industry. We must proceed from the law's proper requirement that, if music is used in these venues, it should be licensed, just as other music uses are licensed. That said, the fact is that ASCAP first approached the Convention Liaison Council a trade association of such users in 1988 in an effort to negotiate a reasonable They showed not the slightest interest in doiný license. so. Thus, in 1989, ASCAP promulgated a license, only then to be contacted by another trade association, the National Association of Exposition Managers (NAEM, now the International Association of Exposition Managers), which asked to negotiate a different form of license. ASCAP agreed and did so, and the NAEM endorsed the agreement, issued a joint press release, and advised its members that ASCAP's rights were legally sound. ASCAP was then contacted by a "Music Licensing Task Force" representing many organizations, and asked to renegotiate the NAEM license! We agreed, and even negotiated separately with NAEM to revise their agreement. Those negotiations reached a happy conclusion in 1990. This is hardly the history of an organization unresponsive to the needs and requests of users. To the contrary, as the detailed attachment shows, ASCAP has repeatedly been willing to meed those needs. Radio Broadcasters with "Religious" Formats I am also attaching to my statement a summary of ASCAP's dealings with "religious broadcasters." This fastgrowing segment of the radio industry seems to believe it is entitled to use the property of music creators for free because of the content of their broadcasts. Yet as the summary makes clear, these broadcasters not only pay for other property as do all other businesses, but operate their stations on the same business basis as do other broadcasters. They are pressing their arguments in Court, under the Amended Final Judgment, and we expect that the Court will deal fairly with them. Mr. Chairman, I again want to repeat that ASCAP is always happy and willing to talk with users, and always seeks to treat them with respect and courtesy. I believe our licensing practices reflect that fact. And we are grateful that the vast majority of users extend the same respect and courtesy to us. I would only ask that you not be misled into believing that the disputes which inevitably arise in the unique circumstances in which music creators find themselves reflect anything other than normal disagreements common to the human species. I hope these hearings will be a step towards changing any misperception you may have. And please, I respectfully ask you to remember that when you are speaking of ASCAP, you are not speaking of some impersonal organization or bureaucracy. You are speaking of the tens of thousands of men and women in this country who create the music that speaks to the very heart of what America is all about. Thank you for your attention, and for furnishing the opportunity to appear today. This memorandum sets forth the legal authority holding that performances of copyrighted music by means of "radio-overspeakers" and similar systems for example, systems incorporating audio and video tape recorders, record and disc players, or large-screen televisions require the permission of copyright owners. "Radio-over-speakers" generally describes a system which includes a radio receiver connected to speakers which are arranged so that employees and/or customers can hear the music. Such systems may also have public address, paging and musicon-hold components. Typically, radio-over-speaker systems are found in such establishments as restaurants, large and small retail stores and showrooms, shopping malls, movie theaters, health clinics and factories. Other mechanical music systems may incorporate television receivers, or tape recorders, or turntables connected to amplification equipment and speakers, and are likely to be found in the same kinds of establishments as radio-over-speaker systems. Not infrequently, an establishment's music system may employ two or more kinds of mechanical music devices. It is clear from the language of the copyright statute, its legislative history, and relevant cases that most performances of copyrighted music by means of radio-over-speakers and similar equipment are public performances within the scope of protection afforded copyright owners. This means that without a license from the copyright owners or their representatives, such performances are infringements of copyright. Under the Copyright Law, the copyright owner of a musical work owns the exclusive right to perform the work publicly. See Section 106(4). (References are to sections of the United States Copyright Law, Title 17, United States Code.) Section 101 contains definitions pertinent to the performing right. To begin: To "perform" a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible. Further, to perform a work "publicly" means: (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. (Emphasis added.) To "transmit" a performance or display is: [T]o communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent. In addition to the statutory language, the legislative history of Section 106 (4) explains that: Under the definitions of "perform," "display," |