Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Program Analysis Form.

Call letters:

Date: Sunday, February 19, 1967

Time Title! Source Type Live or Recorded Reuse Future Use

(Additional pages, same format, for Monday, February 20, through

Saturday, February 15, 1967.)

If you listed no programs in type categories 1, 2, 3, or 4 (instructional programs) do you plan to produce any in the future? If so, please elaborate, briefly:

[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]

2.

If you had to clear and pay for all copyrighted materials used in your station's own production: (not programs from other sources) what is the greatest percentage of your budget that you could allocate to copyright cleara.ices--including the cost of rights themselves, and the cost of admi.istering the system (Personnel, correspondence). Please be realistic!

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

3.

If the alternative to clearing uses of copyrighted materials yourselve were a central clearing house of some sort, would you be able to contribute the same amou.it for the same purposes (that is, for rights and for administration of the system)?

If not, what percentage?

Any questions concerning this questionnaire may be directed to

Michael E Hobbs

Legal Assistant

WGBH Educational Foundatio.1

125 Western Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts

Phone. 617 864-6400

02134

THOMAS C. BRENNAN, Esq.,

NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL,
New York, N.Y., March 30, 1967.

Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BRENNAN: The National Music Council appreciates your having scheduled us to testify on Thursday afternoon, April 6th. While I have apprised our President, Howard Hanson, of this, I do not know if he plans to be there. However, I would like to have the enclosed resolution be a part of the record of the hearings and trust this will meet with your favor.

Respectfully yours,

Enclosure.

JAMES BROWNING, Executive Secretary.

A RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL

MAY 11, 1965.

Whereas the National Music Council, chartered by the Congress of the United States with a membership of over 50 organizations representing all aspects of musical life in the United States with members in excess of 1,250,000, is dedicated to the cause of music in America; and whereas the National Music Council endorses the following principles:

(1) There is no property so peculiarly a man's own as the product of his brain; (2) It is decidedly in the National interest to secure appropriate financial rewards for composers and authors of musical works;

(3) The property rights of composers and authors in their musical works should be recognized and respected whenever those works are performed publicly;

(4) There should be no favored classes of commercial music users, and therefore the inequitable exemption in favor of coin-operated machines should be repealed;

(5) The term of copyright in America should be equal to that now prevailing in practically all the civilized nations of the world-the author's lifetime plus 50 years;

(6) The copyright law should prive for adequate reward to composers and authors by those who use their copyrighted works. Educational broadcasting (radio and television) should be required to pay reasonable fees for the use of music.

Be it therefore resolved: That the National Music Council now in session at its 25th annual meeting in New York City urges Congress to consider carefully and immediately the importance of creating a favorable climate for our Nation's composers and authors in the pending revision of the Federal copyright law.

Mr. STEPHEN G. HAASER,

NATIONAL MUSIC PURLISHERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,
New York, N. Y., May 10, 1967.

Chief Clerk, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committec on the Judiciary, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR STEVE: I enclose herewith supplemental statement of Julian T. Abeles, Esq. on behalf of our Association.

With all good wishes.

Sincerely yours,

LEONARD FEIST, Executive Secretary.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULIAN T. ABELES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MUSIC PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Reference is respectfully made to my original statement, concerning my background as an attorney in the field of copyright law. This supplemental statement is submitted on behalf of National Music Publishers' Association, Inc. of which I am general counsel, in support of two provisions of S. 597, which are patterned after like provisions in the present act.

1. Section 115 (c) (2) provides that upon the identification of the copyright owner, as set forth, "the royalty under a compulsory license shall be payable for every phonorecord made in accordance with the license."

Section 1(e) of the present act provides to the same effect, for "the payment to the copyright proprietor of a royalty of 2 cents on each such part manufactured, to be paid by the manufacturer thereof;"

The Record Industry Association of America, Inc. would alter such provision of S. 597, although concededly there has been no development in the industry since the inception thereof to justify the same, to read "made and distributed" instead of "made". In support thereof there has been submitted the respective statements of Ernest S. Meyers, General Counsel for said Association, and of Isabelle Marks, Assistant Secretary of Decca Records.

In the said statement of Ernest Meyers, he asserts "The present language of S. 597 (Section 115 (c)) would make royalties payable to music publishers and other copyright proprietors, whether or not the records are sold by the manufacturer". (Emphasis supplied). On the contrary, it would merely restate the existing provision of the Act, which concededly, has invariably been the basis for a most satisfactory relationship between the legitimate record companies and the copyright proprietors. As he acknowledges, “As a matter of general practice. most license agreements today between publishers and record companies are based upon the concept of records 'sold' rather than 'records made'", being a matter of negotiation.

Likewise, in the statement of Isabelle Marks, she says to the same effect "Through the 32 years in which Decca has been in existence the statutory license provisions have rarely been used." She quotes from the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary that "A recordmaker should not be free to reproduce as many phonorecords as he wishes without any permission from or obligation to the copyright owner and then to pay a royalty only with respect to the phonorecords he eventually distributes to the public". Yet, she feels that the said amendment should be effected, although concededly it would be meaningless to the legitimate record companies.

My firm represents the Harry Fox, Agent and Trustee organization, which issues mechanical reproduction licenses on behalf of over 2,400 music publishers in the United States. I have regular contacts with the heads of that organization, and I have not discovered one single instance over the years, where a legitimate record company has been required to make use of a musical work, relying upon the service of notice under the Act.

The only time that a record company has been required to serve notice under the Act, instead of negotiating a license agreement, has been when it has failed in the past to render the required statements and make the required payments, or when the prinicpal party in interest has previously been involved in an illegal record manufacturing operation. Isabelle Marks further alleges in her statement "Litigation for royalties under the statute to base royalties on manufactured instead of sales has always been resolved in favor of the publisher". My firm has consistently instituted actions throughout the United States, on behalf of the music publisher principals of Harry Fox, Agent and Trustee, against defaulting record manufacturers and the so-called record "pirates". When the action is against a manufacturer which has served notice under the Act, or against a record "pirate", the recovery is based on records "manufactured". However. contrary to her contention, when the royalty has been negotiated on the basis of "manufactured and sold", the recovery has invariably been confined thereto. This applies, although all such actions are brought for the recovery of "royalties under the statute", and not under a private agreement of the parties. This is upon the theory that such an agreement merely modifies the statutory provision. In no single instance, over the years, has there been an exception.

This brings up for consideration one of the most logical and compelling requirements, for the retention of the present provision of the Act. Record "piracy", or "bootlegging” as known in the trade, has developed in recent years to such an extent, that it has become a serious threat to the interests of the music publishers and of course music authors. In a concentrated and highly essential effort to curtail the same, such actions have been constantly brought against the "priates", on behalf of the music publisher principals of the said Harry Fox, Agent and Trustee. Obviously, the material factor in said actions, is to ascertain the extent of the infringing records manufactured. However, by reason of the very nature of the operation, invariably none of the required books

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »