across the country. It is therefore urgent that Section 112(b) be extended to permit copying flexibility as, when and how needed by American school systems. Thank you very much for your consideration. I hope that my comments have been of value in your subcommittee's deliberations. STATEMENT OF J. WARREN BINNS, JR., ADMINISTRATOR OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION AND RADIO AND EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTS DISSEMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF FLORIDA Florida Statutes require the Department of Education to provide through educational television and other electronic media a means of extending educational services, and also defines as the Department's duty the responsibility of identifying the needs of the state system of public education as they relate to the development and production of materials used in instruction. The Department is further empowered to commission or contract for the production of such materials. (Florida Statutes 229.805) As the Administrator of the Instructional Television and Radio and Educational Products Dissemination Section, I am responsible for development and operation of a system to implement these programs. The philosophy upon which the Florida system is based is to view television and radio as a solution to the logistical problems inherent in the dissemination of instructional materials. I believe that this philosophy is central to the issue presently before this Committee. In brief form, the Florida program consists of the following: 1. Acquiring materials, including the rights for reproduction, to meet statewide needs as recommended by local educators. 2. Distributing these materials by copying onto tape owned by local school systems; the product then becoming their property. 3. Acquiring materials by lease arrangements and loaning these to local school systems on a pre-arranged schedule. This program began eight years ago by serving nine educational television stations and now serves these stations plus 49 of the 67 school systems (including ITFS systems) in the state on a regular basis (all school systems are served on an occasional basis). In addition, 25 of the 28 community colleges and eight of the nine universities utilize materials from our library. Of the school systems in the state, 73% use these television materials on their own internal distribution systems, and 13% use broadcast signals in addition. The significance of these figures to the purpose of this Committee is the fact that individual sets of materials used by individual stations, individual school systems, and in many instances, individual schools, is the dominant pattern of use. Typical pattern of use is the example shown below: Broward County (Fort Lauderdale), Florida (138 schools, 138 sites) A. Began with a shared single channel broadcast signal and expanded by adding four closed-circuit channels. B. Presently they are providing 3.8 million viewings over their broadcast and closed-circuit systems and an additional 285,000 viewings by the distribution of video tapes to high schools only. C. Future plans call for predominant distribution of materials to be by video tape and their present distribution systems for support of video tape distribution. Eventually this will mean individual copies in all schools. The use of instructional television in Florida shows a rapid increase and, in fact, has doubled in the past year. The increase is in the area of multiple copies being used in a wide variety of distribution systems that permit scheduling and control of the material ultimately by the individual teacher. Materials acquired by the Department are selected upon the following criteria: 1. Statewide survey of needs 2. Specifications provided by statewide committees 3. Validation criteria-pre-testing of materials with students (Florida Statutes 233.25 3(b) 4. Reproduction rights for distribution All possible sources are explored for materials to meet these criteria. Whenever possible, we acquire materials produced for national distribution since they are usually far less expensive than materials produced within the state. There are many instances, however, when such materials do not meet requirements. For example: Our specification for materials for instruction in metric measurement included a limit of five lessons, validation, and reproduction rights among other instructional objectives. After a thorough search of available materials we found that materials which included the required objectives exceeded the five lesson limit and that no materials were validated. As a result, we are presently producing our own materials at a greater initial cost. There is a specific need for the in-state production of materials used in instruction. The unique instructional requirements of many educational agencies and patterns of distribution impose restrictions not always surmountable from national sources. Our successful instructional television service in Florida offers documented evidence of this. The requirements we impose are necessary for good instruction from the viewpoint of the quality of materials and the necessary distribution pattern. The proposed limitation of 30 copies of instructional materials is not compatible with the present and planned patterns of usage of these materials. The most functional characteristic of video and other electronic forms of media is their inherent flexibility to meet varied patterns of usage. The present applications of these materials depends totally on the ability to generate multiple copies in a variety of formats to meet a variety of applications based upon need. JOINT COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1975. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, DEAR MR. KASTEN MEIER: At its January 22, 1975 Board meeting, the members of the Joint Council on Educational Telecommunications discussed copyright revision legislation with particular reference to the amendments submitted by Senators Mathias (Senate Amendment No. 1815) and Bayh (Senate Amendment No. 1913). At that meeting, the Board, without dissent, directed me to write this letter for your consideration and for the record to express our support of both amendments. As you know, the JCET was founded in 1950 as the Joint Committee on ETV to lead the effort to reserve channels for educational television. Our interest in such newer communications technologies as cable and satellites in no way diminishes our concern with instructional and public broadcasting. In reference to Mr. Mathias' amendment, we believe that a system of compulsory licensing of copyrighted materials is both just and necessary if public radio and television are to fulfill the role which the Congress intended for them in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Commercial broadcasting provides neither model nor analogy by which public broadcasting's need for timely access to copyrighted materials can be measured. The widely varied fare which makes up the public broadcasting schedule taps a potentially limitless range of nondramatic literary and musical works, sound recordings and pictorial, graphic and sculptural works. Still more important, public radio and television are decentralized, grass roots, systems. The network programs seen on PBS are not produced by the network, but by public television stations and other agencies. National Public Radio leans heavily on its member stations for the production of its network-distributed programming. Only a system of compulsory licensing can provide the hundreds of noncommercial radio and television stations with timely access to materials for local and network programs while, at the same time, assuring that copyright holders will be adequately and fairly recompensed. In the matter of Mr. Bayh's amendment, the JCET holds that removal of arbitrary restrictions on the number and life of copies of instructional programs 57-786-76-pt. 2- -14 made by governmental bodies and other nonprofit organizations is necessary to provide a climate in which well-produced, educationally sound, instructional programs can flourish. As we said in my testimony of July 31, 1973, to the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights: "All our experience testifies to the fact that instructional programming of the highest quality-particularly in television-requires substantial resources. Rather than rely on what their own limited resources can provide, school systems, state-wide agencies, and noncommercial broadcasters are coming together to form consortia to finance instructional series for their own use and for sharing with other educational groups. In order to achieve financing and recoup the substantial investments which are required for program series which are professionally produced under the guidance of educational experts in content and methodology, the programs must be available for widespread and prolonged use. Because instructional broadcasting-and particularly instructional television— is at last emerging from the cottage industry stage, we suggest that statutory limits upon the number of tape copies which may be made, or their useful life, are counterproductive." The members of the Joint Council on Educational Telecommunications urge that these amendments be introduced in the current session and adopted as a part of H.R. 2223. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Sincerely, Attachment. FRANK W. NORWOOD, 1974 JCET MEMBERSHIP Agency for Instructional Television. American Association for Higher Education. American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. American Council on Education. American Library Association. Association for Education Communications & Technology. Council of Chief State School Officers. Great Plains National Instructional Television Library. National Catholic Educational Association. National Education Association. National Public Radio. National University Extension Association. Public Broadcasting Service. Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System. Southern Educational Communications Association. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KASTEN MEIER: We appreciate your including this letter in the record of the hearings on this legislation. This organization's concern with this legislation is that Section 110 does not include non-commercial radio broadcasts designed and presented for blind and handicapped audiences. We respectfully request favorable consideration for the following justification and proposed language for a new Paragraph 8 of Section 110: "(S) performance or the reading aloud (whether in person or by phonorecords) of books and other literary works, musical scores, instructional texts, specialized materials and other printed matter in the course of a non-commercial broadcast service specifically designed or presented for blind or other handicapped persons (who are unable to read normal printed material as a result of such limitations) on any subsidiary radio carrier authority or cable transmission. Provisions of this subsection shall apply to non-commercial telecasts specifically designed for the aural handicapped." We are aware of the amendment adopted on this subject by the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary but we are dissatisfied with that language for several reasons. First, the term "print handicapped" is a new term which has not been defined and which almost certainly includes millions of people whose reading disabilities are unknown. Second, the Senate amendment is restricted to public radio which does not exist in many regions of the country. Our proposed amendment is intended in part to permit non-commercial broadcasts for the blind and handicapped on subcarrier channels of commercial stations. Without this specific provision, such broadcasts could not exist on subcarrier frequencies in areas were there are no public radio stations. The language of our proposed amendment follows closely the phraseology in P.L. 89-522 which authorizes library services for the blind through the Library of Congress. However, we have omitted the word "physically" before the word "handicapped" in the foregoing recommended amendment in order not to exclude such handicapping conditions as dyslexia which almost always results in a severe reading disability. The American Council of the Blind is the only national membership organization which has actively promoted special broadcast services for the blind and handicapped. We do not want the bona fide interests of these people whom we represent to be adversely affected by a vague and expansive term such as "the print handicapped." If such an identifiable class as the print handicapped exists, except for the blind and handicapped, it is not organized and not represented. We believe that the language or our proposed amendment will satisfy the objections of the Association of American Publishers and of the Authors League of America. Likewise we believe that this amendment will satisfy their concerns about the duplication and exchange of copyrighted material among such noncommercial broadcasters. Respectfully, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, INC., Durward K. McDaniel, Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Donald R. Quayle, Senior Vice President for Broadcasting for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the views of the Corporation on H.R. 2223, a bill that provides for the general revision of the current copyright laws. Since 1965, when representatives of noncommercial broadcasting last appeared before this subcommittee to testify on proposed copyright revision legislation, pervasive legal, organizational, and structural changes have taken place in noncommercial broadcasting. The purpose of this statement is to summarize these changes for the subcommittee and to point out the effects that they have had, in particular, on the relationship between noncommercial broadcasting and the U.S. Congress. When last before this subcommittee, representatives of noncommercial broadcasting spoke of the decentralized, locally autonomous nature of noncommercial broadcasting, which made it drastically different from its commercial counterparts. Today, decentralization and local autonomy still remains the touchstone of noncommercial broadcasting and are essential to its vitality and mission. However, a very important element exists today that was absent when we last appeared before you. It is a commitment by the Congress, embodied in law and amplified in proposed legislation now pending before this Congress, to complement and assist noncommercial broadcasting in a manner consistent with its locally autonomous nature and in cognizance of first. amendment considerations. Congress has committed itself to see noncommercial broadcasting live and grow, so that programs that constitute an expression of diversity and excellence will be available to all citizens of the United States. In particular, enactment of the Public Broadcasting Act on November 7, 1967, set out the framework for Congress' commitment to noncommercial broadcasting. In that act, Congress declared that encouragement and support of noncommercial broadcasting is in the public interest, and that while these are matters of importance for private and local development, this support and encouragement is also an appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government. Congress also found that "it furthers the general welfare to encourage noncommercial educational radio and television" *** and *** "that it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make noncommercial educational radio and television service available to all citizens of the United States." Congress also envisioned in the Public Broadcasting Act, the existence of a private, nongovernmental corporation which would receive appropriated funds from Congress to carry out the goals and purposes of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This resulted in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation organized under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation. Since 1969, when the Corporation became operational, Congress has appropriated a total of $222.5 million to the Corporation to be used to foster the full development of noncommercial broadcasting. In this session, Congress is in the process of underscoring and amplifying this commitment through its consideration of unique legislation which will authorize and appropriate funds for 5 years on a matching basis, to be used by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for its operational use and support of noncommercial broadcasting. This measure has cleared the full Commerce Committee of the House and Senate. We are hopeful of imminent approval by the respective committees on appropriations. This legislation not only represents a continued commitment by Congress, but reflects a continued recognition by the Congress of the unique and special position and nature of noncommercial broadcasting. In 1967, this subcommittee eliminated the limited exemption from licensing and royalties that noncommercial broadcasters enjoyed as nonprofit users of certain copyrighted works. Your report stated that the reasons for this action were that the subcommittee ". . . found persuasive the arguments that the line between commercial and nonprofit organizations is increasingly difficult to draw, that many nonprofit organizations are highly subsidized and capable of paying royalties, and that the widespread public exploitation of copyrighted works by educational broadcasters and other noncommercial organizations is likely to grow. In addition to these trends, it is worth noting that performances. and displays are continuing to supplant markets for printed copies and that in the future a broad "not for profit" exemption could not only hurt authors but could dry up their incentive to write." The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in reporting out copyright revision legislation in the last Congress, also eliminated this special |