Associate professor at New York University also of the author of the book a mere machine the Supreme Court, congress, and american democracy. Professor harvey . Guest were looking at to questions. The first is when does the Supreme Court decide constitutional cases talking about the constitutionality to do so independently as the elected branches. Most people argue the answer the question yes. I can tell you that theres usually some combination of the following. The justices have salaries that are protected by the constitution. And then is the consequence their independent of the elected branches in that is probably a good thing. Thinking of the first part that is what most of the book is about the first two parts of the claim there is Good Behavior tenure that by the house and the senate under vaguely worded grounds but the second part that their salaries protected is also not true but to specifically lower the justices salaries while they set of of bench because of inflation there is
Books on book. Anna harvey sat down with us to talk about a mere machine the Supreme Court, congress, and american democracy in which she looks at the influence of the Supreme Court on the Judicial Branch. Host anna harvey is here with us and she is the author of a mere machine the Supreme Court, congress, and american democracy. Professor harvey, what does your book mean . Guest i would say it is about two questions. The first is when the Supreme Court decides constitutional cases and makes rulings on the federal statutes does it do so independent of the elected legislature and most people i think would argue is the answer to yes. I teach politics at nyu and i can tell you every text book i have seen says some combination of the following the justice have live tenure and salaries that are protected and as a consequence they decide cases independently of the elected branches and furthermore that is probably a good thing. Thinking about the first part of that, claiming the courts decide
Pay artists for radio air play. She thought, perhaps, finland was an exception in paying artists and that the rest of the world didnt pay artists. Their radio royalties. But it turns out that it was the other way around. The u. S. Was the exception in not paying radio royalties. There are two other countries, iran and north korea. Well, last summer, yanita proudly became a u. S. Citizen but in doing so shes now a citizen of a democratic country that doesnt honor am fm radio pay for its artists and she suffers a loss of significant income. This is not the American Dream that she envisioned. Her story shows that we need to fix the disparities in the current music licensing system to make sure artists are fairly compensated. If we dont, we risk losing the innovation from creators like her because they will no long very the incentive to create for the public. And so, id like to ask a question to Paul Williams. One area of agreement between you and the music licenseees on the panel appears
I dont know, but i hope so. I know that for every mick jagger in the world, there are 10,000 musicians who are in the trenches and theyre all younger. Theyre all younger too. [laughter] and they depend on those royalties that theyre not getting. And, you know, lack of a performance royalty, ill just say this quickly, is kind of, its kind of a way of saying music should be free. If music should be free, im willing to have that discussion when musicians arent the only ones who arent being paid. And i really do want to hear from the broadcasters, too, because youve inherited your Business Model. You didnt create it. Your Companies Owners bought based on a value that we put in that when mr. Conyers and i try to change the law to a certain extempt, were taking away extent, were taking away value youve bought and paid for, and i want to be sensitive to everyone at the table has the red light has illuminated, so well hear from two witnesses, darrell. Whos most motivated to answer . Please. An
Recording artists and singer song writers who do value pandora because it is the only outlet, the only Distribution Platform available for them to find an audience that loves their music. Ms. Cash . That is what a lot of us are calling the exposure argument that we are seduced into thinking if we allow these performances without pay that we will get exposure therefore drive consumers to buy our records. That may or may not be true but the point still remains we dont have control over those copyrights and we are not paid fair compensation, we are not paid fair market rates. As i said before, theres no transparency about this. Its somewhat manipulative. And i feel that we end up subsidizing these multibillion dollar companies. They use our music as Something Like a loss leader to draw people in and then they make the money. And to confirm what mr. Williams said, the place that artists have the most control are sync licenses. Ive given my songs for free, my choice, to College Students mak