Future of Music Policy Summit 2002: Speeches

STATEMENT OF CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR KEVIN MURRAY
Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit
Gaston Hall, Georgetown University
January 7, 2002

Thank you Brian.

I am honored to be here today because I have always respected and admired those involved in the creative process.

As Brian just mentioned, prior to my career in politics, I was an artist’s representative, serving at different times as a lawyer, agent and manager.

That’s why I am so pleased to see everyone come together like this. It is truly an exceptional event – let’s all give the Future of Music Coalition Executive Producer, Jenny Toomey, and her staff a round of applause.

What true artists give the world are joy, passion and Truth.

However, the art of music is not -- as some would have us believe -- a free gift.

Rather, to encourage artists, our system – indeed the prevalent systems throughout the world – are based on various methods of payment.

These, in turn, are based on the concept that artists control their work product. Others may not have access to this work product without the agreement of the artist – or in the case of the compulsory license – payment to the artist.

I believe that providing music is a rare and extraordinary service, for which the musician must be fairly compensated.

At the same time, it takes everyone working together to create music and provide it to the public.

This includes the recording companies, who take the financial risks….

The managers, agents, lawyers and other business people, who risk their time and often their emotions in service to the artist….

And finally -- the musicians, songwriters and performers who risk their heart and soul for our collective enrichment.

When Brian invited me here today, he asked me to talk a little about what I thought the role of government should be in this industry.

While music is an art form, it is also a business. In fact, it is a business that is completely dependent upon government for its existence.

Without international copyright law – a creation of the government – the music business would not exist.

Its primary marketing tool -- radio -- uses airways essentially controlled by the government.

Music stores must comply with the same laws as any other retail stores.

Musicians perform in buildings, which must meet fire code and labor regulations.

And finally, many states have laws that directly effect the financial contracts used in the music business.

Make no mistake -- this is a regulated industry.

For those of you who think that the Internet will prove the great-unregulated equalizer……that it will level the playing field and protect artists from both government and corporate interests……forget it….

That is, if you want your music heard by the people.

There are a few simple reasons for this. First, the music must be marketed and that takes a significant investment -- hence the need for record companies.

Secondly, in spite of the number of hits on Napster, the Internet is still not a daily tool in the home of most Americans.

Broadband connections needed to enjoy music have even less penetration. The fact is most people using the Internet are not interested in downloading music.

Finally, and most importantly -- like all other retail businesses -- the most important buying season for music is Christmas. You simply cannot give a download to a friend for Christmas -- or any other kind of gift for that matter.

The music business generates 40 billion dollars a year worldwide. This is four times more than Sony’s Playstation… Nintendo’s Gameboy…and Cube and Xbox combined.

It is also one of the few U.S. businesses where exports outnumber imports.

Music is big business.

As such, the role of government – as it is for any industry -- is to enact policies that help create a fair and level playing field for all the participants.

It is also to help create an environment that encourages innovation and helps the industry thrive.

Laws need to be updated and changed as the playing fields are altered either through technology or market forces.

As we all know, governmental policy sometimes lags behind.

Unfortunately, when policies are changed or updated, the most important people in the music business – the artists – are rarely heard.

Artists, generally, do not have a voice.

This is true because they have no organizations or representatives to speak for them in a unified manner.

Every other interest group – lawyers, doctors, plumbers, teachers, senior citizens, day laborers, the homeless and even illegal immigrants – have a trade group or organization advocating on their behalf in Washington and at the state levels.

They have sophisticated lobbyists and public relation specialists which care for their interests even on a worldwide basis.
Artists in the music business have no such representatives.

The artists’ guilds and unions have been helpful, but because artists’ contracts are individually negotiated, it is difficult for them to collectively bargain with regard to these contracts.

Because these guilds and unions do not represent the copyright interests of the artists, it is also difficult for them to take the lead in those issues.

The RIAA has a multi-million dollar organization that is very effective. On must issues, their interests are the same as the artists and thus the artists have often been protected without any effort on their own part.

But, as we have seen lately, their interests can – and sometimes do – diverge from those of the artists.

Artistic expression is intrinsically an individual pursuit. Thus, it does not lend itself well to organization into a unified voice.

With all of the individual interests, it can be a bit like herding cats.

In order to be heard by the government, however, one must have a strong and integrated voice.

People in government need to know that the widget industry representatives have a large number of widget makers behind them. That gives them influence.

This is not some sinister form of influence peddling. This is the reality of a representative democracy.

That reality exists for the corporate trade groups, which contribute to candidates. And for groups like the AARP or the Catholic Charities, which do not give contributions, but have just as much influence.

No matter how lofty their goals or intentions, every interest is a special interest….even the PTA, which, by the way, has a very sophisticated lobbying operation.

If there is one piece of advice I can give artists today, it is that they need to begin thinking of themselves as the makers of a product – just like widgets.

They need an organization that will unify their voice and advocate with all the sophistication of the other trade groups.

They should employ professional and well-connected lobbyists and public relation specialists.

They should rigorously support candidates that champion their issues and just as rigorously, oppose candidates who vote against them.

Artists have, for many years, generously given of themselves for charity. They have used their celebrity and ability– their star power – to sell tickets for good causes.

Now they must use their star power for another good cause – their own.

Now is the time for artists to take care of themselves!

They must duplicate the efforts that took place when the work-made-for-hire amendment was initially introduced in Congress a few years ago.

It took the artists, the RIAA, the AFM, AFTRA and ASCAP to work together as a united group to get the results that benefited the whole industry.

It takes both a united front and a continued effort to stay involved with the issues. You can not afford to sit back and believe that others have your interests at heart.

It is critical that artists understand that.

Let me take you -- for a moment -- on a journey back to 1987.

Do you remember what you were doing then – what songs you were working on?

None of us had ever heard of the World Wide Web.

There was no “Napster.”

The big groups at that time were the Beastie Boys, U2, Whitney Houston, and Los Lobos. The Soundtrack for Dirty Dancing was a top album for the year.

The Bangles’ “WALK LIKE AN EGYPTIAN” was number one on the singles chart.

I was working as a talent agent for the William Morris Agency in Los Angeles at the time.

And LeAnn Rimes was just five years old.

Well, in 1987 -- while many of you were making music for the entire world to enjoy -- the recording industry was in Sacramento.

It was changing a California State law that affects recording artists to this day.

Let me tell you a little bit about it because it not only involves a number of people in this room….it illustrates the challenge of balancing the needs within an industry.

Many of you know -- all too well -- the seven-year contract rule.

What many of you may not know is that it was first enacted in the 1880’s. It was written to protect employers, who had placed ads – you know – the “Come West Young Man” ads.

Well, men would pitch their wagons, and head out west with their families - only to find out that the job didn’t last as long as they expected.

They began to sue the companies, which then convinced the Legislature to pass a law limiting personal service contracts to a maximum of two years.

In 1937, it was extended to seven years.

In 1944, Olivia de Haviland won a major court victory against Warner Brothers, when she wanted out of her contract after seven years. The problem was that she had agreed to a two-year extension, which effectively gave her a nine-year contract.

She decided she wanted out after seven and Warner Brothers said no.

The court held firm that seven years is the limit and that “Employees can not waive their right to it.”

That law stood unchanged for 50 years until 1987, when the recording industry convinced the California Legislature and the Governor to exclude recording artists.

To this day, recording artists remain the only exception to that law.

The system is set up basically to have seven yearly contracts requiring one album per year. As you know, this isn't always possible.

In fact, market forces usually dictate at least 18 months to two years between releases.

Now, I won’t argue that theoretically one album per year isn't possible….

But the real question is, how can you target one profession and deny it the same basic labor rights as every other resident in the State?

To me, this exemption to the seven-year rule tilted the playing field.

That’s why, today, in Sacramento, I have introduced a bill to repeal the exception for recording artists.

As I said earlier, some will see that as a move to restore fairness, others will view it as arbitrary and perhaps unfair.

It is the proper and often difficult role of government to make those decisions.

At the same time, it is the role of the participants of any industry to reach out to each other and to government to communicate the changes they need.

Clearly, government will continue to be involved.

For example, I believe that radio stations should pay performance royalties in addition to what they pay for song writing.

This is needed to help level the playing field.

Obviously, many radio stations take an opposing view. This is an issue where record companies and artists should agree. Frequently, which view becomes law depends on which side can present the most compelling case to the legislative body.

The lesson here is you must organize to have your voice heard.

Let me close today by re-stating how excited I am that this event is taking place.

I believe strongly that we -- as Americans -- have the best government on earth.

I believe that most of us in public service strive with integrity and resolve to regulate America’s industry in a fair and just manner.

Having said that, in a free marketplace, it is always better if the participants themselves advocate their interests with a unified voice on the major issues.

I wish you good luck because the future of music is critical to us all.

It doesn’t matter if you are a senator, a cabinet member or the President of the United States. We are all fans. We are all touched to the heart by the music you play and produce.

Yet, the reality is that all the great philosophers and strategists – from Socrates and Sun Tzu to Machiavelli – agree that power and influence is never given.

They are always fought for and taken.

Now is the time for artists to take up arms and fight for their rights.

Now is the time to organize and demand fair and just compensation for the work you do -- just like every other American.

Now is the time because your battle is just -- and because no organization on earth is more powerful at reaching the hearts and minds of the public -- than an army of artists.

Thank you.

home | manifesto | resources | press & news | events | FAQs | subscribe | contact us