Matt Nathanson is a songwriter, performer, and recording artist.  On July 29, 2008, he addressed the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on “Music and Radio in the 21^st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms.”  Specifically, he spoke about the importance of internet radio in his life.  In the past, only a small selection of artists succeeded on the grand scale.  However, this has changed nowadays because of sites like RealNetworks and Pandora, which allow independent artists and labels to also benefit.  These sites perform the songs of thousands of artists rather than just the few played by a traditional radio broadcast station.  Consumers hear more music and are more inclined to buy it. 
            Nathanson recognizes that internet radio should definitely pay artists royalty fees, but this amount should not be exorbitant.  When his songs are played on broadcast radio, he is given no payment.  When his songs are played on satellite radio, he is given a small royalty.  However, he is paid a much larger amount by internet radio.  Nathanson argues that it is unfair that internet radio, which is the smallest industry, pays disproportionately high royalties.  He believes that he would not be as successful as he is without internet radio promoting his music and broadening his fan base.  He says that the royalty fees should be set at a rate that is fair for internet radio in order to protect future artists.

This testimony from Matt Nathanson is relevant to my article because it presents a different viewpoint.  Although Nathanson is an artist who benefits from higher royalty fees, he argues that they should be decreased in order to save internet radio.  He recognizes the benefits of his music being streamed by internet radio.  He is not part of an internet radio corporation arguing for lower royalty fees, but he himself is a musician who is paid the royalties.  He believes it is unfair that broadcast radio, satellite radio, and internet radio are not on a level playing field.  Nathanson believes that the Copyright Royalty Board should do something to save internet radio from disappearing.  The fact that a musician supports internet radio corporations strengthens my argument in this paper. 

    Matt Nathanson is a songwriter, performer, and recording artist. He is also the most played artist on Pandora.com. In his testimony at the hearing on “Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms,” Nathanson emphasizes the importance of internet music and internet radio. Before iTunes, Amazon, and other internet music sources were available, only a handful of artists succeeded. Nowadays, with internet radio stations, such as Pandora and Yahoo!, people are exposed to a variety of music and different genres. Nathanson relates how his own success was contributed by his exposure on internet radio. Internet radio has given independent artists and labels an opportunity to be heard by the public. Customers buy from a much broader group of artists thanks to internet music.
     Nathanson also discusses the financial concerns behind the royalty debate. “When a song I write is played on broadcast, satellite or Internet radio, they pay me an amount which is reasonably related to their revenue. Higher revenue stations pay a bit more; smaller stations and services pay a bit less. But when a song that I perform is played, broadcast radio pays me nothing; satellite radio pays me a reasonable royalty that when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 6% of its revenue; but Internet radio services pay me and other artists a per-song fee that is unrelated to the revenue of the service, which when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 30 or 40 or 70 percent of their revenue or more.” Nathanson argues that it is wrong for the smallest industry to be paying the highest royalty rates. He reports that internet radio is the most important way for independent artists to be heard. He concludes his testimony asking that the royalties changes be made fair for internet radio and demanding that the board keep in mind the future generation of artists.
     This source provides another perspective of the royalty rate issue for my paper. Nathanson's musical career and success demonstrate the tremendous benefit that internet radio has for the public. His testimony is important for my paper because it is supporting evidence that the copyright ruling is unfair. Nathanson, a musician who receives royalty payments, completely supports Pandora's fight against the increasing royalty rates. His testimony makes a strong case for my paper since he opposes SoundExchange's argument that performers need to be paid more on the basis of fairness.