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

40–284 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–254

EXPLORING THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC

PERFORMANCE RIGHTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 13, 2007

Serial No. J–110–61

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 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 29

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 2

WITNESSES 

DeVany, Dan, Vice President and General Manager, Classical WETA 90.9 

FM, Arlington, Virginia ....................................................................................... 8

Lovett, Lyle, Singer/Songwriter, Nashville, Tennessee ........................................ 3

Newberry, Steven M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Commonwealth 

Broadcasting Corporation, Glasgow, Kentucky ................................................. 6

Peacock, Alice, Singer/Songwriter, and President, Chicago Chapter, The Recording Academy, Chicago, Illinois ..................................................................... 4

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Steven M. Newberry to questions submitted by Senator Specter . 26

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

DeVany, Dan, Vice President and General Manager, Classical WETA 90.9 

FM, Arlington, Virginia, statement .................................................................... 31

Lovett, Lyle, Singer/Songwriter, Nashville, Tennessee, statement ..................... 34

Newberry, Steven M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Commonwealth 

Broadcasting Corporation, Glasgow, Kentucky, statement .............................. 38

Peacock, Alice, Singer/Songwriter, and President, Chicago Chapter, The Recording Academy, Chicago, Illinois, statement .................................................. 58

U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, D.C., fact sheet .................................... 62

(1)

EXPLORING THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC 

PERFORMANCE RIGHTS 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Specter, Hatch, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I call the Committee to order. 

First, I do appreciate very much the fact that Lyle Lovett—who 

was performing over at the Birchmere until late last night, and I 

am told by Bruce Cohen you were in his office at 8:30 on a rainy 

morning. I do not think you get to sleep at all. We first met in 

Texas, and I want to thank you for being here. 

Like most people, I am an avid music fan. Music inspires us, and 

it connects us to others and to matters larger than ourselves. It 

fills our memories. I am grateful to broadcasters for all the music 

I first heard on the radio back in the old days. I also feel strongly 

that the artists who make our life so happy should be compensated 

for their work. So the issue of ‘‘performance rights on sound recordings’’ can be stated pretty simply: Should broadcast radio continue 

to use musicians’ work without paying for it? 

I think the issue of performance rights raises an issue of fairness. The question is simple; the answer may not be. First, is it fair 

to continue to exempt broadcasters from royalty obligations? 

Second, is it fair to U.S. copyright holders for the United States 

not to align its practices with every single OECD country? They all 

recognize, of course, a performance right. 

And is it fair for some kinds of radio equivalents to pay royalties 

to performers but for traditional broadcast radio stations to continue to be exempt from such obligations? Webcasting and satellite 

radio pay performers for their work, but broadcast radio, which 

generates advertising revenue by playing the same music, does not. 

Fourth, is it fair to require the same payment from small, noncommercial, or religious radio stations as broadcasters that own 

many stations and generate very large profits? 

And, finally, is it fair to impose public service requirements on 

broadcast radio but not to make those demands of others? 

2

So I want to be sure that our culture remains vital and vibrant. 

Radio has been part of that vibrancy, whether it is old-fashioned 

broadcast radio or new-fangled Internet radio. I want it to survive. 

I want it to prosper. I want my grandchildren to have the widest 

possible access to good music, including classics or new creations. 

But I also want to be sure that the creative artists, those who perform that music, get their due. When we turn on the radio, I want 

to know that the voices I hear belong to artists who are being 

treated fairly. 

I do appreciate the fact that this panel came together on very 

short notice. As I was telling Mr. Lovett before we came in, there 

will be a roll call vote shortly after 10. I will go to that. And something that I think I have only done twice in all my years here, I 

have gone to Vermont in the middle of the week. I am going to 

have to take a late morning flight to Vermont. Senator Cornyn has 

offered to sit in for me and continue the hearing after that. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. With that, I would yield to Senator Specter. 

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

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an unusual 

hearing. I have been on this Committee for a while. I have not seen 

so many still cameras in my experience here. I think we might 

have a better public response if we let the performers perform as 

opposed to hearing the Senators do too much talking. 

But we have a very important subject and a very complex one 

as we have seen how broadcasting has changed from traditional 

AM–FM, so now we have Internet, satellite, and high-definition 

broadcasting. 

We did make some changes in 1995 to grant the recording industry for the first time a performance right in digital music transmissions. But it is a complex field with a lot of inconsistencies. Satellite radio providers are charged different royalty rates than Internet service providers, while traditional broadcasters are almost totally exempt. 

We want to encourage performers to come along with the tremendous entertainment for the American public. At the same time, we 

want to make the music available in ways that we can appreciate 

those performances. So it is a complex balancing act, and I think 

it is time that the Committee took a very hard look at the complex 

issues which are involved here. 

One of the difficulties is that we have such a crowded agenda, 

last week totally consumed with the new Attorney General, later 

this week very heavily engaged in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But we all enjoy the music, and we all enjoy our radios, 

and we greatly value the performers. And we want to be fair to all 

sides, so we will take it up and try to make as equitable a decision 

as we can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I am going to call first of Mr. Lovett, instead of going to further 

opening statements, if that is all right, just simply because of the 

3

vote, and obviously the time will be available for others. I almost 

feel it is redundant to offer an introduction, but he is a four-time 

Grammy Award winner from Klein, Texas. He has released more 

than ten albums, many best-sellers on the Billboard charts. In addition to being a popular singer and songwriter, he is a gifted performer. He is an accomplished actor. I remember ‘‘The Player.’’ He 

has graciously agreed to take time off from his current tour to help 

us focus on this, and as I said, Bruce Cohen and others from my 

staff saw and heard you at the Birchmere last night and gave you 

rave reviews. 

Mr. Lovett, it is all yours. Is your microphone on? 

The little red button. 

STATEMENT OF LYLE LOVETT, SINGER/SONGWRITER, 

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 

Mr. LOVETT. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Specter, members of the Committee. I am proud 

to be here today on behalf of the MusicFIRST Coalition. I am a 

member of the American Federation of Musicians, the Recording 

Academy, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, 

and Sound Exchange. I am incredibly lucky to be able to make my 

living doing something that I love to do—creating art for others to 

enjoy. 

My first public performances was at the age of 7, singing ‘‘Long 

Tall Texan’’ in a school talent show. I grew up in Texas and still 

live there in a house that my grandfather built in 1911. My life and 

music are forever linked to Texas, but I also play with musicians 

and singers from Nashville and from all over the country. The 

issue you are considering today matters to performers all across 

the U.S., recording all kinds of music. 

Songwriters and performers rely on lots of different income 

streams in order to survive. But in this patchwork of income 

streams, there has always been one incomprehensible anomaly: 

when a recording is played on over-the-air radio, the songwriter 

who wrote the words and music receives a performance royalty, as 

he or she should. But the performer receives nothing. 

Of course, the songwriter who created the song deserves to be 

compensated when that work generates value for another business, 

as it does for radio. I am proud to be an ASCAP member and grateful for the performance royalties that have helped me to earn my 

living as a songwriter. But the musicians and singers who perform 

the song are also creators, and they deserve to be compensated as 

well. 

When radio plays these recorded works, they generate profit for 

themselves because they attract listeners and advertising dollars. 

Yet radio has never compensated performers for the value their 

creative work brings to the radio industry. This must change. 

Don’t get me wrong. I love radio, and I appreciate the support 

I have gotten from radio over the years. But business is business 

and fair is fair, and they should not get to profit from the music 

we create without compensating us. 

