"unless the same image appears simultaneously on more than one receiving apparatus," immediately following the comma after the word "instruction" in line 38 on page 9 of S. 597. SECTION 110 (1) INADVERTENTLY ENCOURAGES IMPROPER USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS Another problem in subsection 110(1) relates to the legality of the copy being used. The subsection provides generally that any instructor or pupil in possession of a legally or illegally made copy of a work may perform or display the work in face-to-face teaching in a nonprofit educational institution. However, the performance of an audiovisual work is not authorized by this subsection where the copy was not lawfully made and the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe it was not lawfully made. This seems a just limitation upon such performances since it allows the copyright owner to prevent continued use of unlawfully made copies by placing the party concerned on notice that the copy was unlawfully made. However, any justification for allowing the display of unlawfully made copies of audiovisual works, or the display or performance of unlawfully made copies of other types of works, when the party showing the copy is aware that the copy was unlawfully made, escapes me. It is just as appropriate that these uses of unlawfully made copies should be subject to similar control by the copyright owner. The provision in the subsection which places limitations upon the showing of unlawfully made copies of audiovisual works should apply equally to the showing of unlawfully made copies of all types of works. This can be accomplished by omission of the phrase "in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work," from line 1 on page 82. and insertion of the phrase "or display" following the word "performance" in line 2 on page 82 of the revised Bill. Incorporation in section 110(1) of the suggested solutions to the various problems discussed above would result in the following provision: "(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless the same image appears simultaneously on more than one receiving apparatus, or unless [, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,] the performance or display is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title and that the person responsible for the performance or display knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made." WITHOUT CHARGE USE THESE FILMSTRIPS IN YOUR LESSON PLAN FOR 10 DAYS see reverse for full details and individual filmstrip descriptions. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA COUCATIONAL CORPORATION 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 |