Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

4

Total of any amounts included in line 2 above which represent payments (salaries,
commissions, management lees, rents, etc.) for services or materials supplied by the
owners or stockholders, or any close relative of such persons of any affiliated company
under common control (see page 3 of instructions ).

[blocks in formation]

1974

CALL LETTERS

SCHEDULE 4. EMPLOYMENT

LINE

NO.

1

Indicate the number of employees in the workweek in which December 3! falls:

2

Full-Time

Part-Time

Total

(Do not count as "part-time" those employees who worked a tuli veek but whose duties were
dividei between two or more stations of the licensee. Allocate those employees between the stations
in accordance with instructions for Schedule 4 (pg, 4)).

SCHEDULE 5. TANGIBLE PROPERTY OWNED AND DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY
TO BROADCAST SERVICE BY THE RESPONDENT

As of December 31
Balance in occrued

Cost after
Item

Total Cost
depreciation

depreciation (omit cents)

account

(Col. (b) minus (c)) (omit cents)

(omit cents) (a)

(b)
(c)

(d)

LINE
NO.

1

Land and land improvements and
buildings

[blocks in formation]

Person in charge of correspondence regarding this report:

(Name)

folicial Tie)

Tolce Address)

CERTIFICATION

(This report must be certified by licensee or permittee, if an individual; by partner of licensee or permittee, if a partnership; by an officer of licensee or permittee, if a corporation or association, or by attorney of licensee or permittee in case of physical disability of licensee or permittee or bis absence from the Continental Voited Seates.) I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, all statements contained in this report are true and correct,

Signed

Title

Area Code

Telephone No.

Date

Any person uho willfully makes false statements on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment. I'. Code, Title 18. Section 1001.

BARCO AND BARCO,

Meadville, Pa., November 12, 1975. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of

Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash

ington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: We have received your letter of November 4, 1975, with enclosures; and we very much appreciate your courtesy in affording us the opportunity to review and respond to the TelePrompter proposal concerning the cable issue in H.R. 2223.

Initially, we must emphasize that when I appeared before the Committee, I spoke on behalf of, and presented the Position on Copyright of, Pennsylvania Cable Television Association. The Position was developed over the past seven years with the active participation of the Board of Directors and Officers during a number of meetings, and finally presented to the membership which approved and adopted it. As soon as I received your letter, I attempted to arrange for a special meeting of the Officers and Board of the Pennsylvania Association (which number 25) to consider the TelePrompter proposal; but a meeting could not be arranged until next week. Because this will be after the November 14, 1975, date given in your letter for response, have determined to comment briefly on the matter, in view of my long involvement with the issue as a cable television operator, as attorney for the Pennsylvania Association, and as a member of the NCTA Copyright Committee.

In my view, the TelePrompter proposal is not based on a sound or correct concept of the nature of cable television service; would operate inequitably and be prohibitive in many fringe area situations; and would be complicated and uncertain in practical application.

The basic error in the concept of the TelePrompter proposal is that it ignores that cable television service is on the reception side of the line, for the proposal attempts to relate cable operations to broadcasting operations which is totally inappropriate because the operations are essentially opposite. Thus, applying the total cost of programing (of which copyright is just a part) or a 28 per cent figure is wholly unrealistic and in no way related to any measure of responsibility for copyright payment.

The proposition that cable operators are to make payment for program costs has never been considered before; no demand has ever been made for any such payment; and there is simply no basis or justification for these added costs to be imposed on subscribers for the benefit of copyright owners. Again, the second percentage factor of "popularity of non-network programming" is not only indefinite, but fails to take into account at all that subscribers participate in supporting all costs, including copyright, through their purchase of advertised products.

Further, the definition of a "copyright qualifying broadcast station" is unrealistic and too restrictive by imposing on catv service an artificial television marketing pattern based on predicted contours which has no relationship to television reception conditions in fringe areas where most catv systems are operating, including in Pennsylvania. We believe that if a television broadcasting signal can be received off-the-air-either by a rooftop antenna or by catv antenna—there should be no payment of copyright, irrespective of whether a station is a “must carry" one under the present rules of the Federal Communications Commission or as the FCC may require in the future.

We recognize that the TelePrompter proposal has the desirable aspect of eliminating the copyright tribunal with its constitutional and other legal weaknesses, as well as the hazard and uncertainty to which the tribunal provision subjects the industry. We have always strongly urged that the rates for any copyright liability must be statutorily set forth (in keeping with the legislative function) and cannot properly be left to a tribunal (which functions primarily in a judicial manner). However, we believe that the TelePrompter proposal has other fundamental weaknesses of its own.

We also appreciate the recognition in the TelePrompter proposal that certain television reception should be exempt from copyright payment. However, we believe the rationale for the definition of the exempt reception includes certain premises which may apply to broadcasting, but have no application whatever to catv. In point of fact, it is not clear that the TelePrompter proposal solves any of the real concerns for catv on the copyright issue, either in terms of the amount or the incidence of copyright payment; furthermore, it introduces new problems, uncertainties and inequities.

To the extent that the TelePrompter proposal recognizes that certain television receiption service should be exempt from copyright payment, we believe it supports the general concept of the Pennsylvania Position. The exempt television reception service under the Pennsylvania Position includes reception of television signals received off-the-air and basic television reception (by whatever means secured), because the broadcasters and copyright owners make use of the public airwaves without payment. Under the Pennsylvania Position, microwaved signals beyond those required for basic television reception are to be subject to copyright at a statutorily determined rate. While there is room for a difference of opinion as to the rate of payment for microwaved signals, the Pennsylvania Position continues to remain the only one that is not only sound in concept but workable and equitable in application.

We propose to have the TelePrompter proposal reviewed at the forthcoming meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Association on November 19, 1975, and will inform you of the results of their consideration for such assistance as it may be to you and the Committee on this issue. Very truly yours,

GEORGE J. BARCO,

General Counsel.

RICHARD L. BROWN,

Washington, D.C., November 19, 1975. Re: CATA's comments on the Teleprompter proposal. Hon. ROBERT E. KASTENMEIER, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration

of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You have requested our comments concerning the Teleprompter (TPT) compromise proposal regarding CATV liability under pending H.R. 2223; we are pleased to make this preliminary response and respectfully request that it be included in the record.

CATA'S POSITION

Because of a delay in receipt of your request, the Committee's Counsel has gratiously extended our time for response. We have thus had the unilateral benefit of seeing the comments of some of the other parties. While in a judicial proceeding an element of unfairness might attach to such a result, we believe that our comments are, as a result, more directly keyed to areas of controversy concerning the TPT plan and are thus beneficial to the legislative process. In the interest of fairness, a copy of this letter has been sent to each of the parties whose comments we have seen.

CATA is one of the two national trade associations representing the CATV industry. It commenced in the summer of 1973, primarily because of disaffection with the position taken by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), concerning the issue of copyright payments by the CATV industry. CATA now engages in a broad range of activities and as a result CATA's membership has increased in just two years from a mere handful to over 435 systems (approximately 600, if counted in accordance with the FCC's definition of CATV). Because CATA's by-laws do not require that an individual or business entity place all CATV systems owned into the membership, the preceding numbers are not fully representative of CATA's membership. CATA estimates, on a conservative count, that between 750-800 CATV system's views are actually represented by its membership roster. This represents, on a system count basis, the views of nearly fifty percent of CATV systems belonging to national trade associations. The above statistics are provided to aid the Congress in evaluating these comments, and assessing support of the TPT plan. In this regard, while CATV members range in nature from independent to multiple ownership and in size from 14 subscribers to over 12,000 subscribers, the average size of member's systems is now at 826 subscribers.