It also would be extremely helpful to performers, and to the U.S. 

balance of trade, to bring our music industry into line with the rest 

of the developed world. Foreign radio stations often broadcast a 

4

high percentage of American music, but we do not get our share 

of the royalties due to our lack of a right here in the U.S. This is 

amazing. We are responsible for 30 to 50 percent of music played 

on stations around the world, and we do not have a performance 

right? I can understand why China, North Korea, and Iran might 

not. But here in the United States? 

I have talked a fair amount about myself today, but this issue 

is not about me. It is about the thousands of performers across the 

country who work so hard to earn livings that are very modest in 

relation to their talent. It is also about the future of American culture and its ability to support the creators we need. I am honored 

to have been given an opportunity to speak for them. I realize that 

you are at the very beginning of a legislative process and that 

there will be many issues to consider and to resolve, including how 

to protect the rights of songwriters while creating new rights for 

performers. But I am sure we can get this done so it is fair and 

square for everyone involved. 

Thank you for giving me your time today and for all your efforts 

on behalf of creators as you work on this issue. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Lovett. 

Before we go to questions, Ms. Alice Peacock has joined us from 

Chicago. She is a singer, she is a songwriter, she is a recording artist, released two albums. Her songs have been featured on a number of hit television shows and movies. She is the President of the 

Chicago Chapter of the Recording Academy as well as the President of Rock for Reading, a nonprofit organization that raises 

awareness and resources for Chicago area literacy programs. 

On a purely personal note, my sister, Mary, runs an adult basic 

education program in central Vermont, and I will be seeing her 

later today, and I will tell her about your testimony. 

Please go ahead, Ms. Peacock. 

STATEMENT OF ALICE PEACOCK, SINGER/SONGWRITER, AND 

PRESIDENT, CHICAGO CHAPTER, THE RECORDING ACADEMY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. PEACOCK. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Specter, and members of the Committee. My 

name is Alice Peacock, and I am a singer/songwriter from Chicago. 

I am also a member of the MusicFIRST Coalition, I am President 

of the Chicago Chapter of the Recording Academy, and a member 

of AFTRA. I am truly honored to have the privilege of addressing 

this distinguished Committee about what is one of the most important issues facing those of us in the music community today. 

As President of the Recording Academy’s Chicago Chapter, I 

have the honor of working with hundreds of music creators of all 

types—from those just starting out and hoping to make a career in 

music, to the few—I should note, the very few—who have achieved 

superstar status. 

But the vast majority are just like me, what I like to call the 

‘‘great middle class of artists.’’ Like other Americans, we go to work 

every day to earn a living and support our families. Like other 

Americans, we produce a product that people value and want to 

5

buy. And like other Americans, we expect to be compensated when 

businesses make a profit from our work product. 

Music may be our calling, but make no mistake, it is also our job. 

And for the most part, artists are compensated for their work. 

When I sell a record, I make a royalty. When I perform a concert, 

I receive a fee from the promoter. And when my tracks are broadcast on satellite radio, Internet radio, or cable, I receive a performance royalty. 

All this seems fair. But there is one glaring, inexplicable exception to the notion of fair payment: There is no performance right 

for sound recordings for terrestrial radio. AM and FM radio—the 

platforms I grew up with and grew to love—do not compensate me 

when they broadcast my recordings. 

Now, there are people more qualified than I to address the legal, 

historic, and economic background of this issue. I am not an expert 

in copyright law, but I do understand the concept of basic fairness. 

If a business uses recorded music to earn advertising revenue, then 

it should compensate those who created that recorded music. It is 

that simple. 

Now, I understand that this concept nearly always turns into a 

discussion about promotion. Broadcasters say radio promotes 

record sales and so they should not have to pay a royalty. But I 

just do not get that. Every performance has the potential to be promotional, but why should that make a difference? 

For instance, I just had a gig in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Imagine if the club owner used the same logic about promotion. What 

if at the end of the night, after I had packed his club with paying 

customers, he told me that he did not have to pay me because my 

performance helped promote my record sales. Well, such a scenario 

would be unacceptable by any standard. 

Frankly, the promotion argument sounds a little silly. Last week 

I bought a pair of Nike shoes. I wear them everywhere—except to 

perhaps Senate hearings. With the Nike logo on my feet, I am 

probably promoting their brand wherever I go. Can you imagine if 

I decided not to pay for the shoes on the grounds that my promoting Nike should excuse me from payment? My refusal to pay 

would be called ‘‘shoplifting.’’ But radio’s refusal to pay artists is 

called ‘‘business as usual.’’

Now, I would like to make one other point, an important point 

about songwriters, who do enjoy a broadcast performance royalty. 

I am also a songwriter, and in addition to the affiliations I noted 

earlier, I am a proud member of ASCAP. Many songwriters are not 

performers, and many performers are not songwriters. These are 

two different jobs and, as Congress has legislated, two different 

copyrights. A new performance right for artists should never be implemented at the expense of the existing right for songwriters. Any 

new legislation should make this clear. Just as satellite and Internet radio pays songwriters and artists, so should terrestrial radio. 

Which brings me back to the issue of fairness. 

Is it fair that only one platform—the $20 billion corporate radio 

industry—be exempt from paying to use the music that is the basis 

of its business? Is it fair that sound recordings are not protected 

with a performance right when movies, literary works, and other 

copyrighted works are? And is it fair that American artists lack 

6

this basic right when our counterparts in every other developed 

country enjoy fair compensation? 

Well, everyone in this room knows the answer is no. But you, 

distinguished Senators, have the power to make it right. 

Now, before I conclude, let me just take a moment to remind us 

all of what this is really about: the music. So this is something 

from my song ‘‘Bliss.’’

[Ms. Peacock sings.] 

Ms. PEACOCK. So, on behalf of the great middle class of recording 

artists, I urge you to grant a performance right for sound recordings. It is only fair. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peacock appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I am sitting here wondering just how our tremendous reporter gets that into the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I think the last time somebody sang part of 

their testimony at a hearing I was at was my late friend Harry 

Chapin. It brings back memories. 

Steven Newberry is the President and CEO of Commonwealth 

Broadcasting Corporation. He is also the National Association of 

Broadcasters Radio Board First Vice Chair. He is from Glasgow, 

Kentucky, and, Mr. Newberry, we certainly appreciate you taking 

the time to come here today. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN M. NEWBERRY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMONWEALTH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, GLASGOW, KENTUCKY 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 

morning to you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Specter, and 

other members of the Committee that are joining us today. And I 

do appreciate your inviting me here to offer the broadcaster’s perspective on this important issue. 

My name is Steven Newberry. I am the President and CEO of 

Commonwealth Broadcasting. I own and operate 23 radio stations 

in rural Kentucky, and I am testifying today on behalf of the over 

6,800 local radio members of the National Association of Broadcasters. 

With regard to the issue of creating a new performance royalty 

fee for sound recordings, which local broadcasters do consider a 

performance tax, NAB strongly opposes any such proposal. We oppose a performance tax because compensation to the record labels 

and performers is already provided under the current system. The 

existing model works for one very simple and significant reason: 

the promotional value of what the record labels and performers receive from free airplay on local radio stations drives consumers to 

purchase music. A survey done by critical mass media shows that 

85 percent of listeners identify FM radio as the first place they 

hear music they purchase. And with an audience of over 232 million listeners each week, there is no better way to expose and promote talent. 

Beyond just playing music, consider that local radio stations give 

away free concert tickets, conduct on-air interviews with bands reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:20 Jan 25, 2008 Jkt 040284 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40284.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7

leasing a new CD, or hype a newly discovered artist. Without question, local radio is the engine that drives music sales. 

The recording industry knows that music sales soar with airplay. 

