Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. Richard W. Cook
March 28, 1990
Page 3

Thank you for your interest in, and your prompt attention to, this matter.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Thank you very much for your letter of March 27,
1990 regarding the subject of the viewing of video
cassettes in nursing homes and other similar institutions.
I am pleased to see that you, as well as several other
movie companies that have sent similar letters, are in
basic agreement with the objectives of the legislation
(S.1557, H.R.3158) which I have introduced. However, I
understand that you would prefer a non-legislative
solution.

I am perfectly content with a non-legislative
solution so long as such solution accomplishes the
objectives of the legislation. It is my conviction that
these objectives can be achieved, if not by legislation,
then through a uniform, binding, transaction-free
licensing solution. of the five letters received to date,
not one of them achieves this result yet each of them, in
varying degrees, contain the elements of the solution.

One of the main elements of the solution is that it be binding. The key suggestion is found in the Buena Vista letter that offers licenses on an individual basis in return for a charitable contribution made in the licensor's name. It would only require a slight modification of your letter to offer a blanket license to the covered class. After this, the other elements of the solution follow even more easily. The Time-Warner letter suggests a royalty-free license of a 25-year duration. That seems fair since my legislation was focused on specific technology that may not be in use 25 years from

now.

Mr. Jack Petrik
March 28, 1990
Page 2

Therefore, I suggest that your letter be modified as follows: "Effective upon receipt of a contribution of ten dollars made in our name to (insert the charity of your choice) made by a nursing home or any duly authorized representative of a nursing home, we hereby grant royaltyfree licenses for a term of 25 years to each member of the covered class" on the terms and conditions expressed in S.1557 and H.R. 3158, identical bills introduced in the 101st Congress.

I am fully cognizant of the discussions that have taken place among various health care and motion picture industry interests. I applaud this attempt to reach a private solution. I understand that the tentative agreement reached would differ from the legislation in its definition of the covered class. I have no objection to such a change in coverage if it is acceptable to the motion picture industry. However, I implore you and others in the industry to consult with each other and make but one choice in defining the covered class so that the essential element of uniformity may be achieved.

If your letter were modified as suggested, it would achieve the basic objectives of the legislation. Licenses would be granted by virtue of the letter itself thereby giving the nursing homes an undisputed right to perform videos in common areas conditioned on certain terms for a period of 25 years. From a legal standpoint, this is critically different from a policy announcement not to seek licenses. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, by granting licenses in one letter, the need for a quarter of a million individual licensing transactions is obviated. By selecting the definition of the covered class that is either in the bill or in the tentative agreement, uniformity is achieved. Finally, by making the grant of the blanket license contingent on some legally effective consideration, your original offer becomes even more generous since it would be binding.

I hope these suggestions are helpful to you in achieving your desired non-legislative solution. In view of the hearing on this subject scheduled for April 5, 1990, the time frame for negotiations is limited. Therefore, I would appreciate a response by the close of business on Friday, March 30, 1990. My fax number is (202)224-2805 if you should like to respond in that

Mr. Jack Petrik
March 28, 1990
Page 3

Thank you for your interest in, and your prompt attention to, this matter.

Sincerely,

Bura

Wie v. Roth,
U. S. Senate

KVR/fp

[blocks in formation]

Thank you very much for your letter of March 28,
1990 regarding the subject of the viewing of video
cassettes in nursing homes and other similar institutions.
I am pleased to see that you, as well as several other
movie companies that have sent similar letters, are in
basic agreement with the objectives of the legislation
(5.1557, H.R.3158) which I have introduced. However, I
understand that you would prefer a non-legislative
solution.

I am perfectly content with a non-legislative
solution so long as such solution accomplishes the
objectives of the legislation. It is my conviction that
these objectives can be achieved, if not by legislation,
then through a uniform, binding, transaction-free
licensing solution. of the five letters received to date,
not one of them achieves this result yet each of them, in
varying degrees, contain the elements of the solution.

One of the main elements of the solution is that it be binding. The key suggestion is found in the Buena Vista letter that offers licenses on an individual basis in return for a charitable contribution made in the licensor's name. It would only require a slight modification of your letter to offer a blanket license to the covered class. After this, the other elements of the solution follow even more easily. The Time-Warner letter suggests a royalty-free license of a 25-year duration. That seems fair since my legislation was focused on specific technology that may not be in use 25 years from

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »