Page Guthrie, Robert, assistant director, department of professional employees, 1067 Hodsoll, Hon. Frank, Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts 563 Prepared statement 592 Jimirro, James P., president, Walt Disney Telecommunications & Non-Theatrical Co...... Kretsinger, Marilyn, attorney adviser, Copyright Office. 611 Kummel, Eugene, chairman of the board, McCann-Erickson, Inc. 254 Prepared statement 259 Ladd, Hon. David, Register of Copyrights and Assistant Librarian of Congress for Copyright Services. 611 Prepared statement 617 Marmaduke, John, president, Hastings Books & Records; and past president, Oliver, Howard, executive secretary, American Federation of Television and 141 Orear, Richard H., president, National Association of Theatre Owners.. 131 Prepared statement 133 Roberts, Stephen, president, 20th Century Fox Telecommunications, Inc. 838 842 Rose, Hon. Jonathan, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, 563 Prepared statement 570 Schrader, Dorothy, General Counsel and Associate Register, Copyright Office.. 611 730 Steinhilber, August W., chairman, Educators' Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law 702 Prepared statement 704 Taylor, Jud, president, Directors Guild of America, Inc. 135 Prepared statement 136 Prepared statements.. Prepared statement Valenti, Jack, president, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc............ Wayman, Jack, senior vice president, consumers electronics group, Electronic Weiss, Jacqueline, deputy general counsel, Public Broadcasting Service. White, Arthur H., vice chairman, Yankelovich, Skelly & White.. Wunder, Hon. Bernard, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Department of Commerce 4 17 202, 763 210, 771 1081 926 1036 563 585 Prepared statement ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Why Americans Tape (report), Yankelovich, Skelly & White, Inc...... Fitzpatrick, James F., attorney, Arnold & Porter, letter dated September 28, 1982, to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier... 927 784 Kastenmeier, Hon. Robert W., chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, opening statement of the April 12, 1982, hearing at the UCLA School of Law. Alexander, Susan M., Van Nuys, Calif., letter dated May 5, 1982, to Hon. 1280 Analysis of Third (1981) Statistics Survey.. 1141 An Assessment of the Impact to Consumers From a Royalty Fee on Videocassette Recorders and Blank Tapes (report), Motion Picture Association of America..... Constitutional Law on Copyright Compensation (report), Laurence H. 1145 1292 1262 HOME RECORDING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1982 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, Los Angeles, Calif. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., at the UCLA Law School, Los Angeles, Calif., Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier and Schroeder. Staff present: Bruce A. Lehman, chief counsel; Timothy A. Boggs, professional staff member; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The hearing will come to order. The Chair will announce that assisting the panel today is Congresswoman Pat Schroeder of Colorado on my right; Congressman Tom Railsback of Illinois will be here within a matter of minutes and later in the afternoon Congressman Don Edwards of California. They will constitute the panel today. On October 19 of last year the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing an earlier judgment of the district court in Los Angeles in the case of Universal City Studios v. Sony Corporation of America. The issue in the case was whether recording off the air of copyrighted television programing by private individuals without the permission of the copyright owner constituted an infringement under the Federal copyright law. The district court had held that there was no such copyright infringement in such a case. The court of appeals found otherwise and remanded the matter to the lower court for purposes of developing appropriate remedies for the copyright owners. Meanwhile, the defendants have requested the Supreme Court to review the case. Further judicial proceedings at the trial court level have been suspended pending the high court's decision. Within 24 hours of the appeals court's action, bills were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which would reverse the decision. The immediate and widespread interest in the Sony case is unprecedented in the history of copyright litigation. Perhaps one reason this issue has generated so much interest lies in the fact that video cassette recorders constitute the most significant new development in the entertainment industry, possibly excepting cable, since the introduction of television itself, with over (1) 3.2 million machines having been sold since 1975. And the ninth circuit decision has raised the spectre of making each and every use of these machines to date a copyright infringement. Theoretically, at least, the court of appeals decision, if upheld, could subject millions of private citizens to damages for copyright infringement and subject the manufacturers and retailers of the recorders to a financial liability, perhaps, even exceeding their entire net worth, theoretically. Recognizing the serious implications of the case for business and the public, the bills which have been introduced are of two types essentially: Legislation offered by Congressmen Foley, Duncan, and Parris which would specifically exempt all private, noncommercial video taping from liability for copyright infringement, while legislation introduced by Congressman Don Edwards and others would grant users of video cassette recorders a compulsory license with royalties to be paid to copyright owners from the sale of machines and blank tapes. In addition, Congressman Edwards would provide similar treatment for audio recording equipment. Audio recording was not an issue in the Sony case, with both the district court and the court of appeals having concluded that control of off-air taping was not included among those rights granted copyright owners under the 1971 law, which first granted copyright protection to the sound recording industry. This afternoon the subcommittee will begin 3 days of hearings on the issues raised in the case of Universal v. Sony and related legislation. We have chosen Los Angeles as the site of the hearings because it is both the center of many of the industries involved and also because it is the site of the litigation which gave rise to the issue itself. We will announce at a later date further hearings in Washington for the purpose of receiving testimony from governmental witnesses. This particular set of hearings will be divided into three segments of roughly 2 hours each. During each segment we will hear from witnesses representing a coalition of interests with roughly similar views on the issues. This afternoon we will hear from those generally who approve of the ninth circuit decision, representatives of video program producers and allied groups. Tomorrow morning we will hear from those generally opposed to the decision. On Wednesday morning we will hear from witnesses who support legislation extending copyright protection in situations involving the taping of audio works. [The statement follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE ADMINISTRATION Of Justice On October 19 of last year the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing an earlier judgment of the District Court here in Los Angeles in the case of Universal City Studios v. Sony Corporation of America. The issue in the case was whether recording off the air of copyrighted television programming by private individuals without permission of the copyright owner constituted an infringement under the Federal Copyright Law. The District Court had held that there was no copyright infringement in such a case. The Court of Appeals found otherwise and remanded the matter to the lower court for the purpose of de |