Before you get into it, Tim, it's important to underline from our side that our position is that we want to see artists get paid. If some organization out there, an isoHunt or a Megaupload, is making money off the work of artists and producers, then that needs to be dealt with.
However, what you're talking about is a very different thing. I want to clarify that, because sometimes the distinction gets muddied; in fact, the distinction is muddied at a certain point, and one of the jobs we have here is to try to make that distinction.
I wanted to get into this issue of authorship for a second. What we're seeing in this bill is a right that musicians and content creators and owners of music have that's there, and no one's disputing that it's there. It's also a right that has been monetized, and no one's disputing that; however, this bill creates a loophole that users of the content, namely broadcasters, can walk through in order to not pay for that right, a right that has already been adjudicated by the Copyright Board.
What makes you think that codifying authorship of film or audiovisual works would ultimately be protected when actually what we're seeing in this bill is the reverse—that musicians are losing $21 million here at the stroke of a pen?
We think that is wrong. We think this is a bad direction to go, and not just for musicians. I mean, this isn't about paying twice for something—