As to whether or not the concept of compulsory license has changed from its original intent, it's difficult to answer. If all the parties involved agree to the elimination of the compulsory license, Congress would have to pass a law changing those sections in the Copyright Act. If it is finally approved by the President all the copyright properties will be available in the free market and the short existence of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal would have an end.

VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER RAY
ON 3.75% CABLE RATE

I participated in the 1982 Cable Rate Adjustment Proceeding and voted in support of the 3.75 percent rate. My determination was based entirely on the record evidence presented in the proceeding. The final opinion of the proceeding details our justification for the determination.

The Subcommittee has on file a copy of the opinion (47 FR 52146-59) therefore, I will not burden the record with an itemized recital of those justifications which were also included in my testimony before you in 1983.

The Tribunal has not conducted a specific hearing or special study on the effects of the 3.75 percent rate. I also have no knowledge of any impartial scientific study on the effect the rate has had on cable operators, availability of programming to the general public, or its impact on the copyright owners. Obviously, I have reviewed many biased reports in the trade press often with conflicting analyses contending that the rate has severely (negatively or postively) impacted the general public, copyright users or copyright owners.

The 3.75 rate will possibly be reviewed by the Tribunal this year therefore, with my responsibility of impartiality in mind, I would like to decline any expression of predisposition that would be based on "hearsay" evidence prior to the conduct of that proceeding.

VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER AGUERO

ON 3.75% CABLE RATE

I did not participate in the 1982 cable rate adjustment proceeding. I was appointed to my position as a Commissioner to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal in May 1984.

Since my appointment, the Tribunal has not undertaken an independent study concerning the pros and cons of the 3.75 percent rate. However, we have been petitioned to review the rate for cable carriage of WTBS, Atlanta, Georgia, and may be

petitioned for a general review of the rate later this year. I feel to make any statement now would be unfair to all parties involved, and would be only tentative, at best.

My opinion of the 3.75 rate will be based on the evidence presented at future proceedings.

Mr. SYNAR. And when is the next scheduled meeting?

Ms. HALL. It has not been scheduled; however, it probably will occur next week.

Mr. SYNAR. And what will the agenda items be on that meeting? Ms. HALL. We have to resolve issues with regard to the recent filing of Mr. Turner and a motion to clarify files by MPAA. We will probably at that point in time discuss some of the concerns with proceeding in our ratemaking. We have recently received, I believe today or yesterday, a motion by MPAA dealing with the 1983 cable distribution, which is again a procedural matter which we will address.

We are in the process now of doing the 1983 cable distribution, and we will be discussing the next calendar items. We have just issued two orders which are dealing with procedural matters on 1983 cable distribution, and we will have to get approval of the Commissioners on that.

We have oral argument on May 6, on our Court of Appeals cases, and we will be discussing the results. We will be discussing that oral argument and how we think we fared. We have some issues to resolve in our jukebox distribution which we will address in that meeting.

Congressman Synar, in your second question to us, second submission, you asked the Commissioners to offer their opinion on the 3.75. We have received a petition on that matter, and I think that making our opinions public on the 3.75 is probably ill-advised in that we are going to begin a proceeding on it. By making our opinions public at this point in time, it may influence whether or not other petitioners care to petition, and it will clearly indicate a predisposition on a matter when we have not yet heard evidence on the matter.

Mr. SYNAR. Well, what do you

Ms. HALL. So, I think that will be a difficult thing.

Mr. SYNAR. The question I have is what do you think about the existing 3.75?

Ms. HALL. I don't know how we could answer that, Mr. Synar, without

Mr. SYNAR. Well, do you think it is fair?

Ms. HALL [continuing]. Showing a predisposition with a hearing imminent.

Mr. SYNAR. Do you think it is fair? Do you think it is enough? I mean obviously you can report on what you think about it.

Ms. HALL. I obviously can report on what I think about it, Mr. Synar, but that would show prejudice. I haven't heard the testimony yet on it. We will be hearing testimony on that. Evidencing my opinion now will definitely affect that testimony, so I have a problem with it.

Mr. SYNAR. What do you think about the existing law as it is today? The 3.75 for distant signals, do you think that is fair?

Ms. HALL. I think it is far too intricate a problem to discuss right now, here and now; and furthermore, I think it would gravely show my hand at this point in time when we do have a hearing imminent.

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would ask unanimous consent that the record be held open for all those questions as well as those attendance records, et cetera.

Ms. HALL. Attendance records are not kept, Mr. Synar.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, maybe I should ask why aren't attendance records kept?

Ms. HALL. They are not kept, madam.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Why? I mean what is the reason?

Ms. HALL. The Commissioners are not subject to the annual leave or sick leave act, whatever. I am not-I am new to Government, forgive me.

I do not keep records. Attendance records are kept for the staff but not for the Commissioners.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Are attendance records kept, though, for the Commissioners at the different Commission meetings, surely? Ms. HALL. Oh, absolutely.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. OK, so we could at least get those I assume.

I don't have a lot to add, except that again I was very, very distressed by the morning paper. And I really don't understand quite what I think I heard you say. I think I heard you say that Dr. Hafstad was very scientific and you are trying to put the book into language that people would understand?

Ms. HALL. I said that Dr. Hafstad is a scientist. And Dr. Hafstad is a scientist, and that is all I meant by that. Now, whether that work is scientific or not, I am not qualified to judge. My personal opinion is my personal opinion. But Dr. Hafstad is a scientist. He is a physicist.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Did that mean that when you saw the book it had lots of technical terms and you put it into things that you thought people could interpet? Is that, I think that is

Ms. HALL. No; it is more like when I first saw the book it was many miscellaneous sheets of paper. Oftentimes very technical people tend to write and skip sentences, leave gaps in reasoning, and the like. It is the same kind of work I did on High Frontier, connecting sentences and use of conjunctions, and things of that nature.

Editing is a very ministerial task. You don't need to understand what you are doing, and you don't need to understand what you are reading. Editing is a very ministerial task if you do it as such. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Let us take a quote. I mean this doesn't sound like it was written by a scientist. It says:

Within a decade after the Equal Rights Voting Act visitors to Washington noted that black females suddenly became extremely active. They were attractive, welldressed, spoke good English, walked with vigor, and moved ahead in the traditionally female jobs. However, black males had not changed notably.

Ms. HALL. I did not say that Dr. Hafstad's work was or wasn't scientific. I said that Dr. Hafstad is a scientist. Dr. Hafstad is a scientist. Those are his views. Those are not my views. What Dr. Hafstad said, what he believes is in a book. What more can I say on that?

I realize that some of those views are offensive. I wish that I could respond to them for you, but they are not my ews.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I guess my next question has to be were you that hungry? I mean I would think a young woman with your background, I guess that is what I am saying. A young woman with your background, which is, you know, a very distinguished background. I hope this country has more opportunities for young women than that. And I guess that, I mean that is all I have to say. I just find reading the book very, very distressing. And just saying, well, I did it because it was my job-maybe you had to do it because it was your job, but I thought it was still a free country and we could pick and choose jobs. And this was a job I think a lot of us wish had not been done.

Ms. HALL. I understand your feeling.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. This does not represent America as we like to think of it?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You are assuring us now, Ms. Hall, that this is something that is not your views, this book that we are obviously focusing on. Do you think that this book, if it were your views, if this was a statement of your views, do you think that would raise questions of the appropriateness of your service in the position that you now hold? Do you think somebody with those views ought to occupy that position?

Ms. HALL. Somebody with those views does not occupy that position.

Mr. MORRISON. Well, I would like to know whether you think— this goes to the question of whether it is appropriate at all for us to be asking about all of this. Maybe this is not relevant.

Is it relevant? If these were your views, should you continue―― Ms. HALL. I think that what is relevant is my ability as a lawyer, my ability as a copyright lawyer, my ability as a manager-not those views. We have a lot of problems at the Copyright Royalty Tribunal which I am trying very hard, with the aid of my cocommissioners, to correct. I am up to my ears in reform of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.

You are asking for an expert opinion on a piece of material on which many years ago I performed a ministerial task.

Mr. MORRISON. I am not asking for an expert opinion. I am asking you whether you think that if these are your views you should be in that position. I think that could be answered yes or

no.

Ms. HALL. OK.

Mr. MORRISON. Can I have an answer?

Ms. HALL. Yes. No. A person who has those views should not be an expert, should not be serving in a job here an expertise in copyright is necessary.

Mr. MORRISON. So somebody shouldn't be in that job. So it is important for us to find out whether these really are your views.

Ms. HALL. No, it is important to find out whether I am qualified to serve as the Commissioner on the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. Whether my legal qualifications and my—

Mr. MORRISON. OK.

Ms. HALL. But I-in my mind that is an issue that's unfair.