Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

news programs are not going to be protected in the way an entertainment program is. A lot of people might say, gosh, they ought to have more protection, maybe, because that is the best of television. That is the best thing they do.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. What present arrangement do you prefer to make? That is to say, do you prepare video tape cassettes which you sell, including a licensing for display, to institutions?

Mr. EVANS. Yes; we do. Not of hard news, as you pointed out earlier-more of the news documentaries. The news public affairs programs find a market and we sell those, of course, regularly through commercial channels-not ourselves; we have distributors who handle those for us. We are trying to build that business up. Our news division is trying to break even too. They never do, but as a source of income for them, it is a business opportunity they do not want to see taken away. It is a small market, that is the trouble. You can say, oh, what harm will it do if 15 or 20 or 30 libraries around the country make copies and distribute them as the bill says they may. How is that going to hurt anybody? It is a small market, and you may only have 15 or 20 or 30 sales. That is the trouble, if those are satisfied through this provision.

Now, if this becomes copyright law, we are not going to be able to sell anything.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. It is also true that principally, news shows are produced not for the residual copyright value but for the immediate showing and sponsorship.

Mr. EVANS. That is true.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. There is no distinction in the bill. It just says news, audiovisual news programs, all lumped in together.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Badillo.

Mr. BADILLO. You say the problem is being resolved by private initiative. How is it being resolved in the library in my neighborhood in the Bronx, for example?

Mr. EVANS. CBS is only one network, one of the three. We have an agreement with the National Archives pursuant to which we send

them

Mr. BADILLO. I understand that. Then they would have to buy it in my neighborhood?

Mr. EVANS. Suppose you want to see the Walter Cronkite news for some day last month or last year. You can go to your local library and say, would you please apply to the National Archives under the interlibrary loan agreement, and get me this episode, this program. And in due course-I do not know how fast it happens-but in due course, your library would get that, and you will be able to look at it as much as you want to.

Mr. BADILLO. At no cost to the library?

Mr. EVANS. That is my understanding. That is part of the service the National Archives provides.

Mr. BADILLO. Are any other networks doing this?

Mr. EVANS. No, sir. We hope they will come along. We do not think that our competitors are going to let CBS become the network of record, as it were. We think they will follow along.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison. Mr. PATTISON. I am also interested in, not so much the commercial application of this, but just the fact it gets done by somebody-I do

not care how it is done. But I think that it is a tragedy if you cannot go back to June 6, 1945 and look at the news like you can with the New York Times or any other major newspaper. And I just-it has not been done up until the time Vanderbilt really started it. It is being done now by CBS only, and I would be very interested in your suggestion to where we could somehow insure, not just on a whim of CBS, but we can insure somehow that this is done, because I think it is a very important kind of thing of our national history.

Mr. EVANS. I think Senator Baker's 1973 bill pointed the way. The theory of that was that as a condition to getting copyright, you would deposit a copy or two copies with the Library of Congress, and then it would be there for everybody. CBS would-we supported it at the time. We support it today. We think there should be a national repository of these broadcasts where anybody can go and see them.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Suppose we could limit this in some way by allowing various archives to take the evening news-and by the way, parenthetically, you were talking about documentaries; I do not think that is the intention of anybody to steal a documentary; I think that is a work of art and does have lasting impact. I think we are talking about the evening news, morning news, or whatever. Suppose you could have a provision that said that the archives could gather this information without permission, without copyright violation, but that they could not exploit it commercially without some sort of preclearance or permission. So that it would be there just for, primarily, scholars and people who-which I think is the only thing it is going to be used for anyway. I do not think any of us want to see somebody come into an archives and take pieces of news and put together a program without recognizing that somebody is owed something for that.

Talking about just using it for scholarly research, or unscholarly research, without exploiting it commercially, suppose we could put a provision in there. Would that be acceptable to the networks, or CBS? Mr. EVANS. I do not think we could support that, because no one whose copyright is embodied in a film or a tape likes to be in a situation where there are going to be 20 or 30 or 40 copies of it floating around. The thing slips away from you. Inevitably, you are no longer the owner of anything. That is why we thought it would be much better to have this material at the Library of Congress where everyone could be sure it would not only be available but the owner could be sure it was not going to be misused or mistreated or copied or excerpted or anything like that, at least not without the owner's permission.

I think we would rather see some genuine national repository than a lot of smaller ones, lesser ones around the country.

Mr. PATTISON. But there would have to be specific noncopyright legislation for that purpose?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, there would be.

Mr. PATTISON. It would not be covered by what we are doing here? Mr. EVANS. I do not think so. There would have to be some language, a new bill or an amendment to this bill. I think it is within the power of the Congress to enact such legislation.

Mr. PATTISON. I have no further questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts have any questions?

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does this cover "Face the Nation," "Issues and Answers"?

Mr. EVANS. As I take it, I think it would. Those are considered news programs. They are produced by our news division, and by the news divisions of the other networks.

Mr. DRINAN. Why did you not include them in your agreement with schools, therefore? You get $25 a year from schools to record off-the-air programs, but that does not extend to the CBS half hour on Sunday? Mr. EVANS. That is right, because when we went out into the field to see what school districts wanted, their emphasis was on the hard news broadcasts for the classroom teaching purpose. I do not think there would be any reason why-if somebody said, we would like to include that too, I am sure we would be very happy to have that suggestion made to us; but this is where we started.

Mr. DRINAN. Your language on that $25 is somewhat ambiguous, that you lease things or allow this for as little as $25 a year.

Mr. EVANS. Yes; it goes up to-I am trying to remember what the top figure is. I will have to guess $3,000 a year or something like that. Mr. DRINAN. $3,000 for a school?

Mr. EVANS. That would be for a school district, perhaps, with 250,000 students.

Mr. DRINAN. Whether they take advantage of it or not?

Mr. EVANS. That is right. But the thing here is, the school records off the air. Once they get a license from us, they just turn on their Sony tape recorders and make as many copies as they want. Their only obligation is to wipe the tape, I think after 30 days, because the school people we talked to-said that would be about the useful life of anything like that. We tried to make it cheap for the small school systems, but then larger districts for an entire State came to us, and we have been negotiating with some large units who said we would like to have it for all the students in our State. We do not think-I think it is $2,500 or $3,000, $3,500 a year—we do not think that is an unreasonable fee for making copies for uses in all the classrooms in a State.

Mr. DRINAN. They get the picture, as well as the sound?

Mr. EVANS. Yes; they get the whole thing, and then they do what they want with it, make copies or whatever. Our only requirement is that at the end of a month, they wipe the tape.

[Subsequent to the hearings the following letter was received for the record:]

CBS, INC.

New York, N.Y., July 3, 1975.

Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KASTEN MEIER: At the June 12, 1975 hearing on section 108 of H.R. 2223 I testified on behalf of CBS in opposition to those provisions of section 108, namely subsection (f) (4) and subsection (h), which in our opinion, discriminate unfairly against owners of "audiovisual news programs" by making their rights inferior to the rights of other owners of copyrighted works. I also testified that the problem addressed by these unusual provisions is not one that requires Congressional action because it is being resolved by private initiative.

As part of my demonstration of resolution by private initiative, I testified that CBS recently put into effect a new policy under which it is licensing schools and school districts for as little as $25 a year to record off the air programs of THE CBS MORNING NEWS, THE CBS EVENING NEWS, and THE CBS WEEKEND NEWS for in-school educational and instructional purposes. During the course of my testimony, Mr. Drinan asked how high the charges for such licenses

go, and I responded that my belief was that the charges go as high as $3,000 or $3,500 for a whole school district. This appears on pages 14 and 15 of the transcript.

I was mistaken in my response. The fact is that for the largest school districts (those with pupil enrollment of over 500,000) the maximum annual fee is $500. I regret not having had this information in mind during the hearing and respectfully request that this letter be put into the record so that my error may stand corrected.

Sincerely,

R. V. EVANS.

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I have several more questions, but I will defer them at this time.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Evans. We appreciate your presence this morning.

Next, the Chair would like to call Mr. Paul C. Simpson.

Mr. Simpson, you have a brief statement, you may proceed. [The prepared statement of Mr. Paul C. Simpson follows:]

STATEMENT OF PAUL C. SIMPSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Paul Simpson of Nashville, Tennessee, and am appearing here today as an individual citizen at my own expense. I have, for over seven years now, been interested in the fact that network television news is recognized as the most important source of information about national and international affairs. I have therefore, believed that it should be retained as broadcast and made as easily and readily available as technology permits, for research, review and study both now and in the future. Since learning in 1968 that these broadcasts were not being retained at the networks or elsewhere, I have devoted a great deal of time to this matter.

In 1968 I was instrumental, financially and otherwise, in the establishment of the Vanderbilt Television News Archive at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. This has been and is the only existing operative archive of video tapes of all three network television evening news programs.

I have read with great interest the attached page $16162 of Congressional Record-Senate of September 9, 1974. I would like to endorse the remarks of Senator Howard Baker as reported on this page and request permission to include this page $16162 as part of my statement.

I not only favor the passage of a copyright bill that would not prevent Vanderbilt from doing what it is doing in its television news archive operation but also one that would not prevent any library in the Country from doing the same. I recognize that it is probable that costs involved by the present state of technology make necessary one or two collections of network television news open for use on a national basis. Because the expense involved makes it financially unlikely that there will be many such collections, it is important that the tapes in these collections be as readily and easily available as possible.

This in turn, makes it imperative that any collection now established or that may be established by congressional action or by library action not be thwarted by the Copyright Law in making this material available to the public for reference, research and study. The proliferation of video tape recorders and players will make-and in many instances already has made it as reasonable for a library user to view video tape material in his home as for him to read a library book there, or a copy of a library newspaper there. The copyright law should not prevent libraries making television news material as easily and as conveniently available as they make other such news material available from the library. With regard to television news as with other library news materials, if the original copy cannot be taken away from the library, then the library should be free to make copies for the user to use away from the library. And the user should be free to obtain individual news stories and news items from a television news collection as he is to get copies of news stories and news items from newspapers in the library.

To permit the copyright law to be so revised as to be useful in blocking public access to old television news broadcasts would be an injury to the public interest.

That the public has the right to see old television news broadcasts-and by "old" is meant those already aired-is substantiated by publicly granted privileges which, if withheld, would make the existence of television news impossible. For a very small fee television stations are licensed by the public to use the publicly owned airwaves. Because the airing of news via television is deemed to be for the public good and in the public interest, television stations are required by law to air news broadcasts. And the news broadcasters are granted exceptional privileges, even by proposed H.R. 2223 itself. For example: Copyrighted materials. such as books, newspapers, and magazines may be quoted and otherwise used in "news reporting" with or without permission of the copyright holder; under Section 107 of H.R. 2223. And other privileges are extended. For example: Newsmen, including television newsmen-with their lights and their cameras-are permitted access to publicly owned property, denied to the average citizen, (certainly an individual equipped with cameras and lights) in order to gather the news. To have, then, an exclusive-rights copyright that would, in effect, deny the average citizen access to these news stories as televised, (after being televised— at a profit to the network) except with the express permission of the broadcaster, does not seem to be proper.

To summarize, the newly revised copyright legislation should not prohibit libraries from:

(1) Recording news broadcasts from the air;

(2) Making them available for viewing at the library and copies for viewing elsewhere;

(3) Making, at specific request, copies of single stories or news items from the broadcasts available, just as such services are rendered by libraries from newspaper collections.

These privileges should be granted to libraries and the users of libraries for the following reasons:

(1) Television news broadcasts are too significant as a record of the times not to be retained as aired.

(2) Broadcasters themselves have traditionally not retained these programs. (3) Libraries are beginning to recognize their own obligations in this regard. (4) Television news is now being recognized by scholars as significant source material.

(5) Television news is broadcast for the public good and in the public interest. (6) Television broadcasters enjoy privileges granted by the public which makes television news possible.

(a) right to use airwaves.

(b) exemption from copyright restrictions on material used as part of "news reporting".

(c) access to and freedom of use of public property, including installation of such equipment as lights and cameras, which is denied the average citizen but which is granted the newsman to assist him in performing his work of gathering the news.

Libraries should have the same right to collect and circulate television news broadcasts that they have traditionally had to collect and circulate copies of newspapers and other forms of print journalism. The revised copyright law should not abridge this right, of the libraries and so of the general public.

For these reasons I urge the retention in H.R.2223 of Section 108 (f) (4) and the words "other than an audiovisual work dealing with news" in Section 108 (h). Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you.

[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Sept. 9, 1974]

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of the amendment necessitated by the reprinting of the bill as reported, and ask that the amendment be modified accordingly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Senator's privilege.

The modification is as follows:

On page 1, line 1, strike “On page 10,” and insert in lieu thereof “On page 94,”. On page 1, line 2, strike "On page 10," and insert in lieu thereof "On page 94,". On page 1, line 9, strike "On page 11," and insert in lieu thereof "On page 95," The amendment as modified is as follows:

On page 94, line 40, strike out the period.

On page 34, between lines 40 and 41, insert the following:

57-786-76—pt. 2-2

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »