« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
It is a viewer-oriented medium, as are translators, master antennae, rooftop antennae, and television sets themselves. None of these entities are prospectively liable for copyright under your bill, and none should be, for they are all part of the process of nationwide dissemination of programing that you have legislated in the Communications Act.
In fact, in TelePrompter-CBS, the copyright holders argued that CATV prerelease of programs would dilute the profitability of reruns and other syndicated properties, thus removing incentive to produre television programs. The court rejected this argument. It Mognized that the appropriate nexus was missing, that is, copyright holders do not receive money from the ultimate user--the television viewer the money comes from the advertisers.
In fact, the Court recognized that the distant signal carriage does not interfere with the copyright holders' means of extracting recomprnce for their creativity and labor"; and that, in fact, CATV provides a larger viewing market to the benefit of both the advertiser and the Copyright holder. We submit that CATV should not pay because CATV does not owe.
This leads to the question of who would really pay, were this bill to becomne law. Well, there is no doubt that your imposition of copyright on CATV would be, at least in part, a consumer tax on televi. xion viewing. Must the cable viewer himself pay it! It could stop at the cable company, as it was pointed out, but it will not because there are no free lunches in this world.
Is it a large amount! At the national areraga, $por home. You have all the figures before you. The copyright bite works out to $1.4) per home per year for the 2.5-pement rate, which is irrepective of the number of signals carried.
In the seven congressional districts of this committee, there are ap. proximately 73,000 cable home, I'nder the hill, thiese 73,0 ) home, could pay to copyright holders up to $131,400) this year.
So, do the television viewers care! CATA has already received more than ) community resolutione oppoing this viewing tar, from citire as diverse as Eau Claire, Wix, and Granville Villa , N.Y. 1!.4
p olations from municipaliting will beupplied for the record. Further, the U.S. ('onference of Jason and the League of l'ities has also adoptard a joint moolution in 1971, uninimously opping the in. cluje on of CATV in the copyright bill. The muslim, I w:rve, is that the constituents are concerned about hirler (11Vhargers that wi'l
't run copyright lepilation The Print question comme to whom gevrimit ! non porestal faite Mr. Jark Valenti, prijetent of the PL, toll Serator M("ellan's committee on the Judirinry on Augart 1, 1973, that he al srin 11101.!"Pallottle ('opi'tter of controlat Owner
Ingre said of right intendent suppliers of margaritat tarinon proprame, which are interd in my text. Jr. Valenti tretifici:
Ter primerame wooled by metr.ders of (0) to stations, and thereby to all **r"., eitritte by far the large part ut ail a r t pf**k14a carried by toleranti enble.
BACITI NEnd of praslrrgal 18 in Xrw lot' ('ils during a mornt work in the month of March we fundi!.at $4,"tit, of all fout galit on file qosi:1." programin on ( arrin fact owned by tlumpe
3: 188 78 9 4
Mr. DRINAN. And you believe that all these people from what you believe to be the law simply because t the consensus agreement, and it is politically expedien
Mr. Cooper. I think that is what they say, and I hav s their analysis why they are where they are; yes, sir.
Mr. Deixas. Well, now, just a clarifying one last a ei that any part of cable television, under any circui be equired to pay copyright fees!
Mr. COOPER. Sir, I think we almost need to talk abo of cable television. If we are talking only about a syst tradcasts from off-the-air sources, and supplies tho 3 stomers, then my answer to you is, no, we can't s pographic center of operation, any size of system, any pouth revenue determination of system that to us 23: Guld be liable for copyright, based upon our ph that is set forth here.
However, if a system, a functioning operating syste out to serve the needs of its community to procure for the cable movies, sporting events, and other events ti endly available off the air to broadcasting, then I ar Es and should enter the normal marketing mech: their proportionate percentages of copyright fees, just ng transmitting facility should do.
eight CCO firms; similarly, 32 percent for NBC, and 17 percent for ABC.
Finally, we also checked movie copyrights on file for that week in March of this spring, and it was reflected that 51 of the 68 movies percent-were owned by one of these eight firms. Clearly, Mr. Valenta is correct about his employer's position.
But, to make the analysis and our point more clear, please consider that the largest copyright owner of the big eight-MCA-had gross revenues in 1974 of $641 million, a third more than not the largest cable company, but all cable companies; the whole cable industry.
Given the current state of economic affairs in our cable industry, w are indeed saddened that we were not the first in thinking of a relief act for our industry, a royalty from program suppliers to CATV for aiding viewers to see their programs. Program suppliers, we feel, clearly can afford to pay.
Thank you. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Before yielding to Mr. Pattison I just have a clarifying question. In terms of constituent members, does CATA differ from NCTA?
Mr. COOPER. You mean is there an overlapping of membership! Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Are the operators more or less, characteristically, the same, as far as size?
Mr. COOPER. I have never seen an analysis of that, I can give you an expression from my own experience. The impression would be "Na" Typically, our operators tend to be smaller and dependent in the sense that they probably own a couple of systems as opposed to multiple systems.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. They tend to be smaller in terms of operations!
Mr. COOPER. They tend to be smaller in terms of operations, and in terms of subscribers, the area they serve. They are more rural, as a consequence.
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Does the type of retransmission that they engage in, would that be substantially different from XCTA members
Mr. COOPER. I don't think substantially, no, sir.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. One other question. Does the view of your organization differ from the ad hoc committee on cable television !
Mr. (COOPER. I am not aware of any significant difference, no, sir.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison.
Mr. Pattison. I just want to thank Mr. Cooper for his statement; it certainly provides us with the other side of the coin, and gives us a real different philosophical point of view that we obviously have to consider. I have no questions about the statement,
Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan, Mr. DRIXAX. Just one question, Mr. Cooper. On what do you base your conviction here, that you expressed so well, that copyright is nice due. Do you go back to the Supreme ('ourt opinion, or how, ultimately do you do it!
Mr. COOPER. I think basically the Court said in its two opinions what we have always believed as a group of operators; and we believe in the language of and subsequent court, many, many Court decisions inter preting, perhaps, the section of the Constitution that deals with copyright.
Mr. Deixas. All right, thank you for your statement Mr. KASTES METER. The gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, first, Mr. Cooper, I want to com eing out swinging. You have stated the other side o
sted, not only objecting to any imposition of co presting that you ought to be paid for expanding rigator.
You have just answered a question which suggests t tek object conceptually to the whole idea of copyrig!
Mr.Cooper. By conceptually, I guess we are talking tutional conception of copyright as a means of makin
Wanns. Well, it is a two-edged sword. The lan indicated, indicates the policy of making available to then the framers of the Constitution, I believe, added
y securing for a limited time to authors and invent ngit.and so forth.
So, I think it is fair to say the Constitution co mechanism for securing those rights, and we do so schedule.
Mr.Coorn. I agree. Mr. W1000Rs. You conceptually agree to that. And sto cable in the sense of cable-originated programs, mitting someone else's signal.
You make a case that the payment is not due, and s tim in part by the argument which relates to payme by the viewers, as opposed to putting that econom
vertisers is that correctt
Mr. DkIxAX. And you believe that all these people have deviated from what you believe to be the law simply because they worked out the consensus agreement, and it is politically expedient for thein to go that way!
Mr. COOPER. I think that is what they say, and I have to ngree. That is their analysis why they are where they are: yes, sir.
Mr. DRIXAN. Well, now, just a clarifying one last question. Do von think that any part of cable television, under any circumstances, should be required to pay copyright fees!
Mr. Cooren. Sir, I think we almost need to talk about the definition of cable television. If we are talking only about a system that rereitag broadcasts froin off-the-air sources, and supplies those broadcasts to its customers, then my answer to you is, no, we can't see any area, any geographic center of operation, any size of system, any dollar (onomic growth revenue determination of syetem that to 119 make any sense that should be liable for copyright, based upon onr philosophical view that is set forth here.
However, if a system, a functioning operating syutem vishes on its own to serve the needs of its community to procure for display only on the cable inovies, sporting events, and other events thint are not gen. enlly available od the air to brondeacting, then I am sure that they must and should enter the normal marketing mechanisms, and pay their proportionate percentages of copyright fors, just as any originating transmitting facility should do.
Mr. DRINAX. All right, thank you for your statement.
Mr. W 1001NR. Well, first, Mr. ('ooper, I want to compliment von for morning ant swineng. You have stated the other side of the coin, as you indirated, not only objecting to any imposition of copyright fees, but sugluing that you ought to be paid for expanding the market of the originator.
You have just answered a question which sugupute to me that you do not objert conceptually to the whole idea of copyright. Imo yon affirm that!
Mr.(oorth. By conceptunlly, I guess we are talking about the constitutional conorption of copyright A means of making available to the
W ilns. Well, it is a two and wort The language lich von indiatral, indicatam the policy of making available to the public and then the framers of the Constitution. I alleira, adier to the languages ** yuring for a hmited time to author and inventon the truslp r it".and furth.
, I think it is for tomar tir ('onet.tution esotain piata mtu melanism for muring thr !,, In
Vir ('WPL Ingre.
a is it to cable in the sense of cable originated puntame, not imply truns mrtting womrone else'
xiral. You make a name that the payment is not dur, and support that mi. ton in part by the arminent which mulates to payment of the mali by the viewers, as opport to putting that economie burden of the B ertin in that corrrt!
W KTEN MEIER. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rails H: REPLAB!! K. Mr. Cooper, do you think the networks de pay to run movies that have already been made pu 10****, if I pick up an old movie, do you think a networ Se o per a fee for copyright? Or, for that matter a sta
mirt is a nonnet work station. Do you think that a "CTendent television station ought to have to pay a H ome Well, the point is, it is in the public domain fo
Jr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. WIGGINS. Well, it seems to me that this notion of advertisers' paying the royalty is almost unique to the television industry, and perhaps to radio. But, if you get away from those and talk about books, for example, the author is paid by the reader the analog being to the viewer. Indeed, you can carry that analogy quite a ways, and it seems that television, and perhaps radio are unique in the sense that someone else picks up the tab; is that not so !
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. Wiggins. Well, then we shouldn't place too much emphasis on the notion that the viewer may ultimately have to pay as a reason for rejecting the payment of copyright by a cable television, should we!
Jír. COOPER. Well, I think that is probably a political decision.
Mr. Wiggins. No, I am not thinking about it politically. I am trying to get some evenhanded treatment of those who exploit for profit the protected works of authors and inventors. 'Well, I am going to reread your statement carefully, Mr. Cooper because it is a threshold question that we have to come to grips with, whether you should pay anything. That is a difficult question on which you have strong views. But we only get to the question of the tribunal and the rates if they get past the threshold. Thank you for raising the issue.
Mr. KASTENWEIER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson.
Mr. DANIELSON. I have very little to add to what has already come forward here. I just want to be sure I understand the thrust of your presentation. I think I do, and that is, it is your position that the cable should pay no royalty except in those situations where it originates its own program, and then of course it would be on a negotiated basis, I suppose, with the owner of the copyprighted material. Mr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. DANIELSON. And the items you pick off the air and transmit to your subscribers that are things that are already disseminated, it s
your position that a cable is to serve as sort of an amplifier for the eres and ears of the viewer, and you are simply enabling the viewer for s subscription fee to see and to hear the programs that are already broadcast by someone else.
Jr. COOPER. Yes, sir. I think what we are really doing is fulfilling a mandate that is stated in the Communications Art, to provide the widest possible dissemination.
