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





                                

 
   RADIO, MUSIC, AND COPYRIGHTS: 100 YEARS OF INEQUITY FOR RECORDING 
                                ARTISTS

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

                                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

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-88

                               __________

         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 
 56-209                     WASHINGTON    
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

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

                                 ------                                

           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
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, June 26, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
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 Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     4

                               WITNESSES

Randy Travis, Country Music Singer, 2016 Country Music Hall of 
  Fame Inductee
Mary Travis, Wife of Randy Travis
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO, National Association of 
  Broadcasters
  Oral Testimony.................................................    13
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
Michael J. Huppe, President and CEO, SoundExchange
  Oral Testimony.................................................    22
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    24
William ``Eddie'' Harrell, Jr., Regional Vice President, Ohio 
  Markets; General Manager, the Cleveland Market; Radio One, 
  Inc., Division of Urban One, Inc.
  Oral Testimony.................................................    32
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    34

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Courts, 
  Intellectual Property, and the Internet, for the record........    68



   RADIO, MUSIC, AND COPYRIGHTS: 100 YEARS OF INEQUITY FOR RECORDING 
                                ARTISTS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 26, 2024

                        House of Representatives

           Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and

                              the Internet

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Issa, Jordan, Massie, 
Fitzgerald, Cline, Kiley, Moran, Lee, Fry, Johnson, Nadler, 
Lieu, Ross, Schiff, Lofgren, Dean, and Ivey.
    Mr. Issa. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    The Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
    We welcome everyone here today. Today's hearing is on 
radio, music, and copyrights. Now, I will recognize myself for 
an opening statement.
    It is not Groundhog Day, ladies and gentlemen, but we've 
been here before. Today, among other things, we will examine 
the longstanding and significant issue of our copyright laws 
that have existed for nearly 100 years.
    In those 100 years, the radio music industry, which this 
year celebrated the 100th anniversary not only of a number of 
other issues but the Radio Manufacturers Association, of which 
I was once the Chair, turned 100 this year. In those years, we 
recognized that AM/FM radio has believed and been able to 
convince Congress that performers should not be compensated for 
their performances when done on terrestrial radio because, in 
fact, the performance is a promotion for which no royalties 
should be paid.
    This flies in the face of virtually every other country in 
the world.
    We all recognize the invaluable role that radio plays in 
American history. Without a doubt, AM and FM radio brought us 
news, weather, and sports. Oddly enough, when it brings you 
news, they pay for those words to be spoken. When it brings you 
weather, they pay for those words to be spoken. When it brings 
you sports, you better believe sportscasters get paid for that.
    As a matter of fact, the late Rush Limbaugh never made less 
during the height of his career than $30 million a year for 
that amazing voice and those ideas. Were those ideas more 
creative than that of our witness here today Mr. Randy Travis?
    The fact is, we are here once again to ask why it is that 
U.S. joins the likes of North Korea, Iran, and Cuba in not 
recognizing public performance rights in radio music 
broadcasts. Even China recently modernized its copyright law to 
provide for performance rights for sound recordings. China will 
join the many others, including France, for example, in denying 
an estimated $70-$100 million in royalties that are taken 
overseas but not paid to our artists.
    I point out France, where I was just a few days ago, France 
collects the royalties. Their radio stations make a profit 
while collecting the royalties--or paying the royalties, I 
should say. Those royalties go to the Government, which then 
promotes the arts and tourism with them, again denying American 
performers who performed in those countries.
    This injustice has persisted for too long. That is why I 
introduced the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA), with the 
Full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler of New York. I know 
that we have been here before. I know that it looks like ``why 
would you do this?'' The answer is, every year we must do the 
right thing until ultimately the right thing is done by these 
creative performers for what they have been doing.
    It is not new. When I learned that Frank Sinatra came and 
stood on the steps of the Capitol a very long time ago not 
because he needed it. He didn't need the money. It is because 
he earned it, and because others who needed it far more than 
him were not getting it. He stood up for the little guy, and we 
should all do that today.
    We continue with that tradition with our witnesses, all 
whom are famous in their own towns and their own homes, but 
none, like Randy Travis--and I want to thank you particularly, 
and his wife Mary, for the extra effort it took to be here 
today and for your indulgence when I perhaps stray into some of 
your latest works in an effort to make the American people more 
aware of it.
    With that, I recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, 
everyone. Thank you all for being here.
    Music is incredibly important to the economy of the Nation 
and to Georgia. Many recording artists 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, Bluegrass, Gospel, and 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 over 45,000 jobs, with over 
13,000 royalty recipients, and over 91,000 song writers.
    While the music industry contributes significantly to our 
economy on the individual level, it is difficult to be an up-
and-coming musical artist today. It is difficult to keep up a 
steady stream of gigs, and it is even more difficult to break 
through as an emerging artist. Rather than the glorious and 
glamorous lifestyle that some might imagine, music creators 
often are working class, bartending at night, and recording 
during the day. New advancements in technology and changes in 
the way music is consumed have only made the rich richer and 
the poor poorer.
    When Congress created performance royalties for digital 
distribution of musical works in 1995, it exempted terrestrial 
radio. It did so in part because after hearing a song, 
listeners who liked it could head to their nearest music store 
to buy the whole album. There was a clear benefit to both 
parties, the station and the performer.
    If you look at American towns today you won't see music 
stores at the mall, no CD sections at your local big box store. 
That is because music consumption has moved from buying albums 
to streaming individual songs. Clearly, the world has changed, 
and the question is how those changes impact the broader 
ecosystem.
    We know that as technology develops and industries evolve, 
statutory arrangements that at first worked for everyone begin 
to be less balanced. Looking back over the last 20 years of the 
music industry evolution, it is clear now more than ever that 
we must work together to address the issue of radio broadcast 
performance rights.
    It goes without saying that artists should be compensated 
for their work. Artists, particularly working-class artists, 
need steady royalty streams because they can't always rely on 
the other ways of making money from their craft.
    In addition, addressing the issue of radio broadcast 
performance rights we must also be sure that we are addressing 
the concern of the broadcasters and all those involved in local 
radio. Local radio stations and their hosts raise important 
health and social issues, support local journalism, and provide 
much-needed information on emergency services during national 
disasters.
    At home my constituents have V103-FM, its sister station 
WAOK-AM, and Streetz 94.5, to name a few. Atlantans who want to 
listen to Hip Hop can turn to 97.1 FM, The River. Those 
interested in classic rock can turn the dial a few clicks to 
Magic 107.5.
    Obviously, all the different parties involved in this issue 
are differently situated with respect to being able to 
accommodate change. We cannot seesaw between unfairness for one 
party and unfairness for another party and call it progress. I 
believe it is through hearings like this that we are able to 
work together to resolve this longstanding issue and explore 
how to fairly compensate creators going forward.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses if and how 
they believe Congress should act to ensure that every part of 
the music industry from the Gospel singers to the classic rock 
radio stations are properly supported as technology changes the 
way we consume our favorite songs.
    I thank the witnesses again for their time today, 
especially to the Travises for making it here to Washington, 
DC. We look forward to hearing the test--your testimony as well 
as the other testimony.
    Thank you and thank you for your contribution to the 
culture, also.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    We now recognize my partner in the legislation, the Ranking 
Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler of New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, when American workers clock out and sit down 
behind the wheel of their cars to drive home every evening, or 
get on the subway, they can be instantly transported to rock 
concerts, jam sessions, and solo performances just by turning 
on their radio. Scrolling through the stations they can hear 
country twang, operatic arias, and classical violin pieces 
performed through their car speakers.
    In New York, FM radio New York listeners can go from the 
Supremes to Miles Davis with only a few clicks of the dial.
    The music is different, but all these examples have one 
thing in common: The artist is not being paid for the 
performance. Under American copyright law, the owner of a sound 
recording of a musical work does not receive royalty payments 
when his song is played on terrestrial AM/FM radio.
    That same recording generates income for the artist when 
distributed over any other medium, from satellite radio and 
streaming services to public venues and restaurants. There is 
no reason terrestrial radio should be treated differently from 
all other music platforms, and certainly not at the expense of 
artists forced to allow the distribution of their intellectual 
property for free.
    Creators whose performances are broadcast over terrestrial 
radio are not just famous performers currently on the Billboard 
Top 100. Working class musicians struggling to make ends meet 
have for decades formed the backbone of the creative economy. 
Increasing inequities have made it harder and harder for those 
creators to make a living wage.
    Hourly workers living paycheck to paycheck may hear their 
own songs on the radio and not receive a cent for it.
    The same goes for artists who no longer perform at all, 
whether because musical changes and musical tastes change, or 
more poignantly, because the performer ages or faces personal 
tragedy that makes them no longer able to perform, terrestrial 
radio stations can play the products of their life's work 
without the artists seeing a penny.
    We are honored to welcome Randy Travis here today to share 
his experience with illness that rendered him unable to sing. I 
look forward to his testimony about how the lack of performance 
royalties has impacted his ability to earn a living.
    Finally, the failure of U.S. law to establish a performance 
right on terrestrial radio means that our seniors and other 
musicians miss out on royalties when the music is broadcast 
overseas. Nearly, every other developed Nation in the world 
compensates performers for playing their music on terrestrial 
radio. Since we do not have a similar performance right at 
home, American artists do not receive royalties when their 
music is played abroad. This alone deprives U.S. artists of up 
to $200 million annually.
    Those who argue with this statutory omission somehow inures 
to the benefit of artists, who get free publicity and an 
expanded audience, are missing a crucial understanding that the 
world around them has changed. If the system ever were fair, it 
certainly is not now.
    As the music industry has evolved with technology over 
time, so too have the inequities brought about by broadcasters' 
exemptions from copyright royalties. For many years the public 
purchased physical copies of recordings, whether in vinyl, 
cassette, or CD. When you used heard a song on the radio you 
might go out and buy the whole album.
    Today, teenagers no longer flock to stores to buy the 
latest album. In 2023, over 72 percent of U.S. music revenue 
came from streaming services.
    There is no reason whatsoever that artists should receive 
different treatment when their songs are played on the radio or 
streamed online. That is why I was proud to join Chair Issa in 
introducing the American Music Fairness Act.
    The AMFA would require broadcast radio stations to pay 
copyright royalties to performing artists, record labels, and 
other sound recording copyright owners for the right to 
transmit their music over the air. The bill was carefully 
constructed to ensure that smaller radio stations pay less than 
large ones based on the annual revenue generated by the 
stations and their parent organizations.
    It is long past time for performers to be fairly 
compensated. I hope that we can advance this legislation soon. 
While the absence of a performer's right costs our economy 
millions of dollars each year, this is not a monetary question 
alone. Artists, labels, and the overall health of arts in 
America all suffer for the absence of fairness in the system.
    I am grateful to Chair Issa for his work to ensure artists 
receive the royalties they are owed. I thank both the Chair and 
Ranking Member Johnson for holding this important hearing 
today.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
    I want to take a point of personal privilege and thanks to 
the fact that this is very balanced and thorough. We have 
creative individuals. We have, obviously, the SoundExchange is 
here, and we appreciate them. We also have representatives both 
of the industry and Mr. Harrell, who represents a huge number 
of stations. This, in fact, shows a fairness to at least engage 
in the dialog. I, for that I am grateful.
    You may not always feel like it today, but I am very 
appreciative.
    With that I would like to introduce--this is a great honor 
and the rest of you will have to live in his shadow--Mr. Randy 
Travis, who is beyond an exceptionally accomplished musician, 
having released seven platinum--and if I get them wrong, 
correct me, Mary--seven platinum or multiplatinum albums, and 
received seven Grammy Awards, 11 Academy of Country Music, 10 
American Music Awards, eight Dove Awards from Gospel Music 
Association, and too many others to name. He was the 2016 
inductee into the Country Hall of Fame, founder of Randy Travis 
Foundation, and this charity is dedicated to raising awareness 
for stroke and aphasia, and provides art and music enrichment 
for children. The list goes on for both of the Travises.
    I want to thank you for being here. This was not easy for 
you to get here.
    Nothing personal, but Mr. Curtis LeGeyt, is the President 
and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters which 
advocates on behalf of all the terrestrial radio and television 
stations nationwide, and has worked with the association for 
more than 10 years in his role as the Chief Operating Officer 
and Executive Vice President for Government Relations.
    Prior to joining the NAB he served as Senior Counsel for 
then-Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senate Judiciary. So, he knows the 
routine here. He knows that it is all about the fairness of the 
questions and the fairness of the answers. We appreciate, 
again, your being here.
    Mr. Michael Huppe is the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of SoundExchange. I apologize that the order here is 
different. An organization dedicated to administering, under 
the Section 114, sound recording licenses. To date, 
SoundExchange has distributed--get this--$11 billion for 
digital performance royalties. Over 700,000 music creators have 
received I guess what is no longer checks but, in fact, 
transfers.
    He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law School 
where he teaches music law.
    Mr. Eddie Harrell is a Regional Vice President and General 
Manager of Radio One, with markets in Ohio. Radio One and Urban 
One Company is one of the largest media companies in the United 
States. It also serves African Americans through radio, 
television, and digital property.
    Mr. Harrell also serves as the Chair of the Otterbein 
University Board of Trustees, Vice Chair of the Ohio 
Association of Broadcasters, and is on the National Board of 
Directors for NAB and represents my hometown which the Ranking 
Member got them all, but WERE that I grew up listening to for 
years. By the way, live, a lot of broadcasts down there that 
have been great.
    I want to welcome all our witnesses. As those who have been 
here before knowing, we will take your entire statement plus 
any additional material you want to give to is into the record. 
We do ask you to try to limit your opening remarks to five 
minutes.
    Because of the limitations that the stroke has placed on 
Mr. Travis, Mary Travis will serve as both a principal witness 
on her own behalf and at times may speak for, for Randy.
    I am going to ask one indulgence. Can I call you Mary and 
Randy?
    Ms. Travis. Absolutely.
    Mr. Issa. Oh, that has made my day.
    The other guys will call you Mister.
    Pursuant to the rule, if I could ask you all to be sworn 
in. Mr. Travis, you do not need to rise. If you will raise your 
right hand and take the oath, please.
    Do you all swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that 
the testimony you are about to give will be true and correct to 
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help 
you God?
    [Chorus of yeses.]
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. You may all be seated.
    Please let the record reflect that all witnesses answered 
in the affirmative.
    Again, not as an accommodation, but because I am in awe of 
the creative work, Mary, between the two of you, however you 
want to handle your opening statement you are recognized for 
it.

