Lapas attēli

Film producers and distributors are not distinguishing between profit and not-for-profit homes, or public facilities versus private facilities so long as they meet the criteria described above.

Many Members of Congress have commended us for this position. Congress and this subcommittee have frequently asked the private sector to attempt to work out problems on its own and we were happy to do so in this case in light of the concerns raised by the bull's sponsors. I should note that several film companies took similar action several years ago for children receiving medical treatment in special hospital units. Others grant public performance licenses to institutions like Ronald McDonald Houses and AIDS hospices for a nominal $1.00 fee.

Some have asked why Warner does not throw its support behind the legislation and make our firm policy a part of the law.

Mr. Chairman, the public performance right is a simple but vital aspect of the copyright law. It says that a creator who has invested his time and vision to produce a copyrighted work of art is entitled to control the public's access to that work. The incentives at the heart of our copyright system permit a filmmaker or other artist to charge a license fee every time his work is shown to the general public. It was Congress' clear intention to broadly define public performance so that it would include exhibition in a theatre, on TV, on an airplane, and in every other public setting in which a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances gather.

I cannot exaggerate the extent to which copyright owners rely on this right. Any erosion of this right is of overriding concern to copyright


Let me add my concern that any modification of the long recognized bundle of rights that has been incorporated into the U.S. Copyright law will send the wrong signal overseas where high standards of copyright protection are essential to the success of America's Copyright community. We are particularly fearful that nations less sensitive to the rights of creators will use this legislation as

a wedge to undermine the public performance right. If the U.S. Congress were to cut back on the scope of public performance, there is no way of knowing where other countries would cut back.

Public performance rights are an integral part of a legal structure that has been painstakingly crafted to encourage creativity so that the public would enjoy the fruits of those creative endeavors. That aspect of our copyright law was formed after great deliberation and it should not be altered unless there is a compelling public need, which cannot be resolved in any other manner. It is our sincere hope that you will concur that here the perceived need has been satisfied by our voluntary marketplace action.


Because film producers and distributors have decided not to request a public performance license from nursing homes, the problems that prompted this legislation no longer exist. No nursing home is being threatened with any legal action. This being the case, there is no need

We believe Congress should postpone any further consideration of the pending legislation and see if the private sector proposals are successful. I know that the major film producers and distributors are committed to making their proposals work.

1111!1st Strece. NW
Suite 100
Hoshington DC 20036
0!: XXS


March 7, 1990

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
U.S. House of Representatives
507 Cannon House office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear congressman Cardin:

I am writing on behalf of Warner Bros. Inc., a subsidiary
of Time Warner Inc. and a producer and, through subsidiary
companies, a distributor of motion pictures.
The business of Warner Bros. Inc., as well as the
businesses and livelihoods of many companies and
individuals involved in the production and distribution of
motion pictures rests on the protections provided by our
Copyright law. The crucial importance of copyright
protection is what leads to Warner Bros.' concerns about
S.1557 and H.R. 3158 dealing with the showing of motion
pictures via video cassettes in nursing hones. Our current
Copyright law is the result of many years of effort by the
Congress and the private sector and stands today as a
carefully crafted law reflecting the needs of many and
diverse interests. While we do not believe it is wise or
necessary to amend the copyright law as provided in 5.1557
or H.R.3158, we are prepared to join you in attempting to
meet the goal to which the legislative proposals are

we are prepared to join you in attempting to genuinely satisfy this goal without injuring the integrity of our copyrights or setting a precedent that could have serious adverse consequences for copyright law around the world.

warner Bros. hereby advises that for a period of 25 years it will not, as to any nursing home which provides long term or permanent residence, assert that the exhibition therein of motion pictures on video cassettes requires å license from Warner Bros. Inc. provided that the nursing home does not levy a direct charge for viewing the video and does not "further transmit" the performance to the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »