Mr. RAILSBACK. That free ride is very, very tightly regulated. Mr. COOPER. That is correct. And I assure you, sir, on the other end, we are even more tightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission for our "free ride" to our actual cable,

See, a broadcaster, take a total capital plant investment of -to pick a round number- $1 million for a million homes, $1 per home. You can't even begin to touch service to a real or potential cable television home for less than $100, or $150 per home invested, going in, to start with. That is because we have a very high expense of delivering the signal from our head-in, if you will, or tower, to the individual home. We don't have free rides on the waves, we don't have free easements, we must pay a local franchise fee tax. The rights of way where we string our cables are the same to us as the broadcaster's either through which he transmits from his transmitting tower on top of the Sears Building, except that we have to pay money, we have to pay a substantial amount of money and have a very high risk involved in maintaining our transmission medium; he has none. His stops the minute his signals goes into the public airways.

Mr. KASTEN METER. I have just one last question to follow up on several questions that have been asked. Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Cooper, that you feel that CATV should not have to pay a copyright fee unless there might be certain other conditions, for example, if he org nates; if he tapes and retransmits; if he sells advertising, if he does a series of other things than simple retransmission, extemporaneous, then, are you conceding that you might have to pay a copyright!

Mr. COOPER. I think on a point by point basis, what we are really talking about in terms of conceding that copyright could and should be paid specifically on the pay television aspect of our industry where a movie specifically is bought and then shown on the cable,

Mr. DANIELSON. If I may interrupt. You mentioned pay television. If you originate, if you just smply put Bimba on the cable, whether you charge individually for it, of hot, do you see any reason why you should not pay copyright, if you or gate

Mr. Cooren. If I have procured Bambi, or the rights to show it on the open market

MY DANIELSON. If you or ghate, put it on your cable

Mr. Cooper. Should I pay copyright for showing bambi!

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes

Mr. Coop. Aimolutely, ser

Mr. DANIIGN. It isn't a matter of whether you charge your wh writers, but if you put it on your cable, you sannid pay.

1

Cannel That 18

Mr. Cooper. Many systems have a 24 hour movie c pot something you pay extra for, that wou† part of the service Mr. KASTEN METER Getting by a to my ya -', what I am trying to tadlost as that if calue systetus involve then serves the certaine met..

Which some of your members meist then to that extent the 1_2′′↑ Non concede, owe a copyright. So, it isn't a flat no copyright st wistaation hat nocopy gut,f, or wee

Mr. Coorya. No copyright payment for signal transmission, 19. I bese e what we are saving. I don't I se t'e word "refrat stii ssion,” but everybody uses of

minute, the instant that signal radiates from the transmitting tower: will you accept that?

In other words, as soon as they release it it's gone and they are no more expense involved in the delivery of that signal.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes; they don't deliver it by cable, they deliver it by other means.

Mr. COOPER. That's correct.

Mr. RAILSBACK. That is a different system.

Mr. COOPER. Well, not necessarily. On the other hand, our expense only begins where their expense stops.

Mr. RAILSBACK. But they don't charge viewers, do they?

Mr. COOPER. We did a very interesting study on that a few months ago in which we pointed out that based upon the gross receipts of all television stations of all markets in the country we can very quickly determine a cost per household per year; a cost based upon increased costs for all goods and services that were for sale in the marketplace, which included a percentage for advertising cost, half of one pervent for Coca-Cola, for example.

If you do this, you very quickly determine that there is some place between $21 and $50 a year per home, is the average cost, nationwide, that we all pay, we all share it, for the broadcasting service that exists.

Mr. RAILSBACK. You know, what really bothers me and this may not be analogous, but we have sat through record piracy hear s where we have received testimony from record companies to the effect that they have to pay rather substantial costs to invest in a particn'ar production. Then certain people pirate that work product, and lit at a reduced cost. They have gotten the benefit of that capital investment, and the cost of producing that work and they make a big profit. Now, I have difficuty. I see you charging the individual viewer, and I see the networks using advertisers, and I see you both dissemi nating creative works, which is in the public interest. But to me it is not logical for them to have to pay for copyright, and you do not. Mr. WIGGINS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes,

Mr. WIGGINS. Would it make any difference if your reception of the signal were taped by you and rebroadcast at your convenien e Mr. COOPFR. Would it make a difference philosophically!