Just last week, at the Country Music Awards, Carrie Underwood, 

Kenny Chesney, Sugarland, and Rascal Flatts all specifically 

thanked country radio for their success. And Taylor Swift, who was 

named Best New Artist of the Year, said, ‘‘I want to thank country 

radio. I will never forget the chance you took on me.’’

While it is true that the recording industry has seen its revenues 

dip in their new digital world, in no way can that decline be attributed to local radio. Just the opposite. Local radio is essentially free 

advertising for record labels and their performers and provides the 

best and more direct way to reach consumers. 

In 1995, when Congress last examined this issue, lawmakers 

opted to require satellite and Internet radio to pay performance 

fees because these platforms are often available by subscription 

and they both offer consumers true interactivity to download songs. 

Local radio, however, is an entirely different platform. We are free. 

There is no subscription. It is not interactive. And between disc 

jockey lead-ins and commercials, no one is stealing music from 

over-the-air radio. Congress came to this conclusion in 1995, namely, that local radio airplay does not threaten music sales. In fact, 

local radio directly and positively promotes the sale of music. 

What I fail to understand after nearly 30 years in the radio industry is why the recording industry is willing to essentially bite 

the hand that feeds it. The free airplay for free promotion concept 

has established a natural symbiotic relationship between local 

radio and the recording industry. Both grow and both flourish together. But a new performance tax takes this mutually beneficial 

system and transforms it into an unfair, one-sided scheme that 

benefits financially only the recording industry and to the detriment of local radio stations. 

The negative effect of such a dramatic increase in radio station 

cost will be felt by radio stations and their listeners across the 

country and in every one of your States. Many, many radio stations 

across the country are struggling to be profitable. Since most of our 

operating costs are fixed, the money to pay for this new performance fee has to come from somewhere. 

So as a broadcaster, what are my options? Do I reduce the community affairs programming, including essential news and weather, in times of emergency? Because I cannot cut my electric bill. 

Am I forced to lay off staff or cut the employee benefits at my station? Because I cannot reduce my FCC regulatory fees. Do I move 

to a non-music format, which will have the effect of playing less 

music and will ultimately harm the performers? 

There is a reason that the National Religious Broadcasters, the 

National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, the National 

Association of Farm Broadcasters, and the Independent Spanish 

Broadcasters Association all oppose the imposition of any new performance fees. The answers are not simple, and the consequences 

of this debate will hit both industries in unanticipated ways. 

There is simply no justification for changing a system that has 

worked for the music industry as a whole for so many years. The 

United States has the most prolific and successful music industry 

8

that is the envy of the world. The law as it stands today works. 

Upsetting the careful balance that Congress struck by imposing a 

new performance tax on local radio broadcasters would be a shift 

of seismic proportions. Congress has consistently recognized the 

mutual beneficial relationships between local radio and the recording industry, and there is no reason to change the law now. 

Thank you for inviting me here today, and I welcome your questions. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Newberry, and I do appreciate your coming here. 

Dan DeVany is the Vice President and General Manager at 

WETA 90.9 FM based in Arlington, Virginia. It is a public broadcasting station. It switched to an all-classical format earlier this 

year. Before coming to WETA, he worked with the National Symphony Orchestra. I think that is where we first met. 

Mr. DEVANY. That is right. 

Chairman LEAHY. And for the Fine Arts Network of Minnesota 

Public Radio. Mr. DeVany, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAN DEVANY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, CLASSICAL WETA 90.9 FM, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. DEVANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Specter, and 

members of the Committee, for giving me the opportunity to speak 

with you today. I am head of Classical WETA, the only classical 

music radio station here in Washington, D.C., and I am here today 

in opposition to the proposal that radio stations be required to pay 

performance fees for broadcasting musical material. These fees 

would impose a significant constraint on the ability of community 

music broadcasters such as WETA to provide public service within 

the publicly funded system in which we operate. 

Earlier this year, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, WETA made 

the decision to adopt a full-time classical music format on our radio 

station’s 90.9 FM and 89.1 FM. We did so when it appeared that 

our Nation’s capital would be without any over-the-air station devoted to classical music. The company that owned and operated the 

last remaining classical music station in Washington, WGMS, had 

decided to move away from the format in favor of other types of 

programming. There was going to be no classical music on the 

radio in Washington. 

For many in this community, it was unthinkable that there 

would not be access to classical music on the radio free and available to all. WETA enthusiastically adopted the format as part of 

our core mission to serve the Greater Washington Area with programming that is significant, meaningful, and with intrinsic value. 

And we did so against a trend in broadcasting where more and 

more radio stations are abandoning the classical music format in 

favor of programming that, it is hoped, will be more successful in 

garnering increased audience and revenue. Last year the National 

Endowment for the Arts reported that the number of classical 

music stations in this country was in steep decline and that 6 of 

9

the top 30 markets in the United States had no classical stations 

at all. Philadelphia still has no classical music radio station. 

WETA is a not-for-profit community broadcaster licensed to the 

Greater Washington Area and chartered to serve the community 

with programming of value and significance. Our operating budgets 

are built upon public funding, the vast majority of which comes 

from voluntary private contributions from our listeners. Needless to 

say, raising this money year after year is a central challenge for 

us and any other similarly organized broadcast enterprise. 

We at WETA are proud and passionate about our place of service 

to Washington. And we are not alone in our efforts. WETA is part 

of a family of community stations most of whom broadcast a genre 

of music unique to their markets. 

The current proposal to require radio stations to pay a performance fee for material played on the air would be an onerous burden 

on community stations such as WETA who are already greatly 

challenged to raise the money needed to stay on the air and provide public service. Like WETA, the operations of community music 

stations are built upon a razor-thin margin that cannot withstand 

additional tolls or tariffs beyond that which we already pay to 

music licensing entities. Payment of these additional fees would be 

difficult for WETA; it might be impossible for smaller stations. By 

the very nature of the programming we offer, our audiences are 

limited, as are our resources. 

Please let me be clear. I do not suggest that artists should not 

be fairly acknowledged and compensated for their work. I say this 

as a former professional musician myself and a member of a family 

of working professional musicians and music educators. 

We community broadcasters who nurture, promote, and preserve 

art forms such as classical music, jazz, folk music, or any other 

that is underrepresented in mainstream terrestrial radio do so as 

a labor of love and with the deep conviction that our efforts support 

the work of artists most of whom would not be heard on radio if 

we did not exist. We have built communities of listeners upon this 

principle. And we have done so in partnership with performers who 

share our conviction and believe that the music to which they are 

devoted benefits from free exposure. It is a system that has worked 

for many, many years, and the ultimate beneficiary is the public 

we all serve. 

As you review this proposed legislation, I urge you consider the 

effects it would have on community-based music stations. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Let me ask this question of both Mr. Lovett and Ms. Peacock to 

followup on what Mr. Newberry and Mr. DeVany have said. If you 

were paid by the radio station, aren’t you getting paid two different 

royalties for the same song? How would you respond to that? 

Mr. LOVETT. Go ahead, Alice. 

Ms. PEACOCK. Well, Senator, I would say that those are two different jobs. I am a songwriter, but I am also a performer, so I 

should be paid fairly for both. They are two different jobs. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Lovett? 

10

Mr. LOVETT. And I also perform my own songs, but in addition 

to that, I perform songs that I did not write. And it is not just 

about receiving a performance royalty for me myself with airplay. 

Ms. PEACOCK. That is true. 

Mr. LOVETT. This performance royalty would extend to the musicians that I record with. Those are people who are usually not credited as writers of a song, but are extremely influential in bringing 

a song to life and are very much part of the creative process. 

Chairman LEAHY. But, you know, we hear the radio stations 

speak of the promotional value of hearing it, which also would add 

to your value for concerts and all where others are going to be involved. We have also heard of promoters who will pay stations to 

play, sort of supporting this theory there is a promotional value to 

it. 

Are you saying that is not enough? 

Mr. LOVETT. Well, certainly radio stations may provide promotional value to what we do, but it goes both ways. It is the music 

that people tune in to hear. It is because of the music radio stations are able to sell advertising. Radio stations work in what we 

provide, and we are just asking for the opportunity to be given fair 

compensation. 

Ms. PEACOCK. And may I add, Senator, that satellite radio and 

Internet radio are also playing our material as well and offering 

promotion, but they are paying a royalty. So we are just really asking for what is fair. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, that goes back—Mr. Newberry, I am trying to tie, in the few minutes I have here, back and forth on this. 

You say the radio play should be sufficient so they should not receive additional payment. 

Now, doesn’t that imply the performer would want to give you 

the incentive to play his or her work perhaps by permitting their 

work to be played for free? Shouldn’t that be the decision of the 

performer whether they want to forego rights to encourage airplay? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Senator, as you referenced, there is a relationship with the composers, and those persons that write the songs 

are very limited in their ability to monetize the value of those 

songs. And that is why the broadcast industry has had a longstanding relationship with BMI, ASCAP, and CSAC to make sure 

that those who are limited in their ability to monetize their work 

are fairly compensated. 

But I do believe that what the broadcast industry brings to the 

table in opposition or in contrast to satellite and Internet broadcasters are 232 million relationships each week with our listeners, 

232 million people that listen to over-the-air radio, and certainly 

there is a value by us introducing that artist, by us promoting 

where the concert is, and that gives the performer, whether it be 

in a small venue or a large venue, the ability to sell concert tickets, 

sell T-shirts, go to movie rights, become a celebrity. That is certainly for the performer a much stronger opportunity for them to 

monetize this side of the relationship, and I would like to think 

that America’s broadcasters have contributed greatly to many, to 

the recognition factor of many of the artists that we have. 

You know, when Mr. Lovett came into the room, there was a certain sense of celebrity. And I would like to think that the broadcast 

11

industry contributed to that. And he has an opportunity to monetize that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Lovett, what do you say to that? 

Mr. LOVETT. While radio may provide promotional value to me, 

certainly, you know, it is just fair is fair. And the other people besides me who participate in these recordings, who do not have the 

same opportunities that I might have to monetize my exposure, deserve to be compensated as well. 

Chairman LEAHY. My red light just went on. I have further questions. If I do not get back, I will submit them in writing. I am told 

the vote is about to start. I will yield to Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. And when Senator Specter finishes his questions, we will stand in recess for the vote once you have finished, 

and then, Senator Cornyn, if you would come back and take over. 

Senator SPECTER. As I study this issue and listen to the testimony, I think the system is very illogical as it is currently devised. 

Whether it is fair is a more complex issue. But when you start off 

and say that analog, no performers’ rights, and digital, performers’ 

rights, because analog cannot be copied because it is blurry but digital can, and then in 1998 we legislate and give performers rights 

on the Internet and satellite and on cable, on TV, that is a mishmosh. That is a crazy quilt, because now you have 1,200 to 1,500 

AM-FM radios with high definition where it is capable of being recorded. So by that standard, the high definition ought to have performers’ rights. But how you segment that is kind of complicated. 

I think that Mr. Lovett and Ms. Peacock make a very strong initial presentation on the issue of fairness, but I think we need to 

know a lot more. I think we need to know how many performers 

are discouraged from entering into the profession because they do 

not receive compensation for their performance. And we need to 

know more from the radio stations what would be the impact if you 

had to pay a performer’s royalty. The value of radio stations has 

gone up enormously, just gigantically, from what I have seen, and 

the commercials pay very, very well. 

So the question which is on my mind on commercial radio, can 

you afford it? You certainly receive tremendous benefit from the recordings, from the performers’ work. Mr. DeVany raises a good 

point about public radio, small stations going out of business. Well, 

we do not want to do that. We listened to NPR and somehow the 

Washington station changed its format, and now we hear music instead of the old format. And there is public financing there, so 

maybe we can make a dichotomy. 

Can you quantify in any meaningful way, Mr. Lovett or Ms. Peacock, what the promotional value is? You do sell your records and 

you do attract people to your shows because you have become famous for what people hear over the air when they are not paying 

for it. Can it be quantified to any extent? And the subordinate 

question is: How many performers are discouraged from entering 

the profession? We certainly want to encourage you to perform, Ms. 

Peacock. That is the only time I have seen the red light go on when 

I did not want the—when the speaker was a performer from going 

on. 

12

Respond to that question. How many people are discouraged—

can you quantify it to any extent—by not receiving performers’ royalties? 

Ms. PEACOCK. Senator Specter, I cannot quantify it. I do not 

know to what amounts. I do know that people go into music, such 

as myself, because of we are passionate about it, because we have 

no other choice. Music is my calling. It truly is. But it is my job, 

and it is how I support myself. And as I call it, as sort of the great 

middle class of artists out there, I make my living from different 

revenue streams. I am also an independent label, so, you know, I 

am a small business. And so I feel that, you know, if somebody is 

creating a business model on my work, based on my work, I should 

be compensated fairly. That is where the fairness issue comes in, 

and this is my job, that is their business model, and there should 

be compensation. 

Senator SPECTER. So, Ms. Peacock, you say you perform for passion not for money, sort of like Senators who are in this line for 

passion and not for $165,000 a year. 

Ms. PEACOCK. But you do have to pay the bills. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Hatch has royalties, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. But he is entitled to them. 

Mr. Newberry, how well are your constituents doing, the radio 

stations, aside from the public stations? Isn’t it a pretty lucrative 

line these days? Can you afford to pay performers and still stay in 

business with a significant profit? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Senator, as I was listening to Ms. Peacock’s answer to your question just a moment ago, it struck me that we 

probably find ourselves in the same position. I would consider myself a member of the middle or lower class of the broadcast community. Sixty-five percent of the radio stations in this country are outside of rated markets. It is rural America. And I can assure you 

that those small market radio stations in today’s economy, with the 

challenges that are being faced, with the consumer confidence level 

where it is, with gas prices going up, many, many stations, as I 

said in my oral testimony, are struggling to find profitability. And 

the impact of these fees being paid by those radio stations would 

be dramatic and would be devastating because stations would have 

to make hard decisions. We are a fixed-cost industry. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Newberry, would it be rational to make a 

distinction somewhere along the line between the stations you describe and those which are profitable? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Senator, I think it is an issue of principle, because what I would say in response to that is the larger stations 

that are in the metropolitan areas provide even greater value to 

the artist. They reach more people. They have more impact. So I 

think it is a balanced system, and for us to bifurcate the industry 

I think would be a mistake. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, when we establish public policy, we try 

to do it in terms of stimulating entrepreneurialism, and performers 

are certainly in the free enterprise system entrepreneurs. But we 

want to keep radio stations going, too. The first thing all of us do 

when we get into the car is turn on the radio. The first thing we 

do. And we hear a lot of commercials. A lot of commercials. The 

13

first thing I do is turn on television—I asked my staffer, I saw in 

my notes Internet and satellite have to pay performers. I wondered 

about television. A lot of good music on television. And I was told 

that on cable they have to pay performers. 

Well, it is a vexing issue, and we want to be fair. We want to 

keep the radio stations going. We also want to keep the performers 

going. 

Senator Hatch has more experience in this field than I do. He 

can provide more of the answers. But the Chairman has put us in 

recess until the vote concludes. We will all be right back. 

[Recess 10:17 a.m. to 10:27 a.m.] 

Senator CORNYN. [Presiding.] I will call the hearing back to 

order. I hate to interrupt all the good conversation, but I do want 

to make sure we move our way through the hearing in the interest 

of your time as well as ours. 

First I want to thank Chairman Leahy for convening this important hearing. I was thinking there has not been one I have enjoyed 

personally as much in a long time because of the entertainment 

and because of some of the personalities who are here. And I was 

thinking, Mr. Lovett, as Chairman Leahy was talking about your 

contributions to music, which are many, that Texas has produced 

a large number of our Nation’s most storied musicians, from Bob 

Willis—Wills. Excuse me. I do not know why I said ‘‘Bob Willis.’’ 

I was looking at Ray Benson as I was thinking that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. I remember his performance, riding with Bob 

at the Kennedy Center, which I enjoyed a lot. It celebrated the life 

of Bob Wills. I do not know why I said ‘‘Bob Willis.’’ Excuse me. 

To Willie Nelson, from Janis Joplin and Norah Jones, from 

Buddy Holly to Stevie Ray Vaughn, and from Robert Earl Keen, 

who I understand was your housemate at Texas A&M. Is that correct, Mr. Lovett? 

Mr. LOVETT. Well, we were friends. We lived right down the 

street from one another, and we met there, and, you know, we sat 

around and played a lot of music together. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I want to also say that my own appreciation for music has overcome some early hurdles in my life when my 

parents forced upon me trombone lessons in first grade. And then 

I learned later when I went to college, I learned how to play the 

guitar badly. But I found that the opposite sex was not attracted 

to trombones. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. They were not attracted to my bad guitar playing either. 

Then let me just relate one other personal anecdote and then 

segue into my questions. When I went to law school and became 

a lawyer, I worked for a senior partner in my law firm in San Antonio, and one of his clients was ASCAP. And he would sue local 

clubs for non-payment of royalties, and he would give me the responsibility to go about midnight, usually on a Friday or Saturday 

night, along with a United States Marshal, with a writ of execution, to levy the writ of execution on the cash register and the proceeds that were accumulated during the evening’s course of business. And I was always appreciative that we did not encounter 

14

someone with an attitude, and perhaps even a gun, that would 

have challenged that, or I might not have been here. 

But, of course, the royalties that we were helping to collect for 

ASCAP I would be interested in understanding because—and 

maybe the record would benefit from knowing how that money is 

distributed vis-a-vis the author, the writer, versus performer 

versus the music publisher and others. 

Mr. Newberry, could you perhaps enlighten us a little bit on 

that? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Certainly, Senator. Every radio station in the 

country pays a fee to ASCAP, BMI, and CSAC through independent licenses with each of those three entities. And it is based 

on a percentage of revenue that the stations are audited for and 

remit to those three entities on a monthly basis, generally. 

The funds have been distributed—and I am not intimately familiar, but familiar as it relates to being a broadcast owner. The funds 

have been distributed to the composers based on the airplay of the 

songs, and we are required by law and by the license agreement 

to provide to those companies an audited portion of our play list 

for a given period of time. Sometimes it is 3 days; sometimes it is 

7 days. It can be longer or shorter. We provide that, and then they, 

through a statistical analysis, allocate the funds back to their various composers. 

Again, that is my understanding. I am not an employee of any 

of those three companies, but as a broadcaster, that is my understanding of how the practice works. 

Senator CORNYN. Do any of the royalties or fees associated with 

that flow back to the performer, Ms. Peacock, Mr. Lovett, to your 

knowledge? Or does it solely go to the benefit of the creator of the 

music? By ‘‘creator,’’ I mean the songwriter. 

Ms. PEACOCK. It goes to the songwriter. 

Senator CORNYN. Only. Is that right? 

Ms. PEACOCK. Only. 

Mr. LOVETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you know why that has been historically the 

case? 

Mr. LOVETT. Well, songwriting and performing are, as Ms. Peacock said in her opening, two separate jobs. They are two separate 

things. As a songwriter, someone else might record and perform my 

song. And as a performer, I might record and perform someone 

else’s song. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Newberry? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. If I could just add, the broadcasters recognize—

as stated earlier, the broadcasters recognize that the composers are 

limited on their ability to monetize their artistic work. They do not 

have, generally, as much opportunity to go out and perform merchandise sales, et cetera. So the broadcast industry certainly wants 

to be fair. And for many years, we have been paying those fees to 

the composers and are very comfortable with that relationship and 

value that relationship immensely. While they are two different 

jobs, there are also two different compensation structures for that. 

Senator CORNYN. Ms. Peacock, you alluded to the fact that satellite broadcasters already pay a performance fee to recording artists or somebody who performs somebody’s music. How did that 

15

come about? As part of a negotiation process? It was not mandated 

by Congress, I gather. 

Ms. PEACOCK. You know, I am actually not familiar with the 

exact details of it, but I believe it was several years ago that this 

started happening. I receive royalty rates when my songs are 

played on XM or Sirius or Internet radio or cable. So I receive 

checks usually through a SoundExchange or something like that. 

Senator CORNYN. Do any of our witnesses know why XM Radio 

or satellite radio has been treated differently from terrestrial radio 

when it comes to paying fees to performers as opposed to composers? 

Mr. DEVANY. Senator, I believe one of the reasons is that in the 

case of satellite radio, it is a subscription- based system as opposed 

to a free, over-the-air system. So that those who receive that service are already paying for it. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. The same would apply to the cable industry as 

well. 

Senator CORNYN. And I guess the advertising revenue that is 

available to terrestrial radio stations is not as available, I guess. 

As I recall my XM Radio subscription, I do not think there is a lot 

of additional advertising associated with it. So the fee for service 

basically is a substitute for advertising revenue. Is that right? 

Ms. PEACOCK. Well, that is true. There is not as much advertising on the satellite radio. However, Internet radio is free, and 

they also pay a royalty. 

Senator CORNYN. OK. I think it was Mr. DeVany or you, Mr. 

Newberry, who talked about a symbiotic relationship between the 

performers and radio. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. It was me, sir. 

Senator CORNYN. And it seems clear—and I think Ms. Peacock 

and Mr. Lovett acknowledged they benefit from the exposure given 

them on radio, but they, I think, make a pretty compelling argument that that should not be the limit of the benefit that they receive if, in fact, the marketplace would provide for additional compensation by virtue of their performance rights. 

Could you speak specifically to that argument, that while certainly they do acknowledge the benefit of promoting their record 

sales otherwise, that they should not be limited to that? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Absolutely, Senator, and the relationship that I 

did refer to in my testimony as symbiotic has to deal with the 

value that we provide in a relationship that has been in place. 

I will tell you that it is really a three-party relationship. One of 

those parties that is not at the table today that I would hope would 

engage in this discussion, and that is the recording industry, the 

actual record labels, because many times they own a 50-percent interest in what the performers’ rights fee would be, or tax, whatever 

we wanted to call it. 

But we help promote the label, the artist. We help promote their 

venues. We help promote their celebrity. We help to make them familiar so that you hear the song that is played. We play it on our 

station, and there is a direct correlation, and you can see that we 

drive the sales of the merchandise and the sound recordings. And 

I think that that relationship is very proven. We can provide documentation to show that, the correlation between the two. But I 

16

would encourage that the record labels, the multinational record labels, be brought into this discussion because they are very much 

a part of this relationship. 

Senator CORNYN. As I understand it, there currently are prohibitions against play-for-pay or payola. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Senator CORNYN. If a performance fee is levied on over-the-air 

terrestrial radio, would it make sense to remove those payola laws? 

