March 21, 1986 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 5973 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS DO WE NEED MUSIC United States, i.e., stations not owned by had not sought to obtain performing rights COPYRIGHT REFORM? any of the three major television networks, via source licensing. Perhaps prompted by ABC, CBS, and NBC .... We conclude that the evidentiary gap emphasized in our deci the evidence Is insufficient as a matter of sion in CBS-remand or by the taunting of HON. JOHN BRYANT law to show that the blanket license Is an defendants in this litigation, plaintiffs OP TEXAS unlawful restraint of trade. . . . The blanket began in mid-1980, a year and one-half after IN THE BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES license has been challenged in a variety of the suit was filed, to create a paper record contexts. It has been upheld for use by designed to show the unavailability of Friday, March 21, 1986 nightclubs and bars, BMI v. Moor-Law, Inc., source licensing. Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, American music 527 F. Supp. 758
e This .. bullet.. symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 5974 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS March 21, 1986 Nevertheless the District Court concluded plied to a station's total revenue; the pro ing of music needed for their locally pro that source licensing was not a realistic al gram license rate is applied only to revenue duced programming . . . if the stations can ternative because the syndicators "have no from a particular program. . . . realistically obtain direct licenses for local impetus to depart from their standard prac Second, the degree of difference between programming by offering reasonable tices and request and pay for television per the two rates is largely attributable to the amounts of money, they can avoid double forming rights merely in order to pass them stations themselves. In negotiating a revi payment by forgoing the blanket license. along to local stations." Id. This conclusion sion of license rates in the Shenandoah pro Their response is that they dare not do so does not follow from some of the Court's ceeding in 1969, the All-Industry Committee because they will then be unable to secure factual findings and rests on a view of the elected not to press for reduction of the pro performing rights to music on syndicated syndication market that is contradicted by gram license rate, believing, as it informed programs, which constitute the bulk of their other findings. the broadcasters it represented, that "the program day. But, as we have previously The District Court viewed the syndication critical matter at this time was to get the noted, the availability of the program li market as one in which the balance of best possible blanket license." Having pre cense enables them to forgo the blanket li power rests with the syndicators and the ferred to win a lower price for only the blan cense and still obtain music rights for any stations have no power to "compel" a reluc ket license, the stations are in no position to program for which direct licensing proves tant syndicator to change to source licens point to the widened differential between infeasible. Alternatively they can pursue ing. Id. Yet the Court found that there are rates to show that program licenses are not source licensing. . . . eight major syndicators, id. at n.13, and realistically available. that they distribute only 52% of all syndi Third, the only valid test of whether the CONCLUSION cated programs, id. at 281, hardly typical of program license is "too costly" to be a realis Mr. Speaker, the court in its September a non-competitive market. Moreover, the tic alternative is whether the price for such 1984 decision dissected each of the argu Court characterized production of syndicat a license, in an objective sense, is higher ments made today by the proponents of H.R. ed programs as a "risky business," id. at 282, than the value of the rights obtained. But a finding fully supported by the evidence. It plaintiffs presented no evidence that the 3521. This was an impartial body with no ax to may be that the syndicator of a highly suc price of the program license is "high" in grind. The language is clear and devastatingly cessful program has the upper hand in ne terms of value received . . . . powerful. Supporters of this legislation are gotiating for the syndication of that pro Fourth, even if there were evidence that asking this Congress to believe what they gram and would not engage in source licens showed the program license rate to be too have been unable to prove before an impartial ing for music in that program simply to "high.'' that price is always subject to down tribunal, and that is that they are the hapless please any one station, but it does not ward revision by Judge Conner, who cur follow that the market for the wide range of rently supervises the administration of the victims of a system stacked against them. syndicated programs would be unresponsive Amended Final Judgment. The aspects of Nothing could be further from the truth. The to aggregate demand from stations willing that judgment are especially pertinent to truth is that if H.R. 3521 succeeds, our coun to pay a reasonable price for source licens any claim that the price of the program li try's songwriters would become financially vic ing of music performing rights. cense is too "high." In a proceeding to rede timized, and the American copyright system, The District Court recognized that, even termine rates, the burden is on ASCAP to which has led to the preeminence of Ameri under its view of a syndication market prove the reasonableness of the rates can music throughout the world, would be weighted in favor of the syndicators, source charged, and the judgment expressly re shattered. licensing could be said to be unavailable quires ASCAP "to use its best efforts to only if stations would not offer "premium avoid any discrimination among the respec prices." Id. at 292. There is no subsidiary tive fees for the various types of licenses finding as to what prices the Court thought which would deprive the licensees or pro STUDENTS MEMORIALIZE stations would have to offer to obtain spective licensees of a genuine choice from HENRY CLAY LOUDENSLAGER source licensing. That is not surprising in among such various types of licenses," view of the failure of the plaintiffs to Amended Final Judgment . . .