Mr. WIGGINS. In terms of your viability for copyright payments. Mr. COOPFR. I would expect it would, yes, sir.

Mr. WIGGINS. What is the difference, other than time!

Mr. COOPER. I think there is a very significant difference, the time of showing, the fact that it is not a simultaneous release.

You see, the cable company-and this is an argument that goes back to 1954, that the cable companies, participate in the programing and scheduling of the releases that they show upon their system. Well, the factual matter is, we do not. The disseminator, the television brosi cast station showing the movie that you refer to, he picks everyth" g that goes in it, the contents. We have absolutely no choice over it. His expenses absolutely stop the minute that signal is broadcast, whereas ours only begin at that point. He gets a free ride through the feders") regulated airways of which there is only a limited quantity avai'al e and we must therefore share those airways, so it's not creating a problem.

Mr. RAILSBACK. That free ride is very, very tightly regulated. Mr. COOPER. That is correct. And I assure you, sir, on the other end, we are even more tightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission for our "free ride" to our actual cable.

See, a broadcaster, take a total capital plant investment of--to pick a round number- $1 million for a million homes, $1 per home. You can't even begin to touch service to a real or potential cable television home for less than $100, or $150 per home invested, going in, to start with. That is because we have a very high expense of delivering the Signal from our head in, if you will, or tower, to the individual home. We don't have free rides on the waves, we don't have free easements, we must pay a local franchise fee tax. The rights of way where we string our cabies are the same to us as the broadcaster's either through which he transmits from his transmitting tower on top of the Sears Building, except that we have to pay money, we have to pay a substantial amount of money and have a very high risk involved in maintaining our transmission medium; he has none. His stops the minute his signals goes into the public airways.

Mr. KASTEN METER. I have just one last question to follow up on several questions that have been asked. Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Cooper, that you feel that CATV should not have to pay a copyragat fee unless there might be certain other conditions, for example, if he originates; if he tipes and retransnats; if he sells advertising, if he does a series of other things than sinple retransmission, extem por cous, then, are you conceding that you might have to pay a copyright!

Mr. COOPER. I think on a point by point basis, what we are really talking about in terms of conceding that copyright could and should I padas specifically on the pay television aspect of our industry where a movie specifically is bought and then shown on the cable.

Mr. DANIELSON. If I may interrupt. You mentioned pay television. If you or grate, if you just simply put Bambi on the cable, whether you charge individualy for it, or not, do you see any reason why you should not pay copyright, if you or ghate?

Mr. CooPER. If I have procured Bambi, or the rights to show it on the op n market

MY DANIELSON. If you org ́nate, put it on your cable

Mr. Cooper. Should I pay copyright for showing Bambi!

Mr. DANDISON. It isn't a matter of whether you change your sib wriders, but if you put it on your cable, you should pay.

Mr. Coop Many systems have a 24 hour movie elannel. That is pot somethir g von pay extra for, that what part of the service

Mr. KASENMETi Getting ha k to my quest of, what I am trying to estacash is that if cale systems involve the orives in certain activi

Which some of your members meist then to frat extent they

II, p“ t Mac goT cde, ote " otivt''t Nuit :st t n flt ha cotivr rit at Eat no copyr„ tif, or unless a cable

Mr. Coorin. No copyright payment for » għal transmission, is, I be deve what we are saving. I don't lie the word "retrat stii ssion,” but everybody usesit

minute, the instant that signal radiates from the transmitting tower; will you accept that?

In other words, as soon as they release it it's gone and they have no more expense involved in the delivery of that signal.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes; they don't deliver it by cable, they deliver it by other means.

Mr. COOPER. That's correct.

Mr. RAILSBACK. That is a different system.

Mr. COOPER. Well, not necessarily. On the other hand, our expense only begins where their expense stops.

Mr. RAILSBACK. But they don't charge viewers, do they?

Mr. COOPER. We did a very interesting study on that a few months ago in which we pointed out that based upon the gross receipts of all television stations of all markets in the country we can very quickly determine a cost per household per year; a cost based upon increased costs for all goods and services that were for sale in the marketpise, which included a percentage for advertising cost, half of one pervent for Coca-Cola, for example.

If you do this, you very quickly determine that there is some place between $21 and $50 a year per home, is the average cost, nationwide. that we all pay, we all share it, for the broadcasting service that exists.

Mr. RAILSBACK. You know, what really bothers me and this may not be analogous, but we have sat through record piracy hear where we have received testimony from record companies to the effect that they have to pay rather substantial costs to invest in a partien'ar production. Then certain people pirate that work product, and well it at a reduced cost. They have gotten the benefit of that capital investment, and the cost of producing that work and they make a big profit. Now, I have difficuty. I see you charging the individual viewer. and I see the networks using advertisers, and I see you both dissem nating creative works, which is in the public interest. But to me it is not logical for them to have to pay for copyright, and you do not. Mr. WIGGINS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes,

Mr. WIGGINS. Would it make any difference if your reception of the signal were taped by you and rebroadcast at your convenere Mr. COOPER. Would it make a difference philosophically!

Mr. WIGGINS. In terms of your viability for copyright payments. Mr. COOPFR. I would expect it would, yes, sir.

Mr. WIGGINS. What is the difference, other than time!

Mr. COOPER. I think there is a very significant difference, the time of showing, the fact that it is not a simultaneous release.

You see, the cable company--and this is an argument that goes back to 1954, that the cable companies participate in the programing and scheduling of the releases that they show upon their system. Well, the factual matter is, we do not. The disseminator, the television brosi cast station showing the movie that you refer to, he picks everything that goes in it, the contents, We have absolutely no choice over it. His expenses absolutely stop the minute that signal is broadcast, whereas ours only begin at that point. He gets a free ride through the feders”y regulated airways of which there is only a limited quantity ava 'ale, and we must therefore share those airways, so it's not creating a problem.

Mr. RAILSBACK. That free ride is very, very tightly regulated. Mr. COOPER. That is correct. And I assure you, sir, on the other end, we are even more tightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission for our "free ride" to our actual cable.

See, a broadcaster, take a total capital plant investment of--to pick a round number- $1 million for a million homes, $1 per home. You can't even begin to touch service to a real or potential cable television home for less than $100, or $150 per home invested, going in, to start with. That is because we have a very high expense of delivering the signal from our head-in, if you will, or tower, to the individual home. We don't have free rides on the waves, we don't have free easements, we must pay a local franchise fee tax. The rights of way where we string our cables are the same to us as the broadcaster's either through which he transmits from his transmitting tower on top of the Sears Building, except that we have to pay money, we have to pay a substantial amount of money and have a very high risk involved in maintaining our transmission medium; he has none. His stops the minute his signals goes into the public airways.

Mr. KASTEN METER. I have just one last question to follow up on several questions that have been asked. Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Cooper, that you feel that CATV should not have to pay a copyright fee unless there might be certain other conditions, for example, if he orig nates; if he tapes and retransmats; if he sells advertising, if he does a series of other things than simple retransmission, extempor cous, then, are you conceding that you might have to pay a copyright!

Mr. COOPER. I think on a point by point basis, what we are really taktg about in terms of conceding that copyr ght could and should be pads specifically on the pay television aspect of our industry where a movie specifically is bought and then shown on the cable,

Mr. DANIASON. If I may interrupt. You mentioned pay television. If you or genate, if you pust smply pat Bambi on the cable, whether yed arge individually for it, or not, do you see any reason why you should not pay copyright, if you originate f

Mr. Coop. If I have procured Bindi, or the rights to show it on the open market

MY DANIELSON, If you org.ate, pit it on your calde

Mr. CooPER. Should I pay copyright for showing bambi?

Mr. DANDELION Yes.

Mr. Cooper Absolutely,ser.

Mr. DANIELSON. It isn't a matter of whether you charge your b servers, bat if you put it on your cable, you should pay.

Mr. Coop. Many systems have a 24 ho it movie channel. That is not something you pay extry for, that suit part of the wryIce

Mr. KASTEN MEDR Getting haak to my qaton, what I am trying to estal lasta as that if calue wystems involve thet owives in certach met vas

which some of your members maist then to that extent they 11′′t you concede, owe y copyright. So, it isn't a flat no cop và ght at slotation bat no copyr„ tif, or under a car lesy femalevolves !!

Mr. Coorin No copyright payment for signal transmission, 19, I believe what we are saving. I don't like the word "refrat stijjssion,” beit everybody usesit