Licensing Gets DOJ Hearing

The contentious issue of music licensing came before a House Judiciary subcommittee in the first of two hearings on the matter June 10, as entertainment and media execs pleaded for changes to the system but offered little in the way of agreement on what should be done.

Photo: AP Photo / John Harrington, BMI

BMI chief exec Michael O’Neill testifies before a Justice Department subcommittee in Washington, D.C., on music licensing June 10.

Seven witnesses, including NARAS President Neil Portnow and reps from BMI, television stations and Silicon Valley tech firms, spoke – and often clashed – over dated and often complicated government regulations and other federal laws governing licensing, according to the New York Times.

“This is an unjust system that must be changed,” the Times quoted Lee Thomas Miller, a songwriter and president of Nashville Songwriters Association International.

Copyright legislation has struggled to keep up with rapid changes in music technology, with streaming services like Pandora, Spotify and even YouTube overtaking CD sales and downloads.

Still, the biggest battlefront continues to center on terrestrial radio, which pays royalties to songwriters but not performers.

“There’s no example in American history of business that profits from the works of others without paying them,” Portnow reportedly told the committee. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who has supported changing this rule, responded. “Actually, there is,” he said, “but it’s before the Civil War,” according to the Times.

Digital media consultant Jim Griffin suggested the creation of thorough and accessible directories of song licensing information, claiming it could be done in a year at minimal cost, though legislators and other speakers were said to be skeptical of the idea. Executives who spoke before the committee also showed little agreement about what changes should be made to the laws.

David Israelite, CEO of the national Music Publishers’ Association, and Michael O’Neill, CEO of BMI, backed lifting or changing the DOJ’s consent decrees.

But Lee Knife of the Digital Media Association – which represents tech firms like Pandora, Amazon and Google – argued the decrees are necessary to protect its members “from anticompetitive behavior that may be greater now than at any time in history,” citing recent consolidation in the music and publishing industries.

Portnow recommended a “music omnibus bill” that would address all aspects of music licensing, but his testimony and a written statement to the committee reportedly focused on just a few points that other groups opposed.

Knife, for example, opposed a bill that would pay online royalties to performers of songs made before 1972 as an “inadequate fix” because it lacked other protections under copyright law, according to the Times.

A frustrated Rep. Darrell Issa was quoted saying, “Every one of you has a vested interest in some part of the status quo, and every one of you is railing against some aspect of the status quo.”

A second hearing is scheduled for June 25 with witnesses from ASCAP, radio broadcasters, record labels and others including singer Rosanne Cash.