As you know, CATA, the Community Antenna Television Association, has staunchly defended, in these procedings, what the Supreme Court has held : that CATV does not owe copyright. The Supreme Court's recognition that the 1909 Act did not cover CATV and that new copyright legislation was pending in the Congress, was not an invitation to invoke the proposition that the 1909 Act was defective and that CATV should pay. To the contrary, the Court has, on all occasions it has considered the question, recognized that CATV transmission was not a performance for profit. That is, CATV activity falls on the viewers' side of the line, irrespective of whether the signals transmitted were local or distant. For this and other reasons presented in our testimony, CATA believes that imposition of copyright liability on CATV is an inappropriate application of the copyright delegation of power in the Constitution and is likewise at odds with the goals of the Communications Act of 1934 to secure the general benefits of television programming to all the people the United States and to encourage its larger and more effective use in the public interest. With the FCC preparing a bill for courtesy introduction concerning its authority over CATV, with the White House Domestic Council on deregulation similarly preparing proposed legislation concerning CATV, and with the various Commerce Committees also apparently considering CATV legislation, there is, at this juncture, an intermixture of copyright and communications policy that cannot be avoided. Given the actual state of the cable television industry, as opposed to the hypothetical projections tendered by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), imposition of copyright would virtually kill off any chance of wiring certain areas of the United States, including rural America, where both Congressional policy and FCC policy have failed to bring television to American citizens. We will return to this matter below.

While Teleprompter, itself, has not deviated from its support of the principal that CATV does not owe copyright, it has offered a compromise proposal in light of its fears that the "no copyright” position favored by Teleprompter, CATA, the Pennsylvania Association and others, does not prevail. CATA thus responds in a similar vein. That is, our comments should be viewed as directed towards the end of perfecting legislation that, in its current form, may be unconstitutional (there is apparently a significant question here as reflected in the TPT and MPAA memoranda) and is certainly cumbersome and unpredictable in its application. Our comments, therefore, are not an endorsement that CATV owes copyright. CATA believes, however, that the Teleprompter proposal is sound in logic and easy of application, thus overcoming the defects of present H.R. 2223. Fine tuning of the TPT plan would meet with a favorable response from CATA.

THE TELEPROMPTER PLAN

CATA understands the Teleprompter plan as follows: CATV would pay copyright for distant signals only. Payment would be based on the popularity of the signal carried in the distant (CATV) market, multiplied by a percentage of CATV subscriber revenue for reception service that would hypothetically be available for copyright payment. The popularity factor is the market share of an independent station or the market share of a network station when not broadcasting network fare; i.e., when broadcasting non-network or "independent" programming. Market shares would be determined by comparing total viewing hours of the stations or programs in question with total viewing hours in the county of the CATV system.

REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR COPYRIGHT Teleprompter proposes that the popularity of the distant signal in the cable community be multiplied by a theoretical factor of CATV's ability to pay copyright. In the interest of compromise, Teleprompter suggests that the factor be the same percentage number that all television stations pay for programming costs of their total revenue in each year (which was 28% in 1974). In making this proposal, Teleprompter suggested that the factor was "generous" in the sense that the capital costs of the cable industry are much greater than those of broadcasters and that no consideration is made of the fact that broadcasters use a publicly owned scarcity, spectrum space, for free. CATA believes that Teleprompter's proposal, in this regard, is more than generous; it is philanthropic.

The 28% figure (or whatever it might be in a future year), does not reflect a measure of “copyright costs" for broadcasters, at least as such costs bear on the broadcaster-program supplier-CATV interface. The factor employed by Teleprompter is derived from FCC Form 324, which requires broadcasters to report financial information concerning television station operation. On Form 324, program expenses are broken down into several categories including such matters as: (1) payroll for employees considered talent, (2) payroll for all other program employees, (3) records and transcriptions, (4) cost of outside news service, (5) music license fees, etc. Many of these classifications are inappropriate to the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »