the pending bills.

Please remember that I'm a songwriter, not

a lawyer and not one of the business people who operate ASCAP on my behalf. I can't tell you the legal niceties, or the operational details, but I do know unfairness when I see it, and that's what I want to talk to you about.

The restaurant owners behind the pending unfair legislation started by saying that they wanted a complete exemption if they got music from radio broadcasts, and used it to enhance the atmosphere of their places. First, they said my music was just "incidental" to their business.

Well, let

me say there isn't a songwriter alive who wakes up in the morning thinking "today I'll write some incidental music that no one wants to pay for." Go into any restaurant or tavern and you'll see parsley on plates, pictures on walls, peanuts on bars, rugs on the floor, tablecloths on the tables. All are incidental to the meal. All are paid for. And just as they are paid for, music must be paid for. Of course, if the music is so incidental to the meal that it is meaningless, the restaurant or tavern Owner can save that $1.58 a day by turning it off. His customers can then eat and drink in silence. At that point, they can determine just how

"incidental" the music is to their business.

Then they said that the radio station had already paid

was using radio broadcasts in the same way that he would use

live musicians, to entertain the customers.

less to do it that way.

Only it costs him

Then they said that the existing law, which exempted music use by home-style apparatus, was too vague and led to too much litigation. That we agreed with. So we said (as did the bipartisan leadership of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee), let's sit down together and work something out. We made market place offers to expand the "home-style" exemption. We always have believed that this is a market place dispute between the owners of property and the users of property and should be decided in the market place. All we got was a stone wall. We addressed many other points as well we offered a code of conduct for both sides' dealings with each other, regional arbitration of fact disputes regarding our licenses, and instantaneous electronic access to information about our repertoire, which now exists and is available by direct modem, through the Internet, by 800 number, or by mail. And still we were stonewalled.

-

But then the National Licensed Beverage Association, the group which had started the whole process, came to us and said that they did want to work something out. And, in the course of a long hard day of bargaining, we and they reached an agreement. It would clarify the law. And according to the Congressional Research Service, it would exempt almost 70% of the restaurants and taverns in this country. The only ones

24-690 97 3

which would pay fees for radio and TV music would be places the large chain restaurants and

over 3500

square feet

-

similar establishments.

It is regrettable that the NLBA was not given the opportunity to testify about the market place agreement we have reached, while not one, but two representatives of that group for which an exemption of 70 plus percent of their members isn't good enough, are here to complain.

One other major group behind this pernicious legislation is the Religious Broadcasters Music Licensing Committee. These Owners of religious format stations are operating commercial enterprises, which use our music and are making huge profits. Let me tell you just how huge. The head of the RBMLC, Ed Atsinger, owns 26 radio stations through his Salem Communications Corp. In May, 1995, he bought KDBX-FM in Portland, Oregon for $1.3 million.

of Broadcasting & Cable

The April 15, 1995 edition

magazine announced that he was

in a year. In 1994, the ASCAP license fees for all the Salem stations amounted to six-tenths of one percent of their gross revenues. That's the nature of the businesses which believe

that by using the word religion they are somehow relieved of their obligation to pay a fair fee. What is worse, to adopt the viewpoint of the religious broadcasters is to state unequivocally that Christian music is to be valued less than other forms of music. We can never accept that premise. And

don't let them fool you

ASCAP royalties are paid for what's

performed on radio to those whose works are performed, and those who write Christian music are paid for the performances of their music.

Yet what is it that these owners of profitable commercial broadcasting enterprises want? First, they want a complete exemption for the use of music in "religious services" which they broadcast. Never mind that the various forms of agreements in place were negotiated with representatives of all types of radio stations and never mind that they make a lot of money from those broadcasts. Why is Christian music worth less than other music? I surely don't think that it is, yet that is what they are telling you. Then, they want to force ASCAP to offer a new form of license agreement because they want to pay even less for the music they do use. Never mind that they're seeking the same relief in federal court in a case to be tried in four months and evidently can't wait for the outcome. That's just not right.

My music is all I've got. It's what I rely on to feed my family, to pay my bills, to provide for my retirement. It is my property. The owners of the restaurants and religious stations testifying before you want to pass legislation that amounts to a "taking" of my property. particular believes in market place solutions. Surely this Congress in particular is opposed to the taking of private property.

Surely this Congress in

The representatives of these organizations complain about cost. Yet what they pay is a pittance.

I think it's clear

where fairness lies, and I hope that you won't let these powerful interests run roughshod over this small businessman and the tens of thousands of his struggling colleagues who work hard everyday to continue to make American music the most popular in the world.