U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–214 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–898 

MUSIC AND RADIO IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ASSURING FAIR RATES AND RULES ACROSS PLATFORMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–112 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ....................... 4 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 71 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 1 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 89 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Corker, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee .......................... 6 

Harleston, Jeffrey, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Geffen 

Records, Santa Monica, California ..................................................................... 15 

Kennedy, Joe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pandora Media, Inc., 

Oakland, California .............................................................................................. 13 

Nathanson, Matt, Songwriter, Performer, and Recording Artist, San Francisco, California .................................................................................................... 19 

Ondrasik, John, Singer/Songwriter, Five for Fighting, Los Angeles, California 17 

Simson, John, Executive Director, SoundExchange, Washington, D.C. .............. 11 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ............................... 8 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Jeffrey Harleston to questions submitted by Senator Brownback 31 

Responses of Joe Kennedy to questions submitted by Senator Brownback ........ 34 

Responses of Matt Nathanson to questions submitted by Senator Brownback . 38 

Responses of John Ondrasik to questions submitted by Senator Brownback .... 40 

Responses of John Simson to questions submitted by Senator Brownback ........ 42 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Corker, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, statement ....... 46 

Delaney, Albert, Vice President, Outboundmusic.com , Houston, Texas, statement ...................................................................................................................... 48 

Digital Media Association, Washington, D.C., supplemental statement ............. 49 

Donnelly, Patrick L., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Sirius 

and XM Radio Inc., .............................................................................................. 59 

Harleston, Jeffrey, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Geffen 

Records, Santa Monica, California, statement .................................................. 73 

Israelite, David M., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Music 

Publisher Association, Washington, D.C., letter ................................................ 78 

Kass, Federick J., Chief Administrative Officer, Intercollegiate Broadcasting 

System, Inc., on behalf of High School and College Broadcasters, New 

Windsor, New York, statement ........................................................................... 79 

Kennedy, Joe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pandora Media, Inc., 

Oakland, California, statement ........................................................................... 81 

Nathanson, Matt, Songwriter, Performer, and Recording Artist, San Francisco, California, statement ................................................................................. 90 

Ondrasik, John, Singer/Songwriter, Five for Fighting, Los Angeles, California, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 93 

Shapiro, Gary J., Consumer Electronics Association, The Home Recording 

Rights Coalition, Washington, D.C., statement ................................................. 97 

Page

IV 

Simson, John, Executive Director, SoundExchange, Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 104 

Starr, Val, Founder, GotRadio.Com, Antelope, California, statement ................ 108 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon, statement ............ 110 

(1) 

MUSIC AND RADIO IN THE 21ST CENTURY: 

ASSURING FAIR RATES AND RULES ACROSS 

PLATFORMS 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2008 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter, and 

Brownback. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This meeting of the Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. The purpose of this is to have a hearing, ‘‘Music and 

Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across 

Platforms.’’ We will ask the witnesses to confine their remarks to 

5 minutes so that there is an opportunity for questions. Senator 

Specter has convinced me that this is the correct way to go that 

we have the most dialogue back and forth. 

I will begin with a statement, turn to Senator Specter, and then 

to our two distinguished Senate witnesses, and it is great to have 

you here on an issue like this. 

Last Congress, I introduced a bill, cosponsored by Senator Graham, to address some of the inequities that are currently created 

under copyright law. Senator Leahy worked with me, and the Committee held a hearing on the bill on April 26, 2006. However, we 

were unable to build sufficient momentum to pass the bill. 

This Congress, patent reform took up much of this Committee’s 

time on intellectual property issues, but I am very pleased that we 

are now turning back to copyright and to the issues addressed by 

the PERFORM Act: rate parity, condition parity, and content protection. 

The one thing that patent and copyright law have in common is 

that they are both extremely complex. Copyright protection, as we 

all know, has its foundation in the Constitution. Yet over the centuries, how Congress acts to secure the exclusive right of inventions has become very technical. Not surprisingly, this parallels the 

evolution of how music is delivered to the public. 

Music was once available live at concerts or small gatherings. 

Then, with the dawn of recordings and transmission, radios were 

2 

born. But a radio used to be as large as a piece of furniture. Now, 

music radio programs are provided in our cars, on MP3 players 

that are barely larger than a postage stamp. And we can access 

radio programming over the Internet and from satellites. 

There has been a revolution in the technologies that bring music 

to vast audiences, and there has been increased consumer demand 

for music. Unfortunately, this appetite has also created an entitlement mentality that ignores the property rights of the artist and 

the investment made to create the music in the first place. 

Now, we are all familiar with the impact of illegal downloading 

and stream ripping that have spread throughout the world. For example, a quick search on frequently used software download sites 

revealed dozens of stream-ripping applications, and that means 

sites that provide software to allow consumers to record and manipulate music programs without paying for them. 

In one case, the software available over the Internet can scan 

over 15,000 Internet radio stations, and the company states that 

users can set the application to automatically download up to 

22,500 free songs daily from Internet radio stations. As the company’s Web page puts it, and I quote, ‘‘Target and find music from 

your favorite artists or fill your hard drive to the brim with hits 

from your favorite genre.’’ So the challenge facing us as lawmakers 

is how to encourage innovation, growth, competition, while at the 

same time protecting artists, musicians, and authors. 

The specific area I want to focus on is the compulsory license 

scheme created by Section 114 of the Copyright Act. Current law 

requires Internet, satellite, and cable radio companies to pay artists under different rate standards, and current law imposes different restrictions and conditions, depending on what platform is 

playing the music. This has led to confusion and inequity. The 

PERFORM Act was designed to bring clarity and fairness to the 

Government compulsory license. 

The PERFORM Act tries to address this by doing three simple 

things: one, create rate parity; two, evaluate condition parity; and, 

three, require content protection. 

First, rate parity. The bill would require webcasters, cable providers, and satellite radio to use the same rate standard to determine how much to pay musicians, and the rate standard would be 

set at ‘‘fair market value.’’ 

Now, some have argued that a different rate standard should be 

set, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ thoughts on what 

the rate standard should be across platforms. 

The second, condition parity. Last Congress, I hosted numerous 

negotiations to address the conditions imposed by Section 114 and, 

specifically, the laws definition of ‘‘interactivity.’’ Unfortunately, we 

were unable to reach a solution. Therefore, rather than set what 

conditions should apply to each platform, the bill requires the 

Copyright Office to hold a meeting and report to Congress on what 

to do about interactivity. I am still hopeful we will find a way to 

replace this report with a negotiated solution. 

Third, content protection. The PERFORM Act requires cable, satellite, and Internet radio stations to protect against making illegal 

copies of music. All companies would be required to use reasonably 

available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable 

3 

means to prevent music theft. This flexibility will ensure that radio 

companies are not forced to use cost-prohibitive technology and to 

provide them with flexibility. 

I think this legislation is a good step forward in addressing a 

real problem that is occurring in the music industry. Changes or 

additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward. But I believe 

that to wait and do nothing does a disservice to everyone that is 

involved. 

We all know that music is an invaluable part of all our lives. 

New technologies and changing music platforms provide exciting 

new options for all consumers. As the industry continues to march 

forward into new frontiers, we have got to ensure that our laws can 

stand the test of time. 

So I look forward to working with the Ranking Member, with 

Senator Leahy, our chairman, and with my colleagues to pass this 

legislation and to hear the witnesses’ thoughts on these issues. 

Now, the distinguished Ranking Member, the Senator from 

Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I wanted to stop by this morning to make a few comments to assure the witnesses and my colleagues Senator Corker and Senator 

Wyden, who are testifying, that there is great concern in the Judiciary Committee for these issues. You cannot judge it by the absence of Senators on the dais here today, but there are a great 

many conflicting schedules which we all have. And, regrettably, I 

have other commitments, but Senator Brownback is going to step 

into my spot as Ranking Member for the purpose of this hearing. 

As I take a look at the briefing materials, it seems to me we have 

a crazy quilt patchwork on a very, very complex subject. There is 

no doubt that legislation has not kept up with the technology, and 

there are many parties in interest who, candidly, are not really 

being treated fairly, or at least there has not been a determination 

by the Congress, which is our responsibility, to make an appropriate decision as to where the compensation ought to be. There 

has not been a hearing on this subject since November 2007. You 

have two types of copyright protection applying to music: protection 

of the musical composition, sheet music and words owned by the 

songwriters and music publishers; and protection of sound recording, owned by the record label and performers. 

We have legislated in 1995 on the Digital Performance And 

Sound Recordings Act and in 1998 on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And, regrettably, but factually, the Judiciary Committee 

is not functioning too well at the present time. We are having a 

hard time getting a quorum to attend our executive sessions because of controversies over nominations. In fact, in my judgment, 

the whole Senate is not functioning very well. We have a situation 

where the partisanship has reached a level unprecedented, at least 

in my tenure in the Senate, where we have controversy, as illustrated by very bitter exchanges a couple of weeks ago between the 

leaders and very heated discussion yesterday evening when we are 

arguing about whether we are going to take up the oil speculators 

4 

bill, and the controversy turns on whether the minority will be able 

to offer amendments on a process known as ‘‘filling the tree.’’ 

I mention that to you because those are very realistic factors 

which are impeding the consideration of this kind of legislation. 

That happens to be the fact. And it is regrettable, and perhaps 

soon we will be able to turn aside the partisanship; and if, as, and 

when do, there will be very close consideration for the very important issues which are here today. 

Ryan Triplette, who is my key staffer on it, is extraordinarily 

knowledgeable. We just plowed through the patent issue and could 

not come to agreement. And we are hopeful that next year there 

will be a little better atmosphere, and we can tackle a great many 

issues, including this one, which I think is very, very important. 

And I will be studying the testimony closely and trying to find 

some way to come to a legislative conclusion on these very important issues. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Brownback, would you like to make an opening comment? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. I would, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

very much. I want to thank my colleagues for being here—Senator 

Corker, Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden and I have been working 

a long time on an Internet radio broadcasting bill, and I am delighted that that is a part of the hearing today so that we can bring 

these topics out to the front. 

I appreciate the Chairman, Chairman Leahy, addressing this in 

a hearing, and I think this is important. I agree with my colleague 

Senator Specter on the complexity of the topic and its importance, 

and I am hopeful we can do something on it. 

In March of 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board delivered a potentially lethal blow to the future viability of Internet radio by setting very high royalty rates for digital transmissions of sound recordings on the Internet. Using the broken willing buyer/willing 

seller standard, the CRB set a $500-per-channel fee and set a fee 

to be paid per song per listener, resulting in a 300- to 1,200-percent 

rate increase in royalty payments—a 300- to 1,200-percent increase. 

For webcasters such as Pandora that allows users to create their 

own channels, the $500 fee was essentially a death sentence. This 

rate was simply unaffordable even for the largest and most profitable companies that engaged in webcasting. The willing buyer/willing seller standard does not even live up to its name. I have difficulty imagining a free and competitive market where a willing 

buyer would agree to pay a price that exceeds the buyer’s total revenue many times over for any product or service. 

Despite how unreasonable it may sound, this is exactly what the 

CRB decision calls for. This decision highlights the need to revisit 

this section of the Copyright Act. It is clearly broken. 

You cannot defend this CRB ruling and claim the system is functioning properly. If the system worked and the willing buyer/willVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

ing seller resulted in unfair royalties reflecting marketplace realities, we would not be holding this hearing today. If the system 

worked, the webcasters and SoundExchange would not be involved 

in ongoing negotiations for more than a year after the ruling. And 

if the system worked, Congress would not have to intervene with 

legislation. 

Certainly a privately negotiated rate between the webcasters and 

SoundExchange is preferable, and I hope that the interested parties are able to arrive at a fair compromise. I was pleased to learn 

that the exceedingly high $500-per-channel fee has been waived, 

but there is still significant work to be done. Recognizing the need 

for reform in this area of copyright law, I joined my colleague Senator Wyden of Oregon to introduce the Internet Radio Equality Act 

2 months after the CRB decision, and I have to tell you, Madam 

Chairman, Senator Wyden and I have received a huge amount of 

contact about this bill—almost all in support of it. If enacted, our 

bill would vitiate the CRB decision and set royalty rates for Internet radio at 7.5 percent through 2010, roughly the same rate paid 

by satellite radio. In 2010, the CRB would set a new rate; however, 

this time, instead of using the flawed willing buyer/willing seller 

standard, the CRB would look to Section 801(b) of the Copyright 

Act. 

Section 801(b) directs the CRB to calculate rates based on the 

following objectives: maximizing the availability of creative works 

to the public; affording the copyright owner a fair return for his or 

her creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions; reflecting the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available 

to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution 

to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media 

for their communication; and minimizing any disruptive impact on 

the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing 

industry practices. 

The objective set forth in Section 801(b) are the same ones the 

CRB looks to when determining rates for other digital transmission, such as satellite radio. In fact, the CRB recently set a new 

rate for satellite radio of 6 to 8 percent through 2012 using the 

801(b) standard. Experience shows that 801(b) functions well for all 

parties, unlike the willing buyer/willing seller standard and unlike 

the untested fair market value standard, which is currently supported by the content industry. 

I believe that the proposal Senator Wyden and I have put forward is the best possible solution to this problem. A rate of 7.5 percent will provide a fair rate to the recording industry without being 

overly burdensome for the webcasters. It accomplishes the goal 

that I share with Senator Feinstein in finally achieving parity between Internet and satellite radio. The Wyden-Brownback proposal 

uses the time-tested and workable 801(b) standard. 

There should be little debate over the important role of Internet 

radio. I recognize that the record labels and others in the content 

industry may dislike not having full control over where, when, and 

how consumers enjoy music. However, we as policymakers must 

recognize the great public benefit Internet radio provides. Internet 

6 

radio gives consumers more choices and creates competition, which 

ultimately leads to a better listening experience. Many small and 

independent webcasters cater to niche audiences that often feel unrepresented on the FM dial. Many webcasters offer musical selections not found on broadcast radio, which significantly benefits artists who would otherwise see no royalties, and at the same time allows lesser known artists the ability to be heard and build a fan 

base. 

There is a lot of talk in this body about media consolidation and 

the importance of diversity on the airwaves. I can tell you that it 

does not get much more diverse than Internet radio. I do not know 

why we would want to silence this important medium. We would 

be doing a great disservice to artists that depend on Internet radio 

if we allow the disastrous decision put forward by the CRB to stand 

and to put these groups out of business. 

I ask my colleagues to consider all of these issues, and I look forward to the testimony of my colleagues and the other witnesses, 

and I hope to work with my colleague Senator Feinstein and others 

to draft workable solutions on this problem. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback. 

I look forward to working with you. 

Now we will go to our first panel. We have two Senators before 

us. Senator Corker has asked to go first. Is that a problem for you, 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Not at all. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Senator Corker of Tennessee previously served as the Tennessee Commissioner of Finance and Administration. He was elected mayor of Chattanooga in 2001, joined 

the Senate in 2006, is a member of several committees, including 

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 

And if I may, I will just introduce Senator Wyden at the same 

time. He is the distinguished Senator from Oregon, first elected to 

Congress in 1980 to represent Oregon’s 3rd District. He moved to 

the Senate in 1996, and he has served with distinction on several 

committees, including currently chairing the Energy and Natural 

Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I sit with 

him on the Intelligence Committee, and previously he served as the 

Director of the Oregon Legal Services for the Elderly from 1977 to 

1979 and as a member of the Oregon State Board of Examiners of 

Nursing Home Administrators during the same period. 

Welcome, my colleagues. Senator Corker, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am delighted 

to be here with my friend Senator Wyden. We work together on 

numbers of issues. We may be a little different on this issue, but 

I am certainly thrilled to be here with him and be before this Committee. 

On my way to the Senate, I had a vigorous primary, and there 

was a big debate among my opponents about which one would be 

on the Judiciary Committee. And I quickly said I was assuring evVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7 

eryone I would never be on the Judiciary Committee, but I am so 

glad to be among this hallowed group of people and feel like I am 

on somewhat heavy ground here. So thank you for letting me be 

here. Senator Brownback, thank you also. 

I want to say that my comments basically really respond to Senator Brownback’s comments. I know you all have a number of 

issues that you are working on here today, and I applaud you for 

that. I know how we pay for music and performers and songwriters 

is very, very complex. But I am speaking mostly to the comments 

that Senator Brownback put forth. 

Senator Feinstein and Senator Brownback, thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to testify today on the importance of valuing 

music. I applaud this Committee for its work in this area that is 

so very important to the State that I represent. 

In the past decade, the evolution of music delivery has been 

amazing to watch, and I know you alluded to that, Senator Feinstein. We have evolved from the favorite local AM/FM station to a 

large number of available stations on satellite, cable, and Internet 

radio platforms. The growth of radio on different platforms has 

been tremendous, and we can only imagine what offerings await us 

around the corner. But one basic fact we cannot ignore is that the 

fundamental element—the reason we all tune in—is the music. 

We often take it for granted. We turn the knob, hit the button, 

click the mouse, and our favorite songs are there, as if conjured up 

at our whim. It is so easy to forget what goes into creating music. 

In fact, these works are the product of countless people and countless hours of hard work. Their songs are the record of their struggles, hopes, and dreams. 

There are very few places where the power of music is as strong 

and evident as it is in Tennessee. Our State has been blessed with 

numerous songwriters, musicians, and small and large business entities that work to bring us the music that we listen to on a daily 

basis. During my time in the Senate, I have had numerous briefings to learn how the music industry works. It is a complex and 

multi-faceted industry. I cannot overstate that fact. I know that we 

are looking at legislation here. It is a very, very complex industry. 

I have had numerous briefings and feel like I have a mind that understands business particularly well, and this is an industry that 

is very complex. 

It is also an industry that is in severe crisis. Due to the advances 

in technology, this industry faces numerous challenges, most dramatic of which has been the impact of piracy and the evolution of 

technology affecting the revenue streams of the various industry 

entities. 

When debating these issues, I believe it is very important to keep 

in mind that without the songwriters, performers, and various 

businesses that create the music, there would be no music for us 

to listen to over our radios. 

The Senate, in its wisdom, created the Copyright Royalty Board, 

and in March 2007 that Board made a decision and set royalty 

rates for entities that webcast music. The board’s process for setting rates was an exhaustive one that involved 18 months of hearings and meetings and at the end produced a result. 

8 

I understand that certain groups are not pleased with this result; 

however, there is an appeals process in place, and that process is 

currently being played out and utilized by both sides. I urge this 

Committee to allow this process to take its course instead of forwarding legislation that would overturn a decision that has already 

been made by the Copyright Royalty Board. 

We have a tendency in this body many times to set up organizations that are professionally run and then, when a group does not 

like the decision, to intervene. And I hope that is not the case here. 

Furthermore, the House Judiciary Committee is currently facilitating negotiations between the two parties. That is ongoing right 

now. I applaud those efforts and remind my colleagues that this entire process is to provide fair compensation for the hard work and 

sacrifice of musical artists and those who invest in them. 

It is in everyone’s interest to maintain a vibrant marketplace for 

music. However, while we are considering legislative action that 

would drastically affect this industry, we must remember the creators and performers who bring us this music. Without them, there 

would be no music for webcasters to play and build their businesses around. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Corker appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Corker. 

Senator Wyden, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I am 

very pleased to see you particularly chairing this hearing because 

you have a track record of bringing people together. And that is 

what it is going to take on major issues. We certainly, as Senator 

Corker alluded to, have been trying that on health and other areas, 

and this is not a debate between, for example, recording labels and 

radio Internet advocates. It seems to me this is about what do you 

do for promising technologies, and maybe what I thought I would 

do, especially since Senator Brownback spoke so thoughtfully, is 

spare you my prepared remarks and just make a few comments, 

and I would ask that my prepared remarks go into the hearing 

record. 

Madam Chair, since coming to the Senate, I have spent a substantial amount of time particularly looking at how you promote 

fledgling technologies. For example, I am especially proud of being 

the lead sponsor of two important laws: the Interest Tax Freedom 

legislation that we passed and renewed here in the Senate, and 

also the law to prevent limitless lawsuits against free and open 

Internet access. So those are two laws that are on the books that 

I think are very much consistent with what Senator Brownback 

and I seek to do now with Internet radio. And we are going to work 

very closely with Senator Corker. He has made a number of points 

that I certainly share. 

I am the son of an artist. I am the son of a writer. So we have 

got to make sure that there is compensation for artists. But we 

have got to do it without putting a stranglehold on new techVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

nologies with old rules. And, in particular, if you look—and this is 

one area where I will get into one specific. That is what we are 

doing in some of these Copyright Royalty Board decisions. The example that has concerned us is the Minimum Fee Section of the 

Copyright Royalty Board decision. The Copyright Royalty Board 

originally imposed a fee of $500 per channel on all commercial 

webcasters which they said was needed to cover administrative 

costs. And it seemed to us that there was no justification for this 

other than this is the way the old rules, the rules that existed before anybody dreamed of Internet radio, existed. And this regulation went out and was applied despite the fact that just one of the 

well-known webcasters at that particular moment would have had 

to spend over $500 million just for administrative fees. So you had 

a decision that was just divorced from reality, and, in fact, that 

was actually because it was so far-fetched what led to the negotiations that are now ongoing. 

So Senator Brownback and I, through S. 1353, seek to bring new 

technologies to this debate, and as Senator Brownback has noted, 

what this, in effect, does is it puts radio programming into vastly 

more hands. You can have programming that will affect unique 

needs, say you have a farmer in Corvallis, Oregon, or a musician 

in Topeka, Kansas. And anybody can, in effect, launch a NetRadio 

station, and it seems to me this will mean that the epicenter of 

American music is not just stuck in the commercial capitals of New 

York and Los Angeles. It can go back to a whole host of areas— 

small towns in Oregon, Tennessee, and Kansas. 

A second problem with the CRB rules that I would note, Madam 

Chair, specifically, is the costs for Internet radio broadcasters are 

much higher for the same content than for satellite or traditional 

radio. And I think, once again, that will impede the development 

of new technologies in an ill-advised kind of fashion. 

I will close, because I know your time is short, by saying again 

that I feel very strongly, as Senator Corker has outlined this morning, that we have got to compensate artists for their work. I think 

my father, if he was listening to this hearing, as the author of 

many books, would relish the fact that his books can now be 

downloaded onto new technologies like Amazon’s Kindle that my 

wife at the Strand Book Store pays a lot of attention to and read 

by anybody with a library card while they commute to and from 

work. My dad’s audience would expand beyond his wildest dreams. 

So we have got to figure out a way to bring all of these innovations with larger audiences and vast numbers of creators together. 

And because of your reputation for thoughtfulness and fairness, 

working with Senator Corker and Senator Brownback and myself— 

and I see Senator Whitehouse has joined us as well—I am convinced we can get it done. Madam Chair, we did it with the Internet Tax Freedom legislation. We did it by making sure that we 

were not going to have limitless lawsuits against people who 

sought free and open Internet access. We can do it here again with 

yet another promising technology. 

I thank you very much for your time this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. You are irresistible. 

10 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We have been joined by Senator Whitehouse. 

Would you like to make a statement? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then, if there are no questions of this panel, 

we will excuse both of you. We will thank you for your wise words, 

and we will proceed to panel No. 2. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Panel No. 2 consists of John Ondrasik, a 

singer/songwriter; Jeffrey Harleston, head of operations, Geffen 

Records; John L. Simson, Executive Director, SoundExchange; Joe 

Kennedy, President and CEO, Pandora Media; and Matt 

Nathanson, songwriter and recording artist. 

I will begin the introductions while these gentlemen are taking 

their places, and we would ask that you confine your remarks to 

5 minutes, summarize for us, give us your main points, and then 

we can have a good discussion. 

I will begin with John Simson. He has been involved in the 

music industry since 1971 as a songwriter, recording artist, manager, entertainment lawyer, and executive. He has practiced entertainment law since 1980 and is currently the Executive Director of 

SoundExchange. That is a performance rights organization formed 

to collect digital performance royalties for sound recording copyright owners and recording artists. Mr. Simson is a trustee of the 

Recording Academy, a board member of the 21st Century Consort, 

and lectures frequently on the music industry. 

Next is Mr. Kennedy. 

Joe Kennedy is current Chief Executive Officer and President of 

the Internet radio station Pandora. He joined the company in 2004 

after spending 5 years at E-LOAN, where he was President and 

COO. From 1995 to 1999, he was Vice President of Sales, Service, 

and Marketing for Saturn Corporation. 

Mr. Jeffrey Harleston is head of operations for Geffen Records, 

the home of some of America’s most popular recording artists. Prior 

to assuming his current position in 2003, Mr. Harleston was Senior 

Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs for MCA Records and, 

before that, Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs for MCA’s 

parent company, the Universal Music Group. 

And now we have John Ondrasik, whom I have been privileged 

to meet. He is a Grammy-nominated singer/songwriter performing 

under the stage name Five for Fighting. He has performed for U.S. 

forces on USO tours in Hawaii, Guam, and Japan, and spearheaded the creation of ‘‘For the Troops,’’ a compilation album that 

is available for free to every active serviceperson in the United 

States armed forces. Mr. Ondrasik is also an active philanthropist 

and has recently launched a charity-driven website to help raise 

money for such organizations as Save The Children, Autism 

Speaks, the New York Police and Fire Widows, and the Children’s 

Benefit Fund. A very diverse personality. 

Matt Nathanson is a songwriter and recording artist from my 

home town, San Francisco, California. He currently records on 

Vanguard Records, has been on Universal Records, and has self-fiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
11 

nanced several albums. Mr. Nathanson has toured with some of the 

country’s most popular artists and has had his music featured in 

many films and television shows. He also credits Internet radio as 

a factor in his success through the use of iTunes and other digital 

services. 

So, as you can see, we have a diverse and talented lot here, and 

we will begin with Mr. Simson. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SIMSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SOUNDEXCHANGE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. SIMSON. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Brownback, Senator Whitehouse, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today to speak about fair rates for 

music, a subject—as a former performer, artist manager, entertainment attorney, and now executive director of SoundExchange— 

with which I am very familiar. 

Shortly after Congress granted the right for artists and labels to 

be paid fair royalties from digital services, one of the great young 

saxophonists in American music, Art Porter, Jr., of Little Rock, Arkansas, died tragically while on tour in Thailand. Shortly thereafter, his wife also died of cancer, leaving behind their two sons, 

who were now being raised by their grandparents. We have been 

able to track them down, and soon they will get a check from 

SoundExchange for the legacy their dad left behind. 

Another great artist, Joe Jones, who had a song, ‘‘You Talk Too 

Much,’’ you might remember; it was a staple of the airwaves. Not 

a one-hit wonder, as some might think, a Juilliard graduate, another great artist whose widow was very grateful for the royalties 

we sent her. And then there was the day, shortly after Katrina, we 

found Ernie K-Doe’s widow—he of ‘‘Mother-in-Law,’’ another song 

you may remember—down in New Orleans. Her response when she 

found out about these royalties was, ‘‘Child, you just put the 

Thanksgiving turkey on my table.’’ 

These are just some of the many artists and the stories that we 

hear, many heartfelt stories, from widows and widowers whose 

spouses created many valuable recordings; many artists living on 

Social Security; young artists just starting out, we hear from them, 

the one-hit wonders, the orchestra members. The creators of music 

are getting paid because Congress created a digital performance 

right. And it is the basic principle of intellectual property that performers should get paid for what they create. 

In fact, just last week, when the Enforcement of Intellectual 

Property Act of 2008 was introduced—and we thank you, Madam 

Chair, for cosponsoring—Senator Leahy noted that, ‘‘The protection 

of intellectual property is vital to our economy.’’ And it is also vital 

to the livelihood of the recording artists whom we represent. 

Every day, you know, the landscape is transforming so dramatically in the music industry. We see a new reminder that music is 

undergoing a major transformation. In the new landscape of the 

21st century, people are accessing music through listening, not 

through purchasing. But as we go through this transformation, one 

basic principle has to remain: the people who create the music 

must be paid, and must be paid fairly. 

12 

Over the past 17 months, SoundExchange has addressed genuine 

business concerns of webcasters because we see them as partners. 

The $500-per-channel fee minimum was mentioned. You know, the 

only reason that the judges did that without a limit was because 

the other side entered no testimony about how many channels they 

had. 

We want webcasters to succeed because we want them to continue paying royalties to our 31,000 artists and over 3,500 labels. 

But we want fairness as well. 

In every instance we try to look at the big picture, including the 

vibrant business activity that is being generated in webcasting 

with its over 50 million listeners. Just last August, Bridge Ratings 

projected that Internet radio advertising revenue will hit $20 billion by 2020. There are lots of examples I could show you about the 

vibrancy of Internet radio and how it is growing. Just last week, 

the new iPhone, the hottest application—congratulations to my witness here, Joe Kennedy—belonged to Pandora Radio. I am sure 

that news alone is enough to send chills down the spines of satellite radio and AM/FM radio operators. 

So why, with all this activity, do we hear the constant refrains 

of doom and gloom—which we have heard for over 10 years now— 

when, in fact, webcasting is the place to be? Everyone wants to be 

there. The simple answer is webcasters want to pay less so they 

can make more. The problem is they want to pay less than what 

was judged fair by an impartial panel of judges. 

For some reason, there are those who think that music is something that they should have for free or below market value. They 

do not think about the endless practice sessions, the second jobs, 

the lessons, the road trips, sleeping on friends’ couches while on 

tour, or like me going to law school, eventually, or about the thousands of people who work in the recording industry promoting, investing, marketing, developing, and producing all those recordings. 

Frankly, the attitude that music should be free or devalued is inherently wrong. 

Just a few weeks ago, several of your colleagues in the House 

from both parties suggested to the recording industry and the National Association of Broadcasters that we get together and negotiate a rate for AM/FM radio broadcasts, which shamefully, right 

now, pays zero. The next day at a radio conference, we had the opportunity to make that suggestion to the head of the NAB. His response? ‘‘I would rather cut my throat than negotiate.’’ His words. 

Unlike the NAB, webcasters believe in paying and are paying, 

but they are going to great lengths, including lobbying Congress, 

in trying to devalue our music for their own financial gain. 

Webcasters are currently advancing an argument they call ‘‘parity’’ but that we more accurately call a ‘‘subsidy.’’ To us parity 

means every radio-like service should pay including AM/FM radio. 

But it does not mean that artists and owners must subsidize every 

Internet business model—good, bad, or exploitive—which is what 

they are asking for. The fact is webcasters were given a huge concession by this Congress in the statutory license. It lets them use 

any sound recording without permission in exchange for a fair royalty. Little paperwork, no tracking down of artists, no need to negotiate with thousands of independent and major labels. We do all 

13 

that work for them. All they have to do is play the music and pay 

a fair rate. 

To establish a fair rate, and recognizing the complexity, Congress 

set up the CRB process, and it is working. Businesses are growing. 

The Internet is the place to be. The President of CBS Digital recently said, ‘‘[it] is an incredible business—we gotta own this!’’ The 

fact is the system is not broken and it does not need fixing. If anything, Congress should be commended for the very fair process it 

established. 

Madam Chairwoman— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you conclude, please? Thank you. 

Mr. SIMSON. Yes. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. 

Music is like magnets and glue. People are attracted by and stick 

around for the music. Music is what makes these services have 

value. All we are asking is for our fair share. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Simson. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

STATEMENT OF JOE KENNEDY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANDORA MEDIA, INC., OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Brownback, Senator Whitehouse, on behalf of Pandora and the Digital Media Association and the Internet radio industry, I thank you for inviting me 

to speak today. I will discuss how Internet radio innovation offers 

unique benefits to listeners and artists, and I will ask your help 

as we confront a royalty crisis that threatens our company and our 

industry. 

Ten years ago, you had the foresight to establish a statutory 

framework for a new form of radio: radio delivered over the Internet. This form of radio, unencumbered by the traditional spectrum 

limitations of traditional broadcast radio, would finally enable the 

full range of America’s wonderful diversity of music and artists to 

be heard. 

By delivering on this promise, Pandora has become this country’s 

most popular Internet radio service. Pandora plays the music of 

over 60,000 different artists, most of whom have never been heard 

on traditional radio. Our repertoire spans the full range of musical 

diversity created and enjoyed in America: rock, country, jazz, gospel, blues, Christian, Latin, classical, and more. Americans have 

embraced this opportunity to enjoy this diversity, and it is our 

privilege to serve 15 million Americans who have registered as 

users since we launched just 3 years ago. 

Artists and labels have benefited as well. Nielsen research shows 

that Pandora listeners are three to five times more likely to have 

purchased music in the last 90 days than those who do not use our 

service. 

Our world is converging, and accessing Internet radio is looking 

more and more like using broadcast and satellite radio. We are attempting to listen to a Pandora station transmitting live over an 

14 

Apple iPhone. The AT&T service in here may not be good enough 

to get the signal. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What does that tell you? 

Senator BROWNBACK. That is not your fault. That is AT&T. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Ah, you can hear it there. As John said, it has become actually the second most popular application on the iPhone. 

The iPhone will also play the hundreds of radio stations operated 

by CBS Radio as well as all of the radio stations offered by XM satellite radio. 

But just as the potential of Internet radio is beginning to flourish, it faces early extinction because of the royalty rates set last 

year by the Copyright Royalty Board. According to an analysis published by JPMorgan, the royalty rates exceed the total revenue of 

the average Internet radio service, leaving nothing to cover the 

many other costs of the business. 

At Pandora, we have had great success monetizing the usage of our service and plan to reach $25 million in revenue this year. 

However, the CRB royalties would cost us over $18 million this 

year, more than 70 percent of our revenue—a crushing amount. If 

XM or Sirius were to have revenue of $25 million, their sound recording royalties would equal only $1.6 million, or 6.5 percent of 

their revenue. 

We also pay royalties to songwriters through our licenses with 

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. However, these royalties are consistent 

with what broadcast and other forms of radio pay—between 3 and 

4 percent of revenue—further highlighting the absurdity of the 

CRB rates. 

How are these disparities possible? Broadcast radio has a statutory exemption and pays nothing, and cable and satellite radio royalties are set using a statutory standard very different from that 

used for Internet radio. 

Since the CRB decision, hundreds of thousands of listeners—and, 

notably, more than 6,000 artists—have asked Congress to support 

the Internet Radio Equality Act, and we all thank Senator Brownback for being our lead cosponsor. This legislation would sent 

Internet royalty rates at 7.5 percent of revenue, more than what 

satellite pays and obviously higher than broadcast radio’s zero. 

We also appreciate Senator Feinstein’s support of radio royalty 

parity. However, the Senator’s bill applies only prospectively, and 

without a solution to the present crisis, Pandora will die. One hundred and twenty employees in an enterprise zone in Oakland will 

lose their jobs, and an invaluable promotional channel for tens of 

thousands of artists who rely on Internet radio for exposure will 

disappear. 

Additionally, the PERFORM Act’s fair market value royalty 

standard would subject Internet radio to yet another untested 

standard, just as Congress did when the willing buyer/willing seller 

standard was set in 1998. 

Pandora and DiMA urge that the balanced royalty standard 

found at Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act, which has worked 

well since 1976, simply be extended to Internet radio. Everyone in 

Internet radio wants artists to be paid fairly, but we also want 

Internet radio to survive. Neither will happen unless the CRB deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

sion is remedied, and it will not be a lasting remedy unless the 

time-tested 801(b) royalty standard is extended to Internet radio. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Harleston. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HARLESTON, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, GEFFEN RECORDS, 

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HARLESTON. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Brownback, 

Senator Whitehouse, members of the Committee, thank you so 

much for having us here today. My name is Jeffrey Harleston, and 

I am head of operations for Geffen Records, located in Los Angeles, 

California. Geffen is home to legendary artists such as B.B. King, 

Nirvana, and The Who—as well as contemporary superstars like 

Mary J. Blige and Nelly Furtado. In addition to this roster of 

amazing artists, I have the good fortune to work with an exceptional array of managers, producers, marketers, and executives 

who tirelessly dedicate their talent and experience to delivering 

great music in the 21st century. 

Although our industry is facing some major challenges today, we 

have plenty to be excited about. An increasingly active part of what 

we do as a major record label is the licensing of our music, often 

to those that are perfecting the last great idea—and to those that 

are working on the next great idea. Today’s music marketplace is 

nothing like it was 10 or 5 years ago. While the sales of CDs have 

fallen off considerably, we have witnessed a substantial shift in the 

ways consumers use music. They want music to be portable. They 

want it instantly. They want it on Facebook and MySpace pages, 

on cell phones, iPhones, BlackBerrys, and iPods. But this growing 

digital marketplace can only survive if we ensure that everyone 

plays by the same rules, that creators are compensated fairly, and 

that the value of music is protected. 

That is why I am pleased to support the PERFORM Act introduced by Senators Feinstein and Graham. The PERFORM Act establishes ‘‘platform parity’’ among music radio services. Right now, 

the law, as others have noted, is a patchwork of rules written at 

different times for different emerging radio technologies. Now that 

these technologies have matured into sophisticated businesses that 

compete with each other to offer consumers multiple services, it is 

time to update the law to ensure that the playing field upon which 

they compete is level and fair. The PERFORM Act accomplishes 

this by applying the same compensation and protection standards 

to all radio services that benefit from a Government license. 

Under the Government license, radio services pay a Governmentset rate for the music they perform. They do not have to ask the 

creator for permission to use their music. They do not have to negotiate with hundreds of different record labels. They just pay the set 

royalty, follow the regulations, and they are good to go. 

Today, the rules used to determine what the compensation 

should be for each radio platform are very different. It is inappropriate—and detrimental in the long run—to provide any platform 

16 

with a competitive economic advantage over another. To achieve 

platform parity, the compensation paid by all platforms should be 

determined according to the same standard, and we feel that standard is the fair market value. 

Applying the same standard across different radio platforms does 

not mean everyone should pay the same price or even have the 

same pricing structure. For example, in my work at Geffen, we license the use of our recordings to hundreds of companies ranging 

from Amazon.com to MTV, to MySpace, mobile companies like 

Verizon, television programs like ‘‘Grey’s Anatomy’’ and ‘‘CSI,’’ to 

retail outlets like Wal-Mart, to video games, to toys, to even toothbrushes and greeting cards. What is important is that the negotiation of the license in each of these instance takes into account market considerations, takes into account the uses of the music by the 

product or the service that is licensing. Yet, the same standard is 

used to determine the fair cost in each of these instances, and that 

is the fair market value. 

Similarly, the standard applied by the Government to all radio 

platforms should also estimate and reflect what the market price 

would be for the use of that music. The Government took away the 

fair market negotiation when they enacted radio licenses and gave 

these platforms phenomenal efficiency and ease of use. The very 

least the Government can do is ensure that if they are going to set 

the price for our property, it ought to be based on a set of rules 

that leads to a result that is consistent with what the marketplace 

would yield. 

The other parity issue addressed in the PERFORM Act is the 

rule that all radio platforms should make sure they are safe and 

secure, and that all uses of the music they deliver are compensated. Satellite radio services like XM and Sirius already prevent, through encrypted delivery, the taking by others of the music 

they broadcast. They also have reached agreements with record 

companies to make sure all uses of the music they deliver are compensated, and we commend them for their partnership. While current law prevents Internet radio stations from making multiple 

uses of music without paying for those uses, many Internet radio 

stations are not secured to prevent the uncompensated taking of 

our music by others. 

A real-world example is a software program called ‘‘Radio Tracker,’’ one of the hundreds of applications known as ‘‘stream-ripping’’ 

software. Radio Tracker is published by a German company that 

charges $30 to download their software program. Once installed, 

the program simply asks you to enter any artists or songs you wish 

to copy on a ‘‘wish list.’’ 

Without the user ever listening, the software searches over 2,500 

Internet radio stations, sometimes as much as 5,000, at the same 

time looking for the these songs or these artists. When it finds 

them, it copies every one individually, collects them in a permanent 

library that can be moved easily to an iPod, along with song lyrics. 

It even allows for ringtones to be downloaded or a CD burned. Basically, you get a digitally perfect copy of any song you want. The 

German stream-ripping company gets $30—none of which is used 

to compensate the artist, the producer, the songwriter, or the label. 

The user never has to buy another song. It is as simple as that. 

17 

I would like to thank the Committee for its focus on this important issue, and especially Senator Feinstein for your leadership in 

crafting the PERFORM Act. Your legislation goes a long way toward establishing a level playing field where all parties and platforms operate under the same rules, providing consumers with the 

music and experiences they desire, while ensuring that the creators, the artists, and the producers are appropriately rewarded for 

their valuable work. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harleston appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Harleston. 

Mr. Ondrasik. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ONDRASIK, SINGER/SONGWRITER, FIVE 

FOR FIGHTING, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ONDRASIK. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Thank 

you for inviting me today. Senator Brownback, thank you, Senator 

Whitehouse, thanks for being here. It is nice to be with my friend 

Matt here. I have known him for a while, and it is good to have 

some songwriters on your panel. 

My name is John Ondrasik. I am a singer/songwriter. I record 

under the band name ‘‘Five for Fighting,’’ which is a hockey term. 

Of course, back at home, I am simply known as ‘‘Dad.’’ And my 

message today is one my two wonderful children have heard from 

me and have understood from the very beginning: Play fair. 

I am not in D.C. very often. I have participated in Grammys on 

the Hill and in events to support our troops. My songs and activities often reflect issues and causes I believe in, and my experiences 

have shown me the power of words and music. I recently was 

touched when I heard that Senator Hatch wrote a song for his 

friend Senator Kennedy. That gesture made me proud as an American and reminded me how music, at times, can express our basic 

humanity and feelings better than any other medium. I look forward to hearing that song. I wish Senator Hatch was here. 

I am here today not on my own behalf, but on behalf of thousands of my fellow songwriters and performers. As with them, as 

with us, creating brings us great joy. But, unfortunately, joy alone 

does not put food on the table and allow us to take care of our families. The fact is, as creators of our music, we are actually small 

businesses. And while we take pride in our ability to move and entertain people, like any businessperson—like every American—we 

expect, need, and deserve fair compensation for our work. I am 

here today to ask that you ensure the platforms that deliver the 

music we make are secure and effective and that all uses of music 

over those platforms are fairly compensated. In essence, I am asking for platform parity, and I would like to thank you, Senator 

Feinstein and also a friend of mine, Senator Lindsey Graham, for 

introducing the PERFORM Act, which recognizes these principles. 

As we all know, songwriters and performers get paid for different 

uses of their work. Whether it is the sale of a concert ticket, a spin 

on a radio station, a sale on iTunes, each has its own value. Buying 

a concert ticket does not automatically get you a free album. And 

I think respecting these different uses and the revenue streams 

18 

they provide is crucial to the survival of songwriters and performers. Not all performers write their own songs. 

That is why it is necessary for those who broadcast music to prevent the transformation of the radio listening services into services 

that offer permanent copies of music without paying the appropriate license for that use. By essentially turning radio into iTunes 

without the proper compensation, part of the essential revenue 

stream for creators disappears. And no matter how pleasing it is 

that others appreciate your work, I am sure you would agree that 

if part of your income was put in jeopardy, you would be concerned 

about that. 

Let me be clear: I am excited about opportunities provided in the 

digital marketplace. It is amazing what is going on. As a fan, I love 

Pandora. It is very cool. It is very hip. It has opened up new opportunities for us and for those who deliver music as well. But to benefit from those opportunities, we must all recognize and protect the 

value of that music. We must provide a landscape that does not 

discourage the next generation of creators from pursuing their contribution to our culture. That is the key. 

At the end of the day, if there is no protection for what we create, it effectively has no monetary value. That not only hurts us, 

but it hurts our culture, our economy, and every business striving 

to share in the benefits of the new marketplace. As Mr. Harleston 

said, we are pleased that satellite radio has recognized this, and 

they encrypt the delivery of their music that protects us, and they 

work with us. 

I think it is necessary for all music to recognize, like satellite 

has, the corresponding obligations and responsibilities they have— 

both to creators and to each other—to protect and value the music 

they deliver. That music is what drives their business and what 

will drive it in the future and to compensate the artist for all uses. 

What should that compensation be? I believe in the principle established in the PERFORM Act that creators deserve fair market 

value for their work. Surely it is not too much to ask that when 

you create something in our great country, you get fair market 

value for it. Why should music be different from anything else? 

Why shouldn’t Government consider what a buyer is willing to pay 

for what I am offering? That is exactly what fair market value is, 

and that is the standard that should be used across the board for 

all competing platforms. 

I think we all want to see a thriving music marketplace. We all 

do. It is important. By creating a level playing field for all platforms, including establishing equal standards for the protection 

and market-based compensation of music, the PERFORM Act provides for this and allows all of us—creators, businesses, music 

lovers—to benefit from these opportunities. 

Let me say that personally this has been an extraordinary experience for me. I am honored to speak before you. If the opportunity 

arises again, perhaps I could bring my kid. I told them all about 

it. My daughter Olivia, who is 7 years old, she just wrote her first 

song called ‘‘Secret Diary.’’ And if she was here, she would sing it 

for you. Trust me, she would. I hope we all have the opportunity 

to hear new music and the works of many more creators for years 

to come—maybe Olivia. Ensuring that singers and songwriters are 

19 

treated fairly across all music platforms is exactly the way to accomplish this. It really just makes sense, and I think we all can 

work together to make that happen. And as my kids would tell you, 

it allows us all to play fair. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ondrasik appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Nathanson. 

STATEMENT OF MATT NATHANSON, SONGWRITER, PERFORMER, AND RECORDING ARTIST, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NATHANSON. Hi. Thanks a lot for letting me speak. 

I have spent the last 17 years creating a career for myself in the 

music business. I released my first record in March 1993. Promotion for that record was pretty much me going to Kinko’s and 

printing up really crude flyers and handing them out in college and 

posting sort of neon green flyers for shows at local coffee shops. 

I released my most recent record in August of 2007. Promotion 

for that consisted of, among other things, months of blog posts detailing the making of the record, e-mail blasts to my mailing list, 

viral video clips posted on YouTube of in the studio, an album presale on iTunes, online listening parties, and promotion through 

Internet radio. 

The Internet has changed the way I run my business. It has 

changed the way my music is heard. It has changed the discovery 

process for the music listener. And it has leveled the playing field 

for the artists. All of this change is good, including the birth of 

iTunes, YouTube, Pandora, MySpace, Rhapsody. 

When I started, there were only really two ways of making a living playing music: 

The first was to sign a deal with a label, get a recoupable advance, and hope that when my record was released the label would 

push my songs to bc radio and to MTV. And then those outlets in 

turn could choose to push or not push my songs to the public at 

large. 

The second option was to hit the road, sleep on floors, and build 

fans one show at a time. 

Today, if a person makes a record, he or she does not have to 

struggle and fight as much to find their audience. Self-promotion 

is not just postcards and flyers and sleeping on floors. With the 

Internet, there is no audition process for a label contract. There is 

no retail shelf space to compete for or buy. And artist can post a 

song to their blog or their MySpace page, and from there it 

spreads. They can sell songs on iTunes or MySpace or sell their 

CDs on CD Baby. And with MySpace combined with Internet radio 

and blogging, the artist can finally build a following and sell out 

shows in parts of the country they have never even been to. When 

they finally go, there are people there. 

Internet radio is such a crucial part of this new business. I cannot tell you how many times people have come up to me at shows 

and said, ‘‘The first time I heard you was on Pandora,’’ or ‘‘The first 

20 

time I heard you was on Rhapsody, and now I have got your CD, 

now I am at your show, now I am a fan.’’ 

These websites have been essential to my career growth and, in 

turn, the overall growth of my small business. Look, royalties are 

great, right? Like I appreciate the royalty checks I get from 

SoundExchange and ASCAP. I am not one to—you know, I am 

into—money is fine. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NATHANSON. But in contrast to some who try to maximize 

every revenue opportunity, it is more important to me, and I think 

to most artists at my level, to strike the right balance between promotional opportunities and revenue opportunities. Royalties should 

be fair, but not so high so Internet radio has to struggle to stay 

alive and to grow. 

It is really an incredibly exciting time for music. What once felt 

really limited and elite now has sort of broken wide open, right? 

The scales that once were tipped in favor of a few record labels and 

a few broadcasters are now more equal and fair, right? This is the 

first time that the music business has broken open and created a 

level playing field for artists. This is a new music business, not the 

old guard. And Internet radio is part of the new opportunity. 

It is essential that laws foster this new music business, the business that works equally well for small artists. Please do not let royalties kill Internet radio, and do not pass new laws that favor industry incumbents and harm new competitors that are so beneficial 

to the creators like John and I. 

Internet radio is good for the ecosystem of the music system. It 

is a fact. If it disappears, it will not necessarily hurt Geffen 

Records, and it will not even hurt someone who is established, like 

a household name like John and his band, Five for Fighting. It is 

going to hurt me, and it is going to hurt everybody like me, the 

middle class of the music-creating—and it is going to hurt the listener. It is like it is all about distribution, it is all about getting 

it to the people. And then people like me, working musicians who 

fly under the radar and make a good living creating and performing music, it is going to hurt us the most. 

So thanks for letting me speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nathanson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I think this is very interesting testimony. 

I guess if I have a bias, it is for the artist and to see that what 

the artist does is fairly compensated, because that is what the richness is of the technology. The technology is only as good as what 

you put on it, and, therefore, fair pay for what you create is extraordinarily important, or else I am afraid you drift really toward 

mediocrity, because people do not really have the incentive. They 

cannot earn a living. 

So let me ask you this question: Is there anyone that thinks 

there should not be parity between the platforms, and why? 

Mr. Simson. 

Mr. SIMSON. Madam Chair, I believe in parity. I think the rate 

standard should be the same for all of the platforms. And, obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
21 

ously, I believe that AM/FM Radio should pay. They do not pay 

right now, and I think that is an egregious— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. See, this is the hard part because they are 

big, they are powerful, they object, as you just said, in a colorful 

way. And people say, ‘‘Oh, leave it alone for now.’’ And I do not 

know how we ever really get to a system of rate parity by leaving 

the 800-pound gorilla out of the room. 

Mr. SIMSON. I would certainly agree. I do think, though, that we 

should be—and I think it was mentioned by Mr. Ondrasik, that 

rate parity does not mean that everybody pays the same rate. I 

think the judges very carefully, over an 18-month period carefully 

examined webcasting as a business, the same way they examined 

satellite radio as a business. And so you may not end up with the 

same exact percentage. In fact, if you look carefully at the satellite 

decision, satellite radio has a lot of different offerings. There is 

sports, there is talk. Half their channels are not music channels. 

So the judges there actually halved what we should have gotten 

and said it was 13 percent after halving it. So 26 percent is really 

the value of music to satellite radio if they were strictly a music 

service. 

So these numbers that are being thrown around I think are 

being thrown around a little bit loosely. We have other services 

where we get 15 percent. iTunes pays 70 percent for their content. 

So I think we should let the judges do their jobs, examine these 

businesses very closely, but under the same rate standard. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. One other quick question. Mr. 

Harleston, if I may, Internet radio providers have argued that the 

rate standard should be 801(b) for satellite, cable, and Internet, instead of the fair market value that is in my bill. That is the difference, I think, between us in our bills. What do you think of 

using the 801(b) factors to set the rate standard to determine what 

these radio stations should pay for music? In other words, we need 

to compromise to move this thing, it seems to me. Would that be 

a fair compromise? 

Mr. HARLESTON. Well, let me try and answer it this way: I think 

that the compromise is getting—I will try and articulate it the easiest way I can. The way I do my business and the way that—you 

know, Mr. Nathanson talked about his business, and we are actually far closer than I ever realized, having heard him speak. The 

way I do my business, as any content owner would, is I evaluate 

the content that I have and the opportunity that is in front of me. 

And I think, you know, kind of the difficulty that we have is we 

have a system that is trying to fit kind of a square peg in a round 

hole. And the round peg is there are many things that are very 

positive that I as a content holder may want to avail myself of in 

the world with my music. There are opportunities when I may decide, I may have the choice to take my music and, you know, allow 

it to be broadcast or distributed however I might choose to do that 

at whatever compensation scheme I feel I am most comfortable 

with. 

For example—you know, and Mr. Ondrasik said this very well— 

we all think that Internet radio is fantastic, and we all think it is— 

the new technologies are keeping music in this music industry 

vital. In the 15 years that I have worked in the industry, you 

22 

know, I have seen it undergo really terrible upheaval, terrible 

change, and we have had an opportunity with new technologies to 

really get the consumer back, get the listener back, get the music 

fan back by exposing it. And the one thing Internet radio does is 

broaden the scope of what is out there. But I would like to have 

the choice to decide how I want to license my music and the fair 

market value—that is why I keep coming back to that—the fair 

market value of what it is worth. 

There may be an artist that needs exposure because they are 

these so-called, using Mr. Nathanson’s term, middle class of the 

music industry that I may feel is more adept to being exposed 

through other channels that I may—for example, iTunes has a program, ‘‘Download of the Week.’’ Well, major record labels give their 

music for 1 week to iTunes to download for free, and typically you 

are choosing artists that you are trying to expose. But an artist 

that is a superstar artist that does not need the exposure, you 

might have a different opportunity. I probably would not choose to 

do a Download of the Week with iTunes because it is a revenuegenerating opportunity for me. I am a businessman. 

So it is a long, roundabout way of answering your question, but 

that is why, you know, I feel—I understand your need for compromise— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So the answer is no. Is that right? 

Mr. HARLESTON. Excuse me? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The answer is no? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HARLESTON. The answer is no. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I just wanted to know. My time is up. 

Senator Brownback. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I was going to say the answer is maybe. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. That was what I heard, but I guess that is 

in the listener’s mind, which all of this is. Thank you all for being 

here. This is very interesting. I think it is fascinating, particularly, 

Mr. Nathanson, your experience to diffuse the industry and to 

allow people to break into it, new incumbents to come into it. I 

think that is just a fascinating story. 

Mr. Kennedy, do we know at all how many Internet radio stations there are now? Do we have any idea? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I actually could not tell you how many services 

there are. There are certainly thousands, if not tens of thousands. 

Again, the beauty of Internet radio is there is no kind of FCC spectrum limitations, and so it really has, you know, as Matt talked 

about, kind of democratized access. And I think that is why so 

much music is being exposed to the benefit of listeners and to the 

benefits of creators. 

Senator BROWNBACK. If the CRB rates are put into place that are 

currently negotiated, how many of those Internet radio stations 

will be able to survive? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I do not know of any Internet radio service that 

is just an Internet radio business that could survive these rates. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Can Pandora survive? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Pandora will not survive. How can— 

23 

Senator BROWNBACK. And you are one of the two biggest—you 

are one of the two biggest? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We are actually the largest now in the country. 

I think at these rates— 

Senator BROWNBACK. And you could not survive with these 

rates? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is impossible. There is no way, $18 million on $25 million, it is simply crushing. We could not pay people— 

Senator BROWNBACK. So the industry is gone if these are put in 

place. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think there might be, you know, the great big 

broadcast conglomerates like Clear Channel and CBS, you know, 

that is all that will be left of Internet radio. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Because they could move and use this as 

a loss leader or something. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Exactly. So they pay nothing on 98 percent of the 

radio they play, and so they can choose to pay the higher rates on 

the 2 percent that they stream online. I mean, if I paid nothing on 

98 percent, I could pay the CRB rates on the 2 percent. But I think 

the great loss, though, would be for American listeners and American artists, because in that scenario, all the diversity is lost and 

all of a sudden Internet radio becomes just like broadcast radio has 

been for the last 20 years. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, what is wrong with the fair market 

rate, then, in your estimation? We heard Mr. Harleston talk about 

he does not like the 7.5-percent rate that satellite radio pays. What 

is wrong with fair market then? 

Mr. KENNEDY. The 801(b) standard, as I understand it, has been 

used since 1976 for every other form of copyright arbitration, and 

it has been used successfully with songwriters, with music publishers, with a wide variety of services in radio; it has been used 

for cable and satellite. It is tested, it is proven successful. 

We are in the mess we are in today because 10 years ago a new 

standard that had never been tested, willing buyer-willing seller 

was injected into the statute. I think the worst thing we can do at 

this point is inject yet another untested standard into the statute. 

We have this standard, 801(b), that has been used successfully for 

25 years for exactly this form of royalty arbitration. Why wouldn’t 

we go with what has been proven successful? 

Senator BROWNBACK. So it is really kind of what Mr. Harleston 

is saying. He would like to be able to float rates differently. I mean, 

if he wants to break in with somebody, he would like to do it for 

zero; if he has got it established, he wants more. And you are saying that is just—that gives you no predictability in your marketplace for being able to maintain or operate an Internet radio. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Right. We play the music of 60,000 different artists. We play over half a million songs every week. We cannot have 

a rate negotiation around each song every week, depending on 

what someone wants to do. If that were the case, the system, 

again, would fail. No one would ever be able to offer that diversity 

or artist and music if they had to go through one-to-one licensing— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Nathanson, because my time will be up 

quickly, how many new artists are breaking in now through InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:15 Nov 13, 2009 Jkt 053214 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53214.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
24 

net radio? Do we have any idea now versus, say, 20 years or 10 

years ago before Internet radio? 

Mr. NATHANSON. I do not really know those kind of numbers. All 

I know is that, again, sort of the platform—the landscape has 

changed to such a point that there is no longer kind of the bottleneck where you have to get signed to a label and then they push 

you. It comes up through all the different—it is sort of a combination of all these tiny— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Routes. 

Mr. NATHANSON. Yes, it is all—instead of one big focused center, 

everything is sort of—artists are rising up through all the difference channels. That is what is so exciting about it. You know 

what I mean? It is a wild, open sort of new frontier. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So if the Internet goes back to just a few 

channels, like Clear Channel or others, using it for a loss leader, 

what happens then? 

Mr. NATHANSON. We have seen what that has done to the record 

industry now, so, I mean, it has not done them a service. I mean, 

it is sort of like we are at a really great place, and it would be a 

huge step back to go back to this kind of concept of a couple of companies owning the outlets. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I got the impression while Mr. Kennedy 

was speaking that Mr. Ondrasik had some interest in offering a response, so let me offer you that opportunity on my time. 

Mr. ONDRASIK. Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate that. I 

would just like to express kind of the artist’s side of the actual 

numbers. We really have not talked about the actual numbers, and 

the way I understand it, currently right now artists are being 

paid—or the royalty rate is $1.40 for a thousand songs. So in playing 1,000 songs, which, if you factor the programming, that is almost 15 songs an hour, that is 3 days of programming, constant 

streaming 24/7, $1.40. 

I am also told the average check the SoundExchange gives out is $360 per year. I checked mine last night. Last year, my 

SoundExchange royalties was $9,000. And if I was not a songwriter, that would have been my income. And if that was my income, I would not be making music. 

One more global point I think a lot of artists are concerned 

about. We are worried that certain platforms—and I am not necessarily talking about Pandora. We need Pandora to survive. We 

do. And I think we should work together to make that happen. But 

we are concerned about platforms that use our music to gain eyeballs. Once they reach a certain critical mass, they flip their companies for hundreds of millions of dollars that music artists never 

see a penny of. And that is what we worry about. That is not fair. If the model cannot sustain $1.40 for 3 days of programming, 

why should artists be punished for that? I am all for giving away 

free music. I do it all the time. The CD for the troops was free. But 

we should not be forced to give our music away for free. And if the 

model does not sustain that, well, the model will work itself out. 

25 

I think that needs to be said. Artists like Matt need this outlet, 

no doubt about it. There are many outlets for him—MySpace, his 

own Web pages. I worked 18 years in this business without making 

a penny. He is close to my heart. It is guys like him and the future 

songwriters that I am here for. If it was about me, you could have 

my music. I do not need any more money. But I worry about companies that take advantage of our content to rake in hundreds of 

millions of dollars at our expense. 

Thank you, Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am new to this institution and new to 

this issue, so I am here more to listen and learn. I am sure this 

is an issue we are going to be dealing with, and I would like to be 

as informed as possible. 

It strikes me as almost a lay observer that we have a technology 

that has galloped way ahead of the agreements and understandings 

that had proliferated through this industry to share its bounty, and 

now there is a tension between where the technology has taken us 

and the old means of doing business. 

My question is: Are there ways in which you foresee this technology facilitating a further—kind of turning it back around so that 

we are in a better position to see that the artists and the writers 

and the musicians are funded as well as they could be? 

And, for instance, is it clear now that we can track every use on 

the Internet of copyrighted artists’ material? Or is still the Wild 

West to the point that except in limited circumstances—Pandora 

presumably being one of them—we are not even clear on what is 

being put out there? 

Mr. SIMSON. Senator, if I may answer that, SoundExchange is 

certainly part of the new technology. We have a board that is 50 

percent copyright owners and 50 percent performers. We get reports of use from Pandora, from XM, and Sirius that tell exactly 

what they are playing on a monthly basis. So we know what they 

are performing. 

There are a number of services, though, who are not complying, 

who do not send us those reports, and as you say, it is the Wild 

West. We are guessing at what they are playing because they are 

not compliant with the law. If they are compliant with the law, we 

will know. We have built technology to basically take in all that information, crunch it down, and then send out checks to the performers and record companies. 

If I could also just add one thing on John’s comment. You know, 

Matt’s comments are wonderful. You know, I was an independent 

artist. I managed a lot of independent artists over the years. But 

the artists that I referenced in my earlier testimony, frankly, the 

heirs of those artists, they cannot go out and tour anymore. You 

know, it is not going to help the widows and spouses, many of 

whom—you know, they have created such a valuable legacy of this 

country, whether it is jazz, Hawaiian, other niche services that are 

being performed. They need the royalties. They do not have a 

choice. 

So I think we really need to make sure they are paid fairly, and 

as John pointed out, you know, it is 2 cents for an hour’s worth 

of music that goes to the performer and the record company. 

26 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Nathanson, why don’t you make your 

comment, and I wanted to ask Mr. Simson a question. 

Mr. NATHANSON. Sure, just one comment. I totally get where you 

are coming from, and I know that you are, you know, sort of supporting me. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NATHANSON. My concern is that you use the word ‘‘fair.’’ You 

throw the word ‘‘fair’’ around in an industry—and I am not really— 

this is not really my expertise, but the reason that Ernie K-Doe’s 

widow is in the situation that she is is because the record industry 

sort of put her in that situation. And so it is difficult for me to sit 

here and hear you want to sort of right the wrongs of the industry 

you are in by wronging—it is by sort of crushing the technology 

that is actually creating the new business model now. It is like— 

I feel like you are—I understand where you are coming from, and 

I sort of appreciate it. But the idea is that we are sort of entering 

into a new phase of the way that music is distributed and heard, 

and we need to work together to make it happen. And the laws 

that have been in place are not working together. They are working 

from this fearful place of sort of crushing technology that, like Mr. 

Whitehouse said, has galloped ahead. And it is like you just cannot 

do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know, it is interesting, because Senator 

Whitehouse leaned over and said to me, ‘‘This is really an example 

of the generational changes within the industry.’’ And it is really 

true. The question is: How do we come out of this with fairness? 

And it is not fair out there right now. 

Mr. Simson, there are two bills: Senator Brownback has the 

801(b) standard; I have the fair market value standard. I asked 

Mr. Harleston the question. Let me ask you the same question. 

Which in your view would work if we have to compromise to 

move this along? 

Mr. SIMSON. Madam Chair, thank you for asking. I believe that 

when you create a statutory license and you effectively take away 

our option to not license, none of the performers can say, ‘‘Oh, the 

rate is not high enough. I do not want to be part of this.’’ They cannot opt out. You have taken away that option by creating a statutory license. In that kind of situation, they should receive what the 

fair market would provide them if they did have the right to license. 

I think the other key here is I have no interest in seeing Internet 

radio go away. If they stop paying royalties to SoundExchange, I 

may be looking for a new job. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me stop you on that one, because 

what Mr. Kennedy said—and I was looking at the rate information 

here. In 2006, it was 0.008 cents per player per listener; in 2007, 

it was 0.009 cents; 2008 and the current rate is 0.0014. And 2010 

is the last year of the rate under this decision, and it would be 

0.0019. I guess I cannot translate those numbers into what Mr. 

Kennedy said, which was $18 million out of $25 million. How does 

that happen? 

Mr. SIMSON. If you take a look at the rates, we had a rate in 

place from 1998 to 2005 of 0.0762 cents. The judges, when they set 

the new rate for 2006, increased the rate by just 5 percent. The 

27 

2007 rate of 0.0011 of a penny was essentially getting us to where 

the cost of living would have gotten us had the rate just been adjusted for cost of living over the course of the license. 

This year’s rate of 0.0014 of a penny is a rate that Yahoo! agreed 

to pay in a private deal in 2001, and that was actually set by the 

first arbitration panel. So 7 years later, we have a rate that was 

agreed to by one of the larger Internet players. But, you know, we 

have tried to address these issues. We have made very, I think, 

dramatic attempts to settle with our webcaster partners. We have 

offered to extend the license out to 2015 to give them a much slower ramp-up to get to these out-year rates. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Stop now. Mr. Kennedy, what is wrong with 

that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think it is important to understand—the numbers sound so small on this per performance, per listener basis. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. They do. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Which has never been used before in music royalties. But radio is a very big system, and if all of radio—broadcast 

radio, cable, satellite, Internet—had to pay the rates you mentioned for just this year, the total royalties would be $3.1 billion. 

If they had to pay the royalties you referenced for 2010, the royalties would be over $4 billion. 

The total revenue of the entire recorded music industry in this 

country is $7 billion, and so the royalties that we are talking 

about— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, stop. Stop for a minute. How does that 

happen? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is because— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I mean, they must know that. It cannot be 

an intent of these rate setters to drive somebody out of business— 

that cannot be the intent. So why would they do that unless they 

thought it was the fair rate and that the market was able to absorb 

it? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is a great question. I think we have 

all been scratching our heads. How could they come up with a minimum fee? How could they come up with the rates? And I am not 

a lawyer, but I think my analysis would be that this willing buyer/ 

willing seller standard, which on the surface you say, well, that 

sounds kind of reasonable, when actually applied by the judges 

took them to very distant places looking for benchmarks that have 

nothing to do with radio. And in a detailed academic exercise about 

many adjustments to try and make a very distant benchmark apply 

to radio, the judges got lost. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Stop. 

Mr. Simson, do you agree with that? 

Mr. SIMSON. No, I do not. And, again, I think if we look at—you 

know, Mr. Kennedy mentioned revenue, that they were going to 

generate $25 million this year; they have 15 million users. My 

fuzzy math says that is about $1.70 a user per year. Just to give you some idea, satellite radio generates $115 per 

user per year. Over-the-air radio, where you do not pay anything 

but you have to listen to ads—you ‘‘pay by attention’’ is the parlance—generates about $80 per listener per year. So $1.70 is a very 

low number, and I think Mr. Ondrasik made the point, you know, 

28 

should artists be subsidizing a business that is generating $1.70 

per year? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Harleston, do you want to get into this? 

Mr. HARLESTON. I just would like to comment. I think Mr. 

Simson made a statement in his opening statement that there was 

a study by Bridges or somebody that had projected ad revenues for 

Internet radio somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion by the 

year 2020. Is that correct? 

So, I mean, it is hard to analyze other people’s businesses because I am not in their business. I do not know what the factors 

are that are driving the revenue. But the last time that we had a 

technology that galloped ahead, as everyone is talking about, and 

it was thought about as a technology that was necessary for the industry—for the good of music, necessary for the good of the people, 

it was called ‘‘Napster.’’ And it was a technology that everybody 

looked at us and said it is generational, you do not understand, it 

is— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I was part of those hearings, so I remember 

it very well. 

Mr. HARLESTON. You remember it. It was a business model that 

was based on, you know, appropriating content for free, whether 

you had a license or not. And it was a business that ultimately, you 

know, with the help of people here and the private market, we 

were able to put into a situation where it has not gone away. The 

delivery of music electronically is more vital now than it has ever 

been before. And it has given birth to new artists and to new music 

and opened the door for a lot of consumers to have music that they 

could not have before. But what it did do is make sure that the artists and the producers and the songwriters and everybody involved 

in creating the music was compensated, not just Shawn Fanning 

and his group of friends. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, if I may? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, please. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have to say I am offended that Internet radio 

would be compared with Napster, the very root of piracy. We are 

legal, licensed service. We have paid— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do not think he was comparing— 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. More than $10 million in royalties to 

SoundExchange. To compare us to piracy I think is offensive to all 

of the people who have been trying to build legitimate businesses 

that compensate artists. We have no interest in getting music for 

free. We want to pay artists. We have nothing to do with Napster, 

and we are not interested in devaluing music. 

Mr. HARLESTON. I was not intending to equate you with piracy 

but to equate the arguments that people are making on this panel 

with respect to technology and the viewpoint that people are trying 

to stifle technology. In fact, we love your technology. I cannot speak 

for your business model. I do not know what your business model 

is. I do not know how much ad revenues play into it. You know, 

I know that you have—I know Pandora, some of it is ad supported, 

some of it is subscription supported. You know, I am not—I am not 

facile enough with your business to be able to answer the Senator’s 

questions with respect to how you are getting your revenues and 

the numbers are looking so skewed, as you say they are. 

29 

The point I was trying to make was in looking at these technologies, there is often business models that are presented that 

are, you know—that are—I do not want to drag you into this. But 

there are other business models that have been presented that, you 

know, are technologically based that actually have been less than 

on the up and up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Gentlemen, if I might, we have been joined 

by Senator Cardin, and I would like to give him an opportunity to 

ask some questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Feinstein, first thank you very 

much for conducting this hearing. I am really here to learn. I am 

fascinated by the exchange that is taking place. 

I do believe we need to have a fair compensation for royalties 

that reflects the work of the artist, but we need to be neutral as 

to the source, and that is the challenge, because it is hard to predict technology changes and consumer desires. And I think the discussion that is taking place is very helpful to all of us. So I think 

we are trying to get it right. 

We do want to protect the work of the artists, but we do want 

technology to advance and consumers to be able to get the widest 

possible exposure to the artists’ works. And it is difficult when you 

look at the different technologies and how the compensation is 

done. It is not an exact science, and we very much appreciate the 

witnesses that are here because the record that is being done today 

in this Committee I think is going to be helpful to us trying to establish the right regime here in Congress. Madam Chair, I really thank you for your leadership. I know 

that you have been working for a long time to try to make sure the 

artists are protected, but also to make sure that we have a fair system, and I thank you and look forward to working with you. Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. If you get into this 801(b) versus fair market value, it is very 

hard for me to sort it out. And it seems to me that what you have 

to do is provide a mechanism whereby fair-minded professionals 

make judgments. And that, of course, would be the Copyright Royalty Board. That is what they are supposed to do. So I gather we have two people here, at least, that want the fair 

market value—is that correct?—as set by the Copyright Royalty 

Board. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARLESTON. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Simson. 

Mr. SIMSON. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Kennedy, you do not. Now, what is it 

that you want? Mr. KENNEDY. We do not have any problem with the Copyright 

Royalty Board process. Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Mr. KENNEDY. I think our particular case was the first one ever 

tried by these three judges in this new process. I think they may 

not have been on the top of their game in the first proceeding that 

they oversaw, but the basic process is not one we have any argument with. 

But, again, we do not understand why we would not be subjected 

to the same standard that is used for broadcast, satellite, and used 

for music publishing, for songwriting for 25 years and it is proven 

30 

to generate satisfactory resolutions for all parties. And why we 

would go into a completely new, untested concept for royalties having been through 10 years of another untested concept, that is just 

really hard for us. Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Let me get a response to that. Who 

wants to respond to that? Mr. Simson. 

Mr. SIMSON. Yes, Madam Chair. I think one of the issues with 

the 801(b) factors is that they have not been updated, and they are 

out of date. I think that, you know, in our proceeding there was 

a lot of evidence about the substitutional effect that might be created by these technologies that are giving consumers unlimited access to tracks all of the time, where the need to purchase is no 

longer there as we shift from, as I mentioned, the consumption is 

now the listen. 

So I think we would need to certainly—I am certainly in favor 

of the fair market standard. I think it is what we need. But if you 

are going to look at 801(b), I think it clearly needs updating and 

modernization and taking into the calculation of what these new 

technologies are doing to other business opportunities. Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. I think we have come to the end of 

this. But for the two artists that are here, my interest in this—and 

I have been party to these hearings now for more than a decade— 

is to see that we have a fair system; that people who create the 

software are fairly reimbursed, because that is the beauty of music. 

You want music to get better and better and be more and more innovative and interesting, and people have to get a fair rate of return. 

How to do that and not kill record companies—but to have a system that is fair across the board, it appears to me that the only 

way to do it is to have parity across the platforms. And if you really look at it, I do not know the strictures of 801(b), but I do know 

the concept of fair market value. And the rate has to be set, and 

it has got to be set by professionals after they look at all of the evidence. That is how we come upon fair market value, not to drive 

anybody out of business, Mr. Kennedy, but to see that the playing 

field is level across the spectrum. To me that is the desired thing. 

The artist gets a fair rate of pay. The exposure is fair. The systems 

work in a way with competition but fairness. And that is what we 

have tried to do in this bill. 

So what I would really appreciate is that you all take a look at 

the fine print, and if you have suggestions, get it to us, either to 

Senator Graham, myself, Senator Leahy, because I think we do 

need to move a bill, and I think there is interest in moving a bill 

at this time. 

So let me just thank all of you very, very much. It has been a 

very interesting hearing. The record will remain open for 1 week 

for comments. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

31 


53214.001
32 


53214.002
33 


53214.003
34 


53214.004
35 


53214.005
36 


53214.006
37 


53214.007
38 


53214.008
39 


53214.009
40 


53214.010
41 


53214.011
42 


53214.012
43 


53214.013
44 


53214.014
45 


53214.015
46 


53214.016
47 


53214.017
48 


53214.018
49 


53214.019
50 


53214.020
51 


53214.021
52 


53214.022
53 


53214.023
54 


53214.024
55 


53214.025
56 


53214.026
57 


53214.027
58 


53214.028
59 


53214.070
60 


53214.071
61 


53214.072
62 


53214.073
63 


53214.074
64 


53214.075
65 


53214.076
66 


53214.077
67 


53214.078
68 


53214.079
69 


53214.080
70 


53214.081
71 


53214.029
72 


53214.030
73 


53214.031
74 


53214.032
75 


53214.033
76 


53214.034
77 


53214.035
78 


53214.036
79 


53214.037
80 


53214.038
81 


53214.039
82 


53214.040
83 


53214.041
84 


53214.042
85 


53214.043
86 


53214.044
87 


53214.045
88 


53214.046
89 


53214.047
90 


53214.048
91 


53214.049
92 


53214.050
93 


53214.051
94 


53214.052
95 


53214.053
96 


53214.054
97 


53214.055
98 


53214.056
99 


53214.057
100 


53214.058
101 


53214.059
102 


53214.060
103 


53214.061
104 


53214.062
105 


53214.063
106 


53214.064
107 


53214.065
108 


53214.066
109 


53214.067
110 


53214.068
111 

Æ 


53214.069