he must use and whether or not it must be cleared and paid for. The process is not difficult to describe. The lesson producer must, at the time of production, choose among the following options, none desirable: 1. Use copyrighted works freely, without permissions or payments, but know that legitimate and necessary uses of the program must be curtailed, that classroom teachers or other stations cannot make more than the thirty copies. If a thirty-first copy is needed at some time after production is completed, clearance of every work in the program must be undertaken. This could be, in some cases, years after production is completed. Clearance at that time is a virtual impossibility. If permission is not given, that additional copy may not be made— resulting in normal and customary usage being effectively curtailed; or 2. The educator-producer uses no copyrighted works in order to ensure the effective distribution and use of the program. This will inevitably damage substantially the content and effectiveness of the program ; or 3. To ensure that use of the program for its intended purpose is ensured, the educator-producer will attempt to obtain clearance for all copyrighted works during production. This will involve substantial administrative burden and costs, which, if the producer's judgment is incorrect as to the extent of use, will be a waste of effort and scarce funds. If permission is not obtained for a key work, the project may become impossible to produce as conceived. To justify the expenditure of funds necessary to produce high quality instructional material, local station producers will be inevitably forced to choose the second or third option. The effect of the limitation is, therefore, simply to void the exemption or reduce the value of the program. PBS does not believe that this is intended by the Revision Bill and is not wise public policy. Moreover, to police such a copy limitation is also virtually impossible unless distribution is centrally administered. Many programs are now distributed by multiple sources under non-exclusive licenses. A producer cannot assure against infringement-should the exemption be taken advantage of-unless distribution and use is effectively controlled by a single entity. This will work to change current distribution patterns whereby there are multiple distributors and individual taping facilities throughout school systems. Unless clearances are undertaken during the production process, distribution patterns will be forced to change. This is not desirable and will be one additional factor making any exemption unusable. Seven-Year Limitation. Section 112(b) also limits the exempt use of any instructional program using copyrighted materials to seven years. Any analysis of instructional program use patterns requires the conclusion that such limitation is completely arbitrary. Many programs remain educationally valid and are used beyond seven years. While the proposed Revision Bill will not prevent use beyond seven years, use without individual clearance of and payment for copyrighted material, will be an infringement. The same options faced by the educator-producer with regard to the thirty copy limitation are faced with regard to the term of use. The producer must judge the potential useful life of the program before it is produced. If it is underestimated and clearances are not obtained, the program becomes unusable at the seven year point-clearance at this time being virtually impossible. A producer wishing to protect normal distribution and program life will then opt for clearance-thereby voiding the exemption. PBS sees no virtue in placing a year of use restriction on the exemption. APPARENT PURPOSE OF LIMITATION In including a copy and year limitation in section 112(b) and in not accepting the House version as passed in 1967, the Senate apparently believed that certain uses of copyrighted material in instructional programming should not be exempt. The copy limitation must have been included so as to require clearance for programs which have wide distribution and large audiences. The Senate must have believed, however, that narrower distribution before smaller audiences should be exempt. Section 112(b) however, does not accomplish this purpose even assuming it is valid public policy. We have shown that virtually all instruc tional programs are available on tape and the thirty copy limit could be exceeded within a local school district. If, however, instructional programs are distributed by means of network interconnection-regionally or nationally-the limit, if we correctly read the current section 112(b), may never be exceeded. The number of copies has little or nothing to do necessarily with the extent of distribution. Any year limitation is even less justifiable if limitation on audience reach is the justification. To take advantage of the exemption, the instructional broadcasting community will be tempted to change radically modes of distribution to ensure that no more than thirty copies are made. This will lead to centralization of distribution, and if burdensome clearances are required, will lead to centralization of production. This is antithetical to long-accepted principles of localism in education. PBS believes that in balancing the public policy interest of providing protection to copyright holders, and in furthering the goals of education, a full exemp tion should be included in the bill. Since instructional programs are not, and will never be, a substitute for the face-to-face classroom teaching process, the sale of text material in the schools-for which authors are compensated-will in no way be hindered. Instructional programs cannot be, and are not intended to be, a substitute for the reading and studying process. Instructional program use is always accompanied by study guide material, including bibliographies, so that the student-stimulated and directed by the program-can pursue the subject matter covered in depth. The ephemeral nature of television simply does not permit the indepth treatment central to disciplined education; but it can provide stimulation to the student, direction and a well-organized curriculum. In summary, the section 110 (1) exemption for use of copyrighted material in the context of face-to-face teaching should apply in the same manner to teaching through electronic means. Since an individual teacher may take advantage of the 110(1) exemption, so should the teacher appearing on an instructional television program, even though recordings are made to make the lesson available in more than one classroom. PBS believes that the compulsory license for public broadcasting and an amendment to section 112(b) removing copy and year limitation merit inclusion in the Copyright Revision Bill. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to urge that this be accomplished. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE M. M. Anderson (1976), Retired executive vice president, Alcoa Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, representing WQED, Pittsburgh. Edmund F. Ball (1977), Chairman, Ball Corporation, Muncie, Indiana, representing WIPB, Muncie. Kendrick F. Bellows, Jr. (1977), Executive Vice President, Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Hartford, Connecticut, representing Connecticut Public Television Network. Mrs. Allan E. Charles (1977), Vice President, Board of Trustees, Stanford University, representing KQED, San Francisco, California. Mrs. Edward N. Cole (1975), Teacher, businesswoman, civic leader, representing WTVS, Detroit, Michigan. Dr. William C. Friday (1976), President, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, representing University of North Carolina Television Network. Alfred C. Galloway (1975), President, Community Federal Savings & Loan Association, Nashville, Tennessee, representing WDCN, Nashville. Dr. James G. Harlow (1976), President, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, representing WWVU, Morgantown. C. Bart Hawley (1975), Central Region Manager, Borden Chemical Division, Cincinnati, Ohio, representing WCET, Cincinnati. Dr. Philip Heckman (1976), President, Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, repre senting Nebraska Educational Television Commission. Ethan A. Hitchcock (1975), Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitchcock & Brookfield, New York, New York, representing WNET, New York. Richard E. Hodges, Jr. (1976), Liller, Neal, Battle & Lindsey, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, representing WETV, Atlanta. John Lowell (1977), Welch & Forbes, Boston, Massachusetts, representing WGBH, Boston. Dr. Donald R. McNeil (1977), Director, Post-Secondary Education Commission, Newton N. Minow (1976), Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Illinois, representing WTTW, Ralph B. Rogers (1975), Chairman, Texas Industries, Inc., Dallas, Texas, representing KERA, Dallas. Mrs. Bert E. Roper (1975), Teacher, businesswoman, civic leader, representing WMFE, Orlando, Florida. Leonard H. Rosenberg (1977), Chairman, Chesapeake Life Insurance Company, Baltimore, Maryland, representing Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting. Dr. John W. Ryan (1975), President, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, representing WTIU, Bloomington. Dr. John W. Schwada (1976), President, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, representing KAET, Tempe. Mrs. Stephen Stranahan (1975), Art historian, public relations, civic leader, representing WGTE, Toledo, Ohio. Irby Turner, Jr. (1977), City Attorney, Belzoni, Mississippi, representing Mississippi Authority for Educational Television. Robert G. Waldo (1977), Vice President for University Relations, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, representing KCTS, Seattle. Don E. Weber (1976), Independent oil and real estate operator, Corpus Christi, Texas, representing KEDT, Corpus Christi. Term expiration dates shown in parentheses beside the name. BOARD OF MANAGERS, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE Dr. George E. Bair (1975), Director of Educational Television, University of North Carolina Television Network, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Frank R. Barreca (1976), Director Radio-TV Film Bureau & General Manager, KUAT, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Ronald C. Bornstein (1976), Director & General Manager, WHA, Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison, Wisconsin. Martin P. Busch (1975), Executive Director, KUSD-TV/South Dakota ETV Board, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota. Henry J. Cauthen (1977), President & General Manager, South Carolina Educational Television Commission, Columbia, South Carolina. J. Michael Collins (1977), President, WNED, Western New York Educational Television Assn., Inc., Buffalo, New York. Miss Betty Cope (1976), President & General Manager, WVIZ, Educational Television Assn. of Metropolitan Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio. Miss Dona Lee Davenport (1975), General Manager, WTVI, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Charlotte, North Carolina. Robert H. Ellis (1975), General Manager, KAET, Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Dennis L. Falk (1977), General Manager, KFME, North Central Educational Television, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota. Donley F. Feddersen (1976), General Manager, WTIU, Trustees of Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Dr. Lawrence T. Frymire (1975), Executive Director, New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority, Trenton, New Jersey. William S. Hart (1977), President, WYES, Greater New Orleans Educational Television Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana. David O. Ives (1976), President, WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts. Lloyd Kaiser (1976), President, WQED, Metropolitan Pittsburgh Public Broadcasting, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. James L. Loper (1977), President & General Manager, KCET, Community Television of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. William J. McCarter (1975), Executive Vice President & General Manager, WTTW, Chicago ETV Association, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Richard J. Meyer (1977), General Manager, KCTS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Arthur A. Paul (1977), Executive Vice President & General Manager, KVIE, Dr. Otto F. Schlaak (1976), Manager, WMVS, Milwaukee Area District Board of Sheldon P. Siegel (1976), Executive Vice President & General Manager, WLVT, Paul K. Taff (1976), President & General Manager, Connecticut Public Television Network, Hartford, Connecticut. C. Gregory Van Camp (1977), Director of Radio, Television and Motion Pictures and General Manager, WWVU, West Virginia Board of Regents, Morgantown, West Virginia. Term expiration dates shown in parentheses beside the name. EXAMPLES OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMING PRODUCED BY PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS The Congress faces a difficult and perplexing set of private and public interest issues in its consideration of a change in the copyright law affecting public radio. In the first instance, Congress must assure a fair and equitable return to composers and authors for their creative labor. Yet, we would suggest to you that the Congress also must weigh the considerable beneficial aspects of specially treating an infant public radio system to nurture its development for the larger public benefit. We appear here today to support the Mathias amendment in principle. We feel that its provisions go a long way toward helping public radio at the national level cope with the problems of clearance of works for use in national programs. At the national level a compulsory licensing system is needed because: (1) The clearance for national programming is complicated due to the way material is used; (2) Administrative costs of clearance would erode the ability to use works. However, public radio is not just à national radio system. It is based on local radio stations that are licensed to non-profit entities for noncommercial educa tional operation. The local public radio stations are small in size for the most part. The average annual budget for a public radio station is $132,000. A budget of such modest dimension has to be used to pay its staff, which averages 8 fulltime employees, and to operate the station 16 hours per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks per year. Approximately seventy percent of the local station's broadcast day is locally produced. Local public radio stations have two special problems: service to the printhandicapped and service of a unique nature to other listeners. We would like to address these problems briefly. Print-Handicapped First, we are seeking special consideration for any service designed to serve the print-handicapped, such as the blind or those too infirm to read. Public radio stations that have the capability purchase receivers in large quantities and place them in the homes of families with a print-handicapped listener. The station then recruits volunteer readers who read topical and current newspapers, books, magazines and other literary material. As many as 250-400 books per year are read this way by the largest existing service, in the State of Minnesota. Language has been worked out in the Senate resolving a significant part of the print-handicapped problem-it is now Section 110 (8) of S. 22. Total Exemption for Local Public Radio Performances Second, the Mathias Amendment does not take into full account the disadvantage at which serious music listeners find themselves. Serious music on commercial radio is rapidly disappearing as more and more stations turn to popular music formats to insure financial survival. If payment is required for local public radio performance of copyrighted music and literary works, programming in the arts on local public radio stations would be of such limited scope as to be virtually valueless. Broadcast of a vast body of existing works would be eliminated. Conclusion Local public radio stations simply cannot afford the cost either of the administrative burden or of making the payments for the local broadcast performance of literary and musical works. To be forced to do so would render this infant public radio system helpless and ineffective-a circumstance that is neither in the public interest, nor apparently one that is consonant with the intent of the Congress when it fostered the creation of public radio by passage of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. But, despite our unique problems, we support your favorable consideration of the Mathias amendment. We sincerely hope the Subcommittee will explore our problems in detail in the fall. BACKGROUND STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS The Congress faces a difficult and perplexing set of private and public interest issues in its consideration of a change in the copyright law affecting public radio, particularly as it would affect local public radio stations. On the one hand, the Congress must assure a fair and equitable return to benefit composers and authors for their creative labor. On the other hand, the Congress must weigh the considerable beneficial aspects of specially treating an infant public radio system, thereby making possible its continued development for the larger public benefit. Local public radio stations support the Mathias Amendment in principle. They feel that its provisions go a long way toward helping public radio at the national level cope with the problems of the clearance of literary and musical works for use in nationally distributed programs. Background Public radio is not just a national radio system, however. It is based on local radio stations that are licensed to non-profit, educational entities by the Federal Communications Commission. To benefit the public interest, the Commission reserved noncommercial educational frequencies in 1941. Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was created by the Congress in 1967, a new concept has been developed in noncommercial radio called “public radio”—a system that is new despite the fact that some stations within it have been on the air for more than 50 years. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting established minimum performance criteria for noncommercial radio licensees to determine their eligibility to receive federal assistance at comparatively modest levels of funding. Currently, 175 local public radio stations are eligible to receive such assistance. (To illustrate this point, contrast the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Community Service |