terested in doing it. And they did their thing and that took some time. At the same time, we were advertising in accordance with our own rules and regulations in appropriate newspapers, and I am not sure which ones, but there were a list of papers where we were advertising. And then there is a process of going through the list and determining those who are qualified. This is in accordance with the Librarian's regulations and systems. That having been done, then there is a panel of senior managers-I was not one of them-who looked at these people who were determined to be qualified, and from that, weeded it down to a best qualified list. And that is the group the Librarian now has, and he is setting up interviews and appointments. I share your concern, sir. I think it is intolerable and it is too long. Mr. KASTENMEIER. If you will permit an aside, I hope they are not using the same computer the White House is. [Laughter.] Mr. CURRAN. We are in the legislative branch, sir. I don't think we do that. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Maybe at this point I should yield to my colleague, Mr. Boucher, for any questions he may have. Obviously, we are going to be running off here in a moment or two. Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really just have one question. We have heard some testimony today from the Chairman of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, during the course of which she has suggested that additional staff be provided for that agency. It is my understanding that the agency relies today on the Copyright Office for its technical and research support. Do you believe that that relationship should continue in that manner, or do you think that the Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be given that staff on its own? Mr. CURRAN. I think it is a fair question, and I think it is one that I don't believe I can accurately summarize or characterize very briefly here. The background of the 1976 act is one that I, personally, am not familiar with. I am going to ask Dorothy Scrader, our counsel, who is much more knowledgeable about this than I, to add her comments. But we run the Licensing Division as provided by the law; and, frankly, I think that works rather well. As far as I know, it works rather well, and my experience might be not shared by others. But the process of-there are 25 people who are doing this: The process of carrying out the law, of collecting the money, issuing the licenses, doing all the things-investing the money-works as far as I know as smoothly as that sort of thing can work. And the Library supports it rather heavily; that is, the division itself, with the resources of the Copyright Office, which are not charged back I should add, the space which is not charged back, an assortment of things that we do to see that they get their job done. And as far as I know, they do precisely that: They get their job done. Now, the kinds of things that the Tribunal wants some assistance in doing are decisions that the Congress is going to have to decide. I mean, what do you want the Tribunal to be? Do you want it to be a judiciary kind of thing, a tribunal that makes certain decisions among competing parties? Do you want it to have a differ ent kind of responsibility and a different kind of role? This is where I think you have to go back to the act of 1976 and start over, and say, well, and if you want them to do certain kinds of things, then I guess you are going to have to give them the staff to do that. Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you. We do need to depart now. Thank you very much for the answer. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Certainly. Otherwise, we miss the vote. Mr. BOUCHER. It would be helpful, perhaps, if you could make some written response. I wouldn't want to put you to a lot of trouble. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would make the same request. I have a couple of questions as well, but I think we should adjourn in view of the hour, and the fact we have to go vote again. So we will put our further questions to you in writing. And we thank you very much for your appearance today. Mr. CURRAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. KASTENMEIER. This terminates our hearing today. [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] On behalf of the National Cable Television Association, I am pleased to transmit our statement concerning administration of the Copyright Act of 1976. NCTA respectfully requests that this statement be made part of the record of the Subcommittee's oversight of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and the Copyright Office in the administration of this Act. JPM/cfg Sincerely James P. Mooney STATEMENT OF THE NATION AL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING OVERSIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 May 1, 1985 The National Cable Television Association appreciates this opportunity to provide the subcommittee with its views on the adminstration of cablerelated copyright law. NCTA is the principal trade association of the cable television industry. Its members include over 2,000 cable television systems operating throughout the United States, serving approximately 28.5 million homes. Cable television exercises one of the four compulsory licenses granted by Congress in its 1976 overhaul of the federal copyright laws. Cable thus has extensive experience with the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. Last year, cable operators paid 87 million dollars for the use of their compulsory license in the retransmission of programming from distant communities. NCTA anticipates that payments for 1985 will exceed 100 million dollars.1/ Ultimately, of course, it is cable consumers who bear the cost of these copyright fees. 1/ Neither of these figures reflects the separate copyright compensation paid by cable operators directly to satellite video programmers, such as Home Box Office or Nickelodeon, whose programming is carried on cable systems through independent contractual arrangements. |