« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
“(2) Nothing herein shall prevent any such syuter pursuant to written contrari, from transferring the video tapes to another such systein provided that:
" (i) said written contrart is placed in the foi open to public inspection, required hereunder; an
" (ii) the last such facility transnitting the pro grames shall comply with the provisions of secco 101 (1) (1) (ii) through (iv) of this ti!!e, and lia.
"(ii) provide a copy of the atidavit require hereunder to each sih synen taking a previous trunsusion of the same video's.pe.
"(3) As used in this subsection, the follvin, term and their print furture na tle (0" wirq;
"(i) a transmi: in' ie the distribution by
(ii) subject to the provisions of <*M19.7"?
of this subsection, on or love for reading
ar quarter, an owner or cerca:
as an affidavit attrating to the 1*10.0p !
tion of all such videotape madera
preceding quarter; and
-) vaid owner or offres pilier or the affidavit received parzia! WMO
') (ii) of this title, to be p'ered as', mbilie in portion, si sub poetit B.' 3 if community where the time.
receives signals transmitted or makes or obtains
videotapes of programs broadcast by one or more
television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and delivers such sig
nals or programs by wires, cables, or other commu
images and sounds of a program 'or programs, including commercials, broadcast by a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Com
mission, regardless of the nature of the material
objects, such as tapes or motion pictures, in which
made or in the nearest community where such sys
tem maintains an office.
“(2) Nothing herein shall prevent any such system, pursuant to written contract, from transferring the videotapes to another such system provided that:
“(i) said written contract is placed in the file,
open to pablic inspection, required hereunder; and
“(ii) the last such facility transmitting the programs shall comply with the provisions of seotion 101 (1) (1) (ii) through (iv) of this title, and shall
“(ii) provide a copy of the affidavit required hereunder to each such system making a previous transmission of the same videotape.
“(3) As used in this subsection, the following terms and their variant forms mean the following:
"(i) a 'transmission' is the distribution by a
noncontiguous area calle television system of a videotape to its subscribers and is the equivalent of the carriage of broadcast signals for all the purposes of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
“(ii) a 'noncontiguous area cable television' is a facility located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession not within the boundary of the forty-eight contiguous continental States, that
receives signals transmitted or makes or obtains videotapes of programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and delivers such signals or programs by wires, cables, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.
“(ii) A ‘videotape' is the reproduction of the images and sounds of a program 'or programs, including commercials, broadcast by a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as tapes or motion pictures, in which the reproduction is embodied.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. LORENZ, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CON.
GRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY ABRAHAM L. KAMINSTEIN, FORMER REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND HONORARY CONSULTANT IN COPYRIGHT AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Mr. LORENZ. Mr. Chairman, I am John Lorenz, the Acting Librarian of Congress. It is an honor for me to appear as the opening witness at these historic hearings, and to urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 3, the bill for general revision of the copyright law.
In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called upon Congress to bring together and completely revise the copyright laws of the United States. After long hearings and several years of controversy Congress responded by enacting a new statute on the last day of President Roosevelt's administration. The act of March 4, 1909 remains, 66 years later, the governing American copyright law.
President Theodore Roosevelt's message of 1905 is still valid for us today. He wrote:
Our copyright laws urgently need revision. They are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent in expression; they omit provision for many articles which, under inodern reproductive processes, are entitled to protection; they impose hardships upon the copyright proprietor which are not essential to the fair practices of the public; they are difficult for the courts to interpret and impossible for the Copyright Office to administer with satisfaction to the public.
The aptness of Roosevelt's message today is not as ironic as it might svem. Legislation is often specific. It grows out of individual circunstances and relates to definite purposes at definite times and consequently is subject to change.
As time passes, the ability of courts to adapt the letter of the law to each change diminishes. Cardozo put it well: “The law tends to expand to the limits of its logic." The logical limits of the present copyright laws have long since been reached and exceeded.
In recent years there have been several important Supreme Court decisions illustrating the inadequacy of the 1909 act. At the same time, administrative regulations cannot cure the law's inequities and private understandings or agreements cannot settle the crucial issues of copyright.
Everyone affected by copyright or concerned with its administration is looking to Congress for action. New legislation, a new ordering of the relationships that depend upon copyright, is required, and only ('ongress can do the job.
Is Acting Librarian of Congress I am proud of the role that the Copyright Office has played for many years in the efforts to reform the existing copyright system. I am particularly pleased to see Abraham L. Kaminstein here, who as Register of Copyrights from 1960 to 1971 was largely instrumental in planning the present revision effort. But beyond these efforts the basic responsibility, with its broad social and indeed philosophical implications, continues to fall upon your subcommittee,
Mr. Chairman, you have been involved in this work for well over a decade, and more than most, you appreciate the infinite complexity of many of the issues treated in H.R. 22:23. Ten years ago the former