truth in that statement. Most actors do exist on a poverty level. Only 1 percent of our membership earn over $100,000 and 80 percent earn less than $3,500 a year. Therefore, the Screen Actors Guild fervently supports the performer right to copyright protection and a fair wage.

Having no copyright protection, our only course of action is to attempt to negotiate an adequate contract with the producers. But the negotiation of those wages is dependent on the entire financial structure of the communication industry. Currently that financial structure is being determined, not in the marketplace, but right here in Washington. Through legislation and regulations, you are determining our negotiable wage. It is our contention that networks, independent broadcaster, cable and satellite systems can all coexist profitably. But the value of these various systems should ultimately be determined through fair competition in the marketplace. Any regulations or legislation should encourage and protect new technology only in the early stages of development, but never at the expense of existing systems. If the Government believes that cable and satellite systems need extensive protection, then the Government should subsidize them. Actors cannot afford to subsidize them.

We would hope that any legislation would be flexible enough to gradually ease the new technological systems into fair competition in the marketplace. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, this is impossible. The Copyright Royalty Tribunal does not have adequate authority or flexibility to accomplish this.

One, the tribunal cannot adjust the statutory rates upward according to cable's ability to pay.

Two, the tribunal cannot adjust the statutory rates on signals currently allowed, even if the FCC removes the distant-signal regu

lations.

Three, the tribunal cannot adequately compensate for the $400 million loss created if the FCC removes the syndicated exclusivity regulations.

Four, the tribunal even seems to be having trouble determining how to distribute the miniscule fees paid by cable for all of their programing through the compulsory license fees.

Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976 takes on a different perspective with the tremendous growth of cable and satellite systems. It must, therefore, be reconsidered.

No one is denying that this new technology is excellent for the distribution of programs. But cable and satellites do not create programs. They cannot, promise diversity and quality in programing. They can merely provide additional channels to carry the programs. According to the Parke report requested by the FCC, cable TV has only a minor impact on broadcasters.

When this report has been successfully challenged to the extent that the FCC has requested that the Rand Corp. reevaluate the impact studies. All it really takes is commonsense to realize that with the growth of cable at some point if not now, cable TV will encroach on the broadcaster's audience, and therefore reduce the revenues available for new productions. The main concern, then, is now to coordinate the programers and the distributors, so as to allow the continued or increased flow of television programing to

the public. Without legislative changes, the public loses in many

ways.

First of all, the networks will become even stronger than they are now, because they will have the financing to do the programing much longer than the independent producer, so rather than creating more competition, there will be less, because we will eliminate the independent producer.

Second, instead of diversity, the public will have multiple channels showing the reruns of the reruns.

Third, television will be available to only those who can afford cable, and we will no longer have free television as we have it today.

Fourth, eventually the quality and the quantity of programing will evaporate because it is unprofitable.

There are also certain blatant inconsistencies within the law that need to be addressed. Copyright laws exist to protect private property rights, but it is inconceivable that cable has the right legally to take someone else's property without consent or meaningful payment and sell it for profit. In any other situation it would be called stealing.

Regarding the unwilling superstation, how can a satellite system like ASN take the signal of KTTV Los Angeles and retransmit it without permission or payment while at the same time KTTV is required to get permission to boost its own signal?

To quote from Shakespeare's King Lear, "Nothing will come from nothing." Speak again. We are asking you to speak again, because nothing can be created or produced from nothing.

There is a cost and a fair payment, and ultimately the marketplace should determine that payment, but in the meantime it is essential to reevaluate the Copyright Act of 1976. Since that law was adopted there has been tremendous growth and changes in communication technology. There are also certain inequities that certainly need to be addressed, and the Copyright Royalty Tribunal does not have the authority or the flexibility to accomplish them. We must mandate syndicated exclusivity into the law and not leave it within the hands of 7 people to determine our fate. We must have consideration of retransmission consent at least in regard to unwilling superstations. We must readdress the law. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Ms. Peters. Mr. Wolff.

TESTIMONY OF SANFORD WOLFF

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have filed a written statement with you, and inasmuch as I fully support that which Ms. Peters has said and what Mr. Golodner has said in announcing to you the position of the AFL-CIO I will get the title today for brevity.

I think that I have been identified as the chief executive of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. The union represents in the United States and all over the United States in excess of 40,000 persons, men and women, who are professionals in the radio, television, recording, phonograph recording, sound recording business.

I just want to make two statements, and then I would ask you, hopefully that you get time to read the statements we filed.

We confess to an enlightened self-interest in the subject matter. It is my and our firm belief that we are here to espouse safeguarding the free enterprise system, and guarding it against what we consider to be presently lawful piracy, but stark immorality. We stand in danger, threatened by available technology, of losing all that we have gained in the past 40 years by peaceful and, we hope, intelligent collective bargaining. The action, the activity required of the Congress, as outlined by Ms. Peters and Mr. Golodner we support, and that is all I would like to say, and again commend you to our written statement. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolff, for that very brief statement. Your statement and the attachment will be received and made part of the record.

[The information follows:]

STATEMENT OF SANFORD I. WOLFF, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS (AFL-CIO)

My name is Sanford I. Wolff. I am the Chief Executive of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), AFL-CIO. AFTRA is the collective bargaining representative for over 40,000 actors, dancers, newspersons, announcers, disc jockeys, and other professionals who inform and entertain the public from coast-to-coast on television, radio, sound recordings, slides, films, and cable.

I appear before you this morning to discuss the vexatious problem of retransmission of television broadcast signals by cable television systems. This problem arises from the interplay of the following:

Rapid changes in communications technology. Specifically the transition from land based microwave links to communications satellites as the means of feeding distant television broadcast signals to cable television systems.

A shift in prevailing regulatory philosophy at the Federal Communications Commission from reliance on classic government regulation to reliance on market forces. Currently, the Commission has proceedings underway which could eliminate distant signal and syndicated program exclusivity restraints now applicable to cable television systems.

Section 111 of Title 17 (copyrights) of the U.S. Code providing a compulsory license for cable television systems enabling them to carry television broadcast signals upon payment of royalty fees based on gross receipts from subscribers. This provision was enacted in 1976 when the state of the art for delivering distant television broadcast signals to cable systems was based on land based microwave links which imposed effective limits on the reach of cable television systems.

Presently, the term "television superstation" is finding its way into our vocabulary. This is a television station whose signal is picked up off-the-air (often contrary to the station's wishes) and beamed to a communications satellite which in turn transmits it to cable television systems in various parts of the United States. WTBS-TV (Atlanta, Channel 17) was the first such superstation and remains the best known. However, the following television stations are or are about to become superstations also, some, as I have indicated against their wishes: WCVB-TV (Boston), WSBK-TV (Boston), WGN-TV (Chicago), KTTV (Los Angeles), WOR-TV (New York), WCBS-TV (New York), WPIX (New York), and KTVU (Oakland). As a result of the interplay of the factors which I listed before, cable television systems are receiving copyrighted television programming having an estimated worth of between $1 and $2 billion dollars in return for compulsory license fees of about $13 million, about 1 percent of the value of the programming.

Mr. Chairman, this has to affect television broadcasters and the broadcasting industry. And let me acknowledge the symbiotic relationship that exists in some areas between members of AFTRA and that industry. When that industry is unfairly dealt with to its economic detriment, as in this case, our members are affected also, and we join the broadcasting industry and others who are seeking redress of this injustice.

But our members are also directly affected. Let me present you with two specific examples:

If an AFTRA member makes a commercial in Atlanta, Georgia, for 13 weeks use in that market, he or she is paid $163.65. Let me emphasize that this is for use in the Atlanta market only. However, if that commercial is shown on WTBS-TV (Atlanta, Channel 17), a television superstation, a matter over which the performer has no control, it is beamed by satellite to cable television systems in 46 states, including Alaska and Hawaii (see exhibit attached; in 1978 WTBS-TV was WTCGTV). The "national" rate for such a performance is about $1,000 for the same 13 week period. Thus, our performer loses over $800: money which most actors and artists can ill-afford to lose.

Network Newscasters receive approximately three times the salary of a newscaster in the Atlanta market. Yet, thanks to satellite dissemination, the Atlanta newscaster is carried to as many places as his/her colleagues who work for the television networks.

That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. And I think that everyone who has studied the matter agrees that it is a serious problem with far-reaching consequences. In the time remaining to me this morning rather than voicing abstract principles on which a solution should be based, I would like to present the following specific legislative proposal for your consideration:

First, make no change in existing signal carriage arrangements of cable television systems as of a selected date. But broaden the authority of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to adjust compulsory license fees to more equitably reflect the value of the programming covered by the compulsory license.

Second, provide that there would be complete copyright liability for distant signals added to a cable system after the date determined for purposes of the preceding paragraph or carried by a cable system established after that date.

To permit you to legislate in a deliberate manner, the regulatory status quo should be maintained with regard to the FCC's rules on syndicated program exclusivity and carriage of distant signals. This could probably be achieved by a letter or resolution from this Subcommittee or the House Judiciary Committee directed to the FCC stating your intention to legislate on this matter and requesting the Commission's forbearance until you had a reasonable opportunity to do so.