Mr. DANIELSON. Well, that may be a legal effect of what you are doing. What you are doing is to sell to your subscribers a service ard enable them to see and hear things which they couldn't otherwise and hear.
Jr. Coorer. We are selling to him, if you will, the utilization of our amplifiers and our cables: yes, sir.
Mr. DANIEL BOX. Thank you very much.
Mr. DRINAN. You mentioned the seren congressional districts of this committee, and this is of interest to me. There are approximate 73.17) cable homes. That is collertively, in all seren?
Mr. (poprr. In all seven distrirts, that corrert.
Mr. DRINAX. If couns conid furnish that to each of the stren members. I am sure they would be as interested as I am.
Mr. ( prr. We certainly will, sir.
M: RALLABACK. So, they are perpetuating, then, the Fede 5:23.03 M: CAXPER Yes. # KALABAI K. Should they have to pay for running tha Volumpur. I have trouble between a fee and H: RwaBACK. For the copyright, I'm sorry. W: 14R. Ohar.
: Rail BACK. They are disseminating a creative wo V pir. Yes, sir. V: KilaB44 k. Just like you are doing. W lopuk. No, not just like it. N KUBAK. Maybe not just like, but they are dissem 11., Improu is, should that net work have to pay g V (wie. Wright, they are disseminating this movie. Video : night be into and through the public domail 173, Will they are receiving revenues. Yes, they
V RIBA k. They are receiving revenues from their a
.! Why should you not have to pay?
bila-ters are actively broadcasting this
M: Coxins. I think I can answer it for you. VRK. Goal.ead.
W: linna. This cost of doing business runs the gamu ** !!!,!1p [wwer and all this business, right!
V: RIBAK. Right Wilom. Vi right. The minute that signal leaves "**r*** it's in the ether, as it were; it's in the ath . :. man. Tlier cost of delivery of the signa
Mr. KVIENMIR. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsbark.
Mr. RUBAIK. Jr. (ooperdo you think the networks ought to hare to pay to run movies that have already been made public! In
ther words, if I pick up an old mone, do you think a network should have to pay a fer for copyright! Or, for that matter a station like WGM, which is a nonnetuork station. Do you think that a network, or an independent telesiston station o ht to have to pay a fee!
Mr. (ill. Well, the point is, is the public domain for the first
Mr. RIIABAOK. So, they are perputunting, then, the Federal (om. II.Uurations Art Nr. (OPR. TO. Mi. Ru h . Should they have to pay for running that movie! Mr. COUPR. I have trouble but wpen a frand---Jir. RAIL BACK. For the copyright, I'm sorry. Mr. (Pr. Ohay. Mr. RAILRAK. They are diseminating a creative work to the
Mr. (PR. Yes sir.
Mr. RAILAK. Jaib sot just like, but they are diminating it. W ala'n !!Loven, don'daha bir work hair to pas a free!
Mr. (mirn. W hitties are diminating this 11.01 16', program, wiatrier it m it lie into aid through the pule!!domain from its BITKI, for which the art r uhy reichen, to the should.
Mr. Rustik. I are manngrienus from their advertir
Mr. Rullak. Ilise trouliettet litt f., Vecould you give 11. your ran0111 ! ! On von 1.0t have to pa!
Mr. DANIRIM. Will the titleri!! Vr. RAILARAK Y puse Mr. DAN Min. I think the piltleman pentel ont here at one *).ht, the broader ar mitively broadt.1. th..Oopyrighted 1.terial:traliei temi
r li Mr.(ta. Listing it Mr. DAN INI AUN Lionting! Realis11.6 it, I think that's it.
Mr Ruinfosch biet, I hef fulf 111111111!!tisolon ulven the network on the one hundr egal ile for 11. 1'] de ultor ar.. on t'ia ofert as no programni fat frtor winter will ! has produced, and it 's lies to built !**<forts to P, et sa fare, or JAY AMOR...or 18 tip O nli. Ilmse lt vil when