In other words, I am trying to figure out if Government intervenes 

in this relationship, this business relationship, as Mr. Lovett says, 

between the performer, between the creator, the people who actually broadcast it, to what extend should Government be in the middle of this by prohibiting economic relationships that might ultimately work their way out in a free market, a freer market? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. First of all, I think from a logical correlation or 

one step leads to another, if we are paying for the fees, then one 

could say—if we are paying for the rights to perform the songs, 

then one should say that we should be compensated for that. I do 

not think that is the right model. I do not think for artists it should 

be who has the most money gets the most airplay. I think it should 

be a case of who provides the best artistic content gets the most 

airplay. 

So I would hate to see us go in a direction that pay for play became the standard because I think that that would be a tragedy 

for many, many artists that are working to evolve. Broadcast radio, 

over-the-air radio, we introduce thousands of artists each year, and 

if I might, I could relate a personal story. 

Last year at this time, I had an opportunity to meet a very shy, 

very retiring, very quiet, very modest young lady by the name of 

Taylor Swift, who had just released her first song, and she was just 

very—almost timid. And then when I saw her perform on the 

Country Music Association Awards the other night, I saw this 

young lady that had blossomed into a great performer. I am very 

proud of what radio has done to introduce her to the listening audience, and certainly her talent has taken her beyond—I do not want 

to say radio contributed all of her success. But I think that seeing 

artists evolve like Taylor Swift—and if we got into a pay- for-play 

circumstance, I think we would miss a lot of artists that would be 

introduced to the listening public otherwise. 

Senator CORNYN. I would be interested, Mr. Lovett and Ms. Peacock, talking about the prohibition of radio play for pay and whether that would or should be removed—I am not advocating that. I 

am just trying to figure out how heavy the hand of Government 

should be in intervening in basically a business, market-based determination of value and who gets paid for what. I think the arguments you have made are pretty compelling, but I wonder whether 

there might be some other consequences to increase Government 

intervention in your business relationships that would not be beneficial in the long run or whether you harbor any of those concerns. 

Mr. LOVETT. Our position is really pretty simple. Mr. Newberry 

has—I appreciate what Mr. Newberry has done for me in a promotional way. Certainly, radio adds value to what I do. But it simply works both ways. Musicians and artists add value to what 

radio does, and it is just—what we are talking about is bringing 

17

this performance royalty into line with practices that could be 

viewed as standard across the world, and talking about—Ms. Peacock made the point that Internet radio is free as well, but we are 

talking about bringing our practices in line with standards that are 

prevalent in the developed world. 

They add value to us. We do not argue that, and we thank radio 

for that. And in no way are we trying to put small market radio 

out of business. Goodness gracious, we rely on radio. We need 

radio. We support radio. We mention radio at all of our shows. You 

know, at shows that- -we are often in business with the radio station to help promote a show. I make it a point to thank our sponsoring radio station. 

It is a symbiotic relationship, and we are just talking about 

bringing these practices in line with the standard. And I think the 

coalition is—as performers, we are looking to the Congress for your 

wisdom and what is fair. We are just asking for a fair look at this, 

and we appeal to you to help us figure out what is fair. And the 

coalition certainly I think has in mind ideas that would—where 

smaller market commercial stations would not pay the same money 

that larger market stations would, and certainly non——

commercial stations would have a lesser payment as well. 

So we appeal to you to—we are interested simply in fairness, and 

we are grateful for this opportunity to be considered. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, I want to thank the Chairman and the 

Senator from Pennsylvania for holding this hearing on performance 

rights. The subject of royalty payments is an important one, and 

it deserves this Committee’s attention. As a songwriter, I have had 

the advantage of meeting and mingling with some of the finest and 

talented individuals in the world, and certainly in our country, the 

best our country has to offer. 

Some people are under the wrong impression that everyone in 

the music industry is making a fortune. But they are not aware 

that all too often it is a struggle to survive. 

I will never forget, I gave the keynote address at the ASCAP national convention 1 year, and a thousand songwriters were there, 

and I told how I got involved in writing music, and part of it was 

so I could understand this field and understand all of the problems. 

And it really has taught me an awful lot about it. 

But I had just received my first royalty check for 57 bucks, and 

I said, ‘‘And I just got my first check for 57 bucks,’’ and I held it 

up and the place went wild. I mean, they screamed and shouted 

and stood on chairs. And I thought, My gosh, they treat U.S. Senators pretty well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. I sat down next to Marilyn Bergman, who is the 

head of ASCAP, and a great songwriter herself, Academy Awardwinning songwriter with her husband, Alan, and she said, ‘‘Senator, the reason they are so excited is that there are a lot of great 

songwriters there and hardly any of them will ever get a royalty 

check.’’

It is really that tough. It is a tough business. If you are a performer, you have at least a chance. But even there, there are those 

18

who really hit it big, and there are those who just continue to 

strive who may be every bit as good, but just for some reason do 

not click like they would like to. 

I recognize there is no easy solution to the performance rights 

issue. It is a complex area of the law, and I am glad that Chairman 

Leahy has made this hearing possible. And I consider it a valuable 

opportunity to learn more about this. 

Let me just say that the more I get into it, the more I realize 

that it is very, very complicated. I have to say that it is true, isn’t 

it, that Europe, just as an illustration, pays performance royalties? 

They pay writers’ royalties. I know. I have received royalties from 

Europe. But I do not get them from America. I have just wondered 

about that many times and, of course, have gotten into it. 

Mr. Lovett, I thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate 

you and Ms. Peacock taking the time to be here. And I appreciate 

you two gentlemen who have your own problems here. So as a 

songwriter, I am sympathetic to royalty payments, not because I 

ever expect to make any real money at this, although actually it 

is surprising. But it troubles me that music sales and revenues are 

in decline. Most writers have to take second jobs—or first jobs in 

order to write, and then they have to really, really work very, very 

hard to get even a chance to—and some of them are wonderful 

writers, but just do not have a chance, and especially when they 

are not performers themselves. 

Now, I believe that we have to do something to keep the up and 

coming songwriters and performers motivated and able to make a 

good living. However, I am concerned, as Senator Specter is, about 

the unintended consequences that may be created by any—and as 

Senator Cornyn is, that may be created by any action that Congress might take. But common sense tells me that if stations face 

paying significant sums of money in performance royalty payments, 

it is going to impact their programming decisions, and here is my 

concern. This could lead to a scenario where well-established artists benefit at the expense of newer or lesser known artists. And 

I do not want to see that happen either—not that I do not want 

established artists to do well. 

If I were running a radio station and had to pay for the use of 

a song, I would likely play music that is more popular to ensure 

that my ratings remained high and that I could sell my advertising 

needed to pay for the new royalty expense. Now, that is great for 

the well-established artists of the world, but what about the artists 

who are struggling to just break through or just get a chance. And 

we have new ones every year that come through that are really, 

really good. But if they do not have a chance, it is going to be something. How would such a royalty payment structure sustain the 

vast majority of artists who are in that group? 

Now, let me just say this: Mr. Newberry, could you explain some 

of the limitations, the restrictions terrestrial radio faces which do 

not burden other platforms, such as satellite radio and Internet 

music services? And if we accept the proposition that parity is a 

good policy, how do we achieve it given some of the restrictions 

placed upon terrestrial radio that other platforms may not have? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Senator, as a broadcaster, I am very proud of the 

relationship that I have with my listeners in the community, and 

19

I think one of the things that you are alluding to is the overriding 

public interest obligation that we as licensees have for our communities that satellite radio has not had to demonstrate. Certainly 

someone that is streaming independently does not have those obligations. 

So we do have a relationship that we have to maintain in our 

communities. I am very proud to be a local broadcaster. I love the 

fact that last Friday night I was doing a high school ball game with 

some friends. Actually, it was not exactly big listenership, but it 

was a T-ball football game, Little League football games. And I love 

the fact that our communities are engaged in that. 

Mr. Lovett said earlier that music is what builds relationships 

with the listeners. It is a component, but it is not the sole component of what builds our listenership. It is the overall relationship 

that we develop. 

So, Senator, you talk about the obligations or the responsibilities, 

and you raise the question of parity, and I think your point is dead 

on. But I would also tell you that that is not something that I 

would ever want to give up. I am very proud of the relationship 

and the expectations that we have. I am proud to be a broadcaster. 

I think that that is a unique opportunity for me to contribute in 

my community, and I think that is what differentiates us also from 

satellite and from Internet and other forms of broadcasting and 

makes us a stronger opportunity. 

Senator HATCH. All right. Ms. Peacock, I have heard the argument that radio stations should not have to pay performers royalties because they promote the sales of music. We have had that 

throughout this hearing. Now, is broadcast of your music beneficial 

to you as a singer and as a songwriter? 

Ms. PEACOCK. Yes, it is. 

Senator HATCH. Sure, it is. It appears to me that advancing technologies today enable radio stations to further promote the music 

that they play much easier than in the past, these advance technologies. For example, I am aware that several radio stations provide play lists on their websites and direct links for listeners to 

purchase artists’ music right then and there. Now, it seems that 

this level of exposure on the Web fostered by radio stations would 

be a significant benefit to performers. What are your thoughts on 

that? And I think I understand them 

Ms. PEACOCK. It is a benefit to performers, absolutely. And I do 

not argue with that. Basically, I think as Mr. Lovett said, what we 

are asking for today is fair treatment for performers, to bring us 

up to date and up to the standards that are across the world in 

developing countries that also pay a performance royalty. 

If I could comment on Mr. Newberry’s comment about broadcasting Little League and public service things, you know, the 

broadcasters have free air space and so they are supposed to be 

doing community broadcasts. So that is part of their job as well, 

to be part of a community. And if you are a radio broadcaster and 

let’s say you are maybe a larger station and you are broadcasting 

the Cubs game or, you know, the local sports network, you have 

to pay for that. You have to pay for that content. 

So while radio does provide a service, and absolutely it does provide promotion to an artist, we are part of their content. They built 

20

the business model upon our work, and we should be compensated 

fairly. 

Senator HATCH. I have gone over, Mr. Chairman, but let me just 

take one more second and just say this: I lean very heavily in favor 

of the artists and writers because I know that Europe is going to 

drop royalties if we do not provide a means whereby royalties are 

paid on terrestrial radio. And I do not want to see that happen. Already, at least one country has thrown it in our face in refusing 

to pay royalties. The question is: Can we do this in a way that does 

not bankrupt terrestrial radio? Can we do it in a way that is fair 

to the struggling artists or to struggling people, writers, who really 

are great but just are not known yet? Can we do it with enough 

optimism and opportunity on both sides of the equation to be able 

to make this work? 

For instance, I listen to your program all the time. Is it Mr. ‘‘Devahn-y’’ or ‘‘De-vane-y’’? 

Mr. DEVANY. It is DeVany. 

Senator HATCH. Yes, well, I knew that you—when you do classical music, I thought maybe it was just pronounced differently. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. But I do not want you to go bankrupt, nor do 

I want you to have a great deal of trouble. But, also, there is just 

simple equity here. I do not want to see Europe and other, like you 

say, Mr. Lovett, developed world drop paying royalties because we 

refuse to do so. But this problem of the newer artists and those 

who are up and coming and those who have not been known yet 

and those who need opportunities is one that bothers me. But I am 

going to work hard to see if we can come up with some legislation 

and be fair to both sides but literally does what is right with regard to content. And what is right is when people create something 

of value and it is used by others, there ought to be some payment 

for that. 

Now, I have not seen the legislation yet, but I am going to be 

very interested in the legislation. I will not be interested in it if it 

is all one-sided or all the other. But, on the other hand, I think 

that terrestrial radio has got to wake up on this a little bit, too. 

You do provide great services. You do help established artists. You 

do a lot of good. On the other hand, I hope we have a country 

where there is a lot of opportunity for up-and-coming people who 

have ability, and maybe some of those who are older and are no 

longer capable of going out and performing and getting accepted. 

And I would think it is in the best interests of all of us to be able 

to come up with a form like that. 

So I would challenge the radio industry, terrestrial radio industry, to help us to come up with some ways of helping you. If you 

have restrictions and difficulties that make it much more difficult 

for you to do something that I think is equitable, when you listen 

to these artists here, you ought to find some way of doing it. And 

we are not interested in hurting anybody. We just want to make 

sure that the system works well and that it is an international system that does not just work in Europe but can work here as well, 

and that we reward talent and we reward innovation, we reward 

creativity. Because without it, I do not think that the radio stations 

are going to do well either. And it seems to me there has got to 

21

be an element of give and take here that hopefully we on this Committee and throughout the Congress can resolve. Well, I am going 

to work hard to see if we can resolve that, and I just personally 

appreciate the testimony of all of you here today. I have listened. 

I am not interested in hurting anybody. I just want to make sure 

that we have a system that works and works fairly and makes 

sense. And to that degree, I am going to do my very best to work 

with my other colleagues on this Committee and listen to them and 

try to come up with some answers here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, before I completely relinquish any 

right I have to conduct the hearing back to you, could I ask unanimous consent that my statement be made part of the record? Senator Specter. Without objection. Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Senator Specter. Just a few more questions. Mr. 

DeVany, you talk about the stations which cannot afford to pay 

performers. Do they pay the songwriters? Can they afford that? 

Mr. DEVANY. At this point, they have been. Like Mr. Newberry 

said, all stations are paying a fee to ASCAP and BMI. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you know how much they pay the songwriters? 

Mr. DEVANY. Let me make a distinction here on that particular 

issue when it comes to public radio. Those stations are non-commercial radio, those stations which fit the criteria to be what is 

called CPB qualified—that is to say that they are eligible to receive 

funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—are also the 

beneficiary of having, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, payments made on their behalf to ASCAP and BMI. It is 

part of the way, as I understand the corporation is chartered, to 

provide that kind of royalty support. 

Senator SPECTER. Payments made on their behalf by whom? 

Mr. DEVANY. By the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, would that be a possible way to pay performers like they pay writers? 

Mr. DEVANY. It is possible. At this point it is unclear, at least 

to me, how that would work. However, it is possible. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you explore that and get back to the 

Committee? 

Mr. DEVANY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you let us know? 

Mr. DEVANY. Yes, sir, I will. 

Senator SPECTER. Because if you are talking about a class of stations which cannot afford to pay, but they pay the songwriters, let’s 

see if we can work that out for the performers. 

Mr. DEVANY. I would like to make just one other distinction, if 

I may, sir. There is a class of station out there that is not, what 

I said before, CPB qualified, are not eligible to receive that. They 

are very, very small stations with volunteer staff and that kind of 

thing. They work very much—

Senator SPECTER. Do they pay songwriters? 

Mr. DEVANY. I believe they do, proportionally smaller. 

Senator SPECTER. What I am looking for, if they can afford to pay 

songwriters, why not performers? When you say they cannot afford 

to pay. 

22

Mr. DEVANY. It is a margin that is so slim, sir, that it can be 

very, very difficult to do. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, could you quantify for us how much do 

they pay songwriters, who actually makes the payments, so we 

could explore that—

Mr. DEVANY. I can—

Senator SPECTER. If I may finish—as a legislative channel. Mr. 

Newberry, you have your hand up. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, I do not have a Corporation for Public Broadcasting or another entity that pays the fees. 

I pay the fees. They are paid from the operating income of the 

radio station. As an industry, it is about $500 million that is paid 

to the composers. It is based on revenue. It is not based on profitability; it is based on gross revenues. So there is a formula, and 

it generally runs between 5 and 7 percent of the gross revenues of 

a radio station. 

And your answer to the question of if you can pay one, can you 

not pay the other, with all due respect, Senator, the pie is only so 

large. And increasing those additional fees, particularly in the markets that I am referring to, that I—

Senator SPECTER. What would you think about payment on profitability as opposed to payment on gross revenues? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. I would still have concerns with the very principle that we are paying by what we are providing to these artists 

and to the multinational record labels by promoting their products. 

So I would go back to that and say that, on principle, I am opposed 

to it. But certainly when you are looking at someone’s profitability 

as opposed to someone’s gross revenues, that does enable a different standard of measurement that I think—

Senator SPECTER. Well, I know you would prefer not to pay. I understand that. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. We are paying in a different—

Senator SPECTER. I have been listening to your testimony. I understand that. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. But when you talk about gross revenues, you 

are talking about something which does not correspond to ability 

to pay. You talk about profitability, it may. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. Philosophically, I would still disagree 

with that, but that is a measurement to—

Senator SPECTER. Well, how about a sliding scale, Mr. Newberry, 

as we structure our tax laws so that the stations way down the line 

on profitability would be paying a lesser percentage than those in 

the urban areas who have a greater ability to pay? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. I mentioned this earlier, and I am not sure if you 

were in the room at the time. But one of the things that is of concern to me when we go down that path is that I believe in the 

equation of fairness. The larger urban stations, metropolitan stations, provide even greater value to the artist and to the recording 

companies, to the record companies. So I think that the argument 

could be made that their value is even more—

Senator SPECTER. I was here. I heard that. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. 

23

Senator SPECTER. I heard that promotional argument, and it has 

a lot of weight. But it may not carry the whole day. Or it may. We 

really cannot legislate in the dark, and we are pretty much in the 

dark. 

1 Do you know how much the Internet and satellite folks pay or 

the TV on cable pay? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we are going to have to find that out. I 

am not expecting you to have those answers, but I think that is a 

relevant question. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. And it may be that they ought to pay more if 

there are some who cannot pay as much. We have to make that allocation. 

You talked about the number of stations you have, and their 

profitability and their inability to pay. Could you provide the Committee with some figures on that? How many—

Mr. NEWBERRY. About my personal stations or—

Senator SPECTER. No, no. You are the President—well, let’s see. 

You are a member of the National Association of Broadcasters. 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Can the association provide us with information about how many members you have, how many radio stations 

there are? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Certainly. 

Senator SPECTER. And give us some idea quantitatively as to revenue and ability to pay and also how much you pay the composers? 

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. We will cooperate with the Committee 

in any way that you request, and we will certainly provide that information. 

Senator SPECTER. All right. We would like to know what the 

facts are so we have some way of gauging the merits of your contention, just aside from the generalizations. 

Ms. Peacock and Mr. Lovett, are you in a growing profession? 

Are more people vying to become celebrity star performers? Do you 

have an organization which gives us some idea as to how many 

performers there are at work? 

Mr. LOVETT. We are certainly in a changing business. The music 

business has, I think, changed more in the last 10 years than ever. 

Senator SPECTER. How has it changed? 

Mr. LOVETT. Well, in the way people receive music, in the way 

people hear music, because there are so many different outlets to 

hear music, not just terrestrial radio but satellite radio, cable 

radio, Internet radio; the way people are able to preview and to 

purchase music. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we would like to encourage more people 

to be performers. Can you give us some standard as to what we 

might look to, to encourage more performers? 

Mr. LOVETT. You know, people play music. I think people are interested in writing music and performing music because, as Ms. 

Peacock said earlier, they just cannot help it, because they feel 

somehow compelled to do it. People love music. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I am looking for some motivation from 

pay. 

24

Mr. LOVETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. They feel compelled to do it. We do not have 

any business in the field. If they are compelled, they are compelled. 

But if they would be encouraged, we would like to do that. But we 

would have to have some handle on how we encouraged people. 

Mr. LOVETT. Yes, sir. Well, this—

Senator SPECTER. The last thing you want Congress to do is to 

legislate not knowing what the facts are. 

Ms. PEACOCK. We do have organizations—

Senator SPECTER. And I am groping for some facts. 

Ms. PEACOCK. I am thinking of some organizations, Senator, like 

the Recording Academy that could provide maybe some of those 

statistics or organizations, I guess, maybe like AFTRA. 

Senator SPECTER. The Recording Academy? 

Ms. PEACOCK. Yes, the Recording Academy. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, if that could be done, it would be appreciated. 

Ms. PEACOCK. Sure. 

Senator HATCH. Could I interrupt on that point? I have one gold 

and one platinum record. But I have been told I would have more 

if it wasn’t for piracy. Piracy is basically making it very difficult 

for even established artists like yourselves to continue to get gold 

and platinum records—in other words, 500,000 CDs sold or a million CDs sold. And it is almost impossible to get a diamond record. 

I mean, the point is the really top artists might be able to do 

that, but the whole industry is suffering because of piracy and because of lack of compensation. Is that a fair comment? 

Ms. PEACOCK. I think that is true. When we talk about changes 

in the industry, not only are our people getting their music from 

different sources as well as terrestrial radio, but they are turning 

to satellite radio and Internet radio, which we are paid a royalty 

for, but I am also seeing many artists leaving and forming their 

own labels as well. So I think you have the independent artist out 

there who I think—that is who I am representing today, the middle-class independent artist that needs those different income 

streams to make a living, because that is my job. 

Senator HATCH. You bet. 

Mr. Lovett? 

Senator SPECTER. Let me regain the floor here. I am not going 

to charge you with—or ask you to figure out the piracy issue. 

Senator HATCH. No, I am not asking them to do that. But what 

I am trying to point out is that that is another pressure on artists 

and writers and performers that adds to the pressures that they 

have. And I worried about a lot of people who are very, very talented but who have to just get out of the industry because we are 

failing here to resolve some of those conflicts. And, you know, people think when it is on the Internet it is free. These young kids 

think it is just free. They do not believe they have to pay anything 

for that. And that is part of the overall thing. That is the only reason why I bring that up, because it is a very complex, very, very 

broad set of problems that are very difficult to understand and very 

difficult to resolve. 

Senator SPECTER. Do we have anyone here today representing 

the pirates? 

25

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. I represent the anti-pirates. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, trying to work within the confines of the 

witnesses we have and the issues we have, I think you get the 

thrust of what we are looking for, some of the hard facts as to why 

you cannot afford more on the broadcaster side and why the fairness issue is bolstered by the promotion as being inadequate and 

how you lure more people to your profession to supplement the passion which you have articulated. 

We are going to keep the record open for questions. It is a very 

busy day here, and I think everybody on the Committee is very 

much interested in this subject, and we are looking to find an equitable solution. And there may be some questions which others will 

have, so technically the record will be kept open. 

Thank you all, and that concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

26


40284.001
27


40284.002
28


40284.003
29


40284.004
30


40284.005
31


40284.006
32


40284.007
33


40284.008
34


40284.009
35


40284.010
36


40284.011
37


40284.012
38


40284.013
39


40284.014
40


40284.015
41


40284.016
42


40284.017
43


40284.018
44


40284.019
45


40284.020
46


40284.021
47


40284.022
48


40284.023
49


40284.024
50


40284.025
51


40284.026
52


40284.027
53


40284.028
54


40284.029
55


40284.030
56


40284.031
57


40284.032
58


40284.033
59


40284.034
60


40284.035
61


40284.036
62


40284.037
63

Æ


40284.038