PROPOSAL FOR A SOUND RECORDING

COMPULSORY LICENSING LAW

The purpose of this first proposal is to eliminate the power that is created by the control of all the major popular sound recordings by a mere handful.

We propose that in lieu of the 28-year renewable copyrights for sound recordings, said copyright should be a non-renewable 28-year copyright. This would be more consistent with the reasoning behind a renewable copyright as found in the House of Representatives report #2222, 60th Congress, 2nd Session, page 14.

During the course of the first 5-year term of this copyright, in order to assure continuing creation of new recordings, the owner of same shall have the sole and exclusive copyright. However, if, at the end of said 5-year period the owner of said copyright has sold in excess of 500, 000 copies, he should be compelled to make said recording available to anyone for the purpose of licensing same. Although, if the conditions are met, the owner must make said recording available for licensing after 5 years, he may license out said recording at anytime prior thereto if he so desires. This 5-year exclusive copyright will permit a copyright owner to recoup his original investment for a promotion, etc., and realize a profit, (no recording company can validly claim it has not made a substantial profit after the sale of 500,000 copies of any one recording) and at the same time permit the small company to purchase a license for copying said recording.

Keep in mind that if 500,000 copies are not sold by the copyright owner, he would not be compelled to license same. In addition, even if he does sell 500,000 copies, he still has the exclusive right to license same for the full copyright period of 28 years. In other words, the large record companies, as well as the small record companies, would both be realizing a profit under this licensing system. Of course, the copyright owner should not be permitted to charge exhorbitant or unconscionable prices for licensing, and a reasonable range of prices could be set by the legislature. Such legislation should also provide that a certain percentage of the licensing fees be paid directly to the artists themselves. Under the current "licensing only by contract" situation, the artist usually receives no compensation when his recording is licensed out. In addition, he also receives nothing when his recording is sold for less than the normal wholesale catalog price. This situation usually occurs within two years of the original release. And, this cannot be denied by the major music conglomerates, since their contracts with recording artists so provide.

57-786 - 76 pt. 2 38

I am aware that the large recording companies argue that compulsory licensing would hurt the small recording companies, and I must concede that strict compulsory licensing would hurt the small companies. However, compulsory licensing only after sale of 500,000 copies, as proposed here, would not only protect the small record companies who rarely sell over 500,000 copies, but also increase competition by making the same popular good-selling records and tapes available to the consumer not only at different prices but from different companies.

You should also be informed that it is presently impossible for the consumer to buy certain old and out-dated recordings such as those of the big band era, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and such, merely because these aforesaid large companies have decided that it would be economically unfeasible to distribute any additional recordings of same on a national basis. However, if licenses for these so-called "old and outdated" recordings were sold to a smaller company, it might well be economically feasible for said company to distribute such recordings to consumers in their local area profitably. In addition, they may be able to sell them at lower prices than the large companies.

Many people ask why compulsory licensing for sound recordings and not for written material? In answer, we can offer various reasons but there are three which are more compelling than the others. Firstly, the demand for a particular sound recording is created by constant bombardment on radio and television, whereas one doesn't read a book before he purchases same. Secondly, the music itself is already protected by a copyright and said copyright will eventually expire, causing the work to become in the public domain, but when a small company goes out of business without licensing out any of its sound recordings, these master recordings are lost in oblivion, never to be heard again by the public. Of course, as aforesaid, the large companies are by choice depriving the public of purchasing certain old recordings such as Caruso, Roy Rogers, etc., and are in fact hoarding the master recordings of these and many other artists. If said masters are destroyed the public will never again hear these sounds. Finally, the most compelling reason is that all the major popular recordings in existence today are controlled by a mere six giant music conglomerates, and such is not the case with control of copyrighted written material. Thus, the sound recording is intrinsically different from a written novel and for the reasons aforesaid, the owners of said recordings should be compelled to license same according to any reasonable criteria such as that herein before set forth.

SECOND PROPOSAL

THE MUSIC PUBLISHING MONOPOLY

Our second proposal is to deal with the increasing monopoly that is being created today in the music publishing industry. You should be informed that one powerful organization, Electrical Musical Industries, herein referred to as EMI, represents or owns 40% of all the major musical compositions throughout the world. This is a staggering and appalling figure!

The recently passed extension for the expiring musical copyright is more than "a rip off on the public" as stated by Rep. John Dingell (D. -Michigan). It is legal rape of the American comsumers. It is hard to believe that the Congress of the United States can be fooled into believing that this will actually benefit the writers and composers. The only people to profit from such a situation are the major publishing companies, not the deserving writers, who have long been deceased. In addition, these large companies also argue that the United States will be more in alignment with the copyright laws which are presently enforced in Europe. This argument is, at best, questionable. After reviewing the situation in various countries, it should be asked, does the United States really want to follow the strict and exclusive copyright laws enforced in Europe? These laws were written by European aristocrats to protect themselves, with no concern for the common people.

In Germany, for instance, it is mandatory that all blank tapes sold for consumer use have a copyright royalty paid on them, in addition to the retail cost. This is nothing more than an added security tax for benefit of the music publishers who assume that if a person buys a blank tape, he will be recording copyrighted music on it. Also, in the United Kingdom, as another example, it is illegal for a consumer to record records or tapes for his own personal use. Is such a monopoly over the recording of musical compositions what you really want for your fellow Americans?

We propose that you should not legalize a copyright period exceeding 28 years, but including one renewal for a 28-year period. However, this second 28year period should consist of a renewal policy allowing the said copyright to be renewed only by its author or composer. Furthermore, all of the royalties that would have to be paid after the initial 28-year copyright should be mandated to be paid exclusively and directly to the author and/or composer. Under the present system a profitable copyright is picked up and renewed by the publisher or recording company without renegotiation with the author or composer or his estate. Thus, the music publishers are depriving not only today's authors and composers, but also their families and heirs, of deserved royalties.

In addition, we proposed that instead of a fixed statutory rate with an indepentribunal to determine cost of living increases, the copyright royalty rate should

be a fixed statutory percentage of the retail price. The benefits from such a proposal are numerous, but we shall explore the three major ones.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the improvement it will provide for the music buying consumer. A fixed statutory percentage will help to maintain the cost of recordings at their present levels or possibly even manage to lower them. Secondly, if the giant music conglomerates choose to raise their retail prices, they are then forced to pay a higher rate to the deserving authors and composers of the said recordings. Consequently, if they do raise their prices due to a rise in the cost of living, the authors and composers will then equally share in the additional revenue. Finally, this will help prevent the present situation which enables the large recording companies to pay only 25 to 50% of the statutory rate, while the smaller recording companies are paying the full rate. This 25 to 50% of the rate is obtained by large recording companies because of the control of the music publishing industry by such giant companies as the aforementioned EMI, and such reduced rate is one of the advantages commensurate with such control.

Moreover, this control enables bigger companies to keep the smaller recording companies paying the full rate. However, with our percentage proposal, the smaller companies may choose to sell their product at a lower price enabling them to better compete against the larger companies, with a lower royalty rate.

In conclusion, these proposals will allow the authors and composers, their heirs and distributees, to reap their just reward for their work without the necessity of raping the American public.

THIRD PROPOSAL

STATUTORILY MANDATED AIR PLAY

Our third proposal will be the most effective in breaking the stranglehold of the corporate giants in the music industry. We propose that the Federal Government should make it mandatory that local radio stations play a certain proportion of locally produced music. This could easily be enforced by the F. C. C. which already has jurisdiction over all radio stations. The power of the giants lies in their ability to obtain air play of their music. The demand for a particular piece of music is a direct result of its air play. The more the people hear it, the more they want it! Because of the current situation with the large conglomerates controlling the air play in the U.S., said conglomerates necessarily control the demand. This "air play sound" monopoly could be broken if local radio stations were required by law to play local music. Television stations were recently mandated by Federal Law to include one-half hour of local programming during "prime time" hours, and recently enacted legislation in Canada directed radio stations to play on the air at least 50% locally produced music.

The effect of such legislation on the grass roots economy is obvious-local recording companies would get badly needed exposure as well as local groups, artists, composers and musicians. Indeed, air play is the only manner in which a sound recording gets "exposed" to the consumer. Moreover, small grass roots artists, composers and recording companies are not able to get adequate exposure under the present system, due to their total inability to pay the promotion fees demanded by the large conglomerates. However, once the "locals" are heard on the air, a demand for said "locals" could be created and, as a consequence, the locally owned small recording companies would be encouraged to promote local talent. In a very short while, more small companies would be formed, and thus the market would be divided and not wholly owned, and controlled by the large monopolies. In these times of inflation, recession and unemployment, such legislation could possibly provide a sorely needed boost to numerous local economies.

There is another benefit to such statutorily mandated air play and one which should not be overlooked as we approach the bicentennial of our great land of equal opportunity. Once again, the poor, small-time, local artist would have an equal chance at making it to the top. Yes, the allimportant air exposure could be had without prostituting one's self and, in effect, selling one's soul to the large conglomerates, and probably becoming involved in payola and drugs.