Developmental... yet flexible! Used in sequence, these filmstrips provide sound basis for a developmental course in the fundamentals of com position writing. However, you may want to use the filmstrips independently to focus on individual or general class writing problems. Purposes of these filmstrips: • To provide job-bound high school students with the basic writing skills they will need for advancement in careers and to handle successfully all business and personal writing tasks • To prepare college-bound high school students and college fresh men for the more complex writing assignments facing them during their college careers.. FILMSTRIP TITLES AND DESCRIPT.ONS »326 -Condes how a com position may be ingeoved if its preparation is divided into separate steps. It expla what the five most common steps are and examines what the writer should do during each step. When Chu *We w Discusses the introduction to a corportion-whAT I To some erect, anting s the shaping of facse into a comparton with definite parts. Tres filmstrip descritos the form of the composition, the shaping of the subject after the facts to fit the form of the composities. 156 Studes the patterns of par graphs the ferns peurapha and the functions of the forent parts of paragraphs. 3 Maks & comparson between a bog over a tree and the problem of trans bons to uende what transitisen are aby they are needed where they are commoned and what kinds are coming by uaed For S Senator HART. I think the explanation is very clear. The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 12, 1967.) COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Quentin Burdick, presiding. Present: Senators Burdick (presiding) and Fong. Also present: Thomas C. Brennan, chief counsel; Edd N. Williams, Jr., assistant counsel; Stephen G. Haaser, chief clerk, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. Senator BURDICK. Come to order, please. Our first witness is Mr. Douglas Anello, general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. ANELLO, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN V. SHUTE, ASSISTANT GENERAL ATTORNEY, NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. Mr. ANELLO. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Douglas A. Anello, and I am general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters, the trade association of the broadcasting industry. I have a difficult act to follow. Miss London and Miss Streisand and Mr. Mitchell are highly popular performers. But I take some consolation in the belief that the well deserved popularity of these people can be attributed in some small measure at least to their exposure over radio and television, an exposure which has benefited both the performers and the American people, albeit it was without performing rights. The membership of the association consists of 2,212 AM stations, 1,064 FM stations, 506 television stations, and all four major national networks. Additionally, I have served on the panel of consultants appointed by the Librarian of Congress to work with the Register of Copyrights on the general revision of the copyright law, and I am a member of Committee 304 of the American Bar Association charged with the same task. The National Association of Broadcasters is grateful for this opportunity to present its view on S. 597. Mr. Chairman, I might state I am also speaking on behalf of the National Broadcasting Co. With your permission, I would like to have their statement introduced into the record. Senator BURDICK. Without_objection, it will be received. Mr. ANELLO. At the outset, I would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Kaminstein, Mr. Cary, Mr. Goldman, Miss Ringer, and the many others on the staff of the Register for their dedication to an exceedingly complicated and oftentimes frustrating project. They have worked long and diligently and deserve the highest praise for their attempts to reconcile the many varied viewpoints of those affected by copyright matters. The interest of broadcasters in copyright is primarily that of a user of copyrighted material rather than as a creator. For this reason, all aspects of the proposed legislation are not of the same concern to us. Nevertheless, as one of the major users, we do have a substantial stake in many of the provisions of the legislation presently under consideration. Primarily, these are the sections that are concerned with community antenna television operations, on which the committee has received our views; the duration of the term of copyright; the provisions relating to damages for innocent infringement; and most importantly for this hearing, the sections relating to sound recordings and the proposed amendment to S. 597 introduced by Senator Harrison Williams, of New Jersey. Turning first to the question of duration of copyright. The original proposal of the Register was for a period of 28 years plus a 48-year renewal This has now been changed to life of the author plus 50 years. We believe that a definite term is much more desirable. A definite term with notice affixed to the work permits a potential user to determine whether or not he is using copyrighted material. In our view, no sufficient reason has been advanced to change the original proposal. It is therefore our recommendation that section 302 be amended by eliminating the life plus 50 years provision and substituting in lieu thereof the original recommendation of the Register for a 28-year term plus a 48-year renewal. We are pleased to note that the proposed legislation reduces the minimum damages for innocent infringement from $250 to $100. While we believe this represents an improvement over the present law, we believe that the court should be given unlimited discretion in this regard and should be permitted to impose no damages whatsoever for innocent infringement. A person should not be penalized for innocence. I would like now to turn to those sections of the bill relating to sound recordings and the proposed amendments introduced by Senator Harrison Williams. The original bill would afford copyright protection to sound recordings on the theory that this is necessary to protect record manufacturers against the practice commonly known as "dubbing"; that is, the duplication of the sounds fixed in a recording and then distributing the "dubbed" copy to the public. This practice is to be distinguished from the counterfeiting problem which has been resolved. Public Law 87-7723 enacted in 1962 made the willful receipt or transportation in interstate commerce of any counterfeit record a criminal offense. The NAB supported this legislation. The "dubbing" problem differs from counterfeiting in that there is no "palming off," as it were, of a product as the original. Rather the practice that is sought to be controlled is the unjust enrichment of one individual through the copying and sale of an article made by another. While we would agree that control of the "dubbing" problem is necessary, the remedy should be directed to the sale of the copy, not to mere use. Copyright protection is not the answer, nor is it necessary. The Constitution, in article I, clause 8, provides that Congress shall have the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries." We find it extremely difficult to determine what is intellectually created by a record manufacturer in providing technical know-how to the recording of the creative work of a composer. Furthermore, under the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law, a record manufacturer may record a song without permission from the copyright owner upon payment of the licensing fee. It would appear to us that the grant of copyright protection to a recording would permit that some manufacturer to secure copyright in the recording and then prohibit re-recording, a right that is denied the composer This hardly seems equitable. In any event, should the Congress believe that sound recordings should be brought under the umbrella of the Federal copyright law, we see no justification for extending performance rights to either the manufacturer or the performer as a proposed by the amendments of Senator Williams. As this committee is well aware, it is customary for record manufacturers to give records to stations free of charge in order that they may be given the widest possible exposure. "According to a Billboard survey of 1963, the average station had average weekly receipts of 70 free singles and nine free LP's.1 This exposure inures to the benefit of the record manufacturer, the performer, and the songwriter. The important contribution that broadcasting has made in this regard is graphically illustrated in the following table compiled by the Record Industry Association of America. We have taken the period 1945 to 1965 because it corresponds to the time during which the greatest growth in the number of radio stations occurred. For example, as of June 30, 1945, there were 931 radio stations on the air. As of June 30, 1965, this had increased to 5,662. It seems more than pure coincidence that the growth of both industries followed similar paths. 1 "This Business of Music," Sidney Schemel and M. William Krasilovsky, Billboard Publishing Co., 1964, p. XVIII. (The table previously referred to follows:) Record Industry Association of America, Inc.-Composite estimate of total industry sales of phonograph records in the United States only NOTE: It has been estimated that retail sales will reach $800,000,000 by 1936 and $1,000,000,000 by 1970. Ibid., p. XVI. The plain truth of the matter is that recorded music benefits radio, and radio, by exposing this music to the public, benefits both the record manufacturer and the performer. In view of this astounding growth, it is hard to understand the statements made by certain representatives of the record industry that many stations consistently cause harm by overplaying records. Certainly the history of the record industry over the past 20 years does not indicate that exposure to the public by broadcasting causes people not to purchase records. As a matter of fact, the reverse would appear to be true. In any event, we are at a loss to understand how performing rights to manufacturers or performers would aid this situation. The radio station would still continue to play those records which have the greatest appeal to its listening public. Much has been said of the profitability of radio stations and their ability to pay additional performance rights. For example, Judge Arnold introduced a table indicating the profits made by radio stations during the period 1961-65. The last line on that chart indicated an average profit of $41,956 for profitmaking stations. What the table fails to show, however, is the fact that this represented the profit of some 500 stations in the largest markets; that of the 2,708 stations reporting profits in 1965, 2,261 reported a less than average profit, or $18,364. We believe a more accurate picture is contained in the chart set forth below. It is compiled from the records of the FCC and indicates the average financial data for AM and AM-FM stations operating a full year. |