Statement of
LYLE LOVETT
On behalf of the
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS
On the Internet Uses of Music
Before the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property
May 17, 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Lyle Lovett, and I am a songwriter and performing artist. I am proud to say that I am here today on behalf of over 117,000 songwriter and copyright owner members of ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. I appreciate the opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee, and thank Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Berman, Vice-Chairman Goodlatte, and the entire Subcommittee for their support of intellectual property rights in the United States and throughout the world. We at ASCAP know that important legislation like copyright term extension and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law largely through your efforts, and for that I express the deep gratitude of all ASCAP’s members.
About ASCAP
ASCAP is an unincorporated membership association of composers, lyricists, songwriters and music publishers. It is governed by a board of Directors consisting of 12 writers and 12 publishers, elected by the writer and publisher members respectively. The Board is responsible for setting policy. ASCAP licenses only the right of nondramatic public performance of its members’ copyrighted musical compositions, through the mechanism of licenses which give users the right to perform any and all of the many millions of musical works in the ASCAP repertory.
The ASCAP royalty distribution system is a model of fairness to all parties. Through their membership in ASCAP, songwriters and music publishers divide all royalties 50-50. The writer’s share is paid to the writer, and the publisher’s share to the publishers.
The Importance of Music to the United States Economy
I’m a songwriter, not an economist. But I can tell you from first-hand experience how valuable the songs-- the intellectual property my fellow songwriters and I create-- are to the American economy. Beside the economic value in the song itself, we are proud of the positive impact our creative work has for so many people: the artists and musicians who perform our songs, the technicians who work to record them, the retailers, both traditional and on-line who legally sell them, the folks who work our concert tours, those in theaters and arenas employed when we appear, the workers who manufacture instruments and electronic equipment. Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee Members, this chain of economic benefits is enormous, and this chain all begins with our songs.
In addition to the economics songs also provide a whole lot of enjoyment. In fact, when you consider how much of the usage of the Internet is related to people’s desires to enjoy music by listening or downloading, it would be fair to say that our efforts are one of the main reasons for the growth of the Internet. The Internet without music would be like radio without music: quite empty except perhaps for weather reports, business news, and other non-entertainment information.
Mr. Chairman, it also is true that copyright is one of the few bright spots in America’s balance of trade. Music, and in particular the performing rights in our music which ASCAP licenses, are an important element of that intellectual property trade surplus. Given the far greater popularity of American musical works overseas compared to the performance of foreign works in the United States, ASCAP was able to collect about four times the amount of royalties from abroad as it pays out. That tells you a whole lot about the value of copyrighted intellectual property to the American economy. Just think if we had that kind of surplus in manufactured goods! But what it also tells you is the extent to which American copyrighted intellectual property is serving as an Ambassador for our way of life to the rest of the world. I have traveled abroad as I know many of you have. And I think it is safe to say that in any village or town or city in virtually any place on the globe you will hear American songs. Our music is virtually the new lingua franca of international culture. I think we should all want to keep it that way.
A Songwriter’s Perspective
Mr. Chairman, not only am I not an economist, but I also am not a lawyer, so I cannot explain the legal details of Internet uses of music. But I can give you a songwriter’s perspective on a few things.
First, let me say as clearly as I can that there isn’t a songwriter I know who opposes new technological ways to perform music. Technology always has been the friend of the songwriter: from piano rolls, to phonographs, to radio’s development from early crystal sets to what we hear and enjoy today, through television in its various incarnations, and now to the Internet, we have looked upon each of these revolutions in communications as new ways to enjoy our music; and, new ways for us to earn a living by doing what we love-- creating America’s music. Every new way to bring performances to the public is a new way to bring them enjoyment. And as long as we are being compensated fairly for that listening pleasure, we are better able to feed our families, pay our bills, and sustain careers as songwriters.
The Internet has broadened the enjoyment of our music to include the far corners of the world. We love that; and we must all remember that Internet usage is traceable far more to people enjoying our songs than it is to scholars researching on the web sites of distant museums, or investors following stock quotes. Insuring that our music remains popular and profitable is another way to insure the growth of the Internet.
From ASCAP’s point of view, another reason for its support of the new technology is its positive impact on reducing our costs. Globalization of the music business has led to ASCAP taking the lead in forming a joint venture with our sister societies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada to reduce our back office expenses. We expect this joint venture to expand, and it has been made possible by the revolution in communications.
The songs I create mean many things to me. Foremost among them is my goal, and I think the goal of every artist, to connect with and communicate my thoughts, emotions and beliefs to my audience. My songs therefore are truly my creations –extensions of who I am and what I believe. But, my songs also are my livelihood. If I can’t earn a living from them, I’ll have to do something else. And if every songwriter is unable to earn a living from creating music, if every songwriter has to do something else to make ends meet, who will write the songs of America and the world? I love what I do. But this is a tough business. And to illustrate that, I would ask each of you on this distinguished committee to think about this question: Have you ever seen in the classified section of any newspaper an ad which reads: “ Songwriter wanted. Good salary. Paid vacation. Health benefits and many other perks.” I’m sure you haven’t. Most songwriters are lonely entrepreneurs trying again and again for that hit which will help them take care of their families and keep them writing in the hopes of another hit down the road so that songwriting can be a career, not a part-time unpaid struggle. In my case, it took many years and many songs before I had that first hit. However, success would be meaningless without strong copyright laws and a vigorous and vigilant ASCAP. For it is only through the protection of the copyright law, and through ASCAP and similar groups, that our right to earn a living from our creative work is assured.
Please let me be clear: I have no objection to songwriters or performers agreeing that their work be free on the Internet or anywhere else if they want. Some have made that choice. But for me, and for the overwhelming majority of my songwriter and performer colleagues, our choice is that we be compensated for the use of our creative work, which is our property.
Now let me make just a few points based on my understanding of ASCAP’s approach to Internet uses of music.
ASCAP’s Licensing of Internet Performances of Music
There are two aspects to ASCAP’s licensing of musical performances on the Internet which I think will be of great interest to you.
1. ASCAP has licensed every Internet user who has requested a license to perform ASCAP music. ASCAP has never turned down an Internet user who requested a license and was willing to pay a reasonable license fee. ASCAP has not sued any Internet user in an attempt to shut the website down rather than license it. And, through the mechanism of the ASCAP license, every licensed Internet user has the right to perform all the many millions of works in the ASCAP repertory. If, there are any difficulties that Internet users have in licensing works piece-by-piece, those difficulties are solved by an ASCAP license.
2. ASCAP is an Internet licensing success story, right now. There has been much discussion about when various licensing systems would be put into place. ASCAP’s is already in place, and has been since 1995. I am told that ASCAP currently has about 2200 websites licensed to perform music. Year-by-year, the approximate number of Internet websites licensed is:
Year Websites licensed
1996 150
1997 300
1998 525
1999 1,200
2000 2,000
Indeed, ASCAP tells me that, of the 66 members of DiMA, ASCAP has licensed 28, and is in negotiations with another17.
Therefore, there is no need for Internet users to worry about whether they may operate lawfully if they perform ASCAP music, or to wonder when a usable licensing mechanism will come about. It has been here, it is here, and thousands of websites are using it.
There are a few conclusions from these facts which go to the heart of several issues of interest to the Subcommittee:
There is no justification for a compulsory license for Internet uses of ASCAP music. Those arguing for a compulsory license have given some supposed justifications for this sort of interference in the free marketplace. They said that it was justified because, for whatever claimed reason, they couldn’t engage in individual negotiations with copyright owners. But ASCAP’s license means that the entire repertory of music--millions and millions of compositions written and owned by 117,000 members--is licensed in one transaction. They said that it was justified because no workable licensing mechanism exits. But ASCAP has successfully licensed thousands of Internet users since 1996. They said that it was justified because copyright owners refused to license them. But ASCAP will license any user who wants a license, at a reasonable fee, and the user will be licensed simply by virtue of requesting a license. Compulsory licenses should be repugnant to those who believe in the free market and the sanctity of private property, including intellectual property. The undisputed facts of ASCAP’s Internet licensing demonstrate that a compulsory license is not justified.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee Members, the entire world wants and enjoys America’s music. The decisions you and your colleagues make about protecting copyright may well determine whether that continues to be the case. A compulsory license would be a blow aimed at the ability of those who create America’s music to continue to flourish.
I am honored to have been able to appear before you, on behalf of my 117,000 ASCAP colleagues, and thank you for this opportunity to present our views.
* A biographical sketch is attached
LYLE LOVETT’S BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
For years not, fans, have been asking Lyle Lovett the question: “When are you going to put out a live album?” He always intended to do so eventually, but the time was never quite right – until now, thirteen years and eight albums into a career that has found him flourishing in a fertile, uncategorizable and wholly original territory between rock and country and folk and blues. Now, he figures, the time is right for Lyle Lovett Live in Texas, the first document of one of the most exhilarating concert experiences in pop music, “If somebody has never seen a Large Band show, I want this album to give them an accurate sense of one,” says Lovett. “And if they have seen one, I want them to think, yeah that’s what it’s like.”
For more than a decade now, Lyle Lovett and his Large Band have defied convention, resisted any kind of pigeonholing and delighted both audiences and critics. They play country songs about long-winded preachers, lullabies to penguins. The songs are Lovett’s, but the band – more than a dozen musicians, including a horn section and a vocal group – regularly push those songs past their original versions. “No matter how happy you are with a studio track, playing live always changes the song,” says Lovett. “One of the reasons this project was so gratifying to me is because these performances feel more familiar tome than the studio versions of the songs. This is a document of what we’ve been doing, and what has happened to these songs.”
Not every Lovett show has included the Large Band: after first introducing the group in 1988, Lyle has periodically assembled the musicians for special tours, in between outings with smaller groups. For the 1995 Austin and San Antonio shows compiled into Live in Texas, though, the Large Band was seventeen strong. The musicians include keyboardist Matt Rollings, guitarist Ray Herndon, percussionist James Gilmer and cellist John Hagen, all of who have been playing with Lovett since his first album, Bassist Viktor Krauss, and drummer Dan Tomlinson have been mainstays in Lovett’s band for years as well. The horn section is made up of Harvey Thompson, Charles Rose, Steve Marsh and Vinny Ciesileski; vocals are provided by the stellar quartet of Willie Green, Sweet Pea Atkinson, Harry Bowens and Arnold McCuller, along with special guest Francine Reed, with whom Lovett has performed for fifteen years.
“There’s real continuity with people in the band, and with the people I have around me in the studio,” says Lovett, who has worked with producer Billy Williams on every one of his albums. “ These guys all have careers of their won, and I’m just lucky that they’ve agreed to play with me for all this time. It means a lot tome to have the continuity over the years.”
The fourteen songs on Live in Texas, chosen from more than sixty different songs taped during the Texas shows, span and aptly summarize Lovett’s entire career. That career began when Lyle was still in his teens, when he began playing the songs of his favorite Texas singer-songwriters in clubs in Houston and later Austin, where he studied journalism at Texas A&M University. In Austin, Lovett began to hang out with other young songwriters, among them Eric Taylor, Nanci Griffith and Vince Bell. He headed for Nashville in 1984, armed with a demo tape. It included such songs as “Closing Time” (performed on Live Texas). His plan was to drum up interests from publishing companies and other singers; instead, with the help of boosters like legendary Texas Songwriter Guy Clark he got a record deal with Curb/MCA, and put out his first album, “Lyle Lovett”, in 1986.
On the heels of its follow-up, “Pontiac”, Lovett first assembled (a smaller version of) his Large Band; their shows opened with what he terms “the nonsensical non sequiturs” of “Here I Am,” and included blues-based material like “She’s No Lady” and “M-O-N-E-Y” alongside the country influence “If I Had A Boat”, whose irrevent treatment of such icons as the Lone Ranger won Lovett rare reviews and a few pieces of hate mail. (One letter promised him “an old-fashioned Alabama ass-whipping” if he showed his face in that state.) In 1989 Lovett gave his new group top billing on this third album, “Lyle Lovett and His Large Band”, whose songs included “Nobody Know Me” (“a cheating song about Mexican food,” he explains on Live in Texas) and “What Do You Do,” a schizophrenic conversation” refashioned into a duet with singer Francine Reed. 1992’s Joshua Judges Ruth contained such showstoppers as “I’ve Been to Memphis.” “Church” and the lovely “North Dakota,” which included vocals by Richie Lee Jones. Lovett’s fifth album “I Love Everybody” (1994), was full of odd little songs he’d written earlier in his career, among them the percussive “Penguins”; his sixth, 1996’s “The Road to Ensenada”, was one of his strongest and most acclaimed collections, with a rousing Texas-swing number in “That’s Right (You’re Not From Texas),” a song he tested on the road for a couple of years before recording it. Lovett’s album, “Step Inside This House", was a two-disc set that paid tribute to the songwriters whose work inspired his own.
“Lyle Lovett and His Large Band Live in Texas” surveys his entire career, and throws in moments that Lovett’s fans have only experienced if they’ve seen him in concert, from John Hagen’s extended cello solo in “You Can’t Resist It” to Francine Reed’s searing take on the blues song “Wild Women Don’t Get the Blues.” “Every time I stand onstage with the Large Band, it feels new to me,” Lyle says. “I guess I still think of myself as a guy with his guitar – and getting to be up there with all those musicians, with singers and the horn section, it’s always a thrill to me. Every time I do it, it feels like a special occasion.”