Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all of you for being here and to some of you for being here again.
I wanted to get back to this confusion on the government's side around the idea of paying twice for something. Let's say a radio station leases or rents space, an office space, to do business. They rent it. Does that mean they shouldn't be paying for the heat, the hydro, and the telephone connection? No. Of course they're going to pay for those things, too. But what the government is saying is that they should pay for those things, but they shouldn't pay for the right of reproduction. Either the government is very confused about the business that we're in here—in the music business, in radio—or they are intentionally obscuring and confusing the issue.
The issue here is that radio stations are not paying twice. They're paying for very different uses. It's similar to saying that I buy a car and therefore I shouldn't have to pay for parking because I've already bought the car. I've paid for it once already, so what the heck?
For anyone who's ever worked in the music business or in any creative industry, the argument is absurd.
Ms. Saxberg, I want you to just help the government side understand the realities of life as an artist. We're talking about fairness here, right?
We're talking about fairness. We know that the music industry has taken a hit over the years. We know that. We know that artists have struggled. We know that labels have struggled. At the same time, we also know that broadcasters have had a field day.
So where is the fairness? Can you please help these guys understand the realities of the business?