need to reconcile the rates when they are finalized with the 
work that we have already done. I hope that we do not have to 
do that again, so it is imperative.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Issa. Thank you. Mr. Cline, you had a followup of one 
of your questions.
    Mr. Cline. Oh, I just wanted to give Mr. Levin the 
opportunity to respond to Ahrend's comments. Mr. Levin, do you 
want to respond to the question I asked Mr. Ahrend about late 
fees?
    Mr. Levin. Yes, I would be happy to. Thank you.
    I think at heart this is a great example of what exactly I 
have been talking about, about The MLC seeking guidance from 
the Copyright Office rather than imposing a view. While I think 
Mr. Ahrend raised the point that some services have paid late 
fees, that actually does not answer the question of whether 
statute and the regulations require them. The publishers and 
songwriter advocates are fully within their rights and 
prerogative to raise those concerns to the Copyright Office and 
argue for a position on it.
    I know some Members of this Committee, including yourself, 
have weighed in with the Copyright Office on the substance of 
the issue. What we actually saw in that scenario was The MLC 
submitting comments that were essentially identical to the 
comments submitted by the publishers, which does not actually 
add value to the conversation, necessary.
    To the extent that there are operational questions about 
how to actually facilitate late fee payments, make sure those 
payments go through, that seems squarely within The MLC's 
wheelhouse. On the actual substance of what the statute 
requires, that is something that the office actually does have 
the authority to weigh in on and engage with the stakeholders 
on, and for The MLC to subsequently operationalize.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Chair Issa. OK. Now a couple of closing questions from me. 
Ms. North, you opened by talking about the fact that the PROs 
are outside the original legislation. In your opinion, and we 
will go through others, do you believe that is action that 
Congress should take to bring them underneath this act, and now 
that it is up and running, for benefit, either compulsory or an 
opt-in?
    Ms. North. That is such a difficult question.
    Chair Issa. I saved the best for last.
    Ms. North. So, here is what I think. Mr. Fitzgerald had 
asked about whether including information about the PRO would 
be helpful or which should be data that The MLC includes. 
Personally, I think yes, because knowing the PRO of the 
songwriter and/or publisher helps us disambiguate data. It 
might tell me that one song called, I don't know, ``Just the 
Way You Are'' is this song and not this set of parties.
    However, the PROs function pretty well, and I do not think 
they need additional regulation, and I would like to keep them 
out of it.
    Chair Issa. OK. Mr. Ahrend, one of the administrative 
items, you are holding currently how much in hold-back money 
for unmatched? Rough number.
    Mr. Ahrend. I can be specific. We have $321 million in 
pending blanket royalties, $403 million in historical unmatched 
royalties.
    Chair Issa. OK. Do you currently believe that you have the 
authority to make a partial distribution, holding back 
sufficient funds to assure that anticipated future matches 
would still be paid fully? In other words, rather than being 
forsaken, which Ms. North brought up, that the moment you issue 
that money that it is no longer available to a future match-up, 
and Mr. Porter and others that may come up with them, do you 
believe you can currently split the baby, if you will, do a 
disbursement which is to the benefit of rightsholders who have 
come forward and hold back a sufficient amount for anticipate 
future, or is that outside your purview?
    Mr. Ahrend. I think it is an interesting question. I think 
as a practical matter, were we to do that it would delay 
significantly our ability to process and pay the back half of 
that because we would have to build a separate, similarly 
complex reconciliation process to then calculate the difference 
between what we had initially paid out and what we would 
finally owe for the historical moneys, and that would work 
differently, in many respects, from the blanket reconciliation 
we will have to do for 2021 and 2022.
    So, in looking at that--
    Chair Issa. So, it is fair to say that the act did not give 
you specific guidance, which would be the reason that you would 
not be able to split it and do a future one, as though you were 
starting again.
    Mr. Ahrend. I think it is fair to say that the MMA did not 
contemplate this possibility because, of course, at that time 
it was past the appeals.
    Chair Issa. We thought you would be perfect and match every 
single song. That is just the way it is in Congress.
    Mr. Ahrend. Well, the CRB process that we have alluded to 
before was five years earlier, and so I do not think we knew, 
any of us knew that we would be where we are today, back then. 
Of course, for us, we have been doing a significant amount of 
work on all the historical royalties since we received that 
data.
    So, at this point, sitting here today, what I believe is 
the best course is for us to allow the office and the CRB to 
finalize the rates, something that we believe is imminent, for 
the services, and then deliver the revised data, and then we 
can begin paying out all the matched royalties accurately, 
hopefully first thing in 2024.
    Chair Issa. The CRB has rulemaking authority. Do you 
believe that you have superior, concurrent, or simply separate 
rulemaking authority under the act?
    Mr. Ahrend. The MLC?
    Chair Issa. Yes.
    Mr. Ahrend. We are not a rulemaking body.
    Chair Issa. You have been making rules, and that has been 
Ms. North's complaint is that you have not sought the CRB, 
which does have rulemaking authority, to make those decisions. 
No question at all--what you have been making looks a lot like 
rules.
    Mr. Ahrend. With respect, I think we have put in place 
policies that describe our operations, and we have sought from 
the Copyright Office guidance where we think the Copyright 
Office would be in the best position to weigh in. I think it is 
the Copyright Office's role to ultimately issue regulations 
that answer questions of policy, and they have done so, to 
their great credit, in a myriad of ways, and, also, in a 
relatively short period of time. So, we consult regularly with 
the Copyright Office. I think they are the primary place where 
we would look for that guidance where we need it, and we do.
    Chair Issa. Do you believe you have authority under the act 
to--you do believe you have authority under the act to issue 
late fees. Do you believe that you have the authority to issue, 
or should you have the authority to issue late fees that would 
be sufficient to be used in excess of the fair reimbursement to 
the person who did not receive their royalty in a timely 
fashion, to also allow for general operations or other uses by 
your organization?
    Mr. Ahrend. No. The late fees that we collect are passed on 
to members entirely. We do not use those for operating costs. 
They are set by the regulations or the statute.
    Chair Issa. So, the second half of the question was do you 
think you should? In other words, the business of late fees is 
not just statutory interest. It is intended to be, at least 
partially, in a fair way, partially punitive, sufficient that 
it causes people to be dissuaded from using you as a bank. If 
you do not have that authority to collect essentially an amount 
in excess, is that something you would like the authority?
    One of the reasons we are out here is to look for ways that 
we can enhance compliance, enhance the percentage of matchups. 
Of course, when you are talking about revenues sufficient to be 
able to do your job better, we are also looking at it not 
coming out of necessarily the hide of the good behavior 
individuals but perhaps revenue that would allow you to 
innovate in the long run, service your beneficiaries better.
    Mr. Ahrend. I certainly think that this is a question that 
merits more conversation. We do see evidence that there are at 
least a few DSPs who consistently deliver their usage and 
royalty payments late, and they appear to be pushing the 
bounds--
    Chair Issa. I want to see a little anger. I want to see you 
go, ``No, you are right. I really want to stop the bad actors, 
and I have heard about them.'' Because the good actors, they 
are paying, and quite frankly, it adds to your overhead, does 
it not, and it adds to the frustration of the people who want 
to run their businesses and cannot because the revenue is not 
coming in.
    Mr. Ahrend. Absolutely, 100 percent. So, if Congress or the 
Copyright Office would like to give us more tools to ensure 
compliance, we would gratefully accept them and use them with 
the passion and vigor that you just expressed.
    Chair Issa. OK. Well, I we have one minute left, and I am 
going to take a privilege.
    Mr. Porter, you are the senior member here. I am kind of 
one of the senior Members here. Tell me, if you could ask us to 
go away with one more thing that we should go work on, what 
would it be?
    Mr. Porter. It would be to continue with the spirit that 
you are expressing right now. That is the spirit of wanting to 
do more, wanting to do it right, and wanting to do it because 
it is the right thing to do. That would be all I could say, 
sir.
    Chair Issa. Well, with that we stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 
can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent 
.aspx?EventID=116155.