               STATEMENT OF RANDY AND MARY TRAVIS

    Ms. Travis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    Randy has right-side paralysis, so he couldn't raise his 
hand. I apologize.
    Mr. Issa. He gave me a good left-handed sign. So, he has 
still got a lot of strength there.
    Ms. Travis. He does. He does.
    Chair Issa, thank you for having us. Ranking Member Johnson 
and the Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity and this honor to testify today on behalf of all 
artists and musicians in support of the American Music Fairness 
Act.
    What would sheet music sound like without a voice? What 
would radio sound like without a song?
    This piece of legislation is essential to correct a 100-
year-old issue regarding artists and nonpayment for their work 
performed on the most prominent music platform in America, one 
which they helped to build and sustain.
    My name is Mary Travis. I am the wife and voice of Randy 
Travis. I am kind of like a bad version of AI, but with 
consent. He is the good one.
    Even though a massive stroke in 2013 left him with aphasia 
making it difficult to speak, his commitment to music is clear 
and very resolute. Eleven years ago, at age 54, Randy was 
stricken with viral cardiomyopathy, leading to pneumonia, 
flatlining life support, massive stroke, coma, brain surgeries, 
intubation, tracheotomies, feeding tubes, collapsed lungs, 
staph, sepsis, Serratia, pseudo-monas, aphasia, right-side 
paralysis, and six months in a hospital stay, a lost of a third 
of his body weight, followed by years of daily rehab.
    We would be in and out of the hospital and bedridden for 
the rest of our life, is what we were told after getting 1-2 
percent chance of survival. He didn't listen to that and, 
instead, he rolled right back into the industry he loves so 
much.
    Duane Allen of the Oak Ridge Boys told us when he came to 
see us in the hospital, he says, ``Well, I guess the devil 
don't want you and God ain't ready for you yet.''
    Anyway, music is, was, and always will be his lifeline. 
That lifeline has changed, and we need to acknowledge that. The 
days of Randy packing a car and tracking across thousands of 
miles throughout the country to visit radio stations and 
deliver copies of his newest cut cassette in hope of having his 
music heard are things of the past.
    The advent of streaming has all but replaced physical 
records and CD sales. There are no guarantees that listeners 
are running out to buy concerts or t-shirts. Folks can hear all 
the music they want on demand for pennies a day.
    Of all the things that we do differently than we did a 
century ago, one thing remains the same, and that is that the 
voice is still the mandatory bridge between the writer and the 
listener. It is time to do right by the ones that created that 
sound, that melody, that emotion that keeps the listeners 
coming back and the advertisers buying into the radio.
    Passing AMFA bill would make any old wrongs finally right:

Artists, musicians, and producers would receive a gratuity for 
    their work;
Artists would be much more inclined to collaborate with 
    stations on projects and events;
All platforms, all other platforms would be more understanding 
    of the level pay field; and
Artists can spend more time, can spend more time with their 
    family and less time on the road.

    The size and the nature of the radio stations will 
determine the scaled-fee, starting at just $10 a year, 
structured to protect and assure continued success for stations 
of all sizes.
    You have the power to change this. Better sooner than 
later, as we are staring AI technology squarely in the face. 
Artificial intelligence, and I call it Artistic Intelligence, 
because it enabled Randy to release a new song utilizing AI in 
its most authentic and artistic way. It is the first song ever 
recorded and released with full artist consent and involvement 
in a studio setting. His Warner Music Nashville label, 
producer, musicians, vocalists, and Randy were all present.
    This is good AI. There is bad; but there is bad, no, there 
is terrible AI out there, and it is increasing exponentially 
daily. It is estimated that there are 179,000 songs, 
unauthorized AI songs, posted on the internet already.
    We ask your help in righting the wrong for legacy artists 
and creating a more prosperous future for the next generation 
of artists. Passing the American Federation Fairness Act, then 
moving forward with a thoughtful approach to putting AI 
protections in place would be positive steps to ensure that 
artists are paid for their work, their identity is theirs 
alone, and the soundtracks of our lives continue to play on 
forever and ever. Amen.
    We appreciate your time and your consideration as you 
reflect back on the songs that you celebrate a certain time, a 
certain place, and a person in your life. The artists will tell 
you, in fact, that it was their honor to create them for you.
    Thank you for your service to this great United States of 
America and thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. and Ms. Travis follows:]
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
  
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mary.
    Mr. LeGeyt.

                   STATEMENT OF CURTIS LEGEYT

    Mr. LeGeyt. Good afternoon, Chair Issa, Ranking Members 
Nadler and Johnson, and the Members of the IP Subcommittee. My 
name is Curtis LeGeyt, and I am proud to testify today on 
behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters' (NAB) more 
than 5,100 free local radio stations that serve your 
communities every day.
    It is an honor to appear today alongside such an esteemed 
panel, but particularly Eddie Harrell of Radio One. Founded by 
Cathy Hughes more than four decades ago, Radio One is the 
country's largest urban radio broadcaster, and embodies the 
very best of our industry.
    I am also pleased to testify alongside the legendary Randy 
and Mary Travis. I grew up in awe of Randy's talent. I am 
grateful for what his team has recently accomplished using 
artificial intelligence so that a whole new generation can 
experience Randy's music.
    For over 100 years, broadcasters across the country have 
been privileged to play great music like Randy's on our 
stations where we expose artists to new listeners and engage 
them with one-of-a-kind interviews in partnership with local 
performance venues.
    We are more than that. We inform, educate, and alert 
listeners to important events, issues, and emergencies; we 
entertain listeners with sports and talk radio; and we are 
local, involved in our communities and proud to serve the 
public interest.
    Radio stations' critical role as fact-based first informers 
and emergency lifelines has never been more important than it 
is today. With online misinformation and disinformation 
threatening to upend our upcoming elections, and the seemingly 
constant deluge of natural disasters and cell phone outages, 
local radio remains trusted, always on, and freely available 
without an expensive subscription or data service.
    Of course, you cannot talk about the power of broadcast 
radio without recalling the countless artists whose careers 
were made when their first song played on our airwaves, or our 
listeners whose memories are indelibly intertwined with a song 
playing on their favorite station. Performers across diverse 
genres have shared the incredible and unforgettable feeling of 
hearing their songs on the radio.
    Even amidst drastic changes in the media landscape, 
broadcast radio continues to drive music discovery for both new 
musicians and legacy artists.
    Unfortunately, the so-called American Music Fairness Act 
would undermine our indispensable medium and this mutually 
beneficial relationship. AMFA would impose a new royalty on 
local radio that is financially untenable for broadcasters of 
all sizes. Such an abrupt change in law would be wholly 
inconsistent with Congress' long-held approach to copyright 
policy where updates have been made to account for new, 
emerging technologies. It would be virtually unprecedented for 
Congress to upend copyright laws that have governed decades-
long relationships and on which an entire industry has been 
built and relied on for over a century.
    Radio invests considerable sums in producing content, 
employing on-air talent, and updating the equipment needed to 
run successful stations. Radio also pays substantial FCC 
regulatory fees, and already pays hundreds of millions of 
dollars in annual copyright royalties to performing rights 
organizations like ASCAP, BMI, CSAC, and GMR, and streaming 
collectives like SoundExchange.
    Without charging expensive subscription fees, like our 
streaming and satellite competitors, local radio is supported 
by advertising alone. With big tech having used their market 
power to siphon away local advertising revenue, a new 
performance royalty could spell the end for many local 
stations.
    For these reasons, 250 Members of Congress, including 225 
House Members and 12 Members of this Committee, have 
cosponsored the Local Radio Freedom Act, a resolution that 
opposes any new fee or tax on local radio. We are grateful for 
their support.
    Mr. Chair, as you know, NAB stands ready and willing to 
engage in good faith discussions on a holistic legislative 
proposal that enhances our unique value to artists without 
diminishing our ability to serve your constituents. In the 
meantime, Congress has repeatedly considered and chosen not to 
impose the recording industry's one-sided performance royalty 
proposal on free local radio. This Committee should do so again 
today.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify. While this hearing's 
title focuses on the singular legislative issue on which the 
radio and recording industries disagree, I hope it also affords 
the opportunity to discuss the many areas of shared interest 
between our industries, including the novel threats and 
opportunities posed by generative AI. By rehashing old fights 
today let's not sour the opportunity for consensus that has 
been critical, that has been the critical ingredient for all 
major changes in IP law in the modern era.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. LeGeyt follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Mr. Huppe.

                 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. HUPPE

    Mr. Huppe. Thank you, Chair Issa, Ranking Members Nadler 
and Johnson, and the Members of the Subcommittee. It is an 
honor to be here today to testify in support of the American 
Music Fairness Act.
    This bill seeks to finally remedy the egregious fact that 
the United States is the only democratic Nation in the world 
without a performance fee for artists on AM/FM radio. I have 
had the privilege of representing American artists around the 
world. When I speak to other industrialized countries, Mr. 
Chair, quite frankly, it is an embarrassment that the United 
States, a country that is a leader in intellectual property and 
protecting free expression, denies this most fundamental right 
to the people who make its music.
    IP is a huge portion of our GDP and one of our biggest 
exports, yet we deny this critical economic right to cherished 
creators like Randy Travis. It is shocking that the United 
States stands in the company of countries like North Korea, 
Iran, and Cuba in not paying artists when their songs are 
played on AM/FM radio.
    Even Russia and China, with their horrible IP records, have 
a public performance right for sound equivalence.
    The current system in the United States is so broken that a 
touch of a button on the dashboard determines whether or not an 
artist like Randy gets paid. That means if you are driving in 
your car and you turn on satellite radio, Randy gets paid.
    If you switch to the streaming service on your phone, Randy 
gets paid. If you listen to the same song on an FM station, 
Randy gets nothing.
    That, Mr. Chair, is indefensible. Same music, same product, 
same consumer experience, but radically different treatment 
under U.S. law. Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Sirius XM, even TikTok 
and YouTube pay the performer, but AM/FM, a service that 88 
percent of Americans listen to every week, gets a pass due to a 
100-year-old loophole.
    To put it bluntly, Mr. Chairman, for over a century AM/FM 
radio has been stealing the music. Last year alone radio made 
$15 billion in revenue, and not a dime of that went to the 
artists that drew the crowd. Why? Because the broadcasters hide 
behind the outdated concept of promotion. Which is ironic, 
given that 72 percent of music on the radio today is not even 
new music.
    Yet, even to the extent there may be some promotion, that 
should never justify a mandatory, un-permissioned taking of the 
music.
    You must obtain a license to make a movie based on a book. 
You must get the rights from Major League Baseball to broadcast 
a Nationals name. These are both clearly promotional. Why 
should music be any different?
    Mr. Chair, Congress must set a standard that creators need 
to be compensated whenever and wherever their music is played, 
especially when their creations form the backbone of the 
business model like they do for AM/FM radio. This is going to 
be even more critical as the music industry takes on artificial 
intelligence.
    To add insult to injury, because the U.S. doesn't have a 
performance right, Americans lose out on royalties overseas. 
For example, when Randy Travis has a song played over the radio 
in Paris, the French collect royalties on that music. Instead 
of paying Randy, that money is diverted to French artists and 
French cultural funds.
    We estimate that artists lose almost $300 million of 
taxable U.S. income each year because we lack these protections 
in the U.S. This is on top of the hundreds of millions of 
dollars they are already missing out on domestically.
    After listening to Mary share Randy's incredible story, I 
don't know how anyone can look Randy in the eye and say he 
doesn't deserve to be paid for his life's work. For every big 
name artist, there are hundreds of smaller artists, backup 
singers, session musicians, studio producers, mixers, and 
others who helped make the music timeless but who never made a 
penny from it being played on radio.
    In fact, the dozen States represented on this Subcommittee 
have over 100,000 music creators who would be eligible for 
royalties over AM/FM radio if this legislation was enacted.
    Mr. Chair, the concepts embodied in AMFA have been 
supported by every Administration since President Carter, 
including both the Biden and Trump Administrations. That should 
tell you something.
    Just two days ago the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a 
resolution at their annual meeting in support of AMFA.
    I leave you with this: In the two-hours or so during which 
this hearing will take place over 200,000 songs will be played 
on terrestrial radio. The artists who performed the songs won't 
get paid for it. Those artists are your constituents, your 
neighbors, your family and friends.
    I hope that Congress will finally fix this problem and make 
things right for all the music artists in this country. They 
certainly deserve it after everything they have given to us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huppe follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Mr. Harrell.

          STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``EDDIE'' HARRELL, JR.

    Mr. Harrell. Greetings, Chairs Jordan and Issa, Ranking 
Members Nadler and Johnson, and the Members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is Eddie Harrell, Jr., and I am 
testifying on behalf of Radio One where I oversee our local 
operations in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, while still 
managing the day-to-day operations of the latter.
    As someone who runs multiple stations that uniquely serve 
our listening audience and values the collaborative 
partnership, we have with recording artists and connecting with 
our communities, make no mistake that a new performance royalty 
imposed on local stations will create harm for local stations, 
listeners, and the recording industry itself.
    A little bit about our company.
    Media pioneer Cathy Hughes founded Radio One in 1980 and 
built it into the largest urban radio network today. Ms. Hughes 
originally--Ms. H as we call her--started as an Administrative 
Assistant, working her way up and becoming Howard University's, 
Howard University Radio's first woman Vice President and 
General Manager, which was WHUR right here in Washington, DC.
    Her leadership was instrumental in creating unique WHUR 
programming like the Quiet Storms radio segment, which is now a 
staple, and uniquely reflected the sound and style of the 
Washington, DC, community.
    As anyone who has tried to start a new business knows, it 
is never easy. After being denied 32 times by various banks, 
and overcoming significant other hardships, Ms. H. persevered 
to become a single station owner and develop a winning formula 
for what became Radio One. That family business now encompasses 
more than 70 radio stations across 13 markets in urban America, 
including but not limited to Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, 
Houston, Philadelphia, Raleigh-Durham, Richmond, and here in 
Washington, DC.
    Today, Radio One, now led by Ms. Hughes' son, Alfred 
Liggins, reaches 17 million weekly listeners and connects one 
million annual local attendees with music and musicians that 
they love. Radio One also employs more than 1,200 people who 
come to work every day to make a difference in the lives of our 
listeners.
    Radio stations like ours provide a uniquely free service 
and connect everyday Americans. At Radio One we are the source 
for the latest music in R&B, Hip Hop, and Gospel. In short, we 
inform, we inspire, and we entertain.
    Not only does radio provide an invaluable source of daily 
news and entertainment, but radio also serves as a trusted 
voice during national disasters or emergency situations. In 
Cleveland we have consistently served as a conduit for 
communication between the mayor, the police chief, and the 
general public. Our ability to connect as a trusted voice in 
terms of public--in times of public emergencies is vital in all 
our markets.
    Radio also provides a key platform for recording artists. I 
am proud of the real-life partnership that exists between radio 
and the recording industry. Broadcasters around the around the 
country are known for putting a spotlight on new upcoming 
artists and, therefore, serving as an integral part of artist 
promotion. This continued relevance of radio and the value 
proposition is affirmed in everyday life among radio stations. 
Record labels are contacting us to promote new artists and 
music, looking for air play to help launch the next hit.
    While we embrace this promotion platform, our partnership 
with the recording industry goes much deeper than air play. I 
often tell the story about a little-known upcoming trio who 
performed in Cleveland at Z107.9 Summer Jam in 2014. Before 
they performed, I had not heard of Migos. However, after their 
performance at Summer Jam, everyone in Cleveland and then the 
world soon experienced the generational Hip Hop talent of 
Quavo, Offset and the late great Takeoff. This is just one 
example that illustrates the power of the collaboration between 
radio, the recording industry, and free promotion.
    Not surprisingly, none of our community investments go 
without a cost. Today, local broadcasters are competing against 
tech behemoths and global streaming services who, ironically, 
would use new AI tools to attempt to replicate the unique 
sounds and service of local radio. Imposing a new performance 
royalty on our uniquely free service would diminish the music 
we play for our audience and decrease our investing in staff 
and community service, and ultimately to less competition 
against global streams, and the destruction of an incredible 
promotional platform that benefits artists.
    Yes, radio will use AI to find new efficiencies in our back 
office operations. AI will not replace the soul of local 
broadcasting, such as the people who work at our stations and 
serve our communities. Nor will AI replicate the 
entrepreneurial spirit or programming genius of Ms. Hughes. 
Fake Drake will never take the stage at our Summer Jam.
    Radio One and local radio stations will continue to thrive 
by serving our audiences in uniquely local and human ways.
    In conclusion, I applaud the majority of the House that 
supports the Local Radio Freedom Act and encourages this 
Committee to refrain from imposing a performance royalty. To do 
otherwise will jeopardize local radio stations employing local 
staff, keep upcoming artists from breaking into the recording 
industry, and harm Americans across the country who rely on 
free local radio for news, entertainment, talk, sports, and 
reliable information.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses.
    We now go to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. LeGeyt, do radio stations already pay royalties for 
sound recordings as a result of some of the online streaming 
that the stations broadcast themselves?
    I am just trying to get clarity on that.
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, radio stations across the board, both for 
our terrestrial air play and webcasting, pay significant 
performance royalties to, that go to the song writer. So, those 
are paid through ASCAP, BMI, CSAC, and GMR in the tune of 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
    We also pay an additional royalty on the sound recording to 
SoundExchange when those performances take place online.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, would it then be fair to say that the 
radio stations would have to make two separate payments? Is 
that what this would result in if we move forward?
    Mr. LeGeyt. That, that is exactly right.
    It has already proven extremely difficult for local 
broadcast stations in the webcasting context to innovate online 
due to the burdensome costs that those additional royalties 
pose to innovate.
    The fact is, it would be devastating to add those 
additional royalties to the terrestrial air play when we are 
already generating such significant promotional value to 
artists.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Huppe, while this hearing is about the 
public performance rights for terrestrial radio, some 
stakeholders have argued that passing the American Music 
Fairness Act would be the first step in getting rid of all 
transmission and retransmission exemptions granted in the 
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
    This is concerning. You know what, I guess, what is coming. 
Because of restaurants and bars, and how do you guys do that or 
what is your take on that right now, kind of as we sit here 
today?
    Mr. Huppe. Sure. Congressman, that is an excellent 
question.
    I have worked in the industry for 20 years, and the 
recording industry has been fighting this fight for 80 years. 
It is and will always be about terrestrial radio and making 
sure that everybody gets paid fairly for their content. We want 
to make sure that this is a technology-neutral solution and 
that big broadcasters do not get a break from paying what every 
other competitor has to pay.
    You bring up restaurants and bars. Those are different. 
Congressman, people go to restaurants to have food and dine 
with their family. They go to bars to share a communal drink.
    People listen to music radio for one reason: To listen to 
music radio. Radio is different from all those others. That is 
the focus today and an injustice that we are trying to resolve.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, Mr. LeGeyt, let me go back to you.
    Proponents of the bill argue that American artists are 
losing that $300 million a year, which was brought up earlier, 
in overseas revenue. I am sympathetic to that argument. We 
should be doing what we can to ensure artists like Mr. Travis 
are being paid what he deserves in that work, even though it is 
being performed or played abroad.
    It is not clear to me whether major record labels are 
already collecting those international performance royalties 
from or for the American artists.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question.
    So, first, we are sympathetic. If there is any U.S. 
performing artist that is owed dollars that are sitting 
overseas that they are entitled to under that foreign country's 
laws, we certainly agree that those should be collected.
    Trying to compare the broadcast recording industry 
relationship in the United States to that in any other country 
is an unfair comparison.
    You allude to the right thing. When we have tried to dig 
into what that number looks, it has been very hard to 
substantiate. I think it is an appropriate question for the 
recording industry as to how their international subsidiaries 
are already collecting those dollars.
    I don't have that answer, but certainly understand it to be 
the reality of today's marketplace.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, whether it is Randy Travis or any 
other artist, what I am trying to determine is whether 
publishers like Warner who operate globally are already 
collecting performance royalties abroad on behalf of their 
American artists, and instead of transferring it back to the 
artist are simply using it to offset--I don't know how else to 
describe it--their overseas operations? Right?
    What would be your comment on that, I guess?
    Mr. LeGeyt. My understanding would be clear and would be 
purely secondary. I think those are questions more 
appropriately directed at the record labels.
    I can tell you that anecdotally we have certainly heard as 
much.
    Mr. Huppe. Congressman, if I, if I may elaborate on that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Sure.
    Mr. Huppe. SoundExchange actually has 50-60 reciprocal 
agreements around the world. We have agreements covering 85 
percent of the planet who, with organizations who do what we do 
in other countries.
    In many cases there are some collections in country by 
country from the labels. In many cases, there is no collection. 
Sometimes that includes artists' performances, but most often 
it is the artists like Randy who really lose out on this across 
the board.
    As I said, our estimates based on the data we have is up to 
$300 million a year is left overseas and not repatriated to 
this country.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you all very much.
    I will yield.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    We will now go to the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, 
Mr. Nadler, for five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Huppe, when Congress extended copyright procedures for 
sound recordings in 1971, it did so in part because of the 
increasing piracy of records and tapes, then relatively new 
technologies. According to a contemporary House report, piracy 
caused over $100 million in economic losses at the time.
    Similarly, when Congress extended Digital Performance 
Rights in 1995, this Committee presciently found that,

        The digital transmission of sound recordings is likely to 
        become a very important outlet for the performance of recorded 
        music in the near future.

    It went on to say that without appropriate copyright 
protection in the digital environment the creation of new sound 
recordings and musical works could be discouraged, ultimately 
denying the public some of the potential benefits of new 
digital transmission technologies.
    We changed the law in 1971 because the evolution of 
technology had created a system that was unfair to artists and 
the listening public. We changed the law again in 1995, because 
once more new technologies were making it harder for artists to 
make a living.
    Do we have a similar argument today that the music 
ecosystem has changed?
    Mr. Huppe. Thank you, Congressman.
    We absolutely have a similar argument today. Streaming is a 
huge part of the U.S. recorded music revenue today. It is 85 
percent of revenue into the entire industry comes through 
streaming. We live in a world where 40-50 years ago it was a 
sales-based model, and everything was done to purchase--to 
drive purchases of CDs and albums. Now, 85 percent of U.S. 
revenue comes from streaming.
    That is exactly what we are here about today because the 
broadcasters are the one platform that doesn't pay for that 
delivery method that now serves a huge majority of the U.S. 
music industry.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Travis and Mrs. Travis, as a country music 
star considered the voice of classic country your performances 
are regularly played on AM/FM radio. Why is it important for 
your long-term care that you receive royalties not just from 
streaming services but also from terrestrial radio?
    Ms. Travis. The royalties since his stroke, the royalties 
are what we have counted on for income for survival for his 
long-term care.
    It's also important to note that we are here not just for 
us. We are 65, we are kind of on the other side of it. The 
younger artists that are coming along with families that are 
looking forward to a career in music, we want to do it for 
them. We want them to know that they have a career ahead of 
them, one that they can look forward to, one that they know 
they are not giving away their, their music, or their identity, 
or their copyrighted material for the radio.
    Randy loves radio. I want to get that straight. He loves 
radio and would never have been Randy Travis without the radio 
at that point in time. That was 40 years ago.
    Mr. Nadler. Again, Mr. and Ms. Travis, while artificial 
intelligence is not the focus of this hearing, use of 
generative AI in the music industry is of strong interest to 
this Committee, both as potential as a tool for creators and 
the dangers it may pose that an artist's work or likeness is 
used without permission or compensation.
    How has artificial intelligence helped you continue to 
create?
    Ms. Travis. That is a wonderful question. It is one that we 
have just, it is a bridge we have just crossed.
    Randy, has put out his first song since his stroke 11 years 
ago called ``Where That Came From.'' It was used with, it 
usually stems from 42-45 of his songs that were sent to a 
company that put his music on top of a vocal bed so all the 
vocal that you hear is Randy's.
    It was, it was pretty emotional, to be honest with you. 
When it came back, he spent months in the--it took us 11 months 
to do it, and he spent months in the studio with his producer, 
real long producer, with Warner Music, with musicians that had 
played on some of his earlier albums.
    So, the whole setting was very authentic, artistic, and 
humanistic. It had all the heart in it. So, it was wonderful to 
get to hear some more music by Randy Travis.
    Mr. Nadler. Do you believe AI users should be allowed to 
create unauthorized copies of a singer's voice?
    Ms. Travis. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Finally, Mr Huppe, some argue that 
small broadcasters cannot afford to compensate musicians for 
the performance of their sound recordings. In your opinion, 
does the American Music Fairness Act adequately account for 
that concern?
    Mr. Huppe. The American Music Fairness Act absolutely 
accounts and looks out for small broadcasters. The sponsors of 
the bill have gotten the balance exactly right. We recognize 
the importance of allowing small business to thrive and grow so 
we have more competition and more variety in radio.
    As you know, Congressman Nadler, 1.5 stations that make 
$1.5 million or less will have to pay a mere $500 for all the 
music they want to use in a year. That is $1.37 a day. I hasten 
to note it is the lowest fee to join the NAB which they offer 
to noncommercial outfits. We are offering a $1.5 million cap to 
commercial outfits. It is less expensive than what it costs a 
student to go to the NAB radio show. It is $139.
    Mr. Nadler. Easily afforded by not joining the NAB?
    Mr. Huppe. Exactly.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. With that, I am going to take just one minute of 
a privilege for this, for a good reason.
    [Song played.]
    Mr. Issa. Though I would love to play the whole thing, but 
the Chair is waiting.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. I wanted to keep listening. I grew up, I grew 
up under the old joke: In my mom and dad's household there were 
two kinds of music: Country and Western. Right?
    It is good to be here. I apologize, Mr. Chair, for not 
being here earlier to do the opening statement. I was actually 
doing two talk radio shows and so was unable to get here.
    I will enter the statement now.
    This issue has been before Congress for the past 100 years. 
It has also been at an impasse for the past 100 years. I want 
to thank Chair Issa for trying to tackle it. We must get this 
right.
    As everyone knows, music is interwoven into American 
history and culture. It is one of our most important cultural 
exports.
    Radio is, obviously, an extremely important institution in 
America. It is how millions of people get news and 
entertainment.
    Back in Ohio we have some great broadcasters. This 
Committee is entrusted with the jurisdiction over copyright 
matters, which means that it is up to us to balance interests 
in the rights of creators and distributors. Historically, we 
have only been able to tackle complicated issues like this when 
everyone is willing to come to the table and find a path 
forward. In this case, it means balances the interests of 
performers to be compensated, and accounting for the reliance 
interests of broadcasts, of the broadcast community for the 
value that they provide.
    Despite music consumption increasingly moving away from 
broadcast radio to digital streaming, the issue before us today 
is still one worthy of our attention.
    Last Congress Chair Nadler organized bipartisan 
negotiations to try to sort this thing out. Unfortunately, 
those negotiations stalled, and we never quite got to a 
resolution. Despite that, we still believe there is a deal to 
be struck that is fair to all sides and, most importantly, fair 
to taxpayers and consumers.
    We have heard from musicians across the spectrum about the 
importance of being fairly compensated. We couldn't be more 
grateful to have legendary country star Randy Travis with us 
today and his wife to share their perspective.
    We also have with us Eddie Harrell, Jr., from the great 
State of Ohio to share how broadcasters on the ground are 
thinking about these issues.
    Historically, this Committee moves copyright legislation on 
a consensus basis. These issues are not and should not be 
partisan.
    I want to thank again all our witnesses for being here 
today.
    I want to thank our Chair for putting this together, and 
all the work he has done on this issue to try to get to a 
solution. I look forward to the remaining discussion and debate 
and questions that come.
    With that, I would yield back to the Chair. Again, thank 
you for the time.
    Mr. Issa. Well, I thank the Chair.
    Since the Chair yielded back to me I will just, I will just 
say that if we want to make a deal here today, you are hearing 
numbers that you pay that much for your coffee service in a 
year. So, think about that as we go through this because it 
really is something where you heard a little piece of that 
wonderful music that reminded us of the great music that was 
produced for 40 years by Randy.
    With that, I think I am going to the gentlelady from San 
Jose, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and 
Ranking Member.
    Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. It is 
instructive and also inspiring, Mr. and Ms. Travis, that you 
are here.
    One of the things that we need to guard against when we 
consider legislation is unintended outcomes. I realize people 
have different perspectives, so I want to focus on one of those 
issues.
    Mr. Huppe and Mr. LeGeyt, one of the issues is what impact 
would this legislation have on the critical role of radio 
stations in providing emergency broadcasts?
    Now, Mr. LeGeyt, you argue that paying artists for air play 
would come at the expense of investments in emergency broadcast 
systems, potentially comprising those systems, which would be 
important to every Member of this Committee.
    Mr. Huppe, you contend that other countries successfully 
manage to fund both the performance royalties and robust 
emergency systems.
    How can you, the two of you, respond to the divergence of 
opinion that you are presenting here to the Committee? If you 
could each address that briefly, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, I think what is--thank you for the 
question--I think what is most difficult about these 
comparisons to other countries' regimes is that there is no 
comparison to the U.S. locally focused, freely available 
broadcast model in any other country. This model is time 
tested.
    Across our laws, copyright communications laws, there, 
there are special exemptions and special provisions that have 
been put in place to enable this locally focused service, 
ensure that we are always on in times of emergency, and ensure 
that we have a reach that enables us to touch listeners who 
maybe can't afford an expensive subscription service, don't 
have adequate broadband service.
    That is what local broadcast is serving--
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I understand. My question really has to 
do with the emergency services.
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, local broadcasters across this country are 
operating on extremely tight margins right now. I don't need to 
tell anyone on this Committee about how disrupted the media 
landscape is, the degree to which the large tech platforms have 
siphoned dollars out of local advertising.
    We are, the numbers for small broadcasters and that 
treatment that Mr. Huppe referenced earlier is a bit of a red 
herring, because the fact of the matter is under this proposal 
more than 4,000 local broadcast stations would be subject to 
CRB set rates, which would total, if we apply their precedent 
here, hundreds of millions of dollars. You are not going to see 
local service with those kinds of costs.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Huppe, could you address the same 
question?
    Mr. Huppe. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I would say that you don't even need to look to other 
countries to find that this is quite manageable for the 
broadcasters. They have news stations that are required to 
broadcast emergency services, and yet they manage to make them 
profitable and pay their talent.
    They have talk stations that are required to do emergency 
service broadcasting, and yet they manage to make a profit and 
pay for their talent.
    They have sports radio that have to do the same thing, and 
yet they manage to make a profit.
    So, we don't even need to go overseas to look at how this 
will actually play out in this country. I think they absolutely 
have the ability to do this if they wanted to.
    In terms of radio suffering and having financial problems, 
in the words of the great Mark Twain I would say that the 
reports of radio's demise are greatly exaggerated.
    This is a $15 billion business in the U.S. Eighty-eight 
percent of all Americans listen to radio. The biggest broadcast 
groups are becoming bigger and more powerful.
    If you look at iHeart's IBIDA for the past eight years, 
IBIDA which is a proxy for profit, they operate in the 24-25 
percent range.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think we have a clear diversion fuse here.
    Let me just close. Mr. and Ms. Travis, it was fascinating 
to hear of your capacity to create new music using AI. AI is 
going to provide tremendous tools for new things that are--
obviously there are risks that we need to be aware of and 
prevent--but it is also a tremendous tool for good.
    The Library of Congress is currently under the Registrar of 
the Copyright Office examining AI. Obviously, if there is no 
human component, a machine can't get protection. So, the 
question is where is the AI being used as a tool as opposed to 
creating itself.
    I am hoping that you and your husband will weigh in with 
the Registrar because I think your experience would be 
instructive for them. We want to be able to empower people to 
utilize this tool, as you have done, in a very emotionally 
moving way.
    I just wanted to mention that. It is obscure but it is 
important. I hope you will have a chance to let the Registrar 
know about your experience because it is important.
    Mr. Chair of the Full Committee, I am also a fan of country 
music.
    Thank you very much.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    We now go to the gentleman, Mr. Moran.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all the witnesses that are here today. Very 
important discussion, tough discussion.
    I have talked with both sides of this issue and great 
arguments on both sides. I know that what we really want to do 
is we want to be able to find that right balance of interest 
that protects both local radio stations and the talents and 
efforts of musical artists like the great Randy Travis before 
us today. I do want to thank you all for your time and your 
efforts in this regard.
    I grew up listening to local radio. As many of you guys 
know, I'm from East Texas. Everything out there is rural, and 
everything is local. Especially in rural America, local radio 
stations are important because they're often the only source of 
local news and information, especially after a severe weather 
event--literally, serving as a lifeline to many of the people 
in our area.
    So, I want to talk about some of the perspectives from the 
radio stations. I want to start with you, Mr. LeGeyt, for a 
moment.
    Would you talk about the kinds of things that your member 
companies and radio stations, do to promote music and the 
recording artists who perform them?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and 
thank you, also, for your support of the Local Radio Freedom 
Act.
    What makes broadcast unique in, in this media landscape is 
the fact that we are in the communities that we serve. So, when 
music is played on our airwaves, we have a particular 
relationship with our audience and an engagement from our 
audience that's unequaled on any other medium.
    In addition to that, because we are freely available, we're 
allowing a reach, especially in rural areas, that other 
services just can't touch. So, there have been study after 
study that have touched on this, but the promotional value 
received through local radio, because of the fact that it is 
freely available and tethered to a local focus, is unmatched in 
audio.
    Mr. Moran. Yes, I want to ask you about that. Is there any 
way to quantify really that, the value, the estimate of the 
value of the promotional work that local radio stations do in 
terms of the personnel time, the airplay, the other expense 
that go into that?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes. So, a number of studies have tried to do 
this. We've estimated that dollar figure as high as $2.4 
billion nationally in promotional value, but I think it's safer 
to say billions of dollars in promotional value. It is simply 
unmatched and no doubt that the way the listeners consume music 
has changed dramatically over the course of radio's history, as 
has the entire economy and media landscape. We are still 
driving, whether it's what you would have called 20 years ago 
``album sales,'' now it's on-demand downloads. We are still 
driving music discovery in a way no other medium is.
    Mr. Moran. You don't charge the artist for that promotion; 
I think we all know that. Could you verify that?
    Mr. LeGeyt. We do not charge artists for that promotion. 
There are payola laws that restrict that.
    Mr. Moran. Yes. That's one of the things that I wrestle 
with in this. Because I understand what the artists are saying. 
They want to be compensated for their time, their talents, and 
their efforts on the radio, but there is a value to this 
promotion that's given back to the artist, and I think that 
they would say the same thing.
    Is that what you're hearing from, for instance, the label 
promoters, the record label promoters, that talk to your 
program directors?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes, I think Mr. Harrell can speak to this more 
directly, because he's on the receiving end of those phone 
calls. You can bring any radio station representative in the 
country in here, and I don't think they would be telling you 
that promoters are asking them not to play songs on their 
airwaves.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Harrell, would you answer that? I have one 
more question for you as well, Mr. Harrell.
    Mr. Harrell. He's right, artists are coming to us all the 
time every day, still, asking us to play their music--new 
artists, existing artists, and stars. The labels are still CS--
it's a symbiotic relationship between their music and our 
ability to publicize their music on an everyday basis.
    Mr. Moran. Yes, I've heard it for years, actually, from the 
artists that talk about, especially, when they start, how 
important that local community is. A lot of times, they start 
with a local radio station that plays their music.
    The American Music Fairness Act, Mr. Harrell, charges, as 
we've talked about, as a little as $10 for some of those 
smaller stations. Could you explain why some of those small 
broadcasters are still united in opposition to this bill?
    Mr. Harrell. I could tell you in the media landscape, as 
the dollars or the top-line revenue is not growing. So, any new 
expense will cause decisions that have to be made from a small 
group to a large group.
    What does that mean? What's lost in this is some of the 
services and the community service we provide outside of 
playing our music. If you look in communities across the State 
of Ohio, particularly in Cincinnati, for example, we do 
something called ``Stuff the Bus,'' in which we collected over 
almost 2,000 pounds of donated items last Christmas, which we 
translated into over 1,500 meals to families in need. Those are 
the things that are lost in what we do, as opposed to just 
playing music. So, our ability to lead community efforts like 
that would be impacted by any new expense that we'd have to 
endure.
    Mr. Moran. Yes, I want the artists in the room to know that 
I do not discount the arguments that are made on the other 
side. They know that I'm an advocate for them in a lot of ways. 
The No AI FRAUD Act is something I've promoted, and I think it 
protects artists as they develop their works against intrusive 
AI if they don't want to consent to that. I want to make sure 
that both sides of the argument are discussed and we find a 
good consensus ground to move forward.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    We now go to the gentleman--
    Mr. Huppe. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Issa. Yes?
    Mr. Huppe. Mr. Chair, any chance I could followup just 
briefly on the promotional issue?
    Mr. Issa. If you can be very brief. Mr. Schiff is waiting.
    Mr. Huppe. OK. We--thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to say, we recognize there may or may not be 
promotional value in music that is played on AM/FM, but this 
system takes that into account. It actually directs the rate 
setter to consider promotion. If the broadcasters believe the 
rhetoric that promotion is so valuable, then they should be 
confident that this would work its way out in the proceedings, 
as a rate is set for this.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    I am now going to my colleague from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you all for being here.
    Mr. and Ms. Travis, I want to start by thanking you for 
sharing your story with us.
    I'm a proud cosponsor of the American Music Fairness Act 
and a strong supporter of what this bill at its core and what 
it stands for, and what it means to the creators.
    My district in the State of California is home to so many 
creators that rely, just like you do, on performance royalty 
payments every time their songs are played in restaurants or 
streaming services, and elsewhere--everywhere but on AM/FM 
radio.
    I echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues that support 
this legislation, and I'm grateful that you took the time today 
to share the importance of this critical effort.
    I would also like to take the opportunity to ask you a 
little bit more about your most recent song, ``Where That Came 
From,'' which you shared you created using generative AI to 
create your voice, Mr. Travis.
    Can you share a little more about what that process has 
meant to you both, and specifically, how you would feel if 
someone else used AI to recreate your voice without your 
permission? What does ownership of your ability, over your 
ability--and what should be your ability alone to train a 
generative AI model on your voice? What does that mean to you?
    Ms. Travis. I can tell you it was a very emotional thing 
for Randy to hear his voice again. We never thought we would. 
He went through every human emotion there was, just like he 
went through every human ability to create that song--being in 
studio with his musicians, with his producer. His piece of AI 
work was humanistic and artistic. That's the difference between 
good and the bad AI.
    It meant the world to me to hear his song again. Just a 
moment ago when Chair Issa played that, I thought I was going 
to break out in tears again. Because just to hear that voice 
again after so many years, something you never thought you'd 
get to do, is very important to us.
    The whole process, like I said, it took 11 months. We were 
in brand-new waters. We were treading in new waters. We didn't 
know exactly how this was going to happen.
    In fact, when the final song was sent after he and Kyle got 
through tweaking it, changing--making sure it sounded like 
Randy Travis--they sent it back to the gentleman that created 
this AI platform and we said, ``We never thought it could work 
this well.''
    So, it was enlightening for a lot of us. I apologize, I 
don't remember the other part of your question now.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, I guess the other part of my question is 
the flip side, and that is, what goes through your head when 
you contemplate others using AI to recreate your husband's 
voice without your permission, authorization, or compensation, 
to produce songs you didn't write using melodies you would not 
condone, and what that means in terms of the dilution of your 
brand?
    Ms. Travis. It feels kind of like identity theft. It is 
intellectual property--the voice and the likeness. So, it does 
feel like somebody has robbed you, because he has spent his 
whole life since he was seven years old making music, he knew 
that's all he wanted to do.
    So, when you hear somebody on the internet or on your 
computer and they're saying they're pretending to be Randy 
Travis, and it doesn't sound like Randy Travis, it hurts. I 
think that's what all artists feel--like I said, just like 
you've been robbed. Just like it's identity theft and there 
needs to be laws that are in place to keep that from happening, 
which means consent, compensation, attribution, and provenance, 
so that it doesn't happen.
    It's coming up so fast now that, if we don't get on the 
front end of it, which I'm not sure we can at this point, but 
if we don't get in as soon as we can to protect the artists, 
I'm not sure where we'll go from there.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, thank you for sharing that. Mr. Travis, I 
know I speak for many millions of people who are thrilled and 
grateful that you can continue to make new music. Thank you for 
that gift and thank you for your testimony today.
    Ms. Travis. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    I might remind all colleagues that Mr. Schiff has been a 
leader on transparency in AI and want to understand it well 
enough not to overregulate it, but to make sure that we do get 
what's fair for the creators and their work that's being 
ingested.
    Thank you.
    We now go to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Huppe, I'd like to return to your testimony and a 
subject that we touched on earlier and hear more about the 
distinctions between United States artists and foreign artists, 
and how they are compensated for performance rights and 
royalties. If you would go back to that and tell us a little 
bit more about the distinction? How does the United States 
compare with other countries with respect to foreign 
performance rights and how artists are treated?
    Mr. Huppe. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is a very 
excellent question.
    As I mentioned, the U.S. stands alone in the industrialized 
world as the only democratic Nation that does not pay 
performance rights for terrestrial radio. It puts us in the 
company of Iran, South Korea, Cuba, and others.
    Because of that we don't compensate for that fundamental 
right that every other democratic industrialized world (sic) 
does pay around the world, because we don't do that here, as a 
penalty to our creators, like Mr. Travis, as penalty, many 
countries overseas do not pay us that similar right in those 
countries. We estimate that artists are missing out on up to 
$300 million a year because of that lack of reciprocity. That's 
a tremendous injustice that has existed for 100 years, and it's 
what we hope Congress will fix.
    Ms. Lee. Do you have a sense--you just mentioned an 
estimate of $300 million a year--do you have a sense of whether 
that loss exceeds what would be paid to foreign artists if the 
policy were changed?
    Mr. Huppe. That's hard to say and it's hard to estimate. If 
AMFA were passed, they would go through a procedure to set the 
rates that, by the way, mimic the free market in many ways. The 
way the system works, there's many parts of the industry that 
are in this system where rates are set, and they look at things 
like promotion; substitution; what's the capital investment; 
and what do each of the parties bring to the table.
    So, the attempt is to set a rate that closely mimics the 
free market as much as possible. So, it's impossible to sit 
here and say whether there would be a positive balance of trade 
one way or another, but I can tell you, at the end of the day, 
this is fundamentally about just making sure that everyone 
deserves to be paid for their work.
    We have a lot of discussion up here about exemptions and 
foreign regulations, and how the FCC does different things. I 
would argue that all those sorts of hide the ball. This is 
about as basic a concept, an American ideal, that you can think 
of. When you have creators like the great Randy Travis who pour 
their heart and soul into a beautiful piece of music, and you 
have another entity making, or set of entities making $15 
billion off that music--we're just looking for a fair payment 
for that input.
    Ms. Lee. Do you have a perspective on what procedural 
impediments, if any, would prevent or inhibit the expansion of 
royalties for the performance of sound recordings to cover 
terrestrial radio?
    Mr. Huppe. I think there would be very few procedural 
enhancements. Indeed, it's a fairly simple law, as laws go. 
AMFA is at a high level merely removing the exemption that the 
broadcasters have and putting them in the same class as every 
other music delivery platform. As I mentioned, Spotify, 
SiriusXM, all of them pay the performer, and the FM broad--even 
the broadcast industry themselves, when they simulcast the 
exact same programming online, they also pay the performer.
    This would simply remove the exemption for the much larger 
part of their business that you've heard testimony about today 
and drop them into the same treatment as all the other 
platforms. So, it's a fairly simple process to do that from a 
legislative perspective. To be honest, it would be fairly 
simple to implement. Since we're already operationalizing and 
paying out on the webcasting of all these stations, it would be 
administratively fairly easy to add this on top of it.
    Ms. Lee. Now, Mr. Harrell, a counter viewpoint, I'd like to 
hear from you. You mentioned something a moment ago. You 
referred to a ``Stuff the Bus,'' which I think is reflective of 
really the greater community, impacted community, and a 
commitment that you see from some of these local broadcast 
radio stations.
    Tell me a little bit more of that. If the top-line revenue 
is not growing, describe to us in a little more detail what you 
think is the impact or the overview loss, if we were to make 
this change.
    Mr. Harrell. Congresswoman, thank you for that question.
    First, I will be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Travis for 
his tremendous contributions to American history and to 
American music. I want to make sure I do that.
    We keep hearing, ``Treat us the same,'' when, in fact, 
we're not the same. We are not the same as Spotify and Pandora, 
and other streaming services. Pandora and Spotify cannot do the 
things that we do on a daily basis outside of just playing 
music, as you mentioned.
    Spotify and Pandora don't get a thousand backpacks and give 
them to students when they go back to school. Pandora and 
Spotify don't do somethings we did very unique in Cleveland 
when we were at the height of some tension in race relations. 
All 21 radio stations in Cleveland, all 21, four competitors, 
agreed to stop the music, and do a forum on race on all 21 
stations at the same time. That's something that Pandora and 
Spotify cannot do; they won't do. It's not part of their model.
    So, when you talk about us being the same, I think it would 
be disingenuous to not recognize the differences that we have, 
and what's important to us. So, our ability to do those things 
that are important to the communities are important, as we do 
our daily business.
    When it comes to natural disasters, right now, if something 
was going on in my markets, because of our ability to be local, 
I can call and in 30 seconds have our stations flipped to talk 
about what's going on in our communities. You can't do that on 
the streaming service. So, that really emphasizes why we are 
different.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    I'll inform everyone there are votes on the floor. The 
intent of the Chair--and hopefully, you can all stay--is to 
vote as quick as we can--11 times--and come right back. So, 
we're going to string this out as far as we can, and then, the 
last couple of us are going to run to the vote. We'll vote 11 
times, hopefully, two minutes per, and come back, if you can 
all remain.
    With that, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania is next.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Chair Issa and Ranking Member 
Johnson, for holding this hearing.
    I thank all of you for your work and your testimony before 
us today. I have to admit to you, I'm glad to hear so much 
about the bill that I'm very connected to, one of the coauthors 
of, which is No AI FRAUD.
    While I know artists and the music industry, and so many 
others who are performers, are in support of that, I hope you 
know I'm doing it, also, as a mother and a grandmother. Because 
what no AI FRAUD does is it provides a property right to our 
voice and our likeness. So, whether it's my granddaughter or 
it's me, ordinary folks, we have that property right as well. 
It certainly works in terms of this industry that is so 
important to our country.
    Mr. Travis and Ms. Travis, thank you so much for your 
testimony. Thank you for your talent. Thank you for your 
storytelling. That is the basis of beautiful music, great 
writing, performing, and, of course, storytelling.
    When I was reading about this in preparing for this 
hearing, as I say, I come at AI with a fear: How do we protect 
ourselves? Look at what you are doing. As a result of your 
experience, and a result of the tragic, heartbreaking stroke, 
et cetera, that you suffered, you're turning that heartbreaking 
experience into something that is so hope-filled--the 
resurrection of your unique talent. So, I think it's a time of 
extraordinary challenge, but also opportunity.
    What are some of the primary challenges that artists face 
in this changing climate with AI? I wonder, do you have other 
artists who talk to you, as a result of your generating this 
beautiful new work, about how it affects them? Maybe they 
haven't had the devastating health consequences that you've 
had. So, what is your experience? What are other artists 
saying?
    Ms. Travis. We have spoken to several other artists. As a 
matter of fact, we had eight or ten artists come to listen to 
Randy's song when it first came out, a day or two before it was 
finally on the radio.
    It's mixed because they are like you and I--we're mothers. 
We have children. It scares you to death what AI can do.
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Ms. Travis. You hear it all the time, about the older 
generation that's taken advantage of through AI voice and, 
``The grandson's in jail and needs money.'' Just fraud as far 
as bank accounts. So, it does scares you to death.
    I guess that's with so much technology, so many changes 
that we've had in the world, there's the good and there's the 
bad. It just depends on whose hands it's in as to where it 
goes.
    Think the artists, from their standpoint, if they haven't 
been through anything tragic, as in Randy's case where it took 
his voice, it took his livelihood, I don't know that many of 
them have embraced it. A lot don't know. It's the fear of the 
unknown, that we're all going through this.
    I think that, if we can set a precedence, if we can be a 
model to how it should be used for good in music, if it is 
consent of the artist, if it has the artist, like I said 
before, the heart in it, if the human touch is in it, then I 
think it can be really exciting for a lot of people.
    The bad news is it's something that we all need to be on 
top of, which goes back to why we need to have something. We 
need laws, so that we can go and stop somebody from doing what 
they're doing, if it's fraudulent.
    Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
    Ms. Travis. Right now, we really don't have that.
    Ms. Dean. I'm wondering if you are going through the 
process of generating that work has instructed you as to some 
of the guardrails that ought to be there. I love some of the 
language that you eloquently used, it feels like you were a 
point of light for artists and fans in this new chapter, that 
point of light.
    As you're working through it, I know that we would benefit 
from hearing, where were the vulnerable points? How is it you 
control your own voice, your image, your likeness, and your 
sound? So, through where that came from, maybe you could give 
this Committee--because you could see we have a bipartisan 
support around this issue, and we're very happy for the point 
of light that is you; that reminds me that all AI isn't bad. I 
don't have to come out of this as a crazed grandmother.
    I guess my time is up. Again, thank you all for being here 
today. Thank you for your talent, Mr. Travis.
    Ms. Travis. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Issa. Never to be called ``a crazed grandmother.''
    [Laughter.]
    We now go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Well, Chair Jordan said there were two kinds of 
music in his house growing up. He grew up in Ohio. He said 
country and western. In the county I grew up in Kentucky, the 
two kinds of music you could choose between were bluegrass and 
gospel. So, that may just be Kentucky, or the part that I was 
in.
    I think anybody here could answer this question, but I'm 
going to go to Mr. Harrell--what is the Copyright Royalty Board 
and what do they do?
    Mr. Harrell. Congressman, I'm going to pass on that 
question.
    Mr. Massie. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Harrell. OK.
    Mr. Massie. Let me ask you--I just want to ask somebody who 
knows or feels comfortable answering.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, and I think this underscores some of the 
point, which is that, when you are an operator of local 
stations, the complexity of everything happening in terms of 
where these copyright fees come from is just lost. What it 
means to a local station is the simplicity of what is the 
degree of the check that I'm writing, and how is it taking away 
from my ability to serve communities?
    What the Copyright Royalty Board does is for certain types 
of, in this case, public performances that have been designated 
by Congress, it sets a rate. So, for noninteractive streaming 
services--Pandora is an example--if a broadcaster is 
simulcasting its over-the-air programming on the internet, the 
user can't just pick a song on demand the way that they can 
with Spotify. That falls into a category here where the 
Copyright Royalty Board, a three-judge panel within the 
Copyright Office, hears a case every five years to set rates.
    Mr. Massie. So, we've got an example here of ``White 
Christmas.'' Bing Crosby did it; Garth Brooks did it, and Bette 
Midler did it. I'm leaving some people out, I'm sure. 
Everybody's done it at home maybe, but they're not trying to 
copyright.
    Would they all get paid the same price under the Copyright 
Royalty Board for all those versions? Or are there different 
prices for each of those? Mr. Huppe?
    Mr. Huppe. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
    It depends on the system. The Copyright Royalty Board is a 
system that Congress set up. They've been using something like 
this--maybe it had a different name--but they've been using 
this type of rate-setting tribunal for over 100 years.
    It's a system that operates in many areas of copyright law, 
both in the music area and others. It's a system that has a lot 
of benefits to both parties. I think it's working fairly well.
    In fact, Congress reaffirmed their belief in this system in 
2018 with the Music Modernization Act, where they created a 
whole other system and a whole other right that is being 
administered by this panel of judges.
    So, the idea behind it is to deal in a very efficient way 
with the entire industry that plays--
    Mr. Massie. So, my question, I'm thankful for that 
information, but would Garth Brooks and Bette Midler get the 
same fee, price?
    Mr. Huppe. In general, on the sound recording side, when 
the CRB operates with what SoundExchange does, streaming radio 
in the digital world, artists are treated very fairly across 
the board.
    Mr. Massie. That's not what I'm asking.
    Mr. Huppe. The answer is, yes, they get the same--
    Mr. Massie. OK. They're paid the same price.
    Mr. Huppe. Right.
    Mr. Massie. You're saying, ``fair,'' but everybody has a 
different version of ``fair.''
    Mr. Huppe. Fair enough.
    Mr. Massie. So, you said something before about mimicking 
the free market. If we're going to revisit things that have 
been assumed for 100 years, why should we assume a tribunal 
should be deciding what's fair? That doesn't sound American to 
me.
    In fact, I think if you went and asked the artists--we keep 
asking this question, who benefits under this regime and who 
benefits under the new regime? I bet if you asked 100 artists, 
100 artists/performers would tell you and would break it down 
differently as to the benefit of the promotional aspect of it, 
or the royalties that they want to enjoy after they've quit 
making music.
    So, when you get to a situation where everybody has a 
different answer, instead of mimicking the free market with the 
three-person tribunal, I'm just going to ask a crazy question, 
why not have a free market, where an artist could decide, OK, 
is it a benefit to me to play on radio for free? I'm sure Randy 
Travis would probably fetch a better price than my neighbor who 
thinks he can sing.
    Could we have something where there are different prices? 
It just
doesn't--we're comparing things to these dictatorships, or 
what-
ever. I'm wondering, where is the free market here? Mr. LeGeyt?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well, certainly, as you point out--and thank 
you for the question, Congressman, as well as your support for 
the Local Radio Freedom Act--the CRB, where you've got a one-
size-fits-all government-imposed fee is not a free market, 
right? The backstop to any free market negotiation outside of 
that is that CRB-set rate. So, that is not a free market.
    At the same time, when you're thinking about an industry 
like broadcast, where you have 15,000 stations across the 
country and literally thousands of different ownership groups, 
there are certainly some efficiencies gained by a bit of a one-
stop-shop here, right?
    Mr. Massie. Right.
    Mr. LeGeyt. The idea that there would be individual 
marketplace negotiations between all of them would be difficult 
to achieve.
    Mr. Massie. Twenty years ago, the idea that you would be on 
the internet bidding against somebody on the other side of the 
world for something on eBay that should be at a flea market was 
inconceivable. Or that you wouldn't have taxis; you would be 
using a device in your hand.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Yes.
    Mr. Massie. So, anyways, I'm just saying maybe there's a 
solution here we haven't thought of that involves the free 
market.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    This is why we always have at least one libertarian on the 
Committee, so that can be heard and understood.
    We do have that, obviously, in the motion picture industry 
where it is a willing buyer/willing seller. It's probably the 
reason that, among other things, you didn't hear any of Elvis' 
movies or Elvis' music in the movie Priscilla. Just saying the 
movie would have been better with a little bit of Elvis.
    With that, the Chair and Ranking Member regret to tell you 
that we do have to vote still. Only the Speaker doesn't have to 
vote. So, for that, we are going to take a recess of the 
shortest possible.
    If any of you have to leave, we will regret you not being 
here, but we are taking you past the appropriate time.
    So, we are going to recess.
    You are welcome, the witnesses, to come in the back.
    We will come back. The votes are 11, but since we have 
exhausted the time for the first one, and we are going to run, 
and then, each one is, roughly, they call it two, but call it 
three or four minutes. The fact is we will be back in well less 
than an hour. We will come back the moment I can gavel in.
    So, thank you for your indulgence.
    We stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Issa. To be fair to our witnesses, we are going to go 
straight to questions from Mr. Johnson now, and then we will 
deal with other Members when they arrive. The gentleman is 
recognized.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this very 
important hearing.
    Mr. Huppe--Huppe?
    Mr. Huppe. Huppe, sir.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Huppe, I am sorry.
    Mr. Huppe. No worries.
    Mr. Johnson. Unlike album--
    Mr. Huppe. That is not the worst it has been bastardized, 
so it is all good.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. I could come up with a few other humorous 
pronunciations.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. Unlike album sales, which have dropped 
drastically over the past 20 years, broadcast radio use has 
remained relatively popular over that same period. According to 
Pew Research data, the percentage of Americans aged 12 or older 
who listen to traditional or terrestrial radio, in a given 
week, fell just 10 percentage points between 2009-2022.
    How would you respond to concerns that adding a performance 
royalty for terrestrial radio broadcasts would make it harder 
for local radio stations who are so far weathering the changes 
in technology pretty well, how would you meet that argument 
that this will hurt the ability of broadcast radio stations to 
stay afloat?
    Mr. Huppe. Thank you, Ranking Member. That is an excellent 
question, and I think it is fair to say broadcast radio does 
all these things in other formats and manages to turn a profit 
and do all the things that they do. Music radio is the largest 
part of their revenue. People go to music radio to listen to 
music radio.
    Truly local, small, and independent broadcasters are 
accommodated in the bill as we have discussed before. Any 
broadcaster making $1.5 million or less that is not part of a 
huge conglomerate pays merely $500 a year, which is less than 
the cost of a candy bar every day for all the music that they 
need. I think that is what the public clamors. That is what 
people want when they listen to music on the radio.
    There has been a lot of discussion about promotion 
throughout this hearing, but the fact of the matter is 
promotion will be taken into account with ll this process. So, 
I think that we would not see a dropoff in radio by having to 
pay a performance royalty.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Mr. LeGeyt, how much money would it cost the average 
station that produces revenues in excess of $1.5 million 
annually, what would be the average performance royalty that it 
would pay yearly, given the number of songs that you can, I am 
sure talk about they play?
    In other words, we know that a certain number of songs get 
played within a certain period of time every day, and then 
calculating those numbers you should be able to determine how 
much in performance royalties an average radio station that 
produces income in excess of $1.5 million would have to pay.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. It is a little bit 
difficult to answer, but I am going to do my best in this 
regard. The current--if you are taking the current CRB 
framework that applies to our streaming, which is a per play, 
per listener measurement, you just extrapolated that onto 
terrestrial radio, you are talking about millions of dollars in 
royalties per station.
    Scale that up, and especially if you are talking about the 
most popular stations in the country, and that has a real 
impact on those local stations' ability to serve their 
communities.
    Mr. Johnson. So, of the 15 billion annually that the 
broadcast industry takes in that would be millions of dollars 
that would be paid out--is that what you are saying--in 
performance royalties?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Across the entire industry, millions understate 
that. Again, if you are applying the calculation that today 
applies to webcasting over to broadcast, the legislation, in 
fairness to the legislation, doesn't set a particular rate. It 
obviously sets some criteria for the rate, but it would be a 
devastating number under any scenario that matches what the CRB 
is currently doing.
    We have already seen that in webcasting those rates are 
unsus-tainable for local broadcasters. It is a major inhibition 
in broadcasters' ability to innovate and streaming.
    Mr. Johnson. I would be remiss if I wish that I could hear 
from you in response. Can we?
    Mr. Issa. Please, go ahead.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Huppe. Respectfully, I would have a different view on 
that. When the rates are set by the CRB, the point they try to 
do is look at all the factors, one of which is the licensee's 
ability to pay. So, the CRB will take into account, what is the 
level of promotion? How much does a licensee contribute? What 
is the cost and benefit? What does everybody bring to the 
table? The CRB will take that into account when they set the 
rate and set a rate that is affordable for the broadcasters.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Last but not least, I simply want 
to say that I hope that we can continue to listen to the music 
of Randy Travis, both his new music and his legacy music, which 
I would be remiss not to recite at this time.
    Oh man, gosh. You know what? I got--
    Mr. Issa. To be played later. He will be here.
    The gentleman from--
    Mr. Johnson. Can I have an amen?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Amen.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. LeGeyt. Let me add how much local radio across the 
country, particularly country radio, but, frankly, your 
popularity transcends country, looks forward to promoting all 
your new work.
    Mr. Issa. We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is quite an occasion 
to have Mr. Travis and Ms. Travis here with us, a very popular 
icon, really, across Western, Southwestern, and West Virginia, 
but we are honored to have you here today.
    My district runs from Roanoke in the South to Winchester in 
the North, and it boasts many songwriters and recording artists 
who began their lives and musical careers in our part of 
Virginia. That is why I am Chair of the Songwriters Caucus.
    We have folks like Matthew Ramsey and Whit Sellers from the 
band Old Dominion, who both grew up in Botetourt County, and 
the Statler Brothers from Staunton, and of course Patsy Cline, 
who is no relation, from Winchester. In fact, Patsy Cline's 
first professional performance began when she was just 15 years 
old at the local radio station, WINC, which is still in 
operation today.
    So, we are also lucky to have many good local radio 
stations in the district, three different markets--Roanoke, 
Harrisonburg, and even ones that make their way up toward 
D.C.--so we want to protect the rights of IP--of our recording 
artists while also appropriately factoring in the good work our 
local radio broadcasters do for our communities.
    Let me ask Mr. and Ms. Travis first, you talked about how 
the shift from physical sales of albums to online streaming has 
impacted your livelihood and that of other recording artists. 
Has the shift in a listener's way of finding new music affected 
the balance between the benefits of radio play and the loss of 
royalties?
    Ms. Travis. The benefit of streaming and the other 
platforms, is that what you are asking?
    Mr. Issa. Can you put your mic a little closer, Mary?
    Ms. Travis. I am so sorry.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Ms. Travis. I am sorry. The benefit of streaming versus 
radio, is that your question?
    Mr. Cline. How has a listener's way of finding new music 
affected the balance between the benefits of radio play and the 
loss of royalties?
    Ms. Travis. The streaming platforms have been extremely--
they pay well. Randy is streaming. If people like the music, 
they are going to find the music. So, the royalties that are--
and I think we just heard that there are millions of dollars a 
year, hundreds of millions I think he said, that the artists 
are missing out on. That is not something that makes us feel 
really good about when we--
    Mr. Cline. Does the failure to pay royalties to recording 
artists for radio play while paying songwriters for that same 
radio play have any effect on decisions to record your own 
music versus having other artists record music you have 
written?
    Ms. Travis. It is always something in the forefront of an 
artist's mind. Some artists just don't write, but they sing. 
Preferably, yes, you would write, and you would perform, and 
that way you would ascertain being paid.
    What I would like for people to remember is we were 
speaking about the smaller radio stations and the smaller 
areas. I had a grandfather that had one in Wytheville, 
Virginia, years ago. So, I understand that, but they also have 
to understand that artists are small businesses, too, and they 
have crews, they have bands, and they have travel. They have 
got a lot of overhead and insurance. There are so many things 
that go into them trying to make a livelihood along with the 
families of their crew and their band.
    So, we understand the small business struggles. When you 
perform and you are not paid, it makes it hard to make ends 
meet.
    Mr. Cline. Well, to that end, I will go to Mr. Harrell. On 
page 3 of your testimony, you point out several celebrities in 
talk radio who have programming on Radio One--Rickey Smiley, 
D.L. Hughley, Incognito, Willie Moore, Jr. Does Radio One pay 
these personalities for their work or do they simply benefit 
from the publicity that their appearances provide?
    Mr. Harrell. Congressman, thank you for that question. So, 
they do get paid for their work. I would also add that they 
are, in addition to the on-air work that they do, Ambassadors 
in their cities. They have--
    Mr. Cline. Why does radio pay talkers for content but not 
artists?
    Mr. Harrell. Because they are representatives of the 
community, and they are part of our staff. They are going to 
job fairs and health fairs. They are going to visit kids in 
local hospitals. They are going to small businesses and doing 
remotes for car dealerships. So, they are not just talent on 
the radio. They are part of--they are Ambassadors in the market 
we do business. They are part of our staff.
    Mr. Cline. You concede that artists do participate as well, 
providing community benefit and engaging in different volunteer 
activities?
    Mr. Harrell. Artists, yes, but I also would say that we 
provide a benefit to the artists as well, not only with the 
airplay, but in partnerships we have with artists, that we pay 
them as well. I have a couple of examples of events that we do 
across the country, which we actually pay artists.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. Just for clarification, you also play syndicated 
things. I had mentioned Rush Limbaugh earlier, but you have 
syndicated talk radio, correct? So, they don't get involved in 
the community. They aren't even in your cities, are they?
    Mr. Harrell. Well, they are very involved. Some of our 
talent will travel to different markets depending on--Ranking 
Member, I am sorry, or Chair. They do--
    Mr. Issa. Depending on the Congress, it changes.
    Mr. Harrell. They do participate in our events around the 
country.
    Mr. Issa. OK. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Harrell, I want to say hello, welcome you. Radio One 
is--I represent Prince George's County, Maryland, right at the 
Eastern border of Washington, DC, and you guys are major forces 
in our community. Radio One, back when Ms. Hughes got started, 
and before it was Radio One, she has been a huge player even 
since then. I was explaining to one of our interns yesterday 
how she got started and the impact that she had and continues 
to have.
    I want to followup on Ranking Member Johnson's questions 
about figuring this out from a dollars and cents standpoint, 
because I think we have heard not everybody on the Committee 
but many Members who are saying it would be great if we could 
work something out here, something that--some kind of 
accommodation to the artist, but certainly, I don't want to see 
Radio One go out of business, or I want to see it continue to 
thrive.
    As a matter of fact, I would love to have you all move your 
offices back to Prince George's County, but that is another 
conversation.
    I did want to press it a little bit, though, with Mr. 
LeGeyt and Mr. Huppe about figuring it out. So, because we have 
got contractual arrangements with respect to Spotify, and the 
like, where that was resolved--in fact, well, tell me, what is 
that arrangement that is in place with Spotify?
    Mr. Huppe. Well, Spotify typically operates under direct 
licenses with the owners of the sound recordings. So, because 
they are a much more complex and interactive service than just 
a radio service, like our FM colleagues to the right, they 
typically have to go directly to the record labels and get the 
rights.
    I just want to say one thing following up, Congressman, on 
your comment. We don't want radio to disappear either. We 
recognize the value of radio in our ecosystem. I think in many 
ways we could have a symbiotic relationship, if this bill were 
to pass, and we also salute all that you have heard in terms of 
what they do about community work and charitable efforts.
    Our only point is, we don't know why the artists should 
have to support all of that. Why should Randy Travis have to be 
the one to bear the load of this community effort and all the 
charitable work? We would love a solution where FM radio can 
thrive because they are an important part of the ecosystem. We 
are simply asking that they pay fairly for the artists that 
form the basis of their business.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. LeGeyt?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question and the dialog. NAB, 
over the course of the last several Congresses--Chair Issa 
knows this, Ranking Member Johnson knows this and has been at 
the table willing to have conversations, about how to grow the 
pie while resolving the issue that is the subject of this 
hearing.
    From our perspective, that means more airplay on broadcast 
and broadcast-related assets. That growth is going to happen in 
streaming. The current rules and royalty rates in streaming are 
inhibiting music airplay on broadcast and our ability to really 
expand in that space. So, when I look at a potential solution--
    Mr. Ivey. Tell me--explain that to me.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Absolutely. When we talk about what makes local 
broadcasts unique, what we can't do that every one of these 
other streaming services does, is charge a subscription. We 
also can't nationalize our programming or we lose our 
competitive advantage.
    Our advantage is all the principles that you just 
articulated. We are embedded in these communities. We are 
trusted. We are there in times of emergency. We are there in 
the lead-up to an event. We are there during the event, 
reporting on it, on the ground, cell phone systems go down, and 
we are there in the aftermath to help communities rebuild.
    All of that is broadcast. You need value proposition. It 
means human beings in every market in the country, not some 
algorithm that can be consumed and just distribute music 
because a particular user logs in.
    So, for us, we certainly see benefits to expanding our 
reach through streaming. The royalties that have been set by 
the CRB are inhibiting broadcasters' embrace of it. So, when we 
have talked about a holistic solution, I would love one that 
makes that expansion more affordable. I think that will mean 
more airplay, more listeners, and more royalties for everyone.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Does the current legal or regulatory 
regime prevent that from happening? Do you need help from 
Congress to try and create a scenario where there could be a 
resolution that is worked out that does grow the pot?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Well--
    Mr. Ivey. I will start with Mr. Huppe.
    Mr. Huppe. Congressman, thank you for entertaining that. We 
have at times tried to sit down with our good colleagues on the 
broadcast side. I think let's call it what it is. We recognize 
that we are the political underdogs in this fight. Radio is 
incredibly powerful, and every time we have tried to do that, 
their play is to run out the clock and get to the next 
Congress. Every year--
    Mr. Ivey. We have got a conference room right back here. We 
could go sit down and start working it out now, if you want.
    Mr. LeGeyt. I take significant issue with this. We have 
made everything clear to the leadership of this Committee that 
we would like to be engaged in conversations. We had two rounds 
of them last Congress, and then, once again, the recording 
industry didn't provide the support to those conversations to 
keep them going.
    So, NAB stands ready and willing, to be in a conference 
room. I will concede here, my version of a middle ground here 
is very different than what Mr. Huppe's version of a middle 
ground is. I do think if we are viewing this through the lens 
of what is good for listeners, what is good for local 
communities, and what is good for artists, and we can find a 
solution here. We can find a win-win. I will be in that 
conference room with you ready for my colleagues in the 
recording industry to put a proposal on the table.
    Mr. Ivey. Excellent. Well, Mr. Chair, I yield back. I think 
that is an opportunity that we might want to try and take them 
up on. I know that the Full Committee Chair expressed similar 
kind of interests in seeing--
    Mr. Issa. We could even use the big conference room.
    Mr. Ivey. You guys get to use it, Democrats don't right 
now, but--
    Mr. Issa. We will share.
    With that, we go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ivey offered a conference room. If you need boxing 
gloves, we have those, too, right?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fry. Thank you guys for being here. I know it is a 
long, long day. I have got a couple of questions. What do you 
think the impact--this is for the whole panel. Now, you have 
talked about this, but I want to hear it again. What do you 
think the whole--what the impact would be of a performance 
royalty imposed on local radio stations, like the ones I 
represent in South Carolina? We will start right here with you, 
Ms. Travis.
    Ms. Travis. Please repeat the question.
    Mr. Fry. What would the impact be to local radio stations 
in South Carolina, Tennessee, or Texas, wherever, what do you 
think the impact would be if we were to do this legislation?
    Ms. Travis. I think that there is a way to be a lot more 
collaborative, a lot more cooperative, and work together. I 
guess the bottom line is--right or wrong, it is principle, it 
is not getting work, it is not getting paid for work that is 
done.
    If they were--if it was just a little royalty for each time 
they use your song, they would be more willing to work 
together. There is a way to make a collaborative approach to 
this, so that everybody can win. I don't think that they would 
fall apart if they had to share some of their royalties. I am 
not so sure that it wouldn't increase their revenues, their 
listenership, but the artists play lots of charities also.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Travis. I know that they are speaking of all the things 
that radio does in their communities. Artists do the same 
thing, and the same tornadoes or storms that they are talking 
about that they are reporting on, the artists are the ones that 
come along, and they will have a benefit fundraiser for their 
community. So, they are working together just on different 
ends, if they can just figure something out.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Thank you for that.
    Appreciate that. We will--
    Mr. Huppe. Congressman, if I could respond.
    Mr. Fry. For the three of you, if we can just move quickly, 
because I know we have got limited time, and I want to punt the 
Chair a couple of minutes.
    Mr. Huppe. Congressman, at the end of the day, as we have 
said, we have made accommodations for truly small and 
independent local radio. This is just about making sure that 
everybody gets paid who provide input into the output.
    The broadcasters, when it is their property at issue, they 
are very, very ardent about trying to get paid for it, whether 
it is retransmission consent or getting special treatment for 
their news content when used by Google and others. They are 
worried about their content and their property when it comes to 
dealing with AI.
    So, when it is their property at issue, they are very, very 
focused on it. I just for the life of me don't know why they 
don't recognize that is how Randy Travis and others feel about 
their own property.
    Mr. Fry. Right.
    Mr. Huppe. Just like they want to be paid for third party 
use of their property, Randy wants to be paid for third party 
use of his, and it is very hard to have a one-sided negotiation 
when there is no property right at all.
    Mr. LeGeyt. So, the ``why'' in answering that question is 
because every one of those policies that we are advocating, 
including for the Local Radio Freedom Act here, are about 
enabling our local stations to serve their communities. We 
right now, in this media landscape, I don't need to tell this 
panel, are the most trusted media. We are freely available, and 
we have a reach that no other media has.
    So, that fight--our policy agenda is about ensuring that we 
have the means to be able to support those local communities 
and to be able to provide them a trusted source of information, 
news, investigative journalism, and that they are not getting 
anywhere else.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. LeGeyt, while I have got you here, can you 
discuss, describe the impact from a national weather--say a 
national weather event in South Carolina, what the impact would 
be, how this bill might impact your ability to serve the public 
in that regard?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Thank you for the question. What we do in local 
communities, both in the lead up to a major natural disaster, 
reporting, making sure communities are prepared for it, during 
the disaster when other forms of communication fail, staying on 
the air, people in our stations, people out there dealing with 
very extreme conditions, and then aftermath, in the aftermath 
helping communities to rebuild, and that is something that is 
unique to broadcast radio and television.
    No one else in this music ecosystem, certainly not these 
international streaming services, are doing that. That takes 
people, and it takes equipment, and there are real costs 
associated with it.
    Mr. Huppe misrepresents the way the broadcast industry 
currently works. It is not as if there is an independent 
business for a music format station, an independent business 
for news, and an independent business for sports. These most 
often are clusters, all which a cost to one means less service 
for all.
    So, if the service that you are getting from a local radio 
station in a time of disaster is something that you believe 
stands out in communities all across the country, I believe it 
does--
    Mr. Fry. Let me ask you this, and I have got like--
    Mr. LeGeyt. --this will undermine that.
    Mr. Fry. Briefly, a little bit of time left, Mr. Chair, if 
I can, how do you respond, then, and just curious--again, I am 
still kind of formulating this issue, but how do you respond to 
other countries not doing it the way that we do it? We are, out 
of the democratic countries in the world, the only one that do 
it this way. Why should we not adopt a different model? Just 
curious about your thoughts on that.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Those other democratic countries don't have a 
commercial, locally focused broadcast system that rivals what 
the U.S. has in local communities. They have nationalized 
syndicated broadcast radio, or they have government-funded 
broadcast radio. That is the comparison we are making here.
    So, the resources that it takes to enable a freely 
available, locally focused model are significant. Public policy 
in the United States has recognized that, both in the 
Communications Act and the copyright laws. This is not a 
loophole. It is a well-considered, thought-out exemption to say 
terrestrial radio is different than these streaming services.
    It is also important to State, because sometimes it gets 
taken for granted, when we are saying no pay broadcasters, we 
are paying the songwriters when we are airing these songs. We 
are paying significant royalties, hundreds of millions of 
dollars, to ASCAP, BMI, and the like.
    We are also paying when we do the public performance. That 
is more like our streaming competitors. We pay the same way 
that they do. We paid $70 million as an industry to 
SoundExchange last year when we are streaming, but terrestrial 
radio is different.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chair, I yield. Before I do that, I would also 
encourage the boxing gloves in the conference room. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. With that, the Chair recognizes himself. This has 
been a good hearing. Yes, it has been a repeat of some things 
we have seen in the past but let me close and try to create a 
little different environment closing.
    Randy and Mary, thank you for everything you have done. It 
has made this special. I do want to continue seeing a lot more 
of yours and others' AI creations, and you are going to see on 
the copyright side a real effort, much more bipartisan even 
than today, to support and make that happen. That is where the 
broadcasters are actually in synch with your efforts and 
desires. Let me just go through a little bit of the behind-the-
scenes as I see it, because I want to be accurate.
    I am going to go to Mr. Harrell. You represent the business 
here. You know that NAB has been negotiating on your behalf, 
right? Is it fair to say that you would be--you and your 
stations would be willing to pay something to get this problem 
to go away?
    Mr. Harrell. Mr. Chair, I would not say that. I would say 
that--I would go back to the fact, to recognize what we already 
pay.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, I am going to take you to exactly what 
you just said. So, Mr. LeGeyt, you have been saying you have 
been negotiating in good faith. Is it true that you have never 
made an offer to the performers that gave them a net increase 
in their revenue sans some hypothetical growth? In other words, 
in all cases, you have wanted to negotiate what they already 
have going down in return for getting off zero on trust for a 
broadcast. Is that fair?
    Mr. LeGeyt. No, it is not fair, because I take them at 
their word, although it remains unsubstantiated, that they 
believe that there are $300 million in international royalties 
that--
    Mr. Issa. No, no. I am not going to deal with the--what is 
going to come out of somebody's pocket. I just came back from 
Europe. There is a high chance that the Europeans would look at 
anything we do and reciprocate, meaning if it is not in good 
faith increasing, and they would find reasons to delay or not 
pay.
    So, plus, on top of that is not your pocket of money. That 
is a separate batch of money for their creation outside the 
U.S. We are dealing with the U.S. copyrights and your U.S. use. 
If you had Canadian stations, you would be paying in Canada. If 
you had Mexican stations, you would be paying in Mexico. I have 
been to both of those countries. They are substantially more 
similar than NAB would imply.
    I have got to tell you, I have listened to local radio in 
Canada, so I don't know why they are not given credit for 
having real radio stations. Matter of fact, the station in 
Windsor, which you can listen to in Detroit, which is pretty 
darn good, it does pay even if it overlaps into the United 
States. So, there are some royalties coming to the Travises. It 
just comes from a Windsor, Canada, station that happens to 
cross the border.
    So, setting the record straight, as of right now, neither 
the practitioners nor NAB are willing to offer a net additional 
amount. So, I am going to switch to a business question. You 
have to deal with us every year, and you have to deal with the 
fact that streaming is increasing. It is becoming more a part 
of yours. It is the only revenue that these folks have. 
Clearly, when they are setting royalty rates, they understand 
that terrestrial isn't paying, that you are just promoting.
    So, I have got two questions. First, which goes to the 
streaming, is it fair to say that your streaming is promoting 
your terrestrial on occasions? Isn't that true? Isn't it true 
that there is no way to get around the fact that those 
community people and everything else that is paying on 
streaming, they are also promoting people going back and 
turning the tuner on when they are in a radio that doesn't have 
streaming for some reason? Isn't that fair?
    Mr. Harrell. Mr. Chair, I would argue that we are actually 
causing--it is the other way around.
    Mr. Issa. No, no. I didn't say that you are not promoting 
your streaming, but isn't it the ultimate in--you are under 
oath. OK? You are supposed to say the truth. Can you truthfully 
say that there is no benefit to your broadcasters of your 
streaming, that there is no benefit passing over, that no one 
ever streams and then turns to AM or FM radio and listens to it 
because they already like your music or your deejay, or 
whoever?
    Mr. LeGeyt. Mr. Chair, local broadcasters need to engage 
their audiences.
    Mr. Issa. I would like to have an answer to that question. 
I just want a fair answer, because--
    Mr. LeGeyt. Oh, I am agreeing with you. We need to engage 
our audiences through every mechanism possible, whether it is 
our terrestrial, our stream, or social media. Our local 
engagement is everywhere, and the stream is a part of that.
    Mr. Issa. So, I am going to close this, and I am going to 
close it with the following. I have been here 24 years at the 
end of this Congress, including two years that I was absent and 
working down the street for the Administration. I am tired of 
this coming. I am less tired than Frank Sinatra would be if he 
were still alive, since he came here in the 1960s to ask for 
this fairness.
    I would strongly suggest that the record of this hearing 
will remain, and I will write it, and it will remain that NAB 
did not offer one net penny, that their negotiations were only 
on a net savings or certainly no increase, and that the idea--
and WERE, I grew up on it. I grew up on all that. My mom still 
listens to the--she won't call them anything but the Cleveland 
Indians, and she does have to get it streaming.
    The fact is that there ought to be an amount that you are 
at least willing to come to the table and say, ``Look, we would 
like to get a deal on streaming. We know we have to negotiate 
that.''
    If you spend 1,500, 2,000, 3,000, or probably 10,000 or 
15,000 in your dues to NAB, the idea that you couldn't give an 
offer of a flat rate substantially similar, which is partly 
what our legislation every year envisions for many, and if we 
were offered a deal for all, we would be looking at it fairly 
favorably to make this go away, that would make a difference.
    I will say that I was in business for more than 20 years, 
and I followed a man named Mark McCormick. His books are long 
forgotten perhaps, but he said something that is so profound 
that it has to be repeated every chance I get. A problem is 
something money won't solve. Everything else is a business 
decision.
    I would tell you that if the recording artists began today 
aggressively encouraging people to only listen to your 
streaming, to only go to places in which they were being 
treated fairly, if they went on with a national program to out 
you for not being willing to pay one penny, you might find that 
it costs your business far more than a modest concession or a 
transition that might go decades.
    I will tell you that at least this Chair, and the Ranking 
Member of the Full Committee, we stand ready to negotiate 
fairly small amounts to change a principle to get this behind 
us. If you don't take that, then, quite frankly, you have to 
live with the consequences.
    Mr. Kiley has shown up, and he is a good friend and fellow 
Californian. So, he is going to take the gavel, and he is going 
to close this as the Chair, because I never gavel out one of my 
Members. So, Kevin, come on up here. You are now the Chair.
    Thank you very much. Mary and Randy, it has been the 
pleasure of a lifetime. Thank you.
    Ms. Travis. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Kiley. [Presiding] Well, I got a little more than I 
bargained for here, but I do appreciate the Chair putting on 
this hearing. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions for my 
own sort of further insight into the issue.
    I am fairly torn on this issue, because on the one hand, I 
am very sympathetic to the rights holders, and it does seem 
there is some level of arbitrariness in the law. On the other 
hand, I think that anytime you redefine what the scope of a 
right is, when there has been reliance interest built up over a 
long time, that creates some disruption that could have some 
far-reaching consequences.
    Though balanced against that I will say there are times 
when we have occasion to sort of rethink the scope of rights 
and how they relate to one another, and perhaps with the way 
the world is changing right now, when it comes to AI and other 
technologies, maybe this is such a time.
    So, I would just invite--well, first, I would like to--Mr. 
Harrell, if you might give me just sort of a better 
understanding, and I am sure this was covered to some extent 
earlier in the hearing of what exactly the financial impact and 
the impact on the viability of local radio across the country 
might be if some of the proposed changes were made.
    That local radio is sort of a unique public good that 
serves many purposes, so that is of concern to me. Then, I 
would invite anyone else on the panel to comment on any of the 
other considerations that I have raised to the extent they 
haven't been covered in the hearing.
    Mr. Harrell. Congressman, thank you. Any new performance 
royalty on top of what we already pay will cause us to cut 
local staff, which will decrease our efforts around community 
service and diminish the safety net that we provide in the 
communities that we serve. I had the unique opportunity prior 
to coming to Radio One to serve as the CEO of the Columbus 
Urban League.
    We have many community services that we provide as a 
nonprofit organization, and I benefited, and our community 
benefited firsthand because of our relationship with Radio One 
and the local broadcasters, to support the things that we 
wanted to do, whether it was gun buybacks or health affairs or 
job fairs. That is--so I know firsthand the impact of local 
radio because of my experience as a nonprofit CEO.
    So, those are the things we continue to do today, and any 
performance royalty or any other fee on top of the millions 
that we already pay will diminish our capacity to provide these 
services in communities around the country.
    Mr. LeGeyt. Mr. Chair, the legal copyright regime that 
governs terrestrial radio, to address one of your questions, is 
not arbitrary. In the 1990s, as Congress was grappling with the 
copyright laws that ought to govern public performance on what 
were then new emerging streaming services, Congress took the 
step of establishing a unique performance right in the sound 
recording for streaming and satellite services effectively over 
the course of several years.
    Prior to that, public performance, the payment--and 
broadcasters for the last 100 years have paid a royalty to the 
songwriter. At the time that Congress considered that change in 
law for the digital services, there was an explicit exemption 
granted for local broadcast because we are freely available. We 
can't pass along a fee through expensive subscription services. 
There are no expensive data fees, and we are community based.
    So, there are unique considerations that I would say when 
we talk about all the changes in the media landscape and 
adaptations that happened in 1971, 1995, and again as we are 
looking at AI, that Congress needs to account for with new 
technologies, what hasn't changed is what broadcast is, which 
is locally available, free, in the communities, with 
essentially the same relationship with the recording industry 
that we have had for the past 100 years.
    Mr. Huppe. Mr. Chair, if I may respond to that. We keep 
hearing that this is how it has been for 100 years, 100 years, 
100 years. I think it is fair to say that just because there 
has been inequity for 100 years is not a reason to keep it 
moving forward. This has been something that the recording 
industry has fought for decades, and I salute radio for all 
that they do in terms of community relationships, localism, and 
what they do in their charitable works.
    At the end of the day, it is a $15 billion industry that is 
paying nothing to the artists that make their input. A lot has 
changed in those 100 years. A lot has changed in the 30 years 
that Mr. LeGeyt just referenced. What is different today? I 
will tell you, one thing that is different is streaming didn't 
make up 85 percent of the recorded music revenue. It makes up 
85 percent today. That is a huge difference.
    Second, you didn't have 20-40 other streaming platforms 
that all have to pay competitors of the broadcasters. That was 
not true 40 years ago. That is true now. You didn't have AI, 
where once again the broadcasters are looking to protect their 
content. We share the need to protect all creators from abusive 
use by AI, but that is something that did not exist 30 years 
ago.
    While we support--and everyone in this room who is seeking 
to address the problems with AI and all the bills that address 
that, to move forward on that and not fix what is a 100-year-
old stealing of the music, it just seems that Congress needs to 
take care of that as well as the other AI problems.
    Mr. Kiley. All right. Thank you very much. That concludes 
today's hearing.
    I am sorry. Ms. Travis, did you have--
    Ms. Travis. I was just going to add to that, and it is 
never too late to do the right thing. I think it is something 
we all believe in. Where they are talking about their--when 
they negotiated, they paid writers, why did they pay writers 
and not the artist? I just am having a hard time trying to 
decipher why it is OK to pay for one party, but not the singer, 
not the one that puts it on the radio? Because if you didn't 
sing it, then that art--then the writer's work stays in a 
drawer somewhere.
    Mr. Kiley. Well, thank you very much. That concludes 
today's hearing. On behalf of Chair Issa, I would like to thank 
all our witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or additional written materials, additional materials for the 
record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:29 p.m., the Subcommittee 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=117457.