The Superstation Exemption The so-called "Ted Turner superstation exemption" embodied in Sec. 104 (b) of H.R. 5949 is a dramatic departure from the consensus agreement approved by MPAA/NAB/NCTA and concurred in by the House Judiciary Subcommittee when it initially reported this legislation on December 16, 1981. In my The superstation exemption, as I stated to the Kastenmeier Subcommittee in my testimony of December 8, 1981, is a bizarre and unjustified "grandfathering" of Ted Turner's Atlanta station, WTBS, and is totally outside the scope of the compromise agreement. Indeed, this superstation exemption is absolutely contradictory to the basic design and intent of the agreement's syndicated exclusivity provisions. testimony of December 8, 1981, I urged the Kastenmeier Subcommittee not to de facto amend television program contracts; not to grant rights other than those acquired in the competitive marketplace and incorporated in licensing agreements, and not to grant special privileges relating to the retransmission of copyrighted programs by superstations that are different from those affecting the retransmission of the same or similar programs by all other stations. The Eastern Microwave Amendment MPAA is opposed to Sec. 101 (a) of H.R. 5949 which deals with 17 U.S.C. 111 (a)(3) and would overturn the March 1981 Federal district court decision involving Eastern Microwave. That court decision held that the satellite "resale carrier" of the programs broadcast by television station WOR in New York City is not a "passive" provider of transmission facilities which qualifies for the copyright exemption provided in Section 111 (a)(3) of the Copyright Act of 1976. The court found that Eastern Microwave is engaged in the marketing of a program service for which it receives substantial revenues, and is therefore liable to the owners of the copyrighted works that it performs. MPAA believes that it is wholly inappropriate for Congress to exempt totally from liability a profit-making use of copyrighted works. The Eastern Microwave provision was inserted in H.R. 5949 without any hearings on the issue and thus precluded any opportunity for copyright owners to formally present their objections and concerns to the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee. In stating these reservations, I am revealing no secrets about where MPAA stands. CONCLUSION I think Chairman Kastenmeier has done the most that he could do under a leaky political tent. When I appeared before the Kastenmeier Subcommittee on December 8, 1981 on this legislation, I pledged to abide by the decisions made American copyright. Copyright is to the future of programming what Walter Bagehot said of the British cabinet system: hyphen that joins, the buckle that fastens." If networks "The and stations are to have a continuing stream of valuable films and television entertainment programs to broadcast to their viewers, copyright cannot be abused. I would be derelict if I did not, finally, declare my and my Association's unalterable position that a full abolition of the compulsory license is required to have a truly competitive marketplace. The cable industry is now a giant. To keep this industry removed from the competitive bargaining arena for programming is neither fair nor in the public interest. But, given the political thorns that simply could not be extracted at this time, I redeem my pledge to Chairman Kastenmeier and confirm my support for the bill. 98-703 0-82--20 Appendix I The eleven major producers and distributors of theatrical and television programs in the United States comprise the membership of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. These companies are: AVCO Embassy Pictures Corp. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Walt Disney Productions and Buena Vista Filmways Pictures, Inc. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Film Co. Orion Pictures Company Paramount Pictures Corporation Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation United Artists Corporation Universal Pictures, a division of Universal City Studios, Inc. Warner Bros., Inc., AND FINANCE JUNE 3, 1982 As Executive Vice-President of Xerox Corporation in Stamford, Connecticut and as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of WNET Channel Thirteen, public television serving the tri-state region of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, I would like to submit a statement on the growth of cable and the need for enacting the "must carry" provisions in H.R.5949 as passed by the Judiciary Committee earlier this year. First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present a statement to the Subcommittee on the "must carry" provisions of H.R.5949, the Cable Copyright Bill and for your continued support for public broadcasting in the House of Representatives. We certainly appreciate the long hours you have spent at pursuing a viable future for public broadcasting as we make our way through the ever-expanding "information age." As the Members of the Subcommittee well know, cable television is growing by leaps and bounds with each passing day. Reportedly, cable companies are now wiring 250,000 subscribers and adding 2,000 new employees each month. Some 23.7 million households--29 percent of all households with television--now subscribe to one of 1500 cable systems, and predictions abound as to the numbers of Americans who will be "hooked up" to the cable in one form or another by the end of the decade. In the New York metropolitan area, where I reside, 54 separate cable systems have already signed up approximately one million customers in only the suburbs surrounding New York City. With Manhattan added, and the four "unwired boroughs" of the city ready to be plugged in, those numbers are expected to double or triple. |