at our station in Memphis, Tenn., as a result of which his exposure of his records made it possible for him to do, as we call it, 1-night stands within a 300-mile radius of the city of Memphis and made a veritable fortune at a very, very early age.

To this extent, I think that broadcasting has paid indirectly, as it may be, for the use of this music, by making the Sinatras and the Johnny Cashs and the Charlie Prides and the Ray Prices and the Lynn Andersons, and so on down the line.

Mr. CORNILS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Wayne Cornils. I own approximately 20 percent of the Idaho Broadcasting Co. and serve as president and general manager of KFXD/AM and KFXD/FM, Nampa, Idaho.

I am also privileged to serve as chairman of the Small Market Radio Committee of the National Association of Broadcasters. The other members of the Small Market Radio Committee operate broadcast properties in Deming, N. Mex.; Indianola, Miss.; Valdese, N.C.; Brattleboro, Vt.; and Mankato, Minn. The Small Market Radio Committee represents radio broadcasters in markets of 100,000 population or less.

The small-market broadcaster, in order to survive must be a person totally involved, completely dedicated to, and an integral part of the community he serves.

Much of what is defined as entertainment programing on a smallmarket radio station is provided in the playing of recorded music.

In addition to the numerous other expenses of operation, the smallmarket broadcaster is required to pay monthly fees to several music licensing organizations, including BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. The moneys thus paid are distributed by these organizations to the composers, lyricists, and publishers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are faced with the so-called performance rights amendment, which would require us, for the first time, to pay royalties to performing artists and record companies.

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the exposure given to recorded music by the broadcasting industry encourages and promotes the sale of records. In turn, the sale of records obviously encourages and promotes additional creative efforts by record companies and recording artists. Mr. Chairman, radio sells records.

In Boise, Idaho, a community of approximately 90.000, adjacent to the city of Nampa-Nampa is a town of about 20,000—in the two there are approximately 26 outlets where records may be purchased. All of these retailers would agree that exposure on radio provides the primary impetus for the purchase of records.

Last week, I spoke with a gentleman named Mr. Nelson Taylor, who is the manager of the Super Thrift Drug Stores in Nampa. Mr. Taylor told me, "If it were not for record exposure on radio, I would not have a record department."

And Bob Gordon, manager of the record departments of the Bon Marche Department Stores, told me that he has removed his record audition booths, as have most record stores, because the customers have already heard the records on radio.

Gary Pratt, the owner of Gary's Stereo, sells 8-track tapes and cassette recordings, a business by the way, which has developed as an outgrowth of the record industry. At Mr. Pratt's request, each week I send him the KFXD-AM record playlist. Mr. Pratt orders his tapes and cassettes directly on the basis of that list.

So, there can be no doubt in the minds of the managers in the 26 record outlets in the Nampa-Boise, Idaho area about the important role played by radio in the sale of records. Radio sells records. Attesting to the recording artists' popularity due to radio exposure are the large fees which these artists are able to command for personal appearances. I have a colleague in Omaha who tells me that 15 to 20 recording artists or groups appear in that city during the course of a year. In Omaha, the minimum fee for a single appearance is approximately $5,000-this for artists such as Jim Stafford, the Righteous Brothers and Dr. John. Others, like Alice Cooper and John Denver, receive $20,000 to $30,000, while some, like Elvis Presley, receive in excess of $100,000.

In our own area in Idaho, the figures are very similar: $15,000 for the Carpenters: $25,000 for the Beach Boys; $18,000 for Chicago; and for Elton John, a rather staggering 80 percent of the gross, against a guarantee of $30,000. These fees are for a single performance or so-called one night stand in Boise, Idaho.

Radio not only sells records, but provides the audiences for recording artists.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, composers, publishers and lyricists receive compensation in the form of moneys paid by broadcast stations to the music licensing organizations. The record companies, artists and composers receive moneys from the sale of records-sales which are promoted by the exposure of their product on the radio.

In addition, the artists receive huge sums of money for personal appearances. As has been mentioned, the fees for personal appearances are determined by the artists' popularity and the artist's popularity is determined, to a large degree, by the exposure received on radio. Mr. Chairman, to charge broadcasters an additional fee is unnecessary, unfair and unjust. It would place an extremely heavy burden on all broadcasters, and certainly including those of us in America's smaller markets.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Cornils and gentlemen.

I have just a couple of questions. I would observe a point made that radio sells records. I don't think it is challenged, but it doesn't necessarily go to the point of whether these so-called performances ought to have copyright protection, because many enterprises help sell what may be copyrighted material for which there are royalties due, but that has not much to do with whether or not the royalty should be paid. That is central to the question, it seems to me.

Also, from the preceding panel, it isn't a question so much of whether the Rolling Stones or Elton John or Elvis Presley or the Beatles are taken care of. They are. We know they are, however, they negotiate. It is, rather, at least the other panel made the proposition, that the other artists who may have creative input into these-into recordings, sound recordings, musicians, for example, largely anonymous and others perhaps not absolutely anonymous, but nonetheless, really

receive no particular residual remuneration or unusual remuneration in terms of whatever creative contributions they have made.

That is the question. It isn't, I don't think, a question of Elton John or Elvis Presley, nor is it a question of whether radio sells records. I think everyone concurs that it does.

But, as I pointed out, many enterprises sell copyrighted materials to the benefit of those creators without which some of these creators wouldn't do very well, but that doesn't mitigate-but, that doesn't go to the question of whether the so-called performance should be copyrighted.

I just make that observation.

I would like to ask Mr. Wasilewski now, those of you here this morning are broadcasters, but obviously there are others than broadcasters involved and there are others than broadcasters who are opposed to that which is recommended by your predecessors here at the witness table. I think they referred to the music operators, the juke box industry. There may be others as well. There may be educational broadcasters, background music, with economic interest in resisting this change, and there may be others I am not aware of.

Are you, from past testimony or past experience, are you aware of any other groups who are opposed to the proposal, other than broadcasters and those I have named ?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Other than broadcasters and those you have named, I am not aware-I was aware of the previous position of the record companies, as you referenced earlier this morning. I was aware of the ambivalence, I guess you would say, of the organizations representing composers and authors in times past. I think there there is so much gold, you know, at the end of the rainbow and I think anvbody would be concerned how that pot of gold is going to be divided up as far as royalty payments are concerned, but other than those that you have mentioned, I think that I am not aware of any, sir.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. One of the concerns of those-some I have spoken with, who might otherwise oppose Mr. Danielson's addition to the copyright bill, his own bill, is a concern that we may be creating so many rights that it leaves prospective users of material in a jungle of having to clear rights not only in the first instance, a composer, of getting a royalty, but then additionally, as a performance royalty, and with the advent of more technology and computers that we may be creating rights and rights and rights on top of rights, and there is some question about whether we may make the whole area of copyright too complex to comply easily for users, whether broadcasters or anybody else, with the many statutorily created rights in the field. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Well, I can see that point, and I am generally aware-as you know, I have been involved, in one way or another, with copyright over the course of some 20 to 25 years, but obviously, I do not deal with that on a day-to-day basis, but I am aware, generally, of the complexities of the copyright law and the technicalities involved therewith and I think that the concern that you are talking about is how do you make it easily accessable to reasonable, responsible utilization of this copyrighted material, and it occurs to me, and this is in reference to your first point that you are making, Mr. Chairman. that copyright is such a unique right granted in this country, subject

to so many limitations thereon, that we are talking not so much about a matter of copyright as we are a matter of employee rights as against employer or engagement as an artist as against the record company, rather than putting this all into the complicated field of copyright per se, and that is why I would generally agree with your commentsyou didn't state them as a conclusionary fact, but the conclusion that I would reach based upon your first comments to me would lead me to believe that these are matters that should be basically taken care of in the employer-employee relationship, rather than a matter of copyright law.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have been notified my time has expired, so I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to thank you gentleman for appearing and I see the conflict between you and the authors and composers and I wish that you could resolve it somehow without resorting, as was just said, to the copyright law.

I simply have one question, Mr. Chairman, that one the international scene we heard earlier that artists and composers do, in other countries that have been named, receive this particular fee or statutory fee that has been mentioned. I wonder if anybody here would want to comment on that, and I have in mind in the background that we should, in my judgment, be moving towards a world copyright law, so that the rights of authors and composers, the rights of all parties involved, would be fixed pretty much by the law, the international law, or by treaties in Europe and Latin America.

I wonder if you would have any comments on this?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes. That, of course, has been a matter of discussion over the years in the International Labor Organization where performer's rights, recording rights, whatever you would call it-it has gone by different names at various times-have been a matter of treaty. I would like to comment, however, that the great distinction between the operation here in this country and the operation in most other countries in the world is that we have developed sort of an economic equilibrium between the record companies and artists and radio broadcasters on the one hand, where both, in effect, benefit in a symbiotic fashion, as I indicated here. In the other countries of the world, by and large, who do not have the commercial radio broadcasting operation, and you have a government operated operation and the situations vis-a-vis the competitive nature of things in other parts of the world are not the same as they are here, that is, I think, why we have not been able to get together fully on an international copyright arrangement and agreement. So, I just think that the economic situation here is so different than it is in most other countries, either Latin America or Europe, and we have been able to develop this economic balancing of the respective financial interest, if you will, that I don't believe has made it necessary for us to incorporate this concept into the copyright concept.

Mr. DRINAN. One question that derives from that, how do you answer the argument that we heard earlier this morning that the authors and composers feel cheated? They feel they are not being benefited or rewarded for their creativity. Do you have any short answer or direct answer to that?

Mr. WASLEWSKI. I think you mean the recording artists in your question, sir.

Mr. DRINAN. Yes.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Authors and composers are being reimbursed through ASCAP and BMI.

Mr. DRINAN. I am sorry. How do you answer that direct question? Mr. WASILEWSKI. My response to it is, I think they are being rewarded by the play of broadcasting and their additional reward as far as the individual is concerned should accrue through their normal contractual relationships with these great artists who do so well, such as the Presleys and the Elton Johns and the backup men and drummers and other musicians I think should have a stronger negotiating position against the record companies and outstanding artists. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. RAILSBACK. May I ask how artists are traditionally paid? In other words, when they produce a record and that record is then offered to the public for sale, what is the breakdown as far as revenues, and so forth.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Sir, I do not know the answer to that, to those breakdowns. I am not that knowledgeable about the recording industry per se.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I should have asked it to the other group. I think I am late one group. Does anybody know the answer?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Maybe Mr. Dimling.

Mr. DIMLING. Mr. Railsback, I am not really an economist specializing in the record industry, but it is my understanding that typically artists have contracts with recording companies that call for a payment of royalties based on the sale of records.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I see.

Mr. DIMLING. These typically range from 3 to 10 percent, as one of the gentlemen on your panel suggested, based on the negotiating power of the individual artist. The figures that Mr. Wasilewski gave were based on assuming that the artists were so reimbursed.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Can you also answer this, if you are able: How are the musicians paid that play for an artist?

Mr. DIMLING. The musicians that-it is my understanding that the musicians are typically paid on the basis of contracts with the record companies. Very often, on union scale. They are not, incidentally, as a matter of course, part of the royalty arrangements.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Right. They would not receive any royalties.

Mr. DIMLING. That is my understanding as a matter of course, which I guess leads into a comment about Mr. Kastenmeier's concern for these artists. To the extent that they are engaged in creative performances, one could make the sort of argument for the record companies paying them royalties, which they don't do right now. It is strictly a matter of contract negotiations with the-between the artist and the record company. There are no royalties involved.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. The argument was made this morning that broadcasters were taking a very inconsistent position vis-a-vis this particular problem and the CATV issue. The CATV people that we heard made