Lapas attēli

Specifically, as an employee of WUHY-FM in Philadelphia in the mid 1960's, I broadcast a number of my works in my "Tone Roads" series that would not have been covered by licensing. Assuming that these works were copyrighted individually by their composers (or covered by statutory copyright in lien of this), I would like to furnish you with this list of composers who were not, to the best of my knowledge, affiliated with ASCAP, BMI or SESAC at the time their music was initially broadcast on “Tone Roads" Philadelphia: Wm. Dudley

Paul Zukofsky Louis Angelini

Richard Fitz Ken Stallings

Dauiel Lentz John Bergamo

Robt. Suderburg Chas. Buel

Gerald Shapiro Doug Leedy

Eugene Turitz David Stock

John Melby Richard Robinson

Max Schubel Barbara Kolb

Phil Corner Wm. Valente

Jacob Glick Chas. Boone

Alden Jenks Peter Winkler

Don Wilson These were composers mostly in their twenties and either still in school or fresh out. I have refrained from listing composers who were at that time in their thirties (such as Donald Erb and George Crumb) on the chance that they might have become affiliated as a result of an early publication of which I would not have been aware.

The point to all this is that my series, "Tone Roads"-for which WTHYEJ received a "Major" Armstrong Citation in 1966—simply could not have eristed at all if I could have been required to seek copyright clearance for each of the works by unaffiliated composers that I broadcast over a two-year period; either that or would have been an entirely different series limited to commercial recordings of established composers ... And as for funds for help with the paper work, let alone licensing fees-well, the station was so poor that my starting salary was $100 per week in 1965, and I had already received my doctorate in composition.

I would love to see (hear) a radio series like “Tone Roads" that would pay considerable attention to the youngest of young composers, those who are still exploring for a style of their own, but I am worried that the lack of exemption for non-profit broadcast of nondramatic musical works as stipulated by House Bill 2223 will completely destroy all hopes of such a series' coming into existence. (August 24, 1975; emphasis supplied.) 4. The Lack of Station Resources

Public radio does not now have the resources in people or money that it will need if it loses its existing non-profit exemption. Never having been subject to copyright clearance, we are uncertain of the full meaning and impact of inclusion. In spite of the claims made previously by the music industry, as we have shown above, clearance of classical music is not a straightforward and simple process. It requires expert knowledge and a great deal of time. Both are expensive.

In addition, clearance requires the filling out of forms and record keeping. One person estimated that it would cost each public radio station $10.000 to $20,000 a year to handle copyright clearances. This estimate may be conservative just for the administrative cost®, regardless of the amount of the license fee.

Public radio does not have this kind of financial resources available. A commercial station may raise its advertising rates to cover increased costs of this kind. but public radio stations have no rates to raise to anyone.

Public radio stations do not receive large underwriting grants from Mobil Oil Corporation or Xerox Corporation or from any company or individual.

Public radio simply is not wealthy.

The average station has an annual budget of $132,000 and an average staff of eight full-time employees. It receives no more than $18,700 from the Cor. poration for Public Broadcasting in its annual Community Service Grant. (Note that the average Community Service Grant for a public television station is larger than the total budget of the average public radio station.)

It is easy to see why an additional $10.000 or $20,000 per year would doom some public radio stations to total extinction.

But extinction would not come solely from the expense. To be eligible for federal assistance, a station must meet certain criteria established by the CPB. These criteria require, among other things, that a station operate 16 hours per diy, seren days per week, and 52 weeks per year. The most recent figures available show that the average CPB-qualified public radio station broadcasts classical music for 60 percent of the time it is on the air. Without relatively cost-free across to music, what will these stations broadcast? Without music, they may drop below the CPB requirements for qualification, lose the little federal dollar surt they now receive, lose their NPR affiliation, and will have to go off the air.

This would be a sad fate for a public radio system launched so enthusiastically by the Congress in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Instead of growing to Serve all Americans as it is now doing, public radio will shrink to virtually Dothing. Statutory Language-Performance

We have enclosed as attachment A language to be adopted as an amendment to sertion 110. (The inclusion of this subsection-110(9)-presumes adoption of tbe exemption for performances to print-handicapped audiences.) Sincerely,


President. Attachment.

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 110 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(9) performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work in the course of a broadcast by any licensee or permittee of a non-commercial educational

radio station. (The above inclusion of subsection 110(9) presumes adoption by the House of subsection 110(8), an exemption of performances designed for broadcast to a print-handicapped audience already approved by the Senate Copyright Subcommittee.)





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room 22:26, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Drinan, Pattison, and Railsback.

Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The hearing will come to order.

This morning, and again on October 23, next Thursday, in this room the subcommittee will hear closing testimony from Ms. Barbara Ringer, the Register of Copyrights. Ms. Ringer has been requested and has agreed to give us a detailed review of the state of the revision project, now that the hearings have been completed. Of course, we also would observe that in the other body, the Judiciary Committee in the Senate has reported out, earlier this week, a slightly modified version of the bill. So, I think these hearings are most timely. I would expect that other members would be appearing very shortly.

In any event, it is always a pleasure to greet Barbara Ringer. I suppose we would like to hear ultimately about three things: First, the general review of the bill in its entirety-and these three things are not necessarily in this order-but we are interested in the bill, and in the sections and in the provisions, whether or not they are in controversy, or have been in controversy ; second, those matters which still provoke some controversy, and we would like to pay special attention to them; and third, we would like to ask you, if you are able, to indicate how the present state of the bill in the other body may differ from the other borly's action of last year, which is really encompassed in H.R. 2223, which is substantially the Senate bill of the second session of 1974.

Well, in any event, you may proceed.



Ms. Ringer. I would like to start with a general statement and endeavor to answer your questions, then proceed with a general review of the bill, and then go into some of the detailed questions, which I will continue on the 23d. I also will try to give you a general idea of what the Senate did on October 7, although I have not seen the text. I have just had the amendments described to me.

On May 7, the first day of your hearings, I appeared as one of the opening witnesses on H.R. 2223. My duty then, as I saw it, was to try to put the bill in historical perspective, to pinpoint the major issues remaining to be settled, and to answer your initial questions about the substantive content and status of the legislation.

I am returning on the 14th day of these hearings, in response to your letter of September 9, 1975, asking me "to make the final presentation of testimony reflecting your views with respect to what the hearings revealed and what changes if any in the bill seem indicated.” I am greatly honored by this request, and I will do my utmost to fulfill it in any way that will help the committee complete the formidable task now confronting it.

During my testimony on May 7, I sought to identify what I con. sidered the main isues remaining after a decade of sporadic legislative consideration of the general revision bill. The seven principal issues, more or less in the order of importance as I saw them then were:

(1) Cable television.
(2) Library photocopying.

(3) Fair use and reproduction for educational and scholarly purposes.

(4) Public and nonprofit broadcasting.
(5) Jukebox.
16) Mechanical royalty for use of music in sound recordings.

(7) Royalty for performance of records. Related to several of these issues was the chapter of the bill establishing a Copyright Royalty Tribunal, which also presents some problems on its own. I also mentioned the likelihood of questions arising in connection with the manufacturing clause and with various concerns of graphic artists and designers.

Looking back, I think that most of the testimony you heard during the hearings actually does fall somewhere under one or another of these hearings. However, under each one of these big issues there are varying numbers of interrelated subissues, and none of them can be approached in isolation. There is, I hope you will agree, a figure in the carpet, but it is hard to find amid all the intricate strands and colors and patterns that go to make it up. I am not going to try to oversimplify something that is inherently complex, but I am going to try to organize the mass of arguments and proposals that have been put forward at these hearings in a way that will make them comprehensible in themselves and as a part of a larger whole.

With my testimony on May 7, I submitted 17 briefing papers covering various aspects of the bill. I also mentioned that I was preparing a second supplementary report of the Register of Copyrights on general revision, which I hoped to have finished in time for the subcommittee to be able to use it when it starts its markup. I have worked on this report off and on for most of the summer, seeking to incorporate into it everything that has been raised in these hearings, the changes made by the Senate subcommittee when it reported its bill

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »