[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REFORMING SECTION 115 OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT FOR THE DIGITAL AGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET,
AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-178 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
[Vacant]
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina Wisconsin
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas ELTON GALLEGLY, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York RIC KELLER, Florida
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California DARRELL ISSA, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
Shanna Winters, Chief Counsel
Blaine Merritt, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 22, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property........................ 1
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property................ 3
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and
Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property....................................................... 10
WITNESS
Ms. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, U.S. Register of
Copyrights, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Howard Coble, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina,
and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property.......................................... 5
Prepared Statement of the the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee
on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property............. 10
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property............................ 13
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property 60
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Member,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property 65
Ethan Smith, Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply,
Rise in Downloading Fails to Boost Industry: A Retailing
Shakeout, Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2007 at A1............ 66
Statement released by SESAC, Inc. on ``Reforming Section 115 of
the Copyright Act for the Digital Age''........................ 69
Joint statement released by the American Society of Authors,
Composers and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc. comments on
Reforming Section 116 of the Copyright Act for the Digital Age. 74
REFORMING SECTION 115 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT FOR THE DIGITAL AGE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
Berman (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Berman, Conyers, Boucher, Wexler,
Watt, Cohen, Johnson, Schiff, Lofgren, Coble, Feeney,
Goodlatte, Chabot, Cannon, Keller, Issa, Pence, and Smith.
Staff present: Perry Apelbaum, Chief of Staff/General
Counsel; Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel; Rosalind
Jackson, Professional Staff Member; David Whitney, Minority
Counsel; and Shanna Winters, Subcommittee Chief Counsel.
Mr. Berman. Welcome. We will open the hearing now.
The hearing of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property will come to order.
I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
I would be remiss to begin any music licensing hearing
without acknowledging that reforming section 115 may not be the
top priority of many in this room. After all, small webcasters
are scrambling to assess the viability of their current
business models after the recent rate determination by the
Copyright Royalty Board.
In addition, the recent announcement of the XM-Sirius
merger has exposed the glaring inequities of the Copyright Act
in its application to different technologies: Internet, cable,
satellite and, of course, the over-the-air broadcasters.
This raises the question: Should I and interested
colleagues reintroduce a version of the PERFORM Act, and is it
finally time for a performance right to extend to rusty old
radio?
These developments highlight a quintessential issue for
this Subcommittee: Should we proceed with comprehensive reform
of music licensing or deal with it in a piecemeal fashion? For
the sake of this hearing, the Subcommittee will limit its focus
to section 115.
Many times over the past several years, this Subcommittee
has explored the need for reforming the section 115 compulsory
license for musical works. All interested parties agree that it
is broken and that the licensing structure that was developed
to deal with the distribution of piano rolls, while updated,
still does not provide a fluid mechanism for a new physical and
digital music delivery models.
Complaints about section 115 range from its administrative
burdens relating to the complexities of the notice requirements
to the legal ambiguities relating to the definition of digital
phonorecord delivery, DPD, or more broad, where or if a
performance ends and reproduction begins.
However, no consensus exists for how to fix section 115. At
the macro level, parties agree that rampant piracy over peer-
to-peer networks creates a dire need to address digital music
licensing reform. In 2005, alone, nearly 20 billion illegal
file swaps and downloads occurred.
This piracy harms an industry that provides jobs in my
district and throughout the country, and it hurts all the
parties involved, from the songwriter, to the recording artist
and to all the businesses that service the industry.
In a post-Grokster environment, we have a unique
opportunity to channel consumers away from illegal P2P
networks, toward legitimate online music distribution services.
But the window is closing. In 2006, digital music sales
totaled $2 billion, up from $1.1 billion in 2005. Consumers
downloaded an estimated 795 million songs, up 89 percent from
the 2005 figures. Currently, there are 4 million tracks
available for downloading, facilitated by 500 online music
services, available in over 40 countries. Further fueling the
growth of digital downloads, portable music player sales
increased 43 percent, to $120 million in 2006. In addition,
ringtones, once dismissed as nothing more than a passing fad,
have become a $3 billion worldwide market.
This is all good news. However, despite their meteoric
growth, legal online music services still represent the
equivalent of a fly on the back of the online piracy elephant.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal described how digital music has
failed to compensate for lost sales of CDs and that according
to BigChampagne, 1 billion songs a month are traded on illegal
file-sharing networks. I will let you figure out what
BigChampagne is.
Therefore, since there is broad consensus that
inefficiencies in section 115 hinder the rollout of new legal
music offerings, we must turn our focus to the question of how
to reform section 115. I fear that if we do not address
particularly reforms to section 115 soon, legitimate music
services will not be able to compete with free or provide
consumers with their choice of music any time, any place and in
any format, while at the same time ensuring that creators
receive adequate compensation.
There have been multiple suggestions for reforming the
compulsory license, including, one, designating an agent to
collectively manage reproduction and redistribution rights;
two, collectively licensing performance, distribution and
reproduction rights for a music rights organization; three,
amending 115 to ease just the administrative burden and legal
uncertainty; and, four, repealing section 115 and allowing the
marketplace to regulate licensing.
Last year, the former Chairman of this Subcommittee,
Congressman Lamar Smith, made a valiant effort to resolve the
issue. Perhaps back then the interested parties lacked the
motivation to act. Clearly, all parties would benefit from
section 115 reform.
For example, the business survival of the digital media
association members' depends on the success of legitimate
online music services. In addition, the proliferation of
additional legal music offerings will provide vital new sources
of royalties for members of the National Music Publishers
Association and songwriters. Finally, RIAA members will also
benefit through the distribution of their works in secure, new
formats.
Since the Subcommittee last met on this issue, there have
been several developments. First, the Copyright Office
determined that ringtones fall within the scope of the 115
license, though the determination is on appeal. Also, ASCAP and
digital music services are facing off in a Federal court in New
York over whether a download of a musical work implicates a
public performance, and copyright royalty judges are about to
set a discovery schedule in the section 115 rate proceeding.
I don't deny that several obstacles seem to remain in the
way of full-scale realization of music distribution
possibilities. Whatever the outcome of the reforms we
ultimately adopt, our focus needs to remain on facilitating the
licensing of distribution and reproduction rights so that
consumers can receive music in the manner they want, while at
the same time providing rightful compensation to the creators
of music.
Rewards for innovation are hard enough to come by for the
songwriters who are often the first to create but last to be
paid.
I look forward today to hearing from our witness, Marybeth
Peters, and would now recognize our distinguished Ranking
minority Member, my friend Howard Coble, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, because of term limits, I was
removed from this Subcommittee for the past 4 years. It is
indeed good to see old friends in the room today, including the
distinguished Register and her able staff who is covering her
back as we speak.
Mr. Chairman, article 1, section 8 of the Constitution
grants Congress this power: To promote the progress of science
and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.
In 1909, the 61st Congress decided to exercise this power
by enacting a compulsory license that authorized anyone to
reproduce and distribute piano rolls for use in the home
entertainment centers of their day, player pianos, providing
they paid a royalty of 2 cents to the owner of the copyright in
the musical work, which typically was the songwriter or a music
publisher.
The antecedent of section 115 of the Copyright Act, which
is the subject of our hearing today--this license was intended
to balance the interests of copyright owners in controlling and
receiving compensation from the use of their writings and the
interests of consumers and music distributors who wanted to
make available the widest variety of musical compositions at
the lowest cost to the public.
The development of new technologies and mediums for the
physical distribution of music, such as phonographic records
and cassette tapes, as well as a recognition of the woefully
inadequate compensation provided to copyright owners by the 2-
cent statutory royalty, led to amendments to the law in 1976.
In 1995, the Congress again revisited the license by
enacting the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act,
or DPRA. At that time, Congress sought to anticipate the
transition from the physical distribution of products, such as
albums, CDs, and tapes that contained music to the digital
delivery of music files by computer and the Internet, by making
clear that copyright owners were to benefit from the payment of
royalties for digital deliveries of phonorecords.
Notwithstanding these amendments, there is substantial
evidence that section 115 is, in the words of our distinguished
Register, Ms. Peters, dysfunctional. The Copyright Office
reports that the license appears to be seldom used by licenses,
the administration of the license is fraught with
inefficiencies, ambiguities and difficulties and recommends the
license needs to be structurally changed and amended to clarify
which licensees are required for the transmission of music if
Congress is to improve its operation.
Indeed, the view that the license is dysfunctional is
widely shared by those in the music publishing, reproduction
and distribution industries. It is, furthermore, the opinion of
the present and former leaders of this Subcommittee, who worked
diligently and introduced the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006,
which is commonly referred to as SIRA.
Though marked up by the Subcommittee last June, you will
recall, Mr. Chairman, several outstanding issues conspired to
prevent that measure from being formally enacted prior to the
adjournment of the Congress for that year.
I believe the Members of this Subcommittee and the parties
interested in modernizing the music licensing systems owe a
debt and gratitude to our former Chairman, Representative
Smith, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, and the current
Chairman, Representative Berman, the distinguished gentleman
from California, for their commitment and leadership in seeking
to change or to make section 115 relevant in the age of digital
music.
Finally, while there is an Amen chorus that the license is
broken and requires repair, the composers, music publishers,
record companies, digital distributors and consumers, who all
have a legitimate stake in rebalancing section 115, all sing
different tunes about how precisely it should be accomplished.
The process that led to the introduction and markup of the
Section 115 Reform Act brought many of these parties closer
together.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from Ms. Peters
today, Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, and to learning more
about proposals to clarify the rights that need to be licensed,
as well as approaches for streamlining the rights approval
process.
This concludes my remarks, and I thank the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coble follows:]
Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative
in Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Mr. Coble.
Chairman Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. After these two great descriptions of what we
are here for, I will put my statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property
Let me begin by thanking my good friend from California, the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, for convening today's hearing. I'd also
like to take this opportunity to recognize the presence of our sole
witness, Marybeth Peters. I believe this is the third time that Ms.
Peters has agreed to testify before the Subcommittee on this issue, in
as many years. And, I'd just like to personally thank her for her
continued willingness to help out, as we search for a solution to this
difficult and complex problem.
In just a few years, copyright holders have gone from being just
victims of large-scale Internet piracy to embracing the Internet to
market their works. Copyright owners, including record companies and
songwriters, responded to consumer demands by working with Internet
sites like iTunes to provide digital content to consumers. In essence,
they are taking advantage of the very technology that threatens their
livelihood.
Despite this turnaround, though, we are still hearing that music is
not widely available online and that the reason is the difficulty in
getting licenses from music publishers over the musical compositions.
Companies seeking the licenses claim the procedures are outdated and
the law is not clear on which online music services require which
licenses. There are even suggestions that Congress should alter the
licensing scheme into a ``blanket'' license so that users of
compositions pay royalties into a pool and the Copyright Office divvies
up the money amongst the publishers.
Let me state that I am one Member who would be concerned with
proposals limiting the ability of songwriters and publishers to
negotiate licenses for their compositions. Despite the fact that they
actually create and write the songs we listen to, songwriters and
publishers receive what appear to be the lowest royalties in the music
industry.
Publishers should not be penalized for protecting their property
rights in the same way every other industry has done: the record
companies have sued individuals for copyright infringement and file
sharing companies have sued record companies and others for copyright
violations.
Simple economics would dictate that it is in the publishers' self-
interest to license their work to anyone who can protect it from piracy
and who can pay the royalties. Simply put, music publishers and
songwriters have no incentive to keep music off the Internet, but
limiting their rights even further could create disincentives.
In short, I hope we can let the market work before we introduce
more regulations into an already heavily-regulated content industry.
The last thing we want to do is create further obstacles to creativity.
Mr. Berman. This is really a three-witness hearing,
Marybeth Peters, the register, Mr. Coble and myself.
And the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement I
would like to make.
Mr. Berman. Yes, you are recognized.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciated your
comments a while ago about our efforts last year, and of course
I hope those efforts will lead to results sometime soon this
year.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing on
section 115 of the Copyright Act and the status of proposals to
adapt it to the realities of today's digital marketplace.
Last June, this Subcommittee began the process of bringing
the law that governs the music industry, a multibillion dollar
enterprise, into the digital age with the introduction and
markup of the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006, or SIRA. Prior to
the introduction of SIRA, the Subcommittee had conducted seven
hearings over the past two Congresses on aspects of the
copyright law that relate to music licensing and digital
technology.
SIRA was introduced to focus attention on the need to
modernize the mechanical license that governs the making and
distribution of phonorecords in the U.S. The need for a
comprehensive rewrite of this compulsory license has been
apparent for some time. Imperfect and in many ways
anachronistic, the license is nevertheless one that has
generally been accepted by those who have been engaged in
composing, publishing or producing phonorecords for many years.
In its current form, though, the license fails to
adequately encourage the cultivation and development of a
robust, legitimate, online digital music market, something that
is necessary for the future health of composers, publishers,
record companies, recording artists and consumers. The
development of a legal marketplace will improve the consumer
experience by enabling music lovers to purchase and enjoy music
when and where they want.
Tens of millions of American consumers already embrace
technologies that enable them to enjoy music in new, exciting
and previously unimaginable ways. As the number and variety of
online music services expands, Congress has the responsibility
to ensure the law is modernized in a manner that strikes the
appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners, the
economic necessities of the marketplace and the interest of
consumers.
SIRA was an important first step in beginning this process.
The requirement to update our Nation's music licensing laws
grows more urgent every day.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted a while ago, proof of this
statement was on the front page of yesterday's Wall Street
Journal, which published an article that described a ``seismic
shift in the way consumers acquire music,'' and stated overall,
``Sales of all music, digital and physical, are down 10 percent
this year and that CD sales have plunged a startling 20 percent
over the last year.''
To be sure, there are a number of factors that have
contributed to this dramatic decline. However, Congress and the
music industry have the power to advance the adoption of a
modern, sensible and efficient music licensing system that
rewards creators and facilitates the ability of legitimate
licensees to acquire the legal rights that they need to
reproduce, distribute and perform music.
I am encouraged that we have the opportunity to build on
SIRA's foundation and hopefully succeed in enacting a
bipartisan measure that updates and reforms our Nation's music
licensing laws.
The critical question that will need to be addressed by the
music industry this Congress is whether it will find common
ground and take the steps necessary for the development of a
21st century music licensing system.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
Ranking Member of this Subcommittee for your recognition of the
importance of this issue and the decision to schedule this
oversight hearing so early in the congressional session.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street
Journal article that you and I have referred to be made a part
of the record.
Mr. Berman. It will be so documented.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Mr. Smith. And, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I want to
apologize for having to leave almost immediately in order to
get to the House floor. As you know, the Judiciary Committee
has a bill that is coming up, and I need to tend to that. But I
know this is going to be an interesting hearing, and I look
forward to reading Marybeth's testimony and to learning more
about this subject.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property
Mr. Berman. See, in the old days, we wouldn't have been
able to continue while a Judiciary bill was going on on the
House floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Do any other Members wish to make opening statements?
Okay. Then I will introduce our witness, known to anybody
who has been around here a while. She is Marybeth Peters, the
register of copyrights. Ms. Peters has been register since
1994. Previously, she served as the policy planning advisor to
the former register.
In addition to her leadership of the Copyright Office, Ms.
Peters serves on the Intellectual Property Advisory Committees
of several law schools and is a member of the Board of Trustees
of the Copyright Society of the United States of America.
Ms. Peters received her undergraduate degree from Rhode
Island College and her law degree from George Washington
University. She is not simply important because of her position
but she is truly an expert on this subject.
Ms. Peters, it is good to have you here again. Your written
statement will be part of the record in its entirety, and we
would appreciate you being able to summarize your testimony in
around 5 minutes.
We welcome you. Please begin.
TESTIMONY OF MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, U.S.
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Peters. Let me start by saying, Chairman Berman,
Ranking Member Coble and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to testify on reforming the compulsory license
dealing with the reproduction and distribution of non-dramatic
musical works by means of physical phonorecords and digital
phonorecord deliveries, section 115 of the Copyright Act, a
topic that has been on the Subcommittee's agenda and my
office's agenda for more than 3 years.
During this period, I have testified four times, three of
them before this Subcommittee, and I am going to use the same
word that you used, Mr. Berman, that there have been valiant
efforts by you and Mr. Smith and by the Subcommittee staff over
the past 3 years, valiant efforts by the parties and even by my
office to reach consensus on reform.
Yes, we were close, but at the end of the day, legislation
was not enacted. Today, my message is, the situation is worse,
new issues are arising, and the likelihood of reaching
consensus has lessened considerably, yet reform of section 115
is urgent. So my focus today is on what potentially is
achievable.
Now, over the past 3 years, I have offered a number of
solutions--at different times, different solutions. My
preferred solution has always been abolition of the license.
However, I am not advocating abolishing the license today. That
would bring chaos. So whatever we do to reform needs to be
achievable, and we can look at maybe the reform as transitional
if in fact the goal, ultimately, and you agree, is to get rid
of the license.
Before going on, let me give a little bit of background,
and you both referred to it, Mr. Coble and Mr. Berman, in your
opening remarks. In 1995, the compulsory license was amended in
anticipation of the introduction of digital music services. It
was expanded to cover digital phonorecord deliveries. However,
no one anticipated what would come. No one anticipated peer-to-
peer, Napster and the like. Nor could anyone foresee the issues
that such technologies would raise.
The Copyright Office, through its regulatory powers, has
updated its regulations in response to industry petitions to
make the compulsory license work better, and we may continue to
do so, but regulatory action won't solve the problem.
Substantive legislative reform is needed.
I want to highlight two possible solutions. First, it could
be wholesale sublicensing with a safe harbor provision for
sublicensors or an amendment to section 115 to mirror the
blanket compulsory license in section 114, which is the section
which deals with digital performances of sound recordings.
Under either option, however, the issue of clarifying the
rights is essential. More about rights later.
Let me start with sublicensing, which exists today in the
marketplace. Online music companies can go to one entity,
typically the record label, and receive all of the rights they
need to operate a music service. Sublicensing works and with
the addition of minimal statutory changes could work even
better. I don't expect that every party will endorse additional
sublicensing provisions, but this approach would solve the
problem.
Sublicensing makes sense from a practical perspective,
because music services already have to deal with the record
labels. So long as the record label passes on the proper
royalty amount to the publisher that they have collected and
the music services get the rights they need and money flows
back in a timely fashion, then the parties will get the benefit
of the compulsory license.
The second legislative option is to adopt the 114 model in
section 115. This would require greater changes in the law, but
much of the language to create a 115 license already exists in
114.
Under the 114 framework today, one entity with respect to
webcasters, SoundExchange, collects all the royalty income on
behalf of all rights holders and then distributes that money to
them. It is an efficient system that both licensees and
licensors support, despite the outcry over the recent rate
decision. It is not necessarily over the process, per se. It is
the rate.
As I have noted earlier, solving the rights issue is really
necessarily, and the question here is, what is the problem with
the rights. Licensing is divided into two separate markets. One
is public performance; one is reproductions and distributions.
This pits two different middlemen for the same copyright
owner against each other. Each wants and each demands a piece
of the action, whatever that action might be. But whether or
not two or more separate rights are truly indicated and
deserving of compensation is a question that is before a
variety of bodies at this point.
But on top of whether or not they are truly implicated,
there is the belief that it is inefficient to require a
licensee to seek out two separate licenses from two separate
sources in order to compensate the same copyright owner for the
right to engage in a single transmission of a single work. So
clarification of what rights are implicated and whether those
rights have liability is critical.
If the goal, and I think this is the goal, is to shift
users away from piratical services to legitimate services, we
must have a statutory framework that enables music services to
flourish. As I think all of us who have spoken this morning
have said, the current framework for online services isn't just
outdated, it is broken. It needs to be fixed.
I look forward to working with all of you in trying to
figure out a solution that will work for the digital
marketplace, that will compensate songwriters, and that will
compensate publishers. The key is not to deny rights holders
the ability to get a fair bargain. It is really to enable music
services so money will flow back.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for some questions,
and then we will move ahead.
I know the Copyright Office expressed unease about last
year's bill. So if Congress were to pursue legislation similar
to SIRA, what policy considerations should we be concerned
with?
Ms. Peters. I think we went on record with some of our
concerns, and I will just outline one of them. One of them,
actually, I think, is solvable. I think we actually even came
forward with a way to do it, and it really deals with streaming
and specifically whether or not when streams are involved there
is in fact a distribution of a phonorecord.
We believe that especially on-demand streams could well
substitute for the sale of a phonorecord, and, therefore, the
value of an on-demand stream is higher than pure streaming. So
we agree that that is a compensable act that really has a high
value.
Our disagreement was calling it a distribution of a
phonorecord. For us, it really was a public performance. So
this issue was about terminology, and I think that that is
fixable.
There were some other issues that dealt with the
administration of the license that get into the nitty-gritty of
a designated agent and what the transparency of that
organization is and how it runs. And we can give you further
details if you want.
Mr. Berman. So, basically, what you are saying really is,
it is not a fight about so much--I mean, there will be
differences of opinion about compensation, but it is a fight
about how you analyze and the terminology used to describe it.
Ms. Peters. Well, our concern was the way that it was
described in that bill.
Mr. Berman. Right.
Ms. Peters. My issue about rights clarification, I think,
has ratcheted up a little bit since SIRA basically was on the
table. I think the proceeding in the rate court in the southern
district of New York with regard to whether or not
compensatable performances are involved in downloads is a big
issue right now.
Mr. Berman. Okay. One of the webcasters' concerns in the
context of section 115 reform is how to treat ephemeral
recordings used to facilitate the transmission of music. Here
is what has been cited as your position on this issue.
Ms. Peters. You are talking about a footnote.
Mr. Berman. Footnote 434.
Ms. Peters. Four-thirty-four.
Mr. Berman. But I am only going to read part of it here.
``As we indicated in 1998 to the affected parties, we saw
no justification for the disparate treatment of broadcasters
and webcasters regarding the making of ephemeral recordings,
nor did we see any justification for the imposition of a
royalty obligation under a statutory license to make copies
that have no independent economic value and are made solely to
enable another use that is permitted under a separate
compulsory license.''
There is a lot of controversy about this footnote. What did
the office mean to say in footnote 343 of your section 104
report?
Ms. Peters. As opposed to what we didn't mean.
Mr. Berman. And maybe I beat Mr. Boucher to this question,
I don't know.
Ms. Peters. When we were doing what is known as the 104
report, we were looking at various exemptions, and, really,
this issue came up with respect to the fact that section 112(a)
basically gave broadcasters a free ride. And so it came up in
the context of 112(a). And then what we basically said is, in
principle, we believe that people who perform like activities
should be treated essentially the same way. And because the
focus was on that broadcaster you shouldn't have to pay at all,
we basically said, to equalize them, then maybe they shouldn't
have to pay at all.
However, what you really need to step back and say is, what
is the value of those ephemeral copies. And it may be that
there is value and you flip it the other way. But our main
point, and I agree we took a position that said, don't pay at
all. Basically, make E, which deals with webcasting and sound
recordings, the equivalent of A, which deals with broadcasters
and no liability, the same.
I am here today to basically say, I can see the arguments
with regard to server copies in some instances, and so the
issue is one of value. If there is value and it should be
licensed, there should be payment, but whoever is involved
should be treated exactly the same way. Don't have disparity.
Mr. Berman. I will restrain myself from getting into the
issue of the free ride for broadcasters, and I will----
Ms. Peters. So will I.
Mr. Berman. This is a 115 hearing, and I will recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Coble. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Peters. As has been said,
it is good to have you with us this morning.
Ms. Peters, the goal of the music industry is to increase
its revenue at a time when sales of CDs are falling and
consumers are choosing to acquire music by other means. Some
might even believe that we are attempting to swim upstream
against the tide here, but let me ask you this: Do you think
that success in reforming section 115 will actually result in
reversing these trends and growing the pie for those involved
in creating, producing and distributing music?
Ms. Peters. I believe that reform will help. Ultimately, it
is the consuming public that makes the decision in the
marketplace, but I do believe that the more legitimate services
that you have, and that means enabling the digital music
services to have as much music as possible to make available to
consumers, moves us in the right direction. It is very
difficult to compete against free.
A second part of all of this is the consumer. We have to do
a better job of explaining why promoting creativity, promoting
songwriters, and promoting not only the people who write the
songs but also the people who bring the songs to us. That has
to be appreciated. So it is kind of a dual track, but this is
certainly the first step.
Mr. Coble. Let me put a simplified question to you that may
not involve a simplified answer. What do you consider to be the
chief obstacle or impediment to reform, A, and, B, how do we
overcome it?
Ms. Peters. The chief obstacle, in my view, is there are at
least three major parties involved all of whom have their own--
and I understand it--issues and way they want to see this
resolved. Trying to reach consensus isn't going to happen
because their own interests differ significantly. So it really
is, I think, Congress' responsibility to step back and say,
what is the best balance?
You cited the Constitution. What encourages creativity the
most and distribution of product for the benefit of the
American people? And I think there are some hard choices that
you have to make. You are going to have to decide on what the
path is and what a fair balance is.
Obviously, if the answer were easy, we would have solved it
3 years ago. And people in my office will smile, we have been
meeting with various parties asking, what the situation is and
where are you going. I had a reaction the other day. I went,
``Ahh,'' I threw up my arms. I said, ``I don't know what to do.
This is so complicated.''
So it is difficult, but choose a path. Choose a 114 blanket
license or choose the path and then keep that path narrow to
accomplish ease of administration of the mechanical compulsory
license so that digital music services can bring the largest
amount of content to the people so that they can compete with
free, unauthorized services.
Mr. Coble. Well, it is easier to propound a simple
question, and I think you responded as well as you could. I
thank you for that.
Ms. Peters, given that the 115 license is seldom used, that
technology is moving faster than the legislative process and
that industry stakeholders have been unable or unwilling to
agree on one comprehensive reform proposal, should our
Committee consider simply sunsetting the license just as the
distant signal satellite license, the 119 license expires every
5 years unless expressly reauthorized by the Congress? What say
you to that?
Ms. Peters. If what you are saying is, leave the license as
it is and sunset it, I don't think it works. The problem is now
you have got to enable music services now. You have got to
figure out how to keep services in business and let them expand
and grow to serve consumers' needs. So you can't leave it as it
is.
Actually, I was suggesting that if you fix it and do a
short-term fix, and then sunset it. But I don't think a
solution is leave it as it is and in 5 years sunset it. I
support sunsetting it, but the experience with sunsets hasn't
been good. They don't go away.
Mr. Coble. And I see a red light. I see Mr. Berman is
looking at me, so I yield back.
Mr. Berman. So, basically, you are saying we are going to
have to make tough decisions?
Ms. Peters. I am saying that I think the time has come----
Mr. Berman. I hate when that happens. [Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. So do I.
Mr. Berman. Although, I don't know, the sunset means we
have to make tough decisions over and over again.
Ms. Peters. That is exactly right.
Mr. Berman. Since I don't know exactly where people came
in, I am just going to go in the order of seniority and
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And, Ms. Peters, welcome back to the Subcommittee.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. We enjoy your biannual, it not annual,
appearances here.
I think that we all agree on the urgent need for section
115 reform, and you have certainly well-stated that in your
opening statement, and I thank you for that carefully prepared
presentation.
Last year, unfortunately, as we sought to process that
reform, we had a consensus that was pretty close on most of the
key provisions, as you also indicated in your statement. But
then at the last minute, as the measure came to the
Subcommittee for final consideration, there were added some
extraneous and very controversial provisions, namely provisions
that would have disabled the portable device that XM Satellite
Radio is beginning to market and also a provision that would,
as I recall, have added a digital audio broadcast flag.
That latter provision is not mature and, frankly, has not
been through the same kind of vetting process that the video
broadcast flag went through with an independent group comprised
of various stakeholder engineers making sure the standard was
workable and efficient. That hasn't happened for the audio
flag.
And for the audio flag, it may not be necessary for
Congress to act at all, because one company, essentially,
controls the intellectual property, iBiquity, that is being
used by the digital radio broadcasters. So, I mean, with an
agreement with that company and all the external stakeholders,
it could be implemented without Congress even having to act.
All of that aside, my question to you is this: I very much
hope that in the interest of getting an effective section 115
reform passed in this Congress, that all of those who might be
tempted to burden this bill with these extraneous and
controversial provisions or other matters that would be
controversial and might weigh it down would refrain from doing
so. Because if we pass a section 115 reform, everybody who has
a copyright interest is going to benefit. The labels benefit,
the performers benefit, the songwriters and publishers benefit.
And I think that Wall Street Journal article that
Congressman Smith presented, which I also read yesterday, makes
the case as clearly as any of us possibly can, that the lawful
distribution by streams and downloads of music on the Internet
has got to be made more feasible, and the legal underbrush that
is causing that system, as you said, to be broken simply has
got to be cleared away. We can do that pretty effectively with
the 115 reform.
So the first question I have for you is, do you have any
comment on the appropriateness of let's don't burden this
reform with some of these extraneous and controversial
provisions that are really not necessary to reforming section
115?
Ms. Peters. The answer is, yes, don't burden with
extraneous provisions. I guess the issue is, what is extraneous
and what really is critical, and we may have some disagreement
on some of that.
But, no, that is----
Mr. Boucher. Well, we don't need an audio flag for HD
radio.
Ms. Peters. No, I agree. We don't have to----
Mr. Boucher. And we don't need to disable the portable
devices that XM is putting out to do this, do we?
Ms. Peters. Not through 115, but the question is----
Mr. Boucher. Thank you. That pretty well answers----
Ms. Peters. But the question is----
Mr. Boucher. Thank you. That is a great answer. Why don't
we leave it at that?
Ms. Peters. No, no. I meant, the question is, what is 115
going to cover? Activity is either an infringement or it isn't.
Section 115 should focus on what kind of activity you want to
promote through a compulsory license.
Mr. Boucher. All right. Let's leave it with that.
Now, my second question is this: I actually like that
footnote a lot, and I am very familiar with that footnote, and
I think you clearly got it right when you said that these
incidental copies--the buffer copies, the cache copies, the
ephemeral copies--that are necessary in order to effectuate a
transmission that itself is licensed really have no independent
value. You can't sell these for anything. They are only
essentially made in the marketing of something for which
copyright royalties are paid under another license.
And so why not say that these items simply do not have
independent value? It is hard for me to imagine that they do.
And I, frankly, a little bit surprised this morning to hear you
suggest that maybe they do after all and that your footnote was
not properly stated.
So tell me this: How can they possibly have independent
value when they all do is effectuate a transmission that itself
is licensed?
Ms. Peters. I am not a guru in the marketplace. I stand by
the statement with regard to incidental, temporary copies. The
question that has come up, and where we actually have seen
deals, we have seen contracts where there is separate money for
a server copy, just raises for me a question on whether or not
there is value.
Mr. Boucher. Well, Ms. Peters, is it possible those deals
were made because of the legal uncertainty with regard to
whether or not this would be termed to be a copy unless we
clearly declared that they had no independent value? I think
the answer is, yes.
Ms. Peters. It could be.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you.
Ms. Peters. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Berman. I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Feeney.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you.
And thanks for your testimony. My colleague asked questions
and answered them for you, but I am a little new to this issue,
so I am going to ask you for some advice.
This is one of those areas where Congress tries to regulate
an industry that technology is changing so dramatically that
legislation is obsolete before it is effective. And would we be
better off, given the state of things--I mean, nobody could
have predicted 15 years ago, or for that matter 5, the status
of BlackBerrys or iPods of downloading music on our computers,
and given that we can assume that nobody can predict 5 or 15
years from now what the technological opportunities for
consumers will be, would we be better off, for example, going
to a principles-based set of standards and letting the courts
figure it out?
Another alternative would be--you know, throughout states
in this country we regulate utilities, for example, electric,
water, sewer. Could we create a utility-type regulator of
experts that would meet, if necessary, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a
month to settle some of these issues that are rapidly changing?
Would either of those be a better alternative than Congress
trying to anticipate market technology changes?
Ms. Peters. Let me start with the second. I would hate to
see creative product treated as a utility. I would hate to see
a song or motion picture or a piece of artwork treated as a
utility. So I am not going to go down that road. I would not
suggest that. I think these are efforts of some of the most
talented people in the United States and throughout the world,
and each one is different and each one has value.
It is true that some of the difficulties that we have had
with the law is when you use language that is very specific,
sometimes to create certainly at a particular moment in time,
that that language doesn't transition well toward change. And
it is true that adopting basic principles whereby things like,
if in fact a copy is made only to enable a licensed
performance, then basically there should not be liability. That
kind of a principle can adapt with change.
And in fact in compulsory licenses, with regard to rate
settings and terms, there already is a structure, a copyright
royalty structure, and those people are equipped to deal with
what are the services that are in the license and to set rates
and terms. So I think that that is a better way to go. Stay
away from copyright as a utility.
Mr. Feeney. Well, I didn't mean to regulate----
Ms. Peters. I am teasing. It is all right.
Mr. Feeney [continuing]. The quality. But in terms of the--
--
Ms. Peters. No, I know. I know what--actually, I have heard
that many times, that everybody treats music like a utility.
Mr. Feeney. The Securities and Exchange Commission for 80
years in this country has regulated corporate governance
without any serious long-term impact on freedom or capitalism
or creativity, although we have some minor problems now and
then, and that is a different Committee.
You mentioned in your testimony the suggestion that we
might create a music rights organization to combine both the
mechanical and the performance rights, and you mentioned the
benefits of one-stop shopping. But there are some potential
harms with this approach too. Would you elaborate on what the
downside or adverse consequences are?
Ms. Peters. I mean, the truth of the matter is that that
was a proposal that we, the Copyright Office, put forward.
There was a hearing on that proposal where I was the only
witness, and I can say that there was no support from anyone on
that proposal.
The downside is the reality of today's world, the reality
that the way that music has traditionally been licensed has
different organizations that do that. They are well-established
and the thought of basically combining rights and having one
organization handle both is not a welcomed thought to those
organizations.
Mr. Feeney. And, finally--well, I see my--I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, I just got here after the----
Mr. Berman. Okay. My problem is, I wasn't keeping track of
when people got here.
Mr. Wexler. I defer to whoever was here before me.
Mr. Berman. Okay.
Then Mr. Watt, the gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony.
I am new to the Subcommittee and we never got a shot at
this issue the last time in the full Committee, so I have two
questions that I would like to get your responses to.
It sounds like you were very, very close to an agreement,
at least that would have solved some of these issues, in the
last term in Congress.
Ms. Peters. I would say you were close to an agreement. It
was Congress, not us.
Mr. Watt. Then I will rephrase it to say, it sounds like we
were close----
Ms. Peters. You were, you were, yes. Okay. Yes.
Mr. Watt [continuing]. To an agreement in--or they were
close in the Subcommittee----
Ms. Peters. Right. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Watt [continuing]. To an agreement that would have
resolved this. What changes in the marketplace have taken place
since that near agreement that need to be taken into account,
if any?
And you, I think, indicated in your testimony that you
perceive that it is more difficult to do it now than it was
then. What are the things that make it more difficult from your
perspective, and how might we work through those?
And then, finally, what advice would you give a new Member
of this Subcommittee about what role he might play in advancing
this process to a conclusion?
Ms. Peters. That is a good question. Let me start with----
Mr. Berman. Go along with the Chairman is a good answer.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. Well, you have your answer. Okay. Your Chairman
has spoken.
Mr. Berman. I am just kidding. I am just kidding.
Mr. Watt. Sounds like I either need to follow the Chairman
or follow Boucher, and neither one of those seems like a real
good choice to me. [Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. That is amazing.
Mr. Berman. I can understand why.
Ms. Peters. Let me start with what has changed. I am not
sure what we heard, basically, is that our new business models
that bring about a necessity to adjust the road that I
basically suggested we go down, a blanket license or
sublicensing. We heard that increasingly it is--a compulsory
license kicks in after a copyright owner has authorized, so the
copyright owner is in the driver's seat for the very first
recording of a song.
Mr. Watt. Was the sublicensing that you are talking about
in the last legislation?
Ms. Peters. It is actually in the 1995 legislation. But
when this compulsory license kicks in is after there actually
has been----
Mr. Watt. You are talking to me about something--let me go
back and maybe frame the question.
Ms. Peters. Okay.
Mr. Watt. If we were starting exactly where we left off the
last time, not new things, what are the market changes that
would create impediments to moving to conclusion, the changes
that have taken place, and what change would you make from that
basic structure?
Ms. Peters. I don't think it is marketplace change, per se,
but it is organizations who are dealing with the marketplace
who believe that the existing marketplace is causing new
difficulties in the licensing. And what I was getting at was
this license never dealt with the first recording of a song.
Now we are hearing that we really need to solve the problem of
the first recording of a song.
We have heard that although the law essentially allows one
owner to license for all owners, that the practice is not to do
that in the music area and that each owner is now only
authorizing their piece. So the question is, how many owners
are there. In the past, there may have been two, maybe three.
We recently heard 17. When you get 17 owners and each one has
to license the piece, if that is the trend, that makes it more
difficult. So it is those kinds of things. It is really how the
players are now dealing with transactions that are causing some
of the strains.
And I don't have advice on how you deal with it, other than
to say that if you were dealing with two owners and now you are
dealing with 17, it is more complicated. If you were dealing
with subsequent recordings and now the issue is the initial
one, it is a much bigger issue for a compulsory license.
Mr. Berman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back to the Committee, Ms. Peters.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon. I don't want to be offensive to anybody else
who is appearing before this or any other Subcommittee that I
serve on, but you are my favorite witness, and it is amazing to
me that you know so much and you have such breadth and depth on
this subject.
I apologize that I have been in and out and doing other
things, and this has been asked, I think, perhaps in other
ways, but you have been quoted historically as saying that
getting rid of the compulsory license would cause chaos in the
industry. Could that be done with a phase-out at 6 months or a
1-year phase-out, and does that make sense to do?
Ms. Peters. I am not the best person to answer that
question. It really is----
Mr. Cannon. You should leave that judgment up to us, Ms.
Peters----
Ms. Peters. Well, no, it is the part----
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. About your qualifications, because
you have already made it.
Ms. Peters. Although we have said that the compulsory
license is rarely used, that doesn't mean that it really
doesn't form the backdrop of licensing activities. So when you
take that backdrop away, what happens? And I have heard from
the parties that it would create increased chaos, but I think
that that is an area that you certainly could raise with the
affected parties.
Mr. Cannon. There are technologies out there that are
emerging that would do a great deal more than what we are
actually currently doing in practice. We have a bunch of high-
tech companies that are, among other things, using music for
things that music has never been used for and, therefore, it is
hard to say what the purpose is or how to charge that.
So, for instance, if a company allows or creates for a
family to put together a family album and that family may be
five kids and two parents and grandparents and hopefully
grandkids and great-grandkids, in Utah, that could actually be
quite a number.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. With everybody having a copy, the question is,
how do you license that? And, currently, I am thinking of a
particular company that does this, and if they had to license
every song that they use, and in fact that is what they have
been doing and they are very frustrated, they are in a world
where there is no traditional model for licensing and so they
have to negotiate them. And they are negotiating in the context
of a model that nobody understands the scope of. Whereas, I
think that----
Ms. Peters. That is the issue.
Mr. Cannon. Right. So do we help solve that issue by
getting rid of the compulsory license and letting other models
emerge that will be creative about how we license?
Ms. Peters. I will tell you that I think the person who you
are referring to, and certainly the Digital Media Association
will tell you that the easiest way to sell it to them right now
is a blanket license or sublicensing.
Mr. Cannon. But the trouble with a blanket license is, how
do you deal with the complexities of the ultimate use of the
material?
Ms. Peters. You let the copyright royalty judges set rates
for the various types of uses.
Mr. Cannon. Right. That will really enhance the rate at
which we----
Ms. Peters. And two of them are here, you know.
Mr. Cannon. That would really enhance the rate at which we
get new uses for licenses.
Ms. Peters. It is very difficult in a world that changes
this quickly. And the good news is that more and more music is
being used in more and more ways.
Mr. Cannon. And the people that create the music ought to
get paid more and more money for it if we can figure out how to
do that.
Ms. Peters. Well, they certainly ought to get paid for it
as it is being used, yes.
Mr. Cannon. Right. But really, currently, there are huge
chunks. I am not sure what the value of those chunks is right
now, but over time, that value, I think, grows, becomes
dominant, but we are not getting there because of the rigidity
of the current system that we have.
Ms. Peters. I agree.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. So does that mean that we should get
rid of the compulsory license?
Ms. Peters. I have always been an advocate of the
marketplace and that when marketplace has to work, it does, and
systems come into play. I am just not sure of an industry that
has operated for so long in a particular fashion and their
ability to transition over. However, I am aware that the
predominant position of the music publisher, not the
songwriters, who feel that they don't have enough bargaining
power to come out well in this is to abolish the license.
Mr. Cannon. Right. I just might note that the Wall Street
Journal, as of March 21, has a headline, ``Sales of Music, Long
in Decline, Plunge Sharply.''
Ms. Peters. Plunge, yes.
Mr. Cannon. This is maybe at the point where we actually
have to do something about it.
You are always a delight, and thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman. Russia, 1993, might be a
good case study in quickly getting rid of something.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like Mr. Watt, I am new to the Committee and new to much of
the subject matter. But unlike Mr. Watt, I feel a great
deference and appreciation for the wisdom and sarcastity of the
Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Berman. I can tell he is a freshman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. But rising rapidly. [Laughter.]
Mr. Berman. I will just sit here and bask. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. Help me with the difference. There is a
definition of musical work and there is a definition of sound
recording. Help me with those, the distinction.
Ms. Peters. Okay. Musical work, there is a songwriter,
there is a composer, there is somebody who basically today
probably with electronic equipment can play the piano, they can
basically capture digitally as an audio file or they could as
the old composer, sit down with the music note taker and sketch
out the song. The song, the notes, the lyrics that may
accompany them, that is the musical composition. That is the
foundation that starts it all.
In today's world, the way you exploit a musical composition
is by getting someone to make a recording of the former, and
the fixation of the performance--the performer, the other
musicians, the contributions of any sound engineers--that
performance is, when it is fixed, is a sound recording.
So think songwriter, music; performer, sound recording.
They are two separate rights. Sound recordings came into
the Federal copyright system in 1972. Before that, they weren't
there. Music has been there since 1831.
So it is the song and then the performance. There is one
song, there are many different performances of that song. Each
performance can result in a separate sound recording if it is
fixed in a file.
Mr. Cohen. I appreciate that. I understand the differences
now. And the musical works are licensed right now for the over-
the-air broadcasters; is that right? They have to pay for that,
but they don't have to pay for the recordings?
Ms. Peters. The musical composition has a variety of
rights. One stream is making these phonorecords, making CDs,
MP3 files. That is the reproduction and distribution rights.
The probably more important right in today's world, I will
argue, where you make more of your money is every time a
musical composition is publicly performed that means through
the radio, through the television, in a bar, many bars, some
bars--I want to clarify that--some restaurants, there is a
payment for that public performance, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC licensed
public performance. They license them on a blanket basis. That
works well.
On the delivery services, where you are authorizing
downloads, like Apple iTunes, it is the reproduction
distribution of phonorecord downloads. You are getting a
physical object.
I know, it is complicated.
Mr. Cohen. It is complicated, but you are helping me a lot,
and I have a kind of suggested question, which I think it is no
secret we have these, that the musical works may be licensed to
be performed by over-the-air broadcasters. Sound recordings do
not have the opportunity to generate any licensing income from
the use of recordings on the radio. And it may be what the
Chairman----
Ms. Peters. That is true.
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. Was suggesting we not get into with
the radio, but as we consider this, do you think we should
consider granting a full performance right in sound recordings?
Ms. Peters. I have always supported a full performance
right in sound recordings. And when the law was changed in 1995
to give them a limited sound recording performance right, I
accepted it saying, ``God, we broke the barrier and there is a
recognition,'' but was very upset that it wasn't broader.
If you look at a performance, one of the key things is it
performed. And if in fact you are not basically giving them the
right to control performance, you are giving them less than
totally valuable rights. So, of course, I support that.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
And seeing the red light is up and I have no longer time, I
will yield the remainder of my time.
Ms. Peters. Anything I can do to help you with----
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman. I want to make it clear
that I only suggested not getting into that issue at this
hearing. I did not suggest not getting into that issue.
Mr. Cohen. Next hearing.
Mr. Berman. The gentleman from Florida who was here
earlier, Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for coming before us again. You heard
Chris Cannon say that you are his favorite witness, but you see
it is the rest of us that are sticking around. Just point that
out. [Laughter.]
Mr. Berman. So this is everyone-savage-their-colleague
week. [Laughter.]
Mr. Keller. Just teasing.
From time to time, this Subcommittee has received
complaints about problems that music users have had in
acquiring a license for subscription services, ringtones, DVDs
or other new types of products and services, and these problems
seem to arise because there are always questions about how
section 115 should be applied to new technologies.
As we look at section 115 reform, are there things that we
can do to minimize these kinds of disputes in the future so
that new kinds of products don't get delayed by legal
uncertainty?
Ms. Peters. Well, this really goes to my issue about
clarifying rights. When there may be a right that is
implicated, the question then is, which of those rights really
need compensation and which of those rights might be exempt? I
was suggesting earlier that if you adopted a basic principled
approach, it may be easier to figure out whether new activities
would be covered or not.
For me, the biggest problem is, I will use the download
situation. Today, I go into a store, if they are still around,
and I buy a CD. It is very clear that what I have purchased is
a CD and the rights that had to be cleared in order to produce
that CD, the reproduction and the distribution right.
If today, instead, I decide to go online to Apple iTunes to
get the same CD, assuming I could do that, or to get tracks
from that CD, in essence, I am going to end up with the same
thing. I am going to end up with a physical thing--this time it
is going to be a digital file--so that I can listen to that in
my home whenever I want to.
But what is different is there is a transmission, and the
question is, the transmission that is the equivalent to my
walking in the store, is that a public performance for which
there should be compensation? That kind of issue needs to be
clarified.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Some have asserted that section 115
might require payment of twice the mechanical royalties if the
same recording is included on one disc in two different
formats, such as stereo and surround sound. Is that your view?
And if so, and if the disc can't be sold for twice the price,
is that something that we should be addressing?
Ms. Peters. That was one of the issues that was on the
original list of things that we were told needed to be
resolved. That is more a physical object issue rather than an
online purchase issue.
If you start going down and solving all of those problems,
I think you are going to not be able to get a bill through.
There are a whole bunch of issues that are like that.
Mr. Keller. You testified earlier that the reform of the
digital music licensing system is the most important music
issue currently before the Congress. How hopeful are you that
this issue can finally be resolved this Congress? What specific
steps do you think we should be taking? And then, finally, do
you think we should move forward despite the lack of consensus
right now in the music industry on a single reform proposal?
Ms. Peters. Most people who know me know that I am the
eternal optimist, so I will say that, in my typical fashion, I
believe that it is achievable. Likely? I don't know. It
certainly hasn't been solved in 3 years, but the focus in 3
years was to get the parties to reach consensus.
So the question is, do you have the stamina to basically
say, ``This is something we want to do,'' and move it forward?
I think it can be moved forward, but it really does take
political will and it does take this Committee getting involved
and deciding what it thinks is best, the Members think is best.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman.
And I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will decline, at
this point, from exercising my power of wit. [Laughter.]
And so I won't try to be a part-time comedian like I have
heard some of the others doing today.
That was not an insult, that was a joke. [Laughter.]
Mr. Berman. It doesn't take much to exceed what has gone on
before you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. And I will take that as an insult. [Laughter.]
Ms. Peters, the Copyright Act has, for decades, defined six
separate rights within copyright, including the rights of
performance, reproduction and distribution. One could read your
testimony to suggest that some of these rights could be
combined.
For example, you suggest that the right of reproduction,
which may be exploited by a company in order to perform the
work, need not be separately licensed and compensated and
instead, by law, it be licensed along with the performance
right.
Do we possibly diminish the value of each separate right,
allowing them to be licensed together?
Ms. Peters. I am not in any way suggesting that we should
be, at this point, combining any rights. Each right is an
important right. Each right should be licensed. The question is
administration. The question is the way that you go about
obtaining the necessary rights. And the point that I have made
on a number of occasions is that music is more difficult than
other types of works because of the historic way in which it
has been licensed. And it worked well in the past, but right
now we are feeling the strain.
And so the goal was, is there a more efficient way to
accomplish getting the licenses that you need for all of the
rights, and the value of the product, you look at the product
as a whole, and obviously it is based on getting rights, but
the value should always be the full value of what the market
will bear for the product. The goal is to simplify the getting
of the rights. It is not dealing with the value. Authors,
publishers need to get full market value.
Mr. Johnson. So what exactly would you propose as far as
changing the method of obtaining the rights to performance or
reproduction? I assume you----
Ms. Peters. Well, actually, the performance rights today,
other than the question on whether or not they may be
implicated, and the courts are looking at some of that, though
I suggested that you could take a step in clarifying that, but
the performance right, assuming that you need it, is very easy
to clear. The three performing rights societies give blanket
licenses, then negotiate it.
The issue is on the reproduction and distribution of
phonorecords, it is on digital delivery of phonorecords and the
fact that we don't have the equivalent of these three
performing rights societies to cover all songs and all of the
rights holders.
Mr. Johnson. Why hasn't the marketplace adapted to the
changing times? I guess that is hard for you to answer, but
apparently the marketplace which used so--I mean, you stated
and I am also, I believe that the market responds and should
respond, should have the freedom to respond to the changing
realities, but apparently that has not occurred.
Ms. Peters. Well, actually, the market is responding. The
reality is that free got a big head start. Napster, which
originally wasn't doing legal content, enabled huge
unauthorized uploading. And now we are playing catch-up.
But the problem for the digital music services is, in order
to compete, because free has everything, they don't have to
clear anything, is they can't have, like, some of the songs and
compete. They have got to have almost all of the songs to
compete.
So the fact that you can clear 50 percent of the songs or
70 percent of the songs is not good enough for them to compete.
So how do we make it possible for them to do the things that
the performing rights societies do today, which is essentially
clear all rights and almost all the songs.
Mr. Johnson. And the ability is there, we just don't have
the law in place to enable the agency to capture 100 percent.
Mr. Berman. I think the answer is, yes, we don't, and that
is----
Ms. Peters. Okay. I will leave it there.
Mr. Berman. But the time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. I thank the Chairman from California.
It is good to see you again.
Ms. Peters. It is good to see you too.
Mr. Issa. You are my favorite witness. [Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. Well, I am happy. The people in front of me are
doing better than the people behind me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Issa. Now, whether this is the favorite subject of this
Committee is a different story. This is not the first time we
have brought this up, it won't be the last, but if I can use
your presence here to characterize a point.
I come from the patent side, even though I often say I have
the Sunny Bono seat, because I am the non-lawyer but the
intellectual property owner on the Committee, and in the patent
world it is pretty easy for us to understand that anybody who
invents, including a team of 10, if you don't have a contract,
all 10 have individual rights; they can all sell the invention.
They can all make, use or sell. And that is pretty cool. It is
a little troublesome for a company that has 12 engineers and
you have to get them all contracted or you will lose your
rights, but at least it is clear.
It certainly isn't clear here. I am sure if Sonny Bono were
here today and we asked, ``Well, how did you make sure that the
guy running the mikes and doing the mixing, who may have been
doing it for cheap, free or just an opportunity to tour with
the band, gave his rights to you,'' he would have an answer,
and it worked for him.
But it is very clear we don't have that same level of
clarity in copyright.
So what I am hearing here today, what I have heard in
previous hearings is, we have a legacy problem. We have a
problem we patchworked together from 1831--which, by the way, I
wrote that down, because that is not a date I had in my notes--
from 1831 we have sort of patchworked together copyright and we
have never had the simple clarity that I believe we enjoy in
patents about what you get, how you get it, how you control it.
So if I follow your logic--and do I get a straight head
shake on that that it is a legacy problem?
Ms. Peters. Yes. But the one thing I would disagree with
is, it wasn't till new technologies came along. So 1831 until
piano rolls wasn't such a big deal.
Mr. Issa. Very true. And I got an opportunity to meet Hare
Guttenberg the other day, I meet him regularly, he is a member
of the European Union parliament. Until his family business got
going, probably people who wrote songs didn't have to worry too
much about whether they got money for duplications of it,
because you could only handwrite it.
But technology has been on a steady role for, oh, albeit a
couple thousand years, and we are where we are, which is you
have got broadcasters, if they are terrestrial, under one set
of rules; you have the Internet, whether it is 802.11 and it is
wireless and it is going through the air or whether it is more
conventional wired, another set of rules.
You have got the question of whether or not you are caching
or storing on a hard drive in that process, whether you have
got a copy or you are just transmitting it. One would say that
even on my computer when I am streaming, am I in fact recording
it for a period of time because I have to have a buffer.
We can go through endlessly all that, but in the limited
time, if I turn it around the other way and say, if this
Committee sets its sights on bringing clarity and it says,
``Look, you have to own it,'' and everybody in the mix owns
what they produced until or less they sign it away, if they
sign it away exclusively, under what contractual agreement,
they have done that. If they don't sign it away exclusively,
but non-exclusively, then they have the right to sell what they
own. Well, what they sold is now in a package.
If we set those principles with--that is one set of
principles, then I will ask a second question. You are
comfortable with that part, that we need to make it that
simple.
Ms. Peters. I think the law itself is pretty okay and
simple. What we basically say is, all creators would jointly
own, and be licensed by one. Combined the others are subject to
a duty of account. What is happening is the opposite. It is
subject to an agreement to the contrary. There are all these
agreements to the contrary.
Mr. Issa. And which I do appreciate that.
The last part, though, is because we live in a world of
compulsory licenses, don't we need to produce a uniform
compulsory license act that essentially says that when you have
a compulsory license it is 9.5 cents, hypothetically, but since
9.5 cents doesn't get you to 2 cents for a cached copy, there
has to be, in fact, some streamlining of that system to say, as
you said, unless you otherwise do, but, in a sense, isn't there
a mandate that we deal with that so that you can have that
flexibility of pricing?
Because it is very clear today that I can sell my song to
Sirius or XM, in a sense, but I may or may not be paid or
somebody can collect two-thirds of the royalty and say, ``Go
sue for the other third,'' and that is happening as we speak.
Ms. Peters. I guess I am not totally clear with what my
answer would be. And it really comes down to compulsory
licensing, per se.
Our Constitution, basically, talks about exclusive rights
and exercise of exclusive rights. Compulsory license cuts back
on that exclusivity, and in an online environment, there is a
push by a lot of people to just basically mandate compulsory
licensing.
My personal view is that if we go that route, we lose
something very valuable. It may be that that is where we end
up, but I certainly don't want to be there right now. And I
would rather get rid of this license than basically expand it
to say, as a compulsory license, it deals with all uses of
everything.
Mr. Berman. Did you want to just add a final point? The
time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. Peters. Okay. Anyway----
Mr. Issa. Your time is unlimited, though, isn't it,
Chairman.
Mr. Berman. You and I can sit here for the third and fourth
rounds.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Issa, I would like to think about it and
maybe get back to you. I hadn't really thought all of that
through at this point, and I think there are more nuances than
I am willing to commit to at this point.
Mr. Issa. Thank you for your candor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask you a couple questions. First, whether you
can highlight any specific concerns or comments that you have
with regard to last year's SIRA legislation. In particular, do
you believe that the authority to set rates for a modified
section 115 license should remain with the copyright royalty
judges or do you support the proposed structure in last year's
bill that provided for private sector negotiations first with
arbitration procedures available if those failed?
And the second question is, in discussing the rate-setting
procedures, you indicate that it would be wise to provide the
rate-setting body with the flexibility to set a schedule of
rates depending on the services offered. As you know, some have
argued that a per unit rate would be difficult to utilized and
would prefer a percentage of revenue option instead. And I
would love to get your thoughts on that as well.
Ms. Peters. Rate and term setting for compulsory licenses
are set by copyright royalty judges as the body that is going
to do that. The license, basically, suggest that the parties
negotiate, and if they can reach agreement, then that is the
preferable way. So if they can reach agreement on what the rate
should be, then normally that is blessed, and it is only when
there is disagreement that you end up with the body setting
rates.
Now, certain parties----
Mr. Schiff. So, in effect, you have a system of arbitration
already?
Ms. Peters. Well, no. I was basically saying you actually
have a system that encourages voluntary negotiation against the
parties, and if they reach the rates, then that is fine. And if
there are parties who haven't reached agreement, then that body
sets the compulsory license rates. So a compulsory license in
nature is compulsory. The license is there, and the rates will
be set by the judges, but there is always encouragement of
voluntary licenses.
With respect to whether or not you were going to do a
percentage of revenue or a----
Mr. Schiff. Well, yes, but still on that first point, are
you saying then that you prefer to have the present system than
have a negotiation followed by an arbitration?
Ms. Peters. I hadn't really thought about it. I actually
think that we have a new system. I think that a lot of work
went into that new system, and I stand behind the fact that the
system that is in place is a good one. And I hadn't really
focused on that this really had an additional arbitration. I
need to think about that.
Mr. Schiff. And what are your thoughts in terms of per unit
rate versus percentage of revenue option?
Ms. Peters. I think it depends on the circumstance. I think
that both options should--you need to, basically, have
flexibility to figure out what is best under the particular
circumstances. And it is really going to come down to what the
proposals are and what the evidence is and what is provided for
the royalty judges to decide what they think is the fairest
approach. And there is a review process in the court of appeals
for the D.C. circuit, but, actually, this new body basically
has a reconsideration provision with respect to when they
basically put out rates there is a period in which people can
petition for reconsideration.
So, I think that sometimes the per transaction rate is the
appropriate option, sometimes a percentage of revenue, if you
can clearly define what that percentage rate is going to be of.
Mr. Schiff. In looking at the subscription music services,
though, do you have a sense of what you think is more
appropriate? I mean, that is the main context in which this is
implicated, isn't it?
Ms. Peters. I am not sure, but I really do not know what is
the appropriate option--I haven't really considered what the
evidence is or not. Thank God we are not in that business.
But I have supported flexibility. I have supported that it
can be either a penny rate, or it can be a percentage. It is
really going to come down what is the best under the
circumstances, what works. It is really what works.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Berman. Abusing, once again, the Chairman's
prerogative, the question then comes is it iTunes revenues or
is it iPods revenue, but never mind.
Ms. Peters. No, that is----
Mr. Berman. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Berman. I am sorry, I am sorry.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me apologize for not being here earlier
in the hearing. I am the Ranking Member of the Small Business
Committee, we have a hearing going on down there.
I am new to this Subcommittee. I have been on the Judiciary
for 13 years now but not the Subcommittee, and so I wanted to
particularly thank you for coming this morning to educate us on
this very important issue.
As I was preparing for this hearing, by reading section
115, I couldn't help---- [Laughter.]
Well, my staff read it.
Ms. Peters. All right.
Mr. Chabot. I read most of it. I couldn't help but think to
myself that this is a lawyer's and an infringer's dream
statute. There were so many exceptions and references that it
is difficult to keep straight what is legal and what is not.
Moreover, I had just read in yesterday's Wall Street Journal
about the continued plight of the music industry with declining
sales in the range of 20 percent from last year.
So my question--and I will keep it to just one question,
because I have to get back to the Small Business Committee to
make sure that the Democrats aren't running amuck down there,
just kidding--what role has this statute played, if any, in the
decline of the music industry, and how can we tighten this
statute up to revitalize the music industry and push back
against infringement, which has been such a scourge on the
industry?
Ms. Peters. I can make an argument that when a statute is,
like you said, too complex and people can't figure out what you
can do and what you can't, that is a problem. Here what we are
really talking about is in order to have legitimate services
functioning, they need the rights and they need all songs. And
the current clearance process, even under the statutory
license, doesn't work.
So there is an impediment that needs to be fixed in order,
at least with regard to people who want to use a statutory
license that now is there, to make that workable. So there is a
piece.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time in order to give
Ms. Lofgren time.
Mr. Berman. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know the
bells have rung for a vote, so I will be brief.
I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
this hearing, and I think there is broad agreement that 115
reform is important. And if you look at the headlines, ``Sales
of Music, Long in Decline, Fall More Quickly,'' all the parties
who have had tiffs and understandably trouble sorting this out
have tremendous motivation to get this right.
I agree with the Chairman, he and I have talked, and we
always see eye to eye on every single item on copyright. There
are issues and reasonable people can differ on the issue of how
we deal with receivers on satellite radio, whether or not there
should be broadcast flags. I am sure we, at some point, will
get into it, but I am hopeful that we don't get into it in 115,
because 115 needs to get done, and wherever people are on the
whole argument about copyright, I think there is broad
consensus there, and that is a piece of the good news.
Just on cache copies, I want to associate myself with Mr.
Boucher's remarks on the validity of your footnote comment. I
mean, to charge separately for cached copies is kind of like
instead of paying the cab driver for the ride, you are paying
for every drop of oil in the engine. It is an impediment to
making this thing go. We need to simplify this in a way that
will allow people to be paid. And diverting ourselves in that
way continues an impediment. We need to simplify, we need
certainty so people know who to pay and how much to pay, and we
need to have an ability to control ambitions on payment so that
we don't eliminate the development of new markets.
Ms. Peters. Well, SIRA would have actually answered those
questions. I would really have covered all activity.
Ms. Lofgren. I have a question. In your testimony, you
admit with some candor that section 114 or the sublicensing
solution that you talk about have impediments to enactment. Let
me just ask you this, because there are actors who have
business models that have grown up around the current situation
that this would impact, and none of us are hostile to those
associations, they have performed an important role.
Can you envision a way for the existing actors to somehow
have a role in what you suggested?
Ms. Peters. I can't speak for them, but they are all----
Ms. Lofgren. No, no. Don't speak for them, and you don't
even have to do the details. Can you envision such a thing, and
we can follow up later with the details if you can.
Ms. Peters. The truth is, I am not sure. I really am not
sure. I would hope the answer was yes, but I don't have a huge
amount of comfort that it is yes.
Ms. Lofgren. I do think that as we address the problems
with the current digital music licensing situation, one of the
things that we are never able to do on the Committee and that
is true of me and I think every Member, is that we can't really
imagine the next wave of innovation. And I remember some of the
other issues we did and we are talking about Web sites and none
of us thought about peer-to-peer.
Ms. Peters. That is right.
Ms. Lofgren. Maybe there was somebody in a lab who was
thinking about it.
So I am just wondering, do you think that we can develop
principles that are less likely to impinge on the development
of new technology that will still provide for compensation?
Ms. Peters. Well, first of all, sublicensing does do that.
There are people who really are opposed to that. As for a
blanket license, I actually do think you get there and
accomplish the same thing too. Because you get the license and
you worry more about the niceties of it later.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, my time is just about up. The
bells are ringing again. Are we able to submit questions for
the record?
Mr. Berman. What I was going to say, because there are more
issues, rather than have a second round now, I would like to
suggest in addition to having an important position, a great
deal of experience and a great deal of expertise, you are a
great educator, and I am thinking of convening a more informal
meeting with Members and you just to continue a little bit of
this process of understanding this complicated mess called,
music licensing----
Ms. Peters. Whatever you want.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. In the future, and certainly there
will be a chance to submit questions, for the record, which we
hope you answer.
Ms. Peters. Oh, we will.
Mr. Berman. And unless there is a compelling desire to come
back for a second round, I think I would rather continue it in
an informal basis.
Mr. Watt. Would that be kind of like the president offering
those people not being under oath---- [Laughter.]
I will withdraw the question.
Mr. Berman. With that, the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Member, Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Ethan Smith, Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply, Rise in
Downloading Fails to Boost Industry: A Retailing Shakeout, Wall Street
Journal, March 21, 2007 at A1
Statement released by SESAC, Inc. on ``Reforming Section 115 of the
Copyright Act for the Digital Age''
Joint statement released by the American Society of Authors, Composers
and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc. comments on Reforming Section
116 of the Copyright Act for the Digital Age