May 16, 1984 Heritage Communications, Inc. 2195 Ingersoll Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50312 Honorable Robert Kastenmeier Second Congressional District 2232 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kastenmeier: Time has passed since our first meeting at Eric Lenz's Sun During my tenure in Madison, first as Station Manager of I have lived in Iowa for six years, but I still feel like a Kastenmeier constituent, since two of our Heritage cable television systems, Reedsburg and Baraboo, are in your district. As a business operating in your district, and remembering your openness and willingness to hear all sides of an issue, I write this letter. We are pleased with your proposed omnibus copyright bill. Your draft addresses critically needed change in the current rules. The cable industry has focused major attention on several issues: distant broadcast signals, A.D.I. station carriage free of copyright liability, expansion of the Betamax decision to cable, and fractional value compensation of distant signals. Little has been said about video "first sale" and your proposal to modify this doctrine is highly important since it "levels the playing field" between pay Honorable Robert Kastenmeier cable subscription services and home video cassette rental competition. As cable operators, we are ready to compete with the new technology but, competing with the right to resell or rent copyrighted material at very low rates without compensating the program producer, is not fair to cable operators or broadcasters who pay copyright obligations. Your plan to correct this inequity is to be applauded. We support the cable changes proposed in your bill, but wanted to be certain that video first sale receives the attention it deserves. It is our understanding that, recently, members of your committee have concluded that video first sale changes may not be necessary. It is possible that new rules will not be enacted or, if enacted, will be allowed to expire in five years. Permanent "first sale" modifications as you have proposed them, are necessary and we respectfully request that your committee adopt them as part of the broad goal of improving copyright legislation. Your bill recognizes the delicate balance between copyright holders and program users. We are hopeful that your committee and eventually the full House will see the wisdom of your draft and carry all aspects of your proposal through to final adoption. Sincerely, Rod Hole Rod Thole() Executive Vice President RT/nc I would like to bring to your attention a section of the omnibus copyright bill that I believe warrants clarification. I represent both a program supplier seeking to sell its programming to low power TV stations and a low power station in Tallahassee, Florida. As presently drafted I believe that Section 202 is ambiguous and could lead to problems in implementation of the bill especially with respect to the "local/distant" classification of low power TV stations. Section 202 amends the definition of a local service area of a primary transmitter to include a "television station's" area of dominant influence. The section also provides that ..."the 'area of dominant influence' of a particular independent television broadcast station shall be established by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal on a biannual basis in accordance with the most recent bona fide Nationwide Professional Audience Surveys." However, the area of dominant influence is a geographic area that defines each television market exclusive of the others based on measurable viewing patterns and a television station falls within a specific ADI. As defined by Arbitron, each market's ADI consists of all counties in which the home market stations receive a preponderance of viewing and every county in the United States is allocated exclusively to only one ADI. Currently, Arbitron will include a station in its report based on certain minimum viewing hours. In some circumstances a station might not obtain sufficient viewing levels to be listed in the ADI survey. This could especially be true in rural communities served by a low power TV station. In addition to this problem, the current language of the bill does not track current practices of the industry and this could cause problems in implementing the statute at the CRT. With regard to a low power station, an Issue might be raised as to whether it in fact had its own ADI, especially if Arbitron did not include it in its survey. I have enclosed a pamphlet for you general information prepared by Arbitron which outlines their reporting practices with regard to ADI's. Mr. Michael Remington The Copyright Office has informally indicated that because low power stations do not have a right to demand carriage under the FCC rules, under its interpretation of the present Act, a low power station would be considered to be a distant signal. The Copyright Office's position could therefore result in additional liability to cable systems that desire to carry those broadcast signals. If the language of section 202(a) is clarified to reflect the fact that a local service area of a primary transmitter, in the case of an independent television broadcast station, is defined by the ADI in which the station is located, I believe that it would clarify the status of a low power station. A low power station would be considered to be local for copyright purposes if it is carried on a cable system that is located in the same ADI as the station. I realize that this may be a rather technical reading of the language of the bill when it is clear that the intent of the bill is to enable cable systems to carry broadcast stations without liability where the system is located in the same ADI as the station. However, those agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing Section Ill of the Act have taken a highly technical approach and I therefore believe that there should be no ambiguity with regard to the status of low power stations under the proposed legislation. Sincerely yours Peter H. Feinberg |