ASCAP Member Lyle Lovett Statement on Internet Uses of Music

Statement of
LYLE LOVETT
On behalf of the
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (ASCAP)
On the Internet Uses of Music
Before the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property
May 17, 2001

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Lyle Lovett, and I am a songwriter and performing artist. I am proud to say that I am here today on behalf of over 117,000 songwriter and copyright owner members of ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. I appreciate the opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee, and thank Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Berman, Vice-Chairman Goodlatte, and the entire Subcommittee for their support of intellectual property rights in the United States and throughout the world. We at ASCAP know that important legislation like copyright term extension and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law largely through your efforts, and for that I express the deep gratitude of all ASCAP's members.

ASCAP is an unincorporated membership association of composers, lyricists, songwriters and music publishers. It is governed by a board of Directors consisting of 12 writers and 12 publishers, elected by the writer and publisher members respectively. The Board is responsible for setting policy. ASCAP licenses only the right of nondramatic public performance of its members' copyrighted musical compositions, through the mechanism of licenses which give users the right to perform any and all of the many millions of musical works in the ASCAP repertory.

The ASCAP royalty distribution system is a model of fairness to all parties. Through their membership in ASCAP, songwriters and music publishers divide all royalties 50-50. The writer's share is paid to the writer, and the publisher's share to the publishers.

I'm a songwriter, not an economist. But I can tell you from first-hand experience how valuable the songs -- the intellectual property my fellow songwriters and I create -- are to the American economy. Beside the economic value in the song itself, we are proud of the positive impact our creative work has for so many people: the artists and musicians who perform our songs, the technicians who work to record them, the retailers, both traditional and on-line who legally sell them, the folks who work our concert tours, those in theaters and arenas employed when we appear, the workers who manufacture instruments and electronic equipment. Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee Members, this chain of economic benefits is enormous, and this chain all begins with our songs.

In addition to the economics, songs also provide a whole lot of enjoyment. In fact, when you consider how much of the usage of the Internet is related to people's desires to enjoy music by listening or downloading, it would be fair to say that our efforts are one of the main reasons for the growth of the Internet. The Internet without music would be like radio without music: quite empty except perhaps for weather reports, business news, and other non-entertainment information.

Mr. Chairman, it also is true that copyright is one of the few bright spots in America's balance of trade. Music, and in particular the performing rights in our music which ASCAP licenses, are an important element of that intellectual property trade surplus. Given the far greater popularity of American musical works overseas compared to the performance of foreign works in the United States, ASCAP was able to collect about four times the amount of royalties from abroad as it pays out. That tells you a whole lot about the value of copyrighted intellectual property to the American economy. Just think if we had that kind of surplus in manufactured goods! But what it also tells you is the extent to which American copyrighted intellectual property is serving as an Ambassador for our way of life to the rest of the world. I have traveled abroad as I know many of you have. And I think it is safe to say that in any village or town or city in virtually any place on the globe you will hear American songs. Our music is virtually the new lingua franca of international culture. I think we should all want to keep it that way.

Mr. Chairman, not only am I not an economist, but I also am not a lawyer, so I cannot explain the legal details of Internet uses of music. But I can give you a songwriter's perspective on a few things.

First, let me say as clearly as I can that there isn't a songwriter I know who opposes new technological ways to perform music. Technology always has been the friend of the songwriter: from piano rolls, to phonographs, to radio's development from early crystal sets, to what we hear and enjoy today, through television in its various incarnations, and now to the Internet, we have looked upon each of these revolutions in communications as new ways to enjoy our music and new ways for us to earn a living by doing what we love -- creating America's music. Every new way to bring performances to the public is a new way to bring them enjoyment. And as long as we are being compensated fairly for that listening pleasure, we are better able to feed our families, pay our bills, and sustain careers as songwriters.

The Internet has broadened the enjoyment of our music to include the far corners of the world. We love that, and we must all remember that Internet usage is traceable far more to people enjoying our songs than it is to scholars researching on the web sites of distant museums, or investors following stock quotes. Insuring that our music remains popular and profitable is another way to insure the growth of the Internet.

From ASCAP's point of view, another reason for its support of the new technology is its positive impact on reducing our costs. Globalization of the music business has led to ASCAP taking the lead in forming a joint venture with our sister societies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada to reduce our back office expenses. We expect this joint venture to expand, and it has been made possible by the revolution in communications.

The songs I create mean many things to me. Foremost among them is my goal, and I think the goal of every artist, to connect with and communicate my thoughts, emotions and beliefs to my audience. My songs therefore are truly my creations -- extensions of who I am and what I believe. But, my songs also are my livelihood. If I can't earn a living from them, I'll have to do something else. And if every songwriter is unable to earn a living from creating music, if every songwriter has to do something else to make ends meet, who will write the songs of America and the world? I love what I do. But this is a tough business. And to illustrate that, I would ask each of you on this distinguished committee to think about this question: Have you ever seen in the classified section of any newspaper an ad which reads: "Songwriter wanted. Good salary. Paid vacation. Health benefits and many other perks." I'm sure you haven't. Most songwriters are lonely entrepreneurs trying again and again for that hit which will help them take care of their families and keep them writing in the hopes of another hit down the road, so that songwriting can be a career, not a part-time unpaid struggle. In my case, it took many years and many songs before I had that first hit. However, success would be meaningless without strong copyright laws and a vigorous and vigilant ASCAP. For it is only through the protection of the copyright law, and through ASCAP and similar groups, that our right to earn a living from our creative work is assured.

Please let me be clear: I have no objection to songwriters or performers agreeing that their work be free on the Internet or anywhere else if they want. Some have made that choice. But for me, and for the overwhelming majority of my songwriter and performer colleagues, our choice is that we be compensated for the use of our creative work, which is our property.

Now let me make just a few points based on my understanding of ASCAP's approach to Internet uses of music.

There are two aspects to ASCAP's licensing of musical performances on the Internet which I think will be of great interest to you.

1. ASCAP has licensed every Internet user who has requested a license to perform ASCAP music. ASCAP has never turned down an Internet user who requested a license and was willing to pay a reasonable license fee. ASCAP has not sued any Internet user in an attempt to shut the website down rather than license it. And, through the mechanism of the ASCAP license, every licensed Internet user has the right to perform all the many millions of works in the ASCAP repertory. If, there are any difficulties that Internet users have in licensing works piece-by-piece, those difficulties are solved by an ASCAP license.

2. ASCAP is an Internet licensing success story, right now. There has been much discussion about when various licensing systems would be put into place. ASCAP's is already in place, and has been since 1995. I am told that ASCAP currently has about 2200 websites licensed to perform music. Year-by-year, the approximate number of Internet websites licensed is:

Year	Websites licensed
1996	150
1997	300
1998	525
1999	1,200
2000	2,000

Indeed, ASCAP tells me that, of the 66 members of DiMA, ASCAP has licensed 28, and is in negotiations with another 17.

Therefore, there is no need for Internet users to worry about whether they may operate lawfully if they perform ASCAP music, or to wonder when a usable licensing mechanism will come about. It has been here, it is here, and thousands of websites are using it.

There are a few conclusions from these facts which go to the heart of several issues of interest to the Subcommittee:

There is no justification for a compulsory license for Internet uses of ASCAP music. Those arguing for a compulsory license have given some supposed justifications for this sort of interference in the free marketplace. They said that it was justified because, for whatever claimed reason, they couldn't engage in individual negotiations with copyright owners. But ASCAP's license means that the entire repertory of music -- millions and millions of compositions written and owned by 117,000 members -- is licensed in one transaction. They said that it was justified because no workable licensing mechanism exits. But ASCAP has successfully licensed thousands of Internet users since 1996. They said that it was justified because copyright owners refused to license them. But ASCAP will license any user who wants a license, at a reasonable fee, and the user will be licensed simply by virtue of requesting a license. Compulsory licenses should be repugnant to those who believe in the free market and the sanctity of private property, including intellectual property. The undisputed facts of ASCAP's Internet licensing demonstrate that a compulsory license is not justified.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee Members, the entire world wants and enjoys America's music. The decisions you and your colleagues make about protecting copyright may well determine whether that continues to be the case. A compulsory license would be a blow aimed at the ability of those who create America's music to continue to flourish.

I am honored to have been able to appear before you on behalf of my 117,000 ASCAP colleagues, and thank you for this opportunity